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

[Santuzzo]

There is a great quote of Mick Goodrick in his book 'the Advancing Guitarist' where he says (something along the lines, I don't remember the quote 100% verbatim):

 

 

"students often ask me: 'should I do A or should I do B?' - I usually answer : 'why not do both?!' "

 

[genesis3]

Here's what I've always wondered....is the process of learning theory qualitative or quantitative? What measuring sticks, if any, do you use to conclude you either know it or you don't? In other words, how do you know when you've hit the day to say 'I now know theory' ? Also, on a scale of 1 to 100, what percentage of 'knowing theory' involves sheer rote memorization? (my personal killer lol). I've made many attempts at it, so have an..lets say, awareness of theory, but it is not practical enough to ever apply it on the fly.....

[Krank'N]

Here's what I've always wondered....is the process of learning theory qualitative or quantitative? What measuring sticks, if any, do you use to conclude you either know it or you don't? In other words, how do you know when you've hit the day to say 'I now know theory' ? Also, on a scale of 1 to 100, what percentage of 'knowing theory' involves sheer rote memorization? (my personal killer lol). I've made many attempts at it, so have an..lets say, awareness of theory, but it is not practical enough to ever apply it on the fly.....

 

 

I used to play chess competitivly and it has exponentially more "theory" than music. There is published theory and local theory and individual theory. They combine to create the players arsenal. The player cant know it all so one must focus on that which is applicable for the given circumstances. This goes for music theory/practice as well(and to other performance mediums). It cant hurt to absorb new stuff as long as you have a useful purpose for it (or you become a theory hoarder). Take the new idea and apply it to what you already know then use it or discard it or create a variation on it. If you cant use it then it sits like a rusty screwdriver in the corner of your garage!

[c+t in b]

 

Here's what I've always wondered....is the process of learning theory qualitative or quantitative? What measuring sticks, if any, do you use to conclude you either know it or you don't? In other words, how do you know when you've hit the day to say 'I now know theory' ? Also, on a scale of 1 to 100, what percentage of 'knowing theory' involves sheer rote memorization? (my personal killer lol). I've made many attempts at it, so have an..lets say, awareness of theory, but it is not practical enough to ever apply it on the fly.....

 

 

you will never know everything.

 

your measuring stick is when you can apply what you've learned and feel confident that you are using the material in a new way. Usually when you hit a brick after that instance, it forces you to get back to the books

[JonR]

 

Here's what I've always wondered....is the process of learning theory qualitative or quantitative? What measuring sticks, if any, do you use to conclude you either know it or you don't? In other words, how do you know when you've hit the day to say 'I now know theory' ? Also, on a scale of 1 to 100, what percentage of 'knowing theory' involves sheer rote memorization? (my personal killer lol). I've made many attempts at it, so have an..lets say, awareness of theory, but it is not practical enough to ever apply it on the fly.....

You never know everything. It's a question of knowing enough - and that means enough for you personally to make sense of music in as much depth as you feel you need to.

I've taught myself theory, piecemeal, over the whole time I've played guitar - currently 46 years and counting - and I knew a little even before that. The more you learn, the more you realise there is to learn. Like climbing a mountain: you keep seeing higher mountains come into view; at the same time, your view below becomes clearer and broader.

I did it out of curiosity, but I always found I'd get to a point where the concepts clearly didn't apply to the music I enjoyed and wanted to play. So I left it there, and retraced my steps somewhat, to where the theory clearly matched the music I knew, and helped explain it. A few years later, one of those "concepts beyond" might "click", because I'd encountered a piece of music where it made sense: I could now see how it applied.

 

IOW, it doesn't matter how much you know quantitatively. There's no benefit in the knowledge for its own sake - other than to slake your curiosity or to pass an exam. For it to be useful to you in practice (in performance) it has to relate to the music you know, in a way that makes the music easier to comprehend. I guess that's what you mean by "qualititative".

 

IOW, you "know" theory well enough when you can describe everything you play using conventional terminology. You don't have to be aware of the terminology or concepts as you play - it's usually better when you aren't. I almost never "apply theory on the fly", at least not when improvising, in the sense of thinking of a concept first. I might sometimes use theory when composing, but only as a fix if my ear gets stuck. All the theory I need (from moment to moment as I play) is in my subconscious - and is probably in yours too.

 

The analogy I like is the map. In your local area you probably don't need a map, unless you want a clear overview of where you are and how that spot relates to other nearby places you know. You can get around fine without a map; although it might be good to know a few extra shortcuts - to feel like you thoroughly know your area a little better than the next person.

For exploring further, a map becomes more useful of course, but you still only need one when you actually go beyond your locality (play a new and strange piece of music). Otherwise, it's of academic interest only. Those strange place names and foreign topography are of no concern unless you find yourself in that place, and your sense of direction fails.

[genesis3]

You never know everything. IOW, you "know" theory well enough when you can describe everything you play using conventional terminology. The analogy I like is the map.

 

 

 

ok those all makes sense, I'm tempted to question though, isn't music theory just a definable set of rules that have been adopted over time by Western music? So if the rules are finite, that implies you can learn them all, the application of the rules I can see being infinite...anway, thanks for the good explanations!

[JonR]

ok those all makes sense, I'm tempted to question though, isn't music theory just a definable set of rules that have been adopted over time by Western music? So if the rules are finite, that implies you can learn them all, the application of the rules I can see being infinite...anway, thanks for the good explanations!

It's "common practices" rather than rules as such. The era of classical music that began with baroque is often know as the "Common Practice Period" - which just means that European musicians kind of settled on standard ways of doing things, that became the norm through the Classical and Romantic eras (beginning to break down towards the end of that era). That's where all our music theory originates.

 

But music evolves over time, and other "practices" may steadily become more "common". The "common practices" of rock share some of those of classical, but have a lot of their own too.

You can think of them as "rules" if you want to play music of a certain genre or period correctly, with the right style and sound - whether that's baroque, dixieland jazz, rockabilly, bebop, ska, etc. These (and many others) are all discrete historical vintage styles that are now dead - in the sense that they arose at some point and then died out naturally, giving way to something else. But we can still play them today, provided we follow all the rules: the appropriate "common practices" of that style and period. We can easily recreate those vintage sounds, because those rules are "finite".

 

In any contemporary form of music, ie one that is still alive and evolving, it's more difficult lay down hard and fast rules, or even to be sure exactly what all the "common practices" are. Artists are inventing it as they go, copying their heroes some of the time, adding their own input at others.

This was the case with "rock" in the late 1960s. Nobody really knew what it was - they only knew what it wasn't (it wasn't pop, or blues, or jazz, or folk; it wasn't even "rock'n'roll").

But now it's been in existence long enough for its common practices to be recognisable and well-known: we know exactly what "Rock" is, we can spot it a mile off (we can often HEAR it a mile off ). But because it's still evolving, many of its "rules" are considered "natural" - people who play rock rarely need to ask what they should be doing. It's like being fish in water: fish neither know nor care what water is.

(Its actually possible to argue that rock is, in fact, dead, it's just that guitar bands are keeping the corpse alive, in the same way many jazz musicians like to keep bebop alive. Certainly, very little that's new has arisen in rock in the last decade or so. The rules are, in that sense, pretty well "finite".)

 

But the other observation to make about "learning all the rules" is: yes, you can do that, but by the time you've done it, the genre is either dead, or has moved on and invented new rules. (Of course, with dead genres, you're pretty safe: it might take you many years to learn classical theory to a reasonably comprehensive extent - I'm still not sure "totally" is possible - but you can guarantee it's not going to change before you've finished.)

 

In the main, remember that the "rules" are always retrospective. They are descriptive and passive, rather than prescriptive and active. They're about what musicians did, at some point in the past; not necessarily about what musicians are doing now, and not about what any musician should do. (Unless of course they want to copy the past accurately - and many do.)

[Jed]

So if the rules are finite, that implies you can learn them all, the application of the rules I can see being infinite...

 

It is indeed possible to learn the basics well enough to learn them all but then there's the problem of learning what those basics mean in every key. Later of course, you'll spend the rest of your life exploring the permutations. I think the best approach it to have short, medium and long term goals that compliment each other. For example, we generally study one key at a time in order to learn that key (short-term goal) for a particular song. Understanding how that one song works will give us tools to use in other songs with similar harmonic structures (medium-term goal). As our understanding of theory grows and our repertoire expands we start to develop a more key-agnostic view of theory (long-term goal).

 

Like any journey, it starts with the first steps. No matter how small those steps or how few. Each following step move us closer and closer to our long-term goals.

 

cheers,

[3shiftgtr]

 

ok those all makes sense, I'm tempted to question though, isn't music theory just a definable set of rules that have been adopted over time by Western music? So if the rules are finite, that implies you can learn them all, the application of the rules I can see being infinite...anway, thanks for the good explanations!

 

 

Music theory is not a set of rules, it is an organizational construct.

 

Think of theory the same way a scientist thinks of the periodic table of the elements. The periodic table IDENTIFIES, ORGANIZES AND LABELS that which is recognized as an element. Music theory IDENTIFIES, ORGANIZES AND LABELS that which is recognized as musical sound. Theory IDENTIFIES, ORGANIZES AND LABELS musical sound based it's natural characteristics. It is therefore, an organizational construct.

 

You can do with it what you want. There are no rules. None. Just like a chemist can combine the elements with anything they want to in any way they want to for any reason. And so we can combine notes in any way we want to with anything we want to for any reason.

 

Music theory is not a set of rules.

[polishpaul]

Many of the old books on the subject were entitled "The Rudiments of Music", and not "The Rules of Music"....

 

One definition on the web:

 

Rudiments - a statement of fundamental facts or principles.

 

 

Nothing to do with lingerie !

[Krank'N]

The term "maxim" would probably be better suited than "rules". There are general rules and they can be broken. One can combine the elements however you wish but the results may not be appealling to anyone. Like putting hamster droppings on a pizza! There are conventions that have grown and become "styles" and they have their own specific generalizations. The artist can create freely but to ignore the potential "users" of the work is to risk starvation.

[luckj]

It is important but most books or tutorials are way to complicated and time consuming for us mere mortals. Check this out and you'll find an amazingly fast way to "get it". http://aceguitarmethod.com/

Send me an email and I'll see that you get my book free.

[GreenAsJade]

Hi LJ,

 

I don't think we've seen you round here before. Probably if you or I go looking, we could find a post about the expectations of this forum. One of them is that you kind of get to know us, and we you, before you start pushing your wares. Otherwise it looks like spam.

 

I've sent you an PM, since you haven't provided an email address, and look forwards to getting your book.

 

I hope it contains method, and not advertising, in contrast to your web site. I'll be sure to post a review on The Guitar Lesson Guide once I have the book.

 

GaJ

[brwnhornet59]

 

ok those all makes sense, I'm tempted to question though, isn't music theory just a definable set of rules that have been adopted over time by Western music? So if the rules are finite, that implies you can learn them all, the application of the rules I can see being infinite...anway, thanks for the good explanations!

 

 

Theory, as in Science or any organized Art, are the assumptions that if the given train of thought is correct, then the rules are treated as if it were fact. Then a particular set of hypothetical rules apply to, and govern the theories foundation. Most theory incorporates sets of Music facts and then extends them out to the logical outcomes dictated by that theories set of rules. As always there arise issues of contention and contradiction in certain areas as the rules get applied further down the rabbit hole. But if most of it's presumptions produce tried and true results under most circumstances it becomes excepted into the mainstream of usage.

 

As there are always more than one way to explain a given result, multiple theories can lead to many of the same results, yet they can also train wreck and give the practitioner a confused and frustrating result, that if they are not open mined enough to be aware of the different trains of thought at work, they think that theory is nonsense, conflicting and tend to abandon it.

 

I am a stickler about knowing as many possible approach's as I can apply, so that when this happens, I can find the conflict and make a decision as to the best outcome for my desired results. Always let you ear tell you what is right. The flip side of that is to train your ear extensively, so you understand what you are hearing, therefore can choose the best option. I personally, rarely find conflict with the differing rules. I have a preconceived notion of what I expect with my ideas, yet love finding new voices to imply them. The better my ear is trained and the deeper I look into application, the less confusing the results, and conflict goes by the way side.

 

For me music is not two dimensional, it is three dimensional at the very least, like a hologram. You could argue it is four dimensional if you add the flow of time into the mix...but I digress. Knowledge Is Power. Being able to apply that knowledge is what we all strive for, and is the keys to the kingdom. So in other words...embrace them all, close your mind to nothing, open your ears to everything, and keep pushing the boundaries. IMHO

[jimwratt]

Because I started off in an art school environment, there was a lot of pressure to learn technique and theory with emphasis on rote learning. I learned a bunch of stuff and could play most of everything, but I always lacked in the ears department. I guess they thought it would just happen on its own. They did "ear training" but it was more like demanding that you know the sounds of certain devices (chords and scales). It didnt really TRAIN your ears. I really wish that I would have shut more of that out and learned more by ear. It doesn't make sense to have two disconnected skills that should support one another.