How Much Theory Do You Need?

[Trem]

depends on who you are and what you want to do - i've known guys that know it all, and some who know literally none, and while they could likely benefit from some, they are great players anyway.

It comes down to your ear - you don't have to know the number and letter of every note, imo you just need to be able to hear in your head the intervals between notes.

The best "theory" i ever had was with a guy who did go to GIT in the 80's i jammed with for awhile - the most important lessons he taught me were note and pitch recognization - IE, we would take turns closing our eyes while one played notes on the guitar tuned to pitch and have to name what note was being played.

even now, i can tune to standard tuning give or take a few cents without a tuner or note to go off, it's just in my head, i can also tune down to D or B fairly well without a tuner and be close enough for rock and roll.
I found this out last night as i changed strings on a guitar that would be tuned to D i tuned it up initially by ear, and found that it was nearly dead on to D on the tuner.

[MorrisonHotel]

It would be nice you take the physics courses for the musical sound and wave properties even.. It may help you to develop some different perspective views upon the subject matter of the music. It was just a simple instance. What I'm trying to say is it would be beneficial for you to try to add brand new properties or change the way you look upon the music that you've known up to this time.

e.g. even I haven't used my voice technically for a bit before, I have joined a classical music choir last year and learnt how to use my diaphragm and voice in varying registers. I think, the most beneficial part for me was to recognize how pure and tremendous instrument the human voice is.

[tonemonster]

I find I use it when working with other musicians. especially when trying to work out a harmony part. it blows peoples minds when they cant seem to figure out what note to use. or if they want to play in a specific key, and I rattle off the scale formula for a scale. they look at me like I am some kind of genious. the goofy part is, even if you DONT know theory, there are only 12 notes, so its not that difficult to find the right harmony note. its usually a 3rd or a 5th. sometimes its an odd interval but not often. its just fun to use. some people get confused really easily by it. its not rocket science.

[tonemonster]

The best "theory" i ever had was with a guy who did go to GIT in the 80's i jammed with for awhile - the most important lessons he taught me were note and pitch recognization - IE, we would take turns closing our eyes while one played notes on the guitar tuned to pitch and have to name what note was being played.

even now, i can tune to standard tuning give or take a few cents without a tuner or note to go off, it's just in my head, i can also tune down to D or B fairly well without a tuner and be close enough for rock and roll.
I found this out last night as i changed strings on a guitar that would be tuned to D i tuned it up initially by ear, and found that it was nearly dead on to D on the tuner.

now thats damn cool.

[KevinDguitar]

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.

Leo, EXCELLENT POST!

[Trussrod]

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.

Jazz musicians have a great way of dealing this dilemma. They use the “learn it and forget it” approach. Learn all the theory you can with an emphasis on how to apply it, then forget it. Let the theory you learn affect your playing without letting it define or limit it.