Members electrotar Posted January 31, 2012 Author Members Share Posted January 31, 2012 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. ha that sums me up actually Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JonR Posted January 31, 2012 Members Share Posted January 31, 2012 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 spanishSo 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 lolRight - good analogy. Music theory is very like the grammar of a language. You could learn Spanish pretty well by just going to Spain and trying to pick it up by ear. It would be hard work, take a long time, you would make a lot of embarrassing mistakes along the way - but you would do it eventually. And you would end up with a very good accent! But you would probably have no idea how many of the words were spelled (unless you happened to see them written of course), and you would probably not understand how certain words connected, or whether they had any silent letters, or why they had certain endings sometimes but not others (you'd have to get all that right by trial and error). Or, you could get a book on Spanish vocabulary and grammar, and learn how to spell the words, how they connected grammatically, how to make sensible sentences. This would be a much quicker (and more reliable) process than doing it all by ear. You could even do it without going to Spain! Of course, you might not have a very good accent, unless you ALSO did a lot of listening to real Spanish, and talking to Spanish people. IOW, even with theoretical knowledge, the listening is still a crucial part of it. One without the other is unsatisfactory. An actual Spaniard knows his language intimately of course, and the grammar is all subconscious.Same with a "real" musician - he knows the "grammar" so well he doesn't have to think about it. That also applies to those untrained musicians who "went to live in musicland" and picked it all up by ear: they absorbed the theory as a natural part of how the music sounds. They wouldn't get the notes in the wrong order simply because they never heard them in the wrong order.But of course, you need a very good ear (and/or a long time) to pick up music that well, so it becomes like a native tongue. Learning about theory from books (or wherever) has to help make the process quicker and more reliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members girevik Posted January 31, 2012 Members Share Posted January 31, 2012 I'm actually studying French now. I go to a weekly French conversation meeting to practice talking in French. But I also work on grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation. My goal is to test into Level B1 (Intermediate 1) when I attend the summer French course in Switzerland. The last time I went, I got placed into Level A2 (Beginner 2) based on my entrance exam results. It would be a waste of my time and money if I tested into A2 again, so I'm really motivated to improve. I am going because I will have family in France... I just ordered a book of progressive grammar exercises after finding out that university uses that book - this book is all in French. I met a guy in one of these French conversation meetings whose plan was to learn entirely by just going to conversation meetings and using a dictionary - no training in class. I have yet to see him again. I'd like to, though, just to see how he has progressed in his French. His French was just as bad as mine - American accent, halting French, struggling for vocabulary, etc. I actually got a compliment last night from one of the native French speakers at the meeting on my improvement in French. Anyway, the point is learning theory behind what you want to study (music, foreign language, etc.) is a way to cut down on wasted time, and progress faster. Less time wasted struggling, fighting your instrument, feeling like your brain is in a fog, and wondering if your ears really work or not (this all happened to me before I started putting some serious effort into learning theory, instead of just messing around). More time having fun playing music! What's not to like about that deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Jed Posted February 1, 2012 Moderators Share Posted February 1, 2012 Anyway, the point is learning theory behind what you want to study (music, foreign language, etc.) is a way to cut down on wasted time, and progress faster.Less time wasted struggling, fighting your instrument, feeling like your brain is in a fog, and wondering if your ears really work or not (this all happened to me before I started putting some serious effort into learning theory, instead of just messing around). More time having fun playing music! What's not to like about that deal? to add to the analogy . . . . Learning Spanish strikes me much like learning to play rock - a little bit of theory goes a long way. Nearly all letters are pronounced (as spelled) in Spanish, so it's a pretty easy language to learn. Learning by ear with just a little bit of theory pulls everything together nicely. Learning French is more like learning to play jazz - the theory is nearly required to make significant headway. Most words are written one way and pronounced another. So learning by ear only gives you part of the picture. In both cases the theory without the ear learning makes little sense and doesn't yield useable results. Music theory by itself is pretty ease at the beginning - easy enough for anyone who wants to understand. But to be able to use that theory requires lot's of listening so that you hear the theory in action and recognize it as you hear the music. Jazz study requires copious amounts of ears and theory - but what a rush when it starts to come together. cheers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jasco Posted February 1, 2012 Members Share Posted February 1, 2012 I'm going to modify that some more:Non-Theory Player: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. I really disagree here. The two most prolific songwriters I know know almost no theory. They also have really good ears and don't have much problem jamming with others, although one of them has kind of fumbly fingers. I'm not in anyway saying theory inhibits song composition, but rather that it's not needed to compose tunes. Usually composition has less to do with musical 'knowledge' and more to do with 'storytelling' ability. And I'm not talking lyrics here, but telling a story with your music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members c+t in b Posted February 1, 2012 Members Share Posted February 1, 2012 who are these prolific songwriters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members electrotar Posted February 1, 2012 Author Members Share Posted February 1, 2012 noel gallagher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JonR Posted February 1, 2012 Members Share Posted February 1, 2012 I'm not in anyway saying theory inhibits song composition, but rather that it's not needed to compose tunes. Agreed, absolutely. That's why I made the point in my "theory player" about trusting your ear.Personally, when I compose I try to forget the theory I know, at least when developing an initial melodic inspiration. Really, there's a false distinction here (which I fell into) between theory learned from books or college courses, and theory learned by ear, through listening and practice. For playing, improvisation and composition, either kind will do; and with popular music one can argue that the latter is better. But the former (at least its conventional jargon) is more use when communicating with other musicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jonfinn Posted February 1, 2012 Members Share Posted February 1, 2012 ok so a good non theory player vs a theory player would be likenon 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) Ummm.... no. A good player who doesn't know theory plays by ear. A good player who knows theory plays by ear. The only difference is that the theory player has a language that allows them to describe what they've done to others who know the same language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JonR Posted February 1, 2012 Members Share Posted February 1, 2012 Ummm.... no. A good player who doesn't know theory plays by ear.A good player who knows theory plays by ear.The only difference is that the theory player has a language that allows them to describe what they've done to others who know the same language.Well put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jasco Posted February 1, 2012 Members Share Posted February 1, 2012 who are these prolific songwriters? Two people I've worked with locally in Colorado. They both can write songs without much apparent effort. One of them sends me 3-6 songs per week via mp3s (piano/voice), most of which are pretty good. You can hear some of her songs at www.thesymbols.net The main problem in that band we have far more songs than we can learn or record. Good problem to have, LOL. I was in a band with the other one for about six months and was amazed at his output. Unfortunately we didn't get along personality-wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jasco Posted February 1, 2012 Members Share Posted February 1, 2012 OK, that's a reasonable objection. Similar arguments commonly get made about famous songwriters, the Beatles being the classic case. But they - like the two you know - knew plenty of theory, by studying songs by ear.But it does require a good ear and a lot of listening. And even then, theoretical knowledge will help, provided it's seen as a set of additional options or possibilities, and not as a set of rules one has to follow.For the average novice musician, a certain amount of theory is a huge help. Doesn't need to be much, it just has to be relevant.Agreed, absolutely. That's why I made the point in my "theory player" about trusting your ear.Personally, when I compose I try to forget the theory I know, at least when developing an initial melodic inspiration.Really, there's a false distinction here (which I fell into) between theory learned from books or college courses, and theory learned by ear, through listening and practice. For playing, improvisation and composition, either kind will do; and with popular music one can argue that the latter is better. But the former (at least its conventional jargon) is more use when communicating with other musicians. Agreed with your points. One thing the two songwriters I know have in common is a difficulty making or communicating arrangements for a band of their vocal/piano or vocal/guitar tunes. That's where I can help them out, it seems. I can come up with a lot of options and ideas, possibly because of theory knowledge, for arrangements. And I can communicate those ideas to other band members more easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Virgman Posted February 1, 2012 Members Share Posted February 1, 2012 who are these prolific songwriters? Paul McCartney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members girevik Posted February 1, 2012 Members Share Posted February 1, 2012 Ummm.... no. A good player who doesn't know theory plays by ear. A good player who knows theory plays by ear. The only difference is that the theory player has a language that allows them to describe what they've done to others who know the same language. Mr. Finn keepin' it real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GreenAsJade Posted February 2, 2012 Members Share Posted February 2, 2012 It sounds real, but I'm not sure if it's entirely true (what truism is? ) Surely a player with theory has a tool to predict what notes might sound what way, coming next, that a play by ear player does not? I hear players with theory talking this way... theory is not only a language to describe where you've been, it's a roadmap to places that might be interesting to go, and a directory to say what might be interesting about them. A play by ear person doesz not have this map or directory... GaJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jeremy_green Posted February 2, 2012 Members Share Posted February 2, 2012 I've said it before I will say it again, theory has been immensely helpful in teaching my ears what COULD work. I now regularly use sounds that I would describe as non indigenous to my ears. I learned to like these sounds by theoretical concept and would likely have never come across them by my ears alone. Ive also learned another thing: Mr Finn is VERY seldom wrong : ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jonfinn Posted February 2, 2012 Members Share Posted February 2, 2012 It sounds real, but I'm not sure if it's entirely true (what truism is? ) Surely a player with theory has a tool to predict what notes might sound what way, coming next, that a play by ear player does not? I hear players with theory talking this way... theory is not only a language to describe where you've been, it's a roadmap to places that might be interesting to go, and a directory to say what might be interesting about them. A play by ear person doesz not have this map or directory... GaJ For me, the reason why this debate goes on and on: -Once you know about theory, it's hard to imagine NOT knowing it.-If you don't know it, it's hard to imagine knowing it. Can you remember what it was like to not be able to read? Most people live approx 5-6 years before developing that skill.Only speaking for myself, I find that turning off the theory part and playing from intuition seems to work best. My goal as a player is to be fully in the moment. When improvising, play EXACTLY what I hear in my head without any technical or theoretical obstacles. To play in a manner that's honest and real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jonfinn Posted February 2, 2012 Members Share Posted February 2, 2012 Ive also learned another thing: Mr Finn is VERY seldom wrong : ) Hahahahahaha!!!! I'm wrong a lot! Just ask my wife! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members girevik Posted February 2, 2012 Members Share Posted February 2, 2012 I hear players with theory talking this way... theory is not only a language to describe where you've been, it's a roadmap to places that might be interesting to go, and a directory to say what might be interesting about them. A play by ear person doesz not have this map or directory... Interesting analogy, thinking of music theory as a road map that shows you possible directions that you may take. Sounds good to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jeremy_green Posted February 2, 2012 Members Share Posted February 2, 2012 Hahahahahaha!!!! I'm wrong a lot! Just ask my wife! Not about REAL {censored}! About guitar man!We are all drooling dolts in the eyes of our wives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JonR Posted February 2, 2012 Members Share Posted February 2, 2012 Hahahahahaha!!!! I'm wrong a lot! Just ask my wife!Yeah, I did, last time I saw her. You are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JonR Posted February 2, 2012 Members Share Posted February 2, 2012 We are all drooling dolts in the eyes of our wivesI dunno, your wife thinks I'm OK... hehe, couldn't resist it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JonR Posted February 2, 2012 Members Share Posted February 2, 2012 It sounds real, but I'm not sure if it's entirely true (what truism is? ) Surely a player with theory has a tool to predict what notes might sound what way, coming next, that a play by ear player does not? I hear players with theory talking this way... theory is not only a language to describe where you've been, it's a roadmap to places that might be interesting to go, and a directory to say what might be interesting about them. A play by ear person doesz not have this map or directory... GaJ Yes, the map is a good analogy. But one can just as easily argue in favour of finding your own way around. The problem with a map is that it can persuade you there's only one way of getting from A to B (or from A to Bb, haha...). The important thing is to use the map (theory) as a back-up only: for when your ears fail. Being able to predict what note might come next is very close to being prejudiced about what ought to come next. I know that when I've been transcribing songs, I often hear something that sounds familiar at first, and so I assume (from my theory knowledge) that it's the common thing I'm expecting; but then I listen closer and find it isn't. Of course, that isn't a problem with theory itself, but with taking it too seriously. The map should be something you keep in your back pocket for emergencies. Not something you walk around with your head buried in (wondering why the scenery doesn't quite match what the map says should be there). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jeremy_green Posted February 2, 2012 Members Share Posted February 2, 2012 I dunno, your wife thinks I'm OK... hehe, couldn't resist it Well, when you put stuff on a tee, ya cant exactly be mad at the bloke who nails it now can ya! Well played Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GreenAsJade Posted February 3, 2012 Members Share Posted February 3, 2012 I think you guys are doing good things with the map analogy. It's an excellent analogy, I think. 5 different players (explorers) with a map in their hands will do 5 different things with it. One will look it over, to see what is in the landscape ahead, then pocket it and walk off exploring to find the mountain they saw marked on the map. Another will get captivated with trying to figure out how the map matches where he is standing right now. Another will carefully plot a route and refer to the map continuously as they travel. Another will chuck the map in their pocket and know that it's there fore emergencies. The last will tear it up and say "maps, who needs them". GaJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.