# Famous musicians who didn't know theory



## bostjan (Apr 28, 2016)

I thought maybe this discussion from another thread might be better served with a new thread.

I hear this argument a lot from newer guitarists, and maybe also from some seasoned vets:



> Knowing music theory doesn't make you any better at making music



or more forcefully:



> Knowing music theory kills your creativity



The first argument might have something to it; however, the way I think of it is analogous to "Using a tape measure doesn't make you a better carpenter," but maybe my thinking is wrong.

Often times, people will say



> Jimi Hendrix didn't learn a lick of theory, and look how awesome and creative he was



I'll accept that. I'll accept that you can be a damn wizard on the guitar without knowing the theory behind what you're doing. But, coming back to the second point in this post, I don't for a second believe that if Jimi Hendrix had learned theory at some point, he would have suddenly degraded as a guitarist.

I don't know if the argument is that having certain tools available keeps you from inventing new ones. I mean, I've seen some guitarists that were really big on theory do some really innovative stuff. The prime example that comes to my mind is Matthias IA Eklundh, who has online guitar lessons proving that he's a wicked theory guy, as well as albums to prove that he's totally willing to write songs on guitars without strings, write solos that utilize hose clamps and dildos, etc. Another along those lines that comes to mind is Paul Gilbert.

A counter example: Django Reinhardt. He was possibly the most innovative guitarist on record, and was, most likely, theory illiterate. I don't actually know for a fact that he didn't know any theory, but based upon anecdotal evidence of his lifestyle and personality, it seems highly likely that he couldn't name off a chord or note.

Obviously, there is no way to make two clones of Django and teach one of them theory and not the other, to see who ends up being a better guitarist, and, even if it was possible to clone him or bring him back from the dead, I don't even think it'd necessarily be possible to judge which was better.

Anyway, which guitarists do you know of, who were totally hopeless when it came to theory, as in, the mental aspect of knowing what they are doing, versus the more "in-the-moment" aspect of simply playing what goes right?


----------



## n4t (Apr 28, 2016)

Sigh.

1. Jimi Hendrix was a classically trained musician.

2. People who dis theory are making excuses for their own ignorance. Obviously defensive over not knowing something. 

There is nothing else. Knowing more about how music works and how notes and scales relate to each other can't hurt you. You don't need it. You won't die without it. But there's nothing bad about knowing it and anyone who says otherwise is a class A douche-nozzle. 

If you know anything about theory, you know it is not a blueprint. Things like the Bach progression are a framework and a guideline. People who think you have to follow by rote are just as bad as the ones who know nothing but trash talk it. 

Alan Holdsworth claims he knows zero theory. If you want a decent example use him.

Another example might be George Lynch.

Also the d-bag from Jane's Addiction.


----------



## TedEH (Apr 28, 2016)

I was thinking the other day about what makes a guitarist "good"- in the sense that there's lot of stuff I can do that beginners can't do, but at the same time I've seen guitarists that I would rate as "not as good as me" do some stuff that I can't do. It's difficult to have conversations comparing expressions of a form of art, since quality or skill level isn't quantifiable in the same way as something like math where you can measure frequency of correct answers or something like that. In music there aren't any "correct answers".

I'm on the side that theory can't hurt, though.

On a similar note, I've always found it odd when guitarists refuse to or can't play other people's songs. In my own experience, covers always were (and still are) a huge part of the learning process. And it's not a matter of being able to learn everything super accurately, or duplicate a bunch of famous players, or keep up with virtuosos or something, but I would find it hard to function in a band if someone wrote riffs and I was unable or unwilling to duplicate it reasonably close so that we're coherent as a unit. I get not everyone is in bands, or maybe you play for different reasons than I do, so whatever, do what you want- but it's weird to me. Learning from other people is an important guitar playing skill IMO.


----------



## MrWulf (Apr 28, 2016)

I used to be on that side of the argument too (but nevertheless I still manage to learn quite a bit of theory, including triads, notes name, chord progressions and modes), but then I took some private lessons and realized that being musically literate helps a lot. Another thing I notice is that the ear plays a huge part, and being able to play what you can hear in your head is likely the key of why so many people can play so well vs those who can't. There are countless licks and riffs in my head and I can't play it because I don't know which notes is which. Ultimately, I think even if you are not very theory literate, at least you got to know your fretboard from the first fret to the last fret, and train your ear. The rest is really just way to relates these two things together.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 28, 2016)

[


n4t said:


> Sigh.
> 
> 1. Jimi Hendrix was a classically trained musician.



Do you have a source? I see some saying he was, but the conventional anecdote was that he never took lessons and never studied.



n4t said:


> 2. People who dis theory are making excuses for their own ignorance. Obviously defensive over not knowing something.
> 
> There is nothing else. Knowing more about how music works and how notes and scales relate to each other can't hurt you. You don't need it. You won't die without it. But there's nothing bad about knowing it and anyone who says otherwise is a class A douche-nozzle.
> 
> ...



I agree. Holdsworth and Lynch both surprise me.



TedEH said:


> I was thinking the other day about what makes a guitarist "good"- in the sense that there's lot of stuff I can do that beginners can't do, but at the same time I've seen guitarists that I would rate as "not as good as me" do some stuff that I can't do. It's difficult to have conversations comparing expressions of a form of art, since quality or skill level isn't quantifiable in the same way as something like math where you can measure frequency of correct answers or something like that. In music there aren't any "correct answers".
> 
> I'm on the side that theory can't hurt, though.
> 
> On a similar note, I've always found it odd when guitarists refuse to or can't play other people's songs. In my own experience, covers always were (and still are) a huge part of the learning process. And it's not a matter of being able to learn everything super accurately, or duplicate a bunch of famous players, or keep up with virtuosos or something, but I would find it hard to function in a band if someone wrote riffs and I was unable or unwilling to duplicate it reasonably close so that we're coherent as a unit. I get not everyone is in bands, or maybe you play for different reasons than I do, so whatever, do what you want- but it's weird to me. Learning from other people is an important guitar playing skill IMO.



Absolutely agree.  This is why I'm always so surprised to hear people say that they know zero music theory. If I was in a band, and somebody said "Play an R flat supersonic chord," I can't imagine any response, other than "What's that? Show me!"

I played bass in a cover band once, and we were struggling with some songs the singer picked out, so I charted the chord changes out for the guitar player, not as "play this," but as, "I figured since I had to learn these songs, these notes might save you some time," and the guy went ballistic. I offended him, since he never learned names of chords and learned everything by ear. Turns out, there were just a lot of songs we couldn't do, because of the guitar player, and it became very evident shortly after. Nothing against him as a musician, but I just can't get how someone can get into a cover band like that without knowing, like, where "B" is.


----------



## Sumsar (Apr 28, 2016)

n4t said:


> 2. People who dis theory are making excuses for their own ignorance. Obviously defensive over not knowing something.



+1

Also it is a pretty weird argument that:



> Knowing music theory kills your creativity



I know theory but a looot of my riffs don't fit into theory very nicely, I would say they are in a combination of harmonic minor, whole-half tone and chromatic scale , so basicly at a point where conventional theory is not an ideal way to describe what I am doing.
My point being that just because you know theory does not mean you have to follow it and use it.
Yes I also use theory alot for chords and harmony, but alot of the time I just don't care that my riffs don't make sense.

Theory is awesome!
- its easy!
- its a great way to communicate between musicians
- its a great way to find out what your are hearing in your head and actually play it.
- its a great help in writing songs: Want something to sound poppy? just play some chord progressions from a major scale! Want something to sound grim and evil? Just play some chord progressions that is NOT in a major scale (like minor chords separated by a half step)
- if you just wanna go just with the notes that sound good for your riff, instead of following scales, you can still do that when you have learned theory! (dumbass)
- it enables you to play solos in key with the song!!!11!! (Is there anything worse than some derp going "Knowing music theory kills your creativity" and then play an entire solo out of key to a degree that Dick Cheney would like to use it for "enhanced interrogation techniques"?)


----------



## odibrom (Apr 28, 2016)

I think that, on this subject, there is a general miss understanding about what music theory is. Music theory is only structured knowledge about sound, in a way of being able to have it referenced without it being present. As that it is only a tool that works wonders for some and castrates others. As with all tools, it has a learning curve, like an AXE FX or a sound card to do some recordings. This one, however takes a long long time to have it perfected. It links our hearing to our understanding of sound and that is only beneficial for it is an unforgettable tool.

Most of the times, those who bash music theory only had bad teachers at their beginnings, and for those who know nothing, a bad teacher may well become a symbol of hell in whatever subject is in hand. Then, there are others who simply cannot accept rules of any sort, even if they're meant only to build (strong) structures. I then say/quote "know the rules well, so you can play with them..."

I know very little music theory because I was forced (no other choices whatsoever) to learn classical piano as a child. How can anyone force anyone to learn an art expression? That is simply not possible. I was told I was skilled, but I never ever liked being in that music school, nor I understood or liked what I was playing. It was hell for me and so was my progress. 30 years later I kind of regret I didn't follow that path, for the knowledge only and what comes with it. The experience of being in that music school, however is not to be repeated nor passed on to my kids.

As for musicians who have no literacy on music theory, I can remember Dave Mustain (though he must know something by now)... and he's got some pretty skills under his fingers, no matter what is said about his personality. He deserves a place at the top 10 most influential metal guitar players.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 28, 2016)

odibrom said:


> I think that, on this subject, there is a general miss understanding about what music theory is. Music theory is only structured knowledge about sound, in a way of being able to have it referenced without it being present. As that it is only a tool that works wonders for some and castrates others.



Right, it's just like a language to describe a language. Anyone can hum a note, but many would describe it differently. I think of theory as being able to describe it in a way that is standardized in some way, whether you say the note you hummed was an A or "la" or 440 Hz or whatever. It can get more complex when it tries to be more succinct expressing more specifics, but, I guess, where I just can't get on board with what you said above is how knowing theory "castrates" any musician.



odibrom said:


> As for musicians who have no literacy on music theory, I can remember Dave Mustain (though he must know something by now)... and he's got some pretty skills under his fingers, no matter what is said about his personality. He deserves a place at the top 10 most influential metal guitar players.



Cool. I wonder how he communicates what he wants from the musicians he hires. "Hey Chris, play ..." *sings fast sweeping lead*


----------



## Rachmaninoff (Apr 28, 2016)

> Knowing music theory kills your creativity



Following this concept, someone who can conjugate verbs can't write a book.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 28, 2016)

Rachmaninoff said:


> Following this concept, someone who can conjugate verbs can't write a book.



I'm with you, but I think the argument is more like the book wouldn't be as cool.

Maybe as a different analogy, does knowing the names of different grammatical cases and tenses make a person less of a writer?


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 28, 2016)

Sumsar said:


> I know theory but a looot of my riffs don't fit into theory very nicely, I would say they are in a combination of harmonic minor, whole-half tone and chromatic scale , so basicly at a point where conventional theory is not an ideal way to describe what I am doing.



Yet you summed up your harmonic language using very traditional terms. It's kind of a moot point though, because music theory is descriptive. Whenever somebody makes a claim like this, I'm inclined to think that they are advertising their perceived sense of originality and authenticity. That's fine. You do what you do. Nothing wrong with that at all. If we're being objective though, I think that such statements don't make a whole lot of logical sense.

There's also a bit of a straw man in all of this. To use an analogy, here's an observation: All the houses on my street are painted green. The "theory kills" crowd says "I'll paint my house any damn color I want!" and the "I'm unique" crowd says "I live halfway across the planet and my house is painted blue. I broke the rules, hahaha!"

Doesn't change the fact that all the houses on my street are painted green.


----------



## JohnIce (Apr 28, 2016)

I really don't get this thing. Everybody knows theory. Unless you call your chords "iceberg" and "bearclaw" then you know theory. And if you're playing power chords up and down without knowing what chords you're really playing, you know that you're playing power chords, and that is theory. Drop D, blastbeat, sweeping, all of these are theoretical terms, just a bit more modern than the 300 year old italian words used on classical sheet music.

The only way learning _more_ theory can damage your creativity is by showing you little by little that the Wizard of Oz was just another regular man all along. If you sit all night watching people explain card tricks on youtube, you're gonna be less likely to get excited about basic card tricks from then on. So yeah, learning more theory might expose a lot of the music you like as very similar, basic and formulaic, and you might not be as excited about strumming your Am, F, G and playing your pentatonic as you used to. Which can be a bummer, and make you feel less creative because you no longer want to play that old stuff. But it can also make you see connections between genres or instruments you wouldn't see otherwise, and you might evade making a bunch of generic music because you can spot it in time and try harder. So there's two sides to it. Lots of musicians are still out there trying to invent the wheel without seeing that it's already been invented and is pretty common.

My approach these days is to just take it in moderation and stop learning stuff that I'm not excited about just for the sake of learning more stuff. I need to keep some exploration left to maintain enthusiasm towards writing. I've forgotten a lot of more advanced theory from my school years and remember mostly the stuff I find use for regularly. A practical knowledge of theory is incredibly useful when you've had your stroke of inspiration already and just need to finish the song with stuff that works.


----------



## odibrom (Apr 28, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Right, it's just like a language to describe a language. Anyone can hum a note, but many would describe it differently. I think of theory as being able to describe it in a way that is standardized in some way, whether you say the note you hummed was an A or "la" or 440 Hz or whatever. It can get more complex when it tries to be more succinct expressing more specifics, but, I guess, where I just can't get on board with what you said above is how knowing theory "castrates" any musician.



In the same way some find an AXE FX overwhelming and prefer the plug and play options of a traditional amp, music theory mau have the same effect on people. There are different tools for the same job, so...


My little knowledge on music theory feels like a jail cell, it seams, to me, that I can't get out of the plateau I'm at. I should learn and study more, but then, the nightmare of that music school resurfaces and then I get bored doing little exercises for finger training, so I have no discipline... In this way of thought, music theory can be very castrating. Like me there are many other players with way less knowledge or study discipline. Many people relate to (music) expression differently and prefer to experiment first and study (eventually) latter.



bostjan said:


> Cool. I wonder how he communicates what he wants from the musicians he hires. "Hey Chris, play ..." *sings fast sweeping lead*



I have always read that Mustain didn't have that many music knowledge... but I might be wrong. I also remember seeing a video about a year or so ago of an interview with him where he did speak about it...




Sumsar said:


> +1
> I know theory but a looot of my riffs don't fit into theory very nicely, I would say they are in a combination of harmonic minor, whole-half tone and chromatic scale , so basicly at a point where conventional theory is not an ideal way to describe what I am doing.



You know that there are more scales than just the major and minors, right? You know you can create your own scales, right? Call that your own scale, done.

Navigating through a _scaled chord progression_ is quite easy, takes a little practice but most can get there. However one can have a not _scaled chord progression_ and being able to jump from one structure to other and sound "in place" is a whole different story.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 28, 2016)

odibrom said:


> You know that there are more scales than just the major and minors, right? You know you can create your own scales, right? Call that your own scale,



Sorry to split hairs, but actually, in 12-edo, there are a very finite number of scales (a little over 450 diatonic scales, fewer of the ones with more notes). I'm sure there has been someone else who has used the same notes before...


----------



## larry (Apr 28, 2016)

Not sure of his general grasp of theory, but George Benson cannot read music.

I'll admit, I'm more comfortable with guitar after learning bits of theory along the way, so in my case it didn't hurt anything. I actually want to learn to apply it to the fretboard in depth, so I'm never lost.

But what I think is interesting, is how I learned to whistle. I remember a time when I couldn't do it at all. Though, I kept trying and eventually got to where I can whistle anything I hear or think of; even anticipate key-centers and improvise accordingly. All of which happened before I started guitar and knew what theory was. It's not as if one can simply document how to whistle certain notes, you just do it. I believe people have the capacity to approach musical instruments in the same way. Anecdotal evidence at best, but it's compelling enough for me to accept that theory isn't mandatory.


----------



## Alex Kenivel (Apr 29, 2016)

I see this a lot, and I think that some people get the idea that music theory is in control of the music to be made so they strictly follow the "rules" they think are law and thus, "killing" their "creativity." 

_friggin Dr. Evil over here.. _ 

But I find it ironic that some people seem to think this way about music theory, but because of the complexities that can be put into a song or composition, we needed to have some kind of notation to communicate ideas in the first place.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Apr 29, 2016)

Alex Kenivel said:


> I see this a lot, and I think that some people get the idea that music theory is in control of the music to be made so they strictly follow the "rules" they think are law and thus, "killing" their "creativity."
> 
> _friggin Dr. Evil over here.. _
> 
> But I find it ironic that some people seem to think this way about music theory, but because of the complexities that can be put into a song or composition, we needed to have some kind of notation to communicate ideas in the first place.



To be fair, there are some dogmatic people out there who make all sorts of claims about musical superiority. Naturally, it's complete BS and little more than regurgitating Adorno. I had a teacher in community college who said that no famous (classical) composers played guitar as their primary instrument, that keyboard was more at home with polyphonic writing and therefore more able to serve as a laboratory for composers to write orchestral music. Yeah, whatever. John Dowland and Hector Berlioz negate that statement, and in the 20th century, the guitar clearly has more influence than the keyboard in all sorts of music. The footprint of Spanish colonialism and the guitar cannot be emphasized enough. Nevertheless, these sorts of opinions reemerge often enough, leading to a confrontation between institutional music and those outside of it (i.e. most everybody in the world), and a lot of people get a bad taste in their mouth when dealing with this brand of close-mindedness. I don't blame them: they have enemies who are stuck in some idyllic elitist past where Mendelssohn is still relevant. Luckily, some people out there are starting to pay serious attention to musics that were previously disenfranchised.


----------



## marcwormjim (Apr 29, 2016)

In response to the OP: The players people cite as a matter of cliche by this point are exceptions; not rules. The argument could start and stop there, but musicians aren't known to moonlight as logicians, or even demonstrate humility. Anyway, I'll continue to let these threads fuel my misanthropy.


----------



## OmegaSlayer (Apr 29, 2016)

Let's assume that everyone under a positive/negative/creative mood/influence/state of mind can write a good piece of music/chord progression/melody.
You don't have to know stuff or notes, just be able to convey what's in your mind through the structure of the instrument.

Now, knowing the theory, makes you understand why that piece of music works well in conveying the feelings/state of mind.
At the same time, knowing theory helps conveying your feelings/perceptions/state of mind on the instrument like a breeze or to help in completing an idea that doesn't move forward by itself.


----------



## Andrew May (Apr 29, 2016)

TedEH said:


> On a similar note, I've always found it odd when guitarists refuse to or can't play other people's songs.



I can't play a single song that another person wrote. I learned a few Sabbath riffs as a teenager but that's about it. But then I don't really claim to be a good musician! 

I know the very rudiments of theory but to be honest I need to up my game. It's ridiculous that I still have a couple of "icebergs and bearclaws" in my arsenal and that if "bearclaw" is too hard to play in a certain position I have to work out hoe to voice it differently by counting frets... 

One exception to the general rule of players knowing theory that strikes my however is of non classically trained singers (the vast, vast majority I suspect) I suspect that knowing the theory would make less of a difference to a "natural" singer.


----------



## TedEH (Apr 29, 2016)

JohnIce said:


> The only way learning _more_ theory can damage your creativity is by showing you little by little that the Wizard of Oz was just another regular man all along. [...] you feel less creative because you no longer want to play [...] a bunch of generic music



I feel like this is where the "theory makes you less creative" thing comes from. Cause, you gatta admit, as guitarists and music snobs, we do spend a lot of time trying to avoid "simple" and "generic" and "easy" music- it's a form of elitism I guess, or maybe a result of overthinking the stuff we try to write or something, but a lot of us do that kind of thing without recognizing it.

I hit a point a while ago where my music tastes sort of changed, maybe cause I'm getting older or something- I didn't stop liking the stuff I already liked, but I started allowing myself to enjoy music that "wasn't impressive enough". Simple acoustic songs. Got into some jazz. Started to appreciate uncomplicated but expressive playing instead of just the number of notes crammed into a song. New vocal styles. Went back and revisited stuff I listened to before getting into metal, and it's all still good.

I think people get stuck on the idea of having to always use the best and newest and most technical of the tools in their possession when listening or writing, but it's on the individual to get themselves past that way of thinking. It's not the theory that hinders creativity, it's the musicians urge to always use the best/new/impressive/etc. stuff at their disposal all the time. Gatta let ourselves every once in a while just play that dead simple four chord rock tune that everyone else has played a bajillion times, 'cause why not.


----------



## bostjan (Apr 29, 2016)

larry said:


> Not sure if his general grasp of theory, but George Benson cannot read music.



Wow, really? I had never heard that before, and I find that surprising, although I'm not calling that into question.

Any time there is a guy who either does a lot of sessions or hires a lot of session guys or touring guys, I find it surprising when these people don't read music. I typically think of the illiterate guitarist as being the Angus-Young-type, who can rip out some cool riffs and leads but doesn't really keep up to date on other people's music or techniques and tends to stick with the same band or two throughout his career.

When I work out songs with other musicians, I always prepare a chart with chord changes. If there are particular riffs that I hope to do in unison or counterpoint, I make a tab+score. It's only been in the last five years or so where I've had people get offended at being handed a chart or blow up on me for trying to point out the key of a song or the time signature. If a musician can learn his part by ear and it sounds good, then obviously, it doesn't make a lick of difference what he's thinking when he comes up with it, but, in my experience, it's when there is a serious problem (like it's taking months to learn the chord changes to a song, or one guy refuses to play in time or in key, and it sounds like ****) when it comes to my attention that there is a literacy problem. I've never had anyone take that long to learn a chart or whatever come out and say "Well, I can read music, and I know how to play this, but I just -" *other excuse here*. Usually when I get an excuse from a literate musician, it's resolved within one week.

And that brings me to a conjecture that may be unfair, but, based on my dealings with dozens of other musicians, it seems like the lazy ones don't bother to learn theory. That doesn't necessarily mean that the ones who don't know theory are lazy, but I'm guessing that if you are not learning theory out of laziness, rather than for any other reason, you will end up being a ....ty musician.


----------



## odibrom (Apr 29, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Sorry to split hairs, but actually, in 12-edo, there are a very finite number of scales (a little over 450 diatonic scales, fewer of the ones with more notes). I'm sure there has been someone else who has used the same notes before...



I'm not a math expert, but there's a way to find all those scales out. Not that it really matters anyway. With the major, the 3 minors and the other 5 modes, plus the pentatonics one have a life of joy creating music. Then one can also mix some scales like a major 1st tetrachord (1st 4 notes of a major scale) and the 2nd on a harmonic minor (last 4 notes of an harmonic minor scale), and as this one we can also have the opposite. Then, as I've done once, one can pick a scale and add another note, like on a minor scale add the 3rd major interval, so you'll get minor and major chords for that tone... you're getting the idea, right?


----------



## bostjan (Apr 29, 2016)

odibrom said:


> I'm not a math expert, but there's a way to find all those scales out. Not that it really matters anyway. With the major, the 3 minors and the other 5 modes, plus the pentatonics one have a life of joy creating music. Then one can also mix some scales like a major 1st tetrachord (1st 4 notes of a major scale) and the 2nd on a harmonic minor (last 4 notes of an harmonic minor scale), and as this one we can also have the opposite. Then, as I've done once, one can pick a scale and add another note, like on a minor scale add the 3rd major interval, so you'll get minor and major chords for that tone... you're getting the idea, right?



I've already done that and I've also done it in 19-EDO. There are not that many in 12-EDO, as I said. The exact number of 7 note scales is 462. Here's a link to a list of all of them. I have excel sheets and notebooks full of the 19-EDO ones, many of which I have yet to find any musical use for.


----------



## JohnIce (Apr 29, 2016)

TedEH said:


> I feel like this is where the "theory makes you less creative" thing comes from. Cause, you gatta admit, as guitarists and music snobs, we do spend a lot of time trying to avoid "simple" and "generic" and "easy" music- it's a form of elitism I guess, or maybe a result of overthinking the stuff we try to write or something, but a lot of us do that kind of thing without recognizing it.
> 
> I hit a point a while ago where my music tastes sort of changed, maybe cause I'm getting older or something- I didn't stop liking the stuff I already liked, but I started allowing myself to enjoy music that "wasn't impressive enough". Simple acoustic songs. Got into some jazz. Started to appreciate uncomplicated but expressive playing instead of just the number of notes crammed into a song. New vocal styles. Went back and revisited stuff I listened to before getting into metal, and it's all still good.
> 
> I think people get stuck on the idea of having to always use the best and newest and most technical of the tools in their possession when listening or writing, but it's on the individual to get themselves past that way of thinking. It's not the theory that hinders creativity, it's the musicians urge to always use the best/new/impressive/etc. stuff at their disposal all the time. Gatta let ourselves every once in a while just play that dead simple four chord rock tune that everyone else has played a bajillion times, 'cause why not.



Totally agree, I've made the same kind of journey  Then you're talking about taste and using generic vs. innovative techniques on purpose, which I think is a healthy artistic place to be at. If the goal is to communicate something through your music then clichés and common tricks are valuable and important.

But I'm not sure technically challenging and complex music is inherently less generic than simple stuff, it's all relative. Put two pieces of black cloth under a microscope and you'll find they look completely different up close, but take two steps back and they'll look identical cause you see less detail. So are they generic or aren't they? Same with music, something really complex, out there, avant garde or whatever you call it will seem like generic old noise the farther you step back from it. Which is why I think complexity has little to do with innovation. And I think that's why, as you said, once you gain some insight into more complex music you can go back and appreciate simple stuff because you've seen that one wasn't any more fresh and exciting than the other by default.

- edit - Also, it's worth keeping in mind that if your music is not at all innovative, but just uncommon, then it's not really generic either. So if you want to avoid being generic, the only avenue isn't necessarily to be innovative.


----------



## ncfiala (Apr 29, 2016)

I can see it both ways. I think learning theory is a good thing, but if you are someone who sees music theory as a set of rules (it isn't) then I can see how learning theory might stifle your creativity. As a mathematician, I enjoy theory, just like I enjoy playing the guitar, but I can understand that some people just aren't interested and don't see the point.


----------



## Lemonbaby (Apr 30, 2016)

Theory is absolutely helpful and - as stated before - is the most effective and precise way to communicate with other musicians. HOWEVER, I make an exception when it comes to soIoing and can't be anything but annoyed by 

1. Guitar teachers that still promote the outdated and facepalm-worthy concept of on this cord you play Dorian, on the 7 you play bla....
2. Musicians who get caught up too deeply in theory to break out of their set of trained lookup-tables for scales to play over specific chords. Even when it's more advanced then the stupid rock guitar approach mentioned in 1.

I recently listened to a Pat Martino record out of pure interest and guess what. Boring is too small a word for what hit me like a freight train. Endless uninspired and absolutely non-melodic noodling in lower or higher speeds. Sorry if someone is personally insulted by this - could have been many other Jazz guitarists as example...


----------



## marcwormjim (Apr 30, 2016)

You do realize that, when you expect your dismissal of everything Martino had to offer for that performance to be counted toward anything, then the appreciation of others that led to him being paid and recorded would also be counted against it? 

I wish you all the luck in the continued fight against widely-respected jazz musicians, my German critic. It's dirty work taking these people down a peg, but someone has to do it - The idiosyncrasies of their playing fail to impress you; and that's a noteworthy-enough offense to warrant an off-topic post. 

Then again, Martino may well represent every musician whose note choices are informed by knowing what they're playing, and the unlistenable downside that results from it. For all the wisdom of our ignorance, we are unable to perceive just how deeply those with knowledge are mired in their inability to divine inherently-superior note choices. Alas, our lack of knowledge is the only light with which to navigate this unholy darkness of knowledge: I don't know which notes are right, but that guy's notes are wrong. What he was playing just sounded like a bunch of notes; whereas the bunch of notes I played did not - As I was not listening.


----------



## JohnIce (May 1, 2016)

Lemonbaby said:


> 1. Guitar teachers that still promote the outdated and facepalm-worthy concept of on this cord you play Dorian, on the 7 you play bla....



Don't see how this is outdated or facepalm-worthy? Could you explain a little further?

I assume you mean using modes to play over complex chords and quick modulations etc.? Promoting a modal mindset over a C F G pop tune is a bit eggheady to me, sure, but then again I've never encountered such a teacher or player in real life. So I'm just unsure of what you mean.


----------



## extendedsolo (May 1, 2016)

I think this is the lamest argument that will ever exist. Rock/metal players are easily the most guilty of it. By saying it, they are trying to play the role of underdog and trying to say "LOOK I SUCCEEDED AGAINST ALL ODDS!" They are the David to the musically trained Goliath. I say it's complete BS. 

Lets say for a second that Hendrix didn't know theory, we know Mustaine doesn't and SRV doesn't either. I would venture to guess if I said to those people "Play something over this progression" that they could. How? They don't know theory right? If they TRULY didn't then they would be dumbfounded and just stand there. But some magical way they know all of the right harmony and rhythm. It's like knowing the correct sentences to use and how to structure them.

Theory is more than being able to explain everything. It's being able to HEAR everything. Yeah, ok, we all know Santana loves m7 chords and Dorain mode. Sing it to yourself. Can you? I bet Santana could sing over a m7 chord just from the sound. Theory is explaining what a sound is and why. These great players that "never learned theory" had the theory but they didn't know it. They could hear what was right and could play it, which is a completely separate skill. When you learn theory you are subconsciously adding more "colors" to your collection. 

Every successful musician knows music theory whether they realize it or not. On the flip side, I'm sure there are many more musicians out there that are making a living on music that DO know theory than not. Let's not use the "I don't know theory" thing as a reason to be lazy. Also I find it's a way to avoid any criticism of your creations. When others say "uhh that doesn't sound right/good" You can just use the "I DON"T KNOW THEORY SOUNDS GOOD TO MY EARS!" as a permanent trump card. (works the other way too obviously).


----------



## Given To Fly (May 1, 2016)

extendedsolo said:


> Theory is explaining what a sound is and why.


Music theory is understanding when Fb is the correct note and E is the wrong note.


----------



## mongey (May 1, 2016)

theory is simply a means to communicate and explain.

it doesn't kill or nurture creativity IMHO .


----------



## marcwormjim (May 2, 2016)

The map is not the territory: Ear-players navigate the territory without the map, while others prefer to name the lay of the land so as to avoid missteps. Neither is an offense, but those lacking either tool (and who consequently don't seem to get anywhere) are wont to give in to the baser instinct to, when failing to follow a logic stream, contrive a false dichotomy in which the "other" party is guilty of some vague, abstract offense. 

Good ol' musicians, and the ways they screw in their light bulbs.

The entire anti-theory argument is a dogmatic one; in which the learn-ed have effed the ineffable in daring to agree upon common terminology for what's played. Every new musician is guilty of standing on the shoulders of giants, but using the words in the widest circulation to describe what's being played hurts folks' feelings for reasons people other than the offended are responsible for.

These guys - There's no soul or feel in their typing!


----------



## Andromalia (May 2, 2016)

The "theory kills creativity" idea has some merit but it is badly worded. People knowing musical theory usually have classical training, where the emphasis is on reproducting music, not writing it. Most musicians learn theory only as far as to be able to read paper music. My father was a killer viola player who had a successful career in the Opera de Paris, and as far as I know he didn't write a single bar of music in his life.

Those who go the extra mile of trying to write stuff are therefore heavily molded into a chool of thought from a very young age and their writing will conform to that school of thought. In classical music, it means they will write pieces for tested formations using classical instruments. the structure of the writing will, likelwise, mostly follow tradition and if it doesn't, there's a good chance it is because it follows another writing movement.
In rock music terms, it means Yngwie Malmsteen. Those guys are extremely proficient and they don't lack creativity, they just follow composition rules because that's how it's done, it's been drilled in their minds very early on. They view not respecting established theory as "mistakes", like you would say of spelling errors in language.

By contrast, untutored people can come up with great and original stuff but this is a random process: since they don't know what they are doing, *good* original stuff just requires a lot of people, one of them will find something. Tutored people who do original stuff *choose* to do it, and this doesn't guarantee a good result either: once they leave the accepted theory behind, they become self thaught regarding the new path they are choosing.
So it's not a matter of "killing creativity", really, but theory knowledge of course has an effect on the direction you will take.


----------



## Mathemagician (May 2, 2016)

To me, broadly speaking: "Theory kills creativity" is the same bull.... as "all office/corporate jobs suck". Sorry, making good money and having healthcare for my family with a set convenient schedule is so bad. It's very similar to "sorry I can explain concepts in an accurate way, and write musical ideas down in detail quickly." This sure sucks. :/

Lazy people will come up with excuses for their laziness, then create straw man arguments to support them "Well, Bill Gates didn't go to college". 

People who always want to learn will find something they are weak in and get to learnin'. 

That said, a whole lot of successful musicians know very little theory beyond a few chords/etc. A catchy tune can take off and be only 4 chord changes.


----------



## extendedsolo (May 2, 2016)

Mathemagician said:


> That said, a whole lot of successful musicians know very little theory beyond a few chords/etc. A catchy tune can take off and be only 4 chord changes.



True! Tom Petty made a career out of this. Same with Bob Dylan. Both of those guys are story tellers though more in the vain of folk musicians. Even they had sets of rules and follow theory, they just can't explain it. 

I think if we break down artists that have a "catchy tune" or are "successful" it goes more into psychology and culture rather than saying they succeeded in spite of not knowing theory.


----------



## Drew (May 3, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Do you have a source? I see some saying he was, but the conventional anecdote was that he never took lessons and never studied.



That would surprise me too, because I've heard anecdotes about how he was incredibly frustrated about his lack of formal music training, because he had such a hard time taking the music in his head and finding a way to express it on the guitar.


----------



## MajorTom (May 3, 2016)

Pavarotti supposedly couldn't read standard music notation, but there are far more examples of guitarists even bass guitarists and professional musicians in general who really know there stuff when it comes to music theory, and are still both extremely talented, ground breaking and innovative. Steve Vai, Flea from R.H.C.P., and Guthrie Govan are three example off the top of my head of professional musicians that have an extremely deep knowledge and understanding of music theory, yet they are still highly innovative and ground breaking.


----------



## JohnIce (May 4, 2016)

MajorTom said:


> Pavarotti supposedly couldn't read standard music notation, but there are far more examples of guitarists even bass guitarists and professional musicians in general who really know there stuff when it comes to music theory, and are still both extremely talented, ground breaking and innovative. Steve Vai, Flea from R.H.C.P., and Guthrie Govan are three example off the top of my head of professional musicians that have an extremely deep knowledge and understanding of music theory, yet they are still highly innovative and ground breaking.



Speaking of Flea, the same goes for John Frusciante. He's extremely good with theory and is more comparable with Hendrix than any other modern guitarist I know of, creatively speaking.


----------



## MajorTom (May 6, 2016)

Jason Becker and Michael Angelo Batio, I keep forgetting about, are other who guitarists who have an extraordinary knowledge and understandy of music theory, and are extremely creative and ground breaking, some of Michael Angelo Batio youtube videos are quite astounding when he describes his tribute shows and what he does, I can't remember which video it is but there is one where he mentions Lady Gaga and himself and specifically his tribute shows to other iconic guitarists, and explains quite a complex and challenging concepts of music theory in layman's terms in three sentences without using jargon, which is what he does in these shows, that is simply astounding that is extremely hard to do and sign of a pro who knows his stuff not only inside out, but back to front as well.


----------



## punisher911 (May 8, 2016)

Slash is another ear player. In an interview he said that after all these years, he finally knows a scale or two... 

Now, for me? It's all about knowledge. I'm not great,as a player or writer.. I use my limited knowledge of scales and chord progressions as a map of my options to go to. For instance, I will pick a scale and noodle in that scale until I have a riff I like. I then find another riff or two with a similar feel in that scale and put them together for a song. Occasionally I play out of that scale and add in an "accidental" note because it sounds better for what I feel at the time.


----------



## MajorTom (May 9, 2016)

punisher911 said:


> Slash is another ear player. In an interview he said that after all these years, he finally knows a scale or two...
> 
> Now, for me? It's all about knowledge. I'm not great,as a player or writer.. I use my limited knowledge of scales and chord progressions as a map of my options to go to. For instance, I will pick a scale and noodle in that scale until I have a riff I like. I then find another riff or two with a similar feel in that scale and put them together for a song. Occasionally I play out of that scale and add in an "accidental" note because it sounds better for what I feel at the time.



I'm not doubting this, but I did see a video on youtube of Slash playing with B.B. King and I think Eric Clapton and one or two other famous guitarists, which was basically all improvisation, B.B. King called out a key, A minor I think it was from memory, but quote me on that, and each guitarist took it in turns to improvise, I actually think it was the first time I've seen Slash play an electric guitar sitting down.


----------



## extendedsolo (May 9, 2016)

punisher911 said:


> Slash is another ear player. In an interview he said that after all these years, he finally knows a scale or two...
> 
> Now, for me? It's all about knowledge. I'm not great,as a player or writer.. I use my limited knowledge of scales and chord progressions as a map of my options to go to. For instance, I will pick a scale and noodle in that scale until I have a riff I like. I then find another riff or two with a similar feel in that scale and put them together for a song. Occasionally I play out of that scale and add in an "accidental" note because it sounds better for what I feel at the time.



to be fair, many of the early jazz greats didn't know scales either. They knew where the chord tones were and worked off of those.


----------

