First comes the music, then comes the theory

[JonnyPac]

Back to the present: new theories can be used to create new of musical forms, or types of composition. However using standard theory will generally reproduce musical ideas that sound similar to music that already exists.

Nice. They help us from reinventing the wheel too.

[czardas]

Nice. They help us from reinventing the wheel too.

And there are still those who dare. When you think of all the different sounding music created througout recorded human history, it's quite amazing what you can do with 12 notes.

[jzucker]

Nice. They help us from reinventing the wheel too.

i thought that was what listening was for?

[timscarey]

Just a quick note. I have taught theory at the university level and have a 300 page technique book out but when I'm playing my best, I am not thinking of anything but the melodies I am playing.

Sweet, I'm glad to have met you. I too have and currently do teach theory at a private university here in seattle. I don't have anywhere near as much experience as you I'm sure, especially not on the guitar as I am primarily a bass player.

I agree, when I am playing my best, I hear it, and then I play it. But I have to be able to hear the changes (know the song) to really do that. If its a chart I've never seen, I have to rely on theory to get me through the changes. Of course, the ultimate goal would be to know what any progression sounded like just from looking at the written chords in relation to each other. I suspect some of you can do that with almost any set of chords, awesome...... theory + ears = goodness.

[Jeff Brent]

The following is a crucial pivotal moment in music history where the theory came first and then the music afterwards:

I realize that it is the opinion of many that theory seeks to explain what has already transpired, but when composing I may find myself at a juncture where I'm not sure which direction to take next.

As with any "game of musical chess", I am presented with a great number of theoretical options which have the potential to lead me in several possible directions.

By using my knowledge of theory (coupled with my ear and good taste) I can explore many different avenues until I find the one that I finally decide to use in the tune.

In these instances, the music is created (at least in part) by the theory that I know.

In composition, theoretical concepts can be expanded, and sometimes by pushing the envelope it will take one to worlds as yet uncharted.

As I mentioned above, one viewpoint is that theory serves only to document what has happened in the past (this is the equivalent of the "there's nothing new under the sun" axiom) - I believe (and have experienced) that it can also lead to previously undiscovered realms as well.

Music evolves, and theory can lead the way (it doesn't HAVE TO - but it does have that capability). Charlie Parker's great revelation concerning playing the upper extensions of chords as if they were scales was initially an intellectual theoretical idea which he then followed up on and put into practice. This is an extremely important case of new music steming from theory.

"Charlie got to thinking, 'There's got to be something more, some new way to go.' Then an idea struck him: if he played the top notes of the chords instead of the middle or lower notes, he would have a new line. It was worth trying."

- from "Bird Lives" pg 106

[jster]

Interesting thread. I was wondering when I would stumble across such a thread. One should I think be clear what one question specifically one wants to address. One could be a player. One could be a highly theoretical player. One could be an expert on music theory. One could be a historian of music theory. One could be all of the above and still not be a further thing, namely, a philosopher of music theory. Being the latter would require knowing a fair bit about theories in general and how music theory compares to other theories. Is it like physical theory? Or is it like mathematical theory. Or is it more like political theory? Or is it perhaps like cooking theory? And so on and so forth.

So while Einstein was a scientist, he was not a philosopher of science. Sure he would get mystical and all, but he is not studied in serious philosophy of science classes. Such classes do not study E=mc2 but topics like the nature of explanation, explanation vs. prediction, the nature of induction, etc. etc. Similarly, one might read Schoenberg in a music theory class, but one probably wouldn't read him in a serious philosophy of music class. A philosophy of music theory class would address questions like the nature of music theory, Western vs. non-Western theory, the role of equal temperament and the abandonment of just tuning, what is the purpose of music theory, how does music theory compare to other artistic theories like painting theory, sound vs. music, etc, etc.

So I would just say be careful not to bite off more than you can or want! to chew. :P

[mike walker]

Edit: I showed some of this to my lovely wife, whose only connection to music is listening. Her comment? "I see you listening to music that you love and I see your body move, your head go to a wonderful place, your smile and your entire being respond. With some of these analysts I see a person standing in his tweed jacket, patches on the elbows, pinching the bridge of his nose between his thumb and forefinger and commenting on the nuts and bolts of the music. My God they must be absolutely horrible in bed."

Well then, ya sneaked that in by the back door, Brian!

But I never doubted it for a minute, amigo.

[fep]

Edit: I showed some of this to my lovely wife, whose only connection to music is listening. Her comment? "I see you listening to music that you love and I see your body move, your head go to a wonderful place, your smile and your entire being respond. With some of these analysts I see a person standing in his tweed jacket, patches on the elbows, pinching the bridge of his nose between his thumb and forefinger and commenting on the nuts and bolts of the music. My God they must be absolutely horrible in bed."

+1 Indeed, that was brilliant.

[mattymel]

Theory is all good when you are struggling just to play any right notes. People play like that until they realize that all the stuff they wish they played is theoretically wrong. As long as there is a "release" it worked. 99% of all theory is useless if rhythm isnt strong, which is the downfall of 98% of all guitarists.

[Astronomer]

I always liked music theory. Why? Originally, it wasn't to learn what notes to play over what chord progression. Before I even started playing guitar, I tried to learn basic theory to get a general understanding of WHY I liked the music I listening to. I wanted to know why those particular notes sounded good together and how I could duplicate its effect. And while I think the term music theory is a bit misleading, it's very similar to the way the scientific method works in describing nature in that 1) they both try to explain the wonders we observe and 2) they allow us to test new things or duplicate results.

In other words, music theory allows music to be understood in a practical way without the smoke and mirror effect created by our lack of understanding. We don't have to do a rain dance anymore and hope that this melody sounds good with this progression through listening alone...we can use theory to facilitate this process. Perhaps there is too much focus on theory than on the actual music, but that still doesn't negate the fact that theory is effective and promotes innovation if used correctly.

[Vihar]

As long as there is a "release" it worked. 99% of all theory is useless if rhythm isnt strong, which is the downfall of 98% of all guitarists.

Two great points.

[mattymel]

i think that THE single most overlooked aspect of improvising is THE FORM. when alot of people start getting into transcribing they will do all their harmonic analysis as if Bird or Trane (or whoever) are always playing every chord on every 1st or 3rd beat of every measure, when in reality they are thinking more elastic. they know very well where the chord is, but they will sometimes anticipate or even delay chords 2 or 3 beats early/late. sometimes as much as 1 whole measure.

this combined with a strong rhythmic concept basically throws most theory out the window, at least in the way that most people are approaching it (looking at a transcription and trying to make sense of an E played on the down of 1 over a Eb minor, etc).

i totally agree that jazz (in its purest form) is much closer to a folk music. but in the same way that indian classical music is folk. there are disciplines that are required to be competent, much less GREAT. but the true masters have always left the "theory" behind. i always like to say that the term music "theory" is basically admitting right within the term that you can THEORETICALLY make sense out of music. but at the end of the day, it either works or it doesnt. and that can basically be decided by any listening person and hopefully one that likely has no notion that there even is such a thing as music theory.

and people wonder why nobody but other players buy jazz records anymore.

[Billnc]

theory is simple. About as difficult as a multiplication table. Some folks need to make it complex with 12 pointed stars and geometric shapes and ... err ... terms like dodecaphonics (guilty as charged).

But really, nobody should be afraid of it. If you can read a novel you can read music and understand theory.

See, I saw the 12 point star as substitutions etc right away (augmented and diminished patterns) and how they relate to the fretboard in lines. I could take what I hear and move it around and learn to hear it in new ways and functions.

I gave it to a friend of mine and it just gave him a headache.

I also very strongly view theory as NOT analysis, but rather things you can do in a given situation. The more we learn how to manipulate sound the better our 'theory'. A visual artist who studies perspective will do some things better than a folk artist. Both may be really good artists. Grandma Moses was no Rembrandt but she was no slacker either.