The Steel Guitar Forum

Stuart, I remember once asking Jeff Newman, if he read music? His answer was, Not Enough To Hurt My Playing!, Need I say more. Our ask Tom Bradshaw.

There are many many people who would like to read music and know music theory but there are absolutely no people who do read music and do know music theory who wish they didn't!

It's an additive thing, knowing music theory in no way detracts from what you know and do well now, but could open up wonderful doors that you never knew even existed.

On many instruments, there's exactly one position to play a given note. On stringed instruments, there can be one position for each string. On pedal steel, every note is available at every fret.

Most of us came to pedal steel from guitar, where most notes can be played conveniently on any one of 3 or 4 strings. That fact alone is an impediment to many players, which is why most players learn guitar by ear, tab, or mimicry. In my experience, few guitarists are good sight readers, if they read at all.

Reading for pedal steel is considerably harder than guitar. The decision of where to place the bar for each note requires a knowledge of keys and scales - music theory! Contrast it with piano. Sheet music is essentially tab for piano. See a note, play it - theory knowledge is optional. Key signatures show you which black keys to use. You can't see sharps and flats on a pedal steel.

When I see tab for pedal steel, I can pretty much hear it in my head. When I see a staff with notes on it I can follow along and maybe plunk it out on a keyboard, but playing it on pedal steel requires some serious study. The steel players I know who can read well are also good pianists who learned to read when they were young. I think they hear written music in their head as "piano tab" and that helps them find it more easily on the pedal steel.

Traditional notation is a complete set of instructions with the theory embedded in it, but it's not much use for steel guitar for the reasons b0b describes.

Tab tells you how to play, but only if you already know what you're attempting. You can't sight-read tab, because a lot of data are missing, especially rhythm.

I think it's one reason why we have this divide between theory and practice.

There is the language of Music Theory which is unsung non-played words and then there is the Language of Music played on a lot of great recordings.
Those recordings could be on a vast collection of MP3’s, YouTube or all over the web.
One great recording may result in a big box of musical language word chunks that were the result of a Steel players sweat equity and years of practice.
Listening and transcribing and years of practice is the way you learn that language.
The secret is transcribing dipping into a lot of big boxes of great music language word chunks and making them with love and emotion your own.

Maybe we should be careful with this thread .....

....you know what happens if it gets too funny.....

The Newman quote is both accurate and hazardous. It is possible, I suppose, to lose the soul of your instrument by following tab or standard notation without allowing the instrument to breathe and speak its own language. Having acquired more theoretical knowledge than can be practically applied to a particular style of music may be a little frustrating, but that doesn't make it bad to have it.

Others have implied in their comments that a level of taste and stylistic sensitivity is a vital component in one’s technical and musical growth. I think most of us would agree with that, and it’s probably what Mr. Newman meant, rather than avoid music theory if you can.

Our keyboard player is totally blind. He attended music school and has a full grasp of theory as well as perfect pitch. He is not only phenomenal as a player but a pain to work with. He said perfect pitch is a curse. He can read braille but that would hinder his ability to read and play. Yet he can sit in and play with a variety of music styles with ease. He has the musical flow and can improvise on the spot.
I attended Jeff Newmans seminars and gained a great deal of knowledge as it applies to pedal steel. Not everything Jeff said was the gospel. I'm sure he altered his teaching methods based on the personal observation of his students and their progress. He gave a lot of methods instruction mixed with what theory was necessary to get his point across. Jeff was real and great at teaching.

Re: "Not Enough To Hurt My Playing".

I once viewed a TED Talk by classical percussionist Evelyn Glynnie. She explained that what's written on the page isn't what she actually plays in concert. Oh, the notes are the same, but they aren't meant to be played mechanically, as a computer would. The musical artist adds dynamics and tonal fluctuations to bring the music to life, to give it emotion. Beginners struggle to play exactly what's on the page. Professionals see that as the starting point.

To make her point, she played a snare drum solo as written, then as she would perform it. The difference was clear. Reading music from a page certainly doesn't hurt her playing!

h[url]ttps://www.ted.com/talks/evelyn_glennie_how_to ... transcript[/url]

Jim Reynolds wrote:Stuart, I remember once asking Jeff Newman, if he read music? His answer was, Not Enough To Hurt My Playing!, Need I say more. Our ask Tom Bradshaw.

I always thought that was a Chet Atkins quote. 🤷🏼‍♂️

It doesn’t matter who said it. It’s dry, tongue in cheek, self-deprecating humor. I can believe it coming from both of them, and others as well. Definitely not to be taken as gospel. b0b’s anecdotal story demonstrates the concept pretty well.

The forum is like most things today. People look for anything to cut someone down for. They forget, that everyone plays music to please others or themselves. For 72 years I have played music. my parents didn't have the money for lessons, I learnt to play by ear. I can play guitar, bass guitar, mandolin, and half assed steel guitar. I have pleased many people and entertained millions. I don't read music, they look like polliwogs to me. But, I play music and that is what counts, and I'm far from stupid.

Jim Reynolds wrote:The forum is like most things today. People look for anything to cut someone down for. They forget, that everyone plays music to please others or themselves. For 72 years I have played music. my parents didn't have the money for lessons, I learnt to play by ear. I can play guitar, bass guitar, mandolin, and half assed steel guitar. I have pleased many people and entertained millions. I don't read music, they look like polliwogs to me. But, I play music and that is what counts, and I'm far from stupid.

The best players I have ever listened to play by Ear. And can play many instruments by Ear.

I learned to play by ear and the only theory I got came from my dad. He just said "keep pickin', it's on there somewhere".

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.

***

But for the those of us out here in the real world for whom folks try to keep a straight face when they tell us how great we are, we talk about a lot of things and Music Theory just happens to be one of them!
If you love music you can’t help but want to talk about it and talking to someone who knows what they are talking about “would be nice”.
How could you have a conversation about “Night Life” and not come around eventually to the Tadd Dameron Turnaround and Music Theory. As I said “would be nice if”

Ok, so.......I have two advanced degrees in music theory, have taught beginning and advanced theory at the college level for over a decade. ... There are just so many things that don't add up about any of this post. What is the point? The music comes first and will always be first, the theory almost has nothing to do with "The Music". It's overated, it's not going to hurt you and it can help you a lot but you can understand music in so many ways other than Western European Music Theory. And on top of that you can communicate with one another about music and not utter a single word about any music theory. So, In the most polite way possible, I say that this is B.S.

Yes, yes, and yes! There are many ways to communicate musical ideas - not just what I called Western Classical Music Principles earlier. Frankly, reading music is not music theory any more than writing computer programs is computer science or doing electrical wiring is electrical engineering (areas where I have spent a lot of time the last 50 years). I think true 'music theory' is more a way to set forth principles of how music should be created and/or ways to analyze music in terms of those types of principles. For a very long time, these principles were used to effectively prohibit music outside the very strict boundaries they circumscribed.

But these basic music principles, and especially the true "music theory" ideas about how music is supposed to be constructed, are very far from universal. Musical styles away from Western Classical Music traditions throw away those "music theory" rules fairly routinely.

This business of insisting that we all express ideas in the same way and, basically, adhere to the same set of principles (or 'rules') is, IMO, problematic because it prescribes an orthodoxy not only in communication but in creation and analysis/evaluation of works. But this type of thing is definitely not limited to music. I get the impression that a lot, if not most, people think STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) is somehow 'logical' and free from this type of rigid siloism, but it is not. I have seen some pretty ridiculous arguments about the supposed 'superiority' of this or that or the other set of ideas or theories that sometimes amount to nothing more than semantical or aesthetic arguments, or more disturbingly, protection of turf. I would not underestimate how important this turf protection thing is. I understand that, for example, sight reading is essential in some situations. But for many musicians, it simply isn't required. And for some other situations, it isn't even relevant. Even the Western 12-tone scale is not universal.

As far as the Tadd Dameron turnaround goes, I honestly think that it is more important to know and feel how it sounds, intuitively understand when it fits, when it doesn't, and then to be able to actually play it in an appropriate way when it actually does work. And be able to intuitvely relate it to other related progressions and be able to instictively use them all to create interesting music. Paper/pencil analysis can be useful but is not the only way to think about this kind of stuff.

Music was not invented in a laboratory. I consider it a gift from my Creator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw86MN3 ... Oi&index=1

Edward D’s very first comment in this thread has been the most relevant response to the OP. The rest have been mostly tangential and anecdotal, but so what? The topic piqued people’s interest, hit a nerve in some cases, and resulted in a lively little discussion about the value of music theory, whatever anybody thinks that is. Questioning the point of the OP and dismissing the entire thread as BS was bound to happen; all it needed was for an expert in the field to show up.

The fact is most of us here are probably not formally musically educated, and some of us actually enjoy discussing what we think we know in the hopes of either learning or educating on whatever level of musical expertise we find ourselves.

Yes, the Forum offers all manner of technical and mechanical and ergonomical advice on the music making machine of our choice. We can all be grateful for that. But we also do indeed have a language for the result of playing doot doot bumdiddly bumbop whoosh at frets 15 and sliding down to 12 and jiggle your bar a little while you’re at it, and in the absence of providing a youtube video for every example, it is nice to be able to talk (or read and write) about it without sounding like an idiot.

This forum is populated with a wonderfully diverse demographic. We are blessed to be able to communicate directly with some of the most talented and successful musicians on the planet. I could name names, but we all know how long the list would be. We are equally blessed to have every other level of musician, all of which have something to offer. I will probably never be, even a mediocre steel player, but the level of communication here has been excellent.

While topics like this tend spark lively a back and forth, they can also elicit division where there was none. Perhaps that’s the goal. 🤷🏼‍♂️

The rest have been mostly tangential and anecdotal ...

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

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. In fact, this is in the Pedal Steel section, and I don't really see what it has to do with pedal steel, except that pedal steel is undoubtedly one of the hardest instruments to sight-read imaginable. But one could raise the same issue on any guitar forum, and in a lot of other places too. And I am pretty confident this topic would raise the same hackles any of those places that it does here.

Look - I'm all for learning the principles and language of music as handed down in the Western Classical Music tradition. They're useful to me, and I would highly encourage anybody - and especially musicians of any type - to learn as much as they can. Knowledge is good. But I think, in music, the application is more important than the principles themselves. The music really does come first - the principles are useful to communicate, analyze and, essentially, put a frame on the music. But there is the danger of the frame becoming a shackle, and music history is replete with examples. And formalization in other fields has a similar history. Again - formalization can be very useful, and also can be very limiting when the formalization becomes a substitute for real creativity. Example: trends in some modern styles to replace "creating a melody that is pleasing" with "superimposing various modal scales that 'fit' over progressions".

Eating popcorn and watching this thread

If you think Stuart just drops names and don't know what he is talking about then you just don't know Stuart.
So far about all I've heard here is what Music Theory is not.
I would think a person with two degrees on the subject must have thought it of some value and would be clad to take this opening to tell us what it is and then we can figure out on our own what it is not!
The topic is a "would be nice if" and the "if" is listed. Clear enough if a person thought of it as BS would just skip it and move on to something they thought better of!
Wow! Today here on the Forum I've learned that Music Theory is not what it's not!

Dave Mudgett wrote:

The rest have been mostly tangential and anecdotal ...

I'm gonna disagree there. Many replies have hit the nail on the head, IMO. [...] In fact, this is in the Pedal Steel section, and I don't really see what it has to do with pedal steel, except that pedal steel is undoubtedly one of the hardest instruments to sight-read imaginable. But one could raise the same issue on any guitar forum, and in a lot of other places too.

I agree. Topic moved to the Music section.