Music Theory, Skipping It

[rick-slo]

As far as the study of music theory goes in helping you improve as a guitarist it hard to appreciate and absorb the theory if you are unable to use it by putting it into action in your guitar playing. A balance is best but weighted with more playing time, listening time, and skill practice time than anything else - especially as a beginner.

Apart from playing any musical instrument oneself there is the study of music theory centered around the hearing part, that is listening. Music appreciation classes where you study and analyze the elements and techniques that were use to create the compositions you are listening to.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Mandobart

Its always a few pages in to these types of posts when people assert that its "better" to not know theory - that the act of learning something will make you a worse musician; unable to write songs or be able to play expressively.

I haven't seen anyone say that yet (unless you can give a quote I missed). Just a few people (including me) separating knowledge of theory from skill in playing.
Saying you don't need theory is not the same as saying it's better not to know it. Only that it makes little or no difference to one's skill as a performer, composer or improviser.

The alternative is not "instinct" either. Nobody is in an instinctive musician (except insofar as everyone is, to some extent). The alternative to studying theory is to pick up all the rules by ear, by listening and copying. In that sense, one does "know theory" - all that one needs - even though one would probably fail the lowest grade theory exam (because that requires knowledge of the jargon, which playing music mostly doesn't).

In your analogies, one could become an excellent carpenter by copying a master (as an apprentice). One wouldn't have to read books about carpentry, or geometry. A pilot could learn to fly by sitting alongside an experienced pilot and learning how to operate the controls - he wouldn't need to study aerodynamics, or the science of jet engines.
Most people learn to drive cars without understanding anything about how the engine works. They just learn what all the levers, buttons and steering wheel do. By being shown and copying.

Of course, the more complex the task - in any of those activities - the more useful some book learning (theoretical background) will be. It's near impossible to learn classical music just by ear! I'm sure airline pilots feel much more in control (and relaxed) if they understand the principles behind all the levers they have to operate (including, of course, what might go wrong!).

Personally I love theory, and would never suggest someone should not learn it. But I also know it hasn't made me a better player. Only practice does that.
Theory has contributed maybe 90% to my arranging skills; maybe 10-20% to my composing skills; less than 10% to my improvisation skills; zero to my playing techniques. (Not sure what it's contributed to my enjoyment of music. Maybe zero, maybe even a negative impact. Theory makes it tempting to intellectualize what one's hearing, to analyze rather than enjoy. At best, it's an alternative way to approach music.)

[zhunter]

The knowledge I have of theory makes me a better player every day.

hunter

[TBman]

Take my comments with a grain of salt. I had piano lessons as a child and learned to read basic notation then. I also had music classes where they actually taught music notation and directions.

You have to have some basic understanding of notation to get the information from a tab/notation needed to learn a fingerstyle tune. Otherwise it's like watching your first football game.

[Mandobart]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Saying you don't need theory is not the same as saying it's better not to know it. Only that it makes little or no difference to one's skill as a performer, composer or improviser.

This is a point I disagree with. In my years playing in orchestra, I didn't focus at all on theory. I learned to play cleanly, intonate a fretless instrument precisely, solo expressively, more importantly to play well with a group, to follow the conductor, to improve my sight reading and more. Never once needed what most call music theory, although a simple knowledge of the scales and knowing which notes will and won't work in the song's key is something you can't help but pick up if you pay any attention at all. This worked fine for classical music where all the notes you need are on the page. Some more theory (though I didn't see it as such at the time) crept in regarding recognizing patterns that are frequently repeated in classical music. When I took up bass guitar in jazz band, I was introduced to improvisation. This is where more knowledge of theory would have helped me a lot. Simply knowing the key and the associated scale, without having a clue to the mode is not gonna get anyone through a decent improv solo in jazz. There are many jazz musicians who can't describe the different modes, but they can play them. This is a working knowledge of theory gained over years of playing. When I got back into playing music more seriously around 10 years ago, I started to intentionally study some basic theory and it paid off immediately in jams. I didn't have to spend decades as a jazz player to develop a working knowledge - I could learn some concepts, practice them and put them to work right away without the aimless trial and mistrial method where you noodle around and hope to stumble on what you're looking for. To make a long story longer, learning some basic theory (then putting it to use) absolutely made me a better player, especially improvisation.

Originally Posted by JonPR

Saying you don't need theory is not the same as saying it's better not to know it. Only that it makes little or no difference to one's skill as a performer, composer or improviser.

In your analogies, one could become an excellent carpenter by copying a master (as an apprentice). One wouldn't have to read books about carpentry, or geometry. A pilot could learn to fly by sitting alongside an experienced pilot and learning how to operate the controls - he wouldn't need to study aerodynamics, or the science of jet engines. Most people learn to drive cars without understanding anything about how the engine works. They just learn what all the levers, buttons and steering wheel do. By being shown and copying.

What you are describing is the standard apprentice-journeyman-master tradition used in the skilled trades for a couple centuries at least. Today's vocational training still does this, but supplements it with appropriate classroom/lab instruction. Because educational technologists have learned that an understanding of why things work as they do leads to greater competence and furthers the craft. Its not enough to just copy the master if you want to be a master yourself someday.

[Standicz]

to quote Tommy Emmanuel

"I was refused few jobs because I could not read music and i still don't. I am too bussy playing it to learn how to read it off the paper"

I am not suggesting he doesn't know anything about theory, but it surely is something to think about (specifically for the theory police...)

[Mandobart]

Originally Posted by Standicz

to quote Tommy Emmanuel

"I was refused few jobs because I could not read music and i still don't. I am too bussy playing it to learn how to read it off the paper"

I am not suggesting he doesn't know anything about theory, but it surely is something to think about (specifically for the theory police...)

Again, being able to read music notation, or tab, or shape notes, etc. is NOT music theory. I think everyone should at least know that about theory.

[mattbn73]

Music theory versus "real music" is analogous to grammar vs creative writing. Most of the statements made in that regard on these kind of forums are nonsensical and pointless. They're separate studies, one not having anything necessarily to do with the other.

I think if you went over to some creative writing forum and made statements like "studying grammar all day isn't going to make you a better or more creative writer", they'd probably respond with statements like "Well, of course not. What's your point?". But that's just the kind of "debate" people get into in terms of music theory on the Internet.

No one's holding a gun to your head forcing you to learn theory . Learn some if you want . Chuck it all if you're not interested, but the preachy, cute statements about how it's not necessary aren't helpful to anything. Grammar doesn't actually "hurt" your creativity in writing, and neither does music theory HARM your musical creativity. If you spend all your time focused on theoretical INSTEAD of creative, well *of course* you're not going to be as creative as you otherwise would be, but that's self-evident.

Theory isn't going to necessarily change your life, like finding God or something, but learning a little isn't going to HURT anything either. Certainly, no one should let Internet people scare them out of something they might otherwise enjoy learning.

[islandguitar]

^^^^^
Nice!! I liked that response a lot! Thanks!

[Standicz]

Originally Posted by Mandobart

Again, being able to read music notation, or tab, or shape notes, etc. is NOT music theory. I think everyone should at least know that about theory.

to be able to read notation, you have to understand how it all works, notes, intervals, scales etc....that is certainly theory.

[stanron]

Originally Posted by Mandobart

Again, being able to read music notation, or tab, or shape notes, etc. is NOT music theory. I think everyone should at least know that about theory.

I see you live in the US. Here in the UK the Grades 1 to 5 of the ABRSM music theory curriculum are just about all to do with reading music. Key signatures, time signatures note lengths and clefs are essential to read scores. Each grade has it's own vocabulary of, mostly Italian, words to do with score directions, expression and inflections. After grade five, theory becomes genre specific. Grades six to eight in classical music bear no relation to the same grades if you study jazz, or popular music.

Grade five was, seven years ago when I left teaching, a pre-requisite for a university music degree. When someone comes and asks on this forum about music theory it's best to check they have the basics before offering jazz theory.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by Standicz

to be able to read notation, you have to understand how it all works, notes, intervals, scales etc....that is certainly theory.

Really just rote memorization.

[paulp1960]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Really just rote memorization.

Agreed. I was taught to play recorder first at school and then was taught trumpet for several years. I was taught to read music and knew how to transpose. But I wouldn't really call that music theory.

[Standicz]

newtonian theory of physics is a theory, you memorize it and move on to, say, Einstein if you must. And memorize that aswell. What is wrong with memorizing? Apple will fall on the ground without all that so if all you want is eating apples, don't memorize any theory, it won't make the fruit any sweeter.

Besides in musical notation, you have to do the math aswell. You know, 4/4, 3/4 and stuff..everybody and the ex UK music teacher in the post above calls that theory, so do I...is this a linguistic debate?

[rick-slo]

It not memorizing theory. It is memorizing facts. Within the western music system at any rate, a certain note on certain fret - a fact. Certain diatonic notes in a given scale - a fact. It is partially semantics, but also partially having a clearer and more realistic focus on dealing with the problem - memorizing facts.