# Technique, Theory, Playing Tips and Tricks > Theory, Technique, Tips and Tricks >  "theory"

## TNFrank

First, let me preface this by saying that it is not ment to offend or otherwise antagonize anyone.
 It seems like Theory sometimes gets pushed upon those of us that don't know it like a "religion" is pushed upon people that don't have one. That is to say that we can't be "Real" musicians or know how to REALLY play unless we know Theory and I think this is just not true. I played guitar(both accoustic and electric) for years and could pretty much hold my own in both chords and leads with about anyone playing a Classic or Southern Rock song and with most Metal songs. Granted, someone like John Petrucci or Steve Via would leave me in the dust, but it wasn't for my lack of knowlege of Theory, it's because my right hand wasn't as fast. Same goes for playing electric bass, after a few months of playing I could listen to and play just about any song I heard and figure out just about any bass riff. Music is something that's in my genetics I guess. I can hear a song and pretty much figure it out without any real problem. I guess not everyone is gifted like that and by saying "gifted" I'm not saying that I'm anything special, just that I have a knack for music, that's all. Now I'm playing the mandolin and in the short month that I've been playing I've learned a few chords and chops and I've pretty much learned the fret board so that I can play a few leads and just like with guitar and bass before the topic of Theory comes up. I KNOW, it'd be great to learn Theory but for one reason or another I just never get to it. Still, for some strange reason I always end up being able to play ok even without this "hidden knowlege" of Theory. I just wonder why those that know it try and push if off on those of us that don't know it. Like I said, it almost feels like someone trying to push a religion off on someone. I just wonder how much theory Bill Monroe, Ralph Stanly, Johnny Cash, Willy Nelson,ect. knew. I'd bet it was next to nothing and they still managed to have sucessful music careers. I think heart and an ear for music is just as important as theory. How many here really know theory and for those that don't do you still have just as much fun playin' as those who do? Like I said, not trying to hack on those that know theory. Just wanted to speak my piece about it. Thanks for letting me say a few words.

----------


## Jim Broyles

"Sweet Little Georgia Rose," boys. 1-4-5 in B, kick it off with a chorus on the 4.

What are the chords of the song?
What chord does it start on?

I am not busting chops here. This is exactly how a song was "called" at a jam I attended. What would you have done?

----------


## miked500

Hey TNFrank, I think I understand what you're saying. I'm certainly no master of music theory, but I do know a bit. My response to your post, essentially asking "why do we need to know theory?" would be this; you can improvise and learn songs without much theory; however, in my experience, theory is important if you want to know WHY things work the way they do, what makes a minor chord a minor chord etc... Theory is also important if you are writing a song, and you want it to sound a certain way, knowing theory will help you accomplish this. 
Theory will only make you a better player. If you want to play a note that adds tension, or that bluesy 'flatted 3rd sound' you can find it easier, in my opinion if you have a small grasp of theory.
I think theory is moving beyond just learning 'licks'. You can get the sound you want, regardless of the key you are playing in, by knowing some theory.
A "B" note will sound and feel different over a G chord vs. a C chord. The B is the 3rd of the G and the maj7 of the C.
I think theory will make your playing even more expressive and creative.
I'm sure there will be more posts that go deeper than this, this is just my $.02 based on my experience.
Hope this helps!!

-MD

----------


## Bob Wiegers

it doesnt have to be one vs. the other. if you're fine without knowing much theory (like I am) then cool, no worries.

but to take your metaphor, like many religions, theory can perhaps help with a deeper understanding of the "how"s and "why"s which many folks find helpful. yet religion can also muddy the waters in many cases. 

like most things in life, a good balance is often hard to find, but usually worth it.

----------


## Chip Booth

Theory is (among other things) the language of music. #It's a way that musicians communicate. #Jim's post above is perfect, and the learning the basics can take only a matter of a few hours. #In my opinion it is well worth the effort, and isn't nearly as difficult as people think.

Most professional musians such as the ones you mentioned have at least a basic sense of theory. #Like a langauge, if you are immersed in a culture that speaks a different langauge than you chances are you will pick some of it up, regardless of how slowly. #I guarantee you Johny Cash could have kicked off Sweet Little Georgia Rose at that jam.

Chip

----------


## Chadmills

> Like I said, it almost feels like someone trying to push a religion off on someone. #


Might there be a risk of pushing a "religion" of "no theory"?  
Different strokes for different folks.
Theory is a tool in the toolbox. If you can manage without it, fine. It's nice if them as have got it can "lend" when it's helpful, and like you say, not push it where it's not wanted. The non-theorists maybe have a duty to give respect the other way and not go on about how they "don't need any of that stuff"

----------


## TNFrank

> "Sweet Little Georgia Rose," boys. 1-4-5 in B, kick it off with a chorus on the 4.
> 
> What are the chords of the song?
> What chord does it start on?
> 
> I am not busting chops here. This is exactly how a song was "called" at a jam I attended. What would you have done?


Let me hear the song and look at the TAB and I'll play it. That's how I learn songs.

A person can speak English without knowing anything about what a noun, verb or pronoun is and knowing the different parts of a sentence, while giving you an understanding of why you speak the way you do won't necessarly make you speak any better just like not knowing it will stop you from speaking. 
 I don't care "Why" it sounds good as long as it does.

----------


## Ted Eschliman

I don't have to know the science and mechanics of the combustion engine to drive a car. That said, knowing at least a little about the basic components of gas/air/spark will keep me from getting ripped off at the garage when my car breaks down, and why it's important to change the oil every 25,000 miles. _&lt;kidding&gt;_

Somebody says "play it in C." That's theory. Somebody says "It's just I, IV, V7," that's theory. Somebody says, "Nice G run." Again, theory. You don't need a degree in it, but there's a world of enjoyment (and shortcuts!) out there if you've got a little bit of theory understanding in your playing.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> "Sweet Little Georgia Rose," boys. 1-4-5 in B, kick it off with a chorus on the 4.


I thought the entire idea behind the Nashville Number System was to help those that weren't very fluent in musical theory. Personally, I see that system as being similar in idea to tab. It allows those of us that don't care to spend the time required to immerse ourselves in theory the ability to communicate what it is we want to do.

----------


## Jim Broyles

Okay, but what if you were at the jam and had no tab? Let's say the guitars are all capoed on 4 playing open G chord patterns and you can't transpose in your head fast enough to "read" the guitar chords and you wouldn't be able to tell the chords by looking at the banjo anyway. What I'm saying is that if a player knows the BASICS of theory, he/she #knows exactly what chords will be in the song, what chord it will start on, and by the context and listening to the melody, will know when to change chords. That's all I'm getting at.

----------


## Mark Robertson-Tessi

There are many levels to theory. Someone who has learned what 1-4-5 in B means knows some theory. They may or may not be able to play a C13 sharp 11, or whatever. They may or may not be able to repeat a melody on first hearing. They may or may not be able to write down what chords they hear, or compose a melody. And so on. But they know some theory.

There are people who push theory, sure. There are people who push NOT learning theory too. Same with notation, tab, pickups, mics, mando shape, picks, strings, etc. 

Chip has the right analogy. Theory is a way of describing the language of music. I can speak English (most of the time!). I also know what a noun is, can spell words, write, etc. If you ask me what a gerund is, I would have to look it up. If you ask me deeper questions about language, I won't have more than a guess.

There are people who speak fine who can't spell, even can't write. They still communicate, and powerfully at times. Same with music. 

Bottom line is it's not necessary. Some people just pick up what they need as they go. Others want to learn more. it's all good.

Cheers
MRT

----------


## MikeEdgerton

Heck, in reality most folks probably know more theory than they think they know, and I do know what you mean Jim. My idea of knowing theory is to be able to sight read a score like this:

----------


## Jim Broyles

Yeah Mike, but the 1-4-5 IS theory. It isn't just a system picked out of the air. Those numbers are what they are because of how the scale notes fit together. do-re-mi-fa-sol-la-ti-do = 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-1

----------


## Don Christy

As Miked500 says, music theory explains the why. In my opinion you do not have to fully understand the why to be a good musician. A very practical knowledge of intervals and how to build and release tension or create certain emotions or feelings (bluesy, etc), can be had through playing and listening. In any event, the production of music came well before the understanding of music theory was available to explain it. 

All that being said, theory can provide huge short cuts to your understanding and ability to become creative. It also provides a language for collaboration (e.g. jbmando's example). 

I wouldn't push theory on someone, but I believe you would be hard pressed to demonstrate that a knowledge of theory wouldn't benefit any player. Also, I don't really think there is anyone who "knows theory." Theory isn't something that is complete and finite IMO. Also, I don't think there are any really good players that don't know any theory. It's a matter of degree. 

Lastly, i think the religion metaphor breaks down. Music theory is based physical reality and can be used to predict outcomes very effectively. Sadly, religion can't say the same. 

I think a more apt analogy is maybe a engineer/construction worker. You don't have to be an engineer/architect to build a beautiful and perfectly sound house. But if you want that house built to withstand an earthquake, or to be in a 100 story condo, or to orbit the earth as a space station, you better be using some engineering theory. The farther you push the limits in what you are trying to achieve (whether it's musical, design, engineering, or anything), the more an understanding of the why matters. 

Just my $0.02 and YMMV.
Don

----------


## TNFrank

> Okay, but what if you were at the jam and had no tab? Let's say the guitars are all capoed on 4 playing open G chord patterns and you can't transpose in your head fast enough to "read" the guitar chords and you wouldn't be able to tell the chords by looking at the banjo anyway. What I'm saying is that if a player knows the BASICS of theory, he/she knows exactly what chords will be in the song, what chord it will start on, and by the context and listening to the melody, will know when to change chords. That's all I'm getting at.


I'd probably do like I do when playing with a CD or the radio and "feel around" until I placed my fingers where they'd make a sound that'd fit with what I heard. That's one of the great things about playing by ear, I can play along with just about anything I can hear. It may take a second to find the right spot on the fret board but once I do I'm fine.

----------


## earthsave

I think you know more theory than you may know you know.

----------


## Gutbucket

Did you write short stories and novels in first grade without phonics lessons?

----------


## Don Christy

wow, about 6 posts happened while I was writing my response! a hot topic

----------


## Mark Robertson-Tessi

> That's one of the great things about playing by ear, I can play along with just about anything I can hear. #


Having a trained ear is one aspect of knowing theory, IMO. 

Cheers
Mark

----------


## Jim Broyles

Hey TNFrank, I think your time zone is wrong in your profile. You quoted me at 06:37 and it was 12:37.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

OK, let's get down to the semantics of it all. If you know what 1-4-5 means, if you can struggle through some tab, then you have been exposed to some theory that was invented for those that havn't gone the final mile needed to actually read music. To me that's fine and dandy but having the ability to function in that manner will not allow you to sit in as the lead mandolin player for the New York Philharmonic. That isn't meant as a put down, it's simply the truth. The vast majority of musicians that I know couldn't fit into that mold but that doesn't mean they aren't great musicians. The best mandolin player I know can't even tell me what chord he's playing at a given time. The average mandolin player that knows tab and the Nashville number system might have some problems playing with a mandolin orchestra but would have no problem ripping into any Bill Monroe tune. A person needs to know their limitations becuase we all have them. Jim Garber plays classical mandolin. I'm going to bet that Jim can sight read from a musical score. That doesn't mean Jim can't kick it on Rawhide. he's a big step up from me because of the education that he does have,

----------


## TNFrank

> I think you know more theory than you may know you know.


I think you might be right but I don't know that I know it, it's just kind of subconsious theory,LOL. 
 I'm not saying that Theory is a bad thing or that people shouldn't learn it but I just feel like sometimes people that know theory make me feel like I can't play because I don't know it and I've had enough people tell me how well I've played the guitar and bass to know that I can play without knowing theory. 
 Like I said, I didn't want to open a whole can of worms here over theory vs no theory, just wonder why some think it's so necessary when others of us get along fine without it.

----------


## mclaugh

From your description of your background, I'd say you know a lot more theory than you let on. You may not know the code that connects language to the concepts. IMO anyone who can hear when the chord changes, can distinguish the chords, and can play an appropriate scale over those chords already knows all the theory they need. Which and how many chords and scales depends on the type of music you play.

----------


## Chip Booth

TNFrank, it sounds like you have your mind made up that you don't need to learn theory and you want someone to tell you that it's ok. #You likely won't get that from many of us who have spent time learning it. #Well, it is ok. #You don't have to learn theory. #You can rely on written music and your ear to guide you. #And if you put in enough time at ear training you may be just fine. #

I have come to the conclusion that most players who rely on their ear and are very succesful simply come to the same musical conclusions as do those that study theory, they just don't have the names for the concepts, or can't express how they do what they do to others. #I have asked many players who play well but don't have any training what they think about when they play. #"How do you do that?" #They almost never have any answer other than "I just do it". #

I play with a guitarist who drips natural talent. #He has a great ear, flying fingers, soul, everything. #Everything but training. #He refuses to put in the time to learn his craft, he just plays by feel. #As a result his incredible talent is often wasted. #He can't keep up when music gets complicated, and is a burden to work with because endless time is spent "showing him how". #He never sees patterns in chord progressions, etc.

It sounds like you have a good helping of natural talent. You can get by on that, and enjoy yourself for the rest of your life. Whether you choose to go deeper and learn more about your art is up to you. Enjoy it whatever you decide. For myself, my musical studies have broadened my horizons, and increased my abilities and therefore my enjoyment of music many time over.

Chip

----------


## TNFrank

> Hey TNFrank, I think your time zone is wrong in your profile. You quoted me at 06:37 and it was 12:37.


Actually, right now I've got 11:50am. Guess I need to fix my time in the profile.
P.S.
I'd like to learn more theory it's just that everytime I read something written by someone here about it, it's so far over my head that I just can't even start to grasp it.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

Check the time zone and time on your local PC and log back in.

----------


## lgc

"Theory is (among other things) the language of music. It's a way that musicians communicate."

I'm pretty sure music is how musicians communicate. Miles Davis was apparently floored by Hendrix' lack of theory. To each his own sure. It does seem that contemporary acoustic music has pushed theory over feel. What I mean is that Theory is pushed way more that context. If you don't know where music comes from you really can't take it anywhere.

----------


## Chip Booth

> OK, let's get down to the semantics of it all. If you know what 1-4-5 means, if you can struggle through some tab, then you have been exposed to some theory that was invented for those that havn't gone the final mile needed to actually read music.


Mike, I would say the use of Nashville System is the embodiement of theory, and that reading music is more of a skill, the same as reading tab. 

That's a simplification, there is great theory in the rythmic aspect of reading, but not so much in the regurgitating of written notes.

Chip

----------


## TNFrank

> Check the time zone and time on your local PC and log back in.


Ok, I think I've got my time fixed. I thought ya'll went from GMT but I guess it's from EST and since I'm CST I'm -1 instead of -6.
P.S.
Ditto on what IGC said.

----------


## Chip Booth

> "Theory is (among other things) the language of music. #It's a way that musicians communicate."
> 
> I'm pretty sure music is how musicians communicate. #


I would clarify this by saying that say theory is how musicians communicate about music. Music is how musicians communicate to the listeners, and those listeners can (and should) include other musicians.

Chip

----------


## Jim Broyles

Mike I agree with most of your post regarding getting down to the semantics of it. #Here's where I differ a little. I don't think the Nashville Numbering System, which really wasn't anything new even when they first came up with it, was intended to bypass reading, but merely as a form of shorthand. I can't sight read a score. I can s-l-o-w-l-y read it if I have to, but if you want me to play a song you have to let me hear it first. However, I do know enough about theory that if I know a song , for example in the key of G, and there's an Em or an Am in it, and a singer says, "Can you play it in B?" #I know that since in G, the Em is the 6 and Am is the 2, I can easily find the correct chords in B. There is no guesswork. G to C is the same as B to E and it is ALWAYS the same. That's what is so great about music.

----------


## Mark Robertson-Tessi

TNFrank,
What exactly do people object to when they tell you you need to learn theory anyway? If you play well, where's the trouble? 

If I saw someone struggling with chords or a melody and they were looking for assistance, I'd offer to help them learn some of the chord patterns, notes, etc., but if they're doing fine, I'd never presume to say they needed to learn theory.

Cheers
Mark

----------


## lgc

Usually when I communicate verbally about music it goes," Aw man, did you hear that run. That was awesome." or some general variation of that. "Or that sucks. I'm gonna go play some pinball."

----------


## TNFrank

I do know when something sounds sharp or flat and what that means. I know(at least I think I know) what a half step and full step are on the fret board. I always try to learn the fret board, what the notes are(G,A,B,C, then D,E,F,G, then A,B,C,D, then E,F,G,A.) as far as the strings go and I always get the sounds of the fret positions into my head so that after a while I can practice without even having the instrument in my hands, just because I know that if my finger is on this string at that fret it'll sound like this and if I want it to sound different I'll need to move my finger to another string at such n such a fret. It's like I see/hear it in my head. I guess that's like some math guys see the numbers in their heads and can do stuff with math that I'd only dream about.

----------


## Chip Booth

TNFrank, the way you are hearing the sound son the fretboard is a great skill. #Now all you need is the names for those sounds you hear in your head, and a discussion of how they interact with chords ands all the guess work is gone. #

I understand how theory discussions can look like giberish in the forum. #Often they start in the middle and assume you have some common vocabulary. #It now sounds to me like maybe you are open to the idea of learning more theory, you simply need the right environment. #If you can find someone to sit down with you and go over a few concepts in a clear manner, where you can ask questions and make sure you "get it", then you are gonna be in great shape!

If your in Idaho let's have a coffeee and chat  
Chip

----------


## TNFrank

I had the same problem with math. Algebra looked like just a bunch of numbers. Then I got a teacher that started from the beginning and explained it to me slowly so I could get it and after that it wasn't nearly as hard. When some of ya'll talk theory to me I guess I understand how people feel when I talk cars or guns to them,LOL. My wife is always telling me I'm talking above their heads, now I know how they must feel.

----------


## Khmando

If you're playing and having fun, I wouldn't worry too much about it. 

That being said, I do feel knowing the basics helps. I play some gigs where I'm just sitting in and I don't know the tunes. If somebody tells me what key its in, I can usually go from there. I do use my ear, but I also have a sense of what chords will come up because I know what chords are in each key, etc. 

I think this can also be accomplished by trial and error and just from experience. You play enough tunes, after awhile you realize there's lot of tunes that start out with the G chord, then go to C, then back to G, and then to D, etc. 

Speaking of religion, I heard a saying regarding that. It states: "Truth is one. Paths are many." The same thing could probably be said for music. As long as you get to where you want to go, does it matter how you get there?

----------


## picksnbits

I've been thinking about this a lot lately.  Some people seem to be more suited to a methodical/analytical approach to studying music and some tend toward a more intuitive approach. You have to internalize the concepts some way before the music can come out of you, it's just a matter of finding the right approach for you.  The problem with teaching formalized theory to intuitive learners is that most theory books are written by the more analytical folks, the intuitive folks are at a distinct disadvantage in writing books because they've never bothered assigning names to the concepts and who wants to take time to write it down when it's much more fun to just play :-) Being a bit more toward the intuitive side, I've thought about trying to develop a "Mandolin Method for the Non-Methodical Mandolinist", geared toward intuitive learners. Then again, what would be the point in writing a book for people that don't want to bother with reading books?  

Actually it just came to me while typing this that my entire method can be boiled down to just two words, which I will now publish here to enlighten intuitive mandolinists everywhere.

"Just Play"

Oh, and if you want to share the method with some of those analytical types, you'll have to add a few words and it becomes:

"Just shut up and play"

----------


## Jim Broyles

Kh - I guess it depends on if the saying is true or not. What if truth is one, path is one? All religions cannot possibly be true, can they? I mean, if there are contradictions among the world religions, in the end, either one is true or they're all false. They can't all be true. This is why the religion analogy fails when it comes to music. The relationships among notes and intervals, etc. will never change. 1 to 4 is the same in every key.

----------


## pickloser

If you want to become a better musician than you already are, you should learn as much as you can about music and how it works. #Your brain is tracking, categorizing, and storing what you know about music. #It recognizes that music makes sense and is noting useful patterns, chord relationships, cool stuff to show and tell. #These are pieces of music theory. #You apparently have a knack for it. #You can continue to catalog this stuff as you happen to run across it, adding to your knowledge of music theory, whether or not you call it that. #But you can learn more useful stuff more quickly if you just suck it up and study a little bit. #Music makes sense. #It's beautifully logical. #There's only a little math. #Much of it is vocabulary--words #that describe concepts that are useful, and many of which you already know or suspect. #

If you look at any of the "regret" threads here, there's a common refrain. #"I wish I had learned more theory." #

By the way, you should also protect your knees and start investing. #And floss. #And call your mother. #

----------


## Khmando

Fair enough, bad analogy perhaps. I'm actually not religious.

----------


## Michael H Geimer

Theory makes things easier for me. Especially so with the Nashville Numbering System. There are plenty of BG songs written around the I, IV, V progression. Without theory to simplify things, we'd have to spell the chords out as G, C, and D for the key of G ... then B, E, and F# for the key of B, etc. Instead, all you've got to learn are the numbers 1 - 7.

But here's the best part. No matter what key I might choose, the IV chord always sounds like a IV chord! It could be a C chord in one song, or an E chord in a different song. The number describes the sound the chord creates in the context of the song.

If you are already spending time learning the sounds of your fretboard (time well spent IMO), I would think the Nashville Numbering System might be right up your alley. It is theory, and it's not rocket science, or even algebra.

Because I've taken the time to learn what each type of chord (I, IV, V, etc) sounds like, I can learn many songs by ear without picking up an instrument just by listening for the sound of the chord changes. I can learn a song on guitar, then pick up my mandolin and do a decent job playing it.

But hey, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. But you might at least try it on for size.

 - Mike

Psst ... I had to stop and think to myself, "What the heck is the IV chord in the key of B?" I could play it quicker than I could come up with its proper name E.

----------


## buddyellis

Suppose we're talking about reading a book and were to say 'alphabet, pronunciation, is it necessary'. The question would be patently absurd. Some rudimentary level of theoretical understanding is _absolutely_ needed to be a decent musician, just as some fundamental knowledge of the english language is needed by someone attempting to read a book, or write a literary work. 

Although the parallels are not exact -- obviously one can play some level of music without understanding 'hard theory', the most accomplished musicians _do_ understand theory in some sense, whether by just understanding the intervals, or knowing the 'nashville system' or whatever. If you are going to interact with other musicians, some modecum of knowing the language would help immensely.

----------


## TomTyrrell

Music is music. A minor third is a minor third whether you know what it is called or not. If you can play the music you already know the theory, you just don't know the names.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

And then there is this. I seriously doubt that she can have a discussion about theory but she obviously has some sort of handle on it naturally.

----------


## nashvillebill

I hear what you're saying Frank, and I was pretty much the same for the first 20 years I played guitar, but learning some theory opened up a whole new understanding for me. Wish I'd done it 20 years sooner.

----------


## Don Christy

> Music is music. A minor third is a minor third whether you know what it is called or not. If you can play the music you already know the theory, you just don't know the names.


But it's not a yes/no issue. Sure a minor third is a minor third and a dominant seventh is a dominant seventh. Either a lot of experience or a little theory and experience will give you some insight and what it likely means in the context of a progression. 

An example: you're listening and trying to play along with some song and you figure out that it goes from a G to a D7. You play that D7 and think that sounds great, but it feels like it wants to go somewhere. Just because you can play a D7 chord in a song and hear the tension doesn't mean that you will intuit that it wants to resolve back to the root G chord.

Or understanding and anticipating a ii-V-I progression. Realizing that the ii is the V of the V can help you understand the drive this progression has.

A couple of hours studying theory and you'll understand AND ANTICIPATE those kinds of things when you hear them. Experience will also teach you these things, but likely over months or years and without the vocabulary to discuss it with others.

I'm an intermediate mandolin player and a beginning theory person. I find that as I pick up more theory my horizons expand.

Don

----------


## TNFrank

I guess if I was going to write music I'd get more into theory but playing something that's already been written all I need is a good ear and to know the chord that I'm hearing then copy what's being done in the song. 
It's like a person enjoying a beautiful sunset, they don't have to know the theory behind light refraction and the layers of the atmospher to see the color and enjoy it. It doesn't hurt to know it but knowing it won't make the sunset any more beautiful. 
For me music has always been and will always be about expressing myself in a creative way. As long as I can play and have fun then I'm fine without knowing theory. On the other hand, there are those that love to pick things apart and study things and I guess that's where theory comes in.

----------


## TomTyrrell

Those with no knowledge of the names wouldn't know they were playing a G or a D7. Those with a high level of innate ability would probably know where to go next even though they aren't aware of the name that describes where they are or where they are going. These are the people who tend to have very little patience with "theory."

----------


## Don Christy

> I guess if I was going to write music I'd get more into theory but playing something that's already been written all I need is a good ear and to know the chord that I'm hearing then copy what's being done in the song. 
> It's like a person enjoying a beautiful sunset, they don't have to know the theory behind light refraction and the layers of the atmospher to see the color and enjoy it. #It doesn't hurt to know it but knowing it won't make the sunset any more beautiful. 
> For me music has always been and will always be about expressing myself in a creative way. As long as I can play and have fun then I'm fine without knowing theory. On the other hand, there are those that love to pick things apart and study things and I guess that's where theory comes in.


I think you can listen to music and really enjoy it without any theory. That's the equivalent to your sunset analogy. If on the other hand you want to paint that sunset, you would either need a lot of experience or you would need to understand at least a little color theory for painting.

You had a previous thread where you were mentioning that you were finding chords. With just a little bit of theory, your understanding of the fret board would increase dramatically and you could choose many different voicings for chords opening up a new vocabulary for playing. Not to say you couldnt get there with lots of careful attentive playing, but theory would help you get there faster.
don

----------


## TomTyrrell

Theory is a great substitute for talent.

----------


## Don Christy

> Those with no knowledge of the names wouldn't know they were playing a G or a D7. Those with a high level of innate ability would probably know where to go next even though they aren't aware of the name that describes where they are or where they are going. These are the people who tend to have very little patience with "theory."


I agree. And so long as they are in keys they are very familiar with, this practical "under the finger" knowledge of theory is great. But a new key could take that person a little longer to get up to speed with. Or novel/new chord voicings.
Don

----------


## TNFrank

I'm not against learning some theory, it's just most of what I read goes so far over my head it makes me feel like it's something I could never get in a million years. Guess I need to find someone that can start me out in the basement and let me work my way up to the penthouse.

----------


## TNFrank

> Theory is a great substitute for talent.


LOL, that's a good one, I'll have to remember that.
I'm sure the kid in the movie "Deliverence" didn't know the first thing about theory but he sure could thump that banjo.

----------


## Don Christy

> I'm not against learning some theory, it's just most of what I read goes so far over my head it makes me feel like it's something I could never get in a million years. Guess I need to find someone that can start me out in the basement and let me work my way up to the penthouse.


I've been reading 
Edly's Music Theory for Practical People  and have found it pretty accessible. NFI.

I think a healthy curiosity and a little time looking for and working with materials is all it takes. 

Don

----------


## Don Christy

> Theory is a great substitute for talent.


And the talented so often regret the theory they have learned.

----------


## Jim Broyles

> Theory is a great substitute for talent.


Congratulations. Just when I thought I'd seen everything on the internet, you showed me I was wrong.

----------


## TNFrank

I'll have to look for that book next time we go to Books'a' Million. I've seen a lot of people get so hung up on theory that they can never again break out and just play and have fun. The HAVE to do it a certain way because that's what Theory dictates they do. I'm more of a "wing it and fly by the seat of your pants" kind of guy where music is conserned. I like to play what comes to mind to see if it'll fit or not and try making up stuff that sounds good to my ear. I think first and formost music should be about having fun, if I've got to do "homework" that'll take some of the fun out of it. Granted, I'm not against studying a piece of music and listening to it over and over until I get it but that's fun to me because once you do get it you have a real satisfied feeling.

----------


## Jim Broyles

But that's okay,Tom, you were wrong once too, right? The time you thought you had made a mistake, wasn't it?

----------


## man dough nollij

> Or understanding and anticipating a ii-V-I progression. Realizing that the ii is the V of the V can help you understand the drive this progression has.


Er, yeah. Might as well be Serbo-Croatian. For me, the theory is a "head" thing, and playing is a "heart" thing. Or maybe theory is a left-brain thing and playing is a right-brain thing. I am a rank noob at both theory and playing, but I'm plugging away. I want to get better at both, but the process is quite different-- I'm "working out" different parts of my brain muscle. I've lurked on some of the threads you are referring to, TNF, and I never got the impression that there was any evangelism going on-- just some folks (like JBMando) who are obviously really sharp on the theory, and recommend it as a fun and challenging way to deepen our experience with our hobby. Just my impression.

----------


## Doug Hoople

> I'm more of a "wing it and fly by the seat of your pants" kind of guy where music is conserned. I like to play what comes to mind to see if it'll fit or not and try making up stuff that sounds good to my ear.


At the risk of sounding unkind, you go pretty easy on yourself here. We haven't heard you play, so can't judge.

But I know a guy at a local Celtic jam who plays just like you do: he plays what sounds good to his ear. #He also can't be bothered with theory because it gets in the way of his brilliant intuition. But he's a blunderer and a nuisance and is constantly playing the wrong chords and the wrong lines.

I also once knew a guy who thought so much of his innate abilities and was so smart about how music was made that he decided not to play at all. It was beneath him. He thought he knew exactly how it would go and got bored just contemplating actually having to BE a musician. # #

Give us a chance... post a clip on the Internet and give us a shot at understanding what you think is "good enough" to keep you from needing any theory. We might be surprised... you could be an intuitive great on the brink of discovery.

----------


## TomTyrrell

Actually Jim, that came from the person who was trying to teach me to draw.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

I would seriously doubt that anyone could say that J.S. Bach didn't have talent and he obviously knew theory as well. One doesn't automatically negate the other.

----------


## TomTyrrell

> At the risk of sounding unkind, you go pretty easy on yourself here. We haven't heard you play, so can't judge.


How can we judge whether his playing is good enough for _him_?

----------


## Don Christy

> Originally Posted by  (doughoople @ May 08 2008, 17:31)
> 
> At the risk of sounding unkind, you go pretty easy on yourself here. We haven't heard you play, so can't judge.
> 
> 
> How can we judge whether his playing is good enough for _him_?


I reckon one way would be to ask him if you've ever elbowed him out of a jam circle!
 
Don

----------


## Doug Hoople

> How can we judge whether his playing is good enough for _him_?


It IS good enough for him. Just ask him. That wasn't the question, though.

----------


## Gerard Dick

I'll try an analogy here. We all learn our first language by feel, listening to our mothers babbling away at us. By the time we go to school we have enough of a grasp of how the language works that we can communicate. #At school we find out that there are rules of engagement for how the language works. #They are called grammar. #We learn not to change tense in a sentence. We learn that I is, you is, they is, should be I am, you are, they are. Some of us even learn to spell. #That's a scary thought. #Grammar is the "theory" of language. 
When we go to a foreign country we memorize handy little phrases like "cervesa por favor" or "ein pils bitte", so we can deal with basic needs like thirst. #Eventually we learn more and if someone explains the rules of their language it gets even easier.
When we start to learn to play a new instrument, any instrument, is is like learning a new language. #You pick up a few phrases, learn a few tunes maybe even some really cool licks but it is all memory. #It is possible to have a large store of tunes memorized without knowing why they sound right. #Along comes a tune that you never heard before and you are stuck. #Or are you? #You listen a bit and it is apparrent that there are no minor chords, there are 3 major chords, and at the end of the verse the progression is reversed. You can tell by ear what note is doh in the song and you quietly pick a few notes on your mandolin. Voila! A string, 3rd fret, = "C". #C = 1, so 4=F and 5=G You have your chords and you can play along. #Just remember that the rotation is backwards at the end of the verse. #HEY and you know your scales in C,F and G and a few nice licks so you can improvise and even take a break on this tune if someone gives you the nod. #Aren't you glad you took the time to learn a little bit of music theory? #Or maybe you didn't and you're going to have to sit this one out and ask someone to show you how it goes later tonight when the jam is in recess or over.

----------


## Don Stiernberg

C'mon, guys...

 Theory is a substitute for talent? Please don't say things like that, not everyone here can tell if you're joking or not...like me, for instance..

 TNFrank:

 I don't think anyone on this forum would intentionally "push" theory like those rare individuals who "push" religious ideology. Most theory discussions here that I've seen have been specific questions followed by attempts to answer the questions. I know a lot of my posts here have theoretical concepts presented in them, but I never meant to suggest that those who ignore theory can't play, or anything like that. In fact, some of my greatest heroes in music and life related more to music by ear or feel or intuition than by math oriented concepts. I'm thinking now of Vassar Clements. Also the great Jethro Burns, who called me in the last months of his life and asked me to explain the chord numbering system to him. I about passed out!!

 Still I believe the following and I hope any of it is helpful.With your strong ear and quickness at figuring out songs and various fretboards, you'll come to a point soon where knowledge of scales, chords, and progressions will interest you more, and you'll seek out a stronger theoretical foundation, and you'll get it! Nothing to be intimidated by, afraid of, etc---people do this at all stages of life, on every instrument, etc. I've had many students in this category and I tell them "Let's learn the names for what you already know"

 So here we go:

  12 tones in music, at least the kind we mostly do here in the States. If you start on any tone and play all of them in half steps, that's a chromatic scale.

  A major scale has 8 tones, in a specific order. Start on any note. Then play a whole step(two frets), another whole step, half, whole, whole whole, half....major scale.

  Harmonizing that major scale is the basis for numbering chord progressions. This was done in classical and jazz music long before the Nashville numbering system. The main difference between the Nashville system and others is Nashville uses Anglican numbers like 1, 2, and 5. The jazz cats use Roman: I, ii, and V. The classical people say tonic, subdominant, and dominant. They're all playing the same progression, one you no doubt play in all keys and feel comfortable with. G-C-D, or Bb-Eb-F, or E-A-B....

  There are only four types or families of chords in all of music. Major, minor, diminished, and augmented. Some think of seventh chords(a/k/a 'dominant' chords) as another family,but they are a form of major so they are often considered part of the major family.

 American pop or roots music can be seen as certain progressions that occur time and time again:

  I, IV, V---The Blues!Also the core of bluegrass, country, 
folk, and rock repertoire. Example: A, D, E. Nine Pound Hammer, Banks of the Ohio, Sweet Home Chicago

  I-ii-V---same as above progression, different'middle chord'. Used in Broadway, Jazz, and pop tunes. Gershwin, Ellington, James Taylor, Stevie Wonder

  I-vi---Root and relative minor, two chords with the same tones. Foggy Mountain Breakdown. Blackberry Blossom

  I-vi-ii-V....You Send Me, Blue Moon, tons of other doo-wop and standard pop tunes.

  I, IV, V, with bVII....Love Come Home, Angel From Montgomery, Live and Let Live, Tangled Up in Blue

 Circle of fifths: G7, C7, F7, Bb or E7, A7, D7, G
  Salty Dog, Don't Let the Deal Go Down, I Got Rhythm, Alabama Jubilee, Sweet Georgia Brown...

 In addition to helping you get inside a song a little further and providing more options for how to create musical statements OF YOUR OWN from a tune's harmonic structure, being conversational in theory allows easier communication with your fellow musicians. It's easier to figure out how to proceed if you're all using similar maps and terms. Definitely easier to pinpoint the trouble spots to work on if all the cats in the band know what key they're in, where the first ending is, where the bridge is, etc..."hearing" 
 chord progressions makes all of that speedier.

 Reading TAB is not theory, it's an instrument-specific notation system used to speed along memorization of tunes and fingerings. You might get theory knowledge from it if you allow it to help you remember the form of a tune--its melody, where the repeats are, rhythms, etc.

 Theory generally refers to scales, chords, and how chords typically move or change from one to the other, as in"What notes sound good with this chord?"

 The mandolin, by virtue of its beautiful and symmetrical layout(tuned in fifths like the fiddle)is a great instrument to recognize fundamentals of music theory on. Yeah. The best.

 You're not the first to wonder about whether theory is over-rated. The debate has raged on for years in music trade magazines,etc. Usually there are two camps, one saying "Look at that guy, all notes and school and chops and NO FEEL or Heart!" then the other camp that says "The guys who accuse other players of being too technical or educated are usually the ones who can't play".Well, both of these stances are too extreme, aren't they? Wes Montgomery, Errol Garner, Vassar
 Clements were all marketed as geniuses who "couldn't read music", which implied they knew little or nothing. In actuality--they knew EVERYTHING! Listening to their music one hears the deepest theoretical situations coupled with huge doses of emotion, heart, and soul...

 A librarian/clarinettist friend likes to say, "It's always good to know more."

 My own brother once asked "What school did George Benson go to?"

 Allright cats, your fellow untrained self-taught aspiring musician old Donnie is gonna sign off now and go back to the arched fretboard in search of the good notes. Whatever gets you there is fine, but I can assure you that knowing a few of the numbers and patterns has allowed me to interact with
 some nice musicians and scratch my way through some interesting gigs. All the best and don't forget to check out similar threads regarding improv, modes, scales etc.Good luck and as Maestro Van Burns used to say...

 "No matter where you go, there you are."

----------


## man dough nollij

Yeah, what he said.

----------


## Don Christy

Wow. Donnie - what a great post. Wish I had your style even more than I wish I had your theory knowledge.

 

Don

----------


## mandolirius

LOL, that's a good one, I'll have to remember that.
&lt;I'm sure the kid in the movie "Deliverence" didn't know the first thing about theory but he sure could thump that banjo.&gt; 

I wonder how the actor who played that role felt about becoming the embodiment of dumbness.  

On the topic, I know (and bet many of us do as well) know a guy who knows absolutely nothing about theory. Can't even tell you what chord he's playing. He's brilliant. So it's true you don't need theory. 

I don't know what experiences the OP has had in real life but here on the Cafe, when a topic arises, there are usually a variety of responses. For threads about theory, there's generally some genuine interest in the topic and people tend to respond to those expressions of interest. 

The OP mentioned feeling like he was being proselytized to. I really don't see that happening around here. It's more a matter of preaching to the already converted. If you (the OP) don't want to learn theory, don't. But one thing I've learned in life is that you can protect yourself against all kinds of things but unsolicited advice is not one of them.

----------


## JeffD

> For me music has always been and will always be about expressing myself in a creative way. As long as I can play and have fun then I'm fine without knowing theory. On the other hand, there are those that love to pick things apart and study things and I guess that's where theory comes in.


I don't think it correct to make such a distinction, between theory and playing.

Basically there's a whole lot of cool stuff to know about music. Some is learned through hands on, some is learned through focused listening, some is learned through instruction, some is discovered through creative noodling, ... and some is more abstract and learned through study.

The different parts do not substitute for each other. Being able to play by ear is great. Being able to read music, and play by ear is better. Being able to understand music, read music, and play by ear is even better. Being able to share your understanding in the common language of musical "theory", and to understand and read music and play by ear is even better.

It's all good, we are all better at some things than others, and better at some ways of learning than others, and... everything we don't know will limit us. 

Now its up to us to determine if that limitation is acceptable or not.

If someone said they only played notes and melodies, and did not want to have anything to do with chords or harmonies, folks would respond, out of their own enthusiasm and best wishes, to expose such a person to a bigger world of musical knowledge and technique. 

If they said, "hey I'm fine, I play as well as I want, I enjoy it, its good enough for me, stop pushing me to learn chords... " I would certainly apologize and back off. 

But I would be remiss to not at least indicate that there is more to the musical world.

I look at someone who plays well enough and has no desire to learn any "theory" the same way I regard someone who plays everything in the first six frets and never has a desire to go up the neck, or someone who only plays classical and has no notion of improvization, or someone who doesn't sing.

We all do what we want, and decide what we want to do about the rest. And what ever decision one makes about learning or becoming competent in the other musical areas is fine, [be it tremolo, pinky planting, learning to read notation, composition, recording, performing, bluegrass, tango, Slavinian Polkas, playing without or with a capo, or indeed, musical theory].

I guess what irritates, is the idea that there is any part of music that you can "get along fine without". The truth is, you can get along fine doing what you do the way you currently do it, without the other stuff. 

So certainly you don't need all of it to enjoy any of it. But there isn't any of us who wouldn't be better if we knew more. 

Respectfully


Jeff

----------


## Mike Bunting

Ask John McGann.

----------


## slow_hand

This Guy doesn't claim to know any theory.

But, I do attempt to learn it myself.

----------


## TNFrank

> At the risk of sounding unkind, you go pretty easy on yourself here. We haven't heard you play, so can't judge.


Well, I played guitar for 20 years without knowing any theory(at least that I know that I know) and when I played in a local band they all thought I did fine keeping up and the bass player was a real theory buff. When I switch to bass I could keep up with anything I heard without any problems. I"m still a noob at mandolin so I'm not at a point where I'd want to post anything yet but I'm sure the more I play and the more I learn my way around the fret board the better I'll get. 
 I'm not trying to say that I'm "gods gift" to music but I do have a lot of fun playing and I've been told that I play well(guitar and bass anyway) so I must have been doing something right. 
 I probably do know more theory without knowing the names of what I know then I think.

----------


## Jkf_Alone

Don said everything i said in this post, but in a nicer way.

frank, basically theory is like learning to write the language you speak. and it isnt very hard even if yo just learn the nashville #'s, scale degrees and chord relationships ( you can probably do all this in a week) with musictheory.net that way when you post something like your chords post here in th tips, people will quickly be able to understand what you are saying.

----------


## Geoff B

Interesting thread! i'd argue that every pattern you have identified that works well in a given context is a little bit of theory, you just haven't assimilated it into the larger, broader musical language. No problems there at all if it keeps you happy! The only real reason to branch out and start classifying what you already know would be to communicate better. Instead of describing ONE set of fingering for ONE place in ONE song, with just a little theory you can apply it to other circumstances without the search again. 

Some folks do not travel with a map and they have just as much right to enjoy the trip as the others, but I gaurantee you they have some version of a map (mental or otherwise) before/during/after their trip.. If your intuition makes you happy, go with it! If you get frustrated trying to communicate your musical talents, learning some musical language can only help. Either way, keep on pickin!

----------


## seanonabutton

i think that everything you can learn about music will make you a better player... whether it be theory, ear training, rhythm training, learning to read music notation

my playing and enjoyment improved by learning the PHYSICS of music for goodness sakes...  yay partial series?

----------


## Don Christy

> Well, I played guitar for 20 years without knowing any theory(at least that I know that I know) and when I played in a local band they all thought I did fine keeping up and the bass player was a real theory buff. When I switch to bass I could keep up with anything I heard without any problems. I"m still a noob at mandolin so I'm not at a point where I'd want to post anything yet but I'm sure the more I play and the more I learn my way around the fret board the better I'll get.


If you are already very good on guitar and bass, you're probably going to ramp up fairly quickly on mando in any event. 

But I do believe that with just a little undertanding of theory your physical skills would transfer quickly and would immediately allow you to become better than average on mando. Knowledge of intervals, scales, chords, and harmonization would allow you to quickly "get" the mando and apply the vast experience you already have with other instruments to the mando.


At any rate, I fear my continued posting on this may seem like preaching, which I don't intend. 

Good luck and happy pickin'  
Don

----------


## TNFrank

I pretty much have gotten the scales down. They're not too far off from those on the guitar or bass. An intervals, IIRC is a two note "chord" and I've found a lot of those and even have a few names for some. I also know a few three note chords. Harmonies are something that I don't think I've worked on yet. 

Like I said, I probably know more theory then I think I know, I've just don't have a name for what I know. I've played music for so long that it's just ingrained into my subconsious so I don't even notice it anymore. 
 I guess getting books and learning chords is part of theory, I've done that for guitar and now mandolin. About the only chord I used on bass was a power chord which is the same on guitar too. I know there's probably a theory behind power chords, like it's a resident 5th of the root or some gibberish like that,(I'm sure I'm totally wrong on what I just said)LOL, all I know if you place your finger over a string and up two frets from the note your playing and play the two strings and you've got a power chord,LOL. 
 Just as with the guitar what I REALLY need to work on it my right hand. I need to get it moving faster to do runs, I think a thicker pick like the Dunlop 205 will help, I've always been a med. pick kind of guy and that might have been my problem where my right hand was conserned. Can't wait for my Musician's Friend order to get here so I'll have more strings, a new strap and some new picks to play with. Anyway, talk to ya'll later and thanks for all the great replies and links.

----------


## Bertram Henze

Jumping in late on this, I would like to open up the spectrum of music "theory" just a little further. When I was a boy, my music teachers kept bugging me with this 5th circle/major/minor/tempered scale/why F is not E#/1-4-5/you name it/ stuff. What troubled me was that I never could quite find out what troubled me. But troubled I was for sure, because it all didn't seem to make sense, it lacked the simplicity to fit the beauty of music. All I saw was a bunch of letters with little decorations on them but without an apparent system.

Then came university, physics, and finally frequency analysis/synthesis/harmonics and AHHHH! in a flash it all became clear. Scales suddenly became sets of logarithm values of frequencies (because the human ear works logarithmic both for frequency and volume), harmony was reduced to cardinal frequency ratios etc.

I looked back to my music lessons and asked myself "why didn't they tell me that from the start?" - I know now that they couldn't possibly have done that because all they knew was a sub-theory tailored for playing instruments and talk among musicians (which they call music theory), just as TABs, the Nashville system and other formalisms are in turn sub-theories of that, all tailored to support more specific (but also more limited) tasks.

How several levels of music theory are just specialized ways to exploit the next upper level's truth for a purpose, the same applies for music theory as a whole, next upper level being physics.

Thus, every musician needs music theory of some level to do what he does. We're not divided into Listeners and Thinkers, we're all thinkers for different purposes. And music theory itself is not rocket science, it is just a tiny recipe derived from simple truth. How far up in theory you go, depends on how much truth you want to know, not how well you want to play.

Bertram

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> ...I'm sure the kid in the movie "Deliverence" didn't know the first thing about theory but he sure could thump that banjo.
> 
> I wonder how the actor who played that role felt about becoming the embodiment of dumbness.


From Wikipedia:

"Billy Redden, who played the banjo playing boy, could not really play the banjo. Another young banjo player knelt behind him and reached around Redden's chest to reach the banjo, with Redden wearing a specially made shirt that made the man's arms appear to be Redden's. Additionally, the shot was filmed from angles that made it impossible to see the musician behind Redden on the porch."

Billy Redden couldn't play the banjo then and still can't. 

As for the second part, Billy has now been in at least two movies and is known world-wide. I honestly don't know if he even knows he is the embodiment of dumbness. I think he probably thinks he got lucky and got paid to be in two movies.

As for me, I always paddle faster when I hear banjo music.

----------


## groveland

Without rules, there is no game. It appears that about half the folks here believe there's no such thing as playing a wrong note!

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> It appears that about half the folks here believe there's no such thing as playing a wrong note!


Isn't that what jazz is all about?

----------


## TNFrank

> Without rules, there is no game. It appears that about half the folks here believe there's no such thing as playing a wrong note!


You don't need theory to tell you a note is wrong, your ear will tell you.
And YEP, free form Jazz has a lot of "wrong" notes in it.

----------


## Benevolent Dick

A good teacher is the best, always. At least if you are willing to learn from someone else. 

I learned songs off the radio first and discovered the relationships between different notes and different chords by myself. I had no way of talking about them to others, although I certainly used what I had learned, and could SHOW others what I was doing.
Later, when I went to University, I learned that there were terms to be able to TELL others in words what I could previously only SHOW them.
The knowedge is there whether the language is or not.

Mike S

----------


## TNFrank

> "Sweet Little Georgia Rose," boys. 1-4-5 in B, kick it off with a chorus on the 4.
> 
> What are the chords of the song?
> What chord does it start on?
> 
> I am not busting chops here. This is exactly how a song was "called" at a jam I attended. What would you have done?


The chords are B,E and F and the song start with the chorus in E.
Did a bit of reading on the Nashville Number System.

----------


## Benevolent Dick

B, E and F#

Mike S

----------


## MikeEdgerton

What's a half step among friends?

----------


## Don Christy

> Without rules, there is no game. #It appears that about half the folks here believe there's no such thing as playing a wrong note!


I am a big proponent of learning theory - but at the risk of derailing this thread ...

I believe there's no such thing as a bad note. 

In his book "Effortless Mastery" Kenny Werner has a chapter titled "There Are No Wrong Notes." # 

He does a demonstration at workshops where he plays a song with the chords in Ab and the melody lines in A (he's a pianist). This should create a ton of "wrong notes" and should sound dissonant. He claims that everyone is always surprised at how "fresh and stimulating" it sounds.

He says:



> There is a secret here: if dissonant notes are played and the player embraces them as consonant, _the listener will also hear them as consonant!_


Interestingly, and maybe more on point for the original post, he goes on to say:



> Conversely, even the simplest harmony will sound strange to a listener if the player hasn't understood that harmony.


I tend to think the understanding that Werner refers to is not just a theoretical understanding but a physical/emotional understanding from having heard that harmony, but the theory deepens the understanding.

I'm also reminded of something that happened at the mandolin symposium last year. I think it was Andy Statman and Mike Marshall playing. Andy played some line that had a interesting and dissonant sounding note against the chord Mike was playing. Mike made a surprised expression and said something like, "no you didn't" or "yeah!" I'm sure I'm remembering the details all wrong, but you get the idea.

I'm by no means there, but I'm trying both learn theory and free myself from the idea that there are wrong notes. 
Don

----------


## TNFrank

Isn't it Major, minor,minor, Major,Major,Minor, Diminished Minor? So Wouldn't that be 1=B Maj., 4=E Maj. and 5=F Maj.??

Ok, I just did a print out with the key chart.
B= B C# D# E F# G# A#, Got it.

----------


## Don Christy

yes it's Major, but it's F# major. Not F natural major.

remember what Don S. said: a mjor scale is:
whole step(two frets), another whole step, half, whole, whole whole, half

so starting on B you have the B major scale as:
B - C# - D# - E - F# - G# - A# - B
I  ii  iii IV V  vi  vii I

So the I IV V are: B, E, F#.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

The chart you printed out shows F# (F Sharp).

Mike teaches a little theory.

----------


## TomTyrrell

Deep inside Don's post is what, for me, is the over-riding reason for an amateur to learn theory: "being conversational in theory allows easier communication with your fellow musicians."

There is some variance in just how much theory one needs. If you confine yourself to playing bluegrass in jams or in a band you don't need nearly the depth of knowledge that you do if you intend to converse intelligently with someone like John McGann. 

My favorite example of all this is Django. He had no formal training in music theory but he had more _intuitive_ knowledge of music theory than most people learn in a lifetime. He pushed the limits of conventional theory, he gave us things we would not have had without him. Had it not been for the efforts of others his music would never have been recorded or written. We would have lost that genious when Django died. 

Would formal music theory training have limited Django's creativity? We can never know. Will formal music theory training limit _your_ creativity? Only if you let it. If you let theory be your box it will be.

----------


## TNFrank

So you have natural, sharp and flat and within that you can have major and minor along with others.
Can someone, in a simple way, explain the difference between all of them. Thanks.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

Wait a minute. That would be learning theory. Whay would anyone want to do that?

----------


## TomTyrrell

> So you have natural, sharp and flat and within that you can have major and minor along with others.
> Can someone, in a simple way, explain the difference between all of them. Thanks.


Natural, sharp and flat are all conditions of a NOTE. Major, minor, diminished, augmented and all those others describe chords and scales.

Enough theory for today.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> Enough theory for today.

----------


## TNFrank

You are So EVIL.LOL

----------


## mandroid

Wrong note... so judgmental ..

I'ts not a wrong note , just a leading tone waiting for resolution.


If you only play in C Major, then you don't have to sweat them black notes.

----------


## Don Stiernberg

WAY TO GO GUYS! Thank you. Civilized discourse leading to effective communication, and perhaps greatest of all...

 TNFrank!You just used music theory TO YOUR ADVANTAGE when you psyched out the B Major harmonized scale, realizing that F# is the dominant or "five" chord. You're doing great there, and I predict that many similar exciting discoveries are to follow. Already, you'll relate to that progression much more quickly when you hear it, no matter what key or style it's in.

 Regarding the "wrong notes" discussion above, of course there are wrong notes. They can be determined by "the rules", or (more frequently) the context. Also taste and intent factor in.If the piano player adds a ninth to the dominant chord, and the guitar player adds a flatted ninth, one of them is playing a "wrong" note even though the addition of either ninth might be OK at that point--We need to listen(REAL HARD!) to avert situations like that on the bandstand.

 Working on John Carlini's "Game's Afoot" CD I was confronted with a tonality in one of his originals that bothered me, a Lydian something or other. I actually wrote down the "good" pitches and improvised from the list. On playback I noticed a "wrong" note--one that wasn't on the list. John himself said, "No, man, leave it in there--it fits the GRAVITY of the line" meaning that even though that note was outside of the technical definition of his intended chord sound, the melody still felt like a melody. So we left it. I don't even remember where it was anymore.

 On seventh chords, the only real "wrong" note is the major seventh, in my opinion. G7, for example, can include anything except F#, because F# makes it G major seventh instead of G dominant(flatted) seventh. Still, if you get on and off that F# quickly enough in the midst of a chromatic run or line or melody, it might work...as per the "gravity" concept in the previous paragraph. I think jazz players have most of their fun on the five chord, in major and minor. G7 can become G7b9 and/or #9,b5 and/or #5. One alteration begets another, then soon enough anything goes, with the possible exception of that major seventh.

 Still we are customarily more interested in consonant harmony, the notes we are SURE correspond accurately to the existing tonalities of the song or piece. One can have a fun lifetime of work being concerned only with harmonized major and minor scales and chords, no subs at all..

 Free jazz is NOT filled with wrong notes because by definition it proceeds without reference to tonalities or even meter. The POINT is to throw off consideration of what is regarded as wrong or right, and go completely by intuition or some other system like just responding to what one's fellow musicians do. It can be a very revealing exercise, as in, "I wonder what I would sound like if I weren't thinking about a tune, or a chord, or a scale, or an instrument? Maybe I could still make a beautiful sound? Or maybe the sound I make would pertain more to how I feel about things?"

 So free jazz might strike you as wrong notes in much the same manner as Chinese or German sounds wrong to you if you primarily use English for speaking. But them notes ain't wrong.

 Andy Statman himself once asked me "Who do you think the freest jazz cat of all is? " His answer: BILL MONROE! His support for that answer: Transcribe his break on Uncle Pen. Who could think of that?? Bill was decidedly unafraid, allowed for "the gravity", and the result was that singular and personal sound that we all love. Free indeed.

 But I digress. Back to you, TNFrank! You're doing great, so here's another theory"trick" for you. To get after a bluesy Bill Monroe thing on Little Georgia Rose in the bluegrass key of B, use blue notes on your I(root) chord for jamming. These would be your flatted third, fifth, and seventh.In this key that's D natural, F natural, and A natural. Here's a little line to dial them in:
 B-D-E-F#-A-B  or perhaps from the top down B-A-F# F-E-D-B. or Vernon Derrick style B-D-E-F#-A-F-E-D-B. Sound bluesy at all? That's what I'm talkin' about.Sometimes cats use that "scale" or sound against all 3 chords in a blues, and that will sorta work, but you'll get bored with that early on...

 TN, your multi-instrumentalism allows you to pursue these things full-tilt. You can lay down your own rhythm section on a recorder without having to pay a bass or guitar player, then work on your definitions of wright or rong notes with your mandolin till the cows come home. What a gas!

 Along the way you may encounter situations where another bit of info will get you through. Then is when Groveland's posts and web materials will be very helpful. Also Petimar. Also JazzMando. Also Terry Lewis's Scales and Modes book.
 We're all here for you, and for each other. I know it sounds corny, but it's true, just like Jeffo signed on his records when people bought them:

 "ALL US MANDOLIN PICKERS GOTTA STICK TOGETHER!"

----------


## picksnbits

We need some words of wisdom from Yogi Berra here. Maybe some of these apply:

"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. "

"There are some people who, if they don't already know, you can't tell 'em. "

"How can you think and hit at the same time?"

"You got to be careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there. "

----------


## Jim Broyles

90% of mandolin playing is half mental.

----------


## TomTyrrell

(Edited to make this easier for some people to understand)

*THIS IS A JOKE!!!*

Quick translation of Don's latest post...

"WAY TO GO GUYS! Thank you. Civilized discourse leading to effective communication, and perhaps greatest of all...

Zzzzzzzzzzz...

ALL US MANDOLIN PICKERS GOTTA STICK TOGETHER!"

----------


## MikeEdgerton

Civilized? I must be slipping. How did this happen?

----------


## Mary Vivit

> 90% of mandolin playing is half mental.


Ah, so *that's* my problem. I'm 100% mental.

----------


## Jim Broyles

I don't know about you, Tom, but to me it is a major source of inspiration and joy to hear from the likes of Don Stiernberg. It's a little disappointing to me that John McGann doesn't post here any more. Last year at this time, this thread would have surely had his input. You can insult our intelligence all you want by saying such balderdash as "theory is a substitute for talent," but I'd ask you to refrain from insulting guys who are actually using theory AND talent to make it in the music business and have the time to drop in here and let us mere mortals in on some pretty cool stuff.

----------


## TNFrank

I'm mainly just going to work on the Nashville Number System since that's what I'll need to know if I go to a Jam Session and pick up the other stuff as I can. 

I guess I will learn some theory if for no other reason so I can understand what ya'll are gabbering about,LOL. It might even end up being kind of fun too.

----------


## Ted Eschliman

> Theory is a great substitute for talent.


I got a chuckle out of that, Tom. I know it's tongue in cheek, but I have to say it's partially true, at least in my own case. I suffer from a playing impairment. Basically, I suck. I'll never be a virtuoso mandolinist; I'm fortunate enough to have a brain that makes up for my physical limitaions, and I'll credit music theory for bringing me UP to average ability.

I understand what the OP was getting at initially, this perceived persecution by theory "know-it-alls." As an undergraduate, I heard the jazzers banter about their secret code of TwoFiveSevens, TriSubs, and Turnarounds, their private jazz fraternity handshake, and it was irritating. Ironically, I even taught music theory as a T.A. (pretty good at it, if I might brag) and still felt the intimidation.

Theory allows me a measure-twice/cut-once approach to my playing. Even my spontaniety is ultimately calculated (speaking of Yogi Bera). I wish I had the gift of subconscious, intuitive playing, but my fingers will never let that happen. I have to think Tonal Centers, modes, scale degrees somewhat if I want to produce something of value. Is my playing sterile and cerebral? I guess you'll have to be the judge.

Anyway, for me personally Music Theory is a driving force...

----------


## TomTyrrell

> I don't know about you, Tom, but to me it is a major source of inspiration and joy to hear from the likes of Don Stiernberg. It's a little disappointing to me that John McGann doesn't post here any more. Last year at this time, this thread would have surely had his #input. You can insult our intelligence all you want by saying such balderdash as "theory is a substitute for talent," but I'd ask you to refrain from insulting guys who are actually using theory AND talent to make it in the music business and have the time to drop in here and let us mere mortals in on some pretty cool stuff.


Gee sorry Jim. I went back and edited my post to make it easier to understand.

----------


## Jim Broyles

Well that's why there are emoticons to use on a message board. It looked like you were calling all but a few sentences boring.

----------


## Mandomax

"You must first learn the rules before you break them."-Beethoven

----------


## TomTyrrell

> Well that's why there are emoticons to use on a message board. #It looked like you were calling all but a few sentences boring.


:) :( :D ??? :;): :p :O :angry: :sleepy: :coffee: :mandosmiley: :laugh:

----------


## duuuude

Theory just helped my brain understand what my ears & fingers already knew.

----------


## groveland

> Originally Posted by  (groveland @ May 09 2008, 07:40)
> 
> Without rules, there is no game. #It appears that about half the folks here believe there's no such thing as playing a wrong note!
> 
> 
> You don't need theory to tell you a note is wrong, your ear will tell you.
> And YEP, free form Jazz has a lot of "wrong" notes in it.


Why are those "Shredding" videos on YouTube so hysterical to some, and others don't get it? And yet Ornette Coleman is not funny?

Shred on!

----------


## TNFrank

Ok, so I made a video of me playing a little ditty that I just heard on Bluegrass Junction. I have no way to upload it to the forum and it's just a tad over 20Mb so can anyone help me get it uploaded so ya'll can see how sorry I play,LOL.

----------


## Doug Hoople

I keep on meaning to post on this thread, but I'm having a hard time keeping up with reading all you cats! Things are coming in faster than I can respond. And I'm a touch typist, too! 

That's okay, because every unstoppable impulse to reply to something I felt strongly about has already been articulated by somebody here. 

So thanks, all, for posting what I would have!

----------


## Michael H Geimer

Frank,
Without an MP3, I'm still confident your playing sound great. Your posts just give me that impression.

Have fun with these new ideas. I bet some of them will strike you as "new knowledge you already knew", but that's part of the idea, too. Theory can help explain what comes naturally.

 - MG

----------


## Doug Hoople

> Then came university, physics, and finally frequency analysis/synthesis/harmonics and AHHHH! in a flash it all became clear. Scales suddenly became sets of logarithm values of frequencies (because the human ear works logarithmic both for frequency and volume), harmony was reduced to cardinal frequency ratios etc.


Yes, I can see why the addition of this information suddenly yielded your AHA! moment. Of course... So simple, so intuitive!

----------


## John Ritchhart

There's not much theory in my playing. It's more of a hypothesis, followed by a failed experiment, and then an explosion in the lab.

----------


## JeffD

theory is not a substitute for ear training
theory is not a substitute for musical intuition
theory is not a substitute for muscle memory

By the same token, neither ear training, musical intuition, or muscle memory is a substitute for theory.

Learning theory will improve your playing. Learning more thoery will improve your playing more. Pointing to a particular egg head who can't play by ear is just wrong, because the egg head does not suffer from too much theory, he suffers from insufficient ear training.

A particular paper trained musician's stubborn refusal to learn to play by ear is identical to the intuitive player who scoffs at learning any theory.

Everything you don't know limits you, if it doesn't infact bite you in the tail piece.

A friend of mine, in a discussion totally unrelated to music, made these four distinctions:

Ignorance - forgivable, we all haven't been exposed to the same "teachers".

Willfull ignorance - still forgivable, we don't have time to learn everything, and so we all have to pick and chose

Proud ignorance - not forgivable, but forgetable, because such a person only hurts himself

Denigrates knowledge of others - not forgivable and not forgetable, just a sad mean example of a person


I am in the second camp WRT music - there is a lot I just don't have time to learn, and right now learning to make love stay is a higher priority and taking most of my time. But I am keenly aware of how my ignorance limits me, and what I could become but for what I don't know or understand.

----------


## Doug Hoople

> Pointing to a particular egg head who can't play by ear is just wrong, because the egg head does not suffer from too much theory, he suffers from insufficient ear training.


Nicely put, Jeff! That's exactly right, with the converse applying to those who won't use paper (as you also mentioned)!

----------


## TomTyrrell

Why is it that a person can't learn the theory after he learns to play the music? (Careful answering this one, it is a trick question.)

----------


## Don Christy

> There's not much theory in my playing. It's more of a hypothesis, followed by a failed experiment, and then an explosion in the lab. #


My favorite post yet!

ROMLMAO

----------


## Doug Hoople

> Why is it that a person can't learn the theory after he learns to play the music? (Careful answering this one, it is a trick question.)


Really? Trick question? I think not. I haven't spotted the trick. 

The answer is that we HAVE to learn the theory after we learn the music. Just as we learn to speak a whole lot of sentences before we have our first lesson in grammer, we learn a whole pile of phrases and tunes before anyone starts on us about scales, harmonic progressions, etc. 

So, have I missed an obvious punch line in what should be an obvious joke setup?

----------


## allenhopkins

Wow, this is the most intense, involved discussion I've seen in quite awhile; congrats to the OP for starting it!

Whatever "theory" I know, since a very short course in junior high, I've picked up through playing. #It has helped me. #Knowing why a major chord differs from a minor chord, the tonic/subdominant/dominant 1-4-5 relationship, the "circle of fifths," etc., etc. has been useful. #When I got into playing music which used different scales and modes, such as klezmer, it really helped to have a smattering of theoretical knowledge.

I do agree that a naturally receptive ear, and the experience gained through years of playing, are as useful and perhaps more useful -- in terms of participating in ensemble playing, picking up styles and tunes quickly, etc. #In terms of communicating ideas verbally to other musicians, leading or teaching ensembles, etc., having a basic theoretical vocabulary sure doesn't hurt.

I'd like to add a bit of "meta-discussion": the OP was in part reacting to _attitude,_ to being made to feel inferior because he didn't express his musical ideas in the language of theory. #Whatever theory I may or may not know -- and I'm sure I'm only a few rungs up the ladder -- doesn't make me superior to the "unschooled" musician who may be able to play rings around me.

On the other hand, I'm equally against the "theory is bad" attitude that says theoretical knowledge just covers a lack of talent, and that acquiring a working grasp of theory will somehow harm or restrict "natural" music. #Play long enough and you will get an understanding of #music theory, picked up as "on-the-job training." #Getting the vocabulary to express that understanding, and the theoretical knowledge to piece it together and extend it, sure can't hurt.

My kudos to all the people who took the time to contribute to this discussion!!

----------


## Alex Fields

> Having a trained ear is one aspect of knowing theory, IMO. 
> 
> Cheers
> Mark


There is a reason every conservatory student takes at least four years of Aural Skills (or Ear Training or Solfege whatever they call it at the given school). 

To make your point more strongly: the aural skills classes are considered labs for the theory classes. Each one of the four levels corresponds to the same level in theory, and in those classes you basically learn to hear the things you have talked about in theory--identify intervals and chord progressions by ear, recognize which inversion a chord is in, hear secondary functions and modulations, etc.

The thing is, even if you don't know the terms used in theory, this is exactly what you are doing when you play by ear. If you can hear a melody and then just play it on your instrument, that means you are recognizing and identifying intervals by ear. Same with picking up chords progressions. You may not know the names for the intervals or chords but you are still _using_ the theory even if you can't describe it. Learning theory more formally will only help you do all of this (and more) smoothly and with much less reliance on hearing things. It may be great to play by ear, but if you're on stage playing something for the first time, or in a different key or something, you can't afford to sit and listen for a while before you start playing. If you know the theory you don't have to wait and listen.

Also, if you want to go beyond the bounds of what is already being done and be creative, find new sounds, write your own stuff, etc., that is very hard to do effectively without theory. Are you going to do a chord substitution by playing a bunch of different chords until one sounds right, or would you rather just know which ones you can use effectively?

P. S. There seems to be some kind of general assumption that classical musicians can't play by ear and only rely on theory. I can tell you first hand that classical music schools heavily emphasize ear training and things like this. Maybe there are some people out there who fit this stereotype but either way it isn't a typical attitude for classical musicians to eschew playing by ear.

----------


## Jonathan Peck

> P. S. There seems to be some kind of general assumption that classical musicians can't play by ear and only rely on theory. I can tell you first hand that classical music schools heavily emphasize ear training and things like this. Maybe there are some people out there who fit this stereotype but either way it isn't a typical attitude for classical musicians to eschew playing by ear.


We get many classically trained violinists coming through our jam. It never ceases to amaze me how after listening to a tune a couple times through how they can jump right in and play it back by ear....then the next time through they can turn it upside down, inside out and back again. Whoever says that classically trained musicians can't play by ear or be creative improvisers hasn't been around many.

Some of the best I've seen have been Mark O'Connors students. He comes around now and again with a couple in tow coaching them the whole time. It doesn't take very long for them to start tearing the roof down. It's great to watch players with great talent and training. They have no limitations on what they can do. 

I don't think you can really compare the self taught play by ear I don't need theory types to musicians like this because to me they will always have limitations in their playing. Granted they may be very proficient at certain things but they will always be limited.

----------


## Alex Fields

Yeah I know. I'm a composition major so I'm even more theory obsessed than the average classical musician, but _all_ of the conservatory students have study really advanced ear training stuff that goes far beyond the ear training required to participate in a jam session. I mean since when does someone at a bluegrass jam need to recognize modulations through altered common chords or secondary functions? And that is like ear training 2, maybe 3, out of 4.

----------


## Jonathan Peck

Here's a video example of what I'm talking about Itzak Perlman plays Klezmer

In the very beginning you get to see someone explaining the song to Itzak. Then you see him listening for a short period, and then he jumps in. In the middle of the clip, Itzak talks about how he didn't really like how he was playing, but he was just trying to play what he remembered hearing in his childhood. Anyway, he is able to blend in authentically without any prior practice which I think says alot about his musicianship.

----------


## groveland

One maestro told me (my recollection and paraphrased): "Those jazz players who really know what's going on, who _know the right from the wrong notes_, can always identify players that don't know the difference. Don't kid yourself. They are listening, and they _can_ tell."

I always found that sobering.

----------


## Jim MacDaniel

IMHO, knowing theory can only help to make you a better musician, just as being well versed in basic culinary skills, or understanding the science behind your favorite recipes can make you a better cook. That said, you can still successfully cook from a recipe card without a formal education in the culinary arts -- but the more you know, you can't help but become a more intuitive and creative cook.

----------


## groveland

Or like playing cards. Playing cards with my daughter a few years ago was like: 
"But I like that card." 
"I'm sorry sweetheart, but that card isn't the same suit. It has to be the same suit."
"But it's pretty. It's my favorite."
"But honey, if you play that card, then nobody else can play."
"But it's my favorite."

----------


## August Watters

> I mean since when does someone at a bluegrass jam need to recognize modulations through altered common chords or secondary functions? #And that is like ear training 2, maybe 3, out of 4.


Not to be a pain, but:

Modulations through altered common chords:
Flop Eared Mule
Blackberry Rag
Fire on the Mountain
Forked Deer

Tunes with secondary dominants:
Alabama Jubilee
Down Yonder
Arkansas Traveler
and so on. . . .

OK, I take your point that one doesn't need to recognize the device to be able to play the tune. But these devices (which most people will think sound difficult or complicated) are nothing exotic; I think you'll find they occur just about everywhere, including bluegrass.

So what's the point of knowing the name of the device? Recognizing what's going on, and knowing what often happens in similar situations, might suggest some ideas for improvisation.


August W

----------


## Joel Spaulding

The best reason I can give(my opinion is not even worth $.02 considering the value of the dollar)for learning theory is :

 It provides a common language that musicians can use to communicate about their music. This has been stated far more eloquently in previous posts. Theory has been in my life since 4th grade piano lessons through some time as a music major and now as an aspiring Mandolinist. I have been lucky to be blessed with a decent ear, and have been able to avoid bogging myself down with theory when I have found a more direct or simple route to my musical goal. BUT - now that I approach the Mando with an almost insane sense of purpose ( what that is, my wife would like to know #  ) I am VERY glad I have those years of learning or at least indirectly "absorbing" music theory. If nothing else, you can laugh "knowingly" when someone makes a really bad "musicians only" joke. #

----------


## Mark Robertson-Tessi

> The thing is, even if you don't know the terms used in theory, this is exactly what you are doing when you play by ear. #If you can hear a melody and then just play it on your instrument, that means you are recognizing and identifying intervals by ear. #Same with picking up chords progressions. #You may not know the names for the intervals or chords but you are still _using_ the theory even if you can't describe it. #


This is so true. When I was 7 or 8, my dad (who has no musical skill) would have me close my eyes and he would play a series of random notes on the piano. Then I'd have to repeat what he played. We both thought it was just a fun game, but he was unknowingly teaching me intervals. Later we did chords. I didn't start learning any 'formal' theory until I was in high school, but when I did start, I realized I already knew a lot of the theory, just not the terminology. I just had to attach names to the sounds.

So I'd submit that any musician who can play well knows raw theory, even if it's an abstract ear thing. And to be honest, I think abstract when I play. Despite knowing some theory, I'm not thinking terminology of intervals and scales, but rather I can hear where I want to go and do it. 

That said, knowing theory helps I'm on stage and someone says "Oh, it was in F on the CD I gave you? Well, I actually do this in A flat now!"

CHeers
Mark

----------


## groveland

> Originally Posted by  
> 
> I mean since when does someone at a bluegrass jam need to recognize modulations through altered common chords or secondary functions? #And that is like ear training 2, maybe 3, out of 4.
> 
> 
> Not to be a pain, but:
> 
> Modulations through altered common chords:
> Flop Eared Mule
> ...


August - Here's a good opportunity to provide a little theory lesson. (A secondary dominant is a dom7 chord preceding its diatonic.) Can you identify the secondary dominant(s) in Arkansas Traveler?

----------


## Jim Broyles

This is more like how I know a secondary dominant:



> It refers to a dominant of a degree other than the tonic. The chord to which a secondary dominant progresses is a chord that is briefly treated as the tonic.


I don't hear that in "Arkansas Traveler" unless I don't really know the song. To me, the tonic is D the whole song.

----------


## groveland

jbmando - The secondary dominant always resolves to a diatonic chord, that is, a chord within the parent key. The chord it resolves to is whatever degree of the key it is in the parent. #So any diatonic chord can be preceded by its dom7, and these are called Secondary Dominants. 

Having said that, I don't hear Secondary Dominants in Arkansas Traveler with the 'default' harmony. #I think you can apply lots of cool things to it, though. I am looking to August for more info on how he harmonizes that tune.

(On the other hand, Alabama Jubilee is chock full of Secondary and Extended dominants. Extended dominant being a non-diatonic dom7 resolving to a dom7.)

<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>Edit: #Talking about this stuff is a great learning experience for everyone. #I love it when we get off on these things, because we're all testing it out and reaffirming it. #It's good exercise and good medicine. It is certainly not intended to impose.</span>

----------


## Bertram Henze

> Originally Posted by  (bertramH @ May 09 2008, 05:01)
> 
> Then came university, physics, and finally frequency analysis/synthesis/harmonics and AHHHH! in a flash it all became clear. Scales suddenly became sets of logarithm values of frequencies (because the human ear works logarithmic both for frequency and volume), harmony was reduced to cardinal frequency ratios etc.
> 
> 
> Yes, I can see why the addition of this information suddenly yielded your AHA! moment. Of course... So simple, so intuitive!


Seriously - I can do better with one simple sentence (or a formula, come to that) stating a principle than with a hundred examples being thrown at me.

I guess that's one reason I don't make my living with music. If I want to do my thinking, I model business processes. If I want to be happy I play music.

Someone brought card games into the discussion - a good example to make my point, because I don't like card games for the very same reason - all fancy colors and symbols to hide the principle, and whoever tried to explain the rules to me started like "for instance, if you got a king of spades and I have a... " (stopping explanation and watching me folding the cards into little aeroplanes with a face you'd have to be there to imagine)...

Bertram

----------


## Doug Hoople

> Here's a good opportunity to provide a little theory lesson. (A secondary dominant is a dom7 chord preceding its diatonic.) Can you identify the secondary dominant(s) in Arkansas Traveler?


In the standard harmonization, there is no secondary dominant in Arkansas Traveler. There are possibilities for it in alternative harmonizations, but I don't think that's the point. 

Fisher's Hornpipe, on the other hand, does have a secondary dominant, in the B section, a simple-but-effective V-of-V chord. 

The "exotic" devices in music theory can be found in the many of the simplest tunes.

----------


## groveland

> I can do better with one simple sentence (or a formula, come to that) stating a principle than with a hundred examples being thrown at me.


I heard that! Me too. I am partial to "The Scale IS the Chord, and the Chord IS the Scale" for improv. It's true, concise, a principle, but it doesn't speak to everyone. 

Though not principles, the statements "The secondary dominant always resolves to a diatonic chord" and "Extended dominant is a non-diatonic dom7 resolving to a dom7" should imply all their inclusions and exceptions, or that's the intention.

"Principles are good." Another good one.

----------


## Alex Fields

I didn't mean to imply that the theory stuff doesn't happen in folk music or anything like that, I only meant that you don't have to be able to recognize it happening to play in a folk jam, and very few people who participate in those jams could recognize it by ear.

----------


## JeffD

> and very few people who participate in those jams could recognize it by ear.


I am not so sure of that. I have been surprised too many times by folks who seemed entirely intuitive but in response to a question or two turned out to be very aware of the theory happening around them and very able to talk about it.

I think people often keep quiet about their theoretical understanding in order to keep from intimidating others, or to avoid appearing like a nerd, or to appear more folkie. 

On more that a few occations when asking about chord choices, and expecting "thats how Klem Kadiddlehopper always played it", I have been surprized to hear things about the II chord providing more drama at this point, or the emphasis of the passing tones in that triplet, or the piquant nature of the mixo-thessalonian mode.

They may chew gum or play the banjo, or look a few fries shy of a happy meal, but there is a lot more theoretical knowledge out there than would appear to the casual observer.

----------


## TEE

When I was learning to play years ago some one wanted to play a song with a C9 chord. I did not know how to make a C9 chord and the guitar player who knew theory but did not know how to play mandolin said hand me your mandolin and after a minute showed me the C9 chord. I never doubted learning theory after that. It comes very hard for me though.
 I find that music theory and mathmatics seem to have a lot in common-does anyone else think that?

----------


## Doug Hoople

> I find that music theory and mathmatics seem to have a lot in common-does anyone else think that?


It can't be entirely untrue, because musicians are supposed to be better than average at math and vice-versa. 

But I don't see the commonality, and I think the parallels are thinner than most people believe. 

Music theory is more like physics than math, in that it's about motion and gravity, inertia and momentum. Math is more about manipulating numbers in order to find something out.

----------


## August Watters

I'm very skeptical of the idea that a "standard harmonization" exists for an old song like Arkansas Traveler. This is a tune that's been in the "folk process" for 150 years or so, and has been played many different ways at different times by different people. As with many other such tunes, our understanding of the song is influenced by contemporary practice, especially recent recordings. It's also common to discover regional differences in the way these tunes are played: a tune played with simple I-IV-V chords in Appalachia may be played with secondary and extended dominants elsewhere. This often shows up in Texas fiddling, which is often accompanied by ragtime progressions full of secondary and extended dominants. I grew up in Texas, so maybe that's why I hear this tune with an E7 chord (secondary dominant) going to A7 (dominant) going to D (tonic).

While it's difficult to know how the tune (which predates the Civil War) was originally played, I like jbmando's idea it was probably all tonic, without chord changes. Remember though that 50 or 60 years later, ragtime was in vogue, and secondary and extended dominants became very common in popular music. To most average Americans of the early 20th Century, there was nothing "complicated" about such chord progressions; they were the most popular musical language of the day, so when traditional songs entered the popular arena it wasn't unusual to harmonize them accordingly. As the harmonic structures of popular music simplified in the 1950s and 60s however, I believe the generations growing up on that music came to think of secondary and extended dominants as "complicated" and out of place in traditional music. Such assumptions have underlined many discussions on this forum.

It's safe to say secondary dominants could have made it into "Arkansas Traveler" in the first couple of decades of the 20th Century (at least in some parts of the US), but clearly they have done so more recently. Carl Stalling, who composed the music for most of the Looney Tunes cartoons from the 1930s to 50s, used melodic fragments of "Arkansas Traveler" as a recurring theme in his scores, usually to show someone as a hillbilly. The E7 chord (V7/V in the key of D) contains the #4 note (G#), which has a comic effect -- so Stalling was able to bring out the humor of #4 by making it the third degree of the V7/V secondary dominant. In other words, V7/V is a good chord to use if you want to feature the #4 note.

As for bluegrass players, most folks here in Boston don't play Arkansas Traveler with an E7, but some do -- which is why I rarely call this tune -- it's a jam-buster! Getting folks to agree on the chords always takes a couple of times around. But I have a Steve Kaufman recording using the E7. I like using it myself, just not in a jam!

August W

----------


## Doug Hoople

> I'm very skeptical of the idea that a "standard harmonization" exists for an old song like Arkansas Traveler.


Fair enough, and nicely described, too. I enjoyed the tour through the early part of the 20th century. Thanks for that. 

But also a reason why Fisher's Hornpipe might be a better example of a secondary dominant, since there is an unambiguous E major chord leading to an A dominant in key of D, and I don't know of any harmonization that omits it.

----------


## Jim Broyles

Okay, this is where I start to get out of my element on this subject, but does simply using a II chord before a V chord before a I chord in a song like Arkansas Traveler constitute a secondary dominant in the same manner that the actual dominant chord (A) _becomes_ the I chord for an entire section in a tune like "Flop Eared Mule?" It seems to me, that the A in A.T. is never a I chord even if you use the E7, whereas the A in F.E.M. turns into a I in the B part, making the E7 into a secondary dominant. Am I off base? Maybe FEM just has a key change, in that the B part switches to A from D without coming from a Dominant (E7.) I guess.

----------


## Doug Hoople

> Okay, this is where I start to get out of my element on this subject, but does simply using a II chord before a V chord before a I chord in a song like Arkansas Traveler constitute a secondary dominant in the same manner that the actual dominant chord (A) becomes the I chord for an entire section in a tune like "Flop Eared Mule?"


Yes, that's it exactly. The secondary dominant acts in a very temporary capacity, functioning only to lead to the real dominant, with the purpose (usually) of heading back to the tonic. The key center doesn't change. 

When the key center does actually shift, the chords that enable that shift are called a modulation. Secondary dominants are also used in modulation sequences (especially in Bach chorales), because they help to loosen the grip of the original key, and establish the ambiguity that allows for the shift of gravity to the new key.

----------


## Jim Broyles

> When the key center does actually shift, the chords that enable that shift are called a modulation. Secondary dominants are also used in modulation sequences (especially in Bach chorales), because they help to loosen the grip of the original key, and establish the ambiguity that allows for the shift of gravity to the new key.


That much I knew, because I help arrange sequences of songs for our church music sometimes and when putting songs in different keys together as long as you get to the V chord of the new key it is a smooth transition. In the back of the Instrumental hymnal there are a bunch of modulation patterns which serve to help get you from any key to any other key. Some of them are a little over the top, but some are pretty useful. I like playing the major chord one whole step down from the original tonic, then the major chord one whole step down from that to get to the key 1/2 step up from the original tonic, i.e: A-G-F &gt; Bb

----------


## August Watters

You got it -- Flop Eared Mule has a modulation.

No, adding a II chord doesn't make it a secondary dominant. If the II chord is diatonic (Em in the key of D), it's just another diatonic chord. Making that Em into an E7 chord, however, does turn it into a secondary dominant. Here's the Berklee vocabulary:

Secondary Dominant: a non-diatonic dominant 7th chord that resolves to a diatonic chord.
Extended Dominant: a non-diatonic dominant 7th chord that resolves to a secondary dominant, or another extended dominant.

Example:
E7-A7-D7-G7-C

C is the tonic (key of C)
G7 is the dominant (V7)
D7 is a secondary dominant (V7/V)
A7 and E7 are extended dominants

Doug, I see your point about AT. For fun, I checked in at the Digital Library of Appalachia and searched on Arkansas Traveler. Results were as you guys expected: lots of I-V accompaniments, and some drones on I. There's one interesting string band called the Dixie Playboys in the 1940s using a Texas-style IV-#IVdiminished progression (but no secondary doms), and a few other groups using unexpected IV chords. So looks like y'all are right on that, but I'll bet if we had a similar good source of Texas-style recordings of the tune, we'd hear plenty of V7/Vs.

August W

----------


## Jim Broyles

August, that's why I called it a II chord and not a ii chord. When I studied theory each degree was written in either capital Roman Numerals for major or lower case Roman Numerals for minor. vii was designated with a ° or a (-) I was aware of the other part of your post re extended dominants, etc.

----------


## Jim Broyles

Pivot modulation. The V becomes the I and the I becomes the IV and adds the II as the new V until it goes back to the original key. I like that term. It may not be the orthodox term, but I think I'll use it.

----------


## Jim Broyles

Oh, and I never meant to say that AT stays on a D for the whole song, just that the tonal center was D for the whole song. I'd still play the G's and A's in it.

----------


## groveland

jbmando - I don't know if you responded to my just-deleted post on pivot modulation. #Sorry! (So much activity all of a sudden!)

----------


## August Watters

> August, that's why I called it a II chord and not a ii chord


Oops -- sorry. Berklee uses Roman capitals (II) for both major and minor. Your way (small Roman numerals for minor - ii) is more common in music education, of course.

Here's a version of Arkansas Traveler (from the Digital Library of Appalachia) that's all just the I chord, with no Vs or anything else! Corny jokes too 

August W

----------


## Benevolent Dick

iii vi ii V I

Mike S

----------


## Doug Hoople

> No, adding a II chord doesn't make it a secondary dominant. If the II chord is diatonic (Em in the key of D), it's just another diatonic chord. Making that Em into an E7 chord, however, does turn it into a secondary dominant.


Sorry, I took the "II" designation as implying a major chord, since the common Roman numeral systems usually use "ii" to designate minor. 

Yes, in order to qualify as a secondary dominant, at least one of the chord tones has to lie outside the diatonic scale. The "standard" secondary dominant is based on the second scale degree, and is a major chord instead of a minor chord. In key of D, we're talking about Dmajor-Gmajor-Amajor as the I-IV-V. The natural chord for the 2nd degree is Eminor (ii). The secondary dominant makes that an Emajor (II). 

You'll note that I haven't discussed the 7th here. Typically, a secondary dominant uses a dominant 7th, just as the true dominant uses a dominant 7th. But when the tune is really simple, like in Fisher's Hornpipe, there are no 7ths anywhere, especially in folkier arrangements. The sequence is the same, and the chord designation is the same, the chord qualities are essentially the same. I-II-IV-V, all chords major, with the II chord always being stuck in on the way to the V. 

The essential thing that makes the secondary dominant work is that the third is raised (Gnatural becomes Gsharp for the E chord in key of D), and that's a leading tone to get to the A. While 7ths are helpful and add downward leading tones to the mix, they aren't absolutely essential to the designation of secondary dominant.

----------


## Jim Broyles

So that's where the Stanley Brothers got that routine!

----------


## DougC

I just love the responses to this thread. TNFrank has done a classic move in provoking folks. A pretty lazy move, in my opinion. Poke 'em and watch them jump. Cheap entertainment. I'll bet he does not ever pick up the tab.:p 
I been there, done that in discussion as well as playing. I know a little theory and it helps tons when you are a fish out of water. Take Klezmer music for example. Wanna join me in D freygish TNFrank?
Hee Hee...:laugh:

----------


## Doug Hoople

jbmando, 

This thread is moving too fast for me to comment much, so I won't say much more than: Nice set of examples for modulation sequences.

----------


## TNFrank

> I'll bet he does not ever pick up the tab.:p


Hey, I can read TAB, it's the theory part I struggle with. LOL.

----------


## Joel Spaulding

This last page is a fair example of why some people are frightened by theory.  

Interesting examination of "Arkansas Traveller". Kinda like the E7 myself and have played along with some who don't use it, but what do I know about Bluegrass/Folk tunes? Until I picked up the Kaufman "Parking Lot" books- my only exposure to the song was "Bringing home a baby bumble bee" - from the old WB cartoon. Sad, I know. # 

If the OP intended to provoke cheap entertainment - Mission Accomp.... might want to hold that announcement off for awhile

----------


## JeffD

Some folks are frightened by theory, others by playing in front of an audience, others by singing, still others by dancing.

 

The theory is for me difficult to "get" without lots of audio examples. Its a bit like learning geometry without the drawings. I would love some day to learn some composition - nothing fancy, but enough to be able to write some memorable tunes.

----------


## Alex Fields

A secondary function is a chord serving its primary purpose in a key other than the tonic key. So a secondary dominant is a chord serving as the dominant chord for a chord other than the tonic chord. A dominant has to be either a major triad or a major-minor seventh chord (or, rarely, a ninth chord or whatever), so to get a secondary dominant, just pick the chord you want it to function as the dominant of, move up a perfect fifth, and build a major triad or major-minor seventh chord on that note.

So, to get the secondary dominant of the V chord (this would commonly be notated V/V or V7/V), you move up a perfect fifth (this will take you to the 2 of the scale, a major second above the tonic) and build the major triad or major-minor seventh. This will give you II or II7. This is NOT the same as the ordinary II chord (better notated as ii actually) since in neither major nor minor is the II chord a major triad. In major it is a minor chord, in minor it is diminished. These chords can't function as dominants, because they have flatted thirds, and the third of a dominant chord is the leading tone of the chord it is the dominant of--if you flat the third, the leading tone is gone, and the progression loses much of its force and becomes a normal circle of fifths relation and NOT a dominant-tonic relation. In a normal circle of fifths, ii will go to V, but by raising the third of the II you change the resolution into a dominant relationship...so the harmonic function of secondary dominant chords is very similar to the circle of fifths progression, but not identical. Secondary functions are probably most commonly found as replacements for ordinary functioning chords in a circle of fifths (e.g. a V/V replaces a ii)...at least this is the case within classical music.

You can have secondary dominants of any major or minor triad (you can't have a secondary dominant on a diminished chord because they don't have a perfect fifth on which to build a dominant chord). Also, secondary vii chords often function as secondary dominants (giving you vii/V instead of V/V, or whatever), and you can have ANY type of chord as a secondary function--so you can have a IV/V or mostly anything else, but if you have an extended chain of chords functioning against a chord other than the tonic, it will start to sound like a modulation to a new key and not like a series of secondary functions.

EDIT: The notes in a secondary chord don't have to be outside of the original key. For example, V/IV is actually the tonic triad. It would be nearly impossible to get the tonic triad to sound like the V/IV and not like I, so usually if you do something like this you make it V7/IV instead, the added seventh giving the chord an active function which prevents it from being heard as the I. Sometimes the way a chord is heard just depends on context though.

----------


## Joel Spaulding

Dancing most definitely scares me! I'm a bit of a theory nerd ( although not in the same leaque as Alex  ) so this has been both interesting and informative. In my last post I was imagining someone fairly new to theory attempting to follow the barrage of terms and concepts. While Alex's explanation of secondary dominants elucidates and compliments the earlier discussion, I imagine a new player might view (parts of) this thread, shake his head and continue to eschew learning formal theory forevermore.

Reminds me of a thread on Virzis that had several hyperlinks to other Virzi threads - an hour or so after first click, I knew more about "tone producers" than I ever wanted to - but came to truly appreciate the depth of knowledge and diverse experience that is available on the Cafe. If you don't know it - somone here will!

To TNFrank - I suggest as others have, that you know more theory than you think, perhaps just not the terminology that we kick around so nonchalantly ( has anyone ever been accused of being chalant? # #).

Theory will only hurt you if you let it ! 

Long live the tritone!

----------


## Doug Hoople

> The notes in a secondary chord don't have to be outside of the original key. For example, V/IV is actually the tonic triad. It would be nearly impossible to get the tonic triad to sound like the V/IV and not like I, so usually if you do something like this you make it V7/IV instead, the added seventh giving the chord an active function which prevents it from being heard as the I. Sometimes the way a chord is heard just depends on context though.


In the case of the I as secondary dominant to the IV, it almost always has to carry the 7th, which, in any dominant, will be the flatted 7. Since the flatted 7 of the I chord is not a scale tone in the major scale, it then qualifies as a secondary dominant where the plain I triad doesn't really. 

Also, in the normal terminology, a dominant refers to a major chord. The primary attribute of a dominant is the major 3rd as a leading tone to the tonic, and the secondary attribute of a dominant is the flatted 7th as the leading tone to the 3rd. A minor7 chord doesn't qualify as a dominant.

----------


## JeffD

> Sometimes the way a chord is heard just depends on context though.


Alex, please don't take this the wrong way. My comment here shows my ignorance.

But didn't you just do something like this:

1 - WHOLE BUNCH OF TECHNICAL STUFF.
2 - BUT REALLY, IT DEPENDS.

----------


## Jim Broyles

> ... the terminology that we kick around so nonchalantly ( has anyone ever been accused of being chalant? # #).


No, but I have been plussed before.

----------


## groveland

> Originally Posted by  (Alex Fields @ May 10 2008, 23:28)
> 
> The notes in a secondary chord don't have to be outside of the original key. #For example, V/IV is actually the tonic triad. #It would be nearly impossible to get the tonic triad to sound like the V/IV and not like I, so usually if you do something like this you make it V7/IV instead, the added seventh giving the chord an active function which prevents it from being heard as the I. #Sometimes the way a chord is heard just depends on context though.
> 
> 
> In the case of the I as secondary dominant to the IV, it almost always has to carry the 7th, which, in any dominant, will be the flatted 7. Since the flatted 7 of the I chord is not a scale tone in the major scale, it then qualifies as a secondary dominant where the plain I triad doesn't really. #
> 
> Also, in the normal terminology, a dominant refers to a major chord. #The primary attribute of a dominant is the major 3rd as a leading tone to the tonic, and the secondary attribute of a dominant is the flatted 7th as the leading tone to the 3rd. #A minor7 chord doesn't qualify as a dominant.


Doug - That's right. I took Alex' reference to a 'major-minor' to mean a 7(#9)...

"A dominant has to be either a major triad or a major-minor seventh chord (or, rarely, a ninth chord or whatever)"

...which unnecessarily called out the specific 7(#9) case, but it does have the required major 3rd and flatted 7.

----------


## Brandon Flynn

I'm glad I bothered to read through this thread a good deal. I've been learning a lot of theory lately and have been analyzing different songs that I play. I think "bluegrass is pretty simple, shouldn't break too many rules". So I go to my local jam knowing that the songs will use a I IV V progression. So I play the chord changes without really listening much, I know what the next chord will be. And then the A pops up in the key of G. I'm not great at ear training, so it took me awhile to figure out the chord because I did not expect any song at the jam to have a different progression. And then I wondered why the A wasn't minor. Consequently, what is the function of the secondary dominant as opposed to the minor ii chord? Now that I know the name I need to know the function.

----------


## August Watters

> Consequently, what is the function of the secondary dominant as opposed to the minor ii chord?


IIm7 = subdominant
V7/V = secondary dominant

This reflects the dissonance of major scale notes relative to their root: from most dissonant to least dissonant:
7 - 4 - 2 - 6 - 3 - 5

Dominant chords contain the more dissonant notes to the left
Tonic chords contain the less dissonant notes to the right
Subdominant chords contain the notes in between.

August W

----------


## groveland

> This reflects the dissonance of major scale notes relative to their root: from most dissonant to least dissonant:
> 7 - 4 - 2 - 6 - 3 - 5
> 
> Dominant chords contain the more dissonant notes to the left
> Tonic chords contain the less dissonant notes to the right
> Subdominant chords contain the notes in between.
> 
> August W


Now, talk about a Principle! That's worth its weight in gold.

----------


## Brandon Flynn

I should have figured out what August just outlined. I know the order of dissonance of intervals from the tonic. I guess I'm probably to slow with notes and intervals to have seen it quickly though. I've found that the toughest part of learning theory is to memorize everything really well. To memorize twelve keys with eight notes per key, and to know the I,ii, iii, IV,etc for each key, it is a lot of memorization. For instance, it's hard for me to quickly know what the submediant tone for Eb. And then switch to D, new submediant. And to A, B, C#, etc. It's mind boggling.

----------


## TomTyrrell

I think the last few pages pretty much answer the original post. 

There are lots of people who just learn the chords and play the song. They don't know a secondary dominant from a potato. They don't even know which notes are in the chords but they still have a lot of fun.

----------


## August Watters

> In my last post I was imagining someone fairly new to theory attempting to follow the barrage of terms and concepts. . . . I imagine a new player might view (parts of) this thread, shake his head and continue to eschew learning formal theory forevermore.


I hope that doesn't happen. It's easy to make the stuff sound difficult. It's even easier to get confused by putting together bits of information from different sources. But a good teacher can demonstrate how simple it all is.

It's not unusual for new students to have little or no theory background, but usually they progress quickly -- they know a lot on an intuitive level, just from listening carefully. For a new student who has played and/or listened for a long time, but never learned about the structure of music, learning "theory" is like taking a disorganized file cabinet, alphabetizing its contents and putting labels on familiar sounds, so they can be easily retrieved.

Honestly, why all the fuss about learning to count to 7? # 

August W

----------


## Doug Hoople

> Doug - That's right. I took Alex' reference to a 'major-minor' to mean a 7(#9)...
> 
> "A dominant has to be either a major triad or a major-minor seventh chord (or, rarely, a ninth chord or whatever)"
> 
> ...which unnecessarily called out the specific 7(#9) case, but it does have the required major 3rd and flatted 7.


Groveland - I forgot the use of the term "minor 7" to refer to the quality of the 7th. I'm more used to the terms "flatted 7" or "dominant 7." And I've never actually seen a chord described as a "major-minor seventh," but that's partly because we have a concise word for such a chord: dominant!

And just to recap a thread from earlier in the year, a dominant is any chord which features a major 3rd and a dominant 7th. Thus, a 9, 11, 13 chord are all dominant chords, and there's no need to ask the question "What kind of 3rd, what kind of 7th do these chords take?" because they're all dominant. 

Same goes, actually for the b5, #5, b9, #9 and #11 chords, but they're generally spelled out like "A7#5" or A7b9, so there's more of a hint for these that they're also dominants.

----------


## Doug Hoople

> Consequently, what is the function of the secondary dominant as opposed to the minor ii chord? Now that I know the name I need to know the function.


To know the function of a secondary dominant, it helps to review the function of the "primary" dominant, which is the V chord. 

A dominant in general is an unstable chord that creates tension wants be resolved. This tension is generated by the two leading tones, the major 3rd and the flatted 7th. #These leading tones form a tritone, and interval that hates to be left unresolved. 

There's a chord that's formed by following the motion of these two leading tones... the 3rd resolves to the root and the 7th resolves to the 3rd. #In the case of the primary dominant, that chord is the tonic, and the tensions are fully released. #

A secondary dominant is, by its definition, a dominant that resolves to another dominant. #What makes the secondary dominant interesting is that it is also a high-tension chord that leads to another chord, but in this case, the chord it's going to doesn't provide the release, because the chord it's going to is also a dominant. So there's a staged-release quality to the progression from secondary dominant to dominant to tonic. 

Thus, there are two primary effects that the secondary dominant provides: 

1) it drives more powerfully or more definitely to the dominant because of its leading tones, so there's a strong sense of arrival at the dominant following the secondary dominant, and 

2) it shifts the center of tonal gravity ever so briefly from the tonic (I) to the dominant (V), a shift that is usually undone immediately because the dominant that was the target of the secondary dominant's instability is itself unstable and tries to resolve to the tonic. So the shift is temporary, but it creates a sort of see-saw effect, and puts a little sway in our perception of the movement in the piece.

----------


## groveland

> A secondary dominant is, by its definition, a dominant that resolves to another dominant.


That's only true when the dominant it resolves to is the diatonic dominant, right? More specifically,




> (me)
> The secondary dominant always resolves to a diatonic chord, that is, a chord within the parent key. The chord it resolves to is whatever degree of the key it is in the parent. #So any diatonic chord can be preceded by its dom7, and these are called Secondary Dominants.


An *Extended Dominant* is actually, by its definition, a dominant that resolves to another dominant.




> (Watters) 
> Secondary Dominant: a non-diatonic dominant 7th chord that resolves to a _diatonic chord._
> Extended Dominant: a non-diatonic dominant 7th chord that resolves to a _secondary dominant, or another extended dominant._


The world is watching.  Accuracy counts!

----------


## TNFrank

See, these last couple of pages have gone so far over my head that I'd need the Space Shuttle just to get close to em'. LOL. 
It just seems so easy for Theory buffs to talk above us non-theory guys heads and I think that's where the intimidation comes it. It's like just reading this stuff I'll NEVER get it. I mean, who cares if this or that is something or another, as long as it sounds good shouldn't that be good enough? 
Now the Nashville Number System makes sense to me, it seems like a useful tool to know and use but some of this stuff just sounds like an excuse to give some of ya'll something to talk about when you're not playing more then being anything useful. Just show me where my fingers go, let me hear the leads and figure em' out and let's play music.

----------


## Chip Booth

You scared him off boys!

----------


## Tim

Music theory is like a lot of things. It can help, but you don't have to be an expert (and understand all of this thread) to get benefit.

----------


## Gutbucket

It's music, not brain surgery. Ain't nobody gonna bleed to death or die if you hit a wrong note. That's the beauty of all this. No damage done if you screw up once in a while, or don't have a good working knowledge of theory. The first time I was ever on stage, my young son made me feel more at ease by giving me the brain surgery lecture. Wrong notes fade quicker in the listener's ear then your own.

----------


## August Watters

> as long as it sounds good shouldn't that be good enough?


Yes, of course. It's good enough. That's what it's all about. 

But for some folks, it's not enough to know that something sounds good, they also want to know why.

----------


## CES

Beginner...head now firmly in the sand  

J/K...well, not really. I understand the OP's point and, TNFrank, wish I had your ability!
Since I don't and was lost with the first NNS theory post/challenge (way back on page 1), I think I'm gonna get Deborah Chen's notation book and use it as a launching point into more seriously figuring this stuff out!

Impressive chatter, guys...

----------


## Doug Hoople

Groveland, 

Yes, it's true, that one of the aspects of a secondary dominant is that it resolves to a diatonic chord. #I sort of lost track of that in the shuffle. #

Which leads to another point, and it's probably very relevant to this discussion.

The "I don't need no stinkin' theory" contingent is right on one count, and on this count I don't think the "You veel learn teory und you veel LIKE it" contingent actually disagrees: when you're in the act if making music live, theoretical constructs are not swimming around in the foreground of your thoughts. #

To get through a difficult phrase in survival mode, there's very little chance that you're saying to yourself "the raised 3rd on this chord coming up that's built on the second scale degree is leading to a diatonically-aligned V7 chord, thus making it a secondary dominant." You're probably not even saying A7-&gt;D7. #You're probably thinking something like "this shape followed by that shape" and that's it. #There's no time for all the extra processing. #

And yes, if you're lucky and very advanced, there's a chance that all this knowledge will have subordinated itself in your DNA so that somehow you understand the nature of what's happening as you play it without having to use all those words to articulate it. #

So one of the key questions is: When DO you actually put this knowledge to use? #In conversations with other musicians? #In rehearsals, while talking things over? #In the privacy of your practice room? #As a way of navigating unfamiliar music more effectively? 

Many of us strive to know enough music theory at a deep enough level that it comes back and informs our playing in a live setting. #The thing we're reaching for is to be able to simultaneously understand the music that we're playing while engaged in the act of playing it. #That is one of the goals, however elusive it may be. #

The dream is to be able to construct new musical phrases on the fly that actually take advantage of the theoretical constructs in play, and the day that you nail a really perfect variant of your standard blues lick that happens to accurately incorporate the m7b5 arpeggio in the middle of a fast moving cadence is the day that you've gained concrete advantage from all this knowledge. #

Easy to state the goal, a lifetime to achieve it, no?

----------


## groveland

> Many of us strive to know enough music theory at a deep enough level that it comes back and informs our playing in a live setting... Easy to state the goal, a lifetime to achieve it, no?


Mr. Hoople, how about it! And that's why a lot of us are constantly rehearsing and validating every little thing all the time, on this board and elsewhere - Not to lord it over anyone - No, it's more like because (for most of us, I think) we're hanging on by our theory fingernails to every little piece of hard-won theory ground! And being the language for our improv and everything else we want that to be right, accurate, consistent and a solid foundation. I get tons out of these threads.

----------


## Alex Fields

There's technically a difference between a dominant and a major minor seventh. #A dominant is a chord built on the fifth degree of a scale which has a certain harmonic function. #A major-minor seventh is a major triad with a minor seventh added. #Technically you could have a major-minor seventh that wasn't a dominant chord, and you can definitely have a dominant chord (though not a dominant seventh) that isn't a major-minor seventh. #The terms "dominant seventh" and "major-minor seventh" are often used interchangeably because, in practice, they basically are, but they're not exactly the same thing.

Also, my last few posts weren't directed at anyone new to theory, they were in response to some posts from people who already know some theory and were talking about secondary chords. #If I were trying to explain all of that to someone new to theory I wouldn't have been so "nonchalant" with the theory language. 

Oh, and I put it into use mostly in composing and arranging, and working out the ways I play or accompany pieces or tunes I didn't write. #And I _do_ have some of the theory swimming aroud in my head when I perform, though granted it is true (for me at least) that beyond a certain point of complexity you can't process it fast enough. #But still, if I am the lone accompanist, I can definitely think fast enough to do a secondary dominant substitution in place of a ii-V progression or something like that--I mean all that involves is playing a major II instead of a ii, but you have to know the theory to know to do that or when it will work. #And the theory guides how I practice such that, hopefully, I can "use" the theory in performance or in improvisation without actually thinking through the concepts as I go.

----------


## groveland

See what I mean! #We all learn something. #I have never heard the term "major-minor seventh" as you describe it - But I have heard the (casual) term "major-minor" in reference to the 7(#9) chord, which contains a major 3rd and minor 3rd interval (when a scale looks as though it has a both major and minor 3rd, the minor 3rd is really a #9). I have also heard of the "minor-major chord", which references a mi(ma7) chord, a minor 3rd and major 7th. #It seems Mr. Hoople is familiar with the "major-minor seventh" terminology as you use it.

I love this place. #And I am not a theory geek.

----------


## Doug Hoople

> Now the Nashville Number System makes sense to me, it seems like a useful tool to know and use but some of this stuff just sounds like an excuse to give some of ya'll something to talk about when you're not playing more then being anything useful.


So, TNFrank, by your definition, if there's something you don't understand, then it must not be useful. Is that it? That's certainly what it sounds like. 

Two days ago, you didn't understand the Nashville Number System, but today you do, so that's "useful"? But you've decided not to understand a really rudimentary concept like the secondary dominant (even though I'm pretty sure you'd hear it and know it instantly), and so the secondary domininant is somehow "useless"?

It's fine to say it's not useful to you. It's not fine for you to say that the stuff exists for the purpose of making eggheads feel superior. That just makes you look ignorant, and denigrates the time and trouble that musicians have taken to learn and understand their craft.

The things we don't understand often "feel" useless. But when we come to understand them, they become useful in ways we never even anticipated.

----------


## Clyde Clevenger

I think I have a pretty good handle on theory, enough to do what I do. Funny that I understood all of what Don Stiernberg wrote but some of you other guys left me with numb spots in my brain that may never be recovered. I know who Don is, I'm figuring he knows of what he speaks.

----------


## Doug Hoople

> There's technically a difference between a dominant and a major minor seventh. #A dominant is a chord built on the fifth degree of a scale which has a certain harmonic function. #A major-minor seventh is a major triad with a minor seventh added. #Technically you could have a major-minor seventh that wasn't a dominant chord, and you can definitely have a dominant chord (though not a dominant seventh) that isn't a major-minor seventh. #The terms "dominant seventh" and "major-minor seventh" are often used interchangeably because, in practice, they basically are, but they're not exactly the same thing.


A couple of clarifications here: 

1) The term "dominant" has a couple of meanings, and these meanings overlap somewhat. It's a little like Classical Music and Classical Music, in that Classical Music encompasses all music of a particular type from the Middle Ages through to the present day, with the focus being on music from the Renaissance through to the middle of the 20th century. #Classical Music has also has a much narrower definition as the era of European music that is sandwiched in between the Baroque and Romantic eras. #

So, yes, the Dominant, in its narrower sense, is the chord that is formed naturally from the 5th degree of the major scale, comprised minimally of the triad and normally also with the 7th. #

But a dominant chord is any chord that is similar in characteristics to the Dominant chord, namely that has a major 3rd and either has or implies a flatted 7th. #Thus, secondary dominant chords are dominants, extended dominants are dominants, tritone substitution dominants are dominants, the I7 chord in the standard blues is a dominant, 7b5,7#5,7b9,9,7#9,11,#11 and 13 chords are dominants.

2) The term "major minor seventh" chord, being fairly ambiguous, is not often used, nor is its use recommended. When the term is used, it's often followed by the question "What part is major and what part is minor?" #Groveland points to 7(#9) as a potential interpration of this term, which demonstrates the point perfectly. #We have a perfectly good term to describe the same thing, namely "dominant." There's probably not even the need to distinguish between "dominant" and "dominant 7th" because the context will generally make clear whether the 7th is present or not (compare "All the Things You Are" and "Fisher's Hornpipe). #There's no need to use a term that invites the kind of misinterpretation that "major-minor seventh" invites. #

Let me ask the question: Is there a "major-minor seventh" chord that is not a dominant? #I don't think so. #I invite examples.

And the followup: Is there a "dominant seventh" chord that is not a "major-minor seventh"? Again, I don't think so. #And again, I invite examples.

As stated, there is a dominant chord that is not a "major-minor seventh" chord. That, of course, would be the dominant triad without a 7th in it. #As already mentioned, the function of the dominant can be present without the 7th, and this is seen in simple folk tunes like Fisher's Hornpipe 

D-G-D-G-D-G-D-A 
D-G-D-G-D-D-A-D

A-A-D-D-A-A-E-A
G-G-D-D-A-A-D-D

All the A chords are "official" dominant chords, because they function as V chords in key of D. #The E chord is a secondary dominant and feels like a V chord leading to the real V chord. #

While neither of these chords carry the 7th, they operate in this context as high-tension chords that resolve naturally to other chords, and thus they "behave" like dominants.

----------


## mandocrucian

To put stuff in perspective, bop over to the YahooTuning and excercise your quantum mechanics synapses with riveting theoretical discussions likethis or this or that.

----------


## man dough nollij

> A dominant in general is an unstable chord that creates tension wants be resolved. This tension is generated by the two leading tones, the major 3rd and the flatted 7th. #These leading tones form a tritone, and interval that hates to be left unresolved.


Could you explain this in layman's terms? When you say that it "wants" or "hates" or is "unstable", I think I intuitively know what you mean, but I'm not sure.

----------


## Doug Hoople

> Originally Posted by  (doughoople @ May 12 2008, 03:18)
> 
> A dominant in general is an unstable chord that creates tension wants be resolved. This tension is generated by the two leading tones, the major 3rd and the flatted 7th. #These leading tones form a tritone, and interval that hates to be left unresolved.
> 
> 
> Could you explain this in layman's terms? When you say that it "wants" or "hates" or is "unstable", I think I intuitively know what you mean, but I'm not sure.


Um, no... sorry... "wants," "hates," and "unstable" ARE layman's terms. #

Play the Fisher's Hornpipe in D. #

From the secondary dominant (the E chord)... does the E chord feel like there's any other chord that should follow other than A? No. The E chord "wants" to resolve, and the chord that it "wants" to resolve to is A.

And from the Dominant (the A chord)... does the A chord feel like there's any other chord that should follow other than D? No. The A chord "wants" to resolve, and the chord that it "wants" to resolve to is the D (actually, that's not always true, since the A is followed by a G chord at least once, but you get the idea). #

Both the A chord and the E chord are "unstable" because we are naturally drawn from them to the chord to which we want them to resolve. #If we were to stop the song on either of these chords, we'd be very unsatisfied. #

The D chord, on the other hand, is "stable" because there's nowhere that it needs to go to give us a sense of completion. #For example, if we were to play the whole of Fisher's Hornpipe, and stop on the next-to-last chord (the A), we'd feel the need to mentally complete the song by filling in an imaginary D chord. #Or, even sharper, if we were to stop playing on the E chord (there's only one), we'd have an even more powerful impulse to mentally move the song forward by filling in the imaginary A. #

Try it. #Stopping on the unstable chords is your guarantee that you'll feel in your gut the effects we're talking about!

Oh, and one other thing... the tritone... we'd have to be talking about dominants with 7ths in them, and that's another tune. Find any ragtime tune (Cotton Patch, Beaumont, etc.) and look at the relation between the 3rd and the 7th. It's always a tritone, and this tritone relationship is very unstable, i.e., it always wants to lead away from itself to something else. But enough... that's a topic for another post.

----------


## man dough nollij

> Um, no... sorry... "wants," "hates," and "unstable" ARE layman's terms. #


Of course. Sorry I didn't make my confusion more clear-- I was shooting for what is meant by "resolved", which you explained nicely. Thanks.

----------


## Doug Hoople

> Originally Posted by  (doughoople @ May 12 2008, 10:02)
> 
> Um, no... sorry... "wants," "hates," and "unstable" ARE layman's terms. #
> 
> 
> Of course. Sorry I didn't make my confusion more clear-- I was shooting for what is meant by "resolved", which you explained nicely. Thanks.


On re-reading, you were perfectly clear. And I should have put a smiley on while I was taking my swipe... I WAS smiling. 

But I did plough on, didn't I? Glad it was in the right direction!

----------


## Daniel Wheeler

Think of it as a musical trident. 

One point ear the middle technique and the right side your head/theory. 
Imagine someone like thile or marshall with only the 2 on the left playing the exact things they play now without any coherence as to the harmonic difficulty. 
Impossible right. Pretty much. 

With the musical trident analogy it is like you are two thirds the musician that you could be. And that's assuming technique and ear are already to max potential. 

My $.02

----------


## Daniel Wheeler

I just read through a big chunk of this topic. Pretty intense. 

Nice

----------


## TNFrank

There is "Theory", why you think certain notes or chords go together and then there's "Practice" where you play and actually hear how the notes and chords go together. I prefer Practice over Theory because it's more fun to play then to just talk about it and so far that's about all I see theory as being good for, talking about it. 

I'd rather have my "Ear" for music and my ability figure things out that I hear then all the theory in the world. 
 Theory is just a bunch of talk, for me music is playing, not talking. Don't care about the theory as to wether a certain chord is right or wrong to play with another chord or if you go from one chord to the next because of a theory, my ear will tell me if it's right or wrong. 
 If that makes me "wrong" then fine, I'll be wrong and have fun playing music. In the end isn't that what it's really all about, having FUN. Reading some of what ya'll post about theory really takes a lot of the fun out of it for me. Sorry if that offends ya'll but that's my opinion on the subject.

----------


## Doug Hoople

> Reading some of what ya'll post about theory really takes a lot of the fun out of it for me. Sorry if that offends ya'll but that's my opinion on the subject.


It doesn't offend that you're having no fun. It offends that you think the rest of us should stop having fun.

----------


## Brandon Flynn

> Originally Posted by  
> 
> Many of us strive to know enough music theory at a deep enough level that it comes back and informs our playing in a live setting... Easy to state the goal, a lifetime to achieve it, no?


Exactly what I was trying to play in my last post. I am learning a lot of theory, but I have not yet reached the point where I can apply much of it to my playing as I want to, especially on the fly, off the top of my head. To be able to function that fast in theory, etc. seems like it will take many years. Still, I'm not discouraged, I will work until I reach the point where I want to be. Being a music major in composition next year should speed the process a bit.

----------


## minnedolin

I think music theory is great to have and can help connect with musicians in a general setting, who may rely more on theory(even the rudimentary/commonly used I-IV-V chord progression stuff) than the blessed 'eagle ear' (see: Garcia's comment to Grisman on "the Pizza Tapes, great album BTW) that many a fortunate musician will possess. In the 'religion sense, I guess I'd tie it to a Christian who uses apologetics (theory) to help others better understand their faith (songs,music). Also I've tried to keep myself open to theory because I know it really isn't as difficult to understand and apply as I think it is.

----------


## TNFrank

> Originally Posted by  (TNFrank @ May 11 2008, 17:30)
> 
> Reading some of what ya'll post about theory really takes a lot of the fun out of it for me. Sorry if that offends ya'll but that's my opinion on the subject.
> 
> 
> It doesn't offend that you're having no fun. It offends that you think the rest of us should stop having fun.


If you think theory is fun then knock your self out, I'm going to have fun actually playing my mando not just talking about it.

----------


## Doug Hoople

> Originally Posted by  (doughoople @ May 11 2008, 19:34)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by  (TNFrank @ May 11 2008, 17:30)
> 
> ...


Grant us that there might be practical use for the stuff you find tedious, and we'll grant you that you have a magnificent ear and don't need us. 

Then leave us alone. I think we get your point.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

It's time for everyone to take a breather.

----------


## mandolirius

"First, let me preface this by saying that it is not ment to offend or otherwise antagonize anyone."

The OP's opening statement.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. We still need to give this one some air.

----------


## TNFrank

> Grant us that there might be practical use for the stuff you find tedious, and we'll grant you that you have a magnificent ear and don't need us. 
> 
> Then leave us alone. I think we get your point.


This statement just proves my point. You get all defensive when someone even hints at not needing "theory" to play well. 
 All I'm saying is that I've been playing guitar, electric bass and now mandolin for over 30 years WITHOUT any formal theory and I've done just fine. Everyone that I've played for has said that I play well, I've played in bands and done well, I enjoy playing and I don't have to "worry" about wether a chord is suppose to fit with another chord or any of that stuff. I hear it, I figure it out, I play it, I have FUN. Music is really that simple, no need to bring science into it. If you like learning the "why" of music then great but not everyone needs to know the "why" to enjoy the "how".

----------


## Ted Eschliman

I'm in agreement with my co-Moderator on this. Whether or not we've reached a saturation point on this topic is certainly debatable, but we've now acheived some unnecessary hostility. This plus the fact that out of nine pages of exhaustive exploration, it would serve the community well to not have to dig through ten pages of these nuggets at once. 

This topic also demonstrates the limitations of text and the internet; much of the discussion would be a fraction if someone had an instrument in their hand and these concepts could be demonstrated aurally. We have some frustrated folks who might learn more if this were so, but until then, let's break into small discussions and bring the topic up another day.

----------

