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

[Jackson C]

Without knowledge of basic music theory, you won't be able to fully express your musical ideas; nor will you be able to share those ideas with others. Of course, it isn't just professional musicians who need to know music theory. Even if you're just doing it for your own personal enjoyment, knowledge of theory will help you better appreciate the music you play or sing.

[\m/ Mad Metal Mage \m/]

Hi sorry I have not replied in a while. I just moved to Vancouver and it was nothing but smooth!

Anyway I'd like to clarify something. I did not mean to upset anyone by saying that there are "non-musicians" who play guitar or something to that effect. Myself, I'm an ignorant 24-year-old, OK? The way I say things might be of my limited observation.

I just feel frustrated musically. I hope I did not lead anyone to think that I'm an "unnatural" musician or that I'm "too theory-based." I have musicianship. I also have the need-to-know of how stuff works, not just with music, but with almost everything. I could be considered obsessive in some ways.

Why frustrated? It's because I don't get how people play music on an instrument yet can't explain to me or someone else what they're doing. To me, music is somewhat a language. It's like being able to speak and read. As there are people who can speak a language yet can't read it, there are also those who can play a musical instrument yet cannot read music. I'm not a "stiff" musician, if that makes any sense. I have feel of rhythm, pitch, tempo, stylistic alterations...whatever...i might not be able to play as good as you can but I can play. It's just that ppl who don't read or study the language of music are difficult for me to understand. It's like there's a language barrier. Example: my buddy gave me shit for playing the exact same notes on a different part of the fretboard. He got irritated with me and insisted I play exactly as he does or else. You guessed it--he doesn't read music or understand notes. I feel like I can't play with these ppl. Maybe I'm just not smart or something.

[Jazzaluk]

Originally Posted by \m/ Mad Metal Mage \m/

I just feel frustrated musically. I hope I did not lead anyone to think that I'm an "unnatural" musician or that I'm "too theory-based." I have musicianship. I also have the need-to-know of how stuff works, not just with music, but with almost everything. I could be considered obsessive in some ways.

Don't forget that the sounds came before the theory. Music is organizing sounds, not bolting together theoretical concepts. Whatever you play can be explained by some concept. If you play a simple melody with an outside note, some might call it a Maj scale with a passing tone others will call it the 6th mode of the Klingon Melodic scale.

The point is to learn to organize sound in your own way. Take advantage of all the theory you know and apply all the tricks and fretboard symmetries you can see. It is better to apply sounds that you understand through your own effort than it is seek the unified theory of music" Over time, your repertoire of concepts will increase and you will develop a more robust understanding of theory. But play what you know first and continue to explore and organize your personal sounds and approach. Don't worry about the validation of others.

For what its worth, and happy hunting.

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by Jazzaluk

. If you play a simple melody with an outside note, some might call it a Maj scale with a passing tone others will call it the 6th mode of the Klingon Melodic scale.

For what its worth, and happy hunting.

Could you write that one out for me ? I'm ahving a little trouble following some of their opras

[lindydanny]

I hear you, Mage. I get the same frustration sometimes too.

It burns me when I put all the effort of learning the why not just the how with music and some 18 y/o wipes the floor with me because he practiced Hendrix lines over and over for a month solid. Obviously, there is talent and dedication there, but I want more than just the flashy. I don't want to always be regurgitating the same lines somebody came up with 40 or 100 years ago. I want to learn why that sounds good so that I can figure out how to do it too (not that they always knew the why themselves).

Further, when I ask someone how they did something, that's a freakin' big complement. I see it in dancing a lot. Some kat does a move that everyone likes and so eventually someone asks how he/she did it. We don't always know (sometimes it's a mistake). Same with guitar. But when you ask someone who doesn't know the language behind the music what they did it, usually comes out as a "Like this" statement followed by a full speed repeat. That doesn't help or further anyone's education (of course, that may be the idea).

~DB

[Jazzaluk]

Originally Posted by JohnW400

Could you write that one out for me ? I'm ahving a little trouble following some of their opras

Sorry John.. The Klingon Melodic Minor can only be played on the "GLAK".

[JazzyJim]

This is a great thread. Some really well thought-out ideas on what is really quite a philosophical question.

What makes a good guitarist? Someone who plays things "correctly"? Someone who plays from the heart? Someone who can play really fast, or complicated things? For me, it's all of them, really, plus a little extra.
Knowing theory really makes going from A-B quicker. It also gives you more options, and a wider knowledge of the possibilities out there. Solely relying on it effectively gets you nowhere, as you'll end up going either directly A-B (a bit dull) or using all the possibilities (too much). Taste for me, is equally as important as theory, as I believe you should pick the right way to go from A-B. Not "correct" or "the best" way. The right way can change from moment to moment, song to song, mood to mood and it's ultimately down to you as a player. It's fine to know the options, and having the chops to play them, and having the gear to sound the way you want, but if you don't feel it, then it ain't right.

I probably have a romantic notion of guitar, and of music in general, but I come as a listener first, rather than a musician. "Giant Steps" doesn't "impress" me with it's theoretical grounding, I simply love it. I respect musicians who know their stuff - it shows dedication and hard work - I just care about the end result more. Could Coltrane have performed "Giant Steps" with a book telling him where to go? Probably. Would it be the same? Probably not. Does Neil Young need a theory lesson because "Cinnamon Girl" has a one note solo? No, because it's the right note for him. And for me as a listener.

[Nuel]

Hi! Guitarists,
Well, every musician must know the theory of music, even a mere singer. Because it gives a sense of knonwing what you're doing. For instance, I myself, I've been searching for a way to know all I can about music especially the (guitar) which eventually, through a google search, I came across this site. Then my interest took to the level of learning to reaad music because almost all the messages, licks, tips, etc that've been sent to my mail are being written in music symbols and signs and I'm finding it somewhat had to comprehend that's why I decided to search for a way I can learn to read music. So for me I think it should be a compulsory issue or assignment every musician should himself or herself !!!
Alrigth guys, we'll meet again next time. BYE !
Sincerely,
Nuel.

[cosmic gumbo]

Theory is not law. Theory is unproven. Knowing a theory doesn't make it true. It's just a bunch of ideas that help some people think they understand something that can't be understood.

[timscarey]

Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo

Theory is not law. Theory is unproven. Knowing a theory doesn't make it true. It's just a bunch of ideas that help some people think they understand something that can't be understood.

False.

[cosmic gumbo]

Why is it called theory of music and not the law of music? Because every rule of music theory can be broken and you can STILL produce music.

[franco6719]

Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo

Why is it called theory of music and not the law of music? Because every rule of music theory can be broken and you can STILL produce music.

It is called Einstein's THEORY of relativity, but that does not mean there are no facts and evidence behind it. It is called the theory of evolution, but....well, I just hope you are not a dipshit creationist! So much for the first part.

The second part is more complicated. I doubt that EVERY rule of music theory is ever violated, except by people like John Cage, etc.. And those people almost always violate the laws CONSCIOSLY, so they have to know them very well indeed.

[timscarey]

Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo

every rule of music theory can be broken and you can STILL produce music.

spoken like someone who has not deeply studied music. tune your guitar so none of the strings are in good intervals, play something completley out of time, and feel free to call it music. no one else will.

[mr. beaumont]

the fun of breaking the rules is knowing 'em in the first place!

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo

Why is it called theory of music and not the law of music? Because every rule of music theory can be broken and you can STILL produce music.

I think that you will find that there are theory rules that govern even those instances when the rules get broken.

Theory is what developed after the fact. It's what came about after musicians heard a piece of music and reverse engineered it.

Can you make music and not know theory? Sure. But you will develop your own 'theories" of why you can do certain things.

For guitar players it might be some sort of mathmatical thing like "drop the E minor pentatonic down to the 9th fret and you can play the riff's to the Allman Brothers "Blue Skies" , dude".

Oops, sorry. Knowing it's a pentatonic scale implies that theres theory involved.

[cosmic gumbo]

Math, physics, evolution, wha? You guys are scaring me. Miles said to a guitarist, "play like you don't know how to play a guitar". Can someone explain Ornette's Harmolodic theory to me? Gravity is law, not theory, drop your guitar and you'll know what I mean. All different music has different theories- just ideas, not laws.

[franco6719]

Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo

Math, physics, evolution, wha? You guys are scaring me. Miles said to a guitarist, "play like you don't know how to play a guitar". Can someone explain Ornette's Harmolodic theory to me? Gravity is law, not theory, drop your guitar and you'll know what I mean. All different music has different theories- just ideas, not laws.

[a22]

Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo

Math, physics, evolution, wha? You guys are scaring me. Miles said to a guitarist, "play like you don't know how to play a guitar". Can someone explain Ornette's Harmolodic theory to me? Gravity is law, not theory, drop your guitar and you'll know what I mean. All different music has different theories- just ideas, not laws.

Actually the theory of gravity is a scientific theory, altough we might call it a law in practice. The theory of music is there like any other theory because of observation and documentation. We know how different wavelengths interact with each other and how to read pieces written centuries ago because of music theory. Also you have to know the rules to deliberately break them, Miles knew the rules, so did Coleman.

[franco6719]

don't feed the trolls.

[Decapriology1]

Originally Posted by \m/ Mad Metal Mage \m/

Hi!

I ask this question a lot because...well, there are people who play guitar and I think of them as "non-musicians" (I am NOT an elitist--I'm someone who has studied music for MANY years...worked really hard at it). They seem to play better than me but don't know what note they are playing...or what time signature! And the musicality...well, it is impressive to the lay person but...

Anyway, I just want to know--does my studying of music theory, in both classical and jazz musics, really make a difference to my guitar playing? Or to anyone's for that matter? Please, if this topic is old, just point me to the proper thread and I shall delete this if that is the case. And why are there people who brag about being "self-taught" and think that studying music formally is going to "kill their creativity"--and...

Just want to see some views of those with experience--thank you!

P.S. I must say, one of my profs said, "Having a jazz degree is not going to get you a gig in someone's cover band."

Einstein once said "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Yet, what would he have done without the knowledge? There is a *third factor* that many talkers over coffee and cake seem to miss, and this is the combination of natural talent and empirical knowledge *plus* knowledge of theory. There is a brand creativity and artistry that can come from how theory is assimilated and this is a dimension that will not be tapped by ignoring theory. It is a misconception to say that many of the old time greats knew nothing of theory.
Theory is in everything ( For example, I knew Joe Pass...Joe had a good handle on theory) they played and in *how* they formulated thoughts, lines, chord movements, and approaches to tunes, and techniques. They may have not told anyone or cared to, or systematized and codified according to the pedagogical norms of the times (which until relatively recently, was uncharted territories), but they all had some sort of personal system. Is this not theory?

In my view, the biggest mistake to compare oneself with another player, known or unknown. Sure you can get your point across at a business meeting with a limited vocabulary, but this does not infer automatic presumption that a large and colorful vocabulary is not needed. Communication is special just as each individual is special. It is an element that appears in both knowledge and experience. They are quite a triumvirate when harnessed. In the end, it is all about balance and not what some one else studied or had not studied. It is about YOU.

-TD

[Jazzaluk]

Originally Posted by Decapriology1

Einstein once said "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Yet, what would he have done without the knowledge? There is a *third factor* that many talkers over coffee and cake seem to miss, and this is the combination of natural talent and empirical knowledge *plus* knowledge of theory. There is a brand creativity and artistry that can come from how theory is assimilated and this is a dimension that will not be tapped by ignoring theory. It is a misconception to say that many of the old time greats knew nothing of theory.
Theory is in everything ( For example, I knew Joe Pass...Joe had a good handle on theory) they played and in *how* they formulated thoughts, lines, chord movements, and approaches to tunes, and techniques. They may have not told anyone or cared to, or systematized and codified according to the pedagogical norms of the times (which until relatively recently, was uncharted territories), but they all had some sort of personal system. Is this not theory?

In my view, the biggest mistake to compare oneself with another player, known or unknown. Sure you can get your point across at a business meeting with a limited vocabulary, but this does not infer automatic presumption that a large and colorful vocabulary is not needed. Communication is special just as each individual is special. It is an element that appears in both knowledge and experience. They are quite a triumvirate when harnessed. In the end, it is all about balance and not what some one else studied or had not studied. It is about YOU.

-TD

I understrand your perspective; however, music is not nuclear physics, it is simply the practice of organizing sound in a way that conveys some emotional content. I think much of today's jazz suffers from the recent "codification" of Jazz theory, especially in the jazz guitar world.. Sure you need theory to play well, but allot of today's players sound like they are merely presenting an audio display of their theoretical concepts without any regard for the audiance or emotional content. Most of those that try to appreciate such displays are musicians themselves. The real audiance is considered collateral damage or people who just don't get the artform. In the end, Einstien was right, Imagination trumps knowledge.

[Bill C]

Originally Posted by Jazzaluk

I understrand your perspective; however, music is not nuclear physics, it is simply the practice of organizing sound in a way that conveys some emotional content. I think much of today's jazz suffers from the recent "codification" of Jazz theory, especially in the jazz guitar world.. Sure you need theory to play well, but allot of today's players sound like they are merely presenting an audio display of their theoretical concepts without any regard for the audiance or emotional content. Most of those that try to appreciate such displays are musicians themselves. The real audiance is considered collateral damage or people who just don't get the artform. In the end, Einstien was right, Imagination trumps knowledge.

I don't think music is only about evoking an emotional response. After all, when we use spoken language it is not only to evoke emotions in the listener.

If artists waited for the audience to catch up would we ever have had the great works of Coltrane, Monk, Stravinsky etc etc ...?

[Decapriology1]

Originally Posted by Jazzaluk

I understrand your perspective; however, music is not nuclear physics, it is simply the practice of organizing sound in a way that conveys some emotional content. I think much of today's jazz suffers from the recent "codification" of Jazz theory, especially in the jazz guitar world.. Sure you need theory to play well, but allot of today's players sound like they are merely presenting an audio display of their theoretical concepts without any regard for the audiance or emotional content. Most of those that try to appreciate such displays are musicians themselves. The real audiance is considered collateral damage or people who just don't get the artform. In the end, Einstien was right, Imagination trumps knowledge.

You and I are speaking about different subjects. What a musician does personally with his/her knowledge is another story. I speak of balance. Eienstein still never neglected or negated knowledge.

-TD

[Jazzaluk]

Originally Posted by Bill C

I don't think music is only about evoking an emotional response. After all, when we use spoken language it is not only to evoke emotions in the listener.

If artists waited for the audience to catch up would we ever have had the great works of Coltrane, Monk, Stravinsky etc etc ...?

Music is not about speaking to emotions?? Then what else is it supposed to do?

[Bill C]

Originally Posted by Jazzaluk

Music is not about speaking to emotions?? Then what else is it supposed to do?

I said "I don't think music is ONLY about evoking an emotional response". Clearly emotional response is a big part, but in jazz especially it is also about interaction - conversation if you will. There is also a sense in which some music seems to me to have a focus on the sincere exploration of musical possibilities - maybe something like "Giant Steps"?

[Jazzaluk]

Originally Posted by Decapriology1

You and I are speaking about different subjects. What a musician does personally with his/her knowledge is another story. I speak of balance. Eienstein still never neglected or negated knowledge.

-TD

We probably are not speaking of the same subject. I agree that every guitarist develops their own theoretical constructs to play the instruments which IMO is a great thing. True knowledge stems from discovery. This was the apprentice approach of old. Modern pedological approaches seem to place theory ahead of discovery. Rote learning and academia. With this emphasis and stimuli the results are predicatable.

I suppose balance is the key... but balance with what?

[Jazzaluk]

Originally Posted by Bill C

I said "I don't think music is ONLY about evoking an emotional response". Clearly emotional response is a big part, but in jazz especially it is also about interaction - conversation if you will. There is also a sense in which some music seems to me to have a focus on the sincere exploration of musical possibilities - maybe something like "Giant Steps"?

Good answer. Interaction is a fundamental aspect of jazz and a great source of inspiration and discovery. Also, I agree that exploring possibilities is indeed a necessary mechanism to develop new musical constructs. But eventually the consepts need to be applied in a way that actually conveys something emotional. Or maybe we should be satisfied that the simple mathematical symetry and technical challenge of Giant Steps is enough?

[cosmic gumbo]

If you don't trust your ear, don't become a musician.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo

If you don't trust your ear, don't become a musician.

Tell that to Beethoven.

[franco6719]

Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles

Tell that to Beethoven.

Actually, we have only just arrived at the heart of the matter. What is your "ear" anyway? Certainly it is not the listening apparatus, including the cochlear nerves and all of that. To put the thing correctly then, "if you do not trust certain parts of your brain....." But how can someone not trust certain parts of their brain. Your brain is yourself. If you don't trust yourself, you you would seem to have psychological/psychiatric problems. You might need to LEARN to trust your "ear", no?