"theory"

[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]

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.
<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.

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.