Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

How do players who know "nothing" about theory get it so musically correct?


rocketman

Recommended Posts

 

Onto classical/taught playing. I personally find that players that have had millions of lessons and have been taught, lack something. They seem to be competent but sterile. Players that have been through the clubs and played with others grow into a style.

 

Whenever I see a clip of Segovia or Williams playing a Bach piece, I never get the feeling they lack passion. It may not manifest itself as jumping around onstage - they need that foot stool! - but it's there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I never learned theory or how to read music and don't even read tab. but I never had any problem composing music and figuring out 3 and even 4 part harmonies.I credit this to the fact that I grew up in a family who were almost all musicians on both the maternal and paternal sides of the family.I think that just being steeped in music since birth and being surrounded with it during all my growing up really gave me an advantage when it came to anything to do with music.My father was a choir director and even though he didn't play an instrument he had taken the Royal Trinity College of Music advanced theory exams and had gotten very high marks.My father could look at any piece of notation and sing it just from reading the notation.My mother was a church organist and that was in fact where they first met from their choir escapades.

 

Anything to do with music always came pretty easy to me and I seemed to pick up on learning an instrument with relative ease.A couple of friends and I decided that we would learn guitar so we all bought the Mel Bay starter book and went on from there but it wasn't long before I was a good bit ahead of my buddies and doing barre chords and even picking out lead in no time.I went on to learn several other instruments and took to them with no problem at all.I firmly believe that heredity plays a very big part in ones musical aptitude and growing up with it all around you,you absorb more than you realize by osmosis.It's not to do with being smarter than others or anything like that it has everything to do with just having an innate aptitude thanks to heredity.

 

With all that said there are also many people who have a knack and aptitude for music coming from completely non-musical families.That is where "talent" comes into it,some people are just born with a "gift" for being able to pick up all things musical with no problem whatsoever and these are the people that we call talented.Talent isn't inherited but is an innate ability to perform a particular skill better than others apparently for no reason at all,it's just an aptitude that is there from birth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything I know is 2% inspiration and 98% perspiration.

Yes totally agree with that, true for me too...and even jazz wiz Mike Stern said words to the same effect once.

 

IMO musical fluency is mostly down to the amount of time spent playing, 'operating' the instrument. Lifeson knows very well how it works in that sense.

 

3 obvious examples - Django, Wes, Jimi - spent many many hours practicing (without a book in front of them) in order to be able to play what they were hearing with authority. All were driven to make music far more than most musicians. All put enough on it for their personalities to come out in their playing.

 

The point about classical guitarists is a good one, classical players have to have awesome technical chops. The differences in interpretation of a piece is where the personality comes out.

 

Theory comes 'after' the music IMO. I read about chord substitution when I started but only began to understand it after playing for many years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a CNN interview:

 

CNN: Did you ever take formal guitar lessons?

 

Van Halen: No. That's why I do all this crazy stuff. It's not taught.

He also said he had specially modded Marshall's with hotter tranformers to get his brown sound, when he actually had a stock Marshall and he'd "Lower" his transformer voltage with a Variac.

 

I'm sure no body taught him how tap or do his amazing fret board acrobatics, but he learned the scales he's using for those acrobatics somewhere. He invented his own technique, but he didn't reinvent the way sound waves work together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are a lot of ways to learn, none of them really "right" or "wrong."

 

jamming (a lot) is exposure to what others know, you get exposed to theory without even knowing it. plus, as we all know, repetition is key. also, sharing what you know with others, as in "if you can teach it, you know it."

 

 

i imagine if i was gigging professionally, jamming all the time, hanging out with others doing the same on tour, etc., it would he hard NOT to learn new stuff.

 

that said, i recently started taking classical guitar lessons after decades of learning by ear and watching others. there are things i knew without knowing them, such as why which seventh chord resolved to the root chord, etc, just because it "sounded good." now i am learning why. ;-)

 

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'By eighteen I had learnt to paint like the masters. The rest of my life I have spent trying to paint like a child.' - Picasso

 

I learnt to read music as a child. Play the piano. I had guitar lessons for several years until I realised that 'the rules' were preventing me from experimenting and testing the boundaries regarding my playing...thus establishing my own sound and technique. I'm glad I did learn the theory...or what I call the 'rules' because now I can break them.

 

If a note sounds 'out'...bend the bugger to fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My grampa learned to play out of hunger.

Heard it, emulated it, got coins.

 

In my family you won't find books on or sheet music.

EARS is what we use. If it sounds good, who cares if there happens to be a reason or a scale or a rule.

 

 

I play piano a little and I am now learning where the sound comes from. I don't call it a C or an F# and I don't know where a F# is on a piano, but when I hear a note, depending on what the note is, I picture four or three keys on my keyboard. I hit them one at a time 'till I get that exact note. Soon I will only have to hit two keys. Later I'll know where that sound comes from, no question. I'd prefer to figure it out than be tied to a songbook.

 

In composing it may seem oconvenient to know the choices you have based on these rules. I think it is best to hit notes and say, "that's not it, not that one (even though it doesn't sound wrong), not that one yuch, THERE, that's the note I was looking for!"

May seem boring, maybe with scale knowledge I could skip the yuch and the not that one, but after doing it for years you learn where the sound comes from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My grampa learned to play out of hunger.

Heard it, emulated it, got coins.

 

In my family you won't find books on or sheet music.

EARS is what we use. If it sounds good, who cares if there happens to be a reason or a scale or a rule.

 

 

I play piano a little and I am now learning where the sound comes from. I don't call it a C or an F# and I don't know where a F# is on a piano, but when I hear a note, depending on what the note is, I picture four or three keys on my keyboard. I hit them one at a time 'till I get that exact note. Soon I will only have to hit two keys. Later I'll know where that sound comes from, no question. I'd prefer to figure it out than be tied to a songbook.

 

In composing it may seem oconvenient to know the choices you have based on these rules. I think it is best to hit notes and say, "that's not it, not that one (even though it doesn't sound wrong), not that one yuch, THERE, that's the note I was looking for!"

May seem boring, maybe with scale knowledge I could skip the yuch and the not that one, but after doing it for years you learn where the sound comes from.

I took a music class, "ear training", where the idea is exactly what yoy decribe: learning to hear notes, chords, and identify them based on what they SOUND like.

 

I learned a LOT from that class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm reading the interview with Alex Lifeson in this month's issue of Guitar Player magazine. Every time he gets asked about how he does something from a musical perspective he always says "I don't know how I do it." This just peeves me off to no end. [cursing]

 

I learned theory starting at the age of 8, so I have no understanding how these players do it without theory. Lifeson probably had no clue that the solo to YYZ is written in Spanish Phrygian mode but he nailed it. Other examples include the beginning of Freewill which is in Lydian mode or the solo to Tom Sawyer which is in Mixolydian mode (this follows the bass line which is also in Mixolydian mode). He's got a concept but has made it clear that he knows nothing about the theory.

 

SRV is another example. Listen to this:

 

 

There are a lot of neat jazz turnarounds and neat chords. For example at 0:34 he plays a D7#9 chord to a D7b9 chord. SRV had no clue what he was playing, but it all makes perfect sense from a musical point of view.

 

I know it's gifted talent. I just wish I had some!

 

 

Because in days of yore, musicians just 'did' it. They played what sounded good. Then somewhere along the line some super smart guy who couldn't just 'did' it, decided to quantify it so he could replicate 'it'. This is called Music Theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because in days of yore, musicians just 'did' it. They played what sounded good. Then somewhere along the line some super smart guy who couldn't just 'did' it, decided to quantify it so he could replicate 'it'. This is called Music Theory.

 

how far back do you refer? if you're writing music for more than one instrument, say an orchestra, being able to write it down comes in pretty handy. especially at a time before sound recording existed.

 

if you think that Bach couldn't do it, you should check out some of the organ pieces he wrote: he was a rock star in the 1700's. [biggrin]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nashville studio musicians developed the number system probably because not very many could read score. It works great and there have been thousands of hit songs recorded simply by reading numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From playing with a lot of old time fiddlers, some of whom were awfully skilled but not very "trained," I think there's something in one's brain that allows "theory" to become just something known, albeit not well expressed verbally.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I now realize that if this discussion were an argument, it would be one that no one could win. There are too many great musicians that don't know "theory." "Shut up 'n' play yer guitar!"

The point I'm always trying to make in this type of discussion is, They may not know it's music theory, but they are using it. David Gilmore may not know what to call the melodic minor scale, but he sure knows how to use it. He made that very point in a Guitar Player interview.

 

If the question is, "Is it necessary to learn Theory to be a good guitarist?" The answer is a misleading "no".

 

If the question is, "Does learning Theory make you a better musician?" the answer is "yes".

 

Now, that's not saying that Mister X is better than Mister Y simply because Mister X knows Theory. But is is saying that Mister Y would improve if he learned some Theory, even if he was already "Better" than Mister X.

 

To take in in another direction, think of a painter. Painter X takes 10 times longer to make a painting than Painter Y because Painter X doesn't know about the color pallet, so he spends most of his time mixing colors. Painter Y know a little red and a little blue will make purple without the experimentation. Music Theory is simply a musicians Color Pallet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between music that's only coming through you, and music that's coming from you.

There are a lot of really talented "Musicians" who aren't composing "Artists".

Some are only able to interpret the musical ideas of others through their skills and knowledge, but original composition is beyond them.

I don't think rules or theories apply to inspiration as strictly as they do to interpretation.

They do come into play, because that's what we hear and recognize as "Music", but it's based on what was created.

Rules and theories are part of the equation, but knowing everything there is to know about them without individual inspiration and originality means nothing.

If you know what it should sound like, then that's what it should be.

Of course, if your're tone deaf, can't keep a beat, and also have no knowledge of rules and theories...

Then your screwed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, well being that theory (in the general meaning) is a broad term and when your talking about music in that context then you don't need any formal education on the subject of music to have some part of theory understood. So if you can hear and acknowledge music then you do have that aspect of music theory covered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm improvising using notes within a major scale, which most people are comfortable with, and I like the way a b3 sounds instead of a natural 3, I have just played a melodic minor scale. Do many guitarists know that? Most probably do not. Do they care? Probably not. No problem.

 

Again, I'm speaking for myself. I don't want to be accused again of being conceited. If I'm improvising, I tend to want to keep the integrity of the melody throughout. That melody has some scalar structure and there are appropriate chords that fit that melody. There are certain notes in that melody that may be accented (or implied) with alterations or extensions to those chords. If I am improvising, I know where the melody notes are within certain scales or modes or chords, and I know what my boundaries are and what notes are available to me. (And don't tell me you don't need boundaries. Melodies are themselves boundaries. Without boundaries, there is only noise.)

 

Does knowing this automatically make me a better improvisor? Not necessarily. Does it help me preserve the melodic integrity of the song in my improvisation? No. Does it allow me to understand all of my possible options in an improvisation? Yes. Does knowing this open up new possibilities for me? Good chance.

 

I hope one day that I have a feel for scales and modes that are so instinctive that I don't have to think about them; that I just can play what I feel. When that happens, I will have come full circle- back to where I started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm improvising using notes within a major scale, which most people are comfortable with, and I like the way a b3 sounds instead of a natural 3, I have just played a melodic minor scale. Do many guitarists know that? Most probably do not. Do they care? Probably not. No problem.

 

Again, I'm speaking for myself. I don't want to be accused again of being conceited. If I'm improvising, I tend to want to keep the integrity of the melody throughout. That melody has some scalar structure and there are appropriate chords that fit that melody. There are certain notes in that melody that may be accented with alterations or extensions to those chords. If I am improvising, I know where the melody notes are within certain scales or modes or chords, and I know what my boundaries are and what notes are available to me. (And don't tell me you don't need boundaries. Melodies are themselves boundaries. Without boundaries, there is only noise.)

 

Does knowing this automatically make me a better improvisor? Not necessarily. Does it help me preserve the melodic integrity of the song in my improvisation? No. Does it allow me to understand all of my possible options in an improvisation? Yes. Does knowing this open up new possibilities for me? Good chance.

 

I hope one day that that I have a feel for scales and modes that are so instinctive that I don't have to think about them; that I just can play what I feel. When that happens, I will have come full circle- back to where I started.

 

 

good point. I think of it like this: if you're just creating, then who cares at all about the rules. but when you're collaborating, having a common language and level of understanding helps. knowing how to describe what you're doing lets you share it with others quickly. example, telling your bass player "i'm gonna use a melodic minor scale in this section" and have him be able to adapt to your ideas. or better still, having him hear you go there, and because he knows what you did, adapt in real time.

 

i agree that you don't need formal education to get these concepts, and repetition reinforces what you may not know you know. But that doesn't mean that having this knowledge somehow diminishes creativity: if anything it increases it by giving the painter a larger palette (to use an earlier metaphor).

 

fun thread!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been jamming with some new people lately, and one of them is a guitarist who LIVES to study music theory. I know little to nothing about music theory, yet we are able to jam endlessly and vibe off of each other. Here's what I have gathered.

 

I have never been too comfortable with my native spoken/written language English, so when I started playing guitar the idea of learning another language was a bit intimidating. However, when I picked up the guitar and stuck at it, I began to realize that I had melodies and chords inside of my head that I was trying to get out. I focused my energy on trying to learn the melodies a single note at a time. This allowed me to focus on the root notes of the patterns (scales/modes) I had been hearing. After a long time of practicing this method the music came to life through my fingers and into the guitar.

I seem to focus on the rhythmic patterns, cadences and movement of the music a bit more than the actual chords/notes/melodies now. I have found that I love to play in 6/8, 7/8, 5/4, and 3/4 time moreover than the traditional 4/4 (from a western stand point) which can be a bit of a challenge with other people who aren't really musicians.

 

So after meeting this guy who plays guitar and devotes his whole life to music theory it's really quite interesting. He can play and has some of the best chops I've seen in person, but he also is able to adapt and improvise with his understanding of the scales/modes. A lot of the time I will play some parts of a piece I have been working on and he just noodles and ad-libs over the top of it, while other times he shows me and explains what kind of chords I am playing as well as indicates what would be a natural flowing chordal change. What is interesting, is his trained ear is doing what my untrained ear is. I typically write sequences and patterns in such a way that incorporates music theory much more than I could ever process.

 

I think that some people have it, and others don't. I don't think I will ever have the understanding and discipline to learn what it is I am doing, however I am always growing and learning and in some way perhaps limitless. Sometimes it seems I am retaining more than some people I know who are trained musicians.

 

Either way, it's an interesting subject and I think you should always try and reach your goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good point. I think of it like this: if you're just creating, then who cares at all about the rules. but when you're collaborating, having a common language and level of understanding helps. knowing how to describe what you're doing lets you share it with others quickly. example, telling your bass player "i'm gonna use a melodic minor scale in this section" and have him be able to adapt to your ideas. or better still, having him hear you go there, and because he knows what you did, adapt in real time.

 

i agree that you don't need formal education to get these concepts, and repetition reinforces what you may not know you know. But that doesn't mean that having this knowledge somehow diminishes creativity: if anything it increases it by giving the painter a larger palette (to use an earlier metaphor).

 

fun thread!

Music Theory is not a set not rules, not even guidelines. It's just a bunch of information about music, gathered for centuries and put into a writable and readable language. It doesn't tell you how to play, it tells us what you played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things about a study of "music theory" is that regardless, it is a matter of theory - not practice.

 

That's the academic sense, though.

 

Frankly I think we all are constantly learning music theory simply by listening; when we listen enough, that becomes a part of our vocabulary.

 

I took my fair share of advanced language and grammar classes in various academic environments and still have a horrid habit of writing in compound-complex sentences that, as one critic here noted, require a degree of parsing to get what was intended. Actually, that's intended when I'm writing of complex subjects that IMHO cannot be appropriately addressed without a degree of complexity.

 

Music is much the same. I don't really know how to define stuff I like, and have liked, since my childhood. I do know that much of it remains part of my musical vocabulary as much as the occasional seldom-used word is used in my written and spoken vocabulary.

 

I think those with a larger musical vocabulary likely will find "music theory" somewhat easier than those to don't. I think they also are more likely to have a broader personal performance base whether or not that's what they play for money or other audiences. I'm reminded of theoretical "folkie" Doc Watson talking about a guitar duet that featured "country counterpoint." It's a lot easier to do so if one knows what counterpoint is, and how it has been used by ear, than learning about it in a classroom.

 

So... I guess you can say that I figure academic study of music theory has advantages just as academic study of literature has advantages for an individual. In both cases some of us will gain an addition to their personal vocabularies; some won't.

 

Meanwhile... one listens to some of the classic great improv musicians such as Louis Armstrong and his sound and performance immediately makes him recognizable; pretty much ditto BB. I doubt they have been incapable of playing in other ways, but their "way" simply had become a relaxed mode of communication even as each of us has a general mode of conversation over a cup of coffee or other libation.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If the question is, "Is it necessary to learn Theory to be a good guitarist?" The answer is a misleading "no".

 

If the question is, "Does learning Theory make you a better musician?" the answer is "yes".

 

Now, that's not saying that Mister X is better than Mister Y simply because Mister X knows Theory. But is is saying that Mister Y would improve if he learned some Theory, even if he was already "Better" than Mister X.

 

 

SOME may improve if they learn theory, but I think some people get worse after they start learning theory. Two of my ex's band mates were poor players but atleast did things that made sense and sounded predictably normal and even pleasant. They got into theory and those grandiose scales and rules screwed them all up. They'd spew the knowledge out loud and read and then they would try to translate it into sound. It sounded like horse dung. I'll take Meg White hitting the drumms like a neandrethral over what this "improved drummer" beat out. I'll take a poor and predictable solo or three chord tune over some convoluted, "I read this in a book and I'm doing it on time therefore it is better," piece of poop.

 

I do agree that some of us are using scales and rules without knowing, but that's like saying, "time is passing for the aborigenes by the minute though they have no clocks." Way I look at it, those of us who don't "know" theory discover all the rules/patterns and chose not to enumerate or name them. We see no point or we do but can't be bothered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Izzy...

 

With all due respect, I don't think it was "theory" per se that caused the problem, but rather a horrid case of ego disease.

 

I know plenty of pros who play for money, and ain't yet heard one of them spew BS about theory - although often they'd do well working to help make a group sound better.

 

A fat head on a musician ain't dependent on knowing or not knowing "music theory" in an academic sense - but it can really screw up any kind of performance and always find a justification why he/she ain't at fault.

 

<grin>

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...