How important is it to learn the real theory to become a better player versus ...

[electrotar]

..learning by ear and songs.

 

What i mean is learning things such as scales and how chords are formed and shapes etc...and different keys, relationship of chords to each other, harmonic effects, specific riffs, even note reading etc.... Actually sitting down to learn these things

 

versus

 

Just pick up n play. As in learn others songs from guitar tab then try to learn by ear.

[jeremy_green]

do both in tandem.... if I had to choose only one it would be the first.... aside from maybe being a more complete player understanding what you are doing can save you soooo much time.

[c+t in b]

depends on what you're trying to accomplish really. both are absolutely necessary but having one or the other is almost useless. if you're into writing your own music, understanding what you are doing, playing the music thats in your head, then it's incredibly important to learn theory. if you just want to play other peoples songs note for note, then it is not as important. however you will probably hit a wall at some point in your playing.

 

theory gives you the tools to continue teaching yourself new things and how to apply them. it also gives the gift of musical literacy, making it easier to play with others and get more gigs. people are often discouraged by theory, thinking of it as a set of rules that will restrict creativity. that couldn't be further from the truth. it simply gives definitions to specific ideas and allows you to understand how to manipulate those ideas innately.

[JonR]

Theory helps you understand what it is you're doing. It gives you names for all the sounds you're making, which helps you organise stuff in your head (and on paper or screen too, if you're actually writing).

 

You can do without it, but the more knowledge you build up, and the more complicated the stuff you're learning, you will start to invent your own names and terms anyway (or bend existing ones to fit). So you may as well use the conventional terms, because at least then you can come on to sites like this and talk meaningfully to other musicians about what you're doing, and you will understand the answers to any questions you might have.

IOW, conventional theory is essential to enable you to talk about music. To help you play it, it's less crucial, but still useful.

 

It doesn't have to be hard. You already know some theory: you know the names of the chords you're playing - that's "theory". You may know some other terms. As long as you can link the jargon to the sounds you're making, theory is useful and pretty easy. If you don't understand a piece of theory, chances are you don't need it - yet.

Ie, I agree with jeremy: learn both in tandem, picking up theory as you go.

 

Learned properly, theory makes the whole process easier, that's the point of it. It gives you a framework, a filing system, for the bits and pieces of knowledge you pick up. Otherwise, learning by ear alone, you have to keep all that stuff in your head, usually without seeing the connections or patterns (the "common practices") that theory helps reveal.

[jonfinn]

theory vs. ear: is there a difference?

[mosiddiqi]

I think you should follow whatever you're interested in. The chances are, that the deeper you dive into music, the more you're going to want to know..and so theory will find it's place.

[JonR]

theory vs. ear: is there a difference?

Well, yes. I've got a terrible blockage of wax in my left theory...

 

I know what you mean, of course, but there are useful distinctions. In this case, I suspect what we're talking about is "theory" in the sense of a bunch of jargon, the kind of stuff one reads in books about "music theory". Words, signs and symbols, and concepts.

In another important sense, it's just the grammar of this aural language we call "music" - and which we all understand well enough by ear already.

We all understand music when we hear it (most music anyhow). We can tell immediately if someone is out of tune, or plays a wrong note. We can tell a strange chord change from a familiar one, even if we can't identify it. Even non-musicians can do this. In that sense, the theory is in our brains already (mediated and judged by ear, of course).

The musician's problem is then a technical one: how to produce those sounds, how to get them right. And that may well require the translation of the intuitive grammar of music into words or signs on a page: the analysis of it into separate parts, so we can study or practise those parts - more easily than the whole - before putting them back together again.

 

The ear is always in charge, of course. Music is nothing but sound in the end. Our understanding and appreciation of it begins and ends with the ear. The other stuff just helps us on the way from hearing to playing.

[gennation]

Understanding something never hurts, especially if it's something you want to be accomplished at.

[electrotar]

Thanks everyone

this quote summed it up for me personally

however you will probably hit a wall at some point in your playing. .

So yeh I have played and learned a lot of other peoples songs with minimal theory and I feel that I need to understand the framework behind the ''colours''

Like people see an amazing building but the architect wrote up the plans and drawings. I guess its the same. I can see whats on the outside but not whats going on inside or in the development.

[polishpaul]

If we didn't have "theory", a studio session might go:

 

"Okay, lets rock! Dennis, gimme that note you played last Saturday just before the bass cab fell on that dude with the big black hat."

 

"You mean this one (plays a note)?"

 

"No, the one you bent up to after the cymbal crash."

 

"Ah....this one (plays a note)."

 

"No, not that one. Do you know Red River Valley? I think it's that note in the first chord, which makes the chord sound sad if you play it one fret lower."

 

Luv theory!

 

[Ryan Tunis]

Theory is key. So is ear training. Combine the two and you are unstoppable.

[electrotar]

Theory is key. So is ear training. Combine the two and you are unstoppable.

 

 

well I am doing both now so very soon I guess I will be unstoppable? but when? mmm

 

I praictce for years by only using tab what an idiot. I shoudlve done theory and ears at the start I would already be usntoppable.

[GreenAsJade]

reported

[Jasco]

My opinion is that you can become a great player without learning theory. Theory will however help your understanding of what you are doing, allow you to apply things you've learned in a broader manner, and probably speed up your development.

 

I don't think you can become a great player without having a good ear. Although you can learn to move your fingers fast without having a good ear.

[jonfinn]

I'm not someone who's a "Theory Thumper". However, there's been a long-standing myth that learning theory can be creatively stifling. To me the two are somewhat unrelated.

 

Theory is (hopefully) the process of understanding what you're doing and why it sounds a certain way. Sometimes (in the creative process) that knowledge is irrelevant. But if you know the info, you can put it aside like owning a hammer and choosing not to use it.

 

You can build a house without using any nails and it will be just as strong as one using nails. But it takes longer. The only real advantage is bragging rights.

 

Why wouldn't I use a nail gun instead if a hammer if it does the job better and faster? Because the gun costs more. But it's worthwhile if I'm building houses all day long.

 

"He who is good with a hammer thinks everything is a nail."

[electrotar]

ok so a good non theory player vs a theory player would be like

non theory player- when I do this and this its sounds like this and its cool so I do this and this lick then these notes its the sound i like/want.

Theory player- When I do this note its the dominant major of the last notes so will sound like this and then my next notes/chords will be the minor 7th to have a more down sound to it with resoect to preivous notes..etc..(i just made that up obviously)

[Yer Blues]

You're going to continue to improve both of these things over your life as a musician. Theory is a way of interpreting musical expression into words. You can hear players who rely more on theory than there "ear". IMO, it shouldn't be used as a "crutch"... it's just a means to an end. When I learn stuff I like to find the theory behind it. Granted, I think more along the lines of this note will sound like this over this chord when I am playing vs. "I need to play the dominate 7th" or the "flat 5th right now". I think more in terms of sound, but I like to relate it back to the theory as much as I can. As long as you continue to work at it, I don't think you ever stop learning and I don't think your ear ever stops improving.

[c+t in b]

dominant major? stop fighting it and just get a textbook. no one will ever tell you that you're better off not learning theory

[JonR]

"I need to play the dominate 7th"

"Dominant"

And btw, just to clarify, the "dominant 7th" is not a note, it's a chord.

 

Sorry for pedantry, but theory starts with clear and consistent definition of terms .

[JonR]

(i just made that up obviously)

Yeah, we can tell .

[Yer Blues]

"Dominant" And btw, just to clarify, the "dominant 7th" is not a note, it's a chord. Sorry for pedantry, but theory starts with clear and consistent definition of terms .

I got you. There is only one 7th.

I have a question though.... where is that pulled from? I thought the major scale, but F is the 7th of G and the G major scale is G, A, B, C, D, E, F#. Would a F note be a flat 7th? The G minor/aeolian is G, A, B#, C, D, Eb, F where the F is the 7th. Is it based on the key of the music? Say I am playing a I-IV-V blues thing in G. I always look at the F as the 7th regardless of whether I am going for major or minor tonality.

[JonR]

where the F is the 7th. Is it based on the key of the music? Say I am playing a I-IV-V blues thing in G. I always look at the F as the 7th regardless of whether I am going for major or minor tonality.

OK, there are few relevant terms here that often get mixed up together. Plus, blues is a wierd music that disobeys conventional rules (it prefers its own rules ).

 

First, "dominant" means the 5th (V) degree of the scale. IOW, it's a note in the first instance, not a chord. (I know it looked like I said the opposite back there, bear with me.)

The word "dominant" goes way back to medieval modal practices, where that note would literally be the dominant note in the composition (sometimes called the "reciting tone"), while the note we'd call the keynote or "tonic" was called the "finalis" or "final"; because that's where the tune would finish. (The dominant wasn't always the 5th step in those days; it just happened to be the 5th in the two modes that have come down to us as the major and minor key scales.)

 

Anyway, the chord built on the dominant step is also known as the dominant (V) chord. So a G major chord in key of C is the dominant chord, just because it's V. Doesn't need a 7th.

The phrase "dominant 7th" refers to the 7th chord built on the dominant step. IOW, the triad with a diatonic 7th added (ie the 7th note up the scale of the key from the root). In key of C, that means adding an F to the G chord.

In key of G, it would mean adding a C to the D chord. Etc.

 

The term for the 7th note itself is strictly speaking a "minor 7th" (although "b7" is fine and generally understood). That's the name for the interval between G and F, because 7ths come in two sizes: "minor" or smaller (10 semitones) and "major" or bigger (11 semitones). But obviously "minor 7th" is a confusing term if we were to apply it to the chord, because that has a major 3rd!

Ie, the chord has a major 3rd and a minor 7th, and we call that combination a "dominant 7th" chord type, because that's the only chord in a key that has that structure. (The other two major chords, I and IV, each have major 7ths.)

 

When it comes to chord symbols we use a plain "7" for any chord with a minor 7th interval, and "maj7" for the other kind - because in a major key scale there are 5 minor 7th intervals and only 2 major 7ths. So it makes sense for the common one to have the shorter symbol.

"G7" = G major chord with minor 7th added (G B D F).

"Gm7" = G minor chord with minor 7th added (G Bb D F)

"Gmaj7" = G major chord with major 7th added (G B D F#)

"Gm(maj7)" = G minor chord with major 7th added (G Bb D F#)

 

Now, when it comes to blues, that's a strange kind of music, as I said, because it uses major chords mashed together with a minor (pentatonic) scale. In key of C, the chords (C, F, G) suggest the C major scale (including E and B), but the scale for vocals and solos has an Eb and Bb. So what we do is add a Bb to the C chord, and an Eb to the F chord, getting C7 and F7 chords. (That's the easiest way to reflect the scale in the chords.) The G chord has a b7 anyway.

So we end up with three "dominant 7th-type" chords, even though only one of them (V7) is strictly speaking the real dominant chord.

[girevik]

ok so a good non theory player vs a theory player would be like non theory player- when I do this and this its sounds like this and its cool so I do this and this lick then these notes its the sound i like/want. Theory player- When I do this note its the dominant major of the last notes so will sound like this and then my next notes/chords will be the minor 7th to have a more down sound to it with resoect to preivous notes..etc..(i just made that up obviously)

 

 

It's more like:

 

Non-Theory Player:

 

I can play my own music, but when I jam with other people I'm in danger of getting lost, even if the song just has 3 chords. I have trouble writing songs with others and sometimes even just by myself because I kind of have an idea of certain notes I want to use but can't find them because I lack the theory

 

Theory Player:

 

I can easily write a guitar part that fits with anyone else's guitar part, because I know theory. It doesn't have to be fancy. It could be the simplest thing, like a two-note chord. I can quickly learn other people's songs. If I struggle while writing my own songs, its because I lack ideas rather than theory knowledge, but because I have my theory toolbox, it won't take long to find those ideas.

[electrotar]

ok so its like I know some spanish words and phrases. I can use these words and phrases but if I need to come up with a sentence, answer or question I dont know already I cant as I cant construct things as I dont Spanish. Only set words and phrases.

If someone spoke to me in spanish I may recoginse only some words and know some phrases everything else they said to me woudl sound alien....they may ask a question and I only recognise 1 or 2 words and the sentence makes no sense to me at all.

I may want to ask someone a question in spanish but I only know one or to words...

For example say i am lost in spain so i need to ask for directions..all I know is say ''where'' and ''hotel'' in spanish

So rathter than say ''excuse me I am lost can u help me find my hotel its in this area here''

ID prob say

''hello!!! where hotel? where hotel?'''' the show hotel on map lol

[JonR]

 

It's more like: Non-Theory Player: I can play my own music, but when I jam with other people I'm in danger of getting lost, even if the song just has 3 chords. I have trouble writing songs with others and sometimes even just by myself because I kind of have an idea of certain notes I want to use but can't find them because I lack the theory Theory Player: I can easily write a guitar part that fits with anyone else's guitar part, because I know theory. It doesn't have to be fancy. It could be the simplest thing, like a two-note chord. I can quickly learn other people's songs. If I struggle while writing my own songs, its because I lack ideas rather than theory knowledge, but because I have my theory toolbox, it won't take long to find those ideas.

I'm going to modify that some more:

 

Non-Theory Player:

 

I can play my own music, but when I jam with other people I have to rely on my ear. They can tell me the chords, which helps, but not much. I find I often fall into the same ruts, playing the same licks and patterns I've practised over and over.

I can learn other people's songs, if I have tab, and if I listen real hard - but I still make mistakes sometimes, and I don't really understand what I'm doing.

When I try writing, I can get some good ideas, but can't seem to make them into complete songs. I hear how some things work, but I know there must be other ideas out there. I just get stuck.

 

Theory Player:

 

I can see the big picture. I still use my ear as much as I can, but when that fails I know what to do.

When learning other people's songs, I can do it quickly because I know the kind of thing to expect. (That can sometimes be a problem, because I can be prejudiced by theory. It's important to keep an open ear, because music frequently does what you don't expect.)

Because I understand notation I can write it out myself in a way that's clearer than tab (to me anyway), and I can give parts to any other musician if I need to. (And of course I can read music written for any other instrument - including voice - and I can play a piece of music I've never heard before.)

When writing my own music, theory gives me various kinds of framework I can work within, but - as with transcribing other songs - I need to trust my ear and try and stop theory taking over; because that tends to lead to writing in cliches.

To me, theory feels like being in a room with all the lights on. Having no theory is like having the lights off and having to feel your way around. But even with the theory "lights on", I often find it better to work with my eyes closed, to allow intuition to work. At least I'm free to have my eyes either closed or open!