How Should I Rethink Theory?

[zigzag]

I've been committed to playing and learning on and off for close to 25 years. From 2002 to 2012, I took lessons from a very competent teacher, and I suspect my issues have more to do with my shortcomings than his. He taught me scales, modes, the cycle of fifths, intervals and chord structure, and the basics of reading notation. After all of this, I think I have developed a somewhat intuitive feel for intervals on the fretboard, but much of theory beyond what I was taught escapes me. When I read posts on this board about chord substitution, dropped chords, voicing, etc., none of it really makes sense to me. I think part of my problem is that my reading skills are poor, and I don't readily associate notes in a scale or on the fretboard with their actual note names... just their scale/chord intervals.

I struggle with music theory... even though I am very good at math, I don't really get music logic. Have I already identified the shortcomings I need to work on, or are there other recommendations for things I need to work on or ways I need to perceive or conceptualize music logic?

[fep]

I seem to have a pretty good head for music theory. However, I really don't think it's very important as far as being a good player. All the theory I've studied/learned, hasn't made me much of a player.

Dropped chords for instance, I've seen it explained and realized I already do that, doesn't need a name.

Theory is good for communicating on a forum though.

[DB's Jazz Guitar Blog]

I've been committed to playing and learning on and off for close to 25 years. From 2002 to 2012, I took lessons from a very competent teacher, and I suspect my issues have more to do with my shortcomings than his. He taught me scales, modes, the cycle of fifths, intervals and chord structure, and the basics of reading notation. After all of this, I think I have developed a somewhat intuitive feel for intervals on the fretboard, but much of theory beyond what I was taught escapes me. When I read posts on this board about chord substitution, dropped chords, voicing, etc., none of it really makes sense to me. I think part of my problem is that my reading skills are poor, and I don't readily associate notes in a scale or on the fretboard with their actual note names... just their scale/chord intervals.

I struggle with music theory... even though I am very good at math, I don't really get music logic. Have I already identified the shortcomings I need to work on, or are there other recommendations for things I need to work on or ways I need to perceive or conceptualize music logic?

The problem with chord scale theory is that nobody plays scales. So describing the changes in terms of scales is artificial. CST is not the real thing. The jazz language is not spoken like that. In addition, it is a cognitive way of looking at the jazz language after the fact whereas the real jazz language is not a cognitive thing at all when it is being spoken. You can't improvise and think at the same time. There is no time for that. Jazz improvisation is behavior, not cognition. It's a skill that is based on having internalised sounds and having built an inner ear. So you don't need to think when you are blowing over the changes of Cherokee ...

There are other ways to learn how to improvise. Just like a kid learns how to speak without knowing the rules (CST).

CST is great for typing solos though.

DB

[Average Joe]

Start with the tunes: Do you understand how the notes relate to the underlying changes? Do you understand why the changes move like they do? Can you pick out key centres?If you study somebody else's solo, do you understand how the notes played relates to the changes? Can you pick our recurring intervals or sequences? If you answer no to any f those, then that's what theory is there for. To help explain what is going on.

But always start with the tunes and the playing.

[ragman1]

Go slow, be methodical. 'Theory' is a word for a big subject so begin at the beginning and do one step at a time.

Find a site, or some other source, and start at the beginning, one thing at a time. If you already know it, fine. If you don't, don't go further till you've got it. Actually, none of it is very complex taken piecemeal but, all thrown together on a site like this, it can look very opaque.

I predict you'll probably get bored with it before long because it hasn't - as fep just said - got a lot to do with playing. Although some of it can be helpful.

There's a theory section down the page here:

Free Jazz Guitar Lessons

[zigzag]

I get those points, and it seems likely that I just don't speak the language well. You'd think that as much of the language as I've heard and love, it might come out more in my playing, and that is likely the disconnect. Practicing those areas would be the logical procedure, and I might benefit from spicing up chord progressions as I move through the linear melody lines hearing the relationships between the melody and the changes... maybe?

[ragman1]

I get those points, and it seems likely that I just don't speak the language well

At the moment. You'll learn it as you go along, right? Don't make it a problem before you start!

Like I said, theory on paper is one thing and playing is another. It's the difference between studying the Highway Code at home and driving a car on the road. They're related, but not the same thing.

Did you know Wes Montgomery couldn't read music?

[DB's Jazz Guitar Blog]

I get those points, and it seems likely that I just don't speak the language well. You'd think that as much of the language as I've heard and love, it might come out more in my playing, and that is likely the disconnect. Practicing those areas would be the logical procedure, and I might benefit from spicing up chord progressions as I move through the linear melody lines... maybe?

All the old jazz masters of the 40s and 50s that we love so much learned the jazz language by ear. It was an aural thing. You know, the imitate, assimilate, innovate thing.

Dutchbopper's Jazz Guitar Blog: Why You Should Study That Lick

DB

[zigzag]

And perhaps I just get frustrated by hearing the greats play mind numbing stuff and not being able to understand how it's done.

[ragman1]

[John A.]

I've been committed to playing and learning on and off for close to 25 years. From 2002 to 2012, I took lessons from a very competent teacher, and I suspect my issues have more to do with my shortcomings than his. He taught me scales, modes, the cycle of fifths, intervals and chord structure, and the basics of reading notation. After all of this, I think I have developed a somewhat intuitive feel for intervals on the fretboard, but much of theory beyond what I was taught escapes me. When I read posts on this board about chord substitution, dropped chords, voicing, etc., none of it really makes sense to me. I think part of my problem is that my reading skills are poor, and I don't readily associate notes in a scale or on the fretboard with their actual note names... just their scale/chord intervals.

I struggle with music theory... even though I am very good at math, I don't really get music logic. Have I already identified the shortcomings I need to work on, or are there other recommendations for things I need to work on or ways I need to perceive or conceptualize music logic?

Theory is not an end in itself. It's a tool that people use in varying degrees to organize their playing and solve problems of figuring out what chord subs to play, and or generate melodic ideas, and/or analyze music, and/or compose. But many, many players do just fine with fairly little in the way of theory. I mean you don't need to have a whole lot of deep analytic knowledge of music to be able to blow over blues changes or Autumn leaves.

Also, you're expressing this pretty abstractly. It's tough to have any real sense of what you're struggling with without talking about particular musical contexts and problems. For instance, are there particular tunes that are giving you trouble, and what specifics aspects of that trouble do you think are rooted in not having a good handle on the theory you've been taught?

John

[DB's Jazz Guitar Blog]

And perhaps I just get frustrated by hearing the greats play mind numbing stuff and not being able to understand how it's done.

Many of those old jazz masters even do not understand it themselves haha. Sorry CST is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Study all the theory you want.

DB

[ragman1]

One other point is: what do you mean by 'theory' exactly?

Terminology isn't theory. Knowing terms like interval, drop 2, melodic minor, and all that, isn't really theory, it's just the formal names for things. Theory is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Music theory - Wikipedia

[christianm77]

Just remember this; theory should be descriptive, not prescriptive

[christianm77]

And perhaps I just get frustrated by hearing the greats play mind numbing stuff and not being able to understand how it's done.

Theres a common misunderstanding that theory drives the process of making music.

Music drives the process of making music. You start by listening and copying.

As you do this more and more (and become a better ear musician as you go) you may notice patterns and reoccurring concepts that could be useful in developing ideas. That’s where theory should come in.

[ragman1]

I bet he wants prescriptive :-)

[ragman1]

When we speak English do we ever, and I mean ever, think in terms of past participles, present subjunctives, declension, determiners, infinitives...?

Thought not :-)

[GTRMan]

Most people who say they don't understand theory, deep down, don't want to. They typically also don't do the work. How else does one explain a perfectly intelligent person struggling with a topic that is only moderately complex?

I've studied theory off and on since high school. It's always good to get a refresher when you get away from a topic for awhile. But - I have always studied it with excellent sources, that is with books. There are a number of good books.

It's like anything else, a teacher is a mentor/guide/tutor, not necessarily an author. Any other topic you can think of has both texts and a teacher. Some college courses have 3+ books for one semester. The teacher tells you to read, do the exercises/assignments and also lectures and explains things. Rarely does an instructor/professor carry 100% of the load of "information exchange/knowledge transfer". A student has to study.

So if you want to understand theory, get the best books and study them yourself. Do the homework assignments. And if you need a teacher as a guide, get one.

You may find that you do very well with theory after all.

[zigzag]

How many of you play a 13th chord and don't know it's a 13th chord when you play it? The point is that you hear it at all, and know how to play it when you want it or need it, even though it doesn't register to you that you're playing a 13th chord. I know that my language is much more expressive and descriptive when I use an adverb, even though I don't think of it as an adverb. I want to use more adverbs in my playing.

[GTRMan]

An arranger/composer/musician/teacher that I once studied with said something like: The goal is to play what you hear, play what you read, hear what you play, hear what you read, write what you hear.

Something like that. Meaning, complete musicianship from his perpective meant having no major shortcomings in one's functional capability. The course of study to reach that goal includes multiple levels of the following;

Music fundamentals (if needed)
Harmony and theory
Sight Singing, Ear Traning, dictating/transcribing
Instrumental study
Improv studies
Arranging
Ensemble work

Music school, basically. :0

[fep]

How many of you play a 13th chord and don't know it's a 13th chord when you play it? The point is that you hear it at all, and know how to play it when you want it or need it, even though it doesn't register to you that you're playing a 13th chord. I know that my language is much more expressive and descriptive when I use an adverb, even though I don't think of it as an adverb. I want to use more adverbs in my playing.

I'm often not registering chord names when I'm playing chords. So I might play the below chords and all I'm thinking is A dominant stuff to D dominant stuff. I suppose some players don't even think at all.

[jameslovestal]

How many of you play a 13th chord and don't know it's a 13th chord when you play it? The point is that you hear it at all, and know how to play it when you want it or need it, even though it doesn't register to you that you're playing a 13th chord. I know that my language is much more expressive and descriptive when I use an adverb, even though I don't think of it as an adverb. I want to use more adverbs in my playing.

In your initial post you said you knew "chord structure" but here you imply you play chords, like a 13th, and you don't know you're playing one; to me that falls under chord structure and not musical theory: regardless, one can know what intervals are being played in every chord they play (1, 3, b3, 5, #5, etc...), without knowing much about musical theory or one can just memorize chord voicing (grips) with no knowledge about what notes are being played.

As for when to use a substitute chord (e.g. when can one use that 13th chord voicing instead of just a Dom7 chord); this can also be done by increasing knowledge of chord structure.

To me it all comes down to what area of your playing you wish to improve; learning more about musical theory is just one way to 'get there' and may not be the most practical.

[zigzag]

I don't want to get caught up in the semantics of what is music theory. I understand chord structure and intervals. Where I struggle is hearing the tonal/chordal options that add color and spice to a melody line and help it move.

Thanks to y'all for giving me a direction. I think I may start considering all of the chordal possibilities surrounding the melodies I choose to explore. That will be a matter of just sitting down and figuring it out (then maybe I can figure out what I've done in terms of theory). It may be that I can do the same with the improvisational lines that I develop from that melody line or chord progression, understanding that chord and melody work together. It also sounds like this could actually be fun.

[fep]

I don't want to get caught up in the semantics of what is music theory. I understand chord structure and intervals. Where I struggle is hearing the tonal/chordal options that add color and spice to a melody line and help it move.

Thanks to y'all for giving me a direction. I think I may start considering all of the chordal possibilities surrounding the melodies I choose to explore. That will be a matter of just sitting down and figuring it out (then maybe I can figure out what I've done in terms of theory). It may be that I can do the same with the improvisational lines that I develop from that melody line or chord progression, understanding that chord and melody work together. It also sounds like this could actually be fun.

And sometimes the melody and chords don't have to work perfectly together. From a theory perspective it would bother me when they don't work theoretically together, I'm trying to let it go. What I like is... here is this G7 chord grip on the 3rd fret, and I've got a bunch of chord and line stuff that works with it. So I have an awareness that I'm playing my stuff for that grip, but not an awareness of the chord names or scales. Because of my theory knowledge I could stop and go back and figure it out what scale or chord or arp.

But having "stuff" that works over a grip is very useful way for me, maybe it's a simple or beginner approach. Kind of like hammering and pulling off the E note on the 4th string while playing a C cowboy chord. Not sure if a friend showed me that 50 years ago, or if I figured it out myself. It doesn't come from theory, it's just "C stuff" that works over a grip. It becomes a lot fancier with jazz stuff but not really any different in approach. This way you can think simple and play fancy.

[zigzag]

Yes. I heard Joe Pass used to work from barre chords as his "base."