The Steel Guitar Forum

b0b wrote:

Tony Prior wrote:I think thats the point. I doubt there are any clubs where people meet and sit around drinking coffee saying things like Eb Major or G13 or E9th add 5 , perhaps..but probably not.

People don't say things like that socially, but they do in rehearsals.

Of course Bob, satire .

Charlie McDonald wrote:...I wondered about the Beatles early on. Did they merely know the chords, or were they learning theory?

Great example Charlie, this has been discussed at great length elsewhere. They didn't know what they were doing, yet they knew exactly what they were doing. Their ad hoc approach to music and songwriting in the early days is not really an argument for or against the importance of learning formal music theory, but it illustrates their phenomenal musical "sense" -- perhaps the fact they weren't constrained by the invisible "box" of more rudimentary music theory knowledge allowed them to skip way ahead in their actual musical understanding.

So, which is more important? Knowledge and understanding are not the same thing. John and Paul understood things in their early twenties, perhaps purely by accident, that most of us will never be able to merely learn.

I'm sure that George Martin's suggestions had an indelible influence.

Theory is simply a way of explaining things that happen with regularity in music; any music.

Music theory is a couple of words to understand what the heck you are playing. And John and Paul wrote and played pap...

I can't imagine anyone learning theory and becoming a worse musician - that sounds bizarre to me

Also, the idea that knowledge of theory somehow makes you stop using your ears is weird. I use my ears all the time, and I read music, and I feel music and play with passion and "soul", and I study music all the time. None of that does anything but help me to be a better musician. Having a strong knowledge of theory has helped me be a better ear player, as well.

I also love to teach, think about, and talk about music theory. It's fun, and useful to me in the profession I've been in for 4 5ths of my life

I once heard someone say, "I don't want to know how the brakes work, I just want to push the pedal and stop the car." And, I can't argue with that, but I want to know how the brakes work and by the same token, having spent most of my life in music, I want to know what it's made of and how it works. As musicians, we all get on the "bus" and when you've gone as far as you want to go, you get off. Me, I'm not getting off the bus, there's so much fascinating stuff to look at and listen to.

I think overall I'm a pretty intelligent person, but music theory eludes me. Oh, I know the I, IV, V stuff, and other small portions, but I seem to have a block as far as absorbing enough to actually apply it to what I'm trying to play.

I have read the Winston book, have read many on-line articles, and attempted to sign up for a course at the local community college (it was full). I have been exposed to the information many times, and if I sat down with someone I could probably verbally tell them a fair amount. But somehow it just does not "click" and fall into place in my head for practical use.

I have taken the approach of going back from time to time and re-reading theory instruction in hopes it will sink in, but at the same time not letting that lack of understanding interfere with my enjoyment and learning to just play what I hear and feel.

Thats probably real common Don, many of us are probably in that same category . We live in a small "theory" world and have either no reason or no desire to expand, we do other things which we enjoy more.

The other problem that I see is how music theory is explained or introduced to a student. If it is over-explained then we have trouble, if it is under-explained we have trouble. But if it is explained in a practical format we have a better chance of success. If I sat down and started reading a music theory book that would be the start of nap time. If I am sitting with an instrument with someone showing and talking to me about a few things that I can discuss and do the mechanics , than I would be successful.

Charlie McDonald wrote:Don't hold back, Mike.

Mark van Allen wrote:... why wouldn't everyone want to study, at least somewhat?

I'd like to know that. Early memory of theory and ear training paints it as painless. With less stuff on our brains, we soaked it up I guess.

I think somewhere it got a bad name, like intelligence or knowledge, when it's a great tool.
I think more of us use it than we know.
I think more of us also use our ears to play than we realize.

James Sission wrote: Is there any player on a number one hit song that can't talk theory ??

I wondered about the Beatles early on. Did they merely know the chords, or were they learning theory?
All My Loving has 6 or so, arranged in a logical way. Could they have talked theory in those days?
I don’t know.

I woke up in the middle of the night thinking about what Charlie said here about the Beatles possibly knowing theory back in the day...

It occurred to me that you don’t need to know theory to have a melody in your head... Am I wrong in my thinking or being over simplistic to say that Music is Theory put in practice and that Theory is how you explain Music without Music, but with words?... I know that Jeff Newman has or had a course on ear training, to teach you what going from a 1 to a 4 or 6min sounds like... I can hear things in my head, but theory allows me to explain it in English... Am I wrong?

Quite the question Dale !:lol: I am gonna go on a limb here and say the Beatles were probably not thinking in any theoretical mode, BUT, they knew the relationships of the chords in relationship to the song keys. I'm thinking that they were not just guessing with no rhyme or reason and then just ended up with Rubber Soul ! There was clearly some glue that held it all together even if it was just a small dab.

Mike /you must be a really gifted musician, to be able to name every note you play. It appears from what you say,, . While playing you play from what you hear and what's in your head. I wonder how that music gets in your head. I would guess it probably comes through your ears. It appears you made my point, a bout being able to play by ear. Willie SIMS

the reality is that the physical underpinnings of what's making music 'music' are there whether you know them or not.
you can not know them, you're still using them. so i'd rather go ahead and learn what i can.

to me, 'theory', as it's commonly talked about, can be pretty remote (and certainly very light on explaining) these realities.

overtonal/reciprocal, male/female, sun/moon, I IV V as your head and shoulders, the modes as a progression from Lydian to Phrygian, circling a tonic, that's the 'theory'.

getting a tiny bit of a handle on our 5-limit system, and therefore the construction of pitches, was huge to me. huge.
i think any musician would find much utility in getting a handle on the ga/pa-based distinction.

that's a little removed from the 'how many sharps in E?' stuff, but that stuff is still all there, it's just riding along on top.

it's nice to get to the pillars, sometimes.

j

Dale

I think you've understood it completely and you expressed it well.

I recall 'hearing' the chords to Anka's 'Diana' (C,Am,F,G) as a logical pattern but it was a little while before I worked out the relationship between those chords - and how to apply that logic to any chord progression in any key (1, relative minor - or 6m, 4 and 5). Of course, while this is theory of a sort it's really at the most basic level, but it's a start.

The Beatles, in common with any prolific pop-song writers in the '50s, '60s and beyond, doubtless used their ears before they applied any theory and their earliest stuff was not far removed from American pop songs that had gone before.

Occasionally there's evidence in writers' material that a more advanced musicality is brought to bear on the process (Neil Sedaka comes to mind - he knew chord-substitution as well) but, in essence, you're right to say that coming up with a melody requires nothing more than a fleeting dash of inspiration and no formal knowledge. Analyzing what you've done in theoretical terms takes a bit more application.

I have bought Mark Levine's 'Jazz Theory Book' because I want to better understand tri-tone substitutions - I know I'll have more at my fingertips the more I learn.

Willie Sims wrote:Mike /you must be a really gifted musician, to be able to name every note you play. It appears from what you say,, . While playing you play from what you hear and what's in your head. I wonder how that music gets in your head. I would guess it probably comes through your ears. It appears you made my point, a bout being able to play by ear. Willie SIMS

Willie, my brain tells my hands what to play. I am always aware of the chord changes and all the possible notes that would work, but I don't always want to play those, so I depend on my own inner ear to guide me to those sounds. But in most cases I understand all of the relationships on a music theory level and could explain. I'm sure we play different kinds of music, but I couldn't play what I play without knowing.

I am not a gifted musician, but I am gifted with the desire to know as much about music as I can.

So, at our Cloverdale Music Workshop last night we had a jam song* that had just two chords: Bm7 and Am7. There was a harmonica player who didn't know which harp to use. I told him to use his G harp. It worked, and we jammed. How would I know that without some knowledge of music theory?

On pedal steel, would you be stuck just sliding between Bm and Am, or would you realize that all of your "key of G" positions will work on one of those two chords? Knowing music theory doesn't hurt your playing - it helps it.

* "Be Thankful For What You Got" by William DeVaughn

Why would anyone with the least bit of musical curiosity not want to acquire more knowledge, even a small amount? I don't get it.

"There are none so blind as those who refuse to see."

In a recent thread elsewhere, there was a fellow who just bought a PSG and was all confused about the E9 tuning because he didn't know that Ab=G# and Eb=D# (they are enharmonic). He was stymied about how to tune his guitar because different sources were naming the notes differently. This is a very basic case in which having even the most rudimentary understanding of "music theory" can make the difference between getting started on PSG, or not. I mention this not to criticize this gentleman but because it's germane to the present conversation here and because I'm quite sure he is not alone.

what's funny is that even when people get the D#/G# aspect of it right, they miss the E# lever!

I took two semesters of theory in college and learned
quite a bit. When I am playing, I think in chord numbers
and or melody numbers. It is a great help when finding your
way through new music, or learning a new tune off a recording without having sheet music in front of you.

Mark van Allen wrote:... I think a lot of pros and longtime players have developed an ear for what "works" and for copying licks and ideas from recordings, and have it categorized in some manner, just not using a nomenclature others might call "theory".
... if ...theory knowledge and application shortens practice and "hunting" time, gives you more "ammunition" and lots more fun by knowing your way around at least a bit better, why wouldn't everyone want to study, at least somewhat?

Mark's explanation hits lots of good points.

I have a good "feel" for what works, and understand where/why certain passages "fit."

I got a lot from one college music theory class, and would be a stronger player if I had continued. Same with the piano lessons Mom paid for until they didn't satisfy my need for "cool." Who knew? Hindsight, and all that

Lacking the ability to articulate in words leaves me with "let me show you," and "please show me again, SLOWLY." A couple of repetitions is usually enough, then the "light comes on." Adequate for casual purposes, but like Inspector Harry Callahan said, "a man's got to know his limitations."

Jamie Mitchell wrote:what's funny is that even when people get the D#/G# aspect of it right, they miss the E# lever!

Ha! well I solved that by adding the F lever...

Jim Cohen wrote:... Ab=G# and Eb=D# (they are enharmonic).

With any luck he'll never find out what that means.
One of the trickiest things about this instrument is that those note pairs can occupy two different frequencies.

It's something that can't be accounted for in theory, at least not music theory, but it's enough to make me get rid of my G flat strings.

But seriously, his question came from the MSA tuning chart!
One could imagine that theory is getting deconstructed like other languages.

Charlie McDonald wrote:

Jim Cohen wrote:... Ab=G# and Eb=D# (they are enharmonic).

It's something that can't be accounted for in theory, at least not music theory, but it's enough to make me get rid of my G flat strings.

HUH?!?!... Don’t do that to me Charlie... I’m easily confused ...

I don’t know what it is or what it says about me as a “Sudo” musician... but there are some notes that I think of mainly in a certain way... I always think of Bb as Bb, rarely as A#... I think of Eb the same way, not as D#, but I think of F# rather than Gb, and I have no idea why... I can read music, but rarely do... I play bass with a gal at church who is a phenomenal pianist who can and does play in most keys... but even while playing bass, if she says Gb, I think F#... Charlie, I may have to take off my Gb string too.

I really do see the value of Music Theory, even though it gives me a headache to wrap my head around some of the, “these 3 notes make this chord in this key, and this chord in that key”... I found what b0b said about substitution chords interesting as my mind doesn’t think in those terms... perhaps it should, and perhaps I should learn more about it... I know that I use substitution chords, I just don’t think about them that way... Now where’s that Aspirin

Hell is not only 'other people', it is also being 'cornered by a musical theory bore', who, when the rubber hits the road, is almost invariably an inferior player.