There's many (lazy imo) guitarists who think that learning scales and theory limits creativity. After learning one scale, I'd say it's made my songwriting much more structured, and it sounds 10x better, because it's all in the same key. It also helps my improvisation, because instead of a "wing it and see" attitude, I actually know what note to play next, because it's in the scale. Scales ftw
The people who say theory hinders creativity are the same people who don't know it well enough to apply it.
The fact is that musical theory is based around what we find pleasant or acceptable in music. Knowing theory can help you right better melodies or riffs and harmonies.
I hate when people use ignorance of theory as "just being their style". its not a style to be ignorant. its another thing entirely to know the theory, and use notes purposely outside of the key for color and tension.
The problem, I think, is that most people look at music theory as an academic thing, and it really shouldn't be viewed that way. Theory is a documentation of musical phenomena thus far, and if you'd rather spend 10 years figuring out what you could read in 10 minutes, let ignorance be your bliss.
True dat. I know some guitarists who think theory is for nerds, and that theory limits you to what you can play... my bullshit meter broke. When I hear them improvise, I feel like putting in earplugs. It's all out of key, and doesnt sound right.
That happens in my band. My guitarist is technically better than i am, but i am the most knowledgeable in terms of theory. when i tell him to play this note, or this chord instead of that note, or that chord because its out of key, he just tells me that it doesnt matter, and whatever sounds good is what he plays. i dont fight it, because frankly, its not that noticeable with the music we play.
This is true in my experience with musicians (except a few who, coincidentally are phenomenal). They tend to turn their nose up at anything academic or theoretical
I have a question pertaining to this. If I wanted to make a song in the Key, E Mixolydian, we'll say, I could use any one of the scales coming off of the root notes? I used a scale calculator thing to do this. So, to stay in key, I can use any of those notes?
Understanding theory = Better knowledge of what works. Better knowledge of what works = Better practice material Better practice material = you see where this is going!
Metaphors are way underrated. I often find there is an apt metaphor for many concepts i try to describe, and dont learn it till after ive spent a few minutes explaining my idea unsucessfully. Although that isnt a metaphor, its a concise description of what i was trying to say in my post
It's all in MIDI format at the moment, I'm working on it with my mate who plays guitar and keys, and we're just playing our way through it and sorting any bugs and changing stuff and all the good things If you want to hear the MIDI's, PM me or hit me up on MSN.
well, you can have no theory at all, and be james hetfield, or you can know everything in the world, and be John Petrucci.
Django Reinhardt didn't study a lick of theory. Theory is helpful, but let's not lump Django in with James Hetfield, hmm? Especially since Django could teach Petrucci a thing or ninety-seven.
I'm a drummer and a I know more theory than some guitarists. I usually find it quite appalling the lack of rhythmic ability a lot of guitarists display. When I try to show a guitarist a rhythm, they often absolutely cannot comprehend it and replicate it.
Solid rhythm playing, and comprehending rhythm and understanding the groove is a weakness of many of us guitarists, it's very true. What that has to with theory, though, I don't quite follow.
http://dreamtheaterforums.com/index.php?topic=2674.0 I'll pm you the link too, in case you don't see this :P
Precisely. The only one responsible for solid time, and the one to blame for lack of it, in a band is the drummer. Whoever said solid time-keeping is everyone's responsibility is full of shit. Right?
Knowing music theory instead of just playing is like learning spanish instead of memorizing a bunch of spanish sentences. Yes, you could learn every bit of the language by learning one sentence at a time, but it would be time consuming and difficult. Or you could learn the mechanics of the language (vowels, adverbs, all that junk) and you'd be able to fluently speak the language and manipulate it, instead of just repeating past phrases. Jake
Actually this sounds a bit funny. Nobody needs to know the language "theory" to be able to speak and express oneself. We all learn to speak first and learn the mechanics and theoretical terms of languages later or never at all. What does adverb mean btw?
And any linguist who knows his ass from his elbow will tell you that learning languages by their grammar is much more difficult than learning them the way that children do. Theory, like modern language education programs, is the best way to learn the language in a shorter period of time than you would spend being immersed. Immersion is still the best way though, and I think (if we had the time) it's the best way for music, too. Hearing how something works is a lot better than working it out on paper.
Music is essentially another language, those who don't know it are merely picking up phrases they hear elsewhere and will often say the wrong thing and accidentally order way too much food, when they meant to ask where the bathroom was. That analogy sucks, but the message is valid...whatever that was, oh yeah. Music theory...learn it you damn guitarists!
Whatever.... All I know is that I've seen both sides- I played guitar without knowing music theory, and I played guitar with it. Between those two options, I prefer the latter. Jake
You're missing the point, Snakey. I'm not saying that you shouldn't learn theory, but that, in that impossible world where someone would have enough time, learning these things organically would be the best way. Look at something like learning a new strumming pattern--is it easier to count and try to find where each up or down stroke falls, or is it easier to listen to a song enough and have such a sense of the pattern that you can play it without counting it out and playing from a sheet? The point here is that the best way to learn music, as with any other language, is to be immersed in it. You can take the grammatical (theoretical) back door, but it isn't quite the same. The best players (and most eloquent speakers) are a fine combination of immersion and study.
I hate time signatures. All of my riffs fall into some stupidly odd time meter. I suck at fractions, too.
Binko- I see what you're saying.... There are plenty of musicians who can play the same things that I do but have their own names for it. Its their own theory. After all, music theory is just a theory. Its not music fact. Its still open to interpretation in other ways. But to be completely honest... I find it easier to learn a strumming pattern by counting eighth notes and thinking my down up down ups. After that, of course, its feel. I don't count while I play- I count while I learn. As a teacher, too, I see that my all of my students that have practiced their counting can easily pick up new rhythms, while those who can't count take much longer to "absorb" a rhyhtm. Just observations, but I completely see your point. I think that you need a little bit of talent for that organinc learning process you described, so music theory kind of helps those out of don't have any natural/genetic "talent". Jake
The whole point of theory, any theory, be it music theory or the theories of black holes, is to be able to extrapolate via rules, in order to be able to generate unseen/unheard instances. Theory doesn't tell you how a certain chord progression will feel, but it will tell you what caused that chord progression to make you feel that way, and from there on you can use the theory to generate different instances that create the same feeling. Without theory, you will inevitably write "instance-based" music, ie you will come up with something nice, but since you have no chance of understanding why it sounded nice, you can't elaborate on the piece. And elaboration on a piece (or theme, or motif, or whatever) is a key ingredient to music. rumborak
If I had a generic chord progression: Code: E--0---------- B--1---2------ G--0---2------ D--2---2---2-- A--3-------2-- E----------0--- How do I solo over such a thing? (If it even is a chord progression -.-)
Right there is a spot where theory helps you. The chords in that progression are C - A - E5 With the knowledge of functional chords, you realize that this is nothing but a chord progression in the key of Em. Note though that the A is major, which doesn't completely fit (it should be minor in that key), but that gives it an interesting flavor. So, you can essentially solo over it in Em. Just be careful with that C# rumborak
