How Much Theory Do You Need?

[salmonella]

I wish I knew more "theory". My brain seems to forget it very quickly. Quite often I learn some new theory only to realise I actually knew it already but didnt know what it was called or how it was constructed. Learning it just means you dont have to reinvent the wheel and make all the dicoveries yourself.

[khabibissell]

I think at least knowing what key you're in, the scales that work well in that key, and the basic "box" position of where you find those scale tones, and basic major and minor fingerings helps a great deal when it comes to coming up with solos. I don't buy it when an accomplished player says they don't know theory. They may not be able to map it out and paper or discuss in detail what they are playing, but because of their ears and experience they play stuff that works over the progression.

I would hardly call myself accomplished (actually, I kinda suck), but I have few "Theory for Dummies" ways to help me when I have to come up with a solo. Some examples would be playing a major pattern three frets down from from the root of a minor chord progression (relative major), playing a minor pattern starting on the forth note of a minor scale (in Dmin use a Gminor pattern). This gives you Phrygian. Using the same example, play a harmonic minor scale in G over a D minor progression... this gives you the ever popular Phrygian Dominant (5th mode of harmonic minor) sound. Or building a dimished arpeggio by just by playing notes three frets apart. There's all kinds of ways to formulate stuff that fools people into thinking you know what you are doing.

[paige]

The better question would be is, is theory more important then the human ear. No it is not but not every player has that kind of ear. As far as any semi-modern to modern player claiming to not knowing theory, - b.s. Look up the the lynch and dave navarro video, lynch says he doesn't know a lick of theory and then he starts explaining the notes in the scale he is using. Slash said he has never had a lesson, then says that the begining of sweet child of mine came from a finger exercize that he was working on that axle or izzy dug. Just cause you got it of the internet or magazine doesn't mean somebody didn't open a door for you

[horns666]

I get my best song ideas in the bathtub. When bubbles suddenly appear. My ideas are in those bubbles!

Bill Z Bubbles

[MakeAJazzNoiseHere]

I get my best song ideas in the bathtub. When bubbles suddenly appear. My ideas are in those bubbles!

Bill Z Bubbles

Mine usually come to me while I'm taking a crap.

Seriously, I get good riff ideas when I'm bored, usually.

Theory-wise I recall Ed taking a bunch of lessons around the time he did his whole "I'm gonna play keyboards now" thing and it was funny what he said (paraphrasing) that you learn this scale and that mode goes with this chord progression and then... It all comes back to what sounds good anyway.

We've all seen kids at GC, on Youtube, everywhere else, shredding away on sweep-picked arpeggios in the key of W (for "wank") that have no ear, they're fucking tone deaf and trying to play the guitar. Some guys can really pull this stuff off, and some guys no matter how fast or how slow they play, they just "don't got it." You can teach them every fucking scale in the book and they might play in the proper key and they might have OUTSTANDING technique and maybe, just maybe, they might even, every once in a while, play something that sounds pretty good, but I agree with Ed, it's called "theory" for a reason... Sometimes in practice, it just doesn't sound good, and that's what it really comes down to in the end.

[Endrik]

I don't USE any theory when I play or write. I've done everything by ear and worked out how stuff works my own way. I understand how things work but it's not the academical way. I've read a couple of theory books about scales and whatnot and even purchased some books about complex jazz harmony. I kinda get it but the next day I wont remember any of those official terms and whatnot. I always have to look 'em up. I only remember chords. I don't have much practical use for "official" theory but it doesn't hurt to know it. I like Indian type scales/modes the most and they have totally different names for that stuff. Just to know some "fun facts" I did some research on them but it doesn't help me as a musician at all, I stoled all the licks and phrases from Sitar players way before I even thought how should I call all that stuff.

[Leo Chang]

In this type of discussion, inevitably the issue always gets framed as "ear/creativity VS theory/conformity"... but I don't think that's truly the issue.

The great Western composers like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven etc... all studied theory extensively... and their knowledge of theory does not seem to have weighed them down musically.

Sometimes the less you think about something, the better your performance is. But there are certain things you cannot even attempt to perform at all, if you do not have the requisite knowledge.

The real issue, therefore, is having the RIGHT BALANCE for your musical goals.

A lot of the more studious type of musicians know they need to learn theory etc etc... but neglect to practice / train their creativity as well... hence the imbalance you see in some well-educated shredders. It's not the theory education that is at fault... the real culprit is simply the lack of targeted training for improving creativity at the same pace as other aspects of musicianship.

It's easy to blame it on the theory knowledge... because it's one thing that these very unbalanced players have in abundance.... but that misses the point entirely.

On the other hand... the "ears only" players are also very unbalanced. Most average electric guitarists can get away with it, because Blues, Classic Rock, (some) Hard Rock, and (some) Metal are simply not that musically "sophisticated" to begin with.

I am using the term "sophisticated" here not as a value judgement, but as an indication that most players in these styles simply don't NEED a lot of text book style theory in order to reproduce or write songs in these styles.

The "ears only" players can indeed do very well. But there are some major disadvantage... they are stuck with whatever their "inner ear" can hear... and they often have no clear idea of how to actively develop their "inner ear" other than what most musicians know at a basic level.

By not learning theory, they have also prevented themselves from drawing on the vast accumulated treasure trove of Western music history / theory.

In terms of reproducing songs that have been written by someone else, that's not an issue. But in composing one's own songs, it definitely is.
Sure, you can use this scale or that mode purely by ear without knowing anything about it.... but I am not referring to that. The real limitation is in the types of compositional techniques that are at your command... many of which you can't even begin to use without extensive theoretical knowledge.

Most "ears only" player simply assume that "aww, I wouldn't want to incorporate that stuff into my songs anyway"... but without having actually studied it, they don't know what they don't know.... and it strikes me as incredibly odd that such a sizeable subset of electric guitarists are so eager to put a cap on their own potentials.

To wrap it up:

1. The "studious" type of musician is unbalanced towards theoretical knowledge and precise techniques... but short on creativity training (yes, it can be trained)

2. The "ears only" musician is unbalanced towards a self limiting reliance on their "inner ear" that can indeed work very well within the context of certain styles... but is ultimately limiting.

3. The solution, in my opinion ( ), is to strike a balance between the previous 2 positions. It's not either / or... it's "given my specific musical goals, how do I get the best of both worlds and become the best musician I can possibly be"


- Leo.

[Endrik]

Inner ear is different in each person. Someone with superb ear can do anything because of his natural talent.

Also many great "by the ear" players know theory not in the academical way but all the relationships between notes, chords, scales whatever have mapped out in their head/ear because they have a)great ears and natural talent b)they've played a lot so they know how things work c)all the other things come from logical conclusions based on their experiences and of course by the gut feeling.
Without knowing all the textbook terms they know pretty much the same things as the music school guys, they know what goes flat and what goes sharp etc. It's just a little different. They don't know how to name all that stuff but they understand the relationships between the notes.

"official" music theory was developed in the first place by guys like that. It's the logical conclusions based on experiences and good ear that lead to the "set of rules" we know as "music theory".

I think it's positive to know the official theory. No doubt. I just suck at it.
Those guys who know theory inside out but suck at writing were weak in the first place. They were never born with the talent to be great anyway. I think "learning theory takes creativity away" is BS. There are just some people who just generally suck at music and use theory as a road map.

I'm just a loud rock'n'roll player but I'm happy that whatever I hear in my head wether it's eastern melodies, progressions like in impressionistic classical music or crazy atonal jazz licks I can play them on my instrument.
I wish to know it all but I'm just too lazy to study.

[Matt_B]

I learned quite a bit of theory a long time ago, enough to allow me to play what I wanted and then some.

I've been enjoying playing some jazz lately and if I want to get into it more, I know I have enough theory to be able to learn more if I want to.

When it comes to theory, I don't think about it when I play - I just play. When I play something I like the sound of and I want to refine it, then I slow down and use theory as a guide to help me find those next notes or chord.

Knowing theory doesn't make one a better player but lack of theory definitely won't. You shouldn't think about it while you're playing but when you're writing, theory comes in very handy.

Case in point. The chord progression I've been working on is pretty basic one in D major (DMaj7, F#min7, Bmin7) but I tried changing the Bmin7 to a B7 which is the v chord in the key of E major. Because I know this bit of theory, I know what chords I can use if I want to modulate the key from D major to E major. That said, I can still do whatever sounds good to my ear but with my knowledge of theory I have a direction I can follow if I want to.

[MakeAJazzNoiseHere]

In this type of discussion, inevitably the issue always gets framed as "ear/creativity VS theory/conformity"... but I don't think that's truly the issue.

I agree with what you said.

Basically the same way I feel, knowing some (or a lot) of theory will open your mind to new avenues you wouldn't otherwise have done down, and knowing the rules also doesn't mean you can't break them, unless you're just "that type of person."

But you can know all the theory in the world and if you don't have a good ear you won't produce good music, at least not consistently. You'll produce music that follows conventions, but that doesn't mean it will be good music.

This is true of any style of art, really, that's where the "art" part comes in.

[Shawn Lutz]

some great thoughts in this thread....

One thing I'd like to point out is the relation between theory and technique Music theory is just that, its related to music - it is applicable to any instrument at any time. Having said that, all the theory in the world will do little good if you don't have the technical abilities to use it to your benefit

[Ben...]

1. The "studious" type of musician is unbalanced towards theoretical knowledge and precise techniques... but short on creativity training (yes, it can be trained)
- Leo.

That's me. I have a good ear but I can't "jam" as all the people who know me say I should do. I need arranged structure in order to come up with anything. The only thing I'm good at coming up with on the fly is walking bass lines from back when I played in the school jazz band. I had preset chords, the key, and all that so it was a cinch. I can do neoclassical stuff if I know the scales involved but ask me to do a generic "rock" solo and I will give you a blank stare because I will not know where to begin.

Edit: I got in an argument with my mom and cousin, who also plays guitar (A bunch of chord progressions from 70's pop songs and only that) about how what I do for guitar could possibly fun. They think that doing exercises is boring and that songs (He was talking all those boring songs made up of playing a few chords over and over again) are way more fun. I say exercises are more fun and are satisfying once you get good at them because you can implement them into your own stuff or use them to learn more technically challenging songs. I imagine musical taste plays a major role in this argument but it was interesting because he just couldn't understand how technically challenging things to play were fun. On the flip side, I can't see how playing chords all day is fun.

[sean1197]

Even then, If you watch some of George's DVD's, he has "his own" scales that he comes up with, so he is very far from uneducated and just guessing. I remember hearing somewhere that whenever he had solo's, he'd bring them to a teacher and have them explain theoretically what he was doing.

EVH plays piano, and I don't know anyone who plays piano well that doesn't know their scales and what not.. Eddie's an educated musician.

thats not true i play piano and i dont kno my scales but i learned everything by ear and memorized it or its just i dont kno wat the scales are called

[Leo Chang]

thats not true i play piano and i dont kno my scales but i learned everything by ear and memorized it or its just i dont kno wat the scales are called

Haha... when I was forced to take piano lessons but hated it, I did the same thing. Memorized the "sound" and the fingerings, but never actually learned the theory stuff.... don't know how I got through years of piano lessons that way.

But when I started to get serious about guitar and started to learn all the theory stuff as it pertains to the guitar (and trying my best to apply them)... definitely opened up a lot of possibilities.

Off-topic but somewhat related:

In modern classical music pedagogy... it's weird how they learned all that theory, but never really learned how to apply them. Most modern classical musicians don't write their own songs and don't improvise... very strange. Seems like they learned all that theory just to pass the conservatory grading exams. They may understand what they are playing, but they don't use that understanding very actively.

Whereas the typical electric guitarist may not have a very good "academic" understanding of what it is that he is doing, but he is using his intuitive understanding very actively.

So the one group of musician that absolutely NEED a lot of applied theory and HAVE to use it on a daily basis is probably Jazz musicians.

So again... back to my original point: how much theory YOU need is dependent on YOUR specific musical goals.


- Leo.

[Leo Chang]

Inner ear is different in each person. Someone with superb ear can do anything because of his natural talent.

Also many great "by the ear" players know theory not in the academical way but all the relationships between notes, chords, scales whatever have mapped out in their head/ear because they have a)great ears and natural talent b)they've played a lot so they know how things work c)all the other things come from logical conclusions based on their experiences and of course by the gut feeling.
Without knowing all the textbook terms they know pretty much the same things as the music school guys, they know what goes flat and what goes sharp etc. It's just a little different. They don't know how to name all that stuff but they understand the relationships between the notes.

"official" music theory was developed in the first place by guys like that. It's the logical conclusions based on experiences and good ear that lead to the "set of rules" we know as "music theory".

I think it's positive to know the official theory. No doubt. I just suck at it.
Those guys who know theory inside out but suck at writing were weak in the first place. They were never born with the talent to be great anyway. I think "learning theory takes creativity away" is BS. There are just some people who just generally suck at music and use theory as a road map.

I'm just a loud rock'n'roll player but I'm happy that whatever I hear in my head wether it's eastern melodies, progressions like in impressionistic classical music or crazy atonal jazz licks I can play them on my instrument.
I wish to know it all but I'm just too lazy to study.

I think we are in perfect agreement, we just say it differently

Should we use "official theoy" and "intuitive theory" to describe the two approaches? Would be easier for referring to them

Because "by the ear" players vary from geniuses like EVH... to beginners who simply hasn't learned enough theory. Whereas the term "intuitive theory" suggests that the player has already built up a systematic (though intuitive) roadmap to his music.


- Leo.