#1336622 - 04/22/01 11:42 AM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
Tedster
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 09/21/00
Posts: 5933
|
Offline
|
|
>>>I strongly sympathise with the notion that both the heart and the mind figure in the aesthetic experience of both the natural and human made worlds. Wonder begets wonder, which eventually begets another form of wonder - restless, probing wonder. Wonder which seeks answers to questions. To this end, we use the best tools we have: reason, logic and science. But the motivation to even try comes from the emotions.
Couldn't agree more...that was kinda my point.
_________________________
"Cisco Kid, was a friend of mine...(WAH WAH WAH WAHHH!)"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1336623 - 04/22/01 01:13 PM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
Mile
Senior Member
Registered: 09/18/00
Posts: 268
Loc: Ljubljana, SLOVENIA
|
|
Offline
|
|
People, for Christ's sake...
I learned theory, I use it as well as I play by the ear and with the feel!!!
You just went into "You theory people suck" and "You ignorant sons of whatever"!!! Cool down!!!
Black Sabbath ARE theory like everything else is/will be in a few years...
Theory is not few rules written in a book. It's more than that. If you're teaching somebody about some
cool riffs you're teaching him theory, basics...
And everybody play scales, right? It's theory!!! So we all now little of it.
Now repeat after me: It's possible to sound cool without "knowing any" theory and it's possible to sound
cool knowing all the theory!!!
_________________________
If it sounds god, just play the darn thing
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336624 - 04/22/01 04:01 PM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
Tedster
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 09/21/00
Posts: 5933
|
|
Offline
|
|
Thanks, Mile. I really have no problem with theory, heck, as Ian pointed out, everything which is art has an element of scientific principle behind it, and...perhaps vice versa as well.
For me, and you'll be able to relate to this...it's like the two approaches to learning a foreign language. You can go over there, learn words, pick it up as you go along, get laughed at by the locals...stumble, and learn...or go to a class and learn all the proper grammar. Those who go the latter route find themselves sounding sterile to the locals upon visiting that country...precise, but devoid of idiomatic speech or slang. Those who take the former route usually find their speech a bit clipped and their grammar sounds odd to the locals, but are generally up on the local slang.
Learning theory can't hurt...it's a communication tool, just as is language.
Personal taste.
_________________________
"Cisco Kid, was a friend of mine...(WAH WAH WAH WAHHH!)"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336625 - 04/22/01 04:27 PM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
Jimmy James
Senior Member
Registered: 04/06/01
Posts: 67
Loc: Los Angeles,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
You don't have to know how to read music to understand theory. You don't have to understand ALL there is to theory to understand theory. All you need to understand is what you need to communicate to other musicians, and what you need to help you play better in your prefered style. That could be very little or a lot. It's all relative.
Robben Ford is a good example. He can't read a note. He's an ear player essentially. But he knows enough theory to explain chord changes, intervals, and what he needs to know to communicate his ideas to someone with more advanced theory.
It's not an all or nothing proposition. You only need what you need. And this is the guy who traded 8s with Miles Davis.
------------------
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/144/oscar_jordan.html
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336626 - 04/22/01 04:40 PM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
Ian Stewart Cairns
Senior Member
Registered: 02/03/01
Posts: 98
Loc: ,,UNITED KINGDOM
|
|
Offline
|
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jimmy James:
Robben Ford is a good example. He can't read a note. He's an ear player essentially. But he knows enough theory to explain chord changes, intervals, and what he needs to know to communicate his ideas to someone with more advanced theory.
I [b]adore Robben Ford's blues playing. If forced at gun point to choose my favourite ever guitar player, I would choose Robben. The metaphor for Robben's playing that I like best is one related to food. The bulk of Robben's playing is T-Bone steak (blues scales, pentatonic scales etc.), with an occasional sprinkling of caviar (superlocrian, half diminished, 13b9 arpeggiations and so on). This is what sets his playing apart from most other blues players and I for one, love it.
It's not an all or nothing proposition. You only need what you need.
Thank you Jimmy. This is exactly the point I have been trying to get across since my first post on this subject.
Ian
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336627 - 04/23/01 01:22 AM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
KHAN
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 4028
|
|
Offline
|
|
This is all very humorous.
Knowledge is power.
Ignorance is bliss...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336628 - 04/23/01 02:11 AM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
d gauss
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 02/15/01
Posts: 3231
Loc: Somewhere in the Swamps of Jer...
|
|
Offline
|
|
roses are red
violets are blue
this song has 3 chords
but i only know two
-d. gauss
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336629 - 04/23/01 03:56 AM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
rosespappy
Senior Member
Registered: 03/28/01
Posts: 254
Loc: Indian River,MI,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Wow! This is not at all unlike a digital/analog blowout!My point in the statement re/ BB was not even to infer that he knew little of theory. I play Violin/Viola/Cello/Guitar/ and I sing. Yes I sight read. How often do I use these tools? Perhaps not enough.I could use my real name on these posts and remain unrecognized .Do I use theory when I write? Sometimes when I hafta fish. Do I use it when I set in? Only with the old jazz dudes that I play geriatric events with.
Tedster hit it on the button. Theory is the ability to verbalize someone elses idea and or staff it for the purpose of communicating it to some one else. The idea thang is what I think Lee was placing value on, not the ability to explain it in written or verbalized form.
Have any of you guys read Richard M Persigs' "Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance?" I would guess many have. I would suggest it to the anals, be they anal theorist,or anal artists. In that book he describes the marraige of the two as perfection. Or in his glib manner...Good. If I consider myself superior to another player because I can hear a song and play it, and he needs to be told or read it, I will be proved wrong when my hearing fails. Or when somebody considers themselves superior to me because, they can play a melody as described to them over the tele, and I can't, they'll be proved wrong when my five year old cuts their line with his Tonka.
Theory is used largely in observation of others or in maintaining adherance to standards as set by masters of old. God bless um.... But I am primarily a storyteller, and I tell these stories from my heart with my axe and my voice. My mind speaks volumes too, it's too bad that it's primarily something that I've heard from someone elses heart.....
Gimme a second to re-wrap the tin-foil!
Rick
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336630 - 04/23/01 06:43 AM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
stratman_dup1
Member
Registered: 02/09/01
Posts: 0
Loc: attleboro,MA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
I guess what it all boils down too is whatever works for you, works for you. The Bass player in the last blues band I was in once said " I don't want to know what I'm doing, that way my heart can guide my fingers" . While I certainly do NOT agree with him that's his choice to believe that, and my choice to quit that band and find some musicians that DO want to know what they are doing.
When I'm playin Blues I don't even begin to think of theory, I'm a straight up pentatonic WANKER when it comes to blues. That's the sound I love in that context so that's what I play but if I hadn't taken lessons and learned some basic scales and theory I wouldn't be able to do that. So in my case, learning the basic scales and theory has REALLY helped my ability to play VERY soulful guitar.
At least I've been told many times that I'm a very soulful player, by true blues fans, so I'll trust their opinion. And don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to pat my own back, I know exactly how great of a player I'm NOT!! But the audience doesn't care how great of a player you are, especially a blues crowd, they only care if you can move them. If your a great player too so much the better.
Learning basic theory has also helped me to play other styles which I'm very interested in like Latin music. And no, I'm not talkin about Ricky Martin stuff or a lot of the pop nowadays that has a little latin influence because it's the current fad, or used to be anyways.
I remember one night after having taken lessons for a while I recorded a basic slow latinish sounding minor rhythm progression and was practicing soloing over it. I wasn't doing anything major ( pun intended  ) just trying some natural minor, natural harmonic minor (which I broke the rules and played over the I chord anyways, some of you may know that the "rules" say you should not play harmonic minor over the I chord but ya know what??? I LOVE the way it sounds used sparingly so I decided to break that rule and do it anyhow), Dorian modal stuff (which the rules also say I shouldn't do over that certain progression but, once again, I thought it sounded great used sparingly so I went on ahead and used it anyway) etc..
When I got done I opened my practice room door and my wife was standing there CRYING for god sakes, I didn't even know she was listening!!!. She had never heard me practicing minor stuff on acoustic before, She said she had no idea I could play that way, that it sounded really beautiful. So my experiences with theory have been nothing but good which is why I still pursue it today.
I know exactly what Lee and others mean when they talk about theory hurting some players though, there are a few players in my area that are just technical MONSTERS. These guys have mindblowing technique and a massive knowledge of theory but I can not STAND to listen to them play because of the complete lack of SOUL in their playing. All the theory in the world doesn't amount to a hill of beans if you can't move the listener in whatever direction your trying to go, that's my opinion anyway.
Okay, so I guess I've blabbered on quite long enough. I gotta go practice my scales, I've been blowing that off for a little too long now.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336631 - 04/23/01 07:00 PM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
Eric Worthington
Gold Member
Registered: 01/17/01
Posts: 576
Loc: Hatfield,PA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
I think having an understanding of theory applies one way when playing lead, and another way entirely when applying it to rhythm.
I can understand, to a degree, the notion that too much theory can make one's solos sound mechanical and gymnastic versus melodic and soulful. You certainly don't want your leads to sound like scales and finger exercises.
BUT, you can't tell me that "too much theory" keeps you from playing a good rhythm part. I've played with two types of hot lead guitarists:
1) Those who have the knowledge (great leads, and great rhythm)
2) Those who don't have much knowledge (great leads, weak rhythm, and often no clue as to how to play, for example, a major 7th in any position, let alone--Heaven Borbid!--a diminished chord. And don't even waste your time spending five minutes trying to explain an augmented.)
I play with far too many Lead Guitar Studs who think that they've learned enough, thank you...no need to learn anymore. Might mess me up.
Which will mess you up more: learning a little more about chords, and relative keys; or being at a gig and not being able to handle a key change--or spending the entire song trying to figure out what that one chord is that everyone else is hitting but you?
OK, here's the part where I cop an attitude:
--Knowing how to play an Ebmaj7, a Ddim, and an A+ chord is not going to affect your precious solos.
--Understanding what I-IV-II-V means has no effect on your solo (other than to make it better, of course, because you'll actually know where you are.)
--Being able to figure out--on your own--what fucking key the song is in--will NOT affect your ability to FEEL your solo when it comes two minutes later. (Example: someone requests "Stand By Me." You don't really know the song, but I tell you: "It's G/Em/C/D, repeated over and over." We start the song, and you say, "OK, I've got the chords now, but what KEY is it in?")
--If the band leader says, let's do "Stand By Me, but do it like the Lennon arrangement, which is in A," your ability to transpose ALL FOUR CHORDS on your own will not affect your ability to FEEL your precious solo.
--Knowing the difference between 3/4, 4/4 and 6/8 won't cause any psychological damage.
--"Shuffle, in A, start on the five...." should be as second nature to you as a bartender hearing "Lager, pint, and a shotta Jack." Learning how to translate that into ("We start with the E chord, then the D, then A into the turnaround....you do know what a tunraround is, don't you? Or will that knowledge and use of "terminology" adversely affect your solo?)
I think everyone seems to be lumping all types of music theory into one category. Thinking too much during your solo can have a negative effect for some--understandably--but if you can't handle thinking while playing RHYTHM, maybe you just can't handle "it" at all.
Bass players need to know theory, too. You better know when to hit the major third, and when to hit the minor third. And you better know which notes are appropriate to use as passing notes between chords. All of this has nothing to do with your ability to groove.
The best players I've played with, their main goal is to be able to slip into that semi-conscious floating space where you "go with the music." But when it's time to come back to earth, to be on the ball, they can get there. If you have little to no real knowledge of what you're doing, then you can also get into that floating space, but you can never, ever, come down to earth and be on the ball. Because you don't really know what you're doing. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But you ARE limiting yourself.
Some of these guitarists I know who Only Play By Feel are often amazed that 1) I know "so many songs" 2) Seem to be "such a quick study" 3) Retain so well 4) Can handle so much on the fly (key changes, "exotic" chords, etc.)
It's mainly because, when presented with a chord progression, I can "see" how the chords are related, and almost always identify it with some other song(s) I've previously encountered, even if (don't be shocked) that other song used the same relative changes in a DIFFERENT KEY.
I WANT to know what I'm doing, and I want to know more. Always. You're never done.
You don't need to know what you're doing formally. You don't need to speak in terms of the tonic, subdominant, and dominant; I-IV-V will do. You don't need to know the names of scales; calling it the "blues scale," and the "straight major scale" and the "Spanish scale" will work just fine.
But maybe, after 20 years, you might learn it by its other name? Do you say, I only know this as "the Hendrix chord" and I refuse in principle to EVER find out what it really is, or what it's composed of to get a clue as to why it has that distinctiveness? (It's a #9 chord, which is a 7th chord with a major third on the bottom, and a minor third on the top, and the clash between the two creates a dissonance that gives it it's uniqueness. If you didn't already know that, you can thank me for irrevocably ruining your playing.  )
"I learn my song well before I start singing...."
Bob Dylan
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1336632 - 04/23/01 08:12 PM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
nrg music
Senior Member
Registered: 11/20/00
Posts: 483
Loc: Evesham,,UNITED KINGDOM
|
|
Offline
|
|
stratman wrote:
>>All the theory in the world doesn't amount to a hill of beans if you can't move the listener in whatever direction your trying to go, that's my opinion anyway.>>
Now aint that the truth!! Never a truer word spoken imnho!!
Simon
_________________________
...remember there is absolutely no point in talking about someone behind their back unless they get to hear about it...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336634 - 04/23/01 08:51 PM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
BK_dup2
Senior Member
Registered: 03/19/01
Posts: 113
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by KHAN:
This is all very humorous.
Knowledge is power.
Ignorance is bliss...
God Damn KHAN that sums it all up!!
Bravo!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336635 - 04/23/01 08:52 PM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
BK_dup2
Senior Member
Registered: 03/19/01
Posts: 113
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by KHAN:
This is all very humorous.
Knowledge is power.
Ignorance is bliss...
God Damn KHAN that sums it all up!!
Bravo!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336636 - 04/23/01 09:11 PM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
KHAN
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 4028
|
|
Offline
|
|
Posted by BK (twice)
>>>God Damn KHAN
=======================
That's not the first time I've heard that one. 
........................  ................................
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336637 - 04/23/01 09:16 PM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
Eric Worthington
Gold Member
Registered: 01/17/01
Posts: 576
Loc: Hatfield,PA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
To paraphrase what some have said:
Theory means nothing if you don't move the listener.
True, but that is a completely separate issue. Theory ALONE won't make you sound beautiful. The two are not mutually exclusive.
But I could also say:
Technique means nothing if you don't move the listener.
Speed, fluidity, and metronomic timing mean nothing if you don't move the listener.
So, any guitarists out there who are blissfully ignorant, who also never spend/spent time working on technique, speed, fluidity, and timing?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336638 - 04/23/01 09:19 PM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
michael saulnier
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 12/06/00
Posts: 4070
Loc: San Diego,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Eric Worthington:
So, any guitarists out there who are blissfully ignorant, who also never spend/spent time working on technique, speed, fluidity, and timing?
I remember a recent interview with Edge in the trades where he said... I never practice... Don't like to... Never did!
Ya think the kids read THAT and think practice is important?
guitplayer
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336639 - 04/24/01 01:45 AM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
rosespappy
Senior Member
Registered: 03/28/01
Posts: 254
Loc: Indian River,MI,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
In the immortal words of Angus..... Me best licks is by accident!!!
Paralyzation by analization?
Whether it be by gifted ear or years of study.... Play the blasted thing or sit down,swill a beer and wish you could!
Rick
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336640 - 04/24/01 02:40 AM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
Tedster
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 09/21/00
Posts: 5933
|
|
Offline
|
|
>>In the immortal words of Angus..... Me best licks is by accident!!!
I did that once. I was jamming with some old friends I hadn't seen. Someone had a camcorder and taped it. Later, watching during one of my solos...the guy playing me on the tape whipped off some incredible lick I could never do. It really pissed me off! How come HE can do that and I can't...?
I had to learn the lick. Then of course the magic was gone.
G'noight evryone...toym fa' bed...
_________________________
"Cisco Kid, was a friend of mine...(WAH WAH WAH WAHHH!)"
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336641 - 04/24/01 03:48 AM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
fantasticsound
10k Club
Registered: 04/07/01
Posts: 16403
Loc: Madison,TN, UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
The true "artiste" sees only the squall line. The true scientist sees only the equations that describe it. The well rounded sees both.
Perfect, Tedster.
There is no reason for the bickering that's been going on for a page and a half.
It seems that the prejudice on the feel side is that theory hounds always think about their playing, when they're playing, and don't experience it. Or most theory hounds tear apart music until it's no fun. Or criticize simple music and find it boring. All prejudices, and untrue.
On the other side, the theory hounds feel it's difficult to communicate, and to replicate what you're playing if you don't understand how you arrived there. True, but as you'll see, everyone knows some theory.
Both good points, when you look at the lowest common denominator.
If you look PAST those prejudices the point has been made clear.
Knowledge is power, ignorance bliss
Think about your first few lessons, be they with a teacher, or copying someone's hands on TV or in a tab book. When you played rudimentary chords for the first time, you had to stop and reset your fingers, probably one by one, when changing chords. As you taught your fingers how to move, and through repitition, you attained a level of smooth chord changes. You hardly have to think about most chord changes anymore.
This is the basis of theory. You learn a concept, and teach your fingers to work within it. Most of the time you can run on autopilot to some extent. But when you can't, the knowledge is there to help steer you back into safe waters.
Are there plenty of uncivilized theory hounds? Sure. And you're right, Lee. As long as they act like teenagers who know everything, just because they've learned the book work, they'll be all but useless as competent musicians. But to fault most students of music theory as being less emotive as musicians.. that's WAY out of line. Tell it to Izchak Perlman, or Vladimir Horowitz, or Elton John and Billy Joel for that matter! You find me ANY guitarist that has put more emotion in his/her playing than Billy Joel has on the piano. (If you think BJ is about Uptown Girl and We Didn't Start The Fire, etc. then you need to go back and listen to portions of the other 20 some-odd albums.)
I think you'll find that Pete Townshend, from that list of yours, is very well versed in theory. Does he take advantage of "mistakes" in his playing. Sure. Heck, in Give Blood, David Gilmour plays a repetitive guitar part that was unwritten by Townshend. To hear Pete say it, Gilmour was invited to hear the tracks at the studio and just started comping to the playback! But the craft of writing songs like those certainly took full advantage of Townshend's music education, whereever he procured it.
As for the ignorance is bliss school of thought(usually attributed to rock and blues guitarists), it's a red herring. Those musicians will tell you they don't know a lick of theory, and as has been previously implied, they're out and out lying. They just don't know it because they're ignorant of what theory is. If you think the Ig. Is Bliss guys are playing pure improvisation, then find a computer to write random I-IV-V tunes because you can always program the "flaws" that create "feel".
They're working within a structure they know as well as ANY jazz musician knows his modal scales. Every once in a GREAT while they jump totally outside the form, and it still works. They chalk the whole thing up to pure inspiration, but they are using theory in the exact same way a knowledgable musician should. Problem is, when their playing breaks down, they don't have a clue how to fix it. (Or do they? Since they DO know the theory of I-IV-V, they actually slide back into familiar territory rather easily!)
Theory shouldn't get in the way of beautiful music, it should be a tool to use, when the instinctual ability to decipher where to go next breaks down.
I don't read music (although I can in a VERY slow manner) and I don't know all the scales and chord progressions. Am I happy with my playing? Sure. Am I dissapointed I've never applied myself to these endeavors? Damn Straight!
If you still don't understand this, find some successful people who are happy, and rich, and STILL say they wish they'd attained a high school diploma or college degree. There are plenty of them out there. They understood they could succeed without it, but wonder what more they could've acheived or created WITH it.
IMO
Neil
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336642 - 04/24/01 03:58 AM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
Ian Stewart Cairns
Senior Member
Registered: 02/03/01
Posts: 98
Loc: ,,UNITED KINGDOM
|
|
Offline
|
|
[QUOTE]
>>In the immortal words of Angus..... Me best licks is by accident!!!
I love Angus's playing up until Back in Black (after that I mostly lost interest in AC/DC) and I have a lot of sympathy with what he says.
My best friend has preserved a tape from when we were 14 years old (I am now 32) with us jamming a blues - he was on acoustic rhythm, I was on lead guitar. Most of my soloing is pretty horrible, but there is one uncannily phrased, descending, chromatic passage which to this day I cannot duplicate. It sounds great but I am dead sure I didn't mean it! I have no idea how it came out of me. Maybe I was channelling Jimmy Page
Alas, the goddamn transience of our temporal art form!
Ian
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336643 - 04/24/01 04:00 AM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
gtrmac
Platinum Member
Registered: 12/06/00
Posts: 1763
Loc: Naniwa-ku,,JAPAN
|
|
Offline
|
|
A few people have mentioned Edge as an example of an untrained musician but I recall seeing U2 when they made their first appearance in New York City. At one point in the show Edge sat down at a grand piano and accompanied Bono on a ballad. He can play piano pretty well for someone who doesn't know any music theory! I think that if you cling to your ignorance of music you are only limiting yourself in your potential enjoyment of music. It's a rather rediculous idea to me. A whole lifetime with 3 chords and 5 notes! The other side of the coin bores me too. Music as an athletic excercise. It's a means to an end.
_________________________
Mac Bowne
G-Clef Acoustics Ltd.
Osaka, Japan
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336644 - 04/24/01 04:09 AM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
art
Senior Member
Registered: 02/13/01
Posts: 77
Loc: santa clara,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
I grew up listening to Classic Rock where the majority of players have very little or no knowledge of music theory. I didn't know that at the time. I was just a kid starting out. I didn't care. I listened to it 'cuz I liked what I heard. As I got older I started listening to Jazz as well. Did it matter to me whether these Jazz cats knew theory or not? Heck no! I didn't care. I listened to it 'cuz I liked what I heard. The point I'm trying to make is this - in the end, the amount of theoretical knowledge one possesses or does not possess is irrelevent. Can you play the damn guitar? Can you improvise and express the musical ideas in your head thru your instrument? If so, great!!! That's all that matters to me.
Just my humble $.02 opinion............
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336645 - 04/24/01 04:34 AM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
Lee Flier
10k Club
Registered: 09/13/00
Posts: 15398
Loc: Atlanta,GA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by fantasticsound:
There is no reason for the bickering that's been going on for a page and a half.
Obviously there IS a reason... otherwise it wouldn't be going on. Which is why I brought it up. I wanted to hear some different perspectives on it. And I do appreciate everybody's comments!
It seems that the prejudice on the feel side is that theory hounds always think about their playing, when they're playing, and don't experience it. Or most theory hounds tear apart music until it's no fun. Or criticize simple music and find it boring. All prejudices, and untrue.
Actually, although it doesn't HAVE to be true and there are individuals who don't fit the stereotype (as I've said all along), it is true often enough that I felt it was worth bringing up. I'm not given to irrational prejudices. This is just something I've seen way too many times to ignore.
You find me ANY guitarist that has put more emotion in his/her playing than Billy Joel has on the piano.
Sorry but you're never going to convince me of anything by using Billy Joel as an example! Cuz I can't stand the guy. I think he's TOTALLY calculating. And yes, I've heard his "deeper" album cuts.
FWIW though, keyboard players who know a lot of theory, in my experience, don't seem to abuse their knowledge nearly as often as guitar players do. Hell, even most DRUMMERS don't, Neil Peart-heads aside.
As for the ignorance is bliss school of thought(usually attributed to rock and blues guitarists), it's a red herring. Those musicians will tell you they don't know a lick of theory, and as has been previously implied, they're out and out lying. They just don't know it because they're ignorant of what theory is.
I think I've said on several occasions that I agree with this, basically. Any good musician is going to pick up quite a lot of theory along the way, myself included. I think it's a matter of how it is learned, and how the learning influences or doesn't influence what you play.
The main thing that I object to is that if a musician DOES play mostly by feel, and doesn't normally play "technically challenging" stuff, they are often labeled "ignorant" by those who are formally trained in theory, as if they don't know more than 5 chords because they're too lazy to stupid to learn. Ditto if they don't enjoy analyzing music from a theoretical standpoint. Although it's technically true that any good musician knows some theory whether they label it such or not, I don't think they're really "lying" to say they don't know it. I think it's a matter of priority and HOW that person chooses to think about and experience music.
Theory shouldn't get in the way of beautiful music, it should be a tool to use, when the instinctual ability to decipher where to go next breaks down.
Yeah, that SHOULD be all it is. And sometimes, it is. Too often, it isn't.
If you still don't understand this, find some successful people who are happy, and rich, and STILL say they wish they'd attained a high school diploma or college degree. There are plenty of them out there. They understood they could succeed without it, but wonder what more they could've acheived or created WITH it.
Well I totally disagree here. I'm happy, and I'm not rich but I make a good living and don't really aspire to be rich, and I don't have a high school diploma or a college degree and am very glad about it. From the day I started kindergarten I was pretty much counting the days until I could leave school. Far from teaching me anything I cared to know, school was INHIBITING me from learning.
I don't ever wonder how much more I could have achieved if I'd had more formal schooling. I have total confidence that what I've learned on my own and the way I've learned it are superior for my purposes to what I could have learned in school. I feel the same way about music. I don't mean that's how it is for everybody - if you went to college and feel you benefited from it, that's great. That doesn't mean it's the best path for everyone, and it doesn't mean anyone who doesn't have a college degree is an illiterate monkey. I think it's pretty obvious that I can read and write, and since I'm an engineer and a computer programmer I must know a thing or two about math too. However I don't relate to trained computer geeks much better than trained music theoreticians.
As you say, just because someone doesn't have formal theory training doesn't make them musically illiterate either. Some of us even know more than 5 chords. But you can bet we learned theory in a different way, and didn't learn more of it than we cared to know. There is an assumption that if someone never studied theory they won't be able to play anything complex. I think that's just a lack of understanding of the different ways people are capable of thinking, and learning, and processing information.
That's probably what this argument is really about.
--Lee
This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 04-24-2001 at 01:43 AM
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#1336646 - 04/24/01 05:37 AM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
Mile
Senior Member
Registered: 09/18/00
Posts: 268
Loc: Ljubljana, SLOVENIA
|
|
Offline
|
|
Eric, I couldn't have said it better my self!!!
_________________________
If it sounds god, just play the darn thing
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336647 - 04/24/01 11:51 AM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
strat0124
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 04/03/01
Posts: 5056
Loc: ,VA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
First of all Music training is an excellent idea, I got mine in grade school in Concert Band (trombone) and Jazz Band (guitar). Having said that, intuitive players are not necessarily taught, some may have it, but I don't think there's a large percentage who do. Although I know where I am on the fret board, and know where to resolve this and that, I rarely if ever analyze what I'm playing. After all who really gives a rats ass if I'm playing in Ionian mode or whatever, or what crazy scale I'm rambling through. I see posts of guys breaking it down to that, and I am humbled at their ability to realize that, I just don't. Ear training to me is as important if not more if you are a performer. There is nothing like playing by the seat of your pants and making it work. There is also nothing like having to sit and wait on "trained" musicians shuffle through sheet music between songs. Singers as well. It detracts from the performance in my opinion. But I really don't break it down to alpha numeric recognition, though I do appreciate folks who can.
_________________________
Down like a dollar comin up against a yen, doin pretty good for the shape I'm in
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336648 - 04/24/01 12:27 PM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
fantasticsound
10k Club
Registered: 04/07/01
Posts: 16403
Loc: Madison,TN, UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
FWIW though, keyboard players who know a lot of theory, in my experience, don't seem to abuse their knowledge nearly as often as guitar players do. Hell, even most DRUMMERS don't, Neil Peart-heads aside.
You prove my point, exactly. Your experience of keyboard players.. Go over to the keyboard forum and ask about this subject. You'll find PLENTY of people knocking everyone from Keith Emerson to Bruce Hornsby. But your experience allows you to give more leeway (No pun intended ) to knowledgable keyboard players.
My experience of knowledgable musicians; guitarist, keyboard players, drummers, etc. in Nashville has been almost universally positive. They play from the heart, not the head, they are the best teachers since they can quickly explain what is happening, and generally, it takes a long time before any of them ever TELLS anyone that they are experts. You just see it as they work and teach. I would place an even bet that half the guitarist you think are unschooled are anything but. They just don't have to say anything about it. As you said, they put up when they play, not in interviews.
I must apologise. The first line should have read:
There is no good reason for the bickering...
If you want to understand the basis of your music, learn more theory.
If you enjoy playing in ignorance of why musical ideas tend to work one way or another, then don't waste your time with theory.
Remember two things.
[*]Ignorance is not stupidity. It is the lack of understanding.
[*]Theoretically, a bumble bee can't fly. Being ignorant of that fact, the bee not only flys, but manages to make some honey, too.
I don't want to be a killjoy. Just don't slight theory mavens because of the jerks who feel they're better than everyone else because of their grasp of knowledge. And don't slight natural musicians because of the jerks who feel they're better than everyone else because it came to them naturally. In the end, they're BOTH jerks. (IMO)
I Hate judgemental people...
Neil
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336650 - 04/24/01 01:33 PM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
Lee Flier
10k Club
Registered: 09/13/00
Posts: 15398
Loc: Atlanta,GA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Ignorance is not stupidity. It is the lack of understanding.
Yes, but what I'm saying is that because a musician is not formally trained in theory DOESN'T mean they don't understand what they're doing. It's just a different kind of understanding. Many theoreticians believe that you HAVE to have a certain KIND of understanding of music (namely, the same kind they have) to be able to play anything that has complexity, but you don't.
Theoretically, a bumble bee can't fly. Being ignorant of that fact, the bee not only flys, but manages to make some honey, too.
Exactly! Therefore, the "theory" is hogwash and there is obviously something the scientists are missing when they say the bumblebee can't theoretically fly.
I Hate judgemental people...
Well that's a bit of a judgemental statement in itself, isn't it? That's OK though... we all make judgements and I don't think it's such a noble goal not to. Blind prejudice or blanket statements are another story, but I think I've stated about 5 times in this thread (and been ignored) that I don't think by any means that my comments apply to everyone who knows theory.
--Lee
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#1336651 - 04/24/01 01:50 PM
Re: Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?
|
jsj
Senior Member
Registered: 01/11/01
Posts: 48
Loc: Grafton,WI,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
What you aren't seeing on those countless episodes of 'Behind the Music' are the years and years of those guys honing their chops on theory and practicing. The Edge didn't/doesn't practice... I'm not buying it! I read the same article recently and it opens stating that he was rehearsing for the upcoming tour.
Like it or not, everyone knows theory. Yes it comes with rules, but don't let it rule you.
-John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: myles_rose, A String, Bluesape
| |
