How important is knowing music theory for being a good guitar player?

[cosmic gumbo]

Math, physics, evolution, wha? You guys are scaring me. Miles said to a guitarist, "play like you don't know how to play a guitar". Can someone explain Ornette's Harmolodic theory to me? Gravity is law, not theory, drop your guitar and you'll know what I mean. All different music has different theories- just ideas, not laws.

[franco6719]

Math, physics, evolution, wha? You guys are scaring me. Miles said to a guitarist, "play like you don't know how to play a guitar". Can someone explain Ornette's Harmolodic theory to me? Gravity is law, not theory, drop your guitar and you'll know what I mean. All different music has different theories- just ideas, not laws.

[a22]

Math, physics, evolution, wha? You guys are scaring me. Miles said to a guitarist, "play like you don't know how to play a guitar". Can someone explain Ornette's Harmolodic theory to me? Gravity is law, not theory, drop your guitar and you'll know what I mean. All different music has different theories- just ideas, not laws.

Actually the theory of gravity is a scientific theory, altough we might call it a law in practice. The theory of music is there like any other theory because of observation and documentation. We know how different wavelengths interact with each other and how to read pieces written centuries ago because of music theory. Also you have to know the rules to deliberately break them, Miles knew the rules, so did Coleman.

[franco6719]

don't feed the trolls.

[Decapriology1]

Hi!

I ask this question a lot because...well, there are people who play guitar and I think of them as "non-musicians" (I am NOT an elitist--I'm someone who has studied music for MANY years...worked really hard at it). They seem to play better than me but don't know what note they are playing...or what time signature! And the musicality...well, it is impressive to the lay person but...

Anyway, I just want to know--does my studying of music theory, in both classical and jazz musics, really make a difference to my guitar playing? Or to anyone's for that matter? Please, if this topic is old, just point me to the proper thread and I shall delete this if that is the case. And why are there people who brag about being "self-taught" and think that studying music formally is going to "kill their creativity"--and...

Just want to see some views of those with experience--thank you!

P.S. I must say, one of my profs said, "Having a jazz degree is not going to get you a gig in someone's cover band."

Einstein once said "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Yet, what would he have done without the knowledge? There is a *third factor* that many talkers over coffee and cake seem to miss, and this is the combination of natural talent and empirical knowledge *plus* knowledge of theory. There is a brand creativity and artistry that can come from how theory is assimilated and this is a dimension that will not be tapped by ignoring theory. It is a misconception to say that many of the old time greats knew nothing of theory.
Theory is in everything ( For example, I knew Joe Pass...Joe had a good handle on theory) they played and in *how* they formulated thoughts, lines, chord movements, and approaches to tunes, and techniques. They may have not told anyone or cared to, or systematized and codified according to the pedagogical norms of the times (which until relatively recently, was uncharted territories), but they all had some sort of personal system. Is this not theory?

In my view, the biggest mistake to compare oneself with another player, known or unknown. Sure you can get your point across at a business meeting with a limited vocabulary, but this does not infer automatic presumption that a large and colorful vocabulary is not needed. Communication is special just as each individual is special. It is an element that appears in both knowledge and experience. They are quite a triumvirate when harnessed. In the end, it is all about balance and not what some one else studied or had not studied. It is about YOU.

-TD

[Jazzaluk]

Einstein once said "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Yet, what would he have done without the knowledge? There is a *third factor* that many talkers over coffee and cake seem to miss, and this is the combination of natural talent and empirical knowledge *plus* knowledge of theory. There is a brand creativity and artistry that can come from how theory is assimilated and this is a dimension that will not be tapped by ignoring theory. It is a misconception to say that many of the old time greats knew nothing of theory.
Theory is in everything ( For example, I knew Joe Pass...Joe had a good handle on theory) they played and in *how* they formulated thoughts, lines, chord movements, and approaches to tunes, and techniques. They may have not told anyone or cared to, or systematized and codified according to the pedagogical norms of the times (which until relatively recently, was uncharted territories), but they all had some sort of personal system. Is this not theory?

In my view, the biggest mistake to compare oneself with another player, known or unknown. Sure you can get your point across at a business meeting with a limited vocabulary, but this does not infer automatic presumption that a large and colorful vocabulary is not needed. Communication is special just as each individual is special. It is an element that appears in both knowledge and experience. They are quite a triumvirate when harnessed. In the end, it is all about balance and not what some one else studied or had not studied. It is about YOU.

-TD

I understrand your perspective; however, music is not nuclear physics, it is simply the practice of organizing sound in a way that conveys some emotional content. I think much of today's jazz suffers from the recent "codification" of Jazz theory, especially in the jazz guitar world.. Sure you need theory to play well, but allot of today's players sound like they are merely presenting an audio display of their theoretical concepts without any regard for the audiance or emotional content. Most of those that try to appreciate such displays are musicians themselves. The real audiance is considered collateral damage or people who just don't get the artform. In the end, Einstien was right, Imagination trumps knowledge.

[Bill C]

I understrand your perspective; however, music is not nuclear physics, it is simply the practice of organizing sound in a way that conveys some emotional content. I think much of today's jazz suffers from the recent "codification" of Jazz theory, especially in the jazz guitar world.. Sure you need theory to play well, but allot of today's players sound like they are merely presenting an audio display of their theoretical concepts without any regard for the audiance or emotional content. Most of those that try to appreciate such displays are musicians themselves. The real audiance is considered collateral damage or people who just don't get the artform. In the end, Einstien was right, Imagination trumps knowledge.

I don't think music is only about evoking an emotional response. After all, when we use spoken language it is not only to evoke emotions in the listener.

If artists waited for the audience to catch up would we ever have had the great works of Coltrane, Monk, Stravinsky etc etc ...?

[Decapriology1]

I understrand your perspective; however, music is not nuclear physics, it is simply the practice of organizing sound in a way that conveys some emotional content. I think much of today's jazz suffers from the recent "codification" of Jazz theory, especially in the jazz guitar world.. Sure you need theory to play well, but allot of today's players sound like they are merely presenting an audio display of their theoretical concepts without any regard for the audiance or emotional content. Most of those that try to appreciate such displays are musicians themselves. The real audiance is considered collateral damage or people who just don't get the artform. In the end, Einstien was right, Imagination trumps knowledge.

You and I are speaking about different subjects. What a musician does personally with his/her knowledge is another story. I speak of balance. Eienstein still never neglected or negated knowledge.

-TD

[Jazzaluk]

I don't think music is only about evoking an emotional response. After all, when we use spoken language it is not only to evoke emotions in the listener.

If artists waited for the audience to catch up would we ever have had the great works of Coltrane, Monk, Stravinsky etc etc ...?

Music is not about speaking to emotions?? Then what else is it supposed to do?

[Bill C]

Music is not about speaking to emotions?? Then what else is it supposed to do?

I said "I don't think music is ONLY about evoking an emotional response". Clearly emotional response is a big part, but in jazz especially it is also about interaction - conversation if you will. There is also a sense in which some music seems to me to have a focus on the sincere exploration of musical possibilities - maybe something like "Giant Steps"?

[Jazzaluk]

You and I are speaking about different subjects. What a musician does personally with his/her knowledge is another story. I speak of balance. Eienstein still never neglected or negated knowledge.

-TD

We probably are not speaking of the same subject. I agree that every guitarist develops their own theoretical constructs to play the instruments which IMO is a great thing. True knowledge stems from discovery. This was the apprentice approach of old. Modern pedological approaches seem to place theory ahead of discovery. Rote learning and academia. With this emphasis and stimuli the results are predicatable.

I suppose balance is the key... but balance with what?

[Jazzaluk]

I said "I don't think music is ONLY about evoking an emotional response". Clearly emotional response is a big part, but in jazz especially it is also about interaction - conversation if you will. There is also a sense in which some music seems to me to have a focus on the sincere exploration of musical possibilities - maybe something like "Giant Steps"?

Good answer. Interaction is a fundamental aspect of jazz and a great source of inspiration and discovery. Also, I agree that exploring possibilities is indeed a necessary mechanism to develop new musical constructs. But eventually the consepts need to be applied in a way that actually conveys something emotional. Or maybe we should be satisfied that the simple mathematical symetry and technical challenge of Giant Steps is enough?

[cosmic gumbo]

If you don't trust your ear, don't become a musician.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

If you don't trust your ear, don't become a musician.

Tell that to Beethoven.

[franco6719]

Tell that to Beethoven.

Actually, we have only just arrived at the heart of the matter. What is your "ear" anyway? Certainly it is not the listening apparatus, including the cochlear nerves and all of that. To put the thing correctly then, "if you do not trust certain parts of your brain....." But how can someone not trust certain parts of their brain. Your brain is yourself. If you don't trust yourself, you you would seem to have psychological/psychiatric problems. You might need to LEARN to trust your "ear", no?

[Memorium]

Musical Theory is always great, it's kinda a bonus really, but let your music speak

Some of the best Musicians out there studied Music as a course, Like Sean Reinhert and Paul Masvidal of Cynic (sure they play Prog Metal, but they use Jazz elements much more than your average Prog Metal Band )

Studying a Music course also makes you a better musician as a whole (one guy i know, couldn't read classical notation before he done A Level Music, now he can) i can't read classical notation, but i'm slowly learning (i can do Bass Clef off by heart now )

[franco6719]

If you don't trust your ear, don't become a musician.

This comment has made me think though. In what sense do you trust your "ears"? If you have perfect pitch, for example, then you can trust your ears to tell the names of notes and chords immediately, etc.. But not too many people have perfect pitch. Certainly not the majority of even outstanding musicians. So you must be talking about relative pitch. But it might well be that a person who does not start out with good relative pitch can be TRAINED (or train oneself) to have good relative pitch. As your relative pitch improves with training, your trust should improve accordingly. In fact, the evidence seems to point in this direction. But you disagree? You would say that ear training is completely useless then?

[randalljazz]

If you don't trust your ear, don't become a musician.

i don't think "becoming" a musician is a matter of choice, really. you are, or you aren't.

becoming a better musician, however, is a choice.

[cosmic gumbo]

This comment has made me think though. In what sense do you trust your "ears"? If you have perfect pitch, for example, then you can trust your ears to tell the names of notes and chords immediately, etc.. But not too many people have perfect pitch. Certainly not the majority of even outstanding musicians. So you must be talking about relative pitch. But it might well be that a person who does not start out with good relative pitch can be TRAINED (or train oneself) to have good relative pitch. As your relative pitch improves with training, your trust should improve accordingly. In fact, the evidence seems to point in this direction. But you disagree? You would say that ear training is completely useless then?

Trusting your ears so that if you think it works and sounds good, it is good. I was talking more about phrasing, articulation, nuance, instincts, style, etc., rather than pitch. Ear training is very valuable for learning to hear intervals relative to each other.

[franco6719]

Trusting your ears so that if you think it works and sounds good, it is good. I was talking more about phrasing, articulation, nuance, instincts, style, etc., rather than pitch. Ear training is very valuable for learning to hear intervals relative to each other.

Fair enough.

[sixfingers]

I think jazz guitarists, and other musicians, as well as listeners will benefit from musical theory.

An important factor here is of course what is 'theory'. I could define it as whatever will benefit the above in their respective practices, and it is obviously correct, but not necessarily what most of people think of as theory.

If you consider what is the essence, or the nature of , the majority (but not all)of what is called theory. I believe it is a way to put music into system, and the basis for this systematic is the existing music; music that has been written and has been performed. You should know as much as possible of the music that has been made. Theory is an efficient way of learning that, for many people. For most people it is more efficient to learn the systematics than having to to listen to all the music yourself and find out about the systematics. However, people are different; some have exceptional musical memory, some can not read words, These will be better off initially by learning about music only by listening, while many are better off with a combination of listening, practicing and learning it through some of the languages that has been developed to describe musical content.

Why is music that has been made important? The answer is also part of theory, - about musical perception. We react based upon what we have heard before, Our sensory processing compares what we hear to what we have heard before. Mostly we want to hear something similar to what we have heard before, but we also want to hear something new, we want to be surprised. Of coarse whether we will be depends upon each individuals experience, and perhaps on musical memory and ability to process what we hear.

There also exist some theory that at first seems to be theory for theory's own sake, but on a positive side I can see it perhaps evolve into theory that could be relevant to music.

As may be evident from the above. I myself have no formal music education or training. In this respect I am self thought, but I still have knowledge of scales, modes chords and understand their function in music, musical forms, counterpoints, orchestration practices , microtonality, the physical basis of sounds and instruments and such practical issues. I am not a great jazz guitarist, but I cannot blame the little I know for not being better.

[TieDyedDevil]

Theory is a tool, not a straightjacket.

I played guitar for many years despite my profound ignorance of theory. While I didn't exactly suck as a player my range as a musician was extremely narrow, limited to what I had learned to imitate.

Studying theory has opened my eyes and ears to new possibilities and facilitated my becoming a better player and a more versatile musician.

Along with theory comes facility in the language of music, which allows me to communicate more efficiently and effectively with other musicians. Having developed my ability to converse in the language of music has opened doors to playing with better musicians. The players who have put in the time to learn the language tend to have a finite tolerance for someone who can only speak in terms of strings and frets - the guitarist's equivalent of grunting and gesturing.

[a22]

I think jazz guitarists, and other musicians, as well as listeners will benefit from musical theory.

An important factor here is of course what is 'theory'. I could define it as whatever will benefit the above in their respective practices, and it is obviously correct, but not necessarily what most of people think of as theory.

If you consider what is the essence, or the nature of , the majority (but not all)of what is called theory. I believe it is a way to put music into system, and the basis for this systematic is the existing music; music that has been written and has been performed. You should know as much as possible of the music that has been made. Theory is an efficient way of learning that, for many people. For most people it is more efficient to learn the systematics than having to to listen to all the music yourself and find out about the systematics. However, people are different; some have exceptional musical memory, some can not read words, These will be better off initially by learning about music only by listening, while many are better off with a combination of listening, practicing and learning it through some of the languages that has been developed to describe musical content.

Why is music that has been made important? The answer is also part of theory, - about musical perception. We react based upon what we have heard before, Our sensory processing compares what we hear to what we have heard before. Mostly we want to hear something similar to what we have heard before, but we also want to hear something new, we want to be surprised. Of coarse whether we will be depends upon each individuals experience, and perhaps on musical memory and ability to process what we hear.

There also exist some theory that at first seems to be theory for theory's own sake, but on a positive side I can see it perhaps evolve into theory that could be relevant to music.

As may be evident from the above. I myself have no formal music education or training. In this respect I am self thought, but I still have knowledge of scales, modes chords and understand their function in music, musical forms, counterpoints, orchestration practices , microtonality, the physical basis of sounds and instruments and such practical issues. I am not a great jazz guitarist, but I cannot blame the little I know for not being better.

Wow, that's a very intelligent post and I wholeheartedly agree! I know some players who sort of worked their own theory out and just built the sounds they wanted from the bottom up. This is of not entirely necessary nowadays because we can take some of the hard work that others did figuring out the 'mathematics of music' so to speak and apply it to our own needs. Altough I think a good jazz teachers doesn't pave the way all the way through for the student. As Bill Evans pointed out, a good teacher doesn't want to take out the joy of figuring things on your own from you!

EDIT: Oh and TieDyedDevil, I can truly relate to your story!

[Bigmagic]

Most musicians who are not well versed in theory are born with perfect or near perfect pitch which allows them to play with anyone. Theory was good enough for young Charlie Parker who was laughed off the bandstand and after a year of woodshedding(practicing scales,arps etc.) came back and awed all who heard him.
I am not one who believes you can be thinking of scales and modes while playing but practice is another story. If you have knowledge of theory you can play with anyone anytime. You don't have to rely on licks which may not work over what the group is doing. If you have the practice in and you feel the groove the theory comes out of you without you thinking about it, much like the players with perfect pitch.

P.S. Your own ability to hear pitch will be aided by theory not hampered by it. There is no reason not to learn, WHY NOT LEARN THEORY?

[TieDyedDevil]

Most musicians who are well versed in theory are born with perfect or near perfect pitch which allows them to play with anyone.

This is an odd assertion...