My thoughts on music theory and guitar

Guitardedmark · 06-13-2011, 06:25 PM

Music theory is about as important to a guitarist as learning how to raise chickens is to a guy trying to make an omelette. If you know how to produce the sounds YOU want on guitar than it does not matter if you know how it works or why those sounds make you feel that way.

Many guitarists try to use music theory as a tool to systematically develop an understanding of how to be a great guitar player. The results of their efforts usually fall quite short of appealing let alone "great". There are way too many nuances that make guitar pleasing to listen to ear that are not accounted for in music theory. The intricate sound scape that is created by a good guitar player is tremendously more complicated than anything music theory can explain. It's like trying to create a mathematical algorithm to explain humor. Many have tried but it is seemingly impossible to quantify what will create laughter. Sure, there are some basic examples of what works but by no means is it a science.

Learning music theory will not make you a great guitar player. Playing guitar is what breeds great guitar players. Do you think Michael Jordan sat and intellectualized the friction dispersion dynamics of shooting a leather ball filled with air at a hoop to become a better free throw shooter? No, he shot hundreds of free throws a day. Guitar playing is not engineering or math. It is not a science. It is an art. Guitar is a feeling instrument and should be played with feeling, not thoughts. It should be approached as an extension of the body used to express emotion. For a guitarist, the only real purpose of music theory I have found, is in communicating with other guitarists and at the end of the day, every great guitarist communicates with their fingers not with numbers.

Discussion is welcomed but please keep it mature and please spare the personal attacks

bls · 06-13-2011, 06:43 PM

This is one valid side of playing, but I feel like you might be talking about something that is genre specific. If you want to play chuck berry tunes then no, you don't need theory. If you want to play pat martino songs, you might not get there without it.

XonXoff · 06-13-2011, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guitardedmark

Music theory is about as important to a guitarist as learning how to raise chickens is to a guy trying to make an omelette.

How much theory do you know?

derek.john.evans · 06-13-2011, 06:55 PM

I personally think music theory needs a huge definition update.

The language of music theory uses ambiguous, redundant definitions, plus includes a lot of unnecessary non-english words. I beleive a lot of musicians use this language as a means to stroke their egos, rather than create decent music.

You just have to read some Wikipedia topics on modes, scales, intervals, chord names, etc, to see that there are many ways of saying the same thing.

Music theory should move more towards a mathematics definition imho.

Plus, at the end of the day. Western music theory uses the 2212221 interval scale as its foundation. After a while, the major/minor scales suck and you have to start hitting notes outside the box.

Fran Guidry · 06-13-2011, 06:57 PM

The first question this post raises in my mind is "Why do you feel this manifesto is necessary?"

The next thought - music theory is a tool. It's a description of what has been done, a way to organize the vast possibilities. Learning music theory opens up a new way of looking at and thinking about the instrument.

If you play nothing but originals in a situation where you determine all the details, then music theory might be superfluous to your needs. But if you work as a sideman or session player, or if you jam with people playing a variety of styles, you need to be able to transpose quickly and accurately, and music theory is the key to that ability.

Music is pattern, music theory is an organized look at the patterns that have been used to make music. Learning about the V-I change, then the II-V-I then the VI-II-V-I and so on expands your ability to hear and play. Instead of a random collection of notes you recognize a consistent pattern, and that recognition gives you the ability to add your own insights within the framework much more effectively. Learning about voice leading and chord substitution expands your palette.

On the flip side, I recently spent an evening with a player who was obsessed with theory, with learning chords and substitutions, voice leading, modes, etc. And he could not play a song.

Learning music theory is not a substitute for learning to play songs in a way that moves people. But rejecting music theory accomplishes nothing but throwing away a useful tool.

Fran

richie43 · 06-13-2011, 07:02 PM

The OP's topic is definitely one valid point. But it will certainly not hamper a guitarist to study music theory either. I know many self taught carpenters that do excellent work, but i also know a few craftsmen, excellent carpenters, who studied their art for years. I went into college as a music lover but was studying psychology. The main reason I didn't want to study music was because my 18 year old brain was sure that it would destroy my art and inspiration. In my second year I changed my major to music (theory, orchestration, arranging, writing....) and it definitely didn't hurt my art. I can still play the blues as well as before. Before I had a feeling with my music, after I also gained an understanding and a connection with the history. I also felt like I had gained a look "under the hood". My point is that music theory is information and tools, and I think that whatever your trade is, you can never have too many tools. A person can get lost with too many tools, but the problem is the person and lack of discipline, not the tools. I totally respect the OP's opinion, and even understand where he may be coming from. But honestly it irritates me to hear someone seemingly stating that studying one's art on an intellectual level will somehow hurt their art. Their lack of discipline and inflated ego will surely do more damage (not saying this refers to the OP). And to go off the OP's own analogy, do you think Andre Segovia, one of the great classical guitar player and a true artist, came about his talent by improvising? I think not. He spent his lifetime continuing his study of theory. What about Mozart? In fact Jimmy page and even Jimi Hendrix were no slouches in theory either.... They were SO ruined by their theory, weren't they?

richie43 · 06-13-2011, 07:03 PM

My post took so long to type I hadn't noticed the above posts yet. Excellent!

Analogy · 06-13-2011, 07:10 PM

Music theory isn't there to help you write music, it's there to help you communicate with other musicians. Without a solid foundation in music theory all around, collaboration is far, far more difficult.

Jedi · 06-13-2011, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

Learning music theory is not a substitute for learning to play songs in a way that moves people. But rejecting music theory accomplishes nothing but throwing away a useful tool.

That SOOOOO sums it up for me... thanks for that nice line Fran.

Jedi

richie43 · 06-13-2011, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Analogy

Music theory isn't there to help you write music, it's there to help you communicate with other musicians. Without a solid foundation in music theory all around, collaboration is far, far more difficult.

And again, I partially agree and disagree (I'm such a pain). Theory CAN help you write music because it can spur ideas you may not have thought of before studying. Like modes and alternate voicings can even be a huge creative tool and inspirational motivator. Everything about music, the playing and the studying, are equally powerful for the communications AND the creative process (IMO).

Guitardedmark · 06-13-2011, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XonXoff

How much theory do you know?

About 10 years worth. 5 of which taught from a guitar teacher and another 2 from music college.

PS; I learned more about recording, egineering and producing by twisting faders, testing plugins, and reading than I did in 3 years at McNally Smith College of production and recording (a VERY nice college).

lunker · 06-13-2011, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guitardedmark

Do you think Michael Jordan sat and intellectualized the friction dispersion dynamics of shooting a leather ball filled with air at a hoop to become a better free throw shooter? No, he shot hundreds of free throws a day.

Weak analogy for two reasons:

1) Friction dispersion dynamics of shooting a leather ball filled with air at a hoop is not "basketball theory" -- it's basketball physics. I agree that most guitarists probably don't make a detailed study of the electromagnetic physics of a set of vibrating metallic strings; or the force/momentum equations of bending a guitar string -- but that's not the same thing as learning music theory.

2) Michael Jordan probably did more than shoot free throws. Such as studying playbooks/diagrams/strategies to understand different ways to react in certain situations. Or understanding the role of each player/position in the game, so that he knew how to make the most efficient use of his teammates. And he definitely studied the fundamental rules of basketball (What is "travelling"? What is a "personal foul"? What is a "shot clock" and what happens when the time runs out? Etc. And how that "theoretical" information to win the game?)

Sure, Michael Jordan practiced a lot. A good guitarist has usually practiced a lot, too. But I think Michael Jordan knows a whole lot more "basketball theory" than you want to admit in your analogy. And so, too, can music theory be beneficial to playing guitar.

However, I do agree that music theory is not a necessary element in becoming a great musician. I got interested in music theory late in my musical journey, and found that it explains things I knew but didn't understand (I knew a "V7 - I" cadence sounds good, but not why; I knew a #I7 chord could be substituted for a V7, but not why; etc.). Understanding the "why" makes it much easier for some people to move on to the "how."

Guitardedmark · 06-13-2011, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

The first question this post raises in my mind is "Why do you feel this manifesto is necessary?"

The next thought - music theory is a tool. It's a description of what has been done, a way to organize the vast possibilities. Learning music theory opens up a new way of looking at and thinking about the instrument.

If you play nothing but originals in a situation where you determine all the details, then music theory might be superfluous to your needs. But if you work as a sideman or session player, or if you jam with people playing a variety of styles, you need to be able to transpose quickly and accurately, and music theory is the key to that ability.

Music is pattern, music theory is an organized look at the patterns that have been used to make music. Learning about the V-I change, then the II-V-I then the VI-II-V-I and so on expands your ability to hear and play. Instead of a random collection of notes you recognize a consistent pattern, and that recognition gives you the ability to add your own insights within the framework much more effectively. Learning about voice leading and chord substitution expands your palette.

On the flip side, I recently spent an evening with a player who was obsessed with theory, with learning chords and substitutions, voice leading, modes, etc. And he could not play a song.

Learning music theory is not a substitute for learning to play songs in a way that moves people. But rejecting music theory accomplishes nothing but throwing away a useful tool.

Fran

Great post Fran! I agree with everything you said. I should have specified that I am purely speaking about guitarists writing original songs and trying to develop their own sound.

The main reason I wanted to post this is my frustration with technically brilliant heartless guitar players. As well as the insidious growth of metal guitarists that are so obsessed with learning everything from a lydian augmented to a phyrgian major scale just so they can say they know it and implement it poorly in a "song" that has no feeling.

Alan holdsworth is a good example of what I'm talking about. A lot of his stuff is sheer brilliance but I cannot grasp the *MUSICAL* worth of a lot of his crazy chord progression underneath exotic mind blowing theory examples that so many people seem to love. It' seems like hes doing it just because he can. Kind of like the rock band that uncomfortably puts 1 jazz song, 1 blues song, 1 country song, 1 metal song, and 8 rock songs on their album. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I've been a lot of fellow musicians and non-musicians (but lovers of music) who seem to really like this technical overkill style of music why they listen to that music and I've gotten some interesting responses. Anything from "they're the best" to a clever disguised "i feel like I'm better than other musicians when I listen to this stuff" responses. What I haven't heard is "because it makes me feel..."

I wish guitar was approached more as a MUSICAL instrument and less as a ego booster. I think I'm just ranting at this point but as you can see I really wish more guitarists played with their hearts instead of their minds.

XITE-1/4LIVE · 06-13-2011, 07:33 PM

I had the pleasure of going to a Joe Pass seminar in Coconut Groove, Fla. in the late '70's. And his advice was to just start playing the Guitar and have fun, but then decide if you want to expand, or you're satisfied with out understanding theory and compostition.
I thought that was the most appropriate way for a Guitar God to speak to his worshippers as if he was one in the crowd. No condescending, etc.

We all ran back to the Grove to see him with Oscar Petersen that night and stared in amazement that a thumb could play walking bass so well.

He also commented on how he couldn't read music for years, and only learned so he could see what his solos looked like on paper.
What a fine Human was he....

Guitardedmark · 06-13-2011, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richie43

The OP's topic is definitely one valid point. But it will certainly not hamper a guitarist to study music theory either. I know many self taught carpenters that do excellent work, but i also know a few craftsmen, excellent carpenters, who studied their art for years. I went into college as a music lover but was studying psychology. The main reason I didn't want to study music was because my 18 year old brain was sure that it would destroy my art and inspiration. In my second year I changed my major to music (theory, orchestration, arranging, writing....) and it definitely didn't hurt my art. I can still play the blues as well as before. Before I had a feeling with my music, after I also gained an understanding and a connection with the history. I also felt like I had gained a look "under the hood". My point is that music theory is information and tools, and I think that whatever your trade is, you can never have too many tools. A person can get lost with too many tools, but the problem is the person and lack of discipline, not the tools. I totally respect the OP's opinion, and even understand where he may be coming from. But honestly it irritates me to hear someone seemingly stating that studying one's art on an intellectual level will somehow hurt their art. Their lack of discipline and inflated ego will surely do more damage (not saying this refers to the OP). And to go off the OP's own analogy, do you think Andre Segovia, one of the great classical guitar player and a true artist, came about his talent by improvising? I think not. He spent his lifetime continuing his study of theory. What about Mozart? In fact Jimmy page and even Jimi Hendrix were no slouches in theory either.... They were SO ruined by their theory, weren't they?

Good points. Maybe the omelette line was a little too much

It was an exaggerated, poor attempt at humor. My main point is learning music theory is not a replacement for playing and IMO not near as important.

Guitardedmark · 06-13-2011, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Analogy

Music theory isn't there to help you write music, it's there to help you communicate with other musicians. Without a solid foundation in music theory all around, collaboration is far, far more difficult.

I agree as I stated in my OP. My whole rant is about people who THINK music theory teaches them how to write music. There are A LOT of those people...

Analogy · 06-13-2011, 07:37 PM

Oh hey, look, I just noticed you're from Minneapolis too. Let's be friends! =D

Diogenes · 06-13-2011, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Analogy

Music theory isn't there to help you write music, it's there to help you communicate with other musicians. Without a solid foundation in music theory all around, collaboration is far, far more difficult.

"Okay! Guys... we're gonna learn a new song tonight... here is the chart..."

Uhhhh... dude? There ain't nothing but Roman numerals on this sheet of paper?

D -

Guod3 · 06-13-2011, 07:42 PM

It's all about how the theory is applied. Everyone does this a little (or lot) differently.

The intellect can give rise to thought processes that actually shut down creativity....

OR

The theory is a toolbox that sometimes yields a tool that unlocks pure magic....

Guitardedmark · 06-13-2011, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lunker

Weak analogy for two reasons:

1) Friction dispersion dynamics of shooting a leather ball filled with air at a hoop is not "basketball theory" -- it's basketball physics. I agree that most guitarists probably don't make a detailed study of the electromagnetic physics of a set of vibrating metallic strings -- but that's not the same as music theory.

2) Michael Jordan probably did more that shoot free throws. Such as studying playbooks/diagrams/strategies to understand different ways to react in certain situations. Or understanding the role of each player/position in the game, so that he knew how to make the most efficient use of his teammates. And he definitely studied the fundamental rules of basketball (What is "travelling"? What is a "personal foul"? What is a "shot clock" and what happens when the time runs out? Etc. And how that "theoretical" information to win the game?)

I think your picking apart the analogy WAY too much. It was not meant to be a PERFECT example of 2 radically different arts but a simple analogy. Nothing more nothing less. A simple analogy.

Needless to say, the idea is the same... music theory, they should not be the priority for getting better in the previously mentioned arts.

For the record Michael jordan said something like "the only reason I've made the most free throws of all time is because I've missed the most free throws of all time. It wasn't because I learned the right way to shoot free throws". I said absolutely nothing about team dynamics or anything other than shooting a free throw in my example so for the sake of argument your second point is null.

Guitardedmark · 06-13-2011, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes

"Okay! Guys... we're gonna learn a new song tonight... here is the chart..."

Uhhhh... dude? There ain't nothing but Roman numerals on this sheet of paper?

D -

lol o.O Those times are equally as frustrating but that's a whole different rant

Guitardedmark · 06-13-2011, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guod3

It's all about how the theory is applied. Everyone does this a little (or lot) differently.

The intellect can give rise to thought processes that actually shut down creativity....

OR

The theory is a toolbox that sometimes yields a tool that unlocks pure magic....

That's a good way to put it. For me (maybe I'm just too right brained) I have had tremendously more personal satisfaction with the first one and I'm incredible sick of guitarists who ONLY use the second one.

Diogenes · 06-13-2011, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guitardedmark

lol o.O Those times are equally as frustrating but that's a whole different rant

lol - Okay... how about this one?

"Hey man... uuuhhhh... how you make an Am6?"

I know what you're saying... and I don't mean to ruin your nice thread for sure... I only speak from personal experience (and frustration!) where I have been thrown in with people who know nothing about music theory, scales, chord construction etc...

I don't know as much as I would like to know about music theory, but I find the more I know the better off I am.

D

richie43 · 06-13-2011, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guitardedmark

Good points. Maybe the omelette line was a little too much

It was an exaggerated, poor attempt at humor. My main point is learning music theory is not a replacement for playing and IMO not near as important.

What about the players who aren't interested in performing, for instance? Their art may be completely founded on the creation of the music. Playing can become secondary to them, but it doesn't make them less of a musician. By the way, I too am in Minneapolis. We should meet up at a local music club and argue more about theory. Or play some charts...

Hindu Stan · 06-13-2011, 08:13 PM

Q. What's the difference between a rock guitarist and a jazz guitarist?

A. One plays 3 chords for 10,000 people and one plays.............

kudos to Op re opening this up. I mean it prob would be impossible to try and write the notation for a stonking rock guitar vibrato.

Guitardedmark · 06-13-2011, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richie43

What about the players who aren't interested in performing, for instance? Their art may be completely founded on the creation of the music. Playing can become secondary to them, but it doesn't make them less of a musician. By the way, I too am in Minneapolis. We should meet up at a local music club and argue more about theory. Or play some charts...

Those are the ones I'm speaking about! Thats me right there. My whole purpose is to create good songs and record them well. I've found that the language of music theory has helped me VERY little in this process. I also do record other guitarists and being that most of it is metal all too often as I a producer I will say "hey that sounds great! What about put a little more dynamics in the riff so it sounds a little more thumpy." and get the response of "are you saying I should use a different scale?". If I pulled a strand of hair out my head every time this happened i would be bald. It just blows my mind how someone can shred 8 different scales over a 12 chord progression in 6/8 and not be able to put a little more thump or sway or groove in their play. Or more importantly write a meaningful song...

richie43 · 06-13-2011, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guitardedmark

Those are the ones I'm speaking about! Thats me right there. My whole purpose is to create good songs and record them well. I've found that the language of music theory has helped me VERY little in this process. I also do record other guitarists and being that most of it is metal all too often as I a producer I will say "hey that sounds great! What about put a little more dynamics in the riff so it sounds a little more thumpy." and get the response of "are you saying I should use a different scale?". If I pulled a strand of hair out my head every time this happened i would be bald. It just blows my mind how someone can shred 8 different scales over a 12 chord progression in 6/8 and not be able to put a little more thump or sway or groove in their play. Or more importantly write a meaningful song...

I hear ya. But as a sometimes session guy myself, I have saved my own ass while spending someone elses money with my solid grasp of theory. And I have also had pure spontaneous creative inspiration while performing onstage (and not a small stage, I might add) with my former band and did things that would have never been possible without my theory background. Music theory did not squash my ability to improvise, it enabled me to be more creative and it taught me about the organic process of working a guitar neck. As I said, i think that the benefit or detriment that theory can provide a player depends on the player and discipline.

anokah · 06-13-2011, 09:10 PM

Music theory is good. So is practicing. So is ear training. Unless you are extremely blessed i don't think you're gonna drag a grasp of Rachmaninov or Ravel out of your ass.

Tod · 06-13-2011, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

Learning music theory is not a substitute for learning to play songs in a way that moves people. But rejecting music theory accomplishes nothing but throwing away a useful tool.

Fran

Fran, you are trully an elegant fella.

richie43 · 06-13-2011, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tod

Fran, you are trully an elegant fella.

Tru dat!

Sound asleep · 06-13-2011, 10:09 PM

there are two ways to look at music theory. one is as a textbook that will teach you how to make music. as instructions.

the other is as a tool to help you uncover your ideas. music theory imo is not supposed to tell you what to play, but to help you look at the guitar and know how to get the ideas in your head out of it.

the more you learn, the more you get ideas as well. new things you didn't think of. this happens just when you hear music as well.

i don't care who you are, you can always use music theory. i started out playing without it. and i did very well. then i discovered what a key was and a key scale. and that's still pretty much all i use, and that's huge.

knowing your entire fretboard as a major scale pattern, and all the scale chords within it, and the pentatonic within those, i find is huge.

i still can't instantly name every note if you point one out, but i wish i did because i'd know that pattern even better and faster.

your ideas should always just flow, from your mind, but getting to know your fretboard so that your hands can effortlessly without hesitation follow every whim and every command of your mind even if it's not a thought you've had before, that takes theory.

now there are all kinds of musicians. some just play chords of songs they know. some write tunes with simple strumming and a solo here or there. some are the best of the best. you can't be the best of the best without theory. you need to be a theory genius, but you need to know some. it's necessary. even if you discovered it all yourself and never named it, you learned the theory.

but theory is not music. you can read and write but that doesn't make you a great novelist. music is something different. theory is just a way to make something complex easier for your mind to understand, so that you can know your instrument so well you can immediately play any idea at the moment your idea occurs.

you might be good. if you don't know any theory, you can be much better.

richie43 · 06-13-2011, 10:13 PM

^^
That is exactly what I wanted to say but didn't as well!!

sebas777 · 06-13-2011, 10:37 PM

Theory is a map. With it you can find the way more easily.
But buying and using a map won't make you into a great discoverer.
Yet, it doesn't distract you from becoming one.

Geoff Waddington · 06-13-2011, 11:48 PM

Lots of good points, and on a more humorous note (pun intended):

How do you get a gutar player to turn down?

Put a chart in front of him

boatbassguy · 06-14-2011, 01:25 AM

I'm bang up for theory. I think people's understanding of theory often surpasses their ability to hear and recognise it's audible counterparts.

You all understand a I V I cadence yeah? Most of us can recognise it when we hear it and play along appropriately, or choose this chord group while writing with an internal hearing of how it sounds.
How about a 7th flat 9 chord? Recognise it? Know what it sounds like in your head?
Oh, too jazzy? How does a third and a flat third sound against a major chord? Bit bluesy yeah?

What I'm saying is that I feel that theory is often separated from the experience of music and that this is not such a good thing. My intellectual understanding of theory is very good and I spend time every day addressing my ability to hear that which I understand. It is paying me back tenfold in my ability and enjoyment as a musician and music lover.

From another angle - we are all individuals. For some (count me in) theory is great, for others it is a ball and chain. Let's all play to our strengths and accept those that choose a different path.

copacetic · 06-14-2011, 01:59 AM

I play guitar and know virtually nothing of theory.

I know that without a doubt I'd be a far better player if I did.

End of argument for me personally.

ivansc · 06-14-2011, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Analogy

Music theory isn't there to help you write music, it's there to help you communicate with other musicians. Without a solid foundation in music theory all around, collaboration is far, far more difficult.

He is a guitar player. Why would he care about communicating with other musicians? (snigger snigger)

P.S. I am a guitarist, but I also play more civilised instruments and spend most of my time playing the One True Instrument. Bass....

I`ll get my coat....

(Serious obligatory on topic bit)

Sure you can widdle over stuff without knowing theory, but without at least a LITTLE harmonic theory you are going to either get lost or play some horrible klunkers once you get beyond Chuck Berry.
I work with a guitar player who by his own admission is crap at playing improvised solos in melodic majors.
But let him loose in pentatonic, etc., and he can shred for England.

radian · 06-14-2011, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Analogy

Music theory isn't there to help you write music, it's there to help you communicate with other musicians. Without a solid foundation in music theory all around, collaboration is far, far more difficult.

Exactly what I came to the thread to write.

boatbassguy · 06-14-2011, 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivansc

P.S. I am a guitarist, but I also play more civilised instruments and spend most of my time playing the One True Instrument. Bass....

Aye, I'm with you there brother!

I could bow that low E for eternity....

.... You did mean a real bass didn't you? Not one of those 34" scale imposters. : )

Tedwood · 06-14-2011, 08:27 AM

i got to say it might help, and it might not.

Bit of a cop out eh?

It wouldn't have helped me much, cos most guys I played with didn't need it either. We always learned by looking and listening and remembering, that's a good method, if you have it down.

The only other guys I played with needed charts and stuff seemed to need them, and were stuffed without them. It wasn't nearly as much fun, kind of like the difference between riding a horse and sitting in a train compartment