Why Music Theory?

[rsclosson]

Theory is communication. I worked with a Jazz Vocalist for a while. Fantastic voice and technique but no theory knowledge and mean as or meaner'n a (fill in the appropriate word or phrase.)

She would sometimes tell me that a certain chord was wrong. Couldn't tell me what was wrong with it just that it didn't sound right, even though it was the common chord for that song. I would go through the possible substitutions until I played one that she could live with. Often, she was not very nice about her demand for the "correct" chord if I didn't find it fast enough to suit her. Made for a miserable working relationship. Some theory/harmony know how on her part would have really been great.

It did, sharpen my knowledge of substitutions and I came out of it a better theorist.

[KirkP]

... What do you tell them?

I've never heard anyone criticize a musician for knowing too much theory. If I did I'd ignore them unless they're asking me for advice.

But listening and ear training are as important as theory. I think it's possible to focus too much on theory and neglect other skills.

[coolvinny]

It was once said to me by a teacher that "if you don't just want to be a parrot, you need to learn some theory". That was effective.

It still took years to me to sink my teeth into it though.

[John A.]

It seems to me part of the reason people recoil at "theory" is the word itself. It connotes something complicated, obscure, academic. But that's not really what most of what gets talked about under this rubric actually is. Most of what we talk about is more like "music-making tips that apply to any instrument." Not too many of us actually get into truly theoretical topics, such as tonal organization, acoustics, perception/cognition, systems of intonation, etc.

John

[barrymclark]

I'm a father of two, day job, teach 15-20 lessons a week, gig once or twice a month.

My time is limited. Unless you're one of my old neighborhood buddies, I just don't have time to jam with the WILLFULLY ignorant. And if that makes me an adshole, fine.

Nobody likes an adshole. Haha.

[barrymclark]

I just tell them it is the language. To not learn it makes you illiterate. Being illiterate doesn't mean not functional but can certainly complicate things. I know because I was the guy complicating things for quite a long time.

[Thecytochromec]

I'm dumb so I have to understand what's going on in order to tweak it to my accord. If not, I'm just f!#$%$# all about the place and wasting my time really.

[goldenwave77]

"Why people dislike/distrust theory"?

There are a couple of answers here... "Music theory" is for the most part a collection of organizing principles based around the overtone series, scale structure, dissonances/consonances, etc. and common practices that have been found to be useful. Knowing it is helpful, but not sufficient to create music that works and that people want to hear. Is it possible to create music without knowing/articulating these principles?!...I think the answer is "yes", though in many cases "unschooled" players may be use these "rule-structures" without knowing that they are...or what they are...they just have worked stuff out that sounds good, etc., e.g. a lot of old time Blues guys maybe didn't have the vocabulary to describe what they did---but they were doing it, nonetheless...SO...people look at the "unschooled" player and say WOW, and then overgeneralize or misdescribe to say..."Look, theory is not needed!"...e.g. Django R never read a note in his life, but it's impossible for a theoretically inclined listener to listen to his stuff and conclude Django didn't know this....he just didn't have the words to describe it....but he certainly had a deep "knew it in his bones" knowledge, impressed into his brain from a lifetime of playing from an early age, combined with musical talent...so that's one thing.

Secondly, "knowing theory" can be, insufficient, to allow people to play well....so, for e.g. the typical approach to jazz improv is to say....here are chords....what are they made up of...now that we know the constituent notes.....well just play arpeggios....and the usual result is .....a spaghetti of eighth notes....the neophyte does this...is discouraged, and then mistakenly concludes this "theory stuff" is useless....the problem here is a bad knowledge base....usually not enough listening to good stuff, and maybe the inability to analyze what's really going on....what I'm trying to explain is that most people don't have a clue as to why phrasing works....IMHO, the ability to phrase convincingly is what separates great/convincing improvisors from people who are not so good/convincing. Miles D. IS a great ballad player....Louis A. sometimes played friggin' whole notes....Sonny R.'s solos can almost be diagrammed....Stan Getz had a melodic gift....there is a whole lot of stuff going on...to produce a convincing/interesting solo....the ability to create structure....tension and release....articulation and dynamics...command of tempo and dynamics (Diz is a master at this...can "go from 0 to 60 in 3 sec., stop on a dime and give ya change"), Lee Morgan had great tone and balance in his playing, Freddie Hubbard is just pyrotechnic genius, plus the ability to do it all in real time and to respond to group dynamics.


So....I think "music theory" is both oversold and undersold as the pathway to improve/music enlightmenment....undersold when the casual listener refers to the "unschooled" player who is probably using theoretical notions anyway, as not using any, and oversold by the teacher who communicates, maybe unconsciously, master your theory....and its fretboard application, and presto chango....you will be a superior improviser.


The greatest artists DO KNOW their theory, oftentimes at a very advanced level, and then they combine this with "something extra"....Chopin is my favorite e.g. from classical....he just blew open the technical side/world of piano playing....but he had a very advanced artistic and compositional sense that allows him to construct powerful and convincing short piano works....I think he would have been a great, great jazz musician....we know him to have been a great improviser...but somehow I think he, or Charles Mingus, would have been amused by the notion that one can play well without a solid grounding in theory.

[oldane]

Some players (few in fact) have so much raw talent that they instinctively grasp the theory without ever having to verbalize it. Lester Young is an example. He didn't know any theory and did well without it. For the rest of us who are less talented, the theory is a way of convert the seemingly chaos to something making sense. But even Bird had to put what he had "heard" vaguely in his head into a teoretical context before he could play it and thus form his style. Mark Knopfler is an extremely talented player but I have ofte thought that he might have been even better if he had studied some theory (which he deliberately never did in fear of loosing his spontaneity). I agree that one should not start with theory before beginning to play. I have always picked up the theory when the need presented itself.

[mrcee]

Some players (few in fact) have so much raw talent that they instinctively grasp the theory without ever having to verbalize it. Lester Young is an example. He didn't know any theory and did well without it. For the rest of us who are less talented, the theory is a way of convert the seemingly chaos to something making sense. But even Bird had to put what he had "heard" vaguely in his head into a teoretical context before he could play it and thus form his style. Mark Knopfler is an extremely talented player but I have ofte thought that he might have been even better if he had studied some theory (which he deliberately never did in fear of loosing his spontaneity). I agree that one should not start with theory before beginning to play. I have always picked up the theory when the need presented itself.

Interesting about Mark Knopfler. I like his playing and would have thought he knew more theory being a Mickey Baker Book alumnus. But I guess not when you consider the MB Book is thought to be light on theory.

[marcwhy]

First of all, who "criticizes" players for knowing theory and playing well?!?!?

I have some beginner-adult students who don't know much theory, and even when playing "basic" blues progressions, and they know where their hands need to go to play a I-IV-V progression, many will still ask, "Well, why do we play these chords? What makes it a 'dominant' 7th? Why is this a 'minor' 7th? Why, why, why?!" These are theory questions, and sure enough, the more they understand even some of the basics, they say "OK," and then transfer this knowledge to another musical idea!! These are adults, and that's a way adults learn. Understand>>do it>>understand>>do it. This is also called growth.

[mrcee]

I don't teach music formally but I talk to people, adults, who are interested in learning how to play. I'll grab a guitar just for reference and try to explain some simple concepts like what is an octave. Too much of the time they're baffled so I'll just suggest that they take a music theory course at a local community college and go from there. The question regularly comes up as to 'what is musical talent?'. imo Much of it is the ability to rapidly grasp basic musical concepts.