How many here understand music theory?

Roland

Yes, but it's all self taught. Music theory always seems to me like a mythology that has been created to explain reality. Theory then gets treated as rules which should not be broken, rather than stepping stones which some people have found useful.

octatonic

Emp_Fab said:

That's what puts me off learning.  I know it sounds dumb but I'm a bit bothered that if I understand what I'm doing, I'll be thinking theory all the time instead of just being in the moment.  On the other hand, I'm sure I could be better technically if I knew the theory.

It doesn't really work like that.
Think of it like learning more language.

When you learn more words you don't obsess over them and try to fit them in all the time where they aren't needed, or at least your shouldn't.
Learning music theory simply informs you ability to express musical ideas in a more nuanced way.

Theory and technique are different things.
A lot of composition graduates don't play very well at all, because they've spent their time analysing scores rather than playing.
Think of it as the difference between being able to fix/build/design an F1 car or drive an F1 car.

Many very good musicians know next to fuck all about music theory.
If you are asking how to divide your time though then it is tricky because I don't know if you spend much time doing either.

randella

Chalky said:

randella said:

Chalky said:

  Licks and modes leave me cold.  I'd much rather listen to a piece and try to copy it (and fail) than studiously work from tabs or other left-brain thinking material.

 @Chalky ; I think there's a balance though.  I'll hear a lick I really like and try and work it out - half the time I realise that there's a bit of theory involved, i.e. the lick's using the Dorian mode.  So then that leads to a bit of working out the Dorian shape that covers the lick's rough area on the fretboard which leads to more cool sounds.

That's how I tend to work anyway, at least sometimes.  The problem is I'll then forget it and go back to ripping off Billy Gibbons licks.

Sure - and I've learned enough theory to do four and six part arrangements for woodwind. You're right, there is a balance. But I find as I get older it tips more towards just 'pick up my guitar and play'  

I'm not a bad guitarist, but I'm pretty much at 'pick up and play' and have been for years which is where occasionally forcing myself to use a little more theory helps in spades.  I guess we're either side of the balance here

I just need to put in the work.  I do actually enjoy it, it's just that the rest of life gets in the way and then you slip.  I find it's a bit like physical fitness, a long time to build up and then about 48 hours to lose altogether.

Drew_TNBD

Emp_Fab said:

That's what puts me off learning.  I know it sounds dumb but I'm a bit bothered that if I understand what I'm doing, I'll be thinking theory all the time instead of just being in the moment.  On the other hand, I'm sure I could be better technically if I knew the theory.

That's not how music theory works.

BGG

Nope not got a clue

57Deluxe

life's too short...

BigMonka

Yes, mainly because it logical and mathematical

Danny1969

I think it's important to know a bit of theory when you work with others ... to the point it's kinda rude not to because it makes everyone's life easier when it comes to transposing songs key wise and picking parts. For example imagine your playing some common tune like Valerie, and the keyboard player asks of you can thicken up his horn part with 3rds. If you know a bit of theory you can just do it ... if you don't you will still find the right notes but you might subject everyone to a few wrong notes before you settle on the right ones.
Another example is if the singer decides Locked out of Heaven or some highish song is a bit of a struggle, can we move it to Cm instead .... I don't want to wait around why the bass player finds his way around the song again ... he should be able to just play it in the new key ... it's the same intervals ..... music theory is a common language and if everyone can speak it then life is generally easier

For original music though I would have to say that the best music I recorded in five years of working in a studio was written by people who never had a clue about theory at all, they just stumbled on things and went by ear. It could be painful while they found the parts they could hear in their head but as they were all in the same boat and united as a band it wasn't a problem. That isn't to say knowledgeable people can't write great tunes, course they can 

Corvus

Yes. Paradox - theory is freedom. A framework or set of maps that enables creative thinking, for me anyway. The opposite of restriction. Like anything, once learnt you don't hardly think about the mechanics of it, you just do it.

I don't usually think 'now I'm going to use the 4th mode of melodic minor' or whatever, mostly think notes & intervals relative to the chord, or to your drinking man's major/minor/mixo etc and moving in that basic scale or modding it. In other words I know the altered scale say but don't have to think what's in it, how it was derived or even what it's called, to use what it gives.

Seems to me it's not that complicated in reality but a lot of resources make it look that way, some have a vested interest doing that probably like YT places selling lessons.

stratman3142

Roland said:

Yes, but it's all self taught. Music theory always seems to me like a mythology that has been created to explain reality. Theory then gets treated as rules which should not be broken, rather than stepping stones which some people have found useful.

That's sort of how I see all theory. But I was an engineer before I retired, not a scientist or philosopher.

For example, I remember struggling to understand how Maxwell's equations fundamentally explained electromagnetic (EM) radiation, until I grasped that set of equations had been extended to give a theoretical prediction. The original equations don't fundamentally explain 'the why', they're just models that work based on observation and experiment.  Theory is useful if it can be used to model what we experience and can be extended, but it shouldn't be a straightjacket. And a better theory might come along

I'm also essentially self taught (well most didn't come from an actual teacher, but I learned from other sources). I think it's important to understand the underlying principles, rather than rigidly learning a set of facts without understanding and without real world application..

PolarityMan

Ok so here's my beef with theory. I get the idea that it's just language *but* it isn't a zero cost thing to learn it takes a bunch of effort and so if I was to invest in it I'd want to see a significant return. And that's the rub, I don't think theory describes modern music adequately it's more or less just a measure of dissonance versus consonance.
For music that has been created after the invent of recording devices it's as important to be able to explain why it sounds good when you drop everything out for 2 beats and have some kind of hook playing, or why the bass should be doing straight eights over fast palm muted riffs and stuff like that. Not to mention the contribution of the sound to the final composition, like use of delay, FX etc..  
Even if you restrict the idea that theory should describe an abstract version of music it is still woefully inadequate, you can just about talk about how to express "tension" or "sadness" versus "happiness" but there is no language for really fine grained emotional intent. 
If you can tell me that using theory I can understand how to make something sound "sci-fi" or "like barely concealed rage" or anything other than really broad strokes then I might have more incentive to put more effort in.
As it stands though I have enough to do what I need to do.

Oh I also dont think that transposition is a great argument either, only a certain type of song can be transposed and those are ones where the instrumental parts are fairly trivial. Once your working with riffs you basically need a retun to transpose any way at which point you dont need any theory to do that either.

Lestratcaster

Yep, did the ACM Performance Degree in Guitar in 2009-11 but don't know what grade this equates to. By the time I was learning theory though I could already play which made it much more bearable. I just didn't know why major chords were different from minor, and what a 4 part harmony in a 7th involved. I didn't know modes and chord progression relationships or the cycle of fifths.

Now I do know though it makes learning music quicker, as my rhythm reading was very poor as well. But now I can pretty much be shown a chart on the fly, be given 10 minutes to analyse and then go and play it.

viz

PolarityMan said:
I don't think theory describes modern music adequately it's more or less just a measure of dissonance versus consonance.

For music that has been created after the invent of recording devices it's as important to be able to explain why it sounds good when you drop everything out for 2 beats and have some kind of hook playing, or why the bass should be doing straight eights over fast palm muted riffs and stuff like that.

Sounds like you should be creating the next branch of music theory! And I'm not joking, we do need that properly understood and written about. 

octatonic

PolarityMan said:

Ok so here's my beef with theory. I get the idea that it's just language *but* it isn't a zero cost thing to learn it takes a bunch of effort and so if I was to invest in it I'd want to see a significant return. And that's the rub, I don't think theory describes modern music adequately it's more or less just a measure of dissonance versus consonance.
For music that has been created after the invent of recording devices it's as important to be able to explain why it sounds good when you drop everything out for 2 beats and have some kind of hook playing, or why the bass should be doing straight eights over fast palm muted riffs and stuff like that. Not to mention the contribution of the sound to the final composition, like use of delay, FX etc..  
Even if you restrict the idea that theory should describe an abstract version of music it is still woefully inadequate, you can just about talk about how to express "tension" or "sadness" versus "happiness" but there is no language for really fine grained emotional intent. 
1.If you can tell me that using theory I can understand how to make something sound "sci-fi" or "like barely concealed rage" or anything other than really broad strokes then I might have more incentive to put more effort in.
As it stands though I have enough to do what I need to do.

2. Oh I also dont think that transposition is a great argument either, only a certain type of song can be transposed and those are ones where the instrumental parts are fairly trivial. Once your working with riffs you basically need a retun to transpose any way at which point you dont need any theory to do that either.

1. Yeah, it doesn't do that either.
Music theory teaches you how to put things together but it does't teach artistry- you either have that or you don't in my opinion.

2. I don't think I could disagree with you more. Maybe if you are doing rock guitar music that relies on a lot of open notes for riffs then transposition is limited but having done loads of different covers bands over the years and a lot of jams I find we are always changing key to suit the singers. 
Even if you can't do it on the fly (which is a different type of challenge) then at least being able to chart it out and then play the chart is a necessary musical skill.
I've played a lot with horn players and they often have to transpose on the fly from C clef to Bb or Eb. That can be quite tricky.

Luminous

Yes...to a fairly high level and self taught. Knowing it makes me a better player and musician but doesnt take away from being able to just go with gut feelings and instincts. go for it you won't regret it.

Fretwired

I'm not bad .. Adrian Clark recommended a good book for me to read plus the internet.

Luminous

viz said:

PolarityMan said:
I don't think theory describes modern music adequately it's more or less just a measure of dissonance versus consonance.

For music that has been created after the invent of recording devices it's as important to be able to explain why it sounds good when you drop everything out for 2 beats and have some kind of hook playing, or why the bass should be doing straight eights over fast palm muted riffs and stuff like that.

Sounds like you should be creating the next branch of music theory! And I'm not joking, we do need that properly understood and written about. 

Thats just arrangement skills..people have been writing and analysing that for hundreds of years. just because we have more available recording technology doesn't change wether an arrangement works or fails.

Jimbro66

Yes, but also no.

The YES is because of the mentoring I had from my ten years older brother in my early days of playing. He was a big band vocalist singing all the old standards. He chucked a whole lot of sheet music at me, Cole Porter etc, and a book on scales and chord theory. Then said "Learn that". So I gained sound theory even before my lead playing developed.

The NO is because when I look at lessons from the like of Mike Outram I wonder what the hell I do know

Roben Ford is a great example of a player who knows his theory inside-out, back-to-front but still plays in a way that sounds fresh and creative.

Jalapeno

Yes.  Less so sight-reading. When I was doing musicals in my yoof I could read quite well (my tenor harmony lines), but the ability didn't make it to the guitar.  I can read rhythms (eventually), but not pitch on the fly.

With guitar chords you can play some quite harmonically complex things - ought to be able to construct a chord in maj/min/dom/dim/half-dim, as well as applying 2nd/4th suspensions - even in cover bands we play this stuff all the time ! Ought to be able to decipher that C/G means ....... play a C chord (and the bass player plays G, or you have to if there isn't one )

My eyes glaze over with scales & modes (the good stuff is in Arpeggios and Accidentals anyway) - these are terms for describing what just happened rather than a compositional aid (IMHO) - I mean by the time I've worked out what Neapolitan Myxolydian off the Sub Dominant means - the music has moved on 4 bars and it's no longer relevant.

racefaceec90

man i don't understand this existence let alone music theory (and playing guitar)