How important is knowing music theory to being a good guitar player?

[a22]

I think the educated player will have the upper hand in the end when it comes to musicality, arrangement etc, but ultimately it all comes done to your own imagination and creativity. When you can tap into your own creative power and focus on the things that make you tick, you're on the right track, peace

[timscarey]

The question is... Will knowing music theory make you a better guitar player.

My experience is as follows.....

I studied jazz theory for 6 years on paper, in music school, then picked up the guitar. I've been playing for about 4 years and I am really good. I cant pick as fast or shred like some other guys in town, but I get lots of gigs.

My best friend has been playing for like 15 years and has really only taken like one year of theory. Most everything, he learned by ear and still does. He can kill me technically, and has tons of licks that I could never play, he is consdiered by all of the jazz guys in town to be miles ahead of me as a guitarist. He gigs far less than I do.

I teach 40 a week, he does like 15-20.

I compose and arrange for bands, teach at NGW and other camps, and am working on a book.

Dude playes be-bop and rosenwinkle like a master.

Knowledge is power.

[a22]

Originally Posted by timscarey

The question is... Will knowing music theory make you a better guitar player.

My experience is as follows.....

I studied jazz theory for 6 years on paper, in music school, then picked up the guitar. I've been playing for about 4 years and I am really good. I cant pick as fast or shred like some other guys in town, but I get lots of gigs.

My best friend has been playing for like 15 years and has really only taken like a year of theory and done no upper level theory courses. He can kill me technically, and has tons of licks that I could never play, he is consdiered by all of the jazz guys to be miles ahead of me. He gigs far less than I do.

I teach 40 a week, he does like 15-20.

I compose and arrange for bands, teach at NGW and other camps, and am working on a book.

Dude playes be-bop and rosenwinkle like a master.

Knowledge is power.

Knowing theory is never a bad thing unless you let it affect you in someway that is unhealthy. IE restricting your musicality or making you listen less. The key thing is to always listen

[Jazzaluk]

Originally Posted by timscarey

The question is... Will knowing music theory make you a better guitar player.....

I teach 40 a week, he does like 15-20.

I compose and arrange for bands, teach at NGW and other camps, and am working on a book.

Dude playes be-bop and rosenwinkle like a master.

Knowledge is power.

It seems to me that your friend is the better guitar player but you are a more successful musician / arranger. Is this correct? If so, it leads me to conclude that theory does indeed enhance musicianship but it is not a prerequisite to playing guitar well.

Theory is theory, playing is playing, academia is academia. Where the "power" lies depends on how you view music and your personal center of gravity. As far as playing guitar well, the source of power and knowledge boils down to what you do on the fretboard, which is more about technique and ears that dots on a page.

When something new emerges from a clever approach to the guitar, there will always be someone in the wings analyzing and writing it down. But the playing comes first and theory follows.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

At university, I needed elective credits, so I took some music courses: (classical) theory, analysis, composition... I'm no theory genius, but I found the courses easy -- certainly easier than the math courses I had to take. But the Music majors (except for the Composition majors) were sweating! And the Voice majors! I've never met such a hopeless group -- luckily for the girls, they were all pretty! What could I conclude? Maybe they were too busy in the practice rooms to learn any theory...

[timscarey]

Originally Posted by Jazzaluk

It seems to me that your friend is the better guitar player but you are a more successful musician / arranger. Is this correct? If so, it leads me to conclude that theory does indeed enhance musicianship but it is not a prerequisite to playing guitar well.

Theory is theory, playing is playing, academia is academia. Where the "power" lies depends on how you view music and your personal center of gravity. As far as playing guitar well, the source of power and knowledge boils down to what you do on the fretboard, which is more about technique and ears that dots on a page.

When something new emerges from a clever approach to the guitar, there will always be someone in the wings analyzing and writing it down. But the playing comes first and theory follows.

I agree with you 100%, and yeah, my friend is way better than me, and plays chords all the time that I never would have found using theory.

And you're right, very little of the work I get is actual guitar playing where I can be creative.

but in the few hours a week I get, I get a lot done very quickly. I support music theory.

[larry graves]

I think its all about how much talent you have [for jazz] the more you have the less need for someone to show you where to place your fingers
it's that simple. I'm talking about improvised music here! There's no reason
why you cant learn theory-and find out what your doing,and why your doing it! The forest becomes more interesting when you know the names
of the trees

[juan sebastian]

i really think that theory is important, and is doesen't matter that if it`s boring, jus 'coz when you know and stans the music, is really exciting nowing that you are playing and becomin ideas, in really expresive thing, or a phisic thing, like a piece of paper can be heared by lot of people when you play any kind of music

[davidblair]

Theory is absolutely important. It just makes learning easier and composing tunes quicker. Even though some icons of music claim to not understand theory they do in their own way, by association of chord shapes or function. These players are often limited to just one style of music though, their greatness achieved from intensity and conviction.

[derek]

Originally Posted by larry graves

I think its all about how much talent you have [for jazz] the more you have the less need for someone to show you where to place your fingers
it's that simple. I'm talking about improvised music here! There's no reason
why you cant learn theory-and find out what your doing,and why your doing it! The forest becomes more interesting when you know the names
of the trees

I guess I am on the opposite side of this fence. I think it has nothing or very little to do with talent, and everything to do with hard work and perseverance. I was in a 2 hour master class with Pat Metheny last week, and he strongly reiterated this over and over during the class. He also recommened the following books on the topic:

Amazon.com: Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else (9781591842248): Geoff Colvin: Books

Amazon.com: The Talent Code: Greatness Isn't Born. It's Grown. Here's How. (9780553806847): Daniel Coyle: Books

I do completely agree that theory knowledge makes things more interesting, as it opens up more possibilities.

[larry graves]

I have a strong feeling that this debate between natural instinct vs theory is not going away, so I think we may have to compromise - a bit of both..
You say the autodidact,albeit genius, is confined to playing just one type of music, in this case jazz, which is what this forum is all about, so why
should we be concerned about other styles.[It dont mean a thing if it aint
got that swing!] I agree that you can't be a composer or play in a orchestra without some theory. Anyway, what's the problem;music theory
-unless a person has never been to school- is no different to any other
learning process--and its fun..LG..

[Teobeck]

Observation: Usually these subjective academic type discussions, i.e. defining an intangible like theory as separate from application (theoretical physics v applied physics) wind up with the agreement that the theoretical enhances the application thereof. However, in music, many learning application (playing) alone subconciously learn some theory in that process, which becomes conscious over time through the process of refection and association. When learning a tune in C that requires learning Em, Dm, and G7 before resolving in some form of C again, the player has learned several usable chords within C, tones, resolution, and chord positions which may be closer and melodic. Picking out the notes within those chords to make the melody are remembered, and relate to the scales that those notes are within. After time the player discerns relationships between chords and notes, without any names for those relationships, which is theory of some sort. The ear also helps determines much of the technique, and a sense of time is usually inherent but is developed. Style is also developed. I would agree that if theory was learned simultaneously with playing it would result in less work and a more confident, knowledgeable player, but players who didn't have that luxury in the old days and learned by listening and trying, and consistent practice, at least had the rush and satisfaction of performing. I really think theory is learned through OTJ training, but without formal learning it is much more limited. Finally, theory won't give the player any feeling nor emotion when playing, nor any "style". I have heard it said that "art" is the world between the finite and spiritual, as an attempt to emulate the spiritual within the finite.

[derek]

Originally Posted by Teobeck

Observation: Usually these subjective academic type discussions, i.e. defining an intangible like theory as separate from application (theoretical physics v applied physics) wind up with the agreement that the theoretical enhances the application thereof. However, in music, many learning application (playing) alone subconciously learn some theory in that process, which becomes conscious over time through the process of refection and association. When learning a tune in C that requires learning Em, Dm, and G7 before resolving in some form of C again, the player has learned several usable chords within C, tones, resolution, and chord positions which may be closer and melodic. Picking out the notes within those chords to make the melody are remembered, and relate to the scales that those notes are within. After time the player discerns relationships between chords and notes, without any names for those relationships, which is theory of some sort. The ear also helps determines much of the technique, and a sense of time is usually inherent but is developed. Style is also developed. I would agree that if theory was learned simultaneously with playing it would result in less work and a more confident, knowledgeable player, but players who didn't have that luxury in the old days and learned by listening and trying, and consistent practice, at least had the rush and satisfaction of performing. I really think theory is learned through OTJ training, but without formal learning it is much more limited. Finally, theory won't give the player any feeling nor emotion when playing, nor any "style". I have heard it said that "art" is the world between the finite and spiritual, as an attempt to emulate the spiritual within the finite.

Interesting post. On a practical side, it is difficult to read this much information without any paragraph breaks. You essentially describe the difference between players a generation or two ago and players today.

Some of yesterday did have formal training, and knew theory. There is some debate as to how much guys like Wes knew, but based on some video performances where he is interacting with his band, at least some.

From some of the old guys I know, you got your chops up some on your own, got some local performance experience, and then apprenticed with older guys. George Benson apprenticed with Jack McDuff. Joey DeFrancesco has mentored more young guitarists than just about anyone.

Tough to find those opportunities today. Jazz has moved into the university, so theory abounds. Ensemble opportunities, but playing 200+ dates per year is tough to find today. I like the way you brought up how guys develop a style. It strikes me that most guys develop a style by combining the influence of two or more players and mix in whatever idiosyncratic technique flaws or quirks they might have.

For instance, Wes had the thumb, Martino has a very staccato, percussive attack, Metheny has a funky looking right hand with an odd way he holds his pick, Benson uses a more horizontal approach because he says he doesn't string skip well. These quirks contribute to making their style instantly recognizable.

[Teobeck]

Thanks for reply. I'd only add that when starting out learning blues back then, one learned to constantly hit the "root", learned bends, hammer ons, pull offs, interacting with the major and minor scales, etc. and to play with feeling, a la especially BB and Buddy Guy. The emphasis was on playing with feeling. Mike Bloomfield captured a lot of that style at that time.

Graduating to Jazz required a vastly expanded intellectual mindset, due to the vastly expanded form. However, a player never loses his base, as it is a part of him, so starting with Jimmy Smith, etc. was a step up, and then when ballads were learned the transition was almost complete. The transition from there to the "modern jazz" of that time was basically learning to improvise within whatever structure someone invented, whether melodic or not. I never wanted to go there, as I viewed it as "chamber jazz", a colloquialism that I used to characterize music understood only by the musicians, without melody or any identifiable harmonics. That is just a way to describe it for someone who wanted and learned to play because of the appeal of emotional expression rather than intellectual appeal only. (I realize there are varying degrees of emotional expression, and that modern jazz also has an emotional appeal, which I believe is related to rhythm and the joy of intellectual expression, for lack of a better way to explain it).

Some examples for me were the groups of Oscar Peterson, Blue Mitchell, and John Lewis, whose music inspired, and guitarists of course like Wes, Pat Martino, Byrd, Smith, and Benson. After Myles, Monk and Coltrane left ballads, I couldn't hear them anymore. When I hung out with Red Rodney, despite his knowledge and past explorations (Bird's trumpet man), he was older and loving ballads again.

All forms of music undergo a constant metamorphosis, and Jazz is no different. That doesn't make older styles of Jazz obsolete, they just have a narrower audience. I find today's music is in another "rudderless" transition period, as the majority haven't settled on anything they are in agreement on. Music is now compartmentalized into so many various forms with so many different audiences that Jazz audiences are more limited than ever, for all styles.

Being able to make a living at it is paramount for a musician, and I guess a combination of mostly teaching and some playing/recording is the only way left. I wish my sincere good luck to those well enough educated to do that.

On a final note, I would add that persons with "creative" mentalities have to "play the hand they are dealt". They are always seeking expression of some sort, and many are never fulfilled. However, any fulfillment at all for them is better than a life without expression.

[Jazzaluk]

To the OP

A guitar player's sound is a direct reflection of the way they conceptualize how the sounds associate with the fretboard. Since theory is just concepts and rules for organizing sound, whether it is on paper or directly on the fretboard, I would say that any guitarist who can play a tune from beginning to end has developed some workable understanding of music theory as it applies to the guitar. In fact, I would say without some kind of theoretical concept, no matter how rudimentary, the resulting sounds, would be unorganized and unintelligible. IMO, it is the many and varied concepts of the fretboard that have spawned the many styles in guitar and make it one of the most versitile and creative of instruments.

Unlike horns and piano, the fretboard has malleable logic and lends itself more to a craft than to traditional academic theory. It presents many possibilities and paths to play the same tune. I think the biggest problem with a pure academic approach to theory is that it tends subvert craftsmanship and undermine a personal exploration of the fretboard.

Now I will say that theory is not to be ignored but...., unless you want to become an academic and add to the mountain of theory books on the market, I would restrict yourself only to theoretical concepts that relate to your present understanding of the guitar and get busy crafting-out as many tunes as you can. Let the tunes teach you. Don't be afraid to develop and organize your own concepts on how the tune best lays on the fretboard. Let theoretical questions present themselves naturally and seek answer to specific questions. Don't go on a quest for the "unified theory of music"...its a waste of time....leave that to the academics.

Playing tunes is much more important than noodling on scales and modes. If you learn a hundred tunes, you will learn a ton of theory, technique and application. On the other hand, if you waste time on learning a ton of scales, modes, intervals and exotic names, you will be left with a pedantic view of music and an atrophied repertoire.

[WhollyCats]

How the gypsy jazz guitarists learn such a sophisticated style without formal training is beyond me. Dregni, Django's biographer, tries to explain it, but the rest of us not born into a culture of jazz will have to find the right balance of learning theory and learning how to play, and the relationship between them, on our own.

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by Jazzaluk

To the OP

A guitar player's sound is a direct reflection of the way they conceptualize how the sounds associate with the fretboard. Since theory is just concepts and rules for organizing sound, whether it is on paper or directly on the fretboard, I would say that any guitarist who can play a tune from beginning to end has developed some workable understanding of music theory as it applies to the guitar. In fact, I would say without some kind of theoretical concept, no matter how rudimentary, the resulting sounds, would be unorganized and unintelligible. IMO, it is the many and varied concepts of the fretboard that have spawned the many styles in guitar and make it one of the most versitile and creative of instruments.

Unlike horns and piano, the fretboard has malleable logic and lends itself more to a craft than to traditional academic theory. It presents many possibilities and paths to play the same tune. I think the biggest problem with a pure academic approach to theory is that it tends subvert craftsmanship and undermine a personal exploration of the fretboard.

Now I will say that theory is not to be ignored but...., unless you want to become an academic and add to the mountain of theory books on the market, I would restrict yourself only to theoretical concepts that relate to your present understanding of the guitar and get busy crafting-out as many tunes as you can. Let the tunes teach you. Don't be afraid to develop and organize your own concepts on how the tune best lays on the fretboard. Let theoretical questions present themselves naturally and seek answer to specific questions. Don't go on a quest for the "unified theory of music"...its a waste of time....leave that to the academics.

Playing tunes is much more important than noodling on scales and modes. If you learn a hundred tunes, you will learn a ton of theory, technique and application. On the other hand, if you waste time on learning a ton of scales, modes, intervals and exotic names, you will be left with a pedantic view of music and an atrophied repertoire.

I agree. I tend to look at all of it as APPLIED theory. Nothing too fancy. All the textbook stuff is great after the fact, which is how it came to be

Anybody that had to write out chorales in theory class remembers the rules about parralell octaves, 4ths,5ths, cross voicing etc. It's easy to forget that these rules came about after the chorales were written and had to do more with musical tastes at the time. Learning theory is like climbing stairs to get to the top of a building. The stairs are useful to get to the top, but once you get there,.... there you are.

[Jazzarian]

Originally Posted by JohnW400

I agree. I tend to look at all of it as APPLIED theory. Nothing too fancy. All the textbook stuff is great after the fact, which is how it came to be

Anybody that had to write out chorales in theory class remembers the rules about parralell octaves, 4ths,5ths, cross voicing etc. .

Indeed, imagine telling Wes Montgomery not to play octaves.

To be a jazz player these days, you better know the fundamentals of theory, Circle of 5ths, Chord Substitution, basic harmony, "chord construction" as in being able to write out the notes of every chord. Ya better at least know your diatonic modes, harmonic major/minor etc etc.

Unless, of course, you were born the next Wes Montgomery or George Benson.

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by Jazzarian

Indeed, imagine telling Wes Montgomery not to play octaves.

To be a jazz player these days, you better know the fundamentals of theory, Circle of 5ths, Chord Substitution, basic harmony, "chord construction" as in being able to write out the notes of every chord. Ya better at least know your diatonic modes, harmonic major/minor etc etc.

Unless, of course, you were born the next Wes Montgomery or George Benson.

Prior to Wes I don't think octaves were that prevelent in guitar vocabulary. They certainly weren't used in 4 part chorales and were actually considered bad voice leading.

You find though that most people that want to play jazz learn the basic things you mention above.

On the other side of the coin we still have the 'magic wand' group that expect to get by learning the absolute minimum. Kind of like the guy who asks the bodybuilder about what it takes to get six pack abs and then asks "how about if I just take these pills they sell on late night TV , will that work too?"

[Jazzarian]

Originally Posted by JohnW400

They certainly weren't used in 4 part chorales and were actually considered bad voice leading.

Yet on archtop guitar, octaves are a thing of beauty.

Originally Posted by JohnW400

You find though that most people that want to play jazz learn the basic things you mention above.

On the other side of the coin we still have the 'magic wand' group that expect to get by learning the absolute minimum. Kind of like the guy who asks the bodybuilder about what it takes to get six pack abs and then asks "how about if I just take these pills they sell on late night TV , will that work too?"

That kind of sums up our feel good quick society.

Not to belabor the point, perhaps that's why (c)rap-hop is so popular amoung youth. One need not practice an instrument 4 hours per day and learn music theory. I mean that's real work.

Even metal-heads practice for hours. I'll give them that much credit.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Originally Posted by JohnW400

Prior to Wes I don't think octaves were that prevelent in guitar vocabulary. They certainly weren't used in 4 part chorales and were actually considered bad voice leading.

So who jams to four part chorales? Classical music has plenty of parallel octaves. If instruments with different registers double a part, there's your octaves. Not to mention Bach's Toccata in D minor: YouTube - Bach, Toccata and Fugue in D minor, organ

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles

So who jams to four part chorales? Classical music has plenty of parallel octaves. If instruments with different registers double a part, there's your octaves. Not to mention Bach's Toccata in D minor: YouTube - Bach, Toccata and Fugue in D minor, organ

Ok, guys, read my post again and bear this in mind:

4 part chorales are soprano alto tenor and bass vocal music. I used this example to illustrate a point about what came first, the music or the theory. If you've ever taken a high school or college theory class they always cover 4 part chorales and voice leading rules. They have nothing to do with any other instrument and what have you.

In the Bach Toccata there are more than 4 voices. By virtue of 10 fingers and two feet there could be 12 voices. Different thing altogether.

[Jazzarian]

Originally Posted by JohnW400

Prior to Wes I don't think octaves were that prevelent in guitar vocabulary.

How about "latin" piano? Octaves being the hallmark of it?

Just goes to show one, take rigid ideas of music theory with a grain of salt if you're going to play jazz.

Sometimes that's a hard thing for classical guitarists to do.

[John Curran]

I always find these types of threads somewhat amusing.

Here's a couple of points.

1.) Whatever your level of playing proficiency, your a stronger player with theoretical knowledge than without it, no matter how deep your theoretical knowledge may be. Knowledge is power.

2.) In my 35+ years in 'the biz', I have yet to meet a working pro who has complained that theoretical knowledge got in their way or hindered their playing.

3.) These types of threads always seem to have the underlying theme that players like Hendrix or Joe Pass for example were musically illiterate. But even if that were true, that was then, this is now. Today's reality is that the internet has theoretical knowledge plastered all over it. You have two choices, either study it, or loose ground to competitors that do.

FWIW

john

[Jazzarian]

Originally Posted by John Curran

I always find these types of threads somewhat amusing.

Here's a couple of points.

1.) Whatever your level of playing proficiency, your a stronger player with theoretical knowledge than without it, no matter how deep your theoretical knowledge may be. Knowledge is power.

2.) In my 35+ years in 'the biz', I have yet to meet a working pro who has complained that theoretical knowledge got in their way or hindered their playing.

3.) These types of threads always seem to have the underlying theme that players like Hendrix or Joe Pass for example were musically illiterate. But even if that were true, that was then, this is now. Today's reality is that the internet has theoretical knowledge plastered all over it. You have two choices, either study it, or loose ground to competitors that do.

FWIW

john

Excellent John, I concur completely.


Still one wonders what might have been if a young Wes Montgomery had access to the internet.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Originally Posted by Jazzarian

Excellent John, I concur completely.

Still one wonders what might have been if a young Wes Montgomery had access to the internet.

Maybe he would have found a surgeon who claimed to be able to fix "hitchhiker's thumb"?

[Jazzarian]

Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles

Maybe he would have found a surgeon who claimed to be able to fix "hitchhiker's thumb"?

Not if Leyla, Frye, Bender, Al Gore's head and I went back in time and killed the surgeon.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Originally Posted by Jazzarian

Not if Leyla, Frye, Bender, Al Gore's head and I went back in time and killed the surgeon.

So are you Hermes, Amy or the Professor?

[Jazzarian]

Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles

So are you Hermes, Amy or the Professor?

Nibbler.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

That's some heavy sh*t you got there, man.