Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Google

Become a Subscriber!

Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!

Read more...

Where to start with theory

What's Hot
2

Comments

  • I look at it this way:

    Modes (E box shape, basically fill in the minor pentatonic patterns)
    Modes (three notes per string)

    Most of these feed into each other - have fun with it all though :)
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom


  • I think there are two basic problems with learning theory and both are easily overcome:
    - lots of different explanations and even names for the same things. Find a course, follow it, come back to online conversations much later.
    - the belief that theory will tell you what to do. Theory explains what you have done and gives you a language to communicate to others . Once you grasp it's that's way around you are freed up to make music, supported by and not restricted by theory. 
    ---this, in spades. So many guitarists don't get this. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • m_cm_c Frets: 1211
    I've been working through Justin Guitars practical music theory book for a while*, and I'd recommend it. Theory isn't something you'll learn quickly though, as you really need to gradually learn and understand it in stages, otherwise you can end up 'knowing' something, but not really understanding it.

    One thing that I'm sure really helped me, was I know my way around a piano/keyboard, so I already knew where the sharps/flats go, which is the kind of thing if you don't know well, will hamper the next stages like learning chord construction, as rather than thinking about what the I, III, V are, first you're having to think where the sharps/flats go.

    *By a while, I mean for a couple years! I generally learn a bit, then get distracted/frustrated then ignore it for a while, however I'm very gradually working my way through it.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • beed84beed84 Frets: 2403
    Get the AB Guide to Music Theory by Eric Taylor, the Music Theory in Practice Grade 1, and some past papers to practice with. It's just one of those things: start at the beginning and work your way up.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • FuengiFuengi Frets: 2849
    m_c said:
    I've been working through Justin Guitars practical music theory book for a while*, and I'd recommend it. Theory isn't something you'll learn quickly though, as you really need to gradually learn and understand it in stages, otherwise you can end up 'knowing' something, but not really understanding it.

    One thing that I'm sure really helped me, was I know my way around a piano/keyboard, so I already knew where the sharps/flats go, which is the kind of thing if you don't know well, will hamper the next stages like learning chord construction, as rather than thinking about what the I, III, V are, first you're having to think where the sharps/flats go.

    *By a while, I mean for a couple years! I generally learn a bit, then get distracted/frustrated then ignore it for a while, however I'm very gradually working my way through it.
    I found a keyboard or a xylophone is brilliant for visual reference to theory where a guitar isn't. Worth having one around.

    Michael New does some really good keyboard based theory lessons on YouTube which helped me grasp a few concepts. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • vizviz Frets: 10643
    Fuengi said:
    m_c said:
    I've been working through Justin Guitars practical music theory book for a while*, and I'd recommend it. Theory isn't something you'll learn quickly though, as you really need to gradually learn and understand it in stages, otherwise you can end up 'knowing' something, but not really understanding it.

    One thing that I'm sure really helped me, was I know my way around a piano/keyboard, so I already knew where the sharps/flats go, which is the kind of thing if you don't know well, will hamper the next stages like learning chord construction, as rather than thinking about what the I, III, V are, first you're having to think where the sharps/flats go.

    *By a while, I mean for a couple years! I generally learn a bit, then get distracted/frustrated then ignore it for a while, however I'm very gradually working my way through it.
    I found a keyboard or a xylophone is brilliant for visual reference to theory where a guitar isn't. Worth having one around.

    Michael New does some really good keyboard based theory lessons on YouTube which helped me grasp a few concepts. 
    I don’t know how anyone can understand theory without a piano keyboard / picture of one. 
    Roland said: Scales are primarily a tool for categorising knowledge, not a rule for what can or cannot be played.
    Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • What @viz said.

    If you want the detail, try this

    Start with C major. No sharps no flats.
    For each note of the scale
    do
            write out the notes from C major starting on the note you chose until you have covered an octave
            calculate the interval of each note from the note preceding it in your scale
            calculate the interval of each note of your scale from the note you chose as its root
    done

    You have taken the modes of C major. Note that two of them are only one note different to a major scale.
    Answer this: In those two, which note would you sharpen or flatten in order to turn that mode into a new major scale starting on its "root".

    Ok, for those two, take the modes from the new root and do the same thing as you did with C major. You should get similar results (structurally), but starting and ending on different notes.

    If you repeat that for long enough you will generate all the key signature there are. Each time round you collect an extra sharp (or flat). You will see that the last sharp in each key signature is on the leading note of the major scale that the key signature is for. You should also see that the last flat in a key signature is on the 4th degree of the major scale that the key signature is for.

    Don't bother trying to lean key signature by rote. Generate them from first principles.

    Remember: inclusive counting of note names for intervals, use the major scale as a yardstick to tell you whether you have a major or a minor interval. Don't mix sharps and flats in a key sig. You must have exactly one of each note name present in a scale. If it looks like you need (eg) an F and an F#, the chances are you need an E# and an F#. Perfect intervals become augmented or diminished when modified.

    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs. (Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!)
    Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Bygone_TonesBygone_Tones Frets: 1527
    edited November 2018
    Another vote for this: 



    That was the book I used when doing my classical grades. The blue Part 2 book has the very advanced stuff in it, you probably wont need unless you get really into it.

    Fwiw I dont think music theory is something you can just read from a book and learn. You have to implement it into your playing for it to stick. So that means reading from sheet music, start with basic grade 1 song books and increase in difficulty.  Ideally get a teacher who can help you through them. Consider doing the ABRSM grades.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • Nothing wrong with AB Grades, Eric Taylor's book is excellent, but IMO it
    • doesn't get you to generate scales and key signatures from first principles (It either teaches by rote or assumes you know why the circles of fifths/fourths is the way it is)
    • doesn't go a whole lot on commonly-used chord progressions (I vi IV V, ii V I, I IV V etc)
    I think the first is a bit of a drop-off. The second is to be expected because it is not primarily aimed at the readership for which those chord progressions are significant.
    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs. (Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!)
    Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • vizviz Frets: 10643
    edited November 2018
    Nothing wrong with AB Grades, Eric Taylor's book is excellent, but IMO it
    • doesn't get you to generate scales and key signatures from first principles (It either teaches by rote or assumes you know why the circles of fifths/fourths is the way it is)
    • doesn't go a whole lot on commonly-used chord progressions (I vi IV V, ii V I, I IV V etc)
    I think the first is a bit of a drop-off. The second is to be expected because it is not primarily aimed at the readership for which those chord progressions are significant.
    I agree, the only quibble I have with the ABRSM theory course and the like is that they leave harmony till relatively late, whereas playing chords is the first thing guitarists do. Still good though. 
    Roland said: Scales are primarily a tool for categorising knowledge, not a rule for what can or cannot be played.
    Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • TimmyOTimmyO Frets: 7349
    I asked about this  year ago (and got into to it briefly - really should do so again) and got the AB book and another - but I also found a couple of really handy iOS apps for practicing/applying some of it that I liked - I'll dig out my iPad and see what they were called... 
    Red ones are better. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • TimmyOTimmyO Frets: 7349
    aha - Waay was one I liked - I've just bumped the thread for anyone interested 
    Red ones are better. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • DeeTeeDeeTee Frets: 764
    Nothing wrong with AB Grades, Eric Taylor's book is excellent, but IMO it
    • doesn't get you to generate scales and key signatures from first principles (It either teaches by rote or assumes you know why the circles of fifths/fourths is the way it is)
    • doesn't go a whole lot on commonly-used chord progressions (I vi IV V, ii V I, I IV V etc)
    I think the first is a bit of a drop-off. The second is to be expected because it is not primarily aimed at the readership for which those chord progressions are significant.
    Thank you for this. I was looking at getting it, but I want to know why things are and learn the basic principles. This is why I hated music theory at school. I spent a lot of time asking "why?" because it confused me, and being told to shut up.

    Is there a book that you recommend that does explain the whys and theory?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • @DeeTee  ; tbh I'm not sure. None of it made any sense to me until I heard Alan Limbrick expound the subject at The Guitar Institute in the early 1990s.

    I don't think I've ever seen anything like his exposition in a book. If you PM me an email address I'd be willing to discuss it with you further.
    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs. (Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!)
    Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • equalsqlequalsql Frets: 6084
    As others have mentioned to really learn theory you need to have a basic keyboard. It's literally laid out for you in black and white (no pun intended) on the keyboard. It's easy to see how chords are constructed and musical notation is really structured around a piano's layout.
    (pronounced: equal-sequel)   "I suffered for my art.. now it's your turn"
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • vizviz Frets: 10643
    equalsql said:
    As others have mentioned to really learn theory you need to have a basic keyboard. It's literally laid out for you in black and white (no pun intended) on the keyboard. It's easy to see how chords are constructed and musical notation is really structured around a piano's layout.
    The keyboard is the perfect model of our sharps and flats / keys system. With it and the Cof5 wheel you can derive everything else. 
    Roland said: Scales are primarily a tool for categorising knowledge, not a rule for what can or cannot be played.
    Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • stratman3142stratman3142 Frets: 2177
    edited December 2018
    equalsql said:
    As others have mentioned to really learn theory you need to have a basic keyboard. It's literally laid out for you in black and white (no pun intended) on the keyboard. It's easy to see how chords are constructed and musical notation is really structured around a piano's layout.
    We're all different. I learned the theory I need for the music I want to play and create without reference to a piano keyboard, and solely based on visualisation of the guitar fretboard. I started with my own version of 5 shapes for an integrated approach to scales and chords, then years later discovered that it was actually the CAGED system.

    I've been playing guitar for nearly 50 years now and my knowledge of theory is tightly locked to the guitar. In recent years I've been trying to get into keyboards and struggle with visualisation in that context. I find it hard to instantly see intervals on the piano keyboard (especially the intermediate intervals around a 6th) whereas I can instantly see them on guitar.

    I hear and see things in terms of patterns, and those patterns are easier for me to relate to guitar than a piano keyboard.

     So in summary I'm not sure about the 'keyboard argument' but @viz knows much more about theory than me so maybe I'm wrong.


    It's not a competition.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • The guitar is like 6 pianos, each one shifted left by a few places. If you like you can visualise the layout of notes up & down one string, then shift it left by a few frets for the next string so that going from one string to another on the same fret is the same as going up a 4th (or a 3rd) on the same string.
    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs. (Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!)
    Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • vizviz Frets: 10643
    edited December 2018
    equalsql said:
    As others have mentioned to really learn theory you need to have a basic keyboard. It's literally laid out for you in black and white (no pun intended) on the keyboard. It's easy to see how chords are constructed and musical notation is really structured around a piano's layout.
    We're all different. I learned the theory I need for the music I want to play and create without reference to a piano keyboard, and solely based on visualisation of the guitar fretboard. I started with my own version of 5 shapes for an integrated approach to scales and chords, then years later discovered that it was actually the CAGED system.

    I've been playing guitar for nearly 50 years now and my knowledge of theory is tightly locked to the guitar. In recent years I've been trying to get into keyboards and struggle with visualisation in that context. I find it hard to instantly see intervals on the piano keyboard (especially the intermediate intervals around a 6th) whereas I can instantly see them on guitar.

    I hear and see things in terms of patterns, and those patterns are easier for me to relate to guitar than a piano keyboard.

     So in summary I'm not sure about the 'keyboard argument' but @viz knows much more about theory than me so maybe I'm wrong.


    That’s a bold claim that might not stand up to scrutiny!

    For me, what you say about your experience with the guitar is definitely valid, and lots of violinists, flautists and trombonists I’m sure would agree with you. In fact come to think of it, I’m a guitarist and violinist and I also know exactly what you mean. Your point about being able to see a 6th better on the guitar resonates with me.

    I think it’s possibly because you’ve just grown up that way, but also possibly because the guitar really is a better tool than the piano for showing intervals, because it is a more key-agnostic instrument. Although the guitar is basically tuned to G major / E minor, it’s not as rigid as a piano which is more grounded in C major / A minor. 

    And Phil’s point about each string being like a piano, just offset by a few notes, is aligned with that point too. 

    So in terms of playing, I’d be comfortable with what you say. What I think I’m trying to say is that the piano is a very good theoretical model of C major and the other keys too. I’m not saying that it necessarily facilitates playing in different keys as well as other instruments (though a pianist would definitely say it does!), but that it actually models the entire construct that the diatonic system is founded on.

    It means that you can build up the keys, one-by-one, perhaps referring to the circle-of-5ths wheel or other mnemonics like Father Charles Goes Down..., and see exactly how the accumulating sharps or flats get added to each key, very simply and intuitively. The piano effectively models the whole construct of the key system. And of course therefore you can do the same with modes. And you can also use it for harmonising the scales - for example, a ii-V-I in C major (Dm, G7, C) uses only white notes. And for knowing which neighbouring notes don’t have sharps between them. That sort of thing. 

    If you don’t have a picture of a piano keyboard while trying to work through this stuff you are just working a bit more blindly, and I think it takes that bit longer. 
    Roland said: Scales are primarily a tool for categorising knowledge, not a rule for what can or cannot be played.
    Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.