Do you need theory?

[Strat-itis]

no one replied to them...

If I was trying to make an argument I would make an itemized list, but I'm not.

This isn't "YOU DON'T NEED THEORY CHANGE MY MIND"

Then tell us what points you want to discuss. It's your thread so it's your responsibility. You don't offload responsibility on other people who are investing their free time.

[joe2758]

What responsibility? I don't want anyone to do anything they don't want to, I just didn't know they wouldn't want to. I guess my goddamn crystal ball is broken jfc

[Strat-itis]

Bro, WE CAN'T SIFT THRU A 90 MINUTE VIDEO.

If you want to discuss points other than do you need theory, then SIMPLY STATE THEM YOURSELF.

[joe2758]

Bro, WE CAN'T SIFT THRU A 90 MINUTE VIDEO.

If you want to discuss points other than do you need theory, then SIMPLY STATE THEM YOURSELF.

my points were posts #10, 14, and 16.

They get overlooked because they aren't arguments or assertions.

[pauln]

@1:05:39
"It's not going to sound better when you understand it,
it's going to sound better when you understand how it sounds."

@1:6:25
"...not interested in the concept,
only interested in sound."

Wonderful video, thanks. He understands that music theory is complex because it is based on the definitions of music notation. Notation is already complex because of how the fundamental elements are defined in order to compress information into a readable/playable form. This is why a note (line or space position in the staff) may inform you to play different pitches (based on key signature, accidentals, naturals) and why a pitch may be represented by multiple notes (lines and spaces) with different note letter names, accidentals (enharmonic).
That complexity does not exist in the direct sound of the music.

He also understands that the guitar is a relative instrument, where relative pitch corresponds to relative fingering. Where fingering on piano, trumpet, sax, etc. always informs you of what you are playing (even if you don't know the name), guitarist can sound a pitch and truly not know what they are playing (unless they look). The finger board is isomorphic up to encountering the ends of the finger board itself, which means physical structures on the guitar (fingering, patterns, shapes) that produce musical structures are movable in a way that physical structures on other instruments don't preserve the same relative musical structure.
That transposing complexity does not innately physically exist on the guitar.

The quotes at the top kind of sum up the whole video; playing by ear rather than abiding to theory puts quality control focus on the sound of the music... and the guitar is the most natural instrument for playing by ear.

[Strat-itis]

my points were posts #10, 14, and 16.

As you know I am the proverbial "hyper-focused on ear training amd theory then realized he still couldn't play" guy. Now that I am shedding, I know all the scales and arps the phrases come from, how they work etc without necessarily analyzing them. But I just wonder..does that matter? It sounds the same. Although maybe I'd curious about how it all works. but then again I'd already know how to play. Maybe I wouldnt care to learn it..maybe I would I just wonder if I started with Christiaan's approach in HS where I would be now.

TECHNIQUE. Theory doesn't do you any good in your head - you need to drill it into your hands and your rhythmic competence.

This seems to be your main question.

he always makes clear (maybe not in this vid) everything he teaches is to make the student good enough to play in jams as soon as possible. Then learn whatever. I'm not the only one who focused on learning first to get a "head start" and then it didn't. about the tunes in all 12 keys for example...why not learn them in 1 or 2 and learn more tunes? Do you KNOW youre going to be playing with singers who pick strange keys with no notice and expect you to just do it easily? I'm not

No, having theory knowledge up front does not disadvantage you (if that's what you're saying). Although being able to actually do the music itself is the requirement, not the theory.

I know for myself that I know more than I need, so it's not a problem. I just wonder how much of it is actually helpful. But, I don't teach either so it doesn't really matter. Just interesting. For example I see the beginner threads and wonder about some of the advice, but it's not really any of my business.

Most people do know more than they need and they need to bring technique up to par primarily out of ear, theory, creativity, and technique. A balance of all is generally required for most to play well. If you don't have one or more of them, that's your reason.

I would say the vast majority of people need to bring up technique first and ear second. Almost everyone knows enough theory, most people are relatively creative. They need the technical competence first, then they need to be able to aurally map how things actually sound and the requirements for making the music accurately, not simulating it.

[joe2758]

@1:05:39
"It's not going to sound better when you understand it,
it's going to sound better when you understand how it sounds."

@1:6:25
"...not interested in the concept,
only interested in sound."

Wonderful video, thanks. He understands that music theory is complex because it is based on the definitions of music notation. Notation is already complex because of how the fundamental elements are defined in order to compress information into a readable/playable form. This is why a note (line or space position in the staff) may inform you to play different pitches (based on key signature, accidentals, naturals) and why a pitch may be represented by multiple notes (lines and spaces) with different note letter names, accidentals (enharmonic).
That complexity does not exist in the direct sound of the music.

He also understands that the guitar is a relative instrument, where relative pitch corresponds to relative fingering. Where fingering on piano, trumpet, sax, etc. always informs you of what you are playing (even if you don't know the name), guitarist can sound a pitch and truly not know what they are playing (unless they look). The finger board is isomorphic up to encountering the ends of the finger board itself, which means physical structures on the guitar (fingering, patterns, shapes) that produce musical structures are movable in a way that physical structures on other instruments don't preserve the same relative structure.
That transposing complexity does not innately physically exist on the guitar.

The quotes at the top kind of sum up the whole video; playing by ear rather than abiding to theory puts quality control focus on the sound of the music... and the guitar is the most natural instrument for playing by ear.

Thanks, Paul!

What I like about Christiaan is that he plays a ton of instruments, he picked up guitar in his 30s and looked at it as its own thing. On other instruments for example he thinks in note names, on guitar neck only as reference points.

I will say, from watching his other videos, he actually isn't so much into playing by ear as learning licks and playing a guitar like a guitar. In fact he did another reaction video (god forbid) to the famous Barney Kessel video explaining pure ear playing. very interesting

[joe2758]

TECHNIQUE. Theory doesn't do you any good in your head - you need to drill it into your hands and your rhythmic competence.

This seems to be your main question.

No, having theory knowledge up front does not disadvantage you (if that's what you're saying). Although being able to actually do the music itself is the requirement, not the theory.

Most people do know more than they need and they need to bring technique up to par primarily out of ear, theory, creativity, and technique. A balance of all is generally required for most to play well. If you don't have one or more of them, that's your reason.

I would say the vast majority of people need to bring up technique first and ear second. Almost everyone knows enough theory, most people are relatively creative. They need the technical competence first, then they need to be able to aurally map how things actually sound and the requirements for making the music accurately, not simulating it.

Thanks, I didn't mean to say knowing it disadvantages you, just that it can distract from what is much more beneficial.

I think priorities are important, it's too easy for people to say "learn everything"

I guess here's another devil's advocate question: why is theory needed at all for technique? look at GJ players, i.e. just learn tons of vocab

[Strat-itis]

You're welcome. Yes, absolutely. If you know enough theory, then absolutely work weaknesses such as technique or ear, don't cram in more theory.