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

[\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."

[fep]

It depends...

The more talented and advanced you are at guitar and the better your ear is the less theory is going to help you. However, I think it would help anyone.

I was told that Joe Pass learned to play by just learning a ton of tunes by ear. The Joe Pass Guitar Styles instruction book was created by Joe recording a bunch of examples into a tape recorder and then Bill Thrasher transcribed what he played and explained the theory behind it. (I took lessons from Bill Thrasher, so I got this info straight from the horses mouth.)

For the other 99% of guitar players, I think theory is a short cut to increasing our vocabulary, which should increase our creativity and which should make it a shorter road to becoming more advanced.

[mr. beaumont]

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

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."

well, your prof is right, as far as that goes.

i think if you want to play jazz, you gotta know your shit. there's no shortcuts. it's not being elitist, or trying to make jazz a superior kind of music, but i just don't think you can play it well without knowing some stuff.

fep, not disagreeing with what you said, but remember, joe pass is also notorious for downplaying his knowledge. but the man knew his shit. bill thrasher is a great teacher, and good at explaining things--joe was not, if you want my opinion, that's why joe needed bill to make the book happen. but joe knew what he was doing. JMHO, YMMV.

[gravitas]

Knowledge is power

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by gravitas

Knowledge is power

+1

[franco6719]

I do think it helps. But, ironically, it can also be a hindrance if it gets in the way of just playing what sounds right and what works from experience.

[franco6719]

For jazz anyway. For things like blues, rock and others, I think it might just be completely beside the point.

[reventlov]

I think that for every great player who doesn't know much theory, there are a hundred who do. I just don't accept that a thorough knowledge of theory can ever be a hindrance to creativity - the key word being 'thorough'. The real key to letting a study of the theory of music aid your playing is to know it so well that you are not consciously thinking about it while you're actually playing - I'm talking specifically about improvisation here btw, playing 'set pieces' is a whole different thing.

If a player is thinking 'right here's a G7...is it myxolydian? can I use a super-locrian over it? what's the next chord..does it have a C as a root note or something else? mebbe I'll try a lydian dominant...or should I think more about arpeggios...or mebbe a more conceptual approach, less scalic..oh damn, the band's four bars ahead of me, I've missed that G7..now...what's this chord coming up here?...' then maybe some more internalisation of theoretical knowledge is called for!

This is of course a bit of a fabricated example, but the point is this - to paraphrase Charlie Parker - "You gotta learn all that stuff then forget it". I think in cases where musicians claim to have had their creativity stifled by a knowledge of musical theory, they just haven't learned it sufficiently well to use it properly - the fault is their own, and blaming it on the study of theory is a cop-out.

[franco6719]

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."

Oh yeah, I had a prof at Berklee who used to say that having a jazz degree was like "shoveling shit against the tides". Jazz was done with his generation anyway. "You gotta' play that shit that's on the radio nowadays."

(A little off-topic. Sorry)

[franco6719]

You have to think of that infamous Baaaaaaston accent now. "Ya' shovelin' shit 'gainst the tooooids." That was my ear-training prof. Completely useless, except as an ex-pianist, comic and story-teller!!

[Joe Dalton]

There are probably a dozen or so topics about this. Also a conservatory degree will in fact help a great deal with making a living.

[gravitas]

Yeah, a degree will make it a lot easier to teach professionally. Non musicians place a higher value on a university degree than musicians themselves. They're more likely to take lessons from a university graduate who's terrible than a seasoned performer

[derek]

The original question was, "How important is knowing music theory to being a good guitar player?" The answer imo, not important at all. The world is full of good guitar players who couldn't grab their ass with both hands theory wise.

However, you asked this question on a jazz guitar site. I do not believe you can be a competent jazz guitar player without knowing some music theory. Therefore, I believe you transcend being "just a guitar player" and are really a musician, guitar just happens to be the instrument you play.

[franco6719]

Originally Posted by derek

The original question was, "How important is knowing music theory to being a good guitar player?" The answer imo, not important at all. The world is full of good guitar players who couldn't grab their ass with both hands theory wise.

However, you asked this question on a jazz guitar site. I do not believe you can be a competent jazz guitar player without knowing some music theory. Therefore, I believe you transcent being "just a guitar player" and are really a musician, guitar just happens to be the instrument you play.

That's very close to what I meant earlier. Knowing melodic minor modes (or whatever) inside and out would probably would have been a hindrance to someone like Jimi Hendrix. If not actually a hindrance, beside the point.

[Joe Dalton]

Originally Posted by gravitas

Yeah, a degree will make it a lot easier to teach professionally. Non musicians place a higher value on a university degree than musicians themselves. They're more likely to take lessons from a university graduate who's terrible than a seasoned performer

I would too. Conservatory grads also learn to teach and they always have a great amount of knowledge.
Story from my teach, "When I went to the conservatory and start playing with my first teacher there I knew I was going to be a better guitar player than he was, but he could still teach me a lot."
Now obviously his teacher wasn't a bad player, he was teaching at a conservatory afterall. But he wasn't amazing either, but still a much better teacher than most of the greats.

Edit: Also, Eef Albers, one of the most talented fusion guitarists in the world is a horrible teacher. Everyone asks to study under him, but the one that will teach them the most is the other guy. (They both teach at the conservatory of Utrecht)

[Flat5]

None of the Gypsy Jazz players, including Django, know theory etc. and are AWESOME players. Bireli Lagrene a monster in Gypsy Jazz, Straight-ahead Jazz, Fusion was being interviewed for a guitar magazine. The interviewer asked him what he played over a Dominant Chord. Bireli asked: "What's a dominant chord"? The interviewer showed him an example and he said "Oh. that". I have also read that Charlie Christian, Wes Montgomery, George Benson, among others, were not trained in music theory etc. but they obviously picked up what was important to creating the music they "heard". I think that the "brain-ear-hand" coordination is more important than the "name" you put on the music.

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by Flat5

None of the Gypsy Jazz players, including Django, know theory etc. and are AWESOME players. Bireli Lagrene a monster in Gypsy Jazz, Straight-ahead Jazz, Fusion was being interviewed for a guitar magazine. The interviewer asked him what he played over a Dominant Chord. Bireli asked: "What's a dominant chord"? The interviewer showed him an example and he said "Oh. that". I have also read that Charlie Christian, Wes Montgomery, George Benson, among others, were not trained in music theory etc. but they obviously picked up what was important to creating the music they "heard". I think that the "brain-ear-hand" coordination is more important than the "name" you put on the music.

So I guess the lesson to be learned from this is that if your a monster player with natural talent and a great ear then theory is not that important. But to those who are not natural talents with great ears?

[stemajor7]

Hi Mage,

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...

Your choice of words has a hint of scoffing at the "non musician"...maybe its just me....

The lay person you speak of has the ears that you might want to aim for, so i would say the "non musicians" you know are doing a good job. Who cares if they dont know what notes they are playing. Noone really wants to hear someone projecting their "theory" in their performance at the end of the day.

Sorry if its not what you wanted to hear.

[Flat5]

I think the lesson to be learned is that there are several different roads to the same destination. To be a good (or great) guitar player you need to like (or love) the instrument and put in time on the instrument. In the case of the Gypsy players, most learn by repetition from their fathers, uncles, brothers, neighbors or friends. Those who become monsters do so by practice, practice practice...I'm not saying that understanding theory is not important or anything only that some players become good by learning/knowing theory some become good not knowing anything about theory and most through a combination of both.

[stemajor7]

Hi Mage,

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...

Your choice of words has a hint of scoffing at the "non musician"...maybe its just me....

The lay person you speak of has the ears that you might want to aim for, so i would say the "non musicians" you know are doing a good job. Who cares if they dont know what notes they are playing. Noone really wants to hear someone projecting their "theory" in their performance at the end of the day.

Sorry if its not what you wanted to hear.

[JohnW400]

Originally Posted by Flat5

I think the lesson to be learned is that there are several different roads to the same destination. To be a good (or great) guitar player you need to like (or love) the instrument and put in time on the instrument. In the case of the Gypsy players, most learn by repetition from their fathers, uncles, brothers, neighbors or friends. Those who become monsters do so by practice, practice practice...I'm not saying that understanding theory is not important or anything only that some players become good by learning/knowing theory some become good not knowing anything about theory and most through a combination of both.

I agree. Time on the instrument. I think this post would be better served if we looked at it as theory and applied theory.

Theory is all that neat stuff that the teach you like augmented 6th chords and 4 part chorales all the way up to how to construcrt 12-tone rows. Looks nice on paper and makes for a good argument on all the forums about what do you call this or that.

Applied theory is , to me, is something else. It's having to know what a I-IV-V is in any key. It's having to know what to add to make a chord a 9th, or a minor or what have you. It's knowing something about scale construction. That's the kind of stuff that all serious guitar players should know. I'm pretty sure that most of the players you mention in your post know/knew this type of theory.

The other type, it's great for analysis, after the fact.

[Jazzaluk]

I met this singer once who was quite a good piano player. She learned by ear to accompany herself. She was playing a gig and during the break, another piano player pointed out to her that she was using some interesting voicings and asked her about the chord progression. She said with humble enthusiasm, "I'm going from this chord to this chord and filling in the middle with some notes to connect the two". She didn't even know what the chord names were.

I learned allot from her...

There is nothing wrong with theory, but it is not a prerequisite to playing well. I think theory can become counter-productive when it is placed ahead of making music. I know several guitarists who seem afraid to play something if they think it cannot be supported by some theoretical concept.

Interestingly, I went to a workshop held by Roddy Ellias and, after answering several theory questions, he said with a tone of frustration... "play anything you like and I will find a way to explain it theoretically if you really need that."

[gravitas]

Originally Posted by Jazzaluk

I met this singer once who was quite a good piano player. She learned by ear to accompany herself. She was playing a gig and during the break, another piano player pointed out to her that she was using some interesting voicings and asked her about the chord progression. She said with humble enthusiasm, "I'm going from this chord to this chord and filling in the middle with some notes to connect the two". She didn't even know what the chord names were.

I learned allot from her...

There is nothing wrong with theory, but it is not a prerequisite to playing well. I think theory can become counter-productive when it is placed ahead of making music. I know several guitarists who seem afraid to play something if they think it cannot be supported by some theoretical concept.

Interestingly, I went to a workshop held by Roddy Ellias and, after answering several theory questions, he said with a tone of frustration... "play anything you like and I will find a way to explain it theoretically if you really need that."

...That Roddy clinic wasn't with Tim Bedner on 7-string guitar at Alcorn Studios in Ottawa, was it?

[JohnW400]

"[/quote] There is nothing wrong with theory, but it is not a prerequisite to playing well. I think theory can become counter-productive when it is placed ahead of making music. I know several guitarists who seem afraid to play something if they think it cannot be supported by some theoretical concept.

Interestingly, I went to a workshop held by Roddy Ellias and, after answering several theory questions, he said with a tone of frustration... "play anything you like and I will find a way to explain it theoretically if you really need that."[/quote]



The point I'd like to make is this. alot of people look for shortcuts or reasons not to do something, like learn theory. I think it's more counter productive to give them reasons why they shoudn't rather than resons why they should.

I'm sure there are a lot of functioning musicians out there tht get by (lke this keyboardist) But how does she learn a new tune without having heard it before?
Without knowing chord names or progression or what have byou , you couldn't even spoon feed her the changes while yur playing the tune.

And in closing I agree 100% about explaining the theory after the fact. It's good for analysis.

[Jazzaluk]

Originally Posted by gravitas

...That Roddy clinic wasn't with Tim Bedner on 7-string guitar at Alcorn Studios in Ottawa, was it?

Yes it was. I know you study with Tim at Carlton. I'm sure we've have seen each other at different venues. When I saw all Tim's students there I was tempted to say "hey Gravitas!!" and see who turned their head.

[gravitas]

Haha, man that's crazy! There were only about 12 people in the room other than Tim and Roddy, too. PM me your name, if you have any gigs I'll come out and see you

I remember the quote you mentioned, as well. He's got a certain world-weariness about theory, it seemed like. Once you can execute whatever you want to with impunity, it probably seems a lot less significant

[Jazzaluk]

Originally Posted by JohnW400

The point I'd like to make is this. alot of people look for shortcuts or reasons not to do something, like learn theory. I think it's more counter productive to give them reasons why they shoudn't rather than resons why they should.

I'm sure there are a lot of functioning musicians out there tht get by (lke this keyboardist) But how does she learn a new tune without having heard it before?
Without knowing chord names or progression or what have byou , you couldn't even spoon feed her the changes while yur playing the tune.

And in closing I agree 100% about explaining the theory after the fact. It's good for analysis.

I confess to being a bit of a theory monger myself but at times I see it as a vice rather than virtue. I enjoy trying to create my own "theorems", where I try to apply a theoretical principle directly to the geometry and symmetry of the guitar neck, and experiment to see how robust the theorem can be.

To try and clarify a bit - the CAGED system is an example of a theorem where the theoretical concept of a major scale is applied to the neck. The theoretical principle is replaced by the theorem which says "these shapes = this sound". Patterns, shapes and symmetry replace notes on a staff. There are many such theorems: Pat Martino's approach, Bucky Pizzarellis approach, Jimmy Bruno etc, etc. In all cases, the "theorems" bypass the mental gymnastics of scales, modes etc and focus the mind on the fingerboard itself. This direct approach can generate some amazing results with only a rudimentary understanding of musical theory.

So, to learn a instrument like the guitar, it seems to me that it is most definitely possible to learn directly from fingerboard approaches and listening. It can lead to some very personal sounds that may in fact be difficult to explain through traditional theory and notation.

However, (this is where I backtrack) to go beyond being just a guitarist towards becoming a "real" musician, composer, arranger etc...I agree that theory is indispensable. But to some, like myself, just playing guitar is sufficient.

OK my wine glass is empty. Must stop

[Luan]

On a jazz forum you will receive the same answer from everybody: theory is useful.

[Teobeck]

Reading this whole thread was a wonderful intellectual trip because while I have a graduate school education after an undergrad major in Philosophy (Emory), I've been playing 55 years by ear, without being able to read. That came from first watching/listening to all the blues and R&B players in the late 50's and 60's in Atlanta, and then being exposed to cats like Red Rodney (trumpet) in the 70's who had traveled with Bird, who taught me some theory. My approach was always to see the fretboard mathematically, so that I could construct whatever I learned in one key elsewhere. Of course I had learned things like I-IV-V, major scales minor pentatonic scales and how they can interact, all chord variations (including 6ths, 7ths with 7th added tones, 9ths and 13ths with minor variations thereof), but otherwise the notes had to sound good to me, and my technique had to flow smoothly. Strangely, I could "hear" everyone from Monk to Coltrane, but the so called "outside" never was appealing to me to play, only for listening to to the new ideas. I think some theory is necessary to grow, but it's only what you can apply as JohnW400 says. I bought lots of fake books to find the names/positions of chords which I could already hear, and after awhile I could see the relationships of chords in progressions (theory), and after enough practice, it was almost as if I had attended school, as I then knew which notes would work even if I didn't know their names. I could hear most new tunes so I could pick them out, and if stumped on a chord I would get the root and then make a chord. Anyway, I respect all of your opinions, your obvious musical educations and experience, and this has been a fun read. It was like listening to Red. Very far out.

[derek]

Originally Posted by Flat5

None of the Gypsy Jazz players, including Django, know theory etc. and are AWESOME players. Bireli Lagrene a monster in Gypsy Jazz, Straight-ahead Jazz, Fusion was being interviewed for a guitar magazine. The interviewer asked him what he played over a Dominant Chord. Bireli asked: "What's a dominant chord"? The interviewer showed him an example and he said "Oh. that". I have also read that Charlie Christian, Wes Montgomery, George Benson, among others, were not trained in music theory etc. but they obviously picked up what was important to creating the music they "heard". I think that the "brain-ear-hand" coordination is more important than the "name" you put on the music.

This sort of thing is almost always overstated or exaggerated, typically by players who resist learning theory (not saying you are one). The Gypsy guys I certainly buy that, as they begin as children, and sometimes have less formal education at all, compared to others. I don't buy the Bireli quote, as he has played with all kinds of people in all kinds of settings.

He can play bop and swing very convincingly along with GJ. If he did say that, he was exaggerating I believe. The Wes thing is overstated also. He did have formal training on tenor guitar before he took up 6 strings, and you can hear him talking extended chords and changes to his band on a live vid of his. We do not know to what extent his theory knowledge contained, but it was some.

Benson has a series of instructional vids out thru workshoplive.com, facilitated by Jody Fisher. Jody is a university level educator, so he does help George articulate what he is doing, but it is very clear from what I have seen on those vids that he knows what he is doing theory wise to a large extent, he just doesn't always have the language for it.

Having said the above, theory has really been brought to the forefront as jazz has moved off of the bandstand and into the university. Academia (I have an M.Ed.) is compelled to crystallize a topic with theory and graduated steps that can be clearly measured and evaluated for grading purposes. When jazz quit being about apprenticing with the older guys and began being about education, theory became more important, and more of a focus.

It seems like a pendulum swing sort of thing, where I think we might emphasize it a bit too much these days, and maybe need to listen more.