Music theory or not?

[pollysurfs]

hey all,

new here and im sure someone can direct me in the right direction. i have always been a learner through experience, all aspects of life. im not one to read and absorb. this question is advice from those who believe theory is necessary or is not. to me it seems like a lot of info to take in and as im only a sofa guitarist wondering how far i should delve into theory or should i just truck along as i have in my self taught knowledge of guitar. thanks and dont mean to bring up a redundant question

[JonR]

The idea of theory is to make music easier to understand, and also to enable you to talk about music sensibly with other musicians.
If you don't see the need for either of these - you don't need theory.

But bear in mind, if you know the names for the chords you're playing, you already know some theory... IOW, it's not anything to be scared of. It just starts with names for the sounds you're using. (And notation, which is written signs for the sounds you're using, to enable people to write - and write about - music as well as talk about it.)

[Jake Hanlon]

everyone who wants to get more serious about Harmony and melody has to grasp an understanding of some theoretical concepts. You might not need to read a book or take a class but there are plenty of online tools that can help better your understanding of Harmony and thus open your mind to more possibilities.

A little bit of knowledge can go a long way even if you might not have aspirations of being a professional Jazz musician. But in order for you to communicate as JonR said fluently with others in an attempt to further your enjoyment, getting some theory behind you, even simple stuff can enhance your experience.

[gingerjazz]

Hi pollysurfs,sure there is a lot of theory to learn.However that doesnt mean you cant play good music until you know it all.I am currently working through my music theory exams(i take grade four in june)but i saw a huge improvement in my playing even after grade one.So in my opinion it is good to study theory but that doesnt mean you cant play good music until you know it all.

[whatswisdom]

Understanding theory will help you become a better musician. This is a great place to learn if you explore the forums. Good luck and don't be discouraged by those who are negative. To quote from Aebersold, "Charlie Parker started out knowing nothing..." "It's okay to learn...it sure beats not learning..."

[ksjazzguitar]

If you want to learn to swim, you have to get in the water. If you want to be the best swimmer you can be, then you need to study some theory (form, technique, training theory, etc.) You can be a swimmer without theory, but you won't make it to the Olympics. Of course, you also can't get there unless you spend a lot of time in the water.

Peace,
Kevin

[SwingSwangSwung]

I've found the more theory I understand, the easier it is to learn new tunes and come up with ideas to play over them.

But I've crossed paths with some bluegrass/country players that did not know much theory at all, but who could smoke over jazz changes.

[czardas]

Knowing music theory can help you improve as a player. One of the fundamental things about playing music is knowing which are the appropriate techniques to use for the notes you are playing. Knowledge of which notes are accents, whether the notes belong to the melody or form part of the accompaniment and knowledge of where a musical phrase ends is going to help you enourmously when interpreting the music you play.

[Baltar Hornbeek]

Only take as much theory as you need. If you don't know how much you need, take more... until you're full.

[jayx123]

Theory is only Theory until it is implemented on your instrument

[Pierrot]

For some, theory is absolutely necessary because of a lack of intuition. For others, intuition is not enough to develop all their potential so they need some theory. I guess that, as with almost everything in this strange life, a balanced blend of both, theory and intuition, is the best way to achieve good results.

But, if i had to choose, i'd keep intuition and forget theory: i.e, one of the more brilliants musicians of all the times, Django Reinhardt, was said to "know" absolutely NOTHING on music.

[mr. beaumont]

For some, theory is absolutely necessary because of a lack of intuition. For others, intuition is not enough to develop all their potential so they need some theory. I guess that, as with almost everything in this strange life, a balanced blend of both, theory and intuition, is the best way to achieve good results.

But, if i had to choose, i'd keep intuition and forget theory: i.e, one of the more brilliants musicians of all the times, Django Reinhardt, was said to "know" absolutely NOTHING on music.

When I have the ear, practice time, and experience of Django, then I'll give up my knowledge gladly.

Maybe Django didn't have words for it, but he knew exactly what he was doing.

[Pierrot]

When I have the ear, practice time, and experience of Django, then I'll give up my knowledge gladly.

Maybe Django didn't have words for it, but he knew exactly what he was doing.

Of course he did, mr.b, but, as you said, he certainly couldn't transcribe in words his knowledge, hence the concept of intuition.
Kinda "knowing without knowing"?

...Ah! big mystery, the way neurones interconnect for some, and don't (at least the same manner) for others...

[keith]

I suspect most if not all folks here would not trade the time they spent on theory for not knowing it. The more I learn of it, the more I understand of the fretboard and the more options I would consider in playing. It allows for those " Eureka " moments of learning on the instrument and looking back on it I think " what was all the fuss about?" I like Baltars response because the more you know the more you want to know!

[Pierrot]

On the other side, theory, academicism and regulated learning can be as usefull as dangerous, a double-edged sword: it can be indispensable but it can as well rest a lot of freshness, originality and spontaneousness to some.

Think Monk, as a one-of-a-kind paradigm, with little to none theoretic background...

[Pierrot]

The only people this happens to are the ones who don't really understand a concept and then get hung up on trying to make it fit.

Really knowing something never stifled anyone's creativity.

hmmm, not my intention to initiate any debate here, no time for that...and, at least for me, not the proper place (I'd prefer orally, friendly, with some drinks, relaxed ambiance and some kind of good music;-)

But, as a teacher myself (too) as well as a permanent student, I know some of the risks of schooling.
And,......I definitively wasn't speaking of knowledge, which sometimes does and sometimes doesn't relate to tuition...

Anyway, good luck to the OP. (and to everybody else).

Ciao

[epiemperor]

I would also like to point out that knowing how chords and scales are constructed is fundamental musical knowledge. There's nothing theoretical about it.

[mr. beaumont]

I would also like to point out that knowing how chords and scales are constructed is fundamental musical knowledge. There's nothing theoretical about it.

That's a huge point isn't it.

Rock guitar players are the first to call fundamentals "theory." "Hey can you play the C# on the third string instead of.."

"Whoa there--I don't know no theory...I play by feel."

[ksjazzguitar]

I would also like to point out that knowing how chords and scales are constructed is fundamental musical knowledge. There's nothing theoretical about it.

It is a theory. The practice is self-evident, but the explanation of how and why is a theory. The theory that there are things called "chords" and that they derive from keys in certain ways. The theory that there are things called "scales" and they relate to these things called "chords" in certain ways. They are a posteriori attempts to explain why somethings sounds good to our ears - inductive rules are by definition theory. These did not spring ex hihilio into practice. Practice feeds theory which feeds practice, ad infinitum. Things like scales and chords are a priori assumptions and they are not common to all musics around the world. Any time you try to define what is happening with verbage, you are talking theory. Any time you are answering a question in any way other playing music, you are making a theoretical abstraction. Things like scales, chords, arpeggios, guide tones, voice leading, upper extensions, altered extensions, sequences, passing tones, neighbor tones, etc, etc, etc - these are all abstract concepts to explain a practice. That makes it theory.

Again, sometimes people like to just label the theory that they don't like with the "pejorative" label of "theory" and deride it while treating the theory that they do like as "common sense" of "fundamental musical knowledge."

Peace,
Kevin

[mr. beaumont]

Its very true-- but would you agree that for some reasons guitar players have a particular aversion to this stuff?

Hence calling something as basic as knowing what note you're playing as "theory?"

[JonR]

For some, theory is absolutely necessary because of a lack of intuition. For others, intuition is not enough to develop all their potential so they need some theory. I guess that, as with almost everything in this strange life, a balanced blend of both, theory and intuition, is the best way to achieve good results.

But, if i had to choose, i'd keep intuition and forget theory: i.e, one of the more brilliants musicians of all the times, Django Reinhardt, was said to "know" absolutely NOTHING on music.

As mr beamount said, he knew exactly what he was doing. He may not have read theory (AFAIK he could barely write his name), but he learned it all by ear and trial and error.
The Beatles are the other usual example of great musicians who - supposedly - "knew no theory".
It's nonsense of course; they knew it perfectly well (at least as far as their own music went). They clearly knew theory better than most of their contemporaries, in that they knew how the music worked, and how to get (most of) the sounds they were after. They understood. What they didn't know was the conventional academic terminology for the sounds they were using.

IOW, the issue is not about whether a musician needs to "know" theory or not. Of course, all musicians do - that's a no-brainer. It's about how useful the academic study of it is - the "book learning" as opposed to (or rather as well as) the ear-and-hand learning. How useful is it to be able to analyse what you do, in traditional terms? How useful is it to be able to discuss music in those terms? To talk the talk as well as walk the walk?
Useful, obviously, to varying degrees depending on one's musical goals and interests - but not essential, unless one is composing classical music, I guess.

Certainly, I agree with those who say it's in no way inhibiting on one's creativity - unless one chooses to allow oneself to be inhibited by it (and some do).
How much would it have benefitted Django to know the names of the scales he was using (or rather the names we'd give them, rather than what he might have called them)? Would John Lennon have been better off if he'd known one of his favourite sounds was called "mixolydian mode"?
Neither would have been inhibited - and it's just possible, if they'd been able to discuss their music with more classically qualified musicians (or read theory books), they would have encountered additional concepts they could have exploited.
The other point is - not all of us are Django, or Lennon. Most of us need all the help we can get. The "maps" that theory provides will always come in handy for navigating our way through music.

[JonnyPac]

Great post JonR. My "theory" is homegrown in many ways but totally logical. I get my balls busted here all the time for my obvious lack of academic classical terminology. I like jazz vernacular and layman terms. There is nothing wrong with a personal theory as long as you own it and don't sell it as "correct" peer-reviewed stuff.

[jzucker]

It's not a matter of "owning" it. It's a matter of making music. If you can play with John Coltrane and not know any theory as wes did, more power to you but I recently jammed with a guy who thought theory would inhibit his playing and he couldn't keep a standard musical form together, could not outline the changes on simple tunes and didn't want to copy solos because he wanted to be original.

Learning theory is like learning to read a book or learning your multiplication tables and not nearly as hard.

[paynow]

Its very true-- but would you agree that for some reasons guitar players have a particular aversion to this stuff?

Hence calling something as basic as knowing what note you're playing as "theory?"

Because it requires work and as I once mentioned on a previous thread, guitar is the official instrument of the poser. There are many people who buy guitars for the hell of it, because they think it makes them look cool and they figure it's an easy instrument to play. Nobody ever says, "Hey, I think I'll go buy a tuba! Then I'm sure to get laid!!"

So then you go buy some easy chord book, learn a couple of 1-4-5's (though you don't know that's what they are), you sound great to a couple of drunks at a party who keep telling you how great you sound (ad naseum) as you dink through some early Beatles tune , and so you think you're on the level of actual musicians (had you bought the tuba and played it at the party, they would have thrown up on you).

And then, because you're so great, you tell the musician who says "Hey, where else can you play C#, or do you know D7#9" that "you don't need to know that jazz shit." Which is f--king hilarious to me, and asinine, as I have no idea why having good musicianship is somehow related only to jazz buy this particular genus of moron.

Then I get annoyed and walk away from the moron to preserve what little is left of my sanity.

[Baltar Hornbeek]

So, a guy is banging around old Beatles tunes at a party having fun, you get jealous and try to shoot him down with, "Hey, where else can you play C#, or do you know D7#9"? Lol, I must be misunderstanding you, cause you couldn't really be such a tool!