Hey if one's labors can come to fruition, so can my produce!
I-IV-V yes or no
- Thread starter sdbrit68
- Start date
I believe that is correct. I think we have more or less determined that how much theory is a good thing is determined by your brain processing power (at any given time), your overall learning goals and your interest.
You'll either learn it on purpose (by studying) or by osmosis (by playing and tuning your ear to what sounds right). If it sounds good, you're likely utilizing theory even if you don't know you are.
JPsuff
Blackstar Artist
Nailed it!
I think of music theory in a similar way to how I think of language.
I don't need to know language on a scholarly level in order to communicate with others nor do I need a bookish knowledge of theory to make music.
In language, from time to time I may want to use words the are more descriptive or more dynamic and in such cases I turn to a Thesaurus
and instead of using a word such as "pleasant", for example, I might use "engaging" or "gratifying". Or maybe I want to write something in a particular way and I can't quite figure out how to do that and so I might turn to a Grammar & Composition book to find out. I may not use those particular words or phrases on an everyday basis, but now I know them, I understand the context in which they are used and all of that gets put away in my memory bank for use at another time.
I think of music theory in the same way.
Suppose I'm playing some chords and though they work well together, one or more of them seem somewhat bland or otherwise uninspiring.
But instead of a Thesaurus, I go to a chord chart or even a book on Music Theory to perhaps find out more about a particular progression and look for variations of those chords - synonyms if you will -- and after I find a few that I like, I use them, and now I know them, I understand the context in which they are used and they too get put away in my memory bank for use at another time just as I did with the words.
We generally learn language and its usage on an as-needed basis as we grow and communicate and in my opinion, music is no different.
I learn what I need to learn as I go and yes, when I look back I see more and more music theory being utilized but I'm simply not aware of it because rather than immersing myself in it, I'm gleaning this information slowly over time, just as I do with language .
If someone does however wish to immerse themselves into language or music theory and study it on an intellectual level and try to discover all of the intricacies inherent to both, then by all means do so!
It's just that that kind of saturation is not a requirement for making music just as knowing the inner workings of a printing press is not a requirement for writing a book.
Many of the greatest public speakers ever heard will go through their entire lifetime without ever knowing what a gerund or an infinitive is just as many popular musicians go through entire careers without knowing a fortissimo from an F-sharp. But they learn what they need to learn as they need to learn it and much of the time that's more than they'll ever need to know.
Cheers!
Last edited:
MarkDyson
Blues Hound Wannabe
Paleo
Student Of The Blues
You lost me on that one. I don’t think anyone would suggest that a writer does need to know the workings of a printing press. So arguing that they don’t need to know doesn’t serve any purpose.
A printer needs to know how to print and a writer needs to know how to write. There is no need for either one to know how to do the other person’s job.
I’d assume the printer knows how to operate the press. And if he learns its inner workings he can fix it himself when it breaks down, rather than relying on and paying someone else to come in and fix it.
I’d also assume the writer knows the letters of the alphabet, how to combine them together to spell words, how to put the words together into coherent sentences and how to put the sentences into coherent paragraphs.
I’d also assume, but would apparently be wrong to do so, that a musician would want to know the notes of the musical alphabet, how to organize them into scales, combine them into chords and put the chords together into a progression. That’s pretty much the extent of my “theoretical” knowledge.
If someone took the time to learn how to construct scales and chords for themselves they wouldn’t have to rely on someone else to write a book they could look them up in.
They could even write their own book, invest in a printer, learn how to operate it and publish the book them self.
And before I take my leave....
Our musical system was created by theorists who made logical, systematic, purposeful decisions regarding what sounds they wanted to employ and how they wanted to organize them. That system has been around for hundreds of years and used by musicians of all ages from all over the world.
(There is no secret society of musicians sitting around conspiring to create "new" theory.)
Seems the only ones who complain about learning the system is guitar players, even though the guitar and other instruments were designed to play the notes of the system they are using.
The placement of frets on the neck is not random. And Standard Tuning became "standard" for a reason.
Of course you can make music without knowing all the intricacies of the system. I don’t think anyone would suggest you do need to. So, again, arguing you don’t need to serves no purpose.
But without the system that underlies the design and creation of the guitar, it wouldn’t even exist and none of us would even be here.
To me the only legitimate concern some members have is how, when and to what degree they learn theory. But that has nothing to do with the validity of theory itself.
Last edited:
sdbrit68
Student Of The Blues
Nailed it!
In language, from time to time I may want to use words the are more descriptive or more dynamic and in such cases I turn to a Thesaurus
and instead of using a word such as "pleasant", for example, I might use "engaging" or "gratifying". Or maybe I want to write something in a particular way and I can't quite figure out how to do that and so I might turn to a Grammar & Composition book to find out. I may not use those particular words or phrases on an everyday basis, but now I know them, I understand the context in which they are used and all of that gets put away in my memory bank for use at another time.
If someone does however wish to immerse themselves into language or music theory and study it on an intellectual level and try to discover all of the intricacies inherent to both, then by all means do so!
Cheers!
I like that and will probably steal it
Paleo
Student Of The Blues
I just don't get what you mean by "on an intellectual level."
Sounds like you are trying to present an intellectual discourse that is the antithesis of intellectual pursuits.
Last edited:
Paleo
Student Of The Blues
In psychology, studying that phenomenon would fall under "Memory Theory".
JPsuff
Blackstar Artist
I just don't get what you mean by "on an intellectual level."
Sounds like you are trying to present an intellectual discourse that is the antithesis of intellectual pursuits.
Intellectual as opposed to functional.
Example:
When I first started my business, I wanted a webpage. There was no "WYSIWYG" software back then (early 90's) and a friend who was a programmer set it up for me.
But as I wanted to make changes from time to time, I learned some basic code so that I didn't have to bother him all the time.
He knew code on an intellectual level while I just knew enough to move some images and text when I wanted to.
Was I employing computer theory?
Yes.
But mine was simply a "meat and potatoes" version while his skills ran far deeper.
I knew enough to get by and learned more about it as needed and that's the same way that I think about music theory.
I'm not invalidating it, I just didn't need to study it on anything more than a necessary level.
Paleo
Student Of The Blues
I understood the differences, just wasn't quite sure that intellectual was the right word.
So of course, I'm thinking about it.
Never considered myself an "intellectual" before.
Maybe I am.
JPsuff
Blackstar Artist
I understood the differences, just wasn't quite sure that intellectual was the right word.
So of course, I'm thinking about it.
Never considered myself an "intellectual" before.
Maybe I am.
Don't sell yourself short.
You're far more intellectual than you may think.
At least I think so.
Paleo
Student Of The Blues
After 50+ years of an "on again/off again" relationship with the guitar (currently on) and all the theory I've learned over the course of those years and 5+ years with Griff, I've come to the following conclusions about soloing over a chord in a progression. Here's what I need to know.
Every note I choose will be:
1) in the chord
2) or if not in the chord:
----a) in the scale the chord came from
----b) or not in the scale
That's about it.
(The rest is just details.)
Every note I choose will be:
1) in the chord
2) or if not in the chord:
----a) in the scale the chord came from
----b) or not in the scale
That's about it.
(The rest is just details.)
Last edited:
Well that certainly narrows it down!After 50+ years of an "on again/off again" relationship with the guitar (currently on) and all the theory I've learned over the course of those years and 5+ years with Griff, I've come to the following conclusions about soloing over a chord in a progression. Here's what I need to know.
Every note I choose will be:
1) in the chord
2) or if not in the chord:
----a) in the scale the chord came from
----b) or not in the scale
That's about it.
(The rest is just details.)
BoogieMan
Blues Junior
This is a pretty good analogy. Children learn to speak just by listening and copying adults. In this way they also implicitly learn the grammatical rules although they may not learn the labels (eg verbs, nouns, etc) until later. Chances are that if you can play guitar, you probably know more music theory than you realize. And because you have implicitly learned the rules of music by playing it, the formal language will come easier for those who want to learn it.