Bass Guitar Mag Janek Gwidzala

[Bilbo]

Let's put this in perspective.

Look up Hermeto Pascoal on YouTube (but don't stop at one video as you won't get where he is coming from unless you look at several) - now tell me whether theory stifles your creativity!!

Saxophonist Iain Ballamy once told me that he saw Pascoal play music on a shirt. Other instruments include piano, melodica, teapot and piglet - yes, piglet.

Hey BBC! - you're gonna LOVE it!!

[cheddatom]

I don't see how knowing theory will make you more able to play a teapot, a shirt, or a piglet. I'll give it a watch if I ever find free time though.

Speaking of weird instruments - I've been messing with my girlfriend's "thumb piano" recently. The notes don't seem to conform to any normal key (although maybe they should?) but you can still use it to make some fun music. Music theory in this situation would surely be entirely useless, although once you've played it for a bit, I suppose you're developing your own subconscious theory, and if the instrument gets popular then people will start writing about it etc...

[Bilbo]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='156834' date='Mar 13 2008, 04:47 PM']I don't see how knowing theory will make you more able to play a teapot, a shirt, or a piglet.[/quote]

That's the point. Pascoal knows all the theory you need. He is a great player and composer in the conventional sense but is also one of the most creative musician on the planet - his swimming pool, vocal, underwater tube trio is a must!

Harmonic and melodic theory in the sense it has been discussed here is ethnocentric - a thumb piano is an African invention so has no use for the tempered scale. Nor has a piglet.

[cheddatom]

I see, that's a great example then!

Do you play a piglet with your foot or what?

[aryustailm]

[quote name='"cheddatom"']It should never dictate how music should be made - but does it? Maybe subconsciously, or maybe only the worst composers let it happen.[/quote]
My point is, it should never be subconcious. You should actively know what you are playing, and not just 'hope' for music to happen.

[quote name='"cheddatom"']I totally accept your point, but I honestly think that music can be understood to as proficient a level without any theory at all.[/quote]

I agree with that - but the word 'theory' is just used to describe things that are. Just because you don't know the names of things like modes, substitutions, drop 2 voicings, contrary motion etc, doesn't mean those things don't exist, and don't exist in your playing. They're just words to describe things that are. Some people know them instictively without knowing the common names for them, which doesn't mean they don't exist. I listened to your band, I like them. It's all tonal, fairly simple harmonically and rhythmically and easily explainable in theory. But! that doesn't take anything away from the music. The word 'theory' is just used to describe those things. Call it what you want, but if you understand music proficiently, even on your own terms that noone else understands, it means you understand theory of music. Similarly, making a new weird scale that you've never heard before, doesn't mean there's not already a name for it.

The terminology of music (scale names etc) is ONLY useful to communicate verbally with other people about music.

[quote name='"cheddatom"']When i'm listening to music and analysing it in my head, I don't once wonder what that chord's called, or what time signature this is etc. I have no problem communicating my ideas about music without using the language of music.[/quote]

If you truly have no problem analysing music just by listening, and no problem getting your ideas across, then you should be able to hear something once, and play it back perfectly. (Ignoring speed/physical aspects, just melodic lines/chords/phrases/rhythm).
If you can honestly say you can do that, then I'll admit there's little more for you to learn. If it takes you 2 attempts or more to play a line or phrase back, then you're just kidding yourself about your abilities, and have plenty to work on, whether you make use of what people have learnt before or go it completely alone.

I don't know anyone who is capable of playing crazy free jazz lines, atonal classical, funk, folk, rock, metal etcetc phrases all back after one listen. If you do, let me know - they'll be in the best position to create some of the most original sounding music ever made.

[queenofthedepths]

[quote name='aryustailm' post='156858' date='Mar 13 2008, 05:12 PM']The terminology of music (scale names etc) is ONLY useful to communicate verbally with other people about music.[/quote]
And so you can learn it yourself in the first place... but yeah, that's exactly what theory is for

[FJ1200]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='156751' date='Mar 13 2008, 02:39 PM']EDIT: How long is a bass chat thread?[/quote]

Same as a piece of string - twice as long as half it's length!

[7string]

Can I just say that music theory is nowhere near as hard as people think it is.

OK, you don't have to go as far as writing 4 part harmony, but all you really need is a little patience.

Find a copy of this book in your local music shop.

[url="http://www.amazon.co.uk/AB-Guide-Music-Theory-Vol/dp/1854724460/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205450489&sr=8-1"] The AB Guide to music theory[/url]

Synopsis
Provides an introduction to the basic elements in harmony and musical structure. Covers the basics of rhythm and tempo, an introduction to pitch, intervals and transposition, articulation, ornaments, and reiterations.


There used to be a little red book from the Associated Board (the AB in the title of the above book) which had everything in it. Years ago they decided to split it into 2 books and this pink one is the first part.

You just need a little patience to start and when you do the whole world of music will open in front of you!!

Edited March 13, 2008 by 7string

[Paul_C]

[url="http://www.dolmetsch.com/theoryintro.htm"]THIS[/url] is quite a useful resource for theory too.

[mcgraham]

I agree, theory isn't that hard to get to grips with. Definitely worth doing a little to give you some background into why notes work the way they do against other notes (and chords and scales etc). It can get a bit heavy later on though.

As bizarre as it may sound, I've found that the more complex bits of music take a heck of a lot of theory to explain all the little details of what is going on in it, more so than the proportionate amount of theory needed to explain simple ideas. i.e. it gets a little bit more complex musically (what you're hearing) but it takes a LOT more theory to explain all of what is going on. I guess what I mean is once you get to a certain point it makes sense listening to it, but the theory requires a fair bit of diving into to explain what you're hearing. So what I tend to do is just to go with it, with what I'm hearing, and use a fair bit of internalised theory to work with what I hear.

Mark

[jakenewmanbass]

The most useful thing to be able to do regarding theory is to know how chords for modern music pop, jazz, soul etc are spelled and the relevant scales (sounds) that go with them.
Opens a world of possibilities.

[cheddatom]

[quote name='aryustailm' post='156858' date='Mar 13 2008, 05:12 PM']My point is, it should never be subconcious. You should actively know what you are playing, and not just 'hope' for music to happen.[/quote]

I suppose it depends what you're doing. If you're improvising a solo infront of an audience then obviously you'll need to know what you're doing incase you f*ck up and look a c*ck. If you're just sitting at home playing around while you watch tv or whatever, you can let your mind wander while you play. I do this, and sometimes it comes out with some really cool stuff (IMHO).

I agree with everything else in your post (and it's a good one!), except

[quote name='aryustailm' post='156858' date='Mar 13 2008, 05:12 PM']If you truly have no problem analysing music just by listening, and no problem getting your ideas across, then you should be able to hear something once, and play it back perfectly. (Ignoring speed/physical aspects, just melodic lines/chords/phrases/rhythm).[/quote]

That's not true at all. ANYONE can analyse music just by listening and thinking about it, not just musicians. Whether or not they can communicate those ideas is limited by thier language skills. I don't see why you would have to be able to totally analyse every single detail in a peice in one listen. Are you comparing this to reading music or something?

[Bilbo]

Nice one, Paul C. Now there is NO reason for people not to understand this stuff.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='157214' date='Mar 14 2008, 09:26 AM']That's not true at all. ANYONE can analyse music just by listening and thinking about it, not just musicians. Whether or not they can communicate those ideas is limited by thier language skills. I don't see why you would have to be able to totally analyse every single detail in a peice in one listen. Are you comparing this to reading music or something?[/quote]

I don't think you've understood what he means. I think his point, and I agree, is that your claim to have no problem understanding and conveying musical ideas would most effectively be tested/proved by your ability to instantly assimilate and regurgitate what you have just heard. If you can't do that then your claim is limited. And given some of your earlier posts I get the impression that you are not a master in that regard, and the poster was trying to let you know that there is work to do unless you are.
The context of the posts is quite important here.

Edited March 14, 2008 by jakesbass

[Bilbo]

[quote name='dlloyd' post='157227' date='Mar 14 2008, 09:37 AM']Apart from the fact that there are truly tone-deaf people who cannot understand music past a vague, superficial aesthetic, I'd agree.[/quote]

I was once told that someone who is genuinely tone deaf cannot hear the difference in frequency between a dog bark and bird song. I think real tone deafness is actually very rare. The rest is learned helplessness - people who are repeatedly told they are tone deaf to the point where they believe it and proceed accordingly.

The concept of excellence in singing, for instance, is a Western phenomenon. Asking someone is Africa if they can sing is like asking them if they can chew. Its not an issue.

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='bilbo230763' post='157257' date='Mar 14 2008, 10:18 AM']The concept of excellence in singing, for instance, is a Western phenomenon. Asking someone is Africa if they can sing is like asking them if they can chew. Its not an issue.[/quote]

Thats both fascinating and beautiful.

[Gazm]

[quote name='cheddatom' post='156852' date='Mar 13 2008, 05:04 PM']Do you play a piglet with your foot or what?[/quote]

I'd imagine like bagpipes

Just read this thread, some interesting posts and opinions.
Going to go and practice some things I never usually do now!

Thanks guys,

Pete.

[aryustailm]

[quote name='"bilbo230763"']I was once told that someone who is genuinely tone deaf cannot hear the difference in frequency between a dog bark and bird song. I think real tone deafness is actually very rare.[/quote]
There was an article in New Scientist about tone-deafness, the thinking was something like: If a person can speak their native language with all the correct inflections/accents/phrasing then they're not tone deaf, as they can pick up all those subtle yet audible qualities. From that, I agree, true tone-deafness must be very rare.

[quote name='"jakesbass']your claim to have no problem understanding and conveying musical ideas would most effectively be tested/proved by your ability to instantly assimilate and regurgitate what you have just heard. If you can't do that then your claim is limited.[/quote]
That's exactly what I was trying to get at

[quote name='"cheddatom"']ANYONE can analyse music just by listening and thinking about it, not just musicians. Whether or not they can communicate those ideas is limited by thier language skills.[/quote]
Anyone can, yes, but that doesn't mean they can reproduce it, understand or communicate it. I can analyse the world around me, I can analyse a car for example, but I'm not an engineer and have no chance in hell of making my own car without first understanding how already existing cars have been put together. It seems silly to me to not find out how to build a car before trying to make your own super fancy exotic car. Sure, you could try multiple times to get it right, but thats a lot of crashes in the meantime. Music is not much different in that respect.

[quote]I don't see why you would have to be able to totally analyse every single detail in a peice in one listen. Are you comparing this to reading music or something?[/quote]

I'm comparing it to your post saying you can effectively analyse and communicate music. If you can, you should be play peoples lines/music back to them after one listen. That person can be yourself, it doesn't matter. But you should hear the music in your head first. (Not hear the music after your fingers have stumbled across something)
The very best can play back after one listen, and I think it's one of the most efficient tests of overall musicianship (ignoring technical skill, which arguably doesn't make you a better musician, just a faster one ). Reading music has nothing to do with it. Reading music isn't important for making music. Again, it's only any use to communicate things that ARE to other people.
If you can hear the music you want to play in your head first, and you have the necessary knowledge of music, you can play what you hear first time without any trial and error. I suppose the other good test is to sing something, and then play it first time. A lot of great players can sing exactly what they are playing, even when improvising. The music they hear dictates what the fingers do, not the other way round. To attempt to stay on topic, Janek Gwizdala is one who can do that.


[quote name='"cheddatom"']you can let your mind wander while you play. I do this, and sometimes it comes out with some really cool stuff[/quote]
You can, and it works - but surely it be would be nicer to come out with really cool stuff more than 'sometimes' and take the guess work out? Assuming you're hearing music in your head first, and not hearing music from your fingers.

[paul, the]

What an interesting thread!

The technical ability/creativity argument is a very intriguing one. I'm attempted to tell people to just watch Educating Rita. But I can't help but think that there's so many folk musicians that are at the height of musicality, substance and feel, yet have very little technical/theory training.

I'm definitely in two minds about this, and I think a lot depends on development.

[paul, the]

I think it's by using your ear and trial and error that gives the best results. I think in a musical culture (most forms of folk), this kind of solid playing and a readily supply of masters to learn from throughout development breeds the best results.

Gypsy jazz is a great example.

---

I'm aware that it's different for session musicians who are required to perform many genres at a high level, but that doesn't seem natural to me.

Edited March 14, 2008 by paul, the

[mcgraham]

[quote]I think it's by using your ear and trial and error that gives the best results[/quote]

Despite all that has been said, that's ultimately what it's all about.

This thread has been a really good reminder of how valuable theory is, but as a means to an end in creating music, and that above all the process of growing, learning and making music should be enjoyable.

Now... what else can we chat about?

Mark

[aryustailm]

[quote name='"dlloyd"']A lot of the musicians have very little clue about theory as far as the terminology goes, but they still have very indepth knowledge about chord substitution and use pretty advanced concepts of soloing over changes. Even if they don't use the standard names for them, they're still using the same concepts, but the 'rules' are passed on by demonstration rather than description.[/quote]

I wholeheartadly agree with this, and that gypsy jazz is an excellent example. The most important thing is that those musicians (and any excellent musicians) have a highly developed ear. They CAN trade lines off each other no problem. They couldn't do that without understanding how music works (which is arguably a theory in their own terms). Whether they've been shown by a master, or through a lot of trial and error, or book theory, they understand music, which is more important than understanding fancy terminology. The terminology stuff *should* just help to name things that are around already. Its a means to developing a good ear. Which is a large factor in what enables musicians to become great musicians.

Edited March 14, 2008 by aryustailm

[Davemarks]

This topic is awesome and has turned into something of a monster. I would LOVE to meet up and engage some people for a roundtable discussion that we could throw at the mag...

A chat about the importance of technique and theory in playing

and the benefits / drawbacks of different educational approaches.

I live in West London. I'm sure I could get a free, quiet room to chat in the Institute in kilburn.

Anyone game for it?


Dave

[jakenewmanbass]

[quote name='Davemarks' post='158007' date='Mar 15 2008, 03:35 PM']This topic is awesome and has turned into something of a monster. I would LOVE to meet up and engage some people for a roundtable discussion that we could throw at the mag...

A chat about the importance of technique and theory in playing

and the benefits / drawbacks of different educational approaches.

I live in West London. I'm sure I could get a free, quiet room to chat in the Institute in kilburn.

Anyone game for it?


Dave[/quote]

Dave I'm just down the M3 a little, so West London is good for me and I'd be happy to.
Send me a PM if it has legs.
Jake

[paul, the]

...here's good too.