EVH - can't read and knows zero theory... how many times you heard this nonsense.

[oldschoolshred]

Everyone who plays music knows theory. Some know more than others, and some just don't know that they know theroy.

 

 

I agree with this, and would add that EVH is so impressive more because of his technique (speed, tapping and general phrasing style), not his use of theory because it's mostly blues based and very simple. And ultimately he's loved because he was good, packed with emotion and flavor.

 

I think all the great musicians know as much theory as the NEED to know to create the music in their head. Some know more and don't apply it. But NO GREAT MUSICIAN lacks theory because if he/she felt lacking their passion would drive them to learn enough to accomplish the task of realizing their inspiration.

[benzem]

Yea, I know what you mean. I also have it - from probably the same authority as yours - that most of their really great stuff is actually well thought out despite all that magical mystical spontaneity they profess to have. In reality, they're all a bunch of four-eyed dweebs. And, don't let this get around, I heard they all took lessons from the same pe lvic thrusting coach for better stage presence, and wear cast-off stuff from bowery bums and charity donation centers. It's all facade.

 

 

Was this also the bulge tech?

[jonPhillips]

Can you play the intro to "Stairway to Heaven" correctly?

I lol

[Krank'N]

I lol

[TrickyBoy]

So.... I've been gone for a few months. Decided to venture back this way, and HOLY BOMBSHELLS BATMAN. I was literally late picking up my son from school because I got so into reading this thread.

Let me start by throwing Krank'N a bone... Knowledge can be stifling to creativity AT FIRST. Let me explain. There's really 3 levels of learning: Ignorance/Introduction, Practice, and Mastery. Think back to when you picked up the guitar. You'd just noodle aimlessly. You had every note on the fretboard to choose from. 95% of what you played was {censored}, but every once and a while, you'd play a really nice line totally spontaneously...

Then one day someone shows you the pentatonic scale. Now all of a sudden, instead of 11 notes to choose from, you only have 5. Sure all the notes fit, but it is also extremely stifling. While many of the notes not in the pentatonic scale were bad notes, some of them sounded real sweet, but now they are off limits, because the "rules" say, stick to this pattern...

But rather than quitting, you persevere. You learn to really understand the pentatonic scale in all it's beauty, and you learn places where you can break those rule and go "outside of the box". Now all of a sudden you've unlocked a new door that you NEVER EVEN KNEW EXISTED BEFORE and a whole new level of creativity ensues.

You see, man. That's the difference between "knowing the rule" and "internalizing the concept". Once you internalize it, once it becomes part of you and it opens up whole new levels of creativity that you didn't even know were possible. I know you and 3Shift have been going back and forth at it. Let me tell you, that dude is a {censored}ing monster on guitar. Absolutely brilliant. He sent me his CD and I damn near {censored} myself. But let me tell you something else, I played parts of it for my girlfriend (who is very musically astute, but not so much with jazz fusion), and after I told her how amazing it was, her response was "I think you could play pretty much everything he does". You know what, she's almost right (there's a few times where I got nothing, if you know what I'm saying ). But the problem is, I COULD NEVER COME UP WITH THOSE NOTES TO PLAY IN THE FIRST PLACE. His grasp of theory is so far vaster than mine, we're not even playing on the same field. He has tools at his disposal that I just don't have. Pure and simple.

Stephen Hawking is an amazingly smart dude who came up with huge advancements in the field of Physics. But as smart as he is (like a 190 IQ I believe), being smart isn't enough for him to come up with what he did. He had to first learn and understand the work of his predecessors before him. Einstein professed to be a bad student, which may be true. But he had an astute knowledge of the work of physicists before him. The theory of relativity didn't spring out of his ass...

What I'm saying is knowledge unlocks doors, which in turn unlocks creativity. All this talk of shame... Who really cares. There's a million things I am completely ignorant in and for the most part, I have absolutely no shame about it. And I DEFINITELY won't say that the most educated is the most creative. It doesn't work like that. However, find me a naturally creative person, and add a theoretical foundation to his natural creativity, and then, my friend you have a monster...

Be Well. And it's good to be back.
Cheers.

[jeremy_green]

 

Knowledge can be stifling to creativity AT FIRST. Let me explain. There's really 3 levels of learning: Ignorance/Introduction, Practice, and Mastery. Think back to when you picked up the guitar. You'd just noodle aimlessly. You had every note on the fretboard to choose from. 95% of what you played was {censored}, but every once and a while, you'd play a really nice line totally spontaneously...

 

 

Tricky! Nice to have you back brother... was wondering where you got to.

I have been waiting for someone around here to disagree with so it will be good to have you back. : )

 

My comment to your above statement is - while i see and agree in spirit with what you put forth... that was not my experience with it. I never felt I had every note on the fretboard BECAUSE most of them sounded like {censored}. My ear started naturally grouping them into ones I could use. Whether you are aware of this or not (I wasnt) I was beginning to form my own "theories" on what notes I could use. Me knowing what they are has zero impact on whether or not they actually work. They don't work because of the science of the way the waves intertwine. When i learned theory it just seemed like such a time saver! Rather than all this trial and error I could just get busy makin stuff.

 

Learning theory has been hugely beneficial to my creative process.

[Krank'N]

Welcome Back TB. You are on the right track.
"Now all of a sudden, instead of 11 notes to choose from, you only have 5. Sure all the notes fit, but it is also extremely stifling. While many of the notes not in the pentatonic scale were bad notes, some of them sounded real sweet, but now they are off limits, because the "rules" say, stick to this pattern..."
Take it one step further beyond 11 notes. What if it was an Arabic scale? What if it was nothing but glissando or atonal? We learn to filter out most of what the world offers us. Its how we deal with nearly infinite data. Natural creativity is full of chaos as well -so to communicate and retain info we structuralize what we can. But when you filter out too much chaos you lose creativity. For example take Hendrix's version of the Star spangled banner at woodstock. Very creative and beautiful in its own way -BUT Jimi rides the chaos like a surfer! Unfortunatly ,for many genius' the embracing of chaos can lead to insanity(or at least what society views as unstable ).

"Now all of a sudden you've unlocked a new door that you NEVER EVEN KNEW EXISTED BEFORE and a whole new level of creativity ensues."
True enuff but its of a different type. When you combine given structures to make something new it is creative but its a compartmentalized system. Its like a childs building blocks as compared to the energy of the sun . But for purposes of communication with other humans we need stuctures so building block creativity is common.
The problem I have with Hawking and most of his ilk is they they cant help but be wrong on some levels. They specualate on the universe or its characteristics with INCOMPLETE data. Its akin to being raised in a box and having no exposure to whats outside of the box or that there even is a box and then espousing theories about everything! Giving self-righteous geeks grants to build particle accelerators is like giving children shotguns. Oppenheimer admitted after they set off the first A-bomb that the scientists werent positive it wouldnt destroy the earth.
Creativity does need direction or its chaotic side will seep thru -just check whos driving the bus.

[TrickyBoy]

 

Tricky! Nice to have you back brother... was wondering where you got to. I have been waiting for someone around here to disagree with so it will be good to have you back. : ) My comment to your above statement is - while i see and agree in spirit with what you put forth... that was not my experience with it. I never felt I had every note on the fretboard BECAUSE most of them sounded like {censored}. My ear started naturally grouping them into ones I could use. Whether you are aware of this or not (I wasnt) I was beginning to form my own "theories" on what notes I could use. Me knowing what they are has zero impact on whether or not they actually work. They don't work because of the science of the way the waves intertwine. When i learned theory it just seemed like such a time saver! Rather than all this trial and error I could just get busy makin stuff. Learning theory has been hugely beneficial to my creative process.

 

 

I disagree with not a word you're saying. The rest of my post validates that. My point is that sometimes, to really learn a specific theoretical concept (in my example the pentatonic scale), it might involve taking a small, short-term step backwards in term of creativity until you really start to internalize the concept, at which point you can take a large step forward.

 

Believe me, you and I are on the same page here. Like I said at the end of my post, knowledge unlocks doors, which unlocks new creative channels. I'm just saying that there is often a small short-term sacrifice that needs to be taken to reap large long term rewards.

 

EDIT: BTW You like my new Avatar? That's me on the right in 1989! LOL

[TrickyBoy]

"Now all of a sudden you've unlocked a new door that you NEVER EVEN KNEW EXISTED BEFORE and a whole new level of creativity ensues." True enuff but its of a different type. When you combine given structures to make something new it is creative but its a compartmentalized system. Its like a childs building blocks as compared to the energy of the sun . But for purposes of communication with other humans we need stuctures so building block creativity is common.

 

 

I totally disagree, it's not a different type because I still know what I knew before plus I know so much more. It's a more complete type. While there is no "end game" when it comes to creativity, there is a constant moving forward. You use the example of building blocks and the energy of the sun. While there's no direct correlation between the two, the more we learn about both, the more we might be able to understand how they fit together.

 

 

The problem I have with Hawking and most of his ilk is they they cant help but be wrong on some levels. They specualate on the universe or its characteristics with INCOMPLETE data. Its akin to being raised in a box and having no exposure to whats outside of the box or that there even is a box and then espousing theories about everything! Giving self-righteous geeks grants to build particle accelerators is like giving children shotguns. Oppenheimer admitted after they set off the first A-bomb that the scientists werent positive it wouldnt destroy the earth. Creativity does need direction or its chaotic side will seep thru -just check whos driving the bus.

 

 

IDK, read two of Hawking's books and listened to tons of what he had to say, and his common thread is this. WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING. Hell his life's goal was to try to reconcile the differences between Relativity and Quantum Physics, something he was never able to do. Made a ton of advancements, but never figured it out. All we can try to do is understand better.

 

The point is, theory is a tool. Not an end game. The more you know, the more tools you have in your bag. Imagine two sculptors. One has only his fingers to mold the clay. The other has a bunch of different tools. Given that their innate creativity is equal, who will create the better sculpture?

[TrickyBoy]

Well hell, I had a few beers, the Saints are losing and now I'm arguing. On the bright side, I'm not in a bar fight

[jeremy_green]

Love the avatar... i could dig up similar... but lack your sense of bravado : )

[Krank'N]

I totally disagree, it's not a different type because I still know what I knew before plus I know so much more. It's a more complete type. While there is no "end game" when it comes to creativity, there is a constant moving forward. You use the example of building blocks and the energy of the sun. While there's no direct correlation between the two, the more we learn about both, the more we might be able to understand how they fit together. IDK, read two of Hawking's books and listened to tons of what he had to say, and his common thread is this. WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING. Hell his life's goal was to try to reconcile the differences between Relativity and Quantum Physics, something he was never able to do. Made a ton of advancements, but never figured it out. All we can try to do is understand better. The point is, theory is a tool. Not an end game. The more you know, the more tools you have in your bag. Imagine two sculptors. One has only his fingers to mold the clay. The other has a bunch of different tools. Given that their innate creativity is equal, who will create the better sculpture?

 

 

I suppose my refering to existential understanding and its subsequent creativity as the "the energy of the sun" was too obtuse. It defies formulation therefore its doesnt require previous "building blocks" . It took Hawking years to admit he was wrong about black holes(at least he admitted it).

I dont know if you play chess but most of the folks who use the term "end-game" dont use it correctly. The end-game is when players use technique to try and cash in on advantages accrued earlier in the game. There is no guarantee of a favorable result and often simplification may actually reduce winning chances. Its a question of the evaluation skills of the players and the technique required. Going into the endgame is simply a competitive tool that maybe adopted .

As for the sculpture question- Thats an aestethic issue and irrelevant to the subject.

[JonR]

...find me a naturally creative person, and add a theoretical foundation to his natural creativity, and then, my friend you have a monster...

That seems to assume that a "naturally ceative" person can't access sufficient theory "naturally". Nobody is creative in a vacuum. You learn to be creative with certain materials, by manipulating those materials. For a musician, the materials are sounds. If a person reveals themselves as what we'd identify as "naturally creative", then they will have already absorbed a good deal of the theory (the grammar of the sounds) just from listening, and trial and error. If they hadn't, then "naturally creative" would translate as "can't we get him to shut up making that awful noise?"

 

At the same time, theory - in the sense of the academic body of written knowledge - will help organise those sounds: tidy them up, perhaps, get rid of the rough edges. That could be a destructive process, but only if the player allows it to be: if they don't have enough confidence in their personal vision or imagination.

[JonR]

I suppose my refering to existential understanding and its subsequent creativity as the "the energy of the sun" was too obtuse. It defies formulation therefore its doesnt require previous "building blocks" .

What kind of artistic endeavour doesn't require previous building blocks?
Even the "energy of sun" is of course dependent on - the result of - certain physical laws. If the sun wasn't contained by gravity, it wouldn't emit that energy. (I know this is a tricky metaphor )
IOW there is a necessary tension between containment and expression. All artistic expression can only come about after the absorption of various rules. Yelling is not poetry.

Hendrix's Star-Spangled banner - which I think you mentioned - is an interesting example. It was seeminly a mix of "rule-based music" - the original melody - and chaotic destruction, or non-musical noises. Certainly those noises are not (easily) accessible to conventional music theory. But they were carefully controlled, according to Hendrix's understanding of what the guitar and amp could do. There was very little (if anything) random about it. It wasn't "wild" in the sense of a totally instinctive outburst.
Naturally, if he'd been the kind of musician that believed everything one did had to fall within the bounds of what was written in theory books, or notated scores, then it wouldn't have happened. (He would never even have become a rock musician in the first place.)

Again it comes down to what we mean by "theory" and how we learn it. I think there's a middle ground here. Artistic creation is a mix of conscious and unconscious. The unconscious is actually where the theoretical rules lie, IMO - they have been internalized there through years of practice. It's the conscious aspect that is more open to chance, to (apparently) spontaneous inspiration.
If we use a metaphor of a horse and rider, one might assume that the horse represents the unconscious (the natural animal nature) while the rider represents conscious, rule-based control. But I think it's the other way round. The control - the parameters within which one creates - comes from one's educated intuition, subconscious rule-based processes. That is what holds the reins on one's conscious imagination. In the same as when we speak, we use conscious free imagination, but it's checked by intuitive rules of grammar (internalized through learning) - as well as by external limits like topic of conversation, social context, etc.

It's true that there are theoretical rules which are by their nature inhibitive, and others which permit (even encourage) creativity. Eg, in jazz there is chord-scale theory, which is inhibitive: "you should use this scale for this chord". Against that there is the rule "let the melody be your guide". In one sense, that transfers the restrictive action to the melody that one needs to pay attention to, but there is no rule about how you may embellish the melody; it's open ended - there are almost infinite things you could do. IOW, instead of putting you on a train, to run on tracks from A to B, it's giving you a map and saying "you need to get from A to B, but pick your own route".

In another sense, it's like there is descriptive theory on the one hand - which is not designed to be prescriptive, but can easily end up that way - and pieces of advice on the other. These pieces of advice - traditionally handed down by older musicians - are short, often cryptic, but open-ended. They might tell you what to do (or suggest what you might do), but not how to do it. You have to work that out; that's part of the creative process.
Where problems arise is when people analyze music, discover formulae that it seems to be following, and compile those detailed formulae into bodies of theoretical information. The implication is "this is good music - most people seem to think so - so if you want to make good music, you better follow these steps". That's perfectly fine if what you want to do is preserve some fixed historic genre, and keep performing it beyond its death (whether that's classical music, delta blues, bebop jazz, punk rock, whatever). To make it sound like the right genre, obviously you have to follow those stylistic rules. (Some of them may allow - or demand - a degree of improvisation, but that's still bound by tight sets of rules pertinent to the genre.) Jazz, at least, is still evolving - rock mostly stopped around 30 or more years ago. You know a music is still alive when its practitioners don't see themselves as purveying a genre, but just see themselves as "musicians" playing "music". At least that's the case in jazz, where contemporary players feel free to take stuff from anywhere (including old forms of jazz) - the only "rule" is that you improvise on it in some way.
(Sorry I'm going OT now....)

[jonfinn]

 

Imagine two sculptors. One has only his fingers to mold the clay. The other has a bunch of different tools. Given that their innate creativity is equal, who will create the better sculpture?

 

 

The one with the most concise vision of their work and the ability to maximize resources will create the better sculpture, I think.

 

My point is that you can overthink this stuff. I remember a conversation I once had with John Petrucci. At the time, I was experiencing a fair amount of "writer's block." Conversation went like this:

 

Jon: "John, do you ever have trouble coming up with new ideas?"

JP: (pauses and thinks) "No."

 

I realized he wasn't bull{censored}ting me. What I know of him is that he has a relentless work-ethic. But that answer helped me understand that he doesn't allow the "no ideas" premise to enter his head. It's a mind-set.

 

You can go to your therapist and complain that you're not getting to the beach enough, to work on your feelings around the issue. Or, you can just go to the beach. Catch my drift?

[mosiddiqi]

I like playing guitar.

[jonPhillips]

I like playing guitar.

 

Once again, Mo nails it

[Krank'N]

"Kierkegaard advocated rationality as means to interact with the objective world (e.g. in the natural sciences), but when it comes to existential problems, reason is insufficient: "Human reason has boundaries". Knowledge can be a fortress that protects you from the world or protects the world from you. I like the marketing slogan that ascribes to getting in the zone. "NIKE-JUST DO IT"

[polishpaul]

Be on your guard, folks......I've had a tip-off that the Metaphor Police are on to this thread .....

 

 

Great discussion!

 

I study theory because it's there, and I find it interesting. Now I can go to a note on the fretboard and think "that's the third of the A major". Before my studies, I went to a note and thought "that's the note which sounds like this". So now I have to remember to pay attention to the sounds, not just the letters.

[JonR]

"Kierkegaard advocated rationality as means to interact with the objective world (e.g. in the natural sciences), but when it comes to existential problems, reason is insufficient: "Human reason has boundaries". Knowledge can be a fortress that protects you from the world or protects the world from you. I like the marketing slogan that ascribes to getting in the zone. "NIKE-JUST DO IT"

Try telling that to a guitar beginner. It's like advising improv students to "just play what you feel". HOW, dammit! (I know what I feel, what I want to say - but that doesn't automatically translate to my fingers!)

You need technique, to start with. And you need some kind of theoretical framework, even if you don't think of it like that. You need to understand the shape of what you're aiming at. Not entirely, necessarily - a vague outline will do. Like sculptors say that the figure is already there in the marble: they just chip away the bits that are not it. Likewise, musicians (experienced ones) often say the music is in the air, you just have to tune in to it. It isn't, it just feels like that because they've internalised all the rules.

Without structure, you have chaos. Art is never chaotic. Even Jackson Pollock's paintings are never chaotic. One needn't be afraid of chaos (use knowledge as a fortress against it), but as an artist you have to make form out of it.

And an art like music (unlike painting perhaps) has lots of formal elements that we work within. The 12-tone octave, for a start. Certain chord forms (mostly tertian or quartal). Pulse and rhythm. I agree - if this is what you're saying - that we can learn most, if not all, of that by ear, without studying theory formally. But theory is only a way of describing those forms, not prescribing them.

You can't get "in the zone" without a lot of prior study and training. It doesn't have to be formal (academic), it can be self-taught, but you're implying you need no knowledge at all.

[JonR]

Be on your guard, folks......I've had a tip-off that the Metaphor Police are on to this thread .....

Then I shall run like the wind to escape them...

"No officer, that's a simile, not a metaphor!"
"OK, son, but be careful. We're watching you like a hawk. Er, I mean..."

[stomias]

Can you learn fluent voice leading without theory? Can you unravel twelve tone rows? Can you analyze and learn

[TrickyBoy]

 

The one with the most concise vision of their work and the ability to maximize resources will create the better sculpture, I think. My point is that you can overthink this stuff. I remember a conversation I once had with John Petrucci. At the time, I was experiencing a fair amount of "writer's block." Conversation went like this: Jon: "John, do you ever have trouble coming up with new ideas?" JP: (pauses and thinks) "No." I realized he wasn't bull{censored}ting me. What I know of him is that he has a relentless work-ethic. But that answer helped me understand that he doesn't allow the "no ideas" premise to enter his head. It's a mind-set. You can go to your therapist and complain that you're not getting to the beach enough, to work on your feelings around the issue. Or, you can just go to the beach. Catch my drift?

 

 

I absolutely agree. My point was given everything else is equal, wouldn't having more tools (and the knowledge of how to use those tools) only help....

[TrickyBoy]

No they don't. Only if you believe they are "rules". What's more true (and I think is almost what you're saying) is that the pentatonic is a structure that works. It gives you good notes without you having to think, or having to know what you're doing.

 

 

I'll disagree slightly. They are rules AT FIRST. Once them become internalized, they no longer are. See what I'm saying...

 

 

So I fully accept that increased theoretical knowledge can partner increased technical skill, run alongside it. But I don't believe it actively improves it. You can learn tons of theory, and not improve as a player. You can develop good skills as a player, and ignore theory. (At least you can not bother with reading up on it. If you're a good player, you have internalised all the necessary theory anyway - the grammar of the language; the academic jargon is not necessay.) The key is the EAR, all the time. I agree theory can sometimes suggest ideas you might not have thought of, new paths you could take. But it won't "take" until you've played it all into your ear and brain.

 

 

Absolutely, theoretical knowledge is nothing without the technical skill to turn theory into practice. I don't think I even intimated that a little.

 

 

And the "creativity" it unlocks is within narrow parameters.

 

 

Here's where you and I still and will continue to disagree. It unlocks it within narrow parameters at first. Then once you've internalized the concept, learned how to apply it in conjunction with other concepts that you've also internalized, opens up the parameters in which you can create.

 

 

 

To express yourself, you need the language - that's the bottom line. Otherwise we're just howling or grunting. But as with verbal language, you learn by listening and copying. As long as you listen and copy properly, you don't make too many mistakes.

 

 

All I can say to this is c'mon down to Louisiana, where it's quite obvious that many people never took the time to really learn the rules (ie theory) of the English language. Yes they can communicate to a point, but their ability to clearly articulate ideas and thoughts in a way that other people can understand well is, to put it mildly, a bit lacking :poke:

[stomias]

"To express yourself, you need the language - that's the bottom line. Otherwise we're just howling or grunting. But as with verbal language, you learn by listening and copying. As long as you listen and copy properly, you don't make too many mistakes."

 

Depends on who you're listening to...............

 

 

"All I can say to this is c'mon down to Louisiana, where it's quite obvious that many people never took the time to really learn the rules (ie theory) of the English language. Yes they can communicate to a point, but their ability to clearly articulate ideas and thoughts in a way that other people can understand well is, to put it mildly, a bit lacking"

 

: ))