Harvard Drops Music Theory Requirements

[RandyFF]

As you say, "useful, practical music theory". As someone who jams alot, I've often wondered what part of music theory would benefit me. I'm not going to learn music theory just because, I'd learn it to improve my jamming skills and be an overall better performance musician.

 

Jamming as in sitting in at jam sessions, or jamming as in playing with form and developing a song over long stretches of time?

A bit of both. I jam out with friends mostly out at the Conservatory of Flowers in SF. A couple of decent guitar players show up (I make sure in advance), sometimes a bass player, as well as a full complement of congas We play mostly fun songs from the 60's-70's, pretty easy stuff altogether. My main rythym guitar player knows 30-40 songs that he plays out there, we've been at it a few years. I've got a decent ear and switch up with my melodica and recorder as well.

 

I'm all over the place as a keyboard player. Sometimes kicking LH bass, lots of supportive comping and reenforcing the melody line. I've made a point of taking these songs, which I've learned fairly well now, and developing them. I play the bass, melody line, comping parts, etc., until I've got the song fleshed out, like an actor that has learned his lines and can then relax into the part. Then I have fun with it. Creative comping I guess you could call it. I rarely take 'solos' per se, I always feel like I'm just expanding the song itself, adding spice and flavor.

 

I know the basics, like most chord names and calling out I-V-IV. I had 5 years of classical when I was a kid, and have since played rock/pop/jazz/blues. I see all these different scales that you can play in, and different 'modalities'. I'd be more inclined to learn music theory if it wasn't so much like learning grammar. What good is grammar? I speak English, well for the most part, and just 'know' what sounds right and what doesn't.

 

But the comparison with grammar aside, I imagine there's different aspects of music theory and was wondering what part of music theory to study as a person who likes to jam?

[MathOfInsects]

A bit of both. I jam out with friends mostly out at the Conservatory of Flowers in SF. A couple of decent guitar players show up (I make sure in advance), sometimes a bass player, as well as a full complement of congas We play mostly fun songs from the 60's-70's, pretty easy stuff altogether. My main rythym guitar player knows 30-40 songs that he plays out there, we've been at it a few years. I've got a decent ear and switch up with my melodica and recorder as well.

 

I'm all over the place as a keyboard player. Sometimes kicking LH bass, lots of supportive comping and reenforcing the melody line. I've made a point of taking these songs, which I've learned fairly well now, and developing them. I play the bass, melody line, comping parts, etc., until I've got the song fleshed out, like an actor that has learned his lines and can then relax into the part. Then I have fun with it. Creative comping I guess you could call it. I rarely take 'solos' per se, I always feel like I'm just expanding the song itself, adding spice and flavor.

 

I know the basics, like most chord names and calling out I-V-IV. I had 5 years of classical when I was a kid, and have since played rock/pop/jazz/blues. I see all these different scales that you can play in, and different 'modalities'. I'd be more inclined to learn music theory if it wasn't so much like learning grammar. What good is grammar? I speak English, well for the most part, and just 'know' what sounds right and what doesn't.

 

But the comparison with grammar aside, I imagine there's different aspects of music theory and was wondering what part of music theory to study as a person who likes to jam?

 

To be honest, if you can correctly hear and identify intervals relative to the I, and even give them their correct names, you are most if not all the way there, for your purposes. I would suggest that in order of priority, HEARING them is first, PLAYING them is second, and CORRECTLY NAMING them is third. You need all three, don't get me wrong. But if you're already at the "Naming" stage, that's pretty far along.

 

Reading between the lines, I think you might really be asking about chord substitutions and what are often call the "church modes." Using your grammar analogy, these are basically additional vocabulary words. They help you get out of the ear and find some colors you maybe weren't using before, to mix metaphors for a second.

 

And sure, it's helpful to have a bigger vocabulary. BUT: more useful is knowing when to use your big words and when not to. If you are playing 60's and 70's classic rock, and blowing Locrian bebop lines over the top of them, you are sabotaging the jam IMO. It's like going into McDonald's and calling all the foods by their Latin names just because you know Latin. If you go full-rogue just because you can, you risk clashing with (sabatoging) the guitar player(s).

 

More useful as a starting point might be some approach-tone chord substitutions while you are comping. For this, I usually describe it less as theory and more as geography. Look at the keyboard. If you are hoping to land on the C as your I, experiment with trying the chords a half-step higher or lower and resolving to the I. It's true there are names for these subs/modes, but what you're really doing is an eye- and ear exercise first, and a naming exercise later. So next time you're going to land on C, try letting your RH delay the arrival by approaching up from B, or down from Db. Or go a whole step and try the approach from Bb or Dm, or even DMa. Your ear is going to tell you if these work, JUST LIKE it will if you did this because you know the names of the modes associated with those sounds. Ears first, fingers second, names third.

 

THEN: You can try subbing in chords that have the root note in them: for example, the IV, iv, the vi, the bVI, the iim7, and so on. Again, your ear will tell you what works. And even if you land on the I harmonically, those chords and scales are still available to you to try out as notes to use for solo lines in those same places. (The great Mark Levin lesson is that the "chords are notes and notes are chords.")

 

The nice thing about our tonal tradition in the West, is that resolving to I is pretty forgiving of everything that happens around it. Yes, you have to be careful not to sabotage a melody line with your choice of comping chords. But beyond that, most experimentation is rewarded by the "release" of resolving to the tonic chord, and that takes some pressure off you to get the rest "right" while you are experimenting with sounds.

 

I'm sure others will say "you have to know the names of the modes to correctly deploy them." In some contexts, that's true and obvious. For the situation you are describing, it sounds to me like you have the basics and just want the "permission" to step out of the ear sometimes. My own advice would be...it's a jam, no one will die, go for it and see what your ear says. But "first do no harm," meaning be respectful of the other players while you kick over the mailboxes. Don't order in Latin while everyone else is eating Happy Meals.

[LX88]

I have issues with music theory as it is often being taught in universities.

 

BTW... I studied theory with Rule Beasley at Santa Monica College, who is the father of John Beasley, a prominent keyboardist in the L.A. music scene.

 

The problem I have with traditional theory courses ala the Walter Piston book ( that's what we worked out of ) is that I couldn't always see the relationship between " the common practice period" and 20th Century popular music.

 

Now, if we had been studying contemporary music styles, I would have been all over it. Instead it was somewhat tedious and I was rarely HEARING what I was figuring.

 

Currently I am working on a tutorial that features some common pop tunes that may also include some jazz standards. My intent is to show average people that they might actually be able to play some common pop tunes, many of which are not all that difficult.

 

I never studied anything remotely connected to the pop music world in college. Jazz, yes. But still there were many mysteries that were never addressed. In order to play jazz, you must somehow be able to make scale and chord fragments connect to one another in a logical and interesting fashion.

 

I think the approach to music theory as taught in universities could stand some serious scrutiny.

 

 

[Jazz+]

Pop music is simplified music theory without the counterpoint rules.

 

It's still derived mostly from

 

I ii iii IV V vi and various borrowings

[David Loving]

Why would anybody go to Harvard for a music education? You're much better off at the University of North Texas School of Music.

[montunoman]

Why would anybody go to Harvard for a music education? You're much better off at the University of North Texas School of Music.

 

To make their parents proud???