"Did you intentionally avoid learning theory?"

[greggorypeccary]

Originally Posted by boneyguy

If that's your reaction then I think you may have misunderstood my point of posting this quote and I think you've misunderstood the 'spirit', as Ken said, of the Johnson quote. This is not about choosing one way over the other. The quote, I think, is simply about finding the balance of both ways and knowing what the possible limitations are in depending too strongly on one way or the other.

No need for face palming.

That was just a pre-emptive face palm for the inevitable "I play by feel maaaaan" posts I thought saw coming. Fortunately they haven't shown up yet so we're cool!

I've actually played with guys who, it seems, did intentionally not learn theory (or more accurately the fundamentals of music). It's not pretty....

[paulvcarter]

yes...but i should have worked harder as a kid

[greggorypeccary]

Originally Posted by trev333

Don't worry...

guitar necks will soon have led lights on the fret board with the note names lit up, if they haven't already..if they haven't it was my idea.. mmmkkk!!?..
. snail scale trails to follow,etc..
follow the bouncing ball, like the keyboards that light the keys...

on board micro PC that could take Armstrong to the moon.. to program in which pretty lights the next song will have... USB plug/jack,combo leads going to the Ubermodelling amp...,

Hey!.. I'll bet fret board/side markers caused a stir in some circles... metal frets even... geez!..

this is the 00's they have LED !! ha ha ..

http://www.fretlight.com/?gclid=CMzm...FQbc4AodPHlACg

[trev333]

see, I knew it would happen... or already had happened...

playing in the dark would take on a new meaning... what if you didn't like red dots?..

I'll wait for the multi coloUred one to surface... with "FingOmagnetics" on board to pre empt my finger changes...

[Budda]

All this new-fangled technology! Bah!

The vintage LEDS sounded better. I wonder if I can find some N.O.S. LEDs?

[howardlo]

I don't know if they still do, but the jazz and swing players during the 30's through the early 60's had 'cheat sheets' that were merely chord progressions to songs written out such as, I IV iii, V, vii, etc. It would be written I///, IV/, iii/, V///, etc., showing the number of beats per change.
Caps were major chords, small case were minor chords, diminished had a small o after and above the letters, augmented had a + after the letters, a 6 after meant a 6th chord, etc.

They could use those to play those songs in any key. A family friend gave me one of those small copied books years ago, in the early 60's. Wish I still had it. Hundreds of old jazz and standards songs were in a small book about the size of a small paperback book, but loose-leafed, just folded. Same book could be used by any instrument basically, for improv.

[klasaine]

Originally Posted by boneyguy

"So, if you can assimilate theory while holding onto the mystery and the sublimity, that is probably the best of both worlds,........ "

That doesn't sound encouraging to you? I think that's some pretty great advice myself and to my mind it doesn't in any way try to negate the importance of learning theory but rather supports it.

It's interesting to see the various interpretations of EJ's quote.

Absolutely! We, as in the the royal we, can never assume that we know exactly what the interviewee meant in an edited magazine article. As literate and thoughtful as many of these guys are - they're not rhetoric professors. They're just talking. And they're usually talking about art (subjective) and how THEY go about making it and what their opinions of it are. Chances are very high that their methods actually WON'T work for you.
Everybody kinda has to find their own way with this stuff.

*Lets see how many misinterpret what I just wrote.

[yangounet]

I just learnt enough to read tabs and understand the rythm. Then I needed a little about pentatonic scales so I worked a little on that. That's enough for me. Theory of harmony etc is probably good for pros but I dont have the time and the need to study that, but i dont say its bad.

[Larry F]

Just for clarification, what is meant by "theory?" I think that the term is used here by everyone (I think), to mean the knowledge of the notes in chords, the key changes that occur when chords change, and scales that are both in the keys and possible are outside them, to a degree. I don't think that rhythm is considered, phrasing, dissonance treatment, and counterpoint. I'm interested in hearing from others if I am right or wrong in my assumptions.

If it is just about learning chord note names and the keys they fit in, this is not something that should hang anyone up. What does cause problems, at least it did for me, was that I did get hung up on hitting the chord tones or guide tones on the strong beats. Naturally, I sound stiff and non-musical. So you could say that theory was bad for me. But I think that if you study melodic writing and dissonance treatment, you will burst through that barrier. I think that theory should be studied for at least 2-3 years for it to have a good effect on your playing. Otherwise, you freeze up in your phrasing as you try to land on the guide tones.

[getbent]

Originally Posted by klasaine

*Lets see how many misinterpret what I just wrote.

the grand conundrum is when someone completely misunderstands you and agrees vs. when they completely misunderstand you and disagree.

I have recently found myself in both situations in the same conversation. The only options are retreat or complete capitulation.

[howardlo]

In college in the middle 60's, as a music major, I took a required course in music theory, the text book used was, 18th Century Contrapuntal Harmonic Technique.

This was devised by J.S. Bach and is still the basic premise for music as we are used to hearing it today. Before that time many different modes (scales were used) and Bach standardized it to what we know and are used to hearing, today in the modern western world. It covered basic harmony, chord structures (based on triads) and intervals between notes of the scale. It covered many other things, including suspensions (and resolutionsfrom those suspesions), chord progressions, and on and on. It also gave us the symbols for progressions, such as I, IV, V, vi, etc. It also set down modern music notation, key symbols, and accidentals, as we know them yet today.

Before him there were no standards. We are so used to this system that traditional music played in other parts of the world can sound very strange to us, as they still use different scales and intervals between notes.

[greggorypeccary]

Originally Posted by howardlo

I don't know if they still do, but the jazz and swing players during the 30's through the early 60's had 'cheat sheets' that were merely chord progressions to songs written out such as, I IV iii, V, vii, etc. It would be written I///, IV/, iii/, V///, etc., showing the number of beats per change.
Caps were major chords, small case were minor chords, diminished had a small o after and above the letters, augmented had a + after the letters, a 6 after meant a 6th chord, etc.

I still have my old lesson books where my guitar teacher would write out changes using the method. That was in the 80's fwiw.

[String Tree]

Originally Posted by Budda

All this new-fangled technology! Bah!

The vintage LEDS sounded better. I wonder if I can find some N.O.S. LEDs?

DUDUE, give me that vintage, N.O.S. tone of the old LEDs!!!

[jjkrause84]

Originally Posted by boneyguy

"So, if you can assimilate theory while holding onto the mystery and the sublimity, that is probably the best of both worlds,........ "

That doesn't sound encouraging to you? I think that's some pretty great advice myself and to my mind it doesn't in any way try to negate the importance of learning theory but rather supports it.

It's interesting to see the various interpretations of EJ's quote.

Your point is logical and fair....but I think it fails to take into account HOW people read. Most untrained readers are not going to easily take out of it what you have, especially if you consider the fact that the very first line in that passage is, "It's great to learn that stuff, but I think in some ways it may be better to play by ear." Predisposition and bias take their toll and many (too many) can hold up the above quote to support their lack of industry. THAT is what worries me: not the actual words spoken, but their effect.

[boneyguy]

I understand what you're getting at but since I can't (nor anyone else) even begin to predict the numerous ways people may or may not interpret those words it seems like a wasted effort to even start down that road. Undoubtedly there will be those who may take from it what you've suggested. There will be others who might think he's speaking metaphorically about chicken ranching. Who knows!!

All I know is that in a literal sense he did not say 'don't study theory' nor did he say 'playing by ear is the only way'. In fact he said quite the opposite. I would also say EJ went to some pains to continually qualify his statements as being personal and relating only to his experience. And that's what I was defending, so to speak.

I see no pay off in trying to predict what potentially negative interpretations people may draw from what he 'actually' said.

[tooncaster]

Originally Posted by jjkrause84

Predisposition and bias take their toll and many (too many) can hold up the above quote to support their lack of industry. THAT is what worries me: not the actual words spoken, but their effect.

See just about anyone who has ever quoted a Founding Father or two.

[slowpinky]

Originally Posted by Larry F

Just for clarification, what is meant by "theory?" I think that the term is used here by everyone (I think), to mean the knowledge of the notes in chords, the key changes that occur when chords change, and scales that are both in the keys and possible are outside them, to a degree. I don't think that rhythm is considered, phrasing, dissonance treatment, and counterpoint. I'm interested in hearing from others if I am right or wrong in my assumptions.

Im pretty sure most of us here (I hope) realise that its not an actual 'theory' of music up for discussion here - just music fundamentals - but using the word 'theory' to define the fundamentals is so in-grained now - partly because of the music rudiments texts such as - The Jazz "Theory Book" , Dulcie Hollands Theory Grade 1 -8 etc .

This defining of terms has (as Im sure you remember) dredged up some vigorous debate here

[klasaine]

I'm assuming we're all talking about the same thing.
Scales, intervals, chord construction and ideally how they can work together.

*in reality learning the what of scales, intervals and chords is music fundamentals. How they work together is what you do in Harmony class.

[howardlo]

To me music is all about feel. Many years ago, when we were kids, my sister took piano lessons. She is now a scientist and engineer. She could play the songs in her books perfectly, just a written and just at the correct tempo (too perfectly, like a scientist.)
I could sit down and play the same thing and they sounded better, even though I was not nearly as proficient at the piano as she was. But, I played with feeling, which her playing lacked. Made all the difference in the world. You can read music and still play with feeling.

[jbmando]

I think I know what you are trying to say but I don't think music is ALL about feel. I have been in bands and jammed with guys who only played by ear and feel, but they didn't know enough about harmony to put good music together consistently. Sometimes they "felt" major pentatonic when the chords were minor and it sounded very amateurish, even though it had lots of feeling. It takes all of it, if you ask me.