Theory

[Pete Academy]

[quote name='silddx' post='701136' date='Jan 4 2010, 11:33 PM']Yes, but can you hear what those shapes sound like within the context of a piece of music?[/quote]

Er, yeah, I guess so.

[Pete Academy]

One of my best mates, who I've helped and supplied bass parts for in the last 30 years or more, doesn't understand anything about music, other than if it sounds right, then it must be right. He plays chords on the keyboard and hasn't a clue what they are. But he writes great songs (I was in an original funk band with him in the 90s). His day job was selling carpets for Carpetright in Stoke for 13 years.

Him and a writing partner have 3 songs on the new Robbie album, one of which is touted for a new single (Morning Sun).

Just thought I'd mention this.

[Doddy]

A mate of mine has got a great knowledge of theory,and regularly tours the world with some of the biggest
names in Jazz,has done some major 'Pop' tours, is an in demand clinician,and is also a busy producer and MD.

[jakenewmanbass]

I have a diary full of colleagues that have toured and recorded with....
Faithless, Robbie Williams, Corrinne Baily Raye, The Sugababes, James Bourne, Duran Duran, David Bowie, George Russell, Dave Holland, The Hours, Black Grape, Peter Gabriel, Del Amitri, David Garrett, Ike Willis, Bryan Ferry, Bobby Martin, Peter Erskine, Joni Mitchell, Shirley Bassey, Bruce Forsyth, Joe Pasquale... actually the list is endless and some of those gigs I've done too. The sole reason the guys in question were in the frame is due to their complete musicianship. Which takes nothing away from your mates' achievements but the numbers are stacked massively in favour of the guys who really know their stuff.

Edited January 5, 2010 by jakesbass

[6stringbassist]

[quote name='Doddy' post='701173' date='Jan 5 2010, 12:02 AM']A mate of mine has got a great knowledge of theory,and regularly tours the world with some of the biggest
names in Jazz,has done some major 'Pop' tours, is an in demand clinician,and is also a busy producer and MD.

[/quote]


[quote name='jakesbass' post='701179' date='Jan 5 2010, 12:13 AM']I have a diary full of colleagues that have toured and recorded with....
Faithless, Robbie Williams, The Sugababes, George Russell, Dave Holland, The Hours, Black Grape, Peter Gabriel, Del Amitri, David Garrett, Ike Willis Bobby Martin, Peter Erskine, Joni Mitchell, Shirley Bassey... actually the list is endless and some of those gigs I've done too. The sole reason the guys in question were in the frame is due to their complete musicianship.[/quote]

A friend of mine has an amazing knowledge of theory, (he's also been my main teacher since I was 17), he has toured the world with big names in pop, rock and jazz, he's also head of bass studies at ICMP in Kilburn.

I guess what we're saying is that while there are some amazing players who have very successful careers in music, without having a great knowledge of musical theory. Having that knowledge makes you a far more rounded and versatile player.

Edited January 5, 2010 by 6stringbassist

[Pete Academy]

[quote name='Doddy' post='701173' date='Jan 5 2010, 12:02 AM']A mate of mine has got a great knowledge of theory,and regularly tours the world with some of the biggest
names in Jazz,has done some major 'Pop' tours, is an in demand clinician,and is also a busy producer and MD.

[/quote]

Ah, maybe...but has he played the Green Star in Smallthorne?

[wateroftyne]

Where do I sign up for the Joe Pasquale gig?

[Rayman]

[quote name='Doddy' post='701173' date='Jan 5 2010, 12:02 AM']A mate of mine has got a great knowledge of theory,and regularly tours the world with some of the biggest
names in Jazz,has done some major 'Pop' tours, is an in demand clinician,and is also a busy producer and MD.

[/quote]

A mate of mine is a professional guitarist who can read anything you put in front of him instantly. Try and get him to write a great song though..........he's clueless, no creative tendancies whatsoever.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='701247' date='Jan 5 2010, 08:22 AM']Where do I sign up for the Joe Pasquale gig?[/quote]
Lol, I was actually on that gig, I played in a show with Joe for 6 months, he's a diamond of a bloke. And I honestly was still laughing at the show til the last night.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='Rayman' post='701248' date='Jan 5 2010, 08:24 AM']A mate of mine is a professional guitarist who can read anything you put in front of him instantly. Try and get him to write a great song though..........he's clueless, no creative tendancies whatsoever.

[/quote]
Not Steve Willingham is it?

[purpleblob]

The basics of this thread can be distilled into something like...

You do not need music theory or to be able to read music to write great music (and we can all cite many examples of such songs/music) or indeed to be a great musician and there's a lot of guys out there earning a living (and in some cases a very good living) in all types of bands who know next to nothing about theory and it's quite possible they will never ever need to know music theory or how to read music for what they do and they're happy with their level of knowledge as it currently stands.

On the other hand, knowing more about the why's and wherefore's of music theory should help one understand and appreciate how different notes relate etc. and certainly for some gigs you would need to be able to transpose and read/write music - but at the end of the day if you have no intention on playing such gig's then whether this matters to you is a personal thing. And ofcourse it's also true to say that just because you know all the theory and how to read/write doesn't mean you can write good music or that you're a better musician than someone else just because of this knowledge.

I for one would advocate learning theory, harmony, chord construction etc. As for reading, I don't read I'm never going to be in a band or take a gig where this was required, so to me it isn't a priority - this said, I do like learning so on my things to try and do this year (as it is most years ) is learning to read music, but this will solely be for my own interest.

As for listing off people who've played in bands and got the gig because they read music or those in bands who got the gig even though they don't read - this seems a pointless discussion as I'm sure for every guy or girl in a band who reads we could find at least an equal number who do not read... Ultimately it is not an essential to form a band or play music in general but might be an essential for some gigs.

I'd summarise by saying the more tools you have at your disposal the better you'll understand what you're playing and why it works or doesn't work and it certainly shouldn't hurt your playing. If you're wanting to do gig's or sessions which might take you out of your comfort zone or ofcourse require reading, then the more you know about theory and reading the more chance that you'll get the gig.

EDIT: Sorry for the long post

Edited January 5, 2010 by purpleblob

[Rayman]

I agree with everyone. I think to have a good grounding in theory is a big advantage to any musician, and any younger players on here reading this should do their best to do that in my opinion. For the rest of us clowns who can't be arsed, we'll carry on down our chosen paths, and have great fun playing and enjoying music the way we always have.

[Bilbo]

[quote name='Clarky' post='700737' date='Jan 4 2010, 06:07 PM']As far as i could tell (though I was too scared to say) every note in a scale is either a flattened, sharp or natural something-or-other and it seemed that there were no rules about which ones to play over any given chord. Clearly that last statement must be rubbish, as undoubtedly some note choices are atonal/dissonant/nasty, but thats how it felt.[/quote]

It sounds to me like you were given too rich a diet too quickly. In reality, all notes can be played against all chords - they all result in individual sounds/textures that can legitimately be used in the creative process. By KNOWING what each not sounds like against each chord and by KNOWING why and how it functions, you will be able to make informed decisions about what to do with each individual piece of independent information. Knowing that a dominant seventh chord resolves to a Major chord a fifth below (say G7 to Cmaj7) means you can always hear that coming a mile off. Knowing that it can also resolve to a Major seventh chord a major third below (say G7 to Ebmaj7), creating a completely different feeling, immediately gives you choices. The more knowledge you have, the more choices you have. A diatonic major scale over a dominamt seventh chord or a diminshed scale implying a flattened ninth? Or an augmented scale over a dominant? All different, all correct and all options you can use as a composer, orchestrator or improviser. But you can't digest this stuff in a couple of lessons.

One of the most wonderful skills I admire, which is one I don't have although I do try, is the way great composers can use a simple theme and create a ludicriously complex array of compositions out of it. Doesn't matter whether we are talkng Kenny Wheeler, Javier Navarette, Pat Metheny or Edward Elgar - I would consider it almost unthinkable that these kinds of work could be achieved without some understanding of the building blocks. Throwing three chords together stopped doing it for me thirty years ago. Some of the greatest pop icons of the 20th century and beyond were only able to do what they did as entertainers because of 'trained' backroom boys like Quincy Jones, Lalo Schiffrin, George Martin, Geoff Gasgoine etc etc.

And as for 'feel'. The celebrity 'stars' like Madonna, Sting, Whitney Houston, Paul Simon, Steely Dan etc etc are also often backed up by 'educated' players, be they Omar Hakim, Victor Bailey, Michael Brecker, Matt Garrison, Daryl Jones, Chris Potter and so on. So you cannot say that players who know their stuff are anywhere near being less able to 'groove' because they know sh**. After all, and with respect to those that groove their asses off seven nights a week, 52 weeks of the year, it ain't rocket science!

[SteveK]

[quote]I for one would advocate learning theory, harmony, chord construction etc.[/quote]
As I did at the beginning of this thread... However, I realise now that I was wrong.

Repeat after me:
[b][size=4]Theory is bad - very bad![/size] [/b]

There's far too much competition for the decent gigs as it is.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='SteveK' post='701484' date='Jan 5 2010, 12:32 PM']As I did at the beginning of this thread... However, I realise now that I was wrong.

Repeat after me:
[b][size=4]Theory is bad - very bad![/size] [/b]

There's far too much competition for the decent gigs as it is.

[/quote]
Love this angle Steve.

STEVES RIGHT EVERBODY.... PLEASE DON"T PAY ATTENTION TO MY EARLIER POSTS

[Marvin]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='701367' date='Jan 5 2010, 10:58 AM']It sounds to me like you were given too rich a diet too quickly. In reality, all notes can be played against all chords - they all result in individual sounds/textures that can legitimately be used in the creative process. By KNOWING what each not sounds like against each chord and by KNOWING why and how it functions, you will be able to make informed decisions about what to do with each individual piece of independent information. Knowing that a dominant seventh chord resolves to a Major chord a fifth below (say G7 to Cmaj7) means you can always hear that coming a mile off. Knowing that it can also resolve to a Major seventh chord a major third below (say G7 to Ebmaj7), creating a completely different feeling, immediately gives you choices. The more knowledge you have, the more choices you have. A diatonic major scale over a dominamt seventh chord or a diminshed scale implying a flattened ninth? Or an augmented scale over a dominant? All different, all correct and all options you can use as a composer, orchestrator or improviser. But you can't digest this stuff in a couple of lessons.

One of the most wonderful skills I admire, which is one I don't have although I do try, is the way great composers can use a simple theme and create a ludicriously complex array of compositions out of it. Doesn't matter whether we are talkng Kenny Wheeler, Javier Navarette, Pat Metheny or Edward Elgar - I would consider it almost unthinkable that these kinds of work could be achieved without some understanding of the building blocks. Throwing three chords together stopped doing it for me thirty years ago. Some of the greatest pop icons of the 20th century and beyond were only able to do what they did as entertainers because of 'trained' backroom boys like Quincy Jones, Lalo Schiffrin, George Martin, Geoff Gasgoine etc etc.

And as for 'feel'. The celebrity 'stars' like Madonna, Sting, Whitney Houston, Paul Simon, Steely Dan etc etc are also often backed up by 'educated' players, be they Omar Hakim, Victor Bailey, Michael Brecker, Matt Garrison, Daryl Jones, Chris Potter and so on. So you cannot say that players who know their stuff are anywhere near being less able to 'groove' because they know sh**. After all, and with respect to those that groove their asses off seven nights a week, 52 weeks of the year, it ain't rocket science![/quote]

I agree with the sentiment of the last 2 paragraphs in that knowing theory doesn't inhibit 'feel' and that many of 'stars' of today have been backed up by knowledgeable players. You can also site bands with one member who knows fu*k all yet is accompanied by someone who does. R.E.M always spring to mind. Mike Mills came from a musical family, his mother was a piano teacher and hence he has 'musical understanding' shall we say. Where as I read once that Pete Buck claimed not to even know one scale! So knowing theory is always good.

However, I think for those of us who know little or no theory, we are turned off by the first paragraph. I, like Clarky, am a graduate and therefore regard myself as an educated person. Yet that first paragraph makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. And although I suspect that understanding it would only come after a sustained period of study, the main problem I, and probably many others find is that the explanation of music theory is so often unfathomable. Take many of the texts on music theory. In so many of them you read along and you're thinking to yourself 'I'm getting this' then out of the blue all the 'rules' you thought you understood are blown away by one statement. That statement will contradict all you understand yet no reasoning or explanation of it will be given.
A simple example. C major scale. I read somewhere that the chords in C major contain 4 major chords and 3 minor chords. And that was it. Nowhere did it explain why in a major scale did you have even 1 minor chord (it highlighted Dm). Call me thick but I don' understand it: minor chords in a major scale chord progression.
And that's why us plebs get so fu*ked off with theory, there do not seem to be any rules. They change, mutate and no one explains what is happening.

I'm off for a big cry now 'cause my head's hurting

[leschirons]

I never learned any theory and look where it got me.

[tauzero]

[quote name='Marvin' post='701540' date='Jan 5 2010, 01:11 PM']A simple example. C major scale. I read somewhere that the chords in C major contain 4 major chords and 3 minor chords. And that was it. Nowhere did it explain why in a major scale did you have even 1 minor chord (it highlighted Dm). Call me thick but I don' understand it: minor chords in a major scale chord progression.
And that's why us plebs get so fu*ked off with theory, there do not seem to be any rules. They change, mutate and no one explains what is happening.[/quote]
I didn't understand Bilbo's post either. I can, however, give you a quick and dirty insight into the chords in C major.

C major = all the white notes. Chords in that key are made up of the root note (C, D, E, etc) plus the 3rd and 5th notes above it in the scale. So we start with C as the root and get C, E, and G as the three notes. Move up to D, and you get F and A as the third and fifth notes, which makes a Dm. Similarly E, G and B gives Em, F, A, C = F major, G, B, D = G major, A, C, E = Am, and B, D, F = something odd that Bilbo can tell you about.

My grasp of musical theory is pretty tenuous - it means I'm more likely to find a good note to play than a bad one, and it also means I've got a basic palette of chords to use when writing a song. Knowing the rules and deciding to obey them slavishly are two different things, though, and I almost invariably use a chord or two which shouldn't theoretically be there. Given that I also can't read music, what purpleblob said is almost exactly my position.

[Doddy]

[quote name='jakesbass' post='701305' date='Jan 5 2010, 09:43 AM']Lol, I was actually on that gig, I played in a show with Joe for 6 months, he's a diamond of a bloke. And I honestly was still laughing at the show til the last night.[/quote]

I've worked with Joe aswell. Top Bloke.

[quote name='Marvin' post='701540' date='Jan 5 2010, 01:11 PM']However, I think for those of us who know little or no theory, we are turned off by the first paragraph. I, like Clarky, am a graduate and therefore regard myself as an educated person. Yet that first paragraph makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. And although I suspect that understanding it would only come after a sustained period of study, the main problem I, and probably many others find is that the explanation of music theory is so often unfathomable. Take many of the texts on music theory. In so many of them you read along and you're thinking to yourself 'I'm getting this' then out of the blue all the 'rules' you thought you understood are blown away by one statement. That statement will contradict all you understand yet no reasoning or explanation of it will be given.
A simple example. C major scale. I read somewhere that the chords in C major contain 4 major chords and 3 minor chords. And that was it. Nowhere did it explain why in a major scale did you have even 1 minor chord (it highlighted Dm). Call me thick but I don' understand it: minor chords in a major scale chord progression.
And that's why us plebs get so fu*ked off with theory, there do not seem to be any rules. They change, mutate and no one explains what is happening.

I'm off for a big cry now 'cause my head's hurting [/quote]

Whereas,I am not a graduate and understood every word.
Music is the same as anything else-if you don't study it,it is difficult to understand. I've been teaching a dentist recently,and he was amazed at how I
could remember things like key signatures. I asked him how he understands dentistry,and he told me that it was easy!!!!!
I never studied anything to the degree that I studied music,but understand very little about science-I suppose it's all relative.
Oh, and the diatonic chords in C major are 3 major ( I,IV,V) and 4 minor.

[Bilbo]

[quote name='Marvin' post='701540' date='Jan 5 2010, 01:11 PM']A simple example. C major scale. I read somewhere that the chords in C major contain 4 major chords and 3 minor chords. And that was it. Nowhere did it explain why in a major scale did you have even 1 minor chord (it highlighted Dm). Call me thick but I don' understand it: minor chords in a major scale chord progression.[/quote]

My point was that information is there to use, not to provide explanations of the information I used as an example. You can get the gist of that paragraph by reading the first and last sentences only. If you want to get into the theory I mentioned in more detail, PM Jakesbass for a lesson. He is a better teacher than I am.

[mcgraham]

[quote]The more knowledge you have, the more choices you have.[/quote]
I agree. This debate has been spun a number of times, but I still like chipping in

I for one am immensely glad I spent the time learning basic theory. I had no choice but to do so as I got chucked in at the deep end with a gospel choir with which I really got my ear together.

Some of you have said that bilbo's previous post made no sense to you, and I can appreciate why that might be. I could explain it but I imagine bilbo or jake could do it more neatly than I could. Theory on its own can often seem impenetrable, and like bilbo says, its not really possible to learn everything in a few lessons. Whilst theory can at times seem impenetrable, I would say that equally, playing a song with a chord structure you can't predict or follow can also seem impossible to deal with if playing by ear alone.

Theory isn't a binary 'you know it all or you know nothing at all'. There is always more you could learn, digest and apply, and loads you could piece together.

IMO, there are some fundamental bits of theory that are relatively straightforward. These explain scales, melody, harmony, chord construction, etc. These are really useful for working your way round virtually any song and gives you a good mental framework for deconstructing a song, or even constructing your own.

After that, there's loads of bits of theory you could learn as 'optional extras'. These help to explain oddity's in songs that are not immediately evident from the fundamentals (usually restricted to playing within one key). Equally so, they can be used to come up with imaginative ideas to add to songs. I would love to give examples, but I'll wait to see which direction the conversation moves in.

[Marvin]

[quote name='tauzero' post='701563' date='Jan 5 2010, 01:35 PM']I didn't understand Bilbo's post either. I can, however, give you a quick and dirty insight into the chords in C major.

C major = all the white notes. Chords in that key are made up of the root note (C, D, E, etc) plus the 3rd and 5th notes above it in the scale. So we start with C as the root and get C, E, and G as the three notes. Move up to D, and you get F and A as the third and fifth notes, which makes a Dm. Similarly E, G and B gives Em, F, A, C = F major, G, B, D = G major, A, C, E = Am, and B, D, F = something odd that Bilbo can tell you about.

My grasp of musical theory is pretty tenuous - it means I'm more likely to find a good note to play than a bad one, and it also means I've got a basic palette of chords to use when writing a song. Knowing the rules and deciding to obey them slavishly are two different things, though, and I almost invariably use a chord or two which shouldn't theoretically be there. Given that I also can't read music, what purpleblob said is almost exactly my position.[/quote]
You don't know how thankful I am for that, it's been bugging me for ages and I couldn't find an explanation anywhere. Now it's been explained it's so logical. Thanks again.

[quote name='Doddy' post='701579' date='Jan 5 2010, 01:44 PM']I've worked with Joe aswell. Top Bloke.



Whereas,I am not a graduate and understood every word.
Music is the same as anything else-if you don't study it,it is difficult to understand. I've been teaching a dentist recently,and he was amazed at how I
could remember things like key signatures. I asked him how he understands dentistry,and he told me that it was easy!!!!!
I never studied anything to the degree that I studied music,but understand very little about science-I suppose it's all relative.
Oh, and the diatonic chords in C major are 3 major ( I,IV,V) and 4 minor.[/quote]

The graduate thing does sound somewhat arrogant, but was not intended to. Apology
Some of the theory I've read tends to ' make jumps ' and assumes the reader has made the same leap the author has. This sometimes leaves gaps in understanding that unless filled, inhibit you from progressing any further.
You are entirely right, I spent 3 years studying full time to get my degree. And I'm trying to understand theory a little bit here and there, with job and family competing for my attention!

[Bilbo]

[quote name='tauzero' post='701563' date='Jan 5 2010, 01:35 PM']B, D, F = something odd that Bilbo can tell you about.[/quote]

Its still a minor third but the fifth, in this case, is diminished i.e. made smaller, one fret down. For the sake of completion, if the fifth were augmented, made bigger, it would be one fret up.

The problem is that there is no one route through this, there is no one-way to go so you will never know it all in the right order. My advice is to start with the concept of intervals - the distance between any two notes, irrespective of which notes they are. Know a semi-tone/diminshed second (one fret), tone/second (two frets), minor third (three frets), major third (four frets), fourth (five frets), augmented fourth/flattended or diminished fifth (six frets), fifth (seven frets), augmented fifth/flattened or diminished sixth (eight frets), sixth (nine frets), dominant seventh (ten frets), major seventh (eleven frets), octave (tweleve frets). An awful lot comes out of this.

[The Funk]

All theory is is developing an understanding of the relationship between notes. As non-percussion musicians, that's pretty f***ing important!

Everyone develops their own approach to note choices. The better your understanding of the relationship between them, the more control you can have over your note choices.

I can't see a quicker way of developing your understanding of the relationship between different notes than jazz harmony. I have the utmost respect for people who've managed to develop that sense without undertaking any form of study but there's no way I could develop that way.

The one criticism I'd have of the way theory is taught at the moment is that there seems to be an overemphasis on harmony and an underemphasis on rhythm - and noone really thinks about melody much these days!

[endorka]

[quote name='Marvin' post='701621' date='Jan 5 2010, 02:15 PM']Some of the theory I've read tends to ' make jumps ' and assumes the reader has made the same leap the author has. This sometimes leaves gaps in understanding that unless filled, inhibit you from progressing any further.[/quote]

In truth, this has happened with just about evey book I have studied on the subject of music sooner or later. It took me quite a few years to realise that this is the point where I needed to get someone to explain it to me - more often than not it is easier than it at first appears.

I think that if one is to study any subject in depth, this is going to happen.

Oddly enough, I find quite often that going out of my natural comfort zone and overcoming these difficulties is what has *really* improved me as a person and a player - being good at stuff you can do easily is not the path to enlightenment :-)

Jennifer