Would be nice if folks here knew the language of music

[Nick Fryer]

***

[Edward Dixon]

I'll confess I have not yet read thru all 3 pages of posts in this thread. Not yet, but I hope to. But I am most happy that the original poster brought up this matter of music theory because it's a subject I'd love to master....

My sister is a wonderful piano player, but she told me the other day that she wishes so much she'd paid attention to her teacher when she was young because then she could know how to transpose her playing into whatever Key someone needed to sing in.

To me, there is no greater talent than the ability to make the complex simple. And don't take this the wrong way, but I'd give my eye teeth to know music theory like the own back of my hand, because I know I could simplify it for others. Has anyone else done that yet? If so, please let me know.

I have been following from the beginning. I think you are the only person that has remotely asked about Music Theory. Start here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_theory

If you have a specific question you should ask directly. Or if you have it, Ask Alexa! that's fun.

There is also plenty of computer software that can help/teach you. For transposing, I use OnSong. Pull chords and lyrics from the internet, (or write your own) arrange, transpose everything you need. The chords can be displayed in Letters, roman numerals, Nashville Numbering and the old doh re mi.

[Stuart Legg]

b0b just deported this Steel Player Kryptonite (Music Theory) to Music.
Not any too soon! They were starting to ramble on aimlessly like zombies, following blindly lacking direction and hopelessly incapable of rational thought.

[Bo Legg]

Music Theory is maps of musically successful paths.
The language of Music Theory is the names of each and every map.
Example: “Tadd Dameron Turnaround” is the title of the map of the path.
You then bring up and follow the map from memory or from some other source.
That’s all there is to Music Theory.
It doesn’t tell you how fast or slow to go, it doesn’t have an opinion when you walk off into the weeds. It’s just a map and it’s up to you to decide how and when you travel it on the Steel Guitar.

[Nic Neufeld]

Really good discussion in here! I appreciate the original post may have been out of frustration or just blowing off some steam, but it kicked off some interesting stuff for sure!

For popular music, I think what is -required- (vs what is helpful) is pretty minimal or basic. I think knowing basic chord theory is close to essential (note...not talking about theory of harmony...just talking about knowing the different types of chords and how they are constructed). For many instruments I think reading staff notation is not as critical...it helps me when I play electric bass with an orchestra, but I prefer lead-sheets and rhythm charts anyway that don't micromanage my basslines. On steel, I usually work with a combination tablature and staff notation...you get the what-strings-what-fret from the tabs and rhythm from the staff notation...neither is complete by itself for steel or guitar because there are so many possible positions to play a note.

For any kind of classical music, you really have to know more theory. In Indian classical, which I studied for about 7 years under a master way beyond what I as a student warranted, there is a vast depth of theory surrounding raag and taal, and you really just have to start to learn it over time and internalize it, even though the music is in fact "improvised"...of course, it depends on your audience. If you play in front of Western hippie audiences you can get away with a lot. In front of knowledgeable Indian audiences, they listen with a much more exacting ear (never more mortified than when playing Indian music to an Indian audience!).

Western classical splits the two roles apart between performer and composer. The composer has the burden to understand the theory...the performer could understand none of it as long as he or she can read and play what is written. But if you're a violinist playing Mahler with a municipal-level symphony odds are you also know more theory than I ever will!

[Fred Treece]

The rest have been mostly tangential and anecdotal ...

I'm gonna disagree there. Many replies have hit the nail on the head, IMO.

I th,ink the issue with getting into this, "Why oh why doesn't everybody communicate and think about things as I do?" is that, intended or not, it feels like a put-down and gets us away from what this forum is about, which is steel guitar.

Our disagreement probably stems from what I perceive as the ambiguity of the OP. Maybe provocation was intended, but I did not interpret it that way, and I don’t think Edward Dixon did in his first response either. I maintain that the many posts discussing the value of music theory - however interesting, valuable, and entertaining - were secondary.

As far as the Forum being about steel guitar, can’t argue with that obviously. But it is also about electronics, computers, our extended family, new products (steel-oriented and otherwise), recording, and...music. This topic is right where it belongs and is perfectly legitimate.

(Excellent post, Nic N.)

[Dave Mudgett]

As far as the Forum being about steel guitar, can’t argue with that obviously. But it is also about electronics, computers, our extended family, new products (steel-oriented and otherwise), recording, and...music. This topic is right where it belongs and is perfectly legitimate.

I don't think you're understanding my point. I said

I think the issue with getting into this, "Why oh why doesn't everybody communicate and think about things as I do?" is that, intended or not, it feels like a put-down and gets us away from what this forum is about, which is steel guitar.

It's the put-down perception that tends to make things personal and, IMO, gets us away from steel guitar. And of course, the other observation I noted in that paragraph was that this topic was mis-placed in Pedal Steel. Music theory is off-topic there, and that's why it's now here in Music. This is not a music theory forum, or even a music forum. BTW, there is a music theory forum, actually more a blog, here - https://www.musictheoryforum.com/ - and there are quite a number of sites that have subforums on music theory, such as https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=99 and this subreddit - https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/

I hadn't read that wikipedia article on music theory. Actually, I think it's pretty good. Pretty much everything we've been talking about here, and I think what Stuart had in mind (pardon me Stuart if I'm misunderstanding you - feel free to correct me), is under the section "Fundamentals of Music" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_the ... s_of_music - and I agree with that denotation. I think almost everybody here has agreed that knowledge of what they're calling fundamentals of music is useful. The issue is the degree to which one masters these fundamentals.

Beyond that, what I (and I think a lot of other people but obviously not everybody) treat as "Music Theory" is under the section "Music Theory as an Academic Discipline" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_the ... discipline

I guess I'm with Edgard Varèse's comment on analysis, which is quoted there:

to explain by means of [analysis] is to decompose, to mutilate the spirit of a work.

You might not be too surprised to find I more or less feel the same way about artistic analysis/criticism in general. I'm interested in the fundamentals of music that go to making music, not analyzing or criticizing music. Of course, there are other areas of academic interest in music theory, but it seems to me that analysis/criticism is the aspect that gets the most attention, at least in the mainstream. So if I seem to have a slightly negative spin on the topic "music theory", that's where I'm coming from.

[Fred Treece]

The effort you put into all your posts is commendable, Dave. I just try to be considerate and give all posters the benefit of the doubt. I lapsed once or twice in this thread, and I’m sorry about that now. It is possible to disagree without showing disdain, even when responding to a post that is obviously disdainful. Making oneself understood in the spirit of civility is the whole point of a text-based forum.

I still don’t think I missed your point though. I thought the topic was misplaced right from the start and wondered why it hadn’t been shifted here.

I wonder if anyone on that Music Theory Forum has said, “We should talk more about the pedal steel guitar here”, and taken a ration of bunk for it.

[Edward Dixon]

Stuart,

I think this is what you're looking for

Jazz And Pedal Steel:
https://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=81489

Many people associate PSG with country music. Since you mention Tadd Dameron I assume what you really want to discuss is Jazz on the pedal steel. I don't play Jazz, much C&W, Polka and many other types, so I googled Tad Dameron.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadd_Dameron_turnaround

n jazz, the Tadd Dameron turnaround, named for Tadd Dameron, "is a very common turnaround in the jazz idiom",[1] derived from a typical I−vi−ii−V turnaround through the application of tritone substitution of all but the first chord, thus yielding, in C major:

| C Eâ™­7 | Aâ™­7 Dâ™­7 |
rather than the more conventional:

| C Am7 |Dm7 G7 |
The Tadd Dameron turnaround may feature major seventh chords,[2] and derive from the following series of substitutions, each altering the chord quality:[2][3]

| CM7 Am7 | Dm7 G7 | (original)
| CM7 A7 | D7 G7 | (dominant for minor triad)
| CM7 Eâ™­7 | Aâ™­7 Dâ™­7 | (Dameron turnaround: tritone substitution)
| CM7 Eâ™­M7 |Aâ™­M7 Dâ™­M7 | (major for dominant seventh)

I understand every bit of that but really it makes no difference to the music I play. I value creativity more than head knowledge. But, the thread I posted above tells me there are plenty here to discuss this topic with. Maybe we need a Jazz sub forum for the PSG players who are interested.

[Brandon Mills]

I once watched a forum argument “discussion” between Buddy Emmons and Paul Franklin regarding, if I remember correctly, the best placement of the E lever…. If they couldn’t agree to disagree (mostly on Buddy’s part I think) then what hope does anyone on here have .

Honestly though, it’s nearly impossible to tell someone’s tone through text and even then there is such a mix of actual talent that it’s hard to know when someone has good insight to offer or if they need to spend less time at a keyboard and more time at the fretboard before offering so much advice.

[Allan Revich]

As far as I know, there are no forum rules against posting in the language of Music Theory, just foreign languages that are not translated into English.

Anyone who wants to ask about music theory can (and should). Anyone who wants to explain music theory can.

"Would be nice if folks here knew the language of music", implies that there is something lacking in "folks here", It's an offensive statement and based on a false premise. Many of us know theory, and knowing it, have no need to talk about it.

This nails It. For a post about the communication of musical information, it was pretty “tone deaf”. The only “language of music” IS music. As for what “folks here [know]”, I think that virtually every person who posts here has something to offer, and I am thankful for the opportunity to learn something from all of them.

I played blues harmonica in bands for about 30 years before picking up the lap steel guitar, and knew almost no music theory. But I liked the sounds I was making. My band mates always appreciated my contributions, and audiences usually responded with applause after my solos. I have found that the idiosyncrasies of the lap steel demanded that I learn a lot more theory in order to play it “better” (ie/to make the sounds I want to make), and so I’ve learned a lot of theory and am now very comfortable in that language. I even enjoy theory discussions. But I definitely don’t feel like the forum would “be better if more folks knew the language of music…”

The SGF is about steel guitars. That’s a topic that can be approached from a lot of angles, of which the concept of western music theory is only one part.

[Don R Brown]

Not too long after I started PSG, I inquired of one very experienced player if I could get lessons. He asked about my knowledge of theory. When I said I was lacking, he stated flat out it is impossible to play pedal steel without a thorough knowledge of theory. I tried to get into a basic music theory at a local college but the course was full.

Eventually I mentioned that conversation to two of my mentors, each of who is well known here and whose names you would probably recognize. One expressed great sadness, saying "Gee, for 40 years, in countless bands and venues I THOUGHT I could play pedal steel. I guess I was mistaken". The other fellow demanded to know who said that so he could set them straight. (I did not divulge the name).

Over time I have come to realize 2 points. The first is that if one intends to be a top-notch player at the highest professional level, the guy was probably right. I took up steel after I retired, and am too old for fame and groupies. So I don't have a long time to spend learning, I'm happy playing at home, jamming with friends or playing an occasional garage-band type thing.

And the second thing I realize is I have a block on theory. I am a fairly intelligent guy, had some college, had a career which included running a railroad company and my own business, and I'm pretty mechanical with restoring old cars and hot rods. BUT - for some reason I just can't get comfortable with anything more than very basic theory. I know the major chords I IV V etc, I have a working knowledge of minors and various other stuff. And I freely admit I will never make it as a GOOD pedal steel player. But when discussion turns to anything more than very basic theory, I'm one of the ones whose eyes glaze over. I've watched videos, I've read articles, i do understand them at the time - but it just doesn't absorb to the point I can "speak the language".

There are (hopefully) others like me out there. If you tell me to play something described in theory I'll probably be lost. But play something for me a few times and I can probably piece together enough to imitate it. I'll continue to occasionally watch a video or read yet another article about basic theory but for whatever reason it just doesn't sink in. And I have come to accept that and am still enjoying the instrument regardless.

[Peter Harris]

Well said, Don...
...thank you for that.

Peter (who also restores old cars when I can't avoid it)

[Thornton Lewis]

I am a pedal steel operator, not a player. There are things I believe:

-Music is a language. We play together to communicate. To use a language most effectively we must hear it, speak it, read it, and write it.

-Hearing and speaking are the most basic. You play something; I play it back. You play something; I play something back that complements it, acknowledges it, reacts to it. I hear you.

-Reading and writing are higher level, but crucial. I cannot hear Bach play (in fact no one ever heard Bach play the solo cello suites.) I can understand what Bach wants me to hear if I can read music. At this point in technology I don't have to write; I can send you a file and you can play by ear. Similarly I can write tab and you can play PSG the way I want. Tab has advantages (it tells you what sets of strings to play an interval which does matter) and disadvantages (hard to share with other musicians, is often not copedent neutral, often omits timing.) Reading and writing condense things; the better you are at them the more able you are to communicate with others before you play with them or when you can't play with them. Don't expect Bach to send you tab or most other non PSG musicians either.

So any two or more to communicate: hear, play...play, write...read,play, etc.

Harmonic theory is outside this paradigm a little. If music is a language it has to be a single melodic line at base. Many instruments aren't chordal; they don't speak harmony alone. Harmony is style; it's the sentence, the paragraph. Are you giving a Nobel prize acceptance or hanging with your friends at the softball game? Are you coming on to someone or kicking them out of the house? The harmonies you assign to these emotions are culturally based. You have to learn them and share them from a shared culture. You can play the same melody with two different harmonies and one will sound "happy" and one will sound "sad", one will sound "country" and one will sound "jazz" and to a North Korean they will all sound "foreign."

I want to hear or see a melody, play it, and harmonize it so it expresses what I feel and complements what the person who played or wrote it said. I would like to write down what I said so others can see and understand it even if the internet is down.

That's all. Simple.

[Don R Brown]

That's all. Simple.

Thornton, understanding what you said IS simple. For me, ACCOMPLISHING it is anything but!

[Jerry Overstreet]

Been reading all these posts since the beginning. Couldn't decide if I should comment.

However, I will add my thoughts.

I believe I understand Stuart's intent and nature of his topic. If I'm wrong, he can tell me.

Seems to me, he was just saying one can't discuss the ins and outs of music theory knowledgeably unless one knows something about it and it would be nice if he could have that discussion here with other knowledgeable folk. That's all.

That's a whole different discussion than whether one ought or ought not practice theory.

Few of the 3 or 4 pgs. of replies actually address his line of thought IMO.

[Tony Prior]

I too have refrained from commenting as a few I think have missed the mark and somehow made it personal about Stuart.

I don't recall that he ever mentioned "reading music" but somehow music theory and reading music became one and the same.

Its also not about playing kool licks or phrases. We can each learn that stuff from TAB. OR a friend can teach us really kool phrases. Thats not music theory.

RE-I can drive a car but I can't read a road map.

RE- Turn right at the 4th light . If we can't count then when do we turn ?

Its not argument , its a discussion.

Heres a very simple explanation of how I understand Stuarts topic of discussion.

We are on the bandstand and the bandleader says-

"Hold the 1 an extra 4 bars "

We either know what that means or we don't

IF we do , then we know enough theory to communicate even at a basic level. We understood the instruction.

All Stuart is suggesting is -

"Do we know what the 1 is "

because if we don't then we will never understand

1-4-5

or

1-2-4-5

or

1-6-2-5

we will be asking

what are the chords ?

Sometimes we are on the bandstand playing LIVE. A player may not be familiar with a song. So during the song one of the other players uses the finger communication method. REALLY REALLY common.

1 finger, 2 fingers, 4 fingers , 5 fingers etc...

Communicating the chord chart in real time, no words spoken.

[Edward Dixon]

"Would be nice if folks here knew the language of music".

The subject of the sentence above is "folks here". That might be why I don't understand what Sturt is on about. He still has not explained. I find his assumption that folks here don't know the language of music ridiculous.

Do you know the language of music? Can you explain how you play a piece of music to your Dutch friend visiting from Amsterdam who speaks very little English? There are a multitude a ways to communicate music, use whatever works best for you is common sense.

I was not offended by the OP nor do I want to offend anyone. When I first saw this thread I thought it might turn out to be similar to a thread posted a month or two before I joined the forum but it didn't.

Posted 19 Jan 2020
To music theory , or not to music theory ?
https://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtop ... sic+theory

RE: Nashville numbers:
I started playing Bass in a working band in 1964 at the age of 13 I wanted to play guitar but my dad got a bass for Christmas and I was the only kid in my Jr. High that had access to an electric bass (Silvertone with big heavy Silvertone amp with 2 12" speakers) so I was "drafted" into the local rock band.

We didn't know anything about Nashville Numbers back then, we learned in terms of chords, their names and their inversions. That much got us through high School and many years beyond.

It wasn't until the late '90's that I heard of the number system from a songwriter friend in Tulsa that went to work in Nashville. He came back to Tulsa and explained it to me. I could see how useful it was but I really didn't need it. It makes transposing a simple matter but I had been transposing songs in my head for for 30 years. Those numbers mean nothing to others who don't know how a scale is constructed.

Now, as I begin learning PSG the number system has become a very valuable thing to know. It's how I identify my 9 pedals and 8 levers. It's much easier to understand.

I still don't think in terms of numbers when I learn a new song on PSG, I think in terms of chord names and where that chord can be played. An A minor is an A minor in any key whether it's a 6 in C or a 2 in G.

[b0b]

I never met anyone who knew enough music theory to hurt their playing.

[Colin Swinney]

I never met anyone who knew enough music theory to hurt their playing.

I think it’s those who think too much about theory while they are playing that are hindered. It’s like trying to think of each letter or word and not actually comprehending the sentence or “missing the forest for the trees”.

[Tony Prior]

I seriously doubt anyone thinks "theory" while performing. Its automatic, just like talking in a conversation. An upspoken entity. We respond accordingly because we know the basic language.

We know where we are, we know where we are headed. Most importantly, we know when we are WRONG and off track or when the music is going a different direction . We also know when someone else is going in the wrong direction and we have the ability to correct them, on the fly.

IF we can HEAR chord changes and intervals in our head, we are exercising our knowledge of theory, as minimal as it may be.

Any one of us who can decipher the 1,4 or 5 in a basic Country song and can hear the difference in the intervals without being told, and then argues that they do not play from theory , is fooling themselves !

As soon as we confirm that we know where G,C and D is on the fretboard, we are acknowledging our minimal knowledge of music theory . To take it another step, as soon as we confirm that we can play in ANY KEY, we have joined the ranks of applying MINIMAL THEORY.

IF we can look at a simple chord chart with G,C and D chords written, and can adjust our playing , we are reading a music chart....uhh which is music theory.

Otherwise how would we know where to play on the fret board ?

IF we are playing in a band and the song is in "A" and we know where to place the bar, we are applying music theory. We are not guessing where "A" is.

The fret board of a stringed Instrument was NOT designed by chance.

IF we come from another Instrument, guitar for example, we many times base our ROOT key from the E string position on the fret board. If we move to E 9th or even C 6th Steel, we apply that exact same knowledge for root positions.

Its not by chance. Its by design.

I'm not understanding those that say they don't play from ANY theory at all.

[Colin Swinney]

I seriously doubt anyone thinks "theory" while performing. Its automatic, just like talking in a conversation. An upspoken entity. We respond accordingly because we know the basic language.

You’ve never heard someone whose was frustrated that their solos sounded exactly like scales or flub their chords because they’re trying to play extensions they don’t actually understand? It has to become automatic, you didn’t come out of the womb speaking in conversation, you had to learn to form words and sentences first.

I think the people who feel hindered by theory just never reached the point where it became second nature. They spend too much time thinking that “knowing the rules” will translate to great playing, when theory really only describes why it sounds good, it’s not what makes it sound good.

To your other points though, I think you’re right that people absolutely use theory all the time without realizing it, and so it is often silly to say you don’t use ANY.

[Tony Prior]

You’ve never heard someone whose was frustrated that their solos sounded exactly like scales or flub their chords because they’re trying to play extensions they don’t actually understand?

Sure, but thats common and a good thing , its called stretching ! Going beyond our basic knowledge.

There are time's I elaborate / stretch a solo and totally lose what key I'm in ! Its ugly ! But at least I knew what key I was supposed to be in !

[b0b]

I seriously doubt anyone thinks "theory" while performing. Its automatic, just like talking in a conversation. An upspoken entity. We respond accordingly because we know the basic language.

Right. We don't think about spelling when we talk.

There are time's I elaborate / stretch a solo and totally lose what key I'm in ! Its ugly ! But at least I knew what key I was supposed to be in !

That's what volume pedals are for.

[Dave Mudgett]

I still say that the terminology 'music theory' is a significant part of what makes this type of discussion off-putting to many. The term is vague, covers a wide swath, and does not really drill down to what I think the intended subject was, which is basic principles of music (i.e., Western European Classical music).

And I still say that there are many other legitimate approaches to communicating about music. Part of what raises my hackles is the implication by many Western-classically-trained musicians that I have personally dealt with is that their method is 'superior' and that anybody who doesn't approach it that way is basically a backward knuckle-dragger.

Again - I am all in favor of learning the basic principles of music. But I have dealt with some very good musicians who don't approach it this way. And good singers who don't even know what key they're singing in. No, they're not professional musicians making a living at it, but they are good singers naturally.

On the topic of thinking while playing - I have run into players who, IMO, emphatically do think too much while playing. For example, routinely improvising by consciously playing modal scales or scale fragments over a particular chord progression. I am all for thinking about music, but that kind of thing drives me nuts. And don't tell me it doesn't exist. There are books written about it. Quoting from one, "You should be able to figure out what scale to play over the first two lines ...". I get what they're driving at - they want to get the student to hear notes that sound OK over the progression, and hopefully use that as a launching point for creating actual music. But IMO, too often, in the name of "getting up to speed", this can become a substitute for actual creation.

I can only relate my own experiences with this kind of thing. YMMV.