Yes/No - Do you know music theory?

[LiveMusic]

I have 1 3/4 college degrees and a helluva lot of that was straight A's.

 

But this music theory stuff makes my head swim. Is it complicated or am I losing it? I sometimes find it difficult to follow. I've never gone through a course or anything to try to learn it so I guess that might be a problem. I just pick up bits and pieces.

 

The more I get into it, I'll bet there are some Einsteins who are musicians. It seems to be endless in its complexity. Or not?

 

Do you understand theory? I realize you don't need to know a bit of theory to make music but I'm thinking the more I know, the better for me. Not sure, though... been writing some songs lately and I just hunt and peck until I find something that sounds good. Maybe if I knew more, I would automatically know more "where to go." For basic chord progressions, no big deal but when I try to find something just a bit different (adding some color to the song), I would think theory might help. Or not? My ear kinda knows.

 

Can anyone recommend a good theory book or course of some sort?

[Lee Flier]

We got into a pretty heated discussion here about this very subject, awhile back - might want to do a search. Some of it got a bit over the top, but to sum up: whether or not theory will really help you, all depends on you, and the type of music you're doing. Some people say that knowing theory will help ANY musician; others will say that if you're just doing rock, pop, blues, country or other "simpler" forms of music that theory will actually detract from the flow of your music.

 

I would say that neither of those can be a blanket statement. I think if you play for any length of time, you are GOING to pick up SOME theory whether you're even aware of it or not. Whether you need to formally study it, is up to you. If you feel musically limited, then it might help. Personally, I tend to work by hearing something in my head and then figuring it out on the guitar. This approach hasn't required me to know very much theory. I have a natural ear for what I want to do and have had few problems executing it (and what problems I do have, relate more to my fingering ability than the mental part). Maybe if I knew more theory, I could figure certain things out faster, or whatever, but I have also seen a lot of people who suffer from putting too many theoretical "rules" on what they compose or play, to the point where it's not spontaneous anymore. In my particular case anyway, theory falls under the "yeah, it'd be nice to learn maybe but I haven't needed much of it my whole life so it's not a huge priority."

 

So my answer is: if you're going to play jazz or classical, or be a session musician, then yes, you absolutely have to know theory. For rock, pop, blues, folk, country, reggae, etc., these are theoretically very simple forms of music and their strengths lie more in the emotion and the tone and other more intangible things than virtuosity. Lots of rock musicians, etc. still learn theory, and it helps some of them and hurts others, depending on how imaginative they are to begin with and whether they really know what they're about or are just seeking to define music in terms of "rules".

 

In any case, I wouldn't necessarily think I was a dumbass for not knowing too much theory, or that anyone who does know theory is a genius. Just decide on what your path is first, and then decide whether you really want to dive into the study of theory or whether your intuitive understanding of music will suffice or maybe a little of both. Just because you study SOME theory as it relates to the music you want to play, doesn't mean you have to go whole hog and learn everything there is to know. That's where a good teacher would help, should you decide to study: they will help you separate the stuff you really need to know vs. the stuff you would only need to know if you were playing Rachmaninov.

 

--Lee

[timrocker]

Duke;

To answer the thread question; Yes, I know theory. I have a modest college degree in music, from a community college.

 

One thing I found helpful is that when things seem vague or contradictory at first encounter, if you take them on faith and proceed, often it'll make more sense later. If you let your mind "kick it out" because it isn't completely clear, it's a possible stumbling block. Just remember that a certain term is a little loose and proceed anyway, you may find that the next chapter or two in the music theory book actually "settles" it into the framework. And, actually, being "theoretical", it's okay if it's never "set in stone". The old-timers say that there's always more to learn no matter how far you get. What you're achieving is, is "familiarity", not "ownership" of "facts". It's worth it.

 

I don't mean to imply that it's "better" to study theory, that's really dependent on what you want to do. Lee covered that. There's my two cents.

[Chad Thorne]

First, I agree with everything Lee Flier said, and certainly could never say it better.

 

Next: You said, "My ear kinda knows." If you have any musical talent at all, of course it does. Django Reinhardt didn' read music, but apparently his ear "kinda knew" as well!

 

I do know music theory, but at this point it serves for me as a way to codify and explain what is happening musically - after the fact, as it were. I would never do as some do and impose theoretical or mathematical formulae on my compositions. I've heard that done, and it's dreary...

 

But knowing theory will never hurt you! As far as its complexity: it dawned on me a few years ago that there are only 12 notes in our musical universe, and 4 chords. Basically, every chord we can play is one of the four, or an extension or alteration of one of the four. That realization liberated me, and I hope it helps you, too...

[henryrobinett]

Well I'm new here but I'm not a new musician. I did not participate in the debate a while back and I'm not intimidated to speak up now. I AM a jazz musician but I have done and still do a lot of rock, funk, Hip Hop, some countryish things and a LOT of original music projects. Theory is like any thing else. It's a tool, much like your instrument. Of course if you don't KNOW it really well it's use can be jagged. Just like learning the guitar. Young players might have rough technique and sound, well rough. Or they might have great technique and use bad judgement when using it. A new driver jags all over the road. Theory should be as intuitive as improvising. It takes a while to learn it that well.

 

Theory will never hurt your playing, unless you're a young student with it and trying to force principles that you might not understand as well as you should, perhaps. Theory helps me tremendously with producing, finding those harmony parts for singers or string parts, guitar parts, keyboard, bass. When I'm called in to do a session I can find/create parts that someone only using their ears, with little musical understanding in theory, may never find or may have to sit with it a long time. May be not. It depends on the musician.

 

But I always opt for KNOWING WHAT YOU'RE DOING. Sure if you're only going to play shuffle blues that rarely go beyond I-IV-V progressions and are dead set against ever doing anything else, sure you'd be wasting your time learning theory. But remember you'll also be stuck in a rut with not much hope to extricate yourself. I get calls from every style for sessions/gigs and it's fun. But I couldn't do that if I didn't know theory. It makes me fast on the draw. Someone might put a set of chord changes in front of me on stage or in the studio and say go! I've done this in settings that are not jazz and do a passable job. Sometimes even a really good job! I did this recently on an R&B session last month with some convoluted chromatic chord changes. Didn't blink. Jaws dropped because it was HARD and no one else could do it. It wasn't magic and I'm not a genius. But I know theory as well as I know how to play. They are one in the same.

 

The thing is you don't know what type of music you'll be playing in 10-20 years. Why not be prepared and know your subject well? Trying to create the solos at the end of Hotel California without a theoretical understanding of chord relationships/leading tones/avoid notes would hurt a lot of ears.

 

Again just my 2 cents. Only my opinions.

[strat0124]

I personally think its an attribute to know theory, I learned it as a band geek in school....trombone! However its a stretch to say some music is "simple".....maybe deceptively simple. We just hired a new bass player who is primarily a rock player....he just couldn't get the country and bluegrass stuff we do. Very frustrating. He even commented how much harder it was than he thought.

I don't think of music on a mathematical scale.....nor do I care. I just want to know the style and the key, I'll figure it out from there. I hear folks talking about Mixolydian this and that......I don't know how to do that, my thought processes are WAY simpler, yet does my play reflect those theories.....oh yeah, I'm sure. As Lee said....you pick up stuff along the way you take for granted. Its a great thing to be able to read...but its not the begin all or end all.

[BobSanders]

It's good to know. It's a tool. A way to measure and account for sounds and the incredible phenomenon music. The study of theory can last a lifetime and the knowledge gained from it is invaluable for teaching others. You don't need to know it to make and enjoy music just as you don't need to read notation to play but I think your short changing yourself if you pass these things by.

[Chip McDonald]

Music theory is labels for instances of sound, so one can formularize it.

 

HOW TO GET TO THE GROCERY STORE:

 

 

The Unfamiliar Territory Method:

 

 

Go down Fenwick until you get to Battle Row. Turn right and continue to the 4 way intersection. Turn left and go 50 yards, turn right onto the on ramp for Calhoun Expressway. Take the first exit on the right for 15th street. Immediately turn right into the parking lot.

 

 

The Alternate Route Method:

 

Continue through the 4 way intersection, and the next one. When Battle Row turns 90 degrees to the right, you will be immdiately behind Kroger.

 

 

The Haven't Ever Driven a Car Before Method:

 

Open the door and sit down. Fasten seat belt using hands.

Insert keys into the ignition. Depress clutch and twist keys; hold until engine starts. Place foot on the brake (etc).

 

The Really Obfuscated But Still Gets You There Method:

 

Take I-20 to North Augusta. Exit onto Martintown road and travel east approximately 10 miles. Turn right at Georgia Avenue; this merges into 13th street. Follow over the Savannah river; turn right onto Ellis. Then (etc.)

 

 

NOW, HOW DO *I* GET TO THE GROCERY STORE?

 

I get in my car and go there.

 

I never think about the street I'm on. I never think about the mechanical process, or why. I just go there.

 

 

HOWEVER,

 

Since I am well versed at driving a car, and since I'm also well aquainted with the area I can get there many different ways.

 

I can also change how I get there, even if I set out to get there another way.

 

 

That's how music theory works.

 

I drive down streets all the time that I don't know the name of. Doesn't mean I don't get to my destination. On the other hand, if I deliberately ignore making myself aware that there are other streets available that might work just as well - I'm limiting myself.

 

You already know music theory, if you enjoy music. The important part is - do you know how 4 lane roads work, what you do at a 4 awy stop, what happens if the light is turning yellow?

 

 

It's infinitely complex, but only if you don't know where you're going - and can't *imagine* how to get there.

 

If you can hear mentally what you want to do, it's just a matter of connecting that with your fingers. Awareness of scales and intervals helps your instinct, since you judge what you hear against the diatonic scale.

 

Hmm. This has given me a great idea about writing a theory book (no, not using driving metaphors...).

[Skip_dup1]

I personally love jazz, and I write originals, so I`ve been pushed into a certain amount of theory. I had a great guitar teacher for several years, I took some time at college to peruse copies of the Journal of Music Theory, and copied anything that was comprehensible, I currently make sure to dip into Slonimsky`s Thesaurus of Scales and Melodic Patterns when I have time, as well as paging through online lessons-and all I`ve become aware of is what a dummy I am. I`ve played with sight readers, and I can hang as long as they don`t drop a score in front of me for the next tune. People who have memorized the entire chord/scale matrix can run rings around me. So I`m not even sure what it means to `know` theory-it`s open ended. Learn as much as you`re motivated to and enjoy.

A quick note-I think it`s a bit of a misconception to think that there`s only seven notes-what I call the Homer Simpson scale (D`oh! re mi fa so la ti...). The A that we usually tune to-A440-is four octaves up from the lowest A. It`s possible to construct scales across several octaves, and it`s essential to extend the seven note scale for jazz. Slonimsky`s Thesaurus has a great intro section for that-whoa, gotta run...

[Skip_dup1]

whoops-make that three octaves (A110-A440). That`s what I get for being in a hurry...

[Fingerstyle_Jim]

I know a lot of theory, I am preparing to write a test on it soon, (grade 2 rudiments, Royal Conservatory of Music). I played in rock bands for several years without any theory, then I quit the band scene and hit the books, leaning toward classical and fingerstyle in general, now I'm hooked. It also helps me as a guitar teacher, I have 37 students a week, some of which want theory. I never wrote a song that I liked until I had a lot of theory under my belt, but thats just me, I know lots of other players who have written great stuff without any theory, so, there ya go!

 

Jim in Canada http://ampcast.com/sologuitar

[Hippie]

I think I've had a few quality teachers over the years and all my best teachers were big into the theory. I had a nun piano teacher where 50% was book work. I think it is important to know what you play, even if you just noodle it out. It helps to be able to 'tag' what it is you have played, so you can transpose it, apply a theoritical bit elsewhere, communicate it to other musicians, understand where it "left the law", take it one further, write it down for later reference, etc..

I find myself going into a theory rant when I'm giving my son (11) some guitar pointers. I'll say, "if this is this, then, this must be that". Which leads to a theory explanantion of what is 'by the book' and why he's doin' something 'wrong'. I put wrong in quotes, 'cuz nothing is 'wrong' if it sounds good, which really baffles the kid! But, I think it helps to know a little theory when you teach someone music; it helps them understand the 'formal' way to do it, and then they can safely go 'informal', if they choose. I equate it to a painter, he/she should study Rembrandt before he/she tries to be a Picasso, it can't hurt.

-Matt

[dansouth]

LiveMusic - If Music Player gives out an award for best threads, you're going to be a top contender.

 

First of all, please get out of your head the notion that music theory is complicated. It's not a conspiracy to the average musician feel bad, nor is it an attempt to make music more difficult than it is. It's an attempt to SIMPLY music by explaining what happens naturally when we listen to music.

 

Music theory is like tuning a guitar. How good would your music sound if you never tuned your guitar? But you learned a simple set of rules that you can apply to the guitar - comparing an open string to the fifth fret of the adjacent string, for instance - and by following this set of rules, you can make your guitar sound it's best predictably, time after time.

 

Learning music theory is less difficult than learning to play your instrument in the first place. Now, if you want to be really adept at jazz, you'll have to learn theory so thoroughly that you'll be able to apply it in real time. But for most people, a little theory goes a long way. It will help your playing, your soloing, your songwriting, everything.

 

Why don't you explain a little more about what you find confusing, and I'll see if I can help you clarify some of the ideas. Okay?

 

By the way, the guitar is an excellent instrument for learning theory, because you can see the relationships between notes very easily, even from key to key. In some ways, theory is easier to apply to a guitar or a bass than to a keyboard.

[gtrmac]

By the way, the guitar is an excellent instrument for learning theory, because you can see the relationships between notes very easily, even from key to key. In some ways, theory is easier to apply to a guitar or a bass than to a keyboard.

 

I disagree. A guitar is like six keyboards which have overlapping note ranges and you must play each keyboard with one finger from your left hand. I remember a story from a friend who was attending the Julliard School. They were in an arranging class and were asked to write a series of chords for a guitarist to play. Each student wrote the chords as he thought they would sound good, usually from their knowledge of the piano. The teacher then asked several of the students to put the notes on a diagram of the guitar fingerboard which he had drawn and none of the chords were playable, at least not by a human. Maybe Jimi Hendrix could have played them though. Guitar is a very difficult instrument to comprehend by it's nature. Keyboards are much simpler since they are one linear array of notes. I think it is better to study music on a keyboard if you want to understand harmony faster.

 

 

And yes I know some music theory pertaining to Jazz harmony and improvisation.

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by skip:

It`s possible to construct scales across several octaves, and it`s essential to extend the seven note scale for jazz. Slonimsky`s Thesaurus has a great intro section for that-whoa, gotta run...

 

You could make 12*12^12*octaves possible hybrid scales, but it's still going to come down to how you percieve it relative to the diatonic scale.

[dansouth]

Mac - your points are well-taken. But I think you misunderstood my post. I said that the guitar is easier in SOME ways. Specifically, it's easier to recognize intervals on a guitar. If you play a note on the D string and another note on the G string two frets closer to the bridge, that interval is always a perfect fifth, no matter where you fret those strings. Move down between A and D, and it's the same interval, etc. It's much more difficult to "see" these relationships on a piano because of the alternating black and white keys. That's not to say that the piano doesn't have some advantages. But if you're suggesting that the fretboard is some cryptic, inscrutable puzzle, I don't agree.

 

[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: dansouth@yahoo.com ]

[DC]

I just don't see how putting labels on concepts is helpful. In fact, in many ways it stunts creativity from my viewpoint. It seems like all the music majors I knew could quote all this odd arcane knowledge, but they lost their souls playing wise. I think it takes the 'jungle' out of your playing and writing.

 

I taught guitar for years and you have to teach people notes and such because let's face it; maybe one in ten students is the slightest bit musical. Unmusical people can only learn by rote because they'll never be able to 'hear' what's going on. They have to learn music like math.

 

On the other hand, musical genius types can express through theory because it's just another language. Bach et all wrote everything down because they didn't have multitrack recorders or sequencers.

 

It's just that in my life, I have absolutely no use for theory of music. If I can get sounds and songs in my head recorded, then that's great and all I'm really interested in. I think good writing or creativity is nearly all right brain anyway and putting labels on bits of musical this and that just confuses the whole process. Be pure, go back to the jungle!

[henryrobinett]

Well I have observed that those who don't understand something criticize it. I've seen musicians do it over music styles. That music sucks! Can you play it? And generally when they learn the style suddenly they have affinity for it. It's happened to me as well.

 

Dan South is right. Music is not complicated. DC, it's dangerous to generalize about things like this. The few people you knew who studied theory and lost their souls is only a few individuals. And as I said in a previous post theory, like any thing else, is a learning process. The young student might be very ridged and opinionated about what can work and what definitely won't. As he/she grows the process becomes less ridged and hopefully so does his/her playing. Some people, maybe most, never go through this. They just play like they always played, just maybe think a little more when they're NOT playing. It's important NOT TO THINK when playing a lot of times. Theory has nothing to do with being in the Jungle or not.

 

I do think Bach would have written his music even if he DID have a sequencer. He may have written for the mvies though if he were living today. There are some styles of music that simply cannot be created without some serious theory under your belt.

[Hippie]

DC,

I can understand what you mean by going back to the jungle.

The Beatles didn't know any theory, and look how great they were. But, once you know a bit of theory, it's becomes an automatic thing, like math. ie: You can look at a dollar and

and say I have one dollar, or the theory way -4 quarters, or 10 dimes, or 20 nickels, or 100 pennies. (more options on the same theme) But, once you know it, you think music in a theory way, you can't 'go back'. In the end I suppose it's all the same; still the most important thing is to have a good ear for it.

 

peace, Matt

[BandyLou]

a long time ago i got stuck in a rut playing guitar. everything i played seemed to be either pentatonic 'blues' scales, or major scales. then i read something on music theory - said that all them fancy scales you hear about (dorian, mixolydian, phrygian, etc.) could be played on the piano by starting a C-major, all-white note scale on a different note (play 8 white keys in a row starting at 'A,' you've got a minor scale, etc.)i thought, gee, if a song is in the key of E major, rather than playing the same old E major scale on guitar, couldn't I play that same major scale but start it on a different fret? - presto, instant escape from rut!

this is intended to be a really simple example of how a little knowledge of 'music theory' can go a long way.

and remember, it's 'THEORY'

[dansouth]

Originally posted by Hippie:

The Beatles didn't know any theory, and look how great they were.

 

I would content that the Beatles knew plenty of theory. They didn't learn it from a class or a book, but they learned it from picking apart the great R&B songs that inspired them. They understood dominant and subdominant chords, even if they didn't have names for them. They understood the circle of fifths as evidenced in songs like Yesterday and All My Lovin'.

 

As I said on another thread, theory is not separate from music, it's a part of music. If you can play or sing some music, you know something about theory already. You may know, for instance, that playing chord tones during a solo is going to give you a clean, safe, predictable sound, while playing notes outside of the chord adds additional color, which can be interesting or harsh depending on the notes you choose. That's a bit of theory that most musicians have learned through the process of learning songs. You weren't born knowing this stuff. You picked it up naturally, just like John and Paul did.

 

Learning music is like learning a language. A four-year-old who has never studied grammar in school still uses nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, articles, and prepositional phrases accurately. They have no idea that they're doing this or what these things are called, but the are applying LINGUISTIC THEORY, nonetheless. How did they learn all of this informaion? By listening to others and by trying to respond, and by being corrected when their attempts didn't work out.

 

Now, what would happen if you kept a child in a soundproof room where he couldn't hear anyone speaking, but instead you insisted that he learn about nouns and verbs before he started speaking? I'll bet that he won't be able to say much by age five. This is a horrible approach, yet it's the way that music is taught to a lot of kids. It's the way that math is taught in school. No wonder so many kids hate their music lessons and math classes! It's always better to learn by observing first, then devling into the theoretical aspects once you have an intuitive understanding of the concepts involved. Brilliant minds like Lennon and McCartney can learn the concepts intuitively and take them very far. The rest of us can use a little training. But remember that the Beatles' horn and string arrangements were often written by Sir George Martin, an educated musician.

 

Theory is not the enemy. It doesn't make anyone lose their soul - some people have no soul to begin with. - Theory is just another tool in your toolbox.

[Skip_dup1]

Originally posted by Chip McDonald:

 

You could make 12*12^12*octaves possible hybrid scales, but it's still going to come down to how you percieve it relative to the diatonic scale.

 

Well I partly agree with ya there, sir Chip. In terms of pitch, of course an A is an A. But what we percieve gets involved with the body of an instrument (the overtones it produces), the technique of a

player, the placement of a note within a melodic context. These add up to a BIG difference. Some of my favorite players (Eric Johnson, Allan Holdsworth) have incorporated those kind of distinctions into their musical language. Me, well...I`m aware of it, anyway.

[Emperator]

Played quite successfully by playing just by ear when I was younger. Now I understand theory much better. Let's me have an understanding how to play a lot of things.

Still, I'd have to say I think it's good to use your ear so you can learn to just let loose and find a good way to feel what you're playing. I get more passion in my playing when I approach it from that way. Understand it before or after with theory.

[henryrobinett]

Theory is commonly misunderstood. It's not an either/or thing. It's not "use theory OR use your ear". You use both to their fullest extent. Music is sound and time/rhythm consciously structured. Theory is the machanics if why and how it works.

 

Even if I try to forget it I can't. It's intertwined with my fingers. So I use my ear, totally and completely every time I play, and I think most, no, ALL improvisors, composers do. Those with a good grouding in theory have more data; more choices, more colors to chose from and more ways to get out of a pickle/rut.

[Arjay]

A lot of good perspectives here, and that's perhaps your best clue as to how to proceed. Theory is a wide field, and when initially viewed, can seem rather overwhelming. You might want to pick the aspect of Theory which intrigues you the most, or else pick a simple thing like the Circle of Fifths, and familiarize yourself with that . Then you will have a jumping-off point from which you can explore.

 

Theory is like an ocean of information, and after 35 years of playing and songwriting, I still have merely a very tiny puddle sloshing around in my head.

 

Bottom line is, learning anything is easier when you WANT to learn. Don't feel like you MUST learn, lest the process become a chore. Tedium makes one more tired, not more informed.

 

Rather than recommend a book or course, I would suggest trying to learn a new genre (or period of that genre). Learning about swing jazz phrasings really brightened up my songwriting during the past three years, not to mention my improvisational pallete.

 

I wish you luck, and a lot of enjoyment.

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by Hippie:

DC,

I can understand what you mean by going back to the jungle.

The Beatles didn't know any theory, and look how great they were.

 

Hmm. I'm not too sure the Beatles didn't know "any" theory. They obviously dissected a lot of songs and learned from them. They definitely know *music* - things that music theory puts labels on, like voice leading, deceptive cadences, oblique and contrary harmony, chord voicings, Picardy thirds, diatonic scale theory, not to mention song structure.

 

What I meant in my post is that you may already have music theory in you, if you think cogently in specific ways about music.

[timrocker]

Chip brings up a very good point there. The assumption that the Beatles didn't know any theory is probably unfounded. Their humor tended to be self-deprecating and they loved to sidestep praise with kind of a glib "whatever". When you learn their songs you sense a very deep understanding of all the things Chip just mentioned. It would be far closer to the truth to say that the Beatles were individually closer to "competent" on their instruments than many other, more cerebral contemporaries. And, oh, the FUN they generated!! The Beatles, I mean.

 

Have you ever noticed a tendency of some artists to downplay any nerdy type knowledge in order to hang onto their "street" credentials? That has a lot more to do with promotion and image than the underlying truth of a real musical life. The craftier artists, be they contemporary or "back in the day" learned very quickly not to "level" with interviewers on their most vulnerable subject-themselves.

 

When I'm jamming with people or getting a gig together, I sure appreciate others' knowing all the notes and chords of their instrument and how that relates to what we're planning to do. It really helps.

[Hippie]

Tim wrote: <>

 

Yes I agree. Somehow it's 'cool' not to be too smart; god forbid you come off as slighty intelligent, & risk losing your target audience of 13 year old girls, too funny. I respect Moby & Tool for openly admitting being computer techno-geeks.

 

Matt