How important is theory and reading to you??

[Eight]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='391495' date='Jan 26 2009, 10:47 AM']Please point me in the direction of a formally trained musician who is currently producing great music.[/quote]
Great depends on your tastes but the first one I can think of - Jonny Greenwood from Radiohead. Classically trained. Not 100% what you mean by 'formally'.

Here's his intro from Wikipedia.

Jonathan Richard Guy Greenwood[1] (born 5 November 1971) is a BAFTA and Grammy-nominated musician and composer-in-residence for the BBC, best known as a member of English alternative rock group Radiohead. Greenwood is a multi-instrumentalist, but serves mainly as a guitarist and keyboard player. He is the younger brother of fellow Radiohead member Colin Greenwood. In addition to guitar and keyboard instruments he plays viola, xylophone, glockenspiel, ondes Martenot, banjo, harmonica and drums. He also does work on the electronic side of Radiohead, working on computer-generated sounds and sampling. He was ranked number 59 on Rolling Stone's "100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time".[2] Greenwood is the principal songwriter of a number of Radiohead's songs including "The Tourist," "Life in a Glasshouse" and "A Wolf at the Door."

Edited January 26, 2009 by Eight

[mcgraham]

WoT, do you have a desire to improve?

If you have no desire to improve I'd class that as complacency, at least from a perspective of constantly pursuing excellence (IMO). If you're at least satisfied at your present level, that's fine, after all music is meant to be fun.

If you have DO have a desire to improve but actively avoid learning theory because you don't think it will benefit you that's ignorance, as you are ignoring a great learning tool.

Mark

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='Eight' post='391514' date='Jan 26 2009, 11:01 AM']Great depends on your tastes but the first one I can think of - Jonny Greenwood from Radiohead. Classically trained. Not 100% what you mean by 'formally'.[/quote]


Thank you for proving my point.

[Eight]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='391525' date='Jan 26 2009, 11:07 AM']Thank you for proving my point.[/quote]
Because you don't like Radiohead then that proves your point? They're not exactly small time and his CV reads like a dream for most musicians.

What are you looking for here exactly? Define 'great' and I'll have another think.

[Eight]

Lol. I *will* find someone you like even if it kills me.

John Cale from The Velvet Underground? Pretty important in punk rock history and studied music at university.

[mcgraham]

Also, define 'trained'. It's not a binary definition of 'trained' or 'untrained'. You can be totally untrained with no theory knowledge (non-musician, as you will inherently learn something by picking up an instrument, even if it's not formal or learned via traditional theory), but after you learn what a 'root' note is, you know [i]some[/i] theory. As you never finish learning, there's always something more to learn and always somewhere else to apply it, what is the threshold after which someone is 'trained'?

Mark

[Eight]

Do you happen to like Apocalyptica? All classically trained obviously.

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='Eight' post='391531' date='Jan 26 2009, 11:12 AM']Because you don't like Radiohead then that proves your point? They're not exactly small time and his CV reads like a dream for most musicians.

What are you looking for here exactly? Define 'great' and I'll have another think.[/quote]


Doesn't have to be great, just someone good!

Think non-pretentious. I don't like music for the middle classes.


No doubt there are a small number of classically trained musicians I like out there. There's got to be. But they're few and far between.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='mcgraham' post='391522' date='Jan 26 2009, 11:06 AM']WoT, do you have a desire to improve?

If you have no desire to improve I'd class that as complacency, at least from a perspective of constantly pursuing excellence (IMO). If you're at least satisfied at your present level, that's fine, after all music is meant to be fun.

If you have DO have a desire to improve but actively avoid learning theory because you don't think it will benefit you that's ignorance, as you are ignoring a great learning tool.

Mark[/quote]

Yes, I do have a desire to improve. And I am. All the time.

I'm playing with more and more musicians all the time, from all sorts of musical backgrounds. I'm helping to write and arrange new tunes every day with a variety of different people.

Believe me, my attention span is non-existent, so if I was stagnating I'd be the first to know.

I don't have a desire to learn theory because 1) my musical life is rich and fulfilling, 2) I have a full-time job, 3) I have a young family and 4) As mentioned above, I have no attention span.

I'll quite happily admit that had I learned theory when I was younger, I would probably have made more impact at an earlier age, but I had no patience then either.

[Eight]

You won't like them - but I know at least three members of Nightwish have formally studied music and music theory (either at conservatoires or college/uni).

(Thanks to Vic for reminding me of that one)

[Eight]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='391540' date='Jan 26 2009, 11:20 AM']No doubt there are a small number of classically trained musicians I like out there. There's got to be. But they're few and far between.[/quote]
Since bands don't publish their "training" on the album sleeve notes, its pretty hard to know who has done what and what influence its had. The ones I picked out are bands I like that I happen to have read about - or in the case of Nightwish was lucky enough to get to speak to briefly.

All people are saying here is that there's not evidence to write-off music theory; just as now most people don't write-off musicians just because they haven't studied it.

Edit: As someone alluded to earlier, its much "cooler" to have had no music training and people are happy to state this. My personal opinion is that outside of classical music and jazz, people are not so inclined to say that they've studied music theory or are classically trained.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Eight

[AM1]

[quote name='OutToPlayJazz' post='390107' date='Jan 23 2009, 11:52 PM']Obviously there was always going to be a clear split in opinion on this subject between the hobbyists & the pros, TBBC.[/quote]

I disagree. There are pros that can't read just as there are hobbyists that can.

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='391223' date='Jan 25 2009, 08:54 PM']As a pro, learning to read is great. It pays your mortgage. I have no desire to be a pro (in the non-band sense). I hate too much music to ever be a session guy. And I'm crap.

I can clearly see the doors it opens, but not everyone wants those doors opened!

I'd like to be able to read, but not so much as to invest the effort to learn. No one in my band reads, so my knowledge would be wasted on them.[/quote]

Reading music doesn't just benefit pros. Whether your band reads or not is irrelevant to YOUR personal development as a bass player. These are just more self-justifications for not learning to read. You have repeatedly said you would like to be able to read but you're not willing to invest the effort to learn. I think your own barriers are holding you back as well as your own misconceptions about the effort needed to learn to read. Reading music is not difficult nor it is it a big effort of your time. A little bit of work, a bit at a time and you'd be there.

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='391495' date='Jan 26 2009, 10:47 AM']Please point me in the direction of a formally trained musician who is currently producing great music.[/quote]

Dave Marks - I wasn't too keen on some of the stuff at first but now I really rate it in terms of musicianship. Check out Jo Webb & The Dirty Hands, these guys rock! I saw them live last week, absolutely excellent. Dave is a classic example of the benefits of some decent music education.

You still maintain that there are no benefits from reading/theory. I am learning some Police songs at the moment (off the scores) and I have watched a few people on the web trying to play them by ear. I didn't see a single person that was able to play those songs with A) the correct phrasing B ) the correct techniques including muted notes and hammer-ons (slurs) that epitomise Sting's writing style C) the correct notes D) the correct note lengths E) the correct rests F) the correct timing. But that's all in the score. Butchering other musicians' work is NOT cool.

Similarly, yesterday I bought the Bass Tab White Pages. There are some songs in there that I don't know - but was able to play straight off the score. Same goes for the songs I do know, it was quicker to play straight off the dots.

When you read music, you can look at it and actually hear the music in your head. You can recognise intervals, which then also means should you choose to play by ear, you can take the start note (knowing the key as well) and learn quicker by ear because you can see which intervals to go to. Reading music can also help with timing and rhythm.

You are doing yourself a great injustice by maintaining such a closed mind.

Edited January 26, 2009 by AM1

[Eight]

[quote name='AM1' post='391556' date='Jan 26 2009, 11:37 AM']Similarly, yesterday I bought the Bass Tab White Pages. There are some songs in there that I don't know - but was able to play straight off the score. Same goes for the songs I do know, it was quicker to play straight off the dots.[/quote]
Hahahah - I bought that same book last week.

Had the same experience with it actually.

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='Eight' post='391551' date='Jan 26 2009, 11:30 AM']Since bands don't publish their "training" on the album sleeve notes, its pretty hard to know who has done what and what influence its had. The ones I picked out are bands I like that I happen to have read about - or in the case of Nightwish was lucky enough to get to speak to briefly.

All people are saying here is that there's not evidence to write-off music theory; just as now most people don't write-off musicians just because they haven't studied it.[/quote]


I haven't written off music theory. I've studied music theory myself. I find it interesting!

I maintain that learning to read isn't for everyone. Call me a quitter or whatever, but I have enough challenges in my life without having to go home and beat myself up over not being able to read dots!

I do think the more theory and technical ability you have, the more likely you are to slip into w***ery. You do it because you can. I don't think its a coincedence that classically untrained musicians appeal to my pub rock sensibilites. The more technically focussed genres (I count Jazz and Progressive Metal in this club) do nothing for me.

[AM1]

[quote name='Eight' post='391558' date='Jan 26 2009, 11:39 AM']Hahahah - I bought that same book last week.

Had the same experience with it actually.[/quote]



You see my point? No endless faffing replaying sections to hear and learn notes, just plug and play!

I spent four hours with it last night, eventually I had to stop as my wrist was aching like a b*stard!

[dlloyd]

This is as useful a discussion as it always is.

The problem isn't in learning theory, it's in its application... in knowing how to use it appropriately.

I've seen knowledge of the Phrygian Dominant scale represented as 'advanced theory', and sure, I've certainly heard it used horribly (in my opinion). Yngwie Malmsteen uses it frequently, and to me, what he does with it is pretty unimaginative. But it's also used extremely effectively and tastefully (again, in my opinion) in Klezmer and music from Eastern Europe.

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='AM1' post='391556' date='Jan 26 2009, 11:37 AM']You still maintain that there are no benefits from reading/theory.[/quote]


No I don't.

There's loads of benefits. I don't dislike theory. I DON'T DISLIKE THEORY!

[Eight]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='391560' date='Jan 26 2009, 11:39 AM']I haven't written off music theory. I've studied music theory myself. I find it interesting![/quote]
Ah ok - sorry if I made an assumption about you there.

[quote]I maintain that learning to read isn't for everyone. Call me a quitter or whatever, but I have enough challenges in my life without having to go home and beat myself up over not being able to read dots![/quote]
If you don't want to then to be honest, that's good enough for me. I do read and love working that way; but that's me. I'm not trying to sell you anything.

[quote]I do think the more theory and technical ability you have, the more likely you are to slip into w***ery. You do it because you can. I don't think its a coincedence that classically untrained musicians appeal to my pub rock sensibilites. The more technically focussed genres (I count Jazz and Progressive Metal in this club) do nothing for me.[/quote]
I just can't blame music theory for that and it isn't logical to me to blame the downfall of musicians on their study. It seems far more plausible that when they achieved the ability to do so, then they followed their heart and produced something we don't like. Which is fair enough.

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='391569' date='Jan 26 2009, 11:45 AM']No I don't.

There's loads of benefits. I don't dislike theory. I DON'T DISLIKE THEORY![/quote]

+1.

I'm a bit tired of the 'You're either for us or against us!' vibe coming from some people.

Of course there's value in it. Some people do things differently, s'all.

[Eight]

[quote name='wateroftyne' post='391575' date='Jan 26 2009, 11:50 AM']+1.

I'm a bit tired of the 'You're either for us or against us!' vibe coming from some people.

Of course there's value in it. Some people do things differently, s'all.[/quote]
Yet for the third time since I joined this board in December, I've seen the suggestion that studying music theory makes you stale or w***y (which is my new favourite way of describing it).

Which is a little insulting.

I was going to say that its a shame we lost track of the original bit of the question which asked how important it is [b]*to you*[/b]. But I accept that I'm partly responsible for that.

[AM1]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='391569' date='Jan 26 2009, 11:45 AM']No I don't.

There's loads of benefits. I don't dislike theory. I DON'T DISLIKE THEORY![/quote]

Maybe you personally don't like it. However, inadvertently you are implying that the learning of theory and reading has a detrimental effect on the quality of music that trained musicians produce.

But you make fundamentally flawed and illogical arguments to support this.

Also, you keep stating your own views about disliking jazz. Whether you like a genre of music or not is irrelevant in the determination of whether theory is beneficial or not. There is no place for musical snobbery in this discussion.

Learning to read music opens doors, whether you want to be a pro, or a hobbyist. If your band got a recording contract and have to stick with the budget for recording, the ability to read music means you can speak the lingo, communicate to each other effectively and lay down recordings straight from certain points rather than wasting time faffing and saying..let's take it from the bridge, let's go from the last chorus, let's start again, etc. Same goes for rehearsals.

Whether you want to learn to read or not, your argument that doing so, produces a weaker, less creative musician, is erroneous. Attempts to progress your argument, by suggesting identification of certain musicians as a way to prove a point, is a flawed methodology for strengthening an argument, because you are using a subjective factor, which means you will always use that subjectivity to favour your own points.


Regards
AM

Edited January 26, 2009 by AM1

[dlloyd]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='391560' date='Jan 26 2009, 11:39 AM']I do think the more theory and technical ability you have, the more likely you are to slip into w***ery.[/quote]

I think it's more likely the other way around. Those who are impressed by w***ery are more likely to learn the parts of theory that will enable them to replicate it. It's sad that people are being turned off theory by an unjustified association with bad music.

[BigBeefChief]

[quote name='dlloyd' post='391590' date='Jan 26 2009, 11:58 AM']I think it's more likely the other way around. Those who are impressed by w***ery are more likely to learn the parts of theory that will enable them to replicate it. It's sad that people are being turned off theory by an unjustified association with bad music.[/quote]


Maybe. I think that those people (like me) who enjoy comparitely "simple" music don't have the drive to learn theory in the same way a Jazz fan would.

[Cantdosleepy]

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='391525' date='Jan 26 2009, 11:07 AM']Something about not liking Radiohead.[/quote]

I... I never thought it would come to this. I'm sorry chief, but it's over between us.

*sobs*


I cannot read sheet music. I'd like to, but I've only a finite amount of hobbytime, and theory comes far behind learning the drums, both in personal interest and immediate future usefulness. Same reason I can't read Arabic - it's not a slight on arabic, there's just loads of other stuff I'd prefer to do with my minimal free time.

Interestingly - don't have any interest in jazz melodies, but love jazz drumming. Huh?

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Eight' post='391583' date='Jan 26 2009, 11:57 AM']Yet for the third time since I joined this board in December, I've seen the suggestion that studying music theory makes you stale or w***y (which is my new favourite way of describing it).

Which is a little insulting.

I was going to say that its a shame we lost track of the original bit of the question which asked how important it is [b]*to you*[/b]. But I accept that I'm partly responsible for that.[/quote]

Two wrongs don't make a right, etc.