Jump to content

did learning theory cause your playing to lose personality?


ryanstanley

Recommended Posts

  • Members

A lot of great advice. One becomes a robot only if playing w/out feel. There are monster players who feel their way and those who know theory. It can allow you to play along with just about anyone at just about any time. Someone calls out that their going to play a I-IV-V blues or a ii-VI-i jazz, you'll be there w/out have to think twice. You'll know the building blocks and constructs of the chords, and by the feel of the song, you'll be able to weave basically or intricatally, dependant on what you feel. And that's the important step, continue to listen and feel, then play what comes to your mind - what you think fits the way you want to express your part within the music.

If you listen to jam band guys, they'll tell you that they are having a musical 'conversation'. Then they will tell you to 'listen'. That's a big ingredient. Just like any thread here, you talk within the topic and put in what you think will add. It might be something as simple as "I agree" or as complex as this long-winded retort I am adding now. :thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members
Originally posted by King Kashue

I'll just say this, and you can decide whether theory gets in the way of being creative...


The man in the history of rock who may have the most theoretical knowledge ever (and if he isn't, he's in the top 5):


Frank Zappa...



Yeah, and we all know how much of an unoriginal hack he was. ;) Also check Robert Fripp. There are tons of examples out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by thebeatcatcher

something interesting i remember from visiting lots of museums in europe...


most everyone thinks of picasso from his cubist and abstract artwork, but i went to a place that had lots of his early work. lots of still lifes, anatomy studies, scenes, etc. he went through "the basics" (theory) and look where it led him!


edit:

just read rowka's previous point, very intriguing...

 

 

This is very true. Some of Piccasso's later work is very interesting. He tried to draw like a child again. But Picasso was a true master no doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

zappa & fripp are damn good examples

and i didnt know jaco knew theory.. craziness!

well i guess im ok

cause jaco & robert fripp are basically my heroes

well them and the guitarist for minus the bear/botch... completely reinvented the intstrument. man he's a badass. he's one that doesnt know theory. but fripp is a pretty obvious influence for him, too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by bonscottvocals

A lot of great advice. One becomes a robot only if playing w/out feel. There are monster players who feel their way and those who know theory. It can allow you to play along with just about anyone at just about any time. Someone calls out that their going to play a I-IV-V blues or a ii-VI-i jazz, you'll be there w/out have to think twice. You'll know the building blocks and constructs of the chords, and by the feel of the song, you'll be able to weave basically or intricatally, dependant on what you feel. And that's the important step, continue to listen and feel, then play what comes to your mind - what you think fits the way you want to express your part within the music.


If you listen to jam band guys, they'll tell you that they are having a musical 'conversation'. Then they will tell you to 'listen'. That's a big ingredient. Just like any thread here, you talk within the topic and put in what you think will add. It might be something as simple as "I agree" or as complex as this long-winded retort I am adding now.
:thu:


This man, he knows. :cool:

At the end of the day, neither theory nor sight-reading nor chops will be able to replace the feel that you should be putting into your playing. They. Are. Only. Tools. Learn them and use them, but always remember to listen to what you're doing; and even if you're doing something that's been proven by four centuries' worth of composers, if it doesn't speak to you, doesn't say what you want to say, then don't do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by Rowka

Just to point out, most of the rules were based on analysing the compositional works of JS Bach and were a formalization of the things JSB knew intuitively.

More like, JSB compiled and organized all the knowledge of his time to put it down on paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Jazz Ad

More like, JSB compiled and organized all the knowledge of his time to put it down on paper.

 

 

But JSB's putting it down on paper was in the form of musical composition, not int he form of the theory of music. It was later that his works were analyzed and it was noted that "hmm, it looks like Bach avoided parallel 5ths and octave, but favored parallel 3rds."

So the "rule" became: If at all possible, avoid parallel 5ths and octaves. Parallel 3rds are desirable."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

FOr me, the answer is NO.

I am not a classically trained musician, but have taken lessons. I am still working on reading, but am not a real accurate site reader.

But

Evey time I take lessons, I get better, no question about it. Being able to use music theory to express myself helps me to even more cut loose the personality.

The thing is to find a balance...

If you are doing a lot of sight reading, then do not get too reliant on that to get you through songs. Force yourself to practice "improvisitation" as well. Turn on a record and figure out the chord progression and make up your own lines. That is the way to balance between being a very musically deep artist from the theoretical aspect, but not reliant on that from the artistic aspect.

Jazz is a perfect example. There are some great Jazz readers out there, but they still rely on Improvisation on the job. Most people only get "chord progressions" or a lead sheet, or a Key - Blues in A Major - and are expected to come up with lines when playing in band situations. That is where knowing theory will help you know which notes to choose and why and take the guess work away, but your still get to express your musical personality.

I have met people who fit into the other criteria too. They are really musically talented at sigt reading, but not improvising. This might be what you fear about losing your personality, but if you practice both sides, you will be better off.

Extreme1 - No music theory, rely on instncts to maintain personality

Extreme 2- All theory, no personality...

The middle path is usually the bestest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by Rowka

But JSB's putting it down on paper was in the form of musical composition, not int he form of the theory of music. It was later that his works were analyzed and it was noted that "hmm, it looks like Bach avoided parallel 5ths and octave, but favored parallel 3rds."

So the "rule" became: If at all possible, avoid parallel 5ths and octaves. Parallel 3rds are desirable."

These were meant as studies for the most part. Beautifully written but still exercises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

A bit. But my personality sucked. :D

Not knowing you're playing what everyone else has been doing for years gives you a false sense of ingenuity. Once I realized there's nothing new on the planet, it kind of sucked the life out of my writing for a bit, but I eventually got it back and in a much stronger way. IMO.

I see it as this. You can't really break the rules until you know what they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by King Kashue




Did Bach write that they were? Or is that someone's supposition?



If we are talking about "Well-Tempered Clavier" then yes, they were essentially exercises written in each key. Whether they were exercises for his writing, exercises for playing, or both remains to be seen.

As for the "theory kills creativity" meme, I have to come out strongly against that thinking. In every possible endeavor, a certain base knowledge is necessary. First graders do not create Dali paintings. Artists must learn to paint, learn knife and brush, brush techniques, etc. Even if they are "self taught", they must learn the basic tools before they can progress very far. For a while, poor skills can be disguised with "avante-garde" style, but it won't last long.

I remember playing with a bass player who would proudly proclaim "I don't know any theory, I play what I feel", which pormpted some of the other members in the band to say "If I felt like that, I'd stop playing and go lie down".

There is much to be gained from additional knowledge. There is nothing to be gained by avoiding it.:thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Jazz Ad

Actually Jaco only turned to studies later in his life when he started arranging.

For a very long time he played all by ear, which takes an insane amount of talent most of us will always lack.

 

 

see this is what i was saying before

 

that i think it'd probably be best to basically fully develop my "new approach to the bass guitar", and then learn theory to expand upon it

 

cause right now im not the most creative player on the planet, but there is something there.. an attitude, and its almost like its "on the tip of my tongue" if you know what i mean.. and if i sit down and work on it, i think i can develop it into something really great.. but since as of right now im just hanging onto a tiny shred of individuality, that could go away pretty easily if a bunch of standard concepts are pushed at me

 

know what i mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by bassgirl9

A bit. But my personality sucked.
:D

Not knowing you're playing what everyone else has been doing for years gives you a false sense of ingenuity.



i know what you mean and i agree in some cases

but the style that im going for i really never hear people doing.. its like... swirly.. thats the only word i can think of. but rhythmic at the same time. rhythmic and swirly. and kinda bubbly. if you know what i mean. and right now im on a blues & funk kick, but that doesnt really have anything to do with it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Jazz Ad

Your new approach has very little chance to actually being new.

Why not learning to drive the car rather than reinventing the wheel before ?

(says the guy who figured out chords, modes and theory on a keyboard by himself)

 

 

 

cause if i reinvent the wheel without knowing how to drive a car, or considering whats worked best in the past, i might end up with an entirely new mode of transportation that could revolutionize society

 

or i could come up with a bulbous hunk of metal. but at least i tried, and i can always learn to drive later

 

are you really saying i should give up simply because the chances i'll actually innovate are too slim?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Theory helped me expand what I can do and helped me think about music in new ways. My musical personality has remained intact, and my playing is far more interesting than it would be if I didn't have the knowledge necessary to expand my capabilities.

When it comes down to it, I'm still the same heavy-fisted blues-based pounder that I always was, I just have other options for contrast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by ryanstanley



i know what you mean and i agree in some cases


but the style that im going for i really never hear people doing.. its like... swirly.. thats the only word i can think of. but rhythmic at the same time. rhythmic and swirly. and kinda bubbly. if you know what i mean. and right now im on a blues & funk kick, but that doesnt really have anything to do with it



If done properly, the main thing you'd learn from theory is the language to express what you just said to me in terms that all musicians have agreed upon to use for over the years. It shouldn't hamper your style at all.

Nevertheless, there are a few overlord type of teachers out there that would crush your musical impulses and try to make you mimic them instead.

If you fear this, keep to your own for a bit.
Or make it clear to your teacher that you want to keep your style intact and are just looking for additional stuff to add to your repertoir, and tools to help you with your own stuff (like music language and knowledge of music history).

Good luck to ya.:wave:


EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by bassgirl9



If done properly, the main thing you'd learn from theory is the language to express what you just said to me in terms that all musicians have agreed upon to use for over the years. It shouldn't hamper your style at all.


Nevertheless, there are a few overlord type of teachers out there that would crush your musical impulses and try to make you mimic them instead.


If you fear this, keep to your own for a bit.

Or make it clear to your teacher that you want to keep your style intact and are just looking for additional stuff to add to your repertoir.


Good luck to ya.
:wave:



yeah, i told him that, about keeping my style intact.. and he made fun of me. wanted me to show him this amazing new style id come up with that was so great that i had to tell HIM, the bigshot graduate of berklee college of music, how to teach me. asshole

i think im just gonna go to the class and learn, but im gonna make sure and be a problem student. im gonna learn all that {censored}, but im not doing a damn thing he tells me to :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...