-
It's true. I find myself reading Jazz theory like it is a puzzle. I spent years buying books and DVDs and have a great handle on how theory says things are "supposed" to work. I have slowed down considerably in the last few months, since I am startin to see the same things repeated.
Am I the only poor sot that enjoys the theory (and it application) as much as the playing?
-
02-28-2014 02:44 PM
-
Count me in. I regard them as two quite different pursuits. Making music has its rewards, and so does reading theory. They do kind of help each other a little, but not very much. Neither is essential for the other, although I think playing is more useful for understanding theory than knowing theory (in the book learning sense) is for playing music.
When I first started studying theory, I was looking for answers to questions like "why does a maj7 chord sound sad?" I quickly realised music theory is not interested in such questions, but it became a fascinating subject in its own right. In the meantime, I carried on playing (and writing) music as I always had, very little affected by anything I was reading about.
I certainly never believed understanding theory would help me as a player or composer; that wasn't why I did it. (It has helped me a lot as an arranger, and in polishing compositions once they're started.)
-
Over on the Tele forum there are people who will tell you that learning to read music will rob you of your mojo.
Me, I'm a theory nerd, too! I love music theory. When I was at uni (majoring in math), I took music theory classes for fun. The music majors in the class thought I was nuts -- they certainly weren't taking math course for fun!
In fact, I love theory in general. I love the theoretic side of math and logic, and since I ended up as a computer programmer, I love the theory behind programming as well.
In fact, earlier today, I found myself posting this on a thread about headstock shape. It's got to do with the square root of two.
-
I'm also a theory waller - but in my case it is less encouraging with my music studies. My day job (which is also as much a hobby as music) involves me in trying to make sense of and make progress in the thermodynamic theory of ferroelectrics (OK, I'm not going to set an exam on this). So, when I get home, with what little time I have, rather than do more theory, I'd much rather just play.
-
Hello.
And me, I love the theory side...
Particularly that it usually has an implication that it does not in fact happen.
As the old saying goes, 'In theory, things can only get better;
in practice, they may well become a lot worse.
Music is the key that can open strange rooms in the house of memory.Llewelyn Wyn Griffith
-
I hate music theory and never found a use for it. It seems mostly made up academic nonsense after the fact for something that is entirely subjective. Music isn't string theory.
-
So did you learn "by doing" instead of my applying ideas learned through theory?
Originally Posted by 4thstuning
Theory has been a shortcut for me on some levels.
I can see how one could learn through experimentation and by copying from more experienced guitarists. Is that how you did it?
I have not had much free time in which I could play my guitar, so reading and thinking about theory has at least kept me "in the game." For instance, on airline flights, I watch instructional DVDs instead of movies.
-
I really like thinking about theory. I'm relatively new to it but, like you, it's like doing a puzzle. I love it whether or not it helps me play better(and I think it does).
-
Since Andrew Wiles in 1995 published the proof for Fermat's last Theorem, probably most complex and difficult maths puzzle that mathematics had ever developed, I had to humbly excepted defeat. Fortunately this means I've got more time to play the guitar and read music theory.
-
-
My mother in law loves Sudoku. If I give her Levine will we have something to talk about?
-
I never learned what I think is meant by theory. I developed, reinvented actually, approaches to improvising. Originally Posted by AlsoRan
I'm self taught for the most part and though I wanted a grand unifying theory to guide me, I never found one. Started out with blues and pentatonic scales and copied the "masters" of that genre. (I listen to but never copy other players now, I'd rather learn to cook for myself because that's where the joy is.) Originally Posted by AlsoRan
Eventually I discovered fakebooks and new chords, learned a few more useful scales (esp. mm), then bit the bullet and dropped brute force key center playing in favor of chord scale/chord tone playing (is this theory?). This was very important because it allowed me to improvise lines without any backing at all and yet hear the harmony in my single line solos. Practiced that for years and when it became automatic, started using substitutions and parallel harmonies - my terms for vague concepts
.
I don't teach but if I did I would strongly emphasize learning to play scales and chord tones over ii V I's. Once that building block is mastered, a player can go a very long way indeed and have a lot of fun.
Reading this forum it seems like a lot of people want to avoid these fundamentals and end up wasting time pursuing shortcuts (theory?). I'm not sure there is one but maybe someone on this thread will convince me otherwise.
Do what you can and if it works for you and you enjoy it, that's good enough. Besides, maybe I'm the troglodyte who didn't develop because of lack of theory. Originally Posted by AlsoRan
-
I dig the theory thing too.
I'm pretty much with AlsoRan in that there is a lot of repetition that
you find as you work through different methods.
While that's to be expected, the old "spaced repetition" way of learning has
some validity.
I've often enjoyed the little buzz I get when a penny drops after a different explanation
is offered.
...But after a while...and I'm talking decades here, I find that for me it's become an almost habitual
action/reaction to my music experience in the fullest sense.
ie: theory study is not helping my playing as much as in my earlier delvings.
.... David Baker would remind the class I was in many moons ago.."theory comes after the fact, an
observation and explanation of what has been done previously".....
So for me I've resolved to be much more pro-active on the playing front and get out and play with others.
Less theory, more playing.
Good topic....Thought provoking....
-
I also like theory. When I was first learning to play the guitar I had a teacher(though I now don't think he was really a teacher) that would have me learn chords to songs. Then he would have me play rythym(sp?) while he played the melody on the piano. He would never explain why I was learning these chords. And I always wonderd why the heck am I playing these chords on these songs in this way(progression). So I started learning some theory on my own. Many, many years later I took some jazz lessons from a guy that was a professional jazz musician and I learned so much in just a few lessons that my interest grew.
BTW that first teacher was being paid $5.00 a lesson...for what I don't know.
-
I am the same way, except I am really interested in the educational theory behind learning music. I like to research about and experiment with optimal practice routines. People have told me that if I spent less time trying to achieve optimal practice, and more time doing satisfactory practice, I would be a better musician by now. They are probably right, but I enjoy both sides of what I am doing.
-
I never obsess over theory even though it's valuable to know. I feel the most beautiful thing about music is that moment when you fall in love with the beautiful sounds music produce. When that happens then the theory will make sense.
-
Continuing from my post above: although I don't really spend any time on theory, I always feel guilty and keep wondering whether I would be a much better player if I did. The guilt trip is mainly because secretly I believe I am just being lazy and the academic in me knows that there is no shortcuts to understanding and using good theory.
-
Studying music theory is essential in that it enables you as a player or composer to incorporate sounds and structures that would otherwise be unattainable through trial and error alone, or if discovered by trial and error, are often times used in a way that is a bastardization of the original knowledge. Studying theory is really just a way of studying what the great composers and players do or have done, in a systematic way. The disregard for studying music of the past in this way is one reason why many believe musical composition has been in decline for the last century or so.
John
http://www.johnhallguitar.com/
-
But music isn't entirely subjective. If it was, we'd all be talking our own private languages. You'd be making sounds that meant nothing to me, and vice versa. Originally Posted by 4thstuning
Music is a shared language. Theory is simply the grammar of that language. If you can "speak" it fine by ear, then you don't need to study the grammar. If you're making good sounds, you're using the grammar correctly all the time, whether you're aware of it or not.
Who said it was? Originally Posted by 4thstuning
-
When I was a teenager, I probably briefly believed some such nonsense about theory/reading/whatever killing your "soul." Got over that fairly early on fortunately. Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
I've long felt that theory is not a big deal-I don't think it's worth obsessing about or avoiding. AFAIC, if you name the notes, you're using theory. If you remember you liked the sound of something and play it again, you're using theory. I think theory is unavoidable unless you play completely random stuff. My definition of theory is "a way to organize and structure music study and practice." Not really necessary to study theory in a formal way (classes, books etc.), but I think we all express ourselves best when we organize our approach to playing at least some.
Now as for book theory, I was kind of a geek in college-I found theory kinda fun and interesting. I actually tutored a few theory students (kids struggling with some of the basic stuff). Now I think internalizing a few basic things is helpful, but after a while it gets a little boring (and probably wasting time that could be spent practicing, listening, etc.) Of the things I learned in music school, theory would rank well behind several other things (the friends I made, learning about practicing, ear training, etc.). But it certainly wasn't useless, and I'm not sorry I studied it. And whatever mojo I had when I was a teenager is still intact.
-
I really think theory helps one improve at playing music in many ways. But it's not a magic pill. Playing is what mostly makes you better player.
An example of theory helping one as a player. Using the Roman Numeral system to chord progressions helps you classify chord progressions which in turn (eventually) helps your ear in hearing the chord progression.
-
Yeah, that is a very good example. Also makes it much easier to quickly transpose and to communicate with other musicians. Originally Posted by fep
-
Music, like art, has temporary and often local conventions that some accept and others don't. Some artists do indeed speak their own private languages - they subscribe to unfamiliar conventions. Different regions of the world developed different musical conventions that those steeped in the traditions could understand but outsiders couldn't. What music is seems to be completely arbitrary - perhaps there's an underlying universal theory but that's likely to come from a linguist, not your local music professor. Originally Posted by JonR
Theory is not the grammar of the language - theory attempts to explain grammar. Grammar is a convention and an arbitrary one as best I can understand. Different languages have different grammars. All languages freely morph over time without benefit of orthodox rules of grammar or tests against theory. No native speaker studied grammar to learn to speak. Many learn other languages without studying grammar at all, they simply mimic the natives and incorporate their conventions and idioms. Furthermore there is no such thing as correct grammar, there's only a current convention that history shows varies considerably over time. Originally Posted by JonR
Most everyone on this board plays jazz, a western convention. Some hope to use theory to guide them in their development. In my opinion, and borrowing your analogy, they conflate theory with grammar and grammar with art. This is not to say that they shouldn't learn the tricks of the trade, but the tricks required passing the ear test first and were mostly developed prior to theory, and when enough ears learned to accept them they became conventions. Theory doesn't and can't predict what people's ears will like.
Here's a question: does the great music come from the great theorists, like it does in physics or math, or does it come from the great artists? I argue it's the artists, not the theorists, hence music is not string theory.
-
Nobody has claimed that music is string theory. Arguing against a straw-man is a distraction from guitar playing, I repeat.
Mathematics is the science of necessary truths. Insofar as statements about music are universal, they are consistent with and likely a consequence of mathematical theories: For example, one cannot understand tonal music, particularly octaves, without an elementary understanding of logarithms.
Almost all pianists can read music and discuss music with other musicians. Perhaps the theoretical competence of pianists explains why pianists have been more influential harmonically than guitarists.... (Can anybody think of a guitarist who has influenced pianists or players of saxophones or trumpets?)Last edited by Kiefer.Wolfowitz; 03-03-2014 at 11:14 AM. Reason: improve phrasing
-
I enjoy the study of music theory as well. For me, it is a vital part of how I enjoy music, how I communicate about it, how a broader understanding of music of all types influences the way I play and the way I listen to music. I've never really understood the "artist" vs "theorist" argument and how a greater understanding of something can somehow spoil the magic or creativity involved. It just doesn't make sense IMHO. That is not to say that you can't have great creativity without theory. But understanding or pursuing music theory doesn't prevent you from thinking "outside the box". If anything it gives you more boxes to think outside of, lol.
Reply With Quote
Autumn Leaves (Fingerstyle Chord Melody)
Yesterday, 11:56 PM in Improvisation