Rant: On Theory (verbose!)

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by Ronaldo That type of artist rarely attracts large interest, maybe a 'musician's musician' (or a 'writer's writer') but this just means they are lackluster to the general public, or generally just not that great. Yep, even with all those 'chops'.

 

 

"Large interest"

 

"general public"

 

 

Says it all...the ONLY things you can comprehend are that which you 'like', and that which the masses 'like'.

 

 

Since you like to toss around this concept of popularity equalling talent, how many cd's have you sold? How many sold out world tours have you had? Where are your videos?

 

Obviously, your 'success' has been pretty pitiful. So, where does that leave you? You're obviously not popular....you obviously don't know your theory....and you think that technique is undesirable....

 

Do you even play the guitar? Or do you just like to hang out here to feel 'cool'? Since you cannot APPRECIATE or RESPECT things like talent, dedication, and skill....but you worship at the alter of the Billboard Pop charts...I can't see any reason for you to bother. You don't come here to learn...you don't come here to teach...

 

www.teenbeat.com is ----> that way.

[Ronaldo]

I think we are all learning. What makes a particular artist appeal to audiences, how theory can be used and abused, how some artists make a little with a lot, how some artists who know a lot still leave many listeners cold, that certain thin-skins just cannot stop the constant personal attacks...

[Poparad]

 

Originally posted by Auggie Doggie Again, you're accusing THEORY of being responsible for what YOU perceive as 'sterile'...what you DON'T 'like'. Rush and DT both have audiences. That you are not a member of said audience doesn't meant they're sterile, or 'theory-ish', or any other negative term. You don't like them. Period. You 'justify' your dislike by saying they're too 'theory-ish', and that's your rationalization for not learning theory. And just as I was getting it in my initial post, you're SLAGGING those guys...because they apparently know too much theory, and don't play simple music. You're free to like/dislike whatever you want...but when you start putting people down who have CLEARLY put in the time and effort to better themselves, that's why there's an issue.

 

 

Original argument -

 

Point 1: If someone has an audience, then they're good musicians, if not, then they're not good musicians.

 

Point 2: Rush and DT know too much theory, so their music is sterile and therefore they aren't good musicians as they don't connect with you.

 

 

Counter argument:

 

Point 1: Rush and DT both have huge audiences and continue to sell millions of CDs and do large tours. Using the logic of point 1, they are good musicians as they have a large audience they are popular with.

 

Therefore, the original argument is contradictory.

 

 

 

On a personal note, I've never been in to DT, but I find Rush's music something I can connect to and to me, it grooves.

 

Everyone is allowed to like or dislike a band, but personal tastes are not a basis for judging the musical skills of a band.

[Poparad]

 

Originally posted by Ronaldo I think we are all learning. What makes a particular artist appeal to audiences, how theory can be used and abused, how some artists make a little with a lot, how some artists who know a lot still leave many listeners cold, that certain thin-skins just cannot stop the constant personal attacks...

 

 

Take a band like Blink182 for example. They are obviously not musically educated and their music is simple. Many people enjoy their music.

 

Personally, when I listen to it, it leaves me cold. Now, it's certianly not for an overabundance of theory. For me, there's nothing they offer that is clever or original to my ears. I hear a lot more interesting ideas from other bands, so I choose not to listen to Blink182.

 

 

To contrast, take Frank Zappa. Zappa is very popular to a lot of people. His music connects well with a large audience, but a lot of what he does is so complex and intricate, and his knowledge of theory was very advanced. This is an example of a musician who is educated, but still connects to a large audience.

 

 

The ammount of theory or education that a musician has is in no way proportional to the ammount of popularity or success of their music.

[Mr.Hanky]

 

Originally posted by Poparad The ammount of theory or education that a musician has is in no way proportional to the ammount of popularity or success of their music.

 

 

NO SH*T!!

 

This could be the quote of the millenium. If this were true Jazz musicians would have a much better lifestyle.

 

We are in a society that embraces mediocrity en masse.

If it

[Poparad]

It goes both ways. I meant it in response to the one post to declare that knowing theory does not inhibit success.

 

My theory about why most people who make it aren't educated is because there are just more uneducated musicians out there. I believe that there is an equal percentage of educated musicians who make it as there are uneducated.

 

I don't mean that 50% of ones who make it are eduacated and 50% aren't, I mean that, say of all educated musicians who attempt to make it big, say 1% make it. Of all uneducated musicians, 1% make it. However, the ammount of uneducated musicians is far greater than the number of educated ones.

 

Plus, of educated musicians, many don't try to become famous and well known. A lot are quite content doing what they do in local setting or teaching or doing studio work or other work that isn't arena-sell-out big.

 

Of uneducated musicians, many more, I might say most, try to become very succesful and famous, because due to their lack of education, few are able to do things like teach, work at a university or school system, or do a lot of studio work or be a mercenary (when a band or show comes to town and needs a bassist, they hire a 'mercenary' who is a local cat who sits in and sight reads or whatever the case might be for the gig).

[Ronaldo]

People will always want to listen to good music; it will always have an audience. The better the music, the more popular it's appeal. I fundamentally believe this. It's as true for Beethoven, Bach and Mozart (extremely popular) and modern artists who once made better music and then lost a lot of popularity.

 

I totally agree that the amount of theory known etc. is in no way proportional to how good the music is. I don't hate any artists like some here, but the usual suspects leave me totally uninterested. Only a small number (relatively) ever get into "shredy" music -- that doesn't mean it's bad, but just doesn't appeal the way Elvis, John Lenin, James Taylor, etc. do.

 

Blink 182 is a good example (and the bands like them). I see lots of people dig their music. It is preposterous for me to "look down" upon them. Music gets popular because people like it. You have to respect each individuals right to enjoy whatever. I would go so far as to say anyone who can't do that is a moron.

 

I really think good music appeals to lots of people. If it doens't appeal widely, I first think the music ain't that great. Great tunes rise above on their own merit. Here's a perfect example:

 

Lisa Loeb came to Hawaii with her boyfriend (Dweezil). He plays shred guitar. Everyone came for Lisa. People like her music. Dweezil did some shred, people were like wow. He could never go on a tour on his own merits. His style totally clashed with a local musician he played with. Way too ostentatious for the Hawaiian style. I read his site and he said he was "disolusioned" for a while, i.e. the audiences weren't getting it. I say, you music kinda sucks, even though it's impressive for a short while.

 

That's the bottom line. People only like your music if it speaks to them. Shredding and many forms of jazz don't speak to most listeners. They want good, and that usually means simple and beautiful. In other words, if you're not careful, more chops == more boring.

[Poparad]

I just have 2 comments to add:

 

The old composers you mention weren't really popular in their time. Bach lived in anyonymity his whole life and just made enough money to get by on. He was stuck in a miserable job at a church his whole life. It wasn't until almost 100 years after his death that his works were discovered and gained popularity.

 

 

Also, I have never equated educated musicians or musicians who know theory as being shredders. Believing that the 'shredder' is what you turn into when you studdy music is a very narrow minded idea. Theory and knowledge don't require amazing chops and technique to perform. There are many many types of music and types of guitar playing other than shredding which educated musicians become.

 

To anyone who knows me on this board, I have a fairly thorough grasp on theory and music, but on a personal level, I've never been into the shred thing and I don't do it on guitar, and I've never practiced it much to have the chops for a lot of it.

 

In my mind, a guitarist like Ben Monder knows theory and such to the nth degree beyond guys like Yngwie, but his music is anything but shred and is never a showcase to technique. Occasionally you might hear a fast scale run, but the way he applies his knowledge is in harmony and rhythm, and writting for an ensemble. His music has really connected with me, and a large number of people I've shown it to who all have dramatically varying degrees of musical education.

 

Theory does not mean that a guitarist is going to become a cold, hard to listen to shred machine. All theory does is open up a lot of possibilities to the musician that weren't there previously. It is not directly related to chops and technique.

 

To my ears, a lot of shred guitarists aren't that complicated musically. They play very fast, but harmonically and rhythmically, and melodically isn't not very advanced. You don't hear serialism or set theory in there, you don't hear altered harmonies from most of the players or extended tertian ways of playing. I'm not looking down on shred for that, I'm just stating to me, it sounds like the same stuff you find in other styles of rock, just played a whole lot faster.

 

 

For me, I was a horible improvisor until I really studied scales and chords, learned the fretboard, and worked on motivic development and other elements of continuity in improvisation. Now that I've learned a lot and been pursuing an education of music, a lot more doors are open for me. Obviously jazz comes to mind for improvisation, but my blues soloing has become much better, my rock soloing has become much better, and there are countless other situations where I use my knowledge of theory for different bands of different musical styles that has nothing to do with virtuosic technique. It has only made me a more well rounded and complete player, not an esoteric player far detatched from the world of popular music. Although now I can understand and appreciate esoteric things, it does not make it impossible for me to play the music I did before I studied theory. Rather, I'm able to play the music I played before much better with a lot more originality and creativity as I have a lot more ideas to choose from, and not the few I had before.

 

The guesswork is also taken out for me, which again allows me to be more creative and original. Now I spend my time deciding from a large number of options what I want to do, rather than spending my time searching and hunting for just one thing that will work.

[Greg Cincy]

 

Originally posted by Poparad I just have 2 comments to add: The old composers you mention weren't really popular in their time. Bach lived in anyonymity his whole life and just made enough money to get by on. He was stuck in a miserable job at a church his whole life. It wasn't until almost 100 years after his death that his works were discovered and gained popularity. To my ears, a lot of shred guitarists aren't that complicated musically. They play very fast, but harmonically and rhythmically, and melodically isn't not very advanced. You don't hear serialism or set theory in there, you don't hear altered harmonies from most of the players or extended tertian ways of playing. I'm not looking down on shred for that, I'm just stating to me, it sounds like the same stuff you find in other styles of rock, just played a whole lot faster. For me, I was a horible improvisor until I really studied scales and chords, learned the fretboard, and worked on motivic development and other elements of continuity in improvisation. Now that I've learned a lot and been pursuing an education of music, a lot more doors are open for me. Obviously jazz comes to mind for improvisation, but my blues soloing has become much better, my rock soloing has become much better, and there are countless other situations where I use my knowledge of theory for different bands of different musical styles that has nothing to do with virtuosic technique. It has only made me a more well rounded and complete player, not an esoteric player far detatched from the world of popular music. Although now I can understand and appreciate esoteric things, it does not make it impossible for me to play the music I did before I studied theory. Rather, I'm able to play the music I played before much better with a lot more originality and creativity as I have a lot more ideas to choose from, and not the few I had before.

 

Eh...Sorry, Bach was very well-known during his time. The St. Matthew Passion was very popular during his life and shortly afterward, then he went through a period of obscurity.

Admittedly I am a punker, but I've studied theory via piano intensively.

Good shredders DO play with theory. You must be listening to awful ones if you know anything and feel otherwise.

I personally feel that a "theoretically solid" piece is not necessarily a good piece. I've heard some very standard 1-4-7-1 music sound AWFUL just because it was dull.

On the other hand, much noise-rock is entertaining and wild, due largely to the witting ignorance and reactionism to standard theory. Sonic Youth is a good example. I guess that the best way I can think of it is that you have to know what is standard before you can do something that is otherwise. This was going to be a really deep, insightful post, but I just gave up. Sorry.

[Poparad]

 

Originally posted by Greg Cincy Eh...Sorry, Bach was very well-known during his time. The St. Matthew Passion was very popular during his life and shortly afterward, then he went through a period of obscurity. Admittedly I am a punker, but I've studied theory via piano intensively. Good shredders DO play with theory. You must be listening to awful ones if you know anything and feel otherwise. I personally feel that a "theoretically solid" piece is not necessarily a good piece. I've heard some very standard 1-4-7-1 music sound AWFUL just because it was dull. On the other hand, much noise-rock is entertaining and wild, due largely to the witting ignorance and reactionism to standard theory. Sonic Youth is a good example. I guess that the best way I can think of it is that you have to know what is standard before you can do something that is otherwise. This was going to be a really deep, insightful post, but I just gave up. Sorry.

 

 

Well, my initial point was that these great composers we now revere were no where near as popular during their time (with the exception of Mozart who lived in the limelight since he was a couple years old)

 

My point about shredders and theory was not that they don't use it (they certainly do) but it's not a huge depature from the kind of things you find in other rock music. You have many same chord progressions and types of chords. I'm coming from a standpoint where I listen to things like Charles Ives's "Concord Sonata" which doesn't use things like major and minor chords and a lot of other composers who use alternative methods of composing that don't use tonality.

 

Sonic Youth is a good example. They just experiment and do whatever. But I will also mention Ornette Coleman, who is well known for being a free jazz player. Essentially Ornette does in jazz exactly the same thing Sonic Youth does in rock. Coleman knows traditional theory very well, but he likes to experiment and create very abstract things exactly like Sonic Youth do. So theory or lack thereof is not a requirement for music.

 

And I agree, there is no such thing as a 'theoretically correct' piece. I get very bored by typical I-IV-V stuff too, but sometimes it can be cool.

 

My point is that theory is not just technique, it's not just knowing certain chord progressions or chord voicings, it's not adhering to a 'proper' way of doing things. Theory is just studying what others have done, so you can have more options at your disposal when doing your own thing. This is exactly why I believe that theory does not corrupt a musician's ability to write emotionally or connect with audiences.

 

Boiled down, theory=possibilities. You don't have to do all the possibilities all the time in your music, but if you feel like doing this or that, you can. You aren't limited to just doing the same thing over and over again, or only doing a couple things.

 

Theory to me is liberation. It's not being tied down to certain rules or practicies. It's being freed from not knowing how to say what you want to say as a musician, as a composer, as an improvisor.

 

Theory, or more generally, being musically educated is merely liberation and not enslavement.

[babybatter]

Man, AD.....

 

 

You, Anomandaris, and other highly educated dudes with the straight dope are the best thing I have found on the internet ANYWHERE when it comes to getting a real ladder into the realm of being a conceptual musician.

 

I feel like a RETARD!!!! :mad:

 

 

 

 

 

Again, thanks. I need to reread this post everynight before I go to bed. Im only sort of kidding.

 

I really do appreciate the time and energy you put into this post. Awesome.

 

 

 

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by babybatter Man, AD..... You, Anomandaris, and other highly educated dudes with the straight dope are the best thing I have found on the internet ANYWHERE when it comes to getting a real ladder into the realm of being a conceptual musician. I feel like a RETARD!!!! :mad: Again, thanks. I need to reread this post everynight before I go to bed. Im only sort of kidding. I really do appreciate the time and energy you put into this post. Awesome.

 

 

Thank you. It's nice to know the effort isn't wasted.

[Joe Merlino]

 

Originally posted by Poparad Sonic Youth is a good example. They just experiment and do whatever.

 

 

I'd be willing to bet that Thurston Moore knows a little more theory than he lets on.

[sacredparadigm]

 

Originally posted by Joe Merlino I'd be willing to bet that Thurston Moore knows a little more theory than he lets on.

 

 

proof.

[MorePaul]

 

Originally posted by sacredparadigm proof.

 

 

of?

[Joe Merlino]

 

Originally posted by sacredparadigm proof.

 

 

Obviously, if I had proof, I wouldn't have put it in "willing to bet" terms. It's just a feeling I get.

[Little Dreamer]

Bach wasn't all that popular in his time. He worked incredible hours and wrote incredible amounts of music, and the population around Liepzig certainly appreciated him. But he didn't reap any great financial rewards from all of that. He lived in a portion of the school building in which he taught, and had so many kids running around it's amazing he got anything at all done. Actually a great amount of his work is lost to history because after his death nobody gave a damn about it and entire portions of his library were misplaced. It's rather ironic, because Bach's son was into that "popular" music of the day, which didn't follow the accepted norms, and of course J.S. despised that sort of music. His son did achieve some average level of success with his pop music, but I doubt anyone remembers his name today.

 

As far as theory and the shredders like Yngwie, it's unfortunate that when the subject of theory comes up, so do those names. I've never cared for Yngwie, but he's certainly a great player. I know some theory and the stuff I play is light-years removed from Yngwie. As far as what I listen to, I'm mostly into the hair metal stuff of the '80s, like Dokken, Whitesnake, etc. I remember reading countless interviews of the hair metal players back in the '80s and it was just modes, modes and more modes. All those guys knew their theory, and they were trememdously successful. I believe Van Halen is quite knowledgeable when it comes to theoryas well, which is humorous since his name comes up so often as an example of somebody who doesn't know any theory. Randy Rhoads certainly knew enough theory to give lessons to his guitar teachers. But at the same time that those guys were popular, so were bands like the Go-Gos and John Cougar. The difference today is that there's so much less variety in what's out there. It's the same with television - reality shows and more reality shows.

 

As far as the people who don't like theory, I think that's because the type of person who gets an electric guitar tends to be the same type who wants to rebel against the forced routine of life and all that angst driven teenage stuff. Taking a class in music theory would be to make their rebellion into a structured thing, the very thing thery're rebelling against. You don't become a rock 'n' roll rebel by paying some old gray-haired guy to teach you. And every ridiculous excuse you can think of will be used to justify that.

[Joe Merlino]

 

Originally posted by Little Dreamer As far as the people who don't like theory, I think that's because the type of person who gets an electric guitar tends to be the same type who wants to rebel against the forced routine of life and all that angst driven teenage stuff. Taking a class in music theory would be to make their rebellion into a structured thing, the very thing thery're rebelling against. You don't become a rock 'n' roll rebel by paying some old gray-haired guy to teach you. And every ridiculous excuse you can think of will be used to justify that.

 

 

Yeah, well, you can be into the image, or you can be into the instrument.

[bobthemerciful]

Well said!

[Little Dreamer]

I thinkwhen you're talking about stuff that would make a good $2,000 question on Jeopardy, you're kind of venturing out of the realm of "pretty damn well known" information.

[qwerty]

> I certainly didn't mean to imply that all punk rock aficionados are anti-theory.

 

I'd say this is because music theory is often presented as grammar rules by which music is graded for correctness.

 

Right or wrong, the general idea behind theory taking away from creativity is that it subconsciously creates a set of preconceptions about how to write music. At the most basic level, when I was exposed to theory, I started writing music in a major or minor key as opposed to choosing any note available. That can be interpreted as already causing conformity in the music I was writing. "Non-conformity" is often considered more creative than conformity. I think it's a waste of energy to argue either way, but I think that concept may provide insight as to why some people can be anti-theory.

[IsildursBane]

 

Originally posted by Ronaldo ...but I would rather listen to simplistic music most of the time. That's AC/DC, old blues artists, classic rock and even rap and country.... For me, it's all about feel, oringinality and mostly expressing something that I can relate to or be moved by. Under no circumstances do YJM, Steve Vai, Satch, et. al. qualify...

 

 

Vai and Satriani aren't original, but country music is?

 

-Dan.

[MorePaul]

I think as qwerty points out, there is that initial misconception that theory is creating a preconception.

 

As Aug pointed out, theory is more descriptive really it more describes preconceptions that we already develop aurally through the culture (there is even evidence that our aural traditions affect things like our perception/resolution of 'paradoxes' like Shepard funtions, and the tendency to develop 'perfect pitch')

 

 

Sure, we see people get attached to certain concepts of traditional music theory (Cannibal : the musical has a funny bit about this), but we also see people get "stuck" playing in a 'blues box'... I find this is due to incomplete mastery and limited facility or understanding the "this goes with that" hole sure isn't limited to one group. As jd pointed out we develop a "theory", a sense of pattern even if we don't codify it...codifying it makes it easier to remember, to communicate AND TO ABSTRACT (ie to distill it) so that you can expose and apply the underlying concept.

 

In that way, theory actually helps BREAK preconceptions.

The thing I really like about forml training (the getting marked right and wrong, is that it's a challenge, and exercise to make one stronger

 

Here's a typical scenario - you are presented with a taks (harmonize this or whatever) and you use your "old trusty", your perspective, what you are comfortable with, your preconceptions...BAM, you hit a wall! something doesn't resolve right or the way you want it!

Well, the problem isn't there, you have to backtrace a couple of moves and you spot it "old trusty" leads you down this path, and you didn't expect this NEW problem as old trusty always worked before...

so now you try option B or option C instead of old trusty and you get it to work out...

Hey! new arrow to add to the quiver, you see a new structure and you absord option B or C.

The preconception has been CHALLENGED.

 

 

theory is sort of a codified description and you can use it to explore a lot of stuff, from the clockworks of a canon to the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink of serialism to the "I think this comes next" of on-the-edge sight reading to the "there is no silence" of ambient.

[KillDozer]

I think one of the most important points made by AG is this one: "Guys are always asking "What can I play over these chords?"...to which the answer is far too often given in piecemeal fashion (over the C, play C Ionian...over the G7, play G Mixolydian, etc). No mention of melody"

 

Ironically, I was one of those guys that was eager to learn everything I could about music when I started, and so I took a real academic path - scales, modes, harmony, even a counterpoint class in high school.

 

Unfortunately, I focused so much on theoretical stuff that I didn't develop my ear. When it came time to solo, I'd randomly attack the notes of the "right" scale(s) to fit the chord(s). It sounded really, really horrible and for the longest time I couldn't figure out why I sucked so bad or why guys who didn't study at all sounded so much better than I did.

 

Having said that, once I did start transcribing solos, my theory background helped understand what was going on, and more importantly, how to use what I'd learned in other contexts. It also helped be more versatile - I got a gig with a really good fusion/funk band because I knew 7th chords and how to play in keys other than G, A, D, E.

 

Theory is great - it can help you understand what you're doing and help you generate new ideas - as long as it isn't learned in a vacuum or emphasized over using your ear.

[qwerty]

> there is that initial misconception that theory is creating a preconception.

 

Well, I actually think it does create them on some level-- but I do not believe that necessarily makes someone less creative.

 

 

Ideally yes. I might say that is an advanced stage of philosophy and understanding of what theory is intended (?) to be. A similar concept is the difference between spoken english, and what grammar says english is "supposed" to be. I think it's essentially a Platonic vs Aristotelian discussion.

 

Speaking as an ex-punk rocker, I am not anti-theory. I actually want to learn more theory, and do what others describe: learn a concept and then have homework to write something using that concept.

 

Any book suggestions geared for that?

 

P.S. punk rock is an aural tradition-- just like everything else I suppose. You learn to play it by connecting to it on an emotional level, voraciously absorbing it, figuring it out on your instrument, and then emulating the devices/techniques that created your emotional connection to it in the first place. It is a "sound" (among other things of course).

 

Advanced theoretical concepts (whatever that means) dont "sound" like punk rock. And, players who learn a lot of theory ~tend~ to introduce those concepts into their playing. Since those concepts were developed in genres outside of punk rock, their playing, errr, no longer sounds like punk rock. Hope that gives a little insight into the punk rock bias (as misdirected as it may be) against "theory."

 

We had a guitarist like that. He was a "you have to know the rules before you break them" kinda guy (theory as rules-- theory as starting point). We didn't agree. For us "uneducated" players, we believed the only rules were the ears and the emotions: does it sound and feel like punk rock? Of course we had absorbed punk rock "theory" via listening and emulating. Think of authentic traditional music.