Drummer Cafe Community Forum

I know nothing, zip, about music theory (other then how to read rhythm)

But I play guitar and write songs, lots of 'em, all different styles. I get a handful of chords together til I have a good progression, coupled with another progression that sounds like a verse/chorus maybe add in a bridge or intro or outro. I pay a lot of attention to stuff like arrangement, flow, dynamics, layering, voicings, you know, songwriting. I play what I think sounds good.

So I play a few to the guitarist in my cover band. And he says to me, "It sounds like your all over the map. You can't start a song with this chord and then later in the song have this chord (not saying that's what I did, but he heard something that sounded off to him). When I hear progressions like this it just sounds unprofessional to me."

So I say I hang with musicians who listen to a lot of and have a background playing stuff like King Crimson and Brian Eno, etc. And I always got the feeling that anything goes, at least in certain situations.

So he says, "I know those people exist, its just not for me.

I play with a lot of musicians who know quite a lot of theory and this has never come up, and most of them couldn't imagine what song of mine got him so up in arms.

I am the first to say you have to know the rules before you can break the rules, so I know you can take at least some liberties with rules, if the one he was thinking of is true.

But do find that some people know so much about the rules that they can't get past them?

Yeah, but look at what you've just said: you gotta know the rules to break them, and you freely admit you don't know them.

So learn them. Take a course in music theory. It will be a big help, really.

You're looking for us to dismiss your buddy's input, but he's currently in a stronger position than you. You can't really write him off as being too uptight about the rules unless you understand those rules.  Some people do get too caught up in rules, it's true, but I don't necessarily think that's the case here - if it is, you haven't provided me enough evidence to reach that conclusion.

Don't look for excuses to dismiss his advice; instead, arm yourself with enough information to defend your own choices. It makes for a far more compelling argument.

That said, it sounds like you and he are not necessarily on the same page in terms of the styles you enjoy. But I'd still advocate learning some basic music theory - it's great stuff to understand.

You have to know the rules before you can break the rules

Yeah I know as soon as I wrote that someone would bite. My point was I'm the first one to say it when it applies to many, many things. As applied to music, no, I don't know the rules, but I'm fairly sure you could apply that philosophy at least sometimes.

So coming from a not-knowing-anything-standpoint, are you saying if you have a certain chord in a song you can't have a certain other chord, and that, barring it being a really jarring example, that its going to be noticed as ignorant?

I wanted to respond well to this, but Mr. A already out-said anything I had to say, so take his advice.  I strongly recommend to any aspiring musician at least a BASIC knowledge of theory.  You can only help yourself with that knowledge.  

I've found that the better I know "the rules" when it comes to music theory, the more options I find that follow "the rules" - I'm able to do many things while still following common practices.  I also find that the more I learn- and understand, and internalize - "the rules," the more I'm able to find the exceptions to those rules, exceptions that make musical sense.  

Also, just because one knows a lot of music theory, doesn't mean that every song they write has to be chock full of different chords and chord progressions.  Check out The Police - the members of that band (especially Andy Summers) had (have) very healthy harmonic vocabularies, but some of their songs utilize only three or four chords.  (Note also, that even among the three-chord songs in that band's repertoire, it's not always the same three chords from song to song.)

The study of music theory isn't a dead end, unless one chooses to make it so.

Maybe, but the idea is more; Why did you want that progression or sound?  It sounded good?  Okay, why did it sound good?  Those studied in music theory have a basic understanding of why I-IV-V sounds good (think Harmonic series).  It, or more everything, is in the context of the piece.  King Crimson does jarring starts and stops with odd chords because that particular piece is trying to articulate a "jagged" analogy to something.  To answer the actual question.  It won't sound ignorant (unless, possibly, you're asked about it).  It MAY not sound good, but that's up to your ears, and your listener's ears.   In context of what Mr. A is saying, is that if you can't articulate what you're trying to achieve to your bandmates (when they question the sound of your piece) then you're going to struggle to perform them and get the piece's meaning out to  your audience.  

Music theory, for me, opened so many doors and windows and showed all the possibilities of things I could create.  It really ought to be an eye opener, not an eye closer.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step...

http://www.musictheory.net/

regarding the one chord into another thing, as kohei pointed out, certain chords resolve better to some chords than others [to the ear, that is], but it doesn't mean you can't choose other chords. knowing theory, even just a little, enables you to make that decision. you can hear certain things, determine what you like, then change it if you don't. it'll also help you come up with different voicings for a given chord, so you can play that chord in different positions on the guitar.

also, it'll give you a leg to stand on with your guitar friend.

i used to have a decent knowledge of theory, when i was learning guitar. it can be very frustrating to get it all down. i think it's probably easier to learn it on the piano, coz you can see 'the shapes' easier than on a fretboard. but if you're already on guitar and comfortable with it, keep learning on that.

i think the big thing i walked away with respect to theory was learning to appreciate the dissonant stuff more. in a solo situation, using chord 'tensions,' you could really make stuff sound very different from what most players would use, and that really appealled to me.

in music, as in life, it's always better to have information.

that's why i ask a lot of annoying questions.  ;D

May be something to that, he's all the time yelling at the other guitarist if he's sloppy about letting a string ring in a chord it doesn't belong in, so he definitely hears that stuff.

Thanks for the responses, all

nah,

he's just hating.  its like that with hipster music lovers.  you show 'em a band that you think rocks, and they'll their best to knock 'em down.

but yea, learning is never a static thing, and you should take try some easy peasy music theory classes at your local jr. college.  you'd be suprised at home much suddenly connects with what you already know.

To me the concept of "rules" in music is utterly bogus.   There are definitions of basic elements (i.e. a Cmaj chord is a Cmaj chord), but not really any rules.   So to say you have to know the rules to break them is implying there are rules to know.  And frankly I haven't found that to be true.  

I'm not saying don't learn theory here.   By all means do, it will facilitate communication with more musicians (just like learning French will help talk to people in France).   I'm just saying that theory isn't a rigid set of rules.  

hmmm. that doesn't flush in my toilet.

you can probably argue that 'theory' by its nature is just that -- theoretical. but to suggest there are no formulas that make up some 'truths' [ie; your c-chord example] don't sound legit to me. otherwise, a C would be a D or an F#. or someone could decide there is an interval between E&F, or what have you.

i think those basic truths had to be established if there was ever to be an understanding or conversation between players.

i suspect coltrane learned the rules inside and out, and that's why he was able to break them so at will.  

am i totally wrong?

There properly is.  Just not with twelve-tone equal temperament.

As I said, I treat those as definitions of basic elements, not rules.   I guess the difference wasn't made clear.   Its hard to come up with an analogy because music is a non-verbal language, a subjective art.   But I'll try.

With language, you'll note a direct translation from a foreign tongue will often sound confusing.  Because the order they put the nouns, verbs, etc (elements) in is different than how we might in English.   Those elements remain constant (a chair is a chair is a chair), but you can say "I sat on the chair" or "On the chair I sat" etc.   The pronoun, noun, and verb are elements we define.   How we use those is flexable.   (Again, due to the nature of music this is a flawed analogy, but hopefully explained what I was trying to say)



You perfectly illustrate my point here.  As Joe mentioned, there is.   Its a quarter tone.   Someone tried to setup rules for western music with the 12-tone scale.  Doesn't mean those quarter tones stop existing.  



I think you're absolutely right.   BUT ... I think that the basic truths are the smaller elements of theory.    You can define elements, but there are no rules as to how you use them.  

There are rules, though.  Just like language has rules.  There's just a lot of flexibility in them.  Music IS slightly different, though the concept remains the same.  The reason there are certain "rules" are because of the harmonic series.  I.e. when I play the note "C," the harmonics that produce the solid note are C, the octave above, the fifth above, and so on and so forth.  Which is why chords have tones that sound "harmonious" to each other, because they already have those tones within each other.  When we started moving "tones" we wanted them to be continuously harmonious, so we went by common notes (i.e. a C-chord to an F-chord retain the common note C.)  So, the original "rules" were to keep things as "harmonious" as possible.  It was until the more recent history that we strayed away from the "harmonious" and gotten into the atonal works and whatnot.  So, I guess the proper way of seeing it, is that their WERE rules, mostly none of which we use anymore.  But, those rules were in place for a good reason.  Because they SOUNDED good.  Which, of course is the point of all this, isn't it?

You're speaking from a strictly western standpoint.   Some of what count as "rules" in western music, have no bearing on eastern (again, quarter tones).   Does that make eastern music "invalid" or "bad" because it breaks our "rules"?   No.   It's what sounds good TO THEM.   Which is of course the point ;)    

man, i knew i'd get nailed on that EF thing!
;D

but you get my point.

i agree that you can use the rules however you like. i just think you gotta know the rules.

mainly, i think it's important for the purpose of communicating your intention or ideas to other players. if you adopt a standard convention, there are no guessing games.

at the end of the day, people can do whatever they want. but i'd rather be able to tell the muscovite in russian that i need a tube of preparation H, than have to point to my culito while he wonders if i'm trying to proposition him!

 

And I do believe I said that in my first post :)  

I disagree.  It would be nice to know the theory of the given tonal system with which you're composing or communicating (especially with others), but to be ignorant of them hardly eliminates the possibility of "happy accidents" and so forth, while having no knowledge of theory.

I wonder if Keith Moon would make a good analogy?  I do not think he had much structured training at all save a few lessons from someone down the street (nor desire to apply much of it in structured communication), but he found a viable groove.

aw, crap, guys. we can all agree to disagree then. but i still feel yous are arguing a point that, well, just doesn't help someone who may want to really grow as a musician to move forward.

i just deleted everything else i wanted to say, coz it will come out sounding wrong, wrong, wrong.

all i know is, if i was playing guitar in chick corea's band and he said he wanted us all to play in A, i'd want to know what my musical options were. i'm not gonna wait for a happy accident in that situation.

but whaddo i know, right? i'm still trying to figure out how to listen to tain watts.

Lol, we aren't really disagreeing on the principle, just the semantics on what part of theory is a "rule".    I've been saying all along the more you know the better.   I'm just saying that  there are no rules regarding what chord should follow another.  

Rule is a four letter word in my book.
To be a little more serious, I can see the argument from both sides. Educating yourself is like arming yourself. There will be many situations (like the one you describe) where people will try to bring you down. With musical knowledge you will be able to argue your case.
Rules are there to be broken.
In that sense, I think it's easier to break rules that haven't been ingrained into your very being. I still find myself cringeing at some of the basic mistakes that some of my music colleagues make, only to find their instincts were right and my conservative (music school) attitudes would have resulted in a bland piece of work.
In short, the most interesting and exhillerating work I've taken part in has always been with un-schooled musicians. The most boring, with mates from music school.

Do you speak English or Chinese?

Most pop music is NOT based on eastern music philosophy.  Which is, of course, the point.  If you're basing your music on other principle ideas, you should specify that.

That has been my experience as well.

IMHO, music theory is one way to study, codify, and comprehend music that already exists - or certain aspects of it, at least.  However, I haven't found it to be a particularly good starting point for creating music.

Ironically the first thought I had after he made his comment was:

     Boy, this guy doesn't have an alternative, progressive, interesting or exhillerating bone in his body.

My first thought after he played me a few of his songs:

     Boy, I wish I could write songs like that.

I like this philosophy.

Keep writing your music and learning as you go along.  I'm finding out it really is more about the journey than the destination.
JMHO

One sentiment I often see when people are dismissing the idea of studying theory, taking lessons, or attending music schools is that doing so will somehow stifle your creativity.

If you're already creative, or open-minded, or talented, or simply exercise some judgment (rather than being a mere receptacle for information), there's no way that ADDING information to what you already know can hurt you.

Learning theory won't make you creative. Neither will going to music school, or studying with a teacher. But it won't take away your creativity, either. How could it, unless you allow your creativity to shut down? And if you do, that's your fault.

Just don't make the mistake of using that concern as an excuse not to do some work. Learning theory (or any of the other activities I described) can be hard work. But it should only ADD to what your musical capabilities are.

Me, I want to add as much as I can. I found the study of music theory utterly invaluable to my songwriting, and to my abilities as an accompanist and arranger. I'd submit that you will, too.

Which is EXACTLY what it is.  It's not rules for the future...it's simply how things were done in the past.  It's nothing more than a stepping stone.  A viable resource for those dabbling in the in the art.  How can you know what you want to create, without knowing what you're creating it from?

I also have to add, that I love, as a drummer, when the guitarists leans over to me and asks me what would be the best resolve for a particular chord.  It makes my heart swell.  lol

Plus, it's just plain fun.  For me, anyways.  I love the stuff.  Reasons why things sound good together.  Reasons why a particular artist used a particular motion to create a scene or idea.  It's simply fascinating.  As a musician, how could you NOT want to know this stuff?

And I'm sure the theory of Charlie Watts' technique can be shoved in here somewhere too, right?  8) ;D

Well you got that right it about being hard. I did take a theory course in college. And I found it really, really hard. Math Hard. And I'm not a Math person. Also it seemed like a huge amount of memorization. Also not a strong point. I have no ideas about it stifling creativity, its just that it makes my head spin. Sure you can call me lazy, but it sure is hard for me to get motivated about it, and my college days are long past.

One issue though, when I was growing up in school band, there was very little focus on melodics for percussionists. In elementary school they kind of introduced it, but never really followed up on it and if you chose not to participate that was okay. In Jr. High the only people who played them were the ones who applied themselves in elementary school. There was no instruction for anyone who didn't already know. In High School the drum set guys held in great disdain anyone the deemed to be "band-f*gs" and even treated the melodic percussion guys as outsiders. When I grew up it was really uncool for drummers to cross the line into anything "musical". I'm not making excuses, just relating my experience. So learning my theory as an adult has been a real uphill battle. I really wish I had applied myself more when I had the resources available to me.

However spending my life as a kit player in numerous bands, has given me a unique approach to learning guitar and song writing and arranging. I'm not saying I couldn't benefit from theory, just that my approach is fun and unique for me. And it pisses off the guys who have "paid their dues". And that's fun too. :D

Maybe the term "Rules" is misleading?  I think of rules as rigid or  directional, ie. this is the way it is and that's just that.

In music, as with all walks of life, IMHO, you have to have a solid grasp of the fundamentals within the field, for a number of reasons:

Understanding the history and the method of what you're doing
Communicating effectively with others
Credibility (percieved or actual)
Commitment to your craft

But like the quote says, once you learn the fundamentals, allowing this knowledge to restrain you is defeatist.  

Right.  But wait, the Chinese alone outnumber the US by a margin of 10 to 1.  So, there are 2.8 biliion Chinese people who listen to Chinese music while only 280 million people in the US total, not all who listen to pop music.  And that's not taking into consideration the other Pacific Rim countries that have millions of people.  

Of course, we haven't even scratched the Dark Continent.  There are millions who live in Africa that have no understanding or care in the world for the  Western theory of music either.  In fact, outside of Europe and North/South America, the backbeat, 4/4 pop style of music is nearly nonexistent.

Does this invalidate the concept of Western music?

My wife was telling me yesterday about a student that couldn't even point to Africa on a map. I am guessing a good part of the "280 million people in the US" couldn't find Canada and I would have to say that a good part of the "2.8 biliion Chinese" listen to Western music.

So...Does this invalidate the concept of Western music?

I would have to say no Tony...because...I think its like asking does this invalidate the concept of, say, english.

I think what we see here a lot is "In most cases". Some people will come along (very very few) that will sound better than people with lots of Music Theory.

The next great might wander upon this forum. I think we all should remember that we are refering to 99,000,000 out of 100,000,000 when we suggest Music Theory.

There are some drummers that never had a lesson, maybe didn't need one, couldn't afford, whatever.
What makes you think the next great doesn't have Internet access?

Hence in most cases.

I don't think it does either.  My point, in my sarcastic way is that there is more out there than the Western theory of music.  It goes back to my thoughts that man in general, and Americans specifically think that our way of life is the the only one with any validity to it.  The poster whom I quoted exhibited that type of attitude, to me.  That's all.  

Plus, American popular music draws from a wide variety of traditions and sources from around the world, not just "standard" Western music theory, in terms of its harmonic concepts.  

- Blues scales and "blue notes" don't come from Western theory - as I understand my musicology, they come from an attempt to re-create notes and scales in certain African musical traditions - notes thath are "in-between the cracks" of the 12-tone Western (European) common practices.  You hear them all the time in pop music, however.  Which "rules" ("conventions," "standard practices," etc.) are we to follow in this case?  African?  European?

- More on the blues:  in "classical" music theory, moving from a V chord to a IV chord is frowned upon, big-time.  In the blues, it's a staple of many chord progressions.  Again, which specific set of "rules" are we to follow in this case?  According to the rules and practices of "classical" theory, that's an incorrect chord progression - but it sounds great.  If I have to choose, I'm going with what sounds great, and not with what someone writes on a blackboard in a classroom.

Studying music theory - and even more specifically, the "theories" (concepts, practices, etc.) of many different cultures and musical genres - is a great way to learn what has gone before, and a great way to inform one's own concepts of music.  Bottom line?  I do recommend the study of music theory.  However, too much obedience to any one particular way of organizing music can be stifling to one's own creativity.  When I hear musicians talking about what's a "correct" chord progression, resolution, note choice, etc., well...let's just say that it's possible to follow all of the rules that are commonly taught in music theory classes, and still come up with decidedly unmusical results.  Following any previously-established practices, in no way guarantees musical results.  Music theory isn't the be-all-and-end-all of music.

IMHO, of course.

I was not "exhibiting" that attitude.  I specifically addressed that I was talking about Western theory (which is the theory that MOST of us have all been brought up on, and is taught in college courses).  My point was in discussing a particular theory, and certainly the theory that MOST of us use (here anyways, since I'm not in China.).  I'd really appreciate you not going out of your way to insult me when I'm addressing (though, I'm sure the both of us using sarcasm is probably skewering our own statements) the issue.

Just to clarify, this is what I was, albeit poorly, trying to say.  I just think that a background in music knowledge/history/theory/rules is a good thing to have, a great place to start.  As I said in a previous post, that knowledge has opened SO many doors that weren't previously known to me, and has really opened up my creative thinking.  But, then, I'm also a person who loves the analysis of it, I guess there's people out there who have no such interest in that.  

I think we're getting too caught up in the "rules" of theory. As James intimated, different musical periods and styles had rules about harmonic movement which in this day and age are of less pertinence than before.

However, what I'm talking about is developing a working knowledge of the basic architecture of diatonic music. Major and minor chords. 7ths, alterations, and extensions of chords. Which notes "color" a chord. Which notes are implied and can often be left out. Relative majors and minors. Bass substitutions. Which scales fit most easily over which chords.

These are tools, not rules. And being conversant in them can help you tremendously as a musician, whether you're reading a Nashville "numbers" chart, or trying to figure out a hip way to modulate from one key to another.

For further clarification (because I think, possibly, you and I are arguing the same thing from differing perspectives).  Most of us here speak the English language.  The English language has certain "rules" associated with it (i.e. "i" before "e" except after "c"), much like music.  However, we also have slang.  Which is an adjustment of the language based on culture.  It's the same way we can achieve the same meaning from,"What is going on," and "'Sup."  The English language (or the American version of it) also using many "foreign" words, now, as staples.  Particularly french and German (I'll liken this to JamesWalker's discussion of the blues and/or blue notes.).  Most of music theory, itself has developed this way.  From single line melodies to 4 part chorales to moving counterpoint, to Atonal music.  It's constantly evolved.  My only real point, is that knowing the past, in my mind, is crucial to the future.  Be it historically, musicall, or anything else.

Anyways, I apologize if this has gotten out of hand.  I'm not terribly great at explaining myself coherently (apparently anyways).  I'm sorry I misunderstood anyone's thoughts, or if anyone misunderstood mine.

I'll leave it at this-
Creativity good.  Music Theory good.

Had I said that to begin with instead of trying to explain in more detail this thread may have been a bit shorter ;)

just popping in ( new guy here ..drummer /arranger /composer )

actually, there *IS* an interval between E and F ..it's a half step.

another one exists between white keys B and C ..

All the other adjacent white keys are WHOLE steps ..as are all the BLACK keys ..

any adjacent white and black key is also a half step ..

there's youre first theory lesson! Now that wasn't so painful was it ? ;D


seriously, learning music theory can do nothing but improve your playing and expand your musical horizons as a well!

Phil Kelly
www.philkellymusic.com

Yes, that's right.  I misspoke.  I intended to say "tone(s) within the interval between E and F".  B and C haven't escaped me either.


Actually, it's probably my fourth or fifth lesson as such, but thank you very much anyway. :)

after reading all this banter, i'm starting to realize why we don't have a 'politics' section! ;D

Please.  If I insulted you, accept my hearfelt apologies.  I don't think I said anything to imply that I was insulting you, or anyone.  I was just pointing out that to me (in my opinion, view, whatever), your response was narrow minded in it's focus on Western music, and the tone in which you replied was very condescending.  

It's quite common for the Western world (Europe and North America) to act as if the rest of world should follow their lead and accept their definitions and concepts as the standard.  I disagree.  I use China for an example because they are one of the biggest, oldest and most ignored countries in the world.  All I'm really trying to say is that between Africa and China, our way of theorizing and catergorizing music is infantile.  Plus, this is an INTERNATIONAL forum, so you know, we try to include all the non-Americans as well.  

 

And now... what if I speak both?


Most pop music is not based on Eastern music philosophy - not even Chinese pop music. I venture that as far as 95% of the world's urban population is concerned, Western music philosophy is the be all end all of music.

I recall this conversation with a friend on my way to a music store selling both Western and Chinese instruments.

Friend: I love Chinese music.
Me: Well, the store has pipas and zhongrans and guzhengs -
Friend: I meant, Westernised Chinese music (i.e. Chinese pop).

If you were to take that point as it is - then this discussion is moot, but the fact remains that there are, indeed, other types of music theory and philosophy. The Indian system of music, for instance, is a complete departure from Western music philosophy - and in fact predates it by a good period of time. That doesn't mean that you can't use Western music philosophy and theory in an Eastern context and vice versa.

It really goes two ways. You might have the untrained musician who is intensely creative but has problems communicating his ideas due to the lack of background knowledge and a common musical language. Don't you think his creativity would be serviced by a working knowledge of theory rather than hampered by it? Sure, if Einstein didn't think out of the box, we wouldn't have the theory of relativity - but at the same time there was Max Born, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg - all classically trained physicists who had no problems breaking down the rules barrier to pioneer quantum physics. Creativity can be independent of a strong theoretical background.

we had some music theory in public school, even preschool.
Doe a deer, a female deer ;) ;D

i got some theory in high school band so that helped.

it stayed that way for years, as i am a drummer and reading beats is what do, not notes.

then two years ago because i love physics i got into String Theory, which lead me to Pythagorus and the music of the spheres and Copernicus...and Pythagorus led me to Musical String Theory...the circle of fifths, etc.
I love the web, best library in the world...
justs google.
I have a binder of music theory, all downloads.
this is very important to know, but as drummers we tend to think in different terms, more related to time then harmonics.
although i do play harmonicly, cymbals, drums with harmonic relations to the song of course.
or makes a much more musical solo...Neil Peart does a lot of harmonic stuff in solos IMO.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with the quotes, since you sort of contradict yourself in the same sentence.  But I think you hit the nail on the head, as far as different philosophies.  Which was the actaul point that 563 and I were stating.  To ignore the rest of the world's musical philosophies is narrow minded.

BUt I'd like to see some type of proof that 95% of the world population (urban or otherwise) subscribe to the Western philosophy of music.  Had you read all the pertinent information, you may have found my point to be focused on the fact that the West often considers itself to be the standard by which the rest of the world follows.  That truly is not the case.  


Anyway, I know basic music theory, but that's all.  It helps me to accomplish my goals as a musician, and that's all that really matters in the long run.  Enjoy the rest of this debate...................

Me love you 4/4 time!

Then you're bilingual...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHA.  Sorry, I had to.  Nice to see you here Phantom.  I imagine I'll be the only one to get that for a little while.   :D

I know, I was actually arguing for both sides - popular music in many cultures is, indeed, based on Western music philosophy, whether or not that culture has its own distinct musical philosophy. I pulled the number out of a hat, I admit, but I had to drop in "urban" for that to even possibly be true - in any case, I thought I should make the point that Western music philosophy is actually very much subscribed to even in Eastern cultures.

Just thought I might want to add a note about the quarter tone. The quarter tone is virtually non-existent to a piano player. On the other hand, players of fretless instruments and slide guitar would be much less likely to make a comment about there not being a note between E and F.

AND, there is a good reason.   ;D