my theory site posted by fortymile

Walt
Chief Cook and Bottle Washer
Member
Since: May 10, 2002

Apr 26, 2003 11:19 pm

I personally have great appreciation for what you are doing. My take is you get out of music what you put in. I do not agree with theory being something that can degregrate a person's musical abilities. The way in which it is often taught can be problematic however,IMHO. I noted the mention of ear training first and theory to follow. It is my opinion that the sequence has little to do with anything. What seems to be often missed in musical education is that music is heard. I think I played chello and then bass for two years before anyone mentioned listening to what I was playing. That came naturally for me so there was no problem, however many students play a long time and never really use their ears. As you noted all people learn differently. Somehow I stumbled across a method that works for me. Study theory, read music, practice with music and then put all of that away and use your ears. I firmly believe in a wholistic approach for any serious musician espiring to performing more than three chords. I draw on everything from my site reading abilities, to theory for improvision, to just plain "hearing" in my minds ear the sound I want to make in every gig I play. I have yet to have any theory get in the way of making music.

MinkusMaz
Bane of All Existence
Member
Since: Mar 27, 2003

Apr 27, 2003 12:22 am

i agree. this is very cool that you're doing this.

i've had the theory talk with a bunch of jam buddies, and the ones who are anti-theory and worry about it destroying their creativity tend to use it as an excuse to marginalize it (therefore not dedicating the effort to learn). i like jamming with the guys who know where C is, rather than having to turn around and put my finger on C itself.

how can learning to read and write make you a worse poet?

fortymile
Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Apr 27, 2003 02:09 am

hey mangs thanks for the nice words (about the endeavor). i just report what i see. i used to go to a piano message board, and some of the longtime professionally trained people didnt have any idea how to start writing thier own stuff. no clue at all, asking questions that were so basic it was shocking. it was obvious they had trained all thier lives. but in the end all they could do was interpret the dots on the page. (which, dont get me wrong, i wish i could do that as well as some people can).

Walt
Chief Cook and Bottle Washer
Member
Since: May 10, 2002

Apr 27, 2003 12:57 pm

I don't get that. The best I can figgure is that those folks are very left brained. I too know folks who are very mechanical and play dot to dot. That is not a slight. We are all wired differently. When I'm running down a road map I hear (minds ear) all kinds of detours goung on. I often wonder if it is because many instructors have their students learn a piece then move to the next. I started enjoying "practice" when I would continue on after learning the piece and play with it. Different rythums, different time signatures, different chord arrangements, etc. When I started playing with folks that had no music or had just rough sketches, chord charts, change sketches, it was no problem being right there. Oh well, regardless, to folks that choose to use it theory is great. One more avenue to increase musical ability.

MinkusMaz
Bane of All Existence
Member
Since: Mar 27, 2003

Apr 27, 2003 01:07 pm

i think the phenomenon being described translates directly to other artistic fields as well. the majority of people will paint by numbers, and the minority will make their own painting.

Noize2u
Czar of Midi
Administrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002

Apr 27, 2003 08:10 pm

Walt, I am with you on this subject. I like the minds ear referance. Years ago I got into an argument with a young man who for all intents and purposes could play circles around me in as far as he had all his scales down and how music should be writen in a certain key and stay there, and all the pieces that relate to music theory and higher learning musically. I on the other hand had given up on trying to put music theory behind the music I wrote as I found it only hindered me. I am lucky to be able to hear a single melody line or just some notes on the keys or whatever is playing, and I can add the instruments in my head and hear what they might sound like in the arrangement. I always got in trouble at piano practice because of these things, as they always came out in the way I played said practice piece.

Anyway, he bragged that there was nothing written he couldnt play to becasue he was trained to do that. I had heard him play many times, and did agree that he was very good. But he was tuly limited as to were he went musically based on the structure of the music.

So to see just how good he was, I wrote a piece that had no real key or structure of any kind. Basically one mass of key change after another, titled it Spazz and gave it to him to try and come up with some form of lead line to run through the piece. Needless to say, he got no where and called it garbage. so to make my point I called upon a talented guitar player who was very good at improvisation, and had no formal music training whatsoever. He gave a listen and on the second run through was playing right along with the piece. The well trained musician left without a word and never bothered to argue about the level someone with no training could acheive again.

And Minkus, I like your analogy of the paint by numbers, and make your own.

Walt
Chief Cook and Bottle Washer
Member
Since: May 10, 2002

Apr 27, 2003 10:46 pm

Yup, I have to say that I use everything I have and obviously could still use more. Runnin around with the Big Band which carries a little over 500 charts, I would be lost if I couldn't read and site read. And there are those gigs where we do special things. One was a two hour jazz rythem section only dinner music pre show. We brought in a real good jazz keyboardist out of UofM and he handed me a stack of chord charts. If I hadn't known some theory of chord structures, and general phrase structure, I would have made a mess out of that. Then there are those charts that have huge open sections with no indication of what is being done except maybe the words "wild solo". Time to pay real close attention with the ear. Some pieces need to be tight to the music where 20 people are doing a lot of counterpoint, other spots you can get out of the envelope and play a little. It is all good stuff for sure, but regardless of road map or lack there of, one must "hear". Both literly and in the minds ear. MHO. Personally I think I would have cheated myself if I played only by road map or only by ear.

fortymile
Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Apr 28, 2003 01:07 am

whenever i play with a band, if things are already written and all that remains is for me to layer on top of it, then i just 'hear things' and make them happen. the most interesting lead lines happen in that kind of a random fog where the ear is leading. but when i work on songs at home, usually i'm first coming up with riffs, just by playing around. when it comes time for the song to go to a new place, instead of reaching for random chords and hitting grating ones from a foreign key by accident and losing time and maybe the vibe, i'll know the different statements that can be made by going to the iii or collapsing the present riff down to where it takes on a new character because where before it felt like the I, now it seems like the iii of I, or whatever. whats interesting though, is that any really good ear player has already developed an intuitive sense of that stuff. i believe that, for instance, kurt kobain didn't know theory. but he also did: he knew shapes, patterns he found. he uncovered some rules of harmony through his own explorations, which are evident. and then he broke some in interesting ways, by just reaching around. or harmonizing an already-existing melody, with the ear. theory is discovered, if you're writing, whether you know it or not, because certain things just sound familiar and good, and those things just happen to have names, within the framework of theory. but it's all good to me, either way you do it. i prefer the ear...thats how i've always done things. but i'm shocked at how easy and useful theory is, once all the misconceptions are seen past. that it's difficult is one. it isn't. there are really very few thigns to know--everything else comes straight out of those first kernals, like nesting russian dolls. it's dizzying, weird, and fascinating.

coolo
Frisco's Most Underrated
Member
Since: Jan 28, 2003

Apr 28, 2003 06:46 pm

forty, I will definitely check your site out when I have a minute. I would definitely like to learn more about theory. I think theory is a good foundation from which you can build. I learned some of the basics of music theory while taking a music class in college, but I pretty much forget any technical terms and how they work. Some very, very basic ideas stayed with me though. Overall, I think the ear doesn't lie, and it's ok to break some of the rules, because sometimes it will sound good. Actually, for that afore mentioned class, I wrote a short melody while laying on the beach in Hawaii, entirely trying to build everything within my head (I had no instrument to work with, and didn't really have any theory knowledge to fall back on). Anyways, when I turned the piece in, my instructor said that part of it was in a minor key and the other part was a major key, and I needed to choose one and go with it (I'm not sure if that's the right terminology, I said I forgot the technical terms...). So, when I got my current computer, I used midi and a sequencer to playback what I wrote and it sounds great (to me). I guess the point is that you don't have to stick to classic theoretical approaches to write nice sounding music. But at the same time, I think it can make it easier.

Someone tell me to shut up already, geez.

fortymile
Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Apr 29, 2003 12:38 am

coolo,

it sounds like your teacher needed to loosen his corset. :) there's nothing wrong with using more than one key in a song. i've got a few like that, and sometimes i do it deliberately. lots of songs have key changes. the classical masters used them, nine inch nails uses them. 'self esteem' by the offspring has a key jump-cut, so to speak. theory doesn't forbid anything, because its just a toolbox and a method of communication. it isnt even 'rules,' although you can certainly use it that way. its a vocabulary. you're right, the ear never lies. i'm sure your piece is good if it sounds good.

i just read an article today about the deftones. stephen carpenter claims to know zero theory. but deftones songs are catchy. i think he knows shapes and patterns, but not the names for them that theory would provide. things he's overheard and has been able to rework into something new and great. which is totally fine. yet if you look at the music of the deftones, even though the songs violate a lot of what some might call musical 'rules' (using strange dissonances on purpose, and so forth), a lot of their chord progressions also just happen to follow standard 'rules' of harmony. he knows it without knowing it, it's obvious. in the song 'elite' the 'you're pregnant' part of the song is a chord that's a minor third up, used in rock and blues for ages. it's a very standard chord in an unusual song. i'm concluding that it's the b3 chord by just hearing the song in my head. that's the most useful trick i gleaned from theory. i could always ape what i heard on a recording after some playing around, but now a lot of times i dont even need an instrument around to know what the chord progression is. all you have to learn to be able to do that is the names and sounds of the intervals, and basic diatonic theory. its useful, and an impressive party trick. and it only took about a month of playing around in the key of C to get to a level of rudimentary competency with it. so in the end, theory expanded my ear ability. thats why i get so excited about it. too bad my website sucks in its present state of development.

Walt
Chief Cook and Bottle Washer
Member
Since: May 10, 2002

Apr 29, 2003 10:09 am

Me thinks we are getting into some heavy symentic issues here. I am hearing schools and theory used as the same term. Schools teach theory and practiced method. It doesn't matter if you are graduating with an GED or a Doctorates in any dicipline, when you hit the streets you will do it differently. The idea is to have some concept of "what" you are doing. Who knows why the teacher flipped out when the tonal modes changed in the song. The fact is simple. If you are serious about music, learn as much as you can about it. When someone say's you can't feel free to samarily dismiss them! My god, theory is simply documentation of what has been done in the past! It did not come to mankind in a stone tablet. So check out what has been done to date and try something new. Next generation will read about what you did! Listen to someone like Christian McBride. He is fluent in most every genre and is buisy fusing them together. Cyrus Chestnut is another cat taking music to a new level. These among others are the people making the music of the future. Choose to learn theory and to read or don't, who cares. Music will find someone to enjoy it. This chatter about learning to read and learning theory as limiting is bunk! Using the example of a person who can follow notes on a page but does not have a "minds ear" to draw from and equating that to having his or her "minds ear" destroyed by the ability to read is purely crap. If you have it you can't turn it off! You can however increase the probability of actually creating what you "hear" by learning all you can!

fortymile
Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Apr 29, 2003 12:56 pm

w00000!

blueninjastar
Maniacal Genius
Contributor
Since: Dec 30, 2002

Apr 29, 2003 04:02 pm

It seems to me that any musician who says learning theory is limiting is obviously either too lazy to bother learning it or too new to appreciate it's value. It's already been said that if you're playing music by ear, you're already using theory - even if you don't know you are. So, how is it possible that learning the names and logic behind what you're playing could limit your ability to play it? I took a couple of years of music theory in high school. Of course, I then went on to play in countless rock bands as a drummer and then as a bass player. Suffice it to say that I never kept up on my theory and so I forgot a great deal of it. There's not a doubt in my mind that had I kept studying theory, I would be a far more accompished musician now than I am.

Forty,

Looks like you've got a great site going there. I just read everything you had up there and it was a nice refresher for me for sure. I'm sure it will be extremely valuable to lots of peeps around here. Great job!

dbmasters
Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Apr 29, 2003 05:32 pm

Theory exists for a reason, cuz it is what sounds good. Like blue said, even if folks say "theory blows", they are using it indirectly, cuz if it is not used, the music usually kinda sucks...

One may not use it intentionally, but they use it.

I never went out of my way to learn it, but I know of it and when I need to look at it, but also, as Mark Twain once said, "never let school get in the way of your education" :-)

fortymile
Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Apr 29, 2003 06:21 pm

thanks mangs...

if people are interested, i'll let you know when i start making updates. i wanna make this all-encompassing, more thorough, and easier to understand.

Noize2u
Czar of Midi
Administrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002

Apr 29, 2003 10:30 pm

Yep, theory is great and as dB said, we all use it to some extent wether we realize it or not. In my case its in my head, but there are times it gets in the way of what I really want, and you must diregard parts of it, but also keep it close so things dont get out of hand.

Coolo, if I had let a teacher or anyone else tell me multiple key changes were wrong, I would never have gotten into doing commercials or soundtracks and such. But on the other hand, maybe I would have written great pop songs instead. Either way, I went down the path I went down because I wanted to experiment and do something differant from the masses. If I was the only one who liked it, well then that was what mattered. But luckily for me that wasnt the case. But I was still frowned on for not playing by the rules, and maybe that did limit what I did in the end.

And forty, you have a good thing going on your site, keep it up. And the comment Quote:
it sounds like your teacher needed to loosen his corset made me laugh histericly, I almost shot a beer out my nose, and everywhere else for that matter.

Walt
Chief Cook and Bottle Washer
Member
Since: May 10, 2002

Apr 29, 2003 11:28 pm

EEEE Gad! They are not rules. Some teachers who never got the concept may claim they are but the reality is they are guidlines or suggestions. The whole concept of theory is to expand not limit. Mack the Knife is written in 6 key signatures. Two thirds of the repitour I carry have multiple key signatures. It's mearly an extended "chordal" change applied to multiple phrases. Just one more way to add interest to a piece that is inherently reptitious. How distant the key signatures are from key signatures that are harmonically similar to the origional key signature just adds or decreases tension in the piece. To choose playing by ear, or using theory, or reading is one thing. The problem is the folks that say there is only one way. Those who will not experience playing strictly by ear are cheating themselves. Those who will only play by ear are cheating themselves. And moreover those who spread the bunk of any form of music learning as "bad" are definately preaching harmfull inuendo. It is sad when a person is scared away from learning by testamony from such folks.

Noize2u
Czar of Midi
Administrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002

Apr 29, 2003 11:55 pm

OK, I guess I worded that a little harsh by using the word rules, but you know what I meant. And it is a pity that some seem to think that you must obey the rules at all costs, even though as you said Walt, they truly are only guidlines. That is really how they should refer to it, but sadly some dont. And yes, playing jazz and such really did expand my horizons as far as were music can really go.

glynb
Member
Since: Dec 16, 2002

Apr 30, 2003 05:54 am

My view on theory is it helps you to understand but not necessarily create.

Explanation: Music is about creativity for me. To be creative you need some skills, that's where theory can assist, or better still you can observe and copy someone who is great at what you want to do/be at close quarter (most of us can't have that opportunity) - this is the most natural way of learning, like a child learns to speak (not by learning the theory, but by imitating).

When you have the skills (even basic ones) then you can be creative. Creativity comes in by making mistakes and elaborating on them. If we all slavishly studied and copied what had gone before then there would be no creativity. So you make a mistake... you put together for the first time some cheese and some peas, and 'Cheeseypeas' are born. OK that was a joke, but you get the idea.

Now some people who are great musicians may not be very creative because they don't go outside of the rules, or maybe they have too good a memory of the way things SHOULD go, they don't make mistakes and build on them.

Fortunately (for writing purposes) I have a poor memory, so my mind scrambles up bits of other songs and riffs and lyrics and .... I write what I consider to be 'new' songs. No-one creates in a vacuum, we all build on what went before. I understand some theory, what I consider to be enough for what I want to do, but I also have a lifetime of listening/analysing popular music behind me which is arguably of greater importance - I've learned how to write songs in the same way a child learns to talk.

Most top rock acts didn't go to college and learn music theory, they listened to music and copied.

dbmasters
Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002

Apr 30, 2003 06:33 am

Quote:
Most top rock acts didn't go to college and learn music theory, they listened to music and copied.

True, but they are still using theory, just indirectly, as they are copying and listening to artists who created music the same way, but it all boils down to still, usually following the basic rules of music, thatbeing scales and progressions and sound and feel logical and pleasant, and that IS theory. I never took any schooling or anything to learn theory, but darned if most of my songs don't follow a specific scale or mode...because it's is what sounds good.

Also, the fact most modern artists don't know or haven't been schooled in theory is also the reason in 100 years nobody will remember who they are. The people with a true grasp of theory are the artists that wrote the music pieces that are still listen to centuries years later like Mozart, Bethoven and the others that have truely stood the test of time.

Walt
Chief Cook and Bottle Washer
Member
Since: May 10, 2002

Apr 30, 2003 07:48 am

Nice job dB!

I didn't want to breach the "rock" barrier here. I can easly sound like I am rock bashing and that is not my intent or feeling. Glynb, you are correct in your analogy of how a child learns. And to continue on with the story, the child then goes to school and learns how to read and write. As an adult, if we choose an artistic form of communicating, we continue learning. Where we choose to stop learning denotes the level at which we can practice our trade. There is a ton of very enjoyable reading avaialable. And very lucrative writings as well. Then there are the greats. Those who have studied and learned beyond the bulk of their contemporaries. And herein lies the rub. They are also not appreciated as much as the ones who stop learning earlier as they are now writing for themselves or a few others that have attained similar skill levels. Bach, Betoven, Handel, and a host of others are boring to the masses as the masses have no ability to relate or connect to what they have created. An analogy (poor in some respects as it is primalary trickery) is the poster with a hidden image within. On casual observance it is bland. Upon study it pops out and seems amazing. Much so are the works of the greats. The more I study the more in am in awe of what some people have created. And yes I still like playing rock & roll. It is fun.

fortymile
Member
Since: Jan 18, 2003

Apr 30, 2003 01:53 pm

i think you hit the nail on the head with the imitation theory, glynb. but it doesn't seem like 'copying' is a good accusation to throw at learners of theory. that implies that there is something specific to learn and duplicate, but its more like learning an extra voice to talk to yourself with.

imitation is definitely the most natural way of learning. imitation can get you a set of phonemes to speak with, and a working vocabulary. but everyone speaks. next think about novels and public speeches. the next level up. it can be extremely hard to write a novel, even for someone who can use words. usually, the difficulty is the vast and complicated structures you have to invent to make the project flow and work. logical structures and arrangements beneath the surface that readers don't even notice because all they're hearing is the music on the top. a novel writer would have learned language just like anyone else, by imitating. but if he tries to write the book that way, by imitating someone he admires, it nearly always fails. music can be a bit easier in that respect, but it's the same kind of thing. if a guy's lucky he can catch some structures in music by just listening and imitating. then maybe he can use them in his own stuff and dress them up differently. but isn't that being uncreative? theory can help you invent your own ideas.

jon whatever-his-name, the guitarist for radiohead--the guitarist with the ragged, sloppy, ethic--actually went to the very expensive guitar institute in (london?), to study. i dont know anyone who would argue that radiohead's music is derivitive. the rock stuff has gotten more complex and great over time. you can tell its evolved by thinking about chords and what they're doing, because theyre doing some pretty unusual things. i think one thing that has given theory a bad name is the opposite of that kind of measured consideration: the dude in the guitar store who pulls up a stool and plays phyrgian scales and solos for half an hour. that's not theory. there's a word for dudes like that, though. haha

Noize2u
Czar of Midi
Administrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002

Apr 30, 2003 09:22 pm

An example of someone who used and abused theory would be Frank Zappa, and Don Van Vleet. Zappa brook every rule that pertained to creating music, but at the same time followed them closely. Even in his early years with the band he refered to as an orchestra, and at times it seemed they were he created complex pieces of music that all intertwined together to make one complete show. All the musicians who played with and for him were all well schooled in music theory, and the majority were classicly trained. As he evolved and the band with him the pieces grew more and more complex. And without the knowledge of theory it would have just been noise. I was lucky enough to see him several times with The Mothers of Invention, but even luckier to have seen him in perhaps his shining glory, as a classical composer, conducter and player. He wrote many symphonys in his later years, some of which he started writing while still with the Mothers. I admire him for his abilty to construct music that constantly changes and evolves, from his early works , but mostly of his classical pieces like Yellow Sharks. I am sure there are many out there who will follow in his and others footsteps, but it is those people that took the step to cross the boundries that give people like us things to think about as we write and try to construct music that is differant but still musical without being boring or just a repeat of something someone else did before.

OK so I rambled a bit, but as dB said theory is there bieng used by most, even if it never enters your mind that you are using it, odds are good that somehow you are using it.