Theory for rock/blues/pop guitarists: lame?

[Lee Flier]

Over in the Clapton thread, a couple of people said that although they preferred a soulful player over a technically perfect player, if they hear somebody who is both, they're in heaven.

 

To be honest, when it comes to guitar (other than classical and jazz), "theoretically correct" players don't do a damned thing for me in most cases. In fact it usually seems to kill the soul. I prefer the simple and the straightforward and a little out of kilter, along with a passionate performance of course. I took theory lessons once for about 2 months, after I'd been playing a couple of years, and then I began to realize this was going to hurt my playing more than help it, so I didn't continue. Nothing since then has caused me to change my mind. Of course, whether this is true for anyone else depends on what moves them and how they want to play. The way I figure it, if I don't like LISTENING to technically perfect players why would I want to PLAY like that?

 

And please, let's put to rest the idea that people pooh-pooh theoretical analysis only because they are ignorant of it. Trust me, if I really wanted to learn theory, I'd have done it a long time ago. It's not rocket science. I wanted to learn audio theory and I did, I wanted to learn computer programming and I did - I've made my living from both. Music theory has always seemed to me, however, to be as useless as the proverbial tits on a nun, and in fact detracts from the things about music that actually do move me, so I haven't bothered.

 

Asbestos suit on! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

--Lee

[rosespappy]

Lee, I can't imagine Hendrix BB, Berry, or any other groundbreaker standing on stage and thinkin' B-flat dim minor, slide to..... Not a freakin' chance. Not in Rock and Roll. The thing that keeps me playing my guitar is my ability to NOT think when it's in my hands, but rather to feel... So, I'll put on some wet asbestos and tin foil,(can't afford the flame suit cause I'm saving up for Ted and Simons' Warriors) and join you in this. Technicality is a wonderfull thang, I design automated tooling systems for a living, and no-one's gonna remember me when I'm gone. But, I've been lucky enough to make more than a few folks feel what I was feeling in my short sprint through chronology.

Rick

[Mile]

Well, Lee, I went to music school and I learned theory. It's not that hard, like you said, and it helps me alot in making my own music and in playing for the first tim (in front of the audience) some things that I heard on the radio once upon the time...

But I like what Nuno Bettencourt said: It's not important if it's theoretically correct. If it sounds good,

play it!!!

[Scott from MA]

Originally posted by rosespappy:

I can't imagine Hendrix BB, Berry, or any other groundbreaker standing on stage and thinkin' B-flat dim minor, slide to..... Not a freakin' chance.

 

Why do people assume that if you know theory you analyze everything you play?!?! I'm a well educated musician, but I still play what I feel, and I don't concern myself with "sticking to the rules." I don't even think about the "rules" when I'm playing, it all just comes naturally.

 

I'll tell you what, though, knowing theory sure makes it a lot easier to sit in with other bands. It also comes in real handy for explaining my songs to the rest of my band. I don't think it's very fair to call someone "lame" for knowing a little about what they do.

[Ian Stewart Cairns]

Hands up who knows what a pentatonic scale is. Or what a blues scale is. All those who knew are already theorists. Hands up who knows that it is a good idea to change scale when the chord changes. Were you born with that ability? Of course not. Sorry if that shatters any illusions.

 

Lee, I can't imagine Hendrix BB, Berry, or any other groundbreaker standing on stage and thinkin' B-flat dim minor, slide to.....

 

Whilst I don't doubt that there are some players who think "linearly" in this fashion, most don't. I think the thing is to learn as much of the theory as applicable to your needs and then forget it. What do I mean by this? Well, perhaps an example will make it clearer. When I am improvising, I never think "Oh, here comes the final II-V, I must remember to play a superlocrian/half-diminished/whatever lick leading in to the V chord which will precipitate the impending tonic resolution" or anything of the kind. At least I don't think this on a conscious level. However, I do have that warehouse of knowledge to draw upon UNCONSCIOUSLY. When I play, it just happens, instinctively. If I were to examine my solo retrospectively (let's say for teaching purposes) I might indeed find that, although at the time I was solely preoccupied with playing melodically, I was using these scales/modes in just the way theory books suggest you should. Other times I might not.

 

Similar principles apply to the learning of any language. When you type your email, I am sure you are not focused on narrow grammatical/linguistic considerations. At least you arent consciously focused on them. No, you simply write down what you feel and think. In other words, you express yourself. But tell me, how would you go about expressing anything if you couldn't speak the language? And surely you will agree that the better versed you are in any particular language, the more flexibility you have and the more eloquent you can be in that language.

 

Similarly, when I compose I am not thinking in terms of scales or modes. I am thinking (if I am thinking at all) about creating something fresh to my ears, something I want to listen to, something harmonically, melodically, and rhythmically worthwhile. In other words, I am desperately struggling to write great music.

 

The plain fact is in most Rock music, the chord predictions are so predictable and primitive that there is no need to apply much theoretical knowledge. All the (still hugely popular) standard chord sequences are old and tired. This is not to say that rock music is necessarily boring (although most of it is). It all depends upon the level of inspiration of the artists. As it happens I l still love Highway to Hell (pretty much the whole album), which is about as raw and anti-cerebral as it gets. This is because I regard AC/DC as a superior band and hold Angus in high esteem as a superior lead player with wonderful, instinctive taste.

 

Would Angus need to know a lot of theory to get through the collision of I, IV and V chords that constitute the bulk of an AC/DC album? Of course not - at least not beyond the basic pentatonic knowledge he already has. So what good would it do Angus to learn theory? Well, in his case probably none. If he wanted to becomes a Jazz player, he would have to learn some theory. If he wanted to expand the harmonic scope of AC/DC, (about as likely as a Jewish Pope I admit) he would have to learn some theory. If he wanted to be able to read music, he would have to learn theory. If he wanted to asses his performances theoretically he would need to learn some theory.

 

So, if you want to be versatile, learn theory. If you want to be able to read music, learn theory. If you wish to be able to play over more interesting chord changes learn theory. If you want to understand classical music, learn theory. If you wish to rigorously analyse your (or any one elses) performance after the event, learn theory. If you want to be a good teacher, you need to learn theory. If you want to be able to sight-read, learn theory, etc., etc. If you do not wish to do any of the above then you do not need to learn theory. So dont worry about it.

 

It's strange. Some who know precious little theory hold on to this fact like some kind of "badge of courage". Anyone who knows theory is regarded as suspicious, probably a glasses-wearing pervert who can't hold his beer. Of course, it is nothing but a stereotype and prejudice (perhaps fed by a feeling of relative incompetence - I don't know). Here is an outline of this kind of primary colour thinking (which unfortunately is occasionally prevalent on this board) .

 

To play rock music you must have great feel.

If you don't know theory you have great feel.

If you do know theory then you do not have great feel.

 

Therefore, you cannot play rock music if you know theory.

 

Spot the non-sequiturs for yourself.

 

Ian

[Scott from MA]

Hurray to Ian!! I wish I could have put it so well.

 

Your friend,

 

Scott: A glasses-wearing pervert.

[Lee Flier]

Ian, you have a very warped and inaccurate interpretation of people's attitudes who don't give a rip about theory - or at least mine.

 

It's strange. Some who know precious little theory hold on to this fact like some kind of "badge of courage".

 

Wrong. As I said, I'd have been more than happy to pursue theory further if I'd found any use for it for my own purposes.

 

Anyone who knows theory is regarded as suspicious, probably a glasses-wearing pervert who can't hold his beer. Of course, it is nothing but a stereotype and prejudice (perhaps fed by a feeling of relative incompetence - I don't know).

 

Wrong. I simply don't like to listen to most players who know their theory inside and out. It's that simple.

 

Too many players have told me, "It's not the theory, it's what you do with it. You can know theory and still be a tasteful, soulful player." Sounds perfectly reasonable. Then I hear them play and I hate it. So if I have a prejudice against theorists, I feel there is a good reason behind it. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

In fact the one and only guitarist I can think of whom I know is a bona fide theory-hound and yet completely captivates me, feel-wise, is Richard Thompson. I love Jeff Beck but really he only occasionally hits the mark for me - there's a LOT of stuff he's done that I would classify as wanking and not very soulful, even though he's capable of being VERY soulful. And a lot of his "wanking" is interesting and innovative, but not something I want to listen to on a regular basis. I'm nuts about Jimmy Page and David Gilmour, but do they really know their theory forwards and backwards? I don't know, maybe, but I don't think so. They seem to know a little bit of theory but not really much.

 

To play rock music you must have great feel.

 

True.

 

If you don't know theory you have great feel.

 

Wrong. I have NO idea where you think anyone is saying this.

 

If you do know theory then you do not have great feel.

 

See above. In theory (no pun intended), this statement is false, but there is precious little evidence from where I sit, to prove it false. Yes it is possible to know theory and have great feel, but the number of people who actually pull it off I can probably count on one hand. On the other hand, there are plenty of rock guitarists who have great feel and have found it unnecessary to learn much theory. Whether, if they learned more theory, they would still have their great feel or whether it would change their playing in a negative way, is something we will probably never know. So I'm content to say simply that it's not necessary.

 

--Lee

[Ian Stewart Cairns]

Lee, do you personalise everything?

[Scott from MA]

I'd just like to know who these mysterious rock guitarists are that don't know any theory. I've yet to meet ONE. So, Lee, who DO you like to listen to?

[LiveMusic]

Lee, damn good question. Ian, damn good answer!

 

Cheers,

Duke

[Tedster]

ZOIKS, Scoob...

 

I agree with Nuno Bettencourt.

 

To me, I like the little kick the knowledge of theory gives one, but, to me, it explains it after the fact...exactly what Nuno said.

 

I'm one of those "This sounds cool, what is it?" people...rather than "Well, if I go from this down a minor third it will sound cool".

 

Theory is intriguing, though, I think everyone should agree, although some may not wish to embrace it fully. Why do certain combinations of notes sound pleasant with respect to others? Why do we perceive yet other combinations as "sucking toadstools"?

 

But to use it as a crutch...or to try to analyze soulful playing from it...

 

Here's a good example. I'm a meteorologist by trade (quit laughing). I got into it because I thought "thunderstorms are cool". Nothing I like more than sitting outside on a summer evening watching a big black ugly mean squall line bearing down. So I went to school. Math, physics, fluid dynamics, equations...a bunch of "necessary boring shit" that describes mathematically some of the coolest stuff imaginable.

 

Sad part is, some meteorologists are so into the theory that they'd rather think of a thunderstorm in terms of equations of thermodynamic processes than the reality of "a big, black, ugly mean squall line". And that's where art and science meet. The true "artiste" sees only the squall line. The true scientist sees only the equations that describe it. The well rounded sees both.

[Jimmy James]

I run into this alot from Blues guys. "I don't know a pentatonic from a catatonic. I play what I feel." As if being musically ignorant somehow makes them more of a legit blues player. It's all a myth. When somebody gets on stage with them and says, "We'll be doing a I VI II V turnaround" They look clueless and it's their own fault.

 

All the great blues players had their own way of disciphering what they needed to know to play what they needed to play. The only theory you need to know is what you need to play the music you want to play. Nothing more, nothing less. Earl Hooker did not need to know the modes of the harmonic minor scale, but he did know enough theory to make and play his own music. Maybe he didn't call out roman numerals but those guys had their own way of doing things.

 

My belief is that the more you know, the more you know. Just because you understand what a chord scale is doesn't mean that once you learned this all your passion and creativity shuts down. Theory is good even on a basic level.

 

------------------

http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/144/oscar_jordan.html

[Lee Flier]

A few more comments... and pointing out some circular logic here...

 

So, if you want to be versatile, learn theory.

 

Define "versatile". If that means "being able to play any style of music", that's true, you need theory. If it means being versatile within the context of rock music (which is what I'm talking about, read the thread heading), I don't think so. There are lots of different ways to be "versatile" - tonally, arrangement-wise, etc. There isn't one vertical, linear path to creativity or versatility.

 

And as for those musicians who boast that they can "play any style", I would never want to work with anybody like that. Again, most of them do not play rock very well. I love to hear a great rock player or a great jazz player or a great classical player, but someone who claims to be great at all three usually sucks on at least one of them, even if they can play rings around the next guy from a technical point of view. In any case, in the real world if I were looking for someone to play a gig or a session with me, the LAST resume I would call would be the one that says "plays all styles".

 

If you want to be able to read music, learn theory.

 

True, but again, in rock music there's not a whole lot of benefit to reading music either.

 

If you wish to be able to play over more interesting chord changes learn theory.

 

Again, define "interesting". This is one of the chief complaints I have about your typical "theory hound". Anything with nothing but major, minor and seventh chords is "boring" simply because it is not "technically challenging". This attitude is the first step down the road to Hell (which as we all know, is paved with good intentions).

 

If you want to understand classical music, learn theory.

 

For once, a totally true statement.

 

If you wish to rigorously analyse your (or any one elses) performance after the event, learn theory.

 

Again - WHY would you want to do this? How does it make music better? I like to do SOME analysis of my or others' work from the standpoint of whether the feel was happening, how they got that tone, whether the arrangement could have been better, etc. Doing the type of analysis you did on Clapton does absolutely nothing for me except to say "Well, he doesn't follow these RULES that I have established as being the theoretical rules for being an 'interesting' guitarist; therefore he sucks." If you think he sucks, go right ahead and think that, but in the context of the type of music he plays your analysis of WHY he sucks is totally useless.

 

--Lee

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Ian Stewart Cairns:

Lee, do you personalise everything?

 

Say what? 'Splain to me please, Lucy.

 

--Lee

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Scott from MA:

I'd just like to know who these mysterious rock guitarists are that don't know any theory. I've yet to meet ONE. So, Lee, who DO you like to listen to?

 

OK, here are my favorite guitarists EVER:

 

Keith Richards

Pete Townshend

Richard Thompson

Jimmy Page

Mike Campbell

John Fogerty

 

Close seconds:

 

Angus Young

Joe Perry

Jeff Beck

Robert Johnson

Elmore James

Jimmy Reed

John Lee Hooker

Chuck Berry

David Gilmour

The Edge

 

Seems to me the only guys on this list who are major league "theory heads" are Thompson and Beck. And like I said earlier, there's a lot of Beck I DON'T like. Most of his stuff that I really love is from the Yardbirds era. Page, Gilmour and Campbell (and maybe Perry) I would say know some theory, but not enough that they could play classical or jazz. The other guys I would say know little to no theory. But then, maybe you think all these guys are "boring". C'est la vie.

 

Anyhow, my point is not to make a point of not learning ANY theory. Most of us have picked up some over the course of playing for many years. It kinda helps to know what chords you're playing and what key you're in, makes it easier to communicate with other musicians. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif But there is a TON of theory that I find completely irrelevant to what I do, and a ton of people who learn this stuff and then feel they have to use it just because it's there.

 

I also do know plenty of players who, if you say "Let's do a I-VI-II-V turnaround" wouldn't know what the hell you were talking about, but once you start playing, they have no trouble following along just fine.

 

The bottom line is that if it works for a player to play "by feel", and they feel it would be a detriment to the way they play to learn theory, it would be. There isn't a hard and fast rule as to what makes a player great or not. Like I say, it is certainly POSSIBLE to know theory and be a great soulful player, but I personally don't hear it happen often, and I also don't think that is a holy grail of guitar playing for everyone.

 

--Lee

 

 

This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 04-21-2001 at 02:06 PM

[Ian Stewart Cairns]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

 

Define "versatile". If that means "being able to play any style of music", that's true, you need theory. If it means being versatile within the context of rock music (which is what I'm talking about, read the thread heading), I don't think so. There are lots of different ways to be "versatile" - tonally, arrangement-wise, etc. There isn't one vertical, linear path to creativity or versatility.

 

This is good old fashioned equivocation on your part. You are introducing an ad hoc clause to try and support your emotive argument. For our purposes understand "versatility" to mean "capable of playing in various genres of music".

 

And as for those musicians who boast that they can "play any style", I would never want to work with anybody like that.

 

Too bad you ruled out that duet with Danny Gatton. Still I'm sure you're a much better player than he was.

 

I love to hear a great rock player or a great jazz player or a great classical player, but someone who claims to be great at all three usually sucks on at least one of them, even if they can play rings around the next guy from a technical point of view.

 

How about if you didn't know the player you were listening to was a closet jazzer? Yours is a silly argument.

 

...in rock music there's not a whole lot of benefit to reading music either.

 

I have already granted that is often true.

 

If you wish to be able to play over more interesting chord changes learn theory.

 

Again, define "interesting".

 

OK, I accept the term "interesting" is both emotive and ambiguous. Still, for our purposes, think of "interesting chords" as being all the ones you can't play or don't know.

 

This is one of the chief complaints I have about your typical "theory hound". Anything with nothing but major, minor and seventh chords is "boring" simply because it is not "technically challenging". This attitude is the first step down the road to Hell (which as we all know, is paved with good intentions).

 

Music with simple structure is not boring in and of itself any more than complex music is exciting by simply by virtue of being complex. That is to miss the point. The point is, some of us get a little tired of hearing the same old unimaginatively played chord sequences time after time so we seek fresh challenges. If you don't care to follow that path, that's fine.

 

Doing the type of analysis you did on Clapton does absolutely nothing for me except to say "Well, he doesn't follow these RULES that I have established as being the theoretical rules for being an 'interesting' guitarist; therefore he sucks."

 

God this is tedious. Repeat after me, Lee: ALL WESTERN MUSIC FOLLOWS RULES. ALL WESTERN MUSIC FOLLOWS RULES. ALL WESTERN MUSIC FOLLOWS RULES. ALL WESTERN MUSIC FOLLOWS RULES. ALL WESTERN MUSIC FOLLOWS RULES. ALL WESTERN MUSIC FOLLOWS RULES. ALL WESTERN MUSIC FOLLOWS RULES. ALL WESTERN MUSIC FOLLOWS RULES.

 

What do you think a chord sequence is? What do you think a chord is? What makes the notes you play "bluesy sounding"? Were you born playing rock music? Or did you learn it? For God's sake, even the distance between the frets is set according to what Lee? Come on, say it with me - RULES! Even this discussion is taking place within the narrow constrictions of the English language. More RULES. We are products of evolutionary algorithms - our limitations are preset. One of the suppressed premises in your argument is that music does not conform to rules. It is my contention that it does.

 

At least I back up my arguments. You spout terms like soulless and lack of feel but never explain what these terms mean. Is it not the height of arrogance to accuse any other human being, struggling to make the best music she can, of being soulless?

 

Ian

 

 

This message has been edited by Ian Stewart Cairns on 04-21-2001 at 02:43 PM

[Scott from MA]

I will agree that there is a lot of theory that is not relevant to rock, but if you think that any of the guitarists you mentioned don't know a fair amount of theory, then you are sadly mistaken.

 

When you talk about not knowing theory, realize what you are saying. I do know a few people who play guitar but don't know theory (notice I don't call them guitarists). If you say "G chord" to them, they know the form, but couldn't tell you what notes are in it. They are capable of playing simple chord progressions, but no solos.

 

Put quite simply, if I tell you a song is in the key of E minor, and you know what notes to play for a solo, then you know a fair amount of theory. I can assure you that the people you mentioned know FAR more than just that.

[Tedster]

Watch out, watch out...Miz Lee has GOT da ball an' she's running wid it...

 

Ev'yboddy get OUT da way!

 

(Tedster runs the other way)...

[Scott from MA]

By the way... why do people always use BB King as an example of someone who doesn't know theory? I've had the opportunity to speak with Mr. King, and I can tell you that he is WELL versed in theory.

[Scott from MA]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Page, Gilmour and Campbell (and maybe Perry) I would say know some theory, but not enough that they could play classical or jazz.

 

 

Boy are you mistaken about Jimmy Page. Page was one of the reasons I started playing guitar as a kid, and I know a lot about him. He is very knowledgeable of theory, can sight-read, and can play many styles. In fact, he used to make his living as a studio musician.

[Ian Stewart Cairns]

Hey, Tedster. A fellow scientist.

 

I'm afraid your meteorological post over on the Crapton thread was aimed at the wrong guy. I am a Astrophysicist and computer scientist by training and an amateur geologist for fun. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

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.

 

This much seems obvious to me.

 

Ian

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Ian Stewart Cairns:

For our purposes understand "versatility" to mean "capable of playing in various genres of music".

 

OK, then by that definition, you're right, someone who wants to be more versatile needs to learn more theory. By that definition, being more "versatile" doesn't interest me, so I don't need it.

 

Too bad you ruled out that duet with Danny Gatton. Still I'm sure you're a much better player than he was.

 

I don't claim to be a "better" player than anybody. What's that got to do with anything?

 

How about if you didn't know the player you were listening to was a closet jazzer?

 

Like I said, IT'S POSSIBLE. I don't rule it out at all. I just said that 1) I haven't heard it happen OFTEN, and 2) that it is not NECESSARY to know a lot of theory to be a great rock player.

 

 

OK, I accept the term "interesting" is both emotive and ambiguous. Still, for our purposes, think of "interesting chords" as being all the ones you can't play or don't know.

 

... or rather, didn't bother to learn because I don't find them "interesting." http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif Do you really think in 26 years of playing that I couldn't and wouldn't have learned "those chords" if I'd had any damn use for them whatsoever?

 

Music with simple structure is not boring in and of itself any more than complex music is exciting by simply by virtue of being complex. That is to miss the point. The point is, some of us get a little tired of hearing the same old unimaginatively played chord sequences time after time so we seek fresh challenges.

 

Fair enough... however my own idea of a "fresh challenge" is to come up with things that may have those "same old chord changes" minus the "unimaginatively played" part. That is my only point - that if you're tired of the "same old thing" the answer is not NECESSARILY to learn more chords or scales.

 

God this is tedious. Repeat after me, Lee: ALL WESTERN MUSIC FOLLOWS RULES.

 

DUH. I didn't SAY it doesn't follow structural rules. What I actually said (if you go back and read it) is that there are no rules as to what makes a guitarist "interesting" or not, and that appeared to be the kinds of "rules" you were applying in your analysis of Clapton.

 

I don't know WHERE you're getting the idea that I believe music doesn't follow structural rules. In fact, the music I play probably has some of the strictest structural rules of anybody on this forum in that it is very technically limited. However, statements like this:

 

"...after God-only-knows how many years Clapton doesn't know when it is appropriate to use the major and minor pentatonic scales"

 

or

 

"...he plays sub-dominant (IV) blues/pentatonic figures in the second bar even if the changes dictate waiting until the 5th bar for the IV change"

 

imply that since Clapton is not following what you perceive to be "theoretically appropriate" technique, he sucks. In fact, you simply think he sucks and that is your subjective opinion. That's perfectly OK, but to try and back up your totally subjective arguments by implying there's some universal standard of when a scale is "appropriate" or what the "changes dictate", is bogus and, dare I say it, the height of arrogance. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif Obviously, Clapton is aware of what he's doing and therefore what he feels is "appropriate" is different from what you feel. You don't have to like it, of course, but let's at least not confuse theoretical rules with subjective opinion.

 

At least I back up my arguments. You spout terms like soulless and lack of feel but never explain what these terms mean. Is it not the height of arrogance to accuse any other human being, struggling to make the best music she can, of being soulless?

 

Having a strong subjective opinion is not arrogance, it's just my opinion. I'm calling it what it is - subjective - by using subjective terms, terms that don't presume to speak for everybody. You may or may not agree with my opinion, and I would never call you "arrogant" for having a different opinion and stating it strongly.

 

The structure of musical theory has rules and is unchanging. Whether it is a good thing or a bad thing to follow those rules at all times, is subjective. We're all entitled to our opinions of whether we like what a particular player does, but that has nothing to do with whether they follow "the rules" or even how aware of them they are. We all live according to the laws of physics too, but most people are quite happy and functional to live with them without knowing too many of the details about what they are. (besides the obvious, don't jump off a high cliff and stuff like that. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif)

 

--Lee

[michael saulnier]

It doesn't surprise me that Lee prefers musicians who put an emphasis on "feel" over technical knowledge or that Ian wants to hear musicians who have and use a complete knowledge of music theory.

 

I don't think there's a more PERSONAL choice we make than what music we like. Unlike your favorite food, or tv show, or color... the choice of music preference, (especially for musicians), is a defining part of who we are.

 

As humans we gravitate to what we know... so it's far more likely that Lee, (who admittedly doesn't know or doesn't care to know much music theory), prefers players who share her feelings, and Ian, (who obviously does know and does care about music theory), prefers players who share his POV.

 

OK, OK, I can hear the comments now: "I know all about theory and all I listen to is three chord blues"... OK... but that's the exception rather than the rule...

 

For example if Lee suddenly woke up tomorrow morning with a newfound passion for prog rock and went down and bought the entire Yes or Rush catalog or something... and she really "got into" their music, she'd probably begin spending a lot more time and energy learning theory in order to better understand or even play some of their tunes.

 

On the other hand, you could take hundreds of music majors, put them in a rehearsal rooms, and give them one simple task... write some classic rock songs that will be hits and stand up for 20+ years... and I doubt there would be a Keith Richards among them.

 

If I'm wrong... Ian, how about you give us a "classic" or two from your hand since with all the "theory" behind you, it should be "easy" to come up with something as simple as a "rock classic".

 

Finally, as fun as this all is... it's hopelessly optimistic to think that either opinion is going to be moved one iota in spite of some excellent points on both sides...

 

And what about genius? What's the theory behind "Machine Gun"?

 

guitplayer

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Scott from MA:

Boy are you mistaken about Jimmy Page. Page was one of the reasons I started playing guitar as a kid, and I know a lot about him. He is very knowledgeable of theory, can sight-read, and can play many styles. In fact, he used to make his living as a studio musician.

 

Yeah I knew he used to be a studio guy, and I have a compilation of some of his session work. I wouldn't call most of it technically challenging. And that's not a put-down.

 

I'll believe you though, if you say he knows a lot of theory and can sight-read. Like I said, I have never denied that it's possible to know a lot of theory and still be a great rock guitarist, only that it is very rare.

 

Also, I'll repeat that I'm not interested in any wearing any kind of badge of honor about how little theory I or anybody else knows. It's hard to avoid picking up at least some if you play for a long time, and it would be stupid to go out of your way to avoid it! However, if you are a rock player and you go out of your way to learn more technically challenging stuff, it may not be necessary for the purpose of being a great rock guitarist, and it MAY actually be detrimental, depending on your attitude toward it. If learning a lot of theory ends up convincing you that I-IV-V is just a simple boring structure not worthy of your time, I would say it has hurt you. Those are my main points.

 

--Lee

[clockwirk]

I've got a book called "The Beatles as Musicians" that goes through and anylises every Beatles song musically, theoretically, instrumentally, and productionally. I'm not saying that everyone should subject themselves to this in order to appreciate the music, but it definately is an eye opener for people who think theory has no place in pop music.

I don't know if the Beatles knew what they were doing when they wrote, but they sure had amazing ears to come up with that type of music. That's the value of theory in any genre, to serve the song. The problem with many "educated" musicians is that the theory becomes an end in itself rather than serving the song. They're thinking "I could play this here" rather than actually hearing it there. Nobody cares what you know, they just care what the music makes them feel. On the other hand, if you think that theoretically "interesting" music can't move you, then you're issuing a fairly major insult to bands like the Beatles.

The Police are another good one.

there it is.

[Lee Flier]

Guitplayer: I think you said it all! Well done.

 

And no, I really don't expect anyone's opinion to be changed, only that maybe those on both sides of the equation can understand each other better and learn a little more about the other's "muse".

 

--Lee

[Scott from MA]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

and it MAY actually be detrimental, depending on your attitude toward it.

 

Exactly... It's not about what you know or don't know, it's all about your attitude toward it. That's what I was trying to say in the first place when I said it's unfair to say a guitarist is "lame" for knowing theory. I can know all the theory there is (which I don't) and still not have it effect my attitude toward music, or my writing and playing style.

 

I've actually had other musicians hear my music and put it down for not being complex or technical. They quickly assume that I don't know theory, and that aggravates me. It makes me feel like I have to write something complex just to prove myself to them, but I don't think music should be technical just for the sake of being technical. I try to do what fits the mood of the song.

[Lee Flier]

Scott,

 

Well if I recall, you're a Bob Mould freak, so I'd say you know all about respecting the song. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif And you are right, you shouldn't go write something "technical" just to prove what you know.

 

However, somebody like you is pretty rare. It is very difficult for most people to invest in learning something and not feel they have to use it all the time. Just like it's difficult to have cable TV and only watch it a couple of hours a week, or have 128 tracks in Pro Tools and plugins on every channel and not use them all. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

Setting arbitrary limitations on your art can be a really cool thing. Like Frank Black is committed to recording everything live to 2-track tape and not doing any edits. Not that everyone should do that, but no one should call him a simpleton or a Luddite just because that's what HE wants to do. It sounds great, and it works for him. Some people might think it would sound as good or better if he did it "the modern way", but hey, maybe it wouldn't! How do THEY know? If he thinks it wouldn't, it's his art, and he's right!

 

And BTW I didn't SAY it was "lame" to know theory; there's a question mark after it. I was ASKING for comment. And I'm getting it. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

--Lee

 

This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 04-21-2001 at 05:08 PM

[nrg music]

Lee et All

 

Theory shmeary!! My knowledge of theory is pretty zero, but I have never found that to be any kinda handicap in crossing styles and I have played countless studio sessions in very many different genres. The critical factors imho are can ya pick up the tune on a listen or at worse a couple of listens and then can you come up with something that suits the tune be it a vibe, a lick or whatever. Theory just don't come into it in my book!! ( shoot me down if you wish, but short of classical music I cannot think of one type I haven't played ). As Lee and others have said I have always found the critical factor to be feel and my personal opinion is that theory, or too much of it, just gets in the way of creativity.

 

Simon http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

[D. Gauss]

ya know folks used to think the earth was flat, but that was just a theory!

 

i like johnny thunders and i like charlie christian. they may be musically related, but that's just a theory.

 

hey for years wasn't the flat 5 and moving parallel fifths outlawed from classical music? according to that theory we'd have no black sabbath.

 

a theory is just a way of explaining something. plenty of folks know how to play or sing over difficult changes but can't explain what they do. i seriously doubt that the first jazz chord substitutions were arrived at by folks sitting down noticing the similarities and how the substitution relates to the scale and the original chord. more than likey somebody was fooling around and said "hey that chord sounds cool here instead of this one." just a theory....

 

-d. gauss