# Why do guitarists insist on denying they have any knowledge of Musical Theory?



## Louis Cypher (Aug 17, 2011)

As long as I can remember playing and reading interviews with guitarists this has been the case but why? Why do so many guitarists "claim" to know nothing about musical theory in interviews and then 2 questions later describe details of theory that clearly show they know a hell of a lot? I really don't get it... There are many to choose from but here is the most recent example I read today that caused this thread and one of my favorite examples... 

Guitar World Interview with GnR/Sixx:AM guitarist DJ Ashba (Since joining GnR I do think in interviews he comes across as a tool but I really do like his playing)


> *Can you play everything you hear in your head?*
> Thats all I do. I cant read music. I write songs by finding notes on the guitar to match the notes in my head. If I hear something once, I can play it. I didnt have the patience to learn theory; it didnt make sense to me. When I saw sheet music, I felt confined. The notes are there and music shouldnt be that way. I dont write guitar solos. I say, Hit record, and play five or ten takes immediately. Its a feel, and you know if its good, if you get goose bumps.


Then very next question....


> *Do you consider yourself a disciplined or spontaneous player?*
> Ive very disciplined, but its hard to describe. Certain things, like a weird chord arrangement, Ive got to work certain solos out, but the most fun ones are when I can just jam and not follow a guideline.


Then bit later....


> .....I remember playing Beethovens Ode To Joy at the piano with my guitar, and I remember when my mom would play [sings Fur Elise], and the coolest thing is transferring other instruments to the guitar. You come up with the weirdest chords.Piano chords lay out differently and you come up with weird fingering...



Another example of a player I fcuking love who is always claims he knows fcuk all theory is Lynch, as long as I have been playing and reading interviews with him he spends time with teachers, recently he said he has been dipping in and out of GIT when he has time and his Neo classical CD Orchestral Mayhem? Telling me he really can shred out Rachmaninoff's Prelude In G Minor when he can also state "I cant even play a major scale".  
This video of him on Dave Navarro's web TV thing playing Mr Scary... at one point he gives the stock "cool" answer "I cant even play a major scale" and then shortly after he is describing all about the flatten 5th and a major 3rd in the the tune?!! Haha!! 



So why do guitarists say such things? Is it really just so they can be down with the cool kids? Time to name and shame the guilty.... Who are the guitarists desperatly not wanting to show they are theory geeks!


----------



## Murmel (Aug 17, 2011)

If you say you suck at theory because you want to be cool then you're retarded.

But the truth is that a lot of guitarists ARE actually terrible at theory


----------



## McCap (Aug 17, 2011)

> *Why do guitarists insist on denying they have any knowledge of Musical Theory?*



Seems to be a basic human trait.

Remember at school:
The kids, you knew would get high scores, but where going crazy before the results came, cause they claimed they hadn't learned anything this time...

Remember University:
The people claiming they didn't really prepare for the test, but strangely enough knew a whole lot...

Remember life:
People who are obviously very apt at certain things but claim that they are just mediocre and then continue to blow everyone away at the thing they do....

You find this everywhere. It's a mix of being humble and being cool (depending on the situation)!


----------



## toiletstand (Aug 17, 2011)

they might have picked up a few things here and there. but i dont think they want to lie and say theyre pretty fluent in theory when they arent. 

Music just comes differently to some people.


----------



## Stealth7 (Aug 17, 2011)

My guess as to why they say they don't know much about theory is because if they do say they know heaps of theory and then say something wrong they won't get all the theory nerds writing back to them in a hissy fit saying how shit they are and don't know what they're talking about. 

That's just my stupid point of view though.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Aug 17, 2011)

I have no clue when it comes to theory...

From day one i have been matching up notes in my head 

Hell i only know like 4 chords 

EDIT: and i play in a band


----------



## Louis Cypher (Aug 17, 2011)

McCap said:


> Remember life:
> People who are obviously very apt at certain things but claim that they are just mediocre and then continue to blow everyone away at the thing they do.... You find this everywhere. It's a mix of being humble and being cool (depending on the situation)!



I do get it in life and school and that case of being self effacing or humble not wanting to blow your own trumpet but if your famous (or Very Famous) and making money (or ALOT of money) from being extremely good at something (Music/Sports whatever) then of course be humble but don't play down the time and effort you have put in and sacrifices you have made to get to where you are, if you spent a Vai like 10 hours a day practicing then be proud of the fact you did that and its paying off. If you really didn't learn anything other than 3 chords and a prayer then cool and again rejoice you are doing so well with what is a natural talent, but don't play at being cool saying you know nothing about something and then in the same conversation start talking like the expert you are... Yeah its cool when your 14 to read that sh1t but I think at worst it is a little disrespectful for a musician in a musician's magazine to treat the reader as an idiot.... Granted that may be a bit harsh but at times that's how theses guys come across. When you see a guitarist who can play & improvise like this....



Say I don't even know how to play the Major Scale.... We're not idiots George. Don't treat us like idiots.... Even so George Lynch will always rule in my book, guy is a fcuking legend of a player even if he does fib about his skills! LOL!


----------



## Demiurge (Aug 17, 2011)

In mainstream rock music, the supposed enemy for the past 20 years is the notion of inauthenticity. What followed from that, apparently, is that technical proficiency and displays of it are evidence of not "playing from heart," and that a lifestyle that allowed receiving musical education and ample practice time is not in line with the populist-style personas that is considered more acceptable.

Of course, isn't going out of one's way to avoid education or to cover-up any that they've had just to convey the acceptable image- isn't that inauthentic? Yep.


----------



## Edika (Aug 17, 2011)

It is a matter of image for most rock stars and musicians. One factor is the whole cool, wild rock music image (you can add metal types in this also), that want to show a certain degree of toughness. Imagine all the idols with leather clothes and jeans that don't take crap from nobody actually studying music and theory. It takes away the magic and plummets the sales. 
Then there is the talent thing. If you have managed to play amazingly well any instrument but have done it all by yourself with no help from anyone then you are a unique individual. Like so you have not been conditioned by teachers and you managed to create a musical identity out of thin air just by being "blessed" or "gifted". It also helps creating the myth of a musician and supports image and sales.

Now there are exceptions to these rules and various degrees of truths. To study music professionally (conservatoire, university etc etc) costs money and some people can't afford it or can't accept the restrictions and rules of such institutes. That doesn't mean they are not influenced by other musicians or end up picking up theory through playing. A lot of people learn music by just playing and afterwards assigning this experience into theory when picking up information through friends, colleagues, music books, internet courses, articles in magazines etc etc.

Of course having a high level of music theory knowledge doesn't make you a good musician or making you able to compose great music. It can however give you some tools do to amazing things. But for electric guitarists the knowledge of theory takes away from the mystery and image that has been imposed to us.


----------



## Rapture (Aug 17, 2011)

I guess alot of guitarist create a theory for their own that is working. Like having their "home" in the pentabox or in a regular melodic scale and whatever, and then they work out from that point to expand their playing. Shawn Lane for example, he wasn't capable or reading music, but he had such a good ear that he still knew what he was doing, without knowing the theory-name for it. I mean, guys like Allan Holdsworth and Yngwie Malmsteen has probably alot of knowledge, while guys like Hendrix and that just did it their own way.


----------



## exo (Aug 17, 2011)

Could it be that after playing for years, some of these guys just have this "innate" bit of theory knowledge about what works with what, and they've gleaned the "how" just from a shit ton of playing, rather than learning things in an actual "theory" class/environment? like they might've picked up a piece or two of the lingo over the years, but don't actually KNOW theory?

I'm no lynch or Ashba or the like, but I DO know, just from years of playing that I've picked up a fair bit of knowledge about what note is gonna fit where because of the relationships in sound/tonality of the notes ona fretboard, but I couldn't tell you if I was playing a sus2 or add7 or whatnot. I have to REALLY stop and think about what I'm doing, and do a bit of Googling about things to be able to actually articulate what's going on in theory terms.... I don't think it's that surprising at ALL for some hellacious guitar players to sya the "don't know" theory................


----------



## yidcorer (Aug 17, 2011)

Because they are falsely humble.

Seriously, most of these guys know music theory. Some more than others (I am sure Chris Broderick or Luca Turilli pwn the guys of KSE when it coems to theory).


----------



## Louis Cypher (Aug 17, 2011)

yidcorer said:


> Because they are falsely humble.
> 
> Seriously, most of these guys know music theory. Some more than others (I am sure Chris Broderick or Luca Turilli pwn the guys of KSE when it coems to theory).



Thats kinda where I am coming from, and I know I am really having a pop at some over my absolute favorite guitar players with this thread but it is the false humble, and the metal image or whatever that I acquired this gift magically from a warlock I met or from the devil whatever that is frustrating, especially in interviews that are to be read by other guitarists. 

Just to be clear I am not disrespecting anyone who is a theory god like Broderick is or Vai in the same way I am not disrespecting likes of Johnny Ramone say who probably learned as he went along and knew a few bits here and there but couldn't you the difference between a m7sus4th and a dim9th! To me Johnny is as equally as awesome to me as Vai, just in a very different way. So this is not a bashing theory thread.

Ashba in that interview instead of playing it cool should have been more honest because like I said the interview wasn't with the latest cool magazine for the kids it was in a specialist musicians/guitarists magazine this is the arena where he can be honest "yeah I picked up some theory from the piano playing but its never been for me, just learnt what I needed to over the years..." or "when you been playing as long as I have you pick up the theory you need and ignore what you don't, I know enough to get me by" That to me is humble and playing down your skills but at the same time being honest with the reader... 

To say "I can&#8217;t read music. I write songs by finding notes on the guitar to match the notes in my head. If I hear something once, I can play it. I didn&#8217;t have the patience to learn theory.." just rubbish....


----------



## synrgy (Aug 17, 2011)

I think some of you read too much into this.

Sure, all musicians USE theory, because that's how theory works; it covers _everything_. Still, that doesn't mean that all musicians have ANY IDEA what theory they're using, or have ever taken a single class on the subject.

I'm sure I play scales constantly, but fuck if I could tell you what scales they are. 

*edit* and no, it's NOT rubbish, because playing by ear is *exactly* how I learned.


----------



## Bigfan (Aug 17, 2011)

I hardly know any theory. Seriously.

Hasn't stopped me from making music yet, though.


----------



## Goro923 (Aug 17, 2011)

OK, if I'm terribly honest, I know my share of theory. But when I think of what I know and compare myself to the likes of say, John Petrucci, my immediate reaction is "I don't know jack shit". So I know more music theory than the average person, but I am terrible at it when compared to my heroes. In other words: I think that whenever I'm asked about it, I subconsciously think about somebody else who is great and just answer "Nah, I don't know theory". And as I get better and better, there will always be someone to look up to and learn from.
That's the way I see it, anyway.


----------



## Louis Cypher (Aug 17, 2011)

Bigfan said:


> I hardly know any theory. Seriously.
> 
> Hasn't stopped me from making music yet, though.



Guess in short my point in this thread is that 
"I know a little or hardly any theory and still make music..." 
is a very different statement to 
"I don't know any theory, seriously I hate it" *as he/she sits in front of a wall of gold and platinum records*


----------



## GSingleton (Aug 17, 2011)

They don't have to be good to understand a few basic things like thirds,fifths,voicing, and chords. There is so OH SO much more to it. I spent a year in a classroom learning that shit. Gotta take the next level now. - _ -


----------



## thedonal (Aug 17, 2011)

George Lynch explains it in video- in that he say's "I couldn't show you a major scale"- I took that more as that he couldn't explain it to you, rather than not being able to play it. Also how he learned- fret intervals on the fingers.

There is a perceived 'uncoolness' about theory around many guitarists. I've even met degrees of animosity when I've mentioned stuff I'm picking up. Mostly, this tends to come from really shit guitarists...!

But how do you and anyone else define theory? Everyone learns the chords/notes one way or another. That's theory- whether it's just knowing about a major/minor third making the difference between happy and sad chords or knowing all the modes of the major scale or even the rules of classical harmony. 

If you play guitar either for years or as well as George Lynch, you're going to pick something up, right?!

So maybe when some people say they don't know 'theory', it's because they're thinking of classical or baroque harmony or knowing every scale in the book. Not just the things that aid them to make the music that they know, because they worked it all out by ear...

Just an idea. There are still plenty of idiots who say it to 'fool' you or look cool. More fool them, I reckon...


----------



## Oceans (Aug 17, 2011)

my friend doesn't know shit about theory, but he writes awesome stuff just by listening to music.


----------



## RevDrucifer (Aug 17, 2011)

If you've been reading guitar mags from 1982-Present, you can see where this originated. All the interviews with guys from the 80's were them claiming how they busted ass, practicing in their rooms.

Enter Nirvana.

Guitar mags went from having Vai/Gilbert/Lynch on the cover to Jerry Cantrell/Bush/Cobain/Korn/Dimebag, who all claim (and believably so, aside from Dime...) that they come up with stuff just from feel.

Dime said he only knew minor/major pentatonics, but he was also raised in a studio, doing session work at an early age for his dad. There's NO DOUBT he picked up a lot during that time and I'm sure he could bust out more than pentatonics.

As for these days, I don't know why it's still the popular thing to say. Shit, A7X gets a lot of shit, but at least Synister Gates admits he practiced for years and went to GIT to become a jazz guitarist. 

Then again, a lot of the guys who are in bigger bands, tearin' it up now, grew up listening to guys like Vai/Satch/Gilbert....they didn't have to learn the theory, but learning their tunes growing up most definitely gave them the ear to be able to cop that stuff without knowing the theory. A lot of it's probably true, they don't know it, but can play it.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 17, 2011)

RevDrucifer said:


> they don't know it, but can play it.



Bingo. While I know the difference between a C and a G chord, I certainly don't think that qualifies me to say I know theory. 

Once theory heads start talking about "one-four-five" and all that stuff, I'm completely lost.

I can read tabs, but not music. I can play a couple of arpeggios, but I have no idea *which* arpeggios they are. The ability to play something does not automatically mean that one has had education in theory.


----------



## ArrowHead (Aug 17, 2011)

Arkona said:


> my friend doesn't know shit about theory, but he writes awesome stuff just by listening to music.



My friend doesn't know math, but he knows that 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples.


Oh wait, looks like my buddy DOES know math. And your buddy knows theory.




To further explain:

A lot of guitarist feel that "learning theory" means that they will start writing music in their head like a paint-by-numbers book. They feel their creativity, imagination, and inspiration will diminish once they are forced into some set of learned rules.

The reality is, even the most educated musicians write the same fucking way - "Hey, THIS sounds really cool! THAT goes well with THIS! NEAT!"

Theory is just learning WHY it sounds cool in a manner that you can communicate it to others. It won't change the way your brain hears, or writes. If anything, it eases the process.

I've often noticed that guitarists take some retarded delight in stunting their learning process. Just go check out the army of pentatonic blues-hounds on Harmony Central that thing anything "theory" or "shred" means soulless, or a lack of "feeling". The whole pride in lack of education or further development kills me. You don't need to talk "theory" to understand or know theory. Just look at a player like Dave Mustaine, who claims to not know theory. Then look at a guy like BB King who's bent the same 3 notes for 50+ years. They both profess they're not into theory, but Mustaine's body of work and growth shows his ears know what his brain may not admit. 

Theory is NOT a learning process. It is a process of organization and communication. No matter what, at the end of the day, your ears are not capable of thought - and that's where the music happens. No theory will ever change that - only help to explain what your ears cannot say on their own. It's a means of translation for your ears, if you will.


----------



## Inazone (Aug 17, 2011)

Anyone who learns cover songs or plays in bands will inevitably pick up some theory "by accident" without knowing it, but I know personally that I can't usually even tell someone the note I'm playing. I don't know what to call the scales or chords I use in my writing, or what technique I'm using. I routinely use "tapping" incorrectly when describing a hammer-on/pull-off. But the truth of the matter is that I'm not going to sweat the details of music theory as long as I can manage to play the ideas that I think up.

Most guitar players I know simply stumble onto good ideas over the course of jamming a bunch of nonsense. I sure do, in any case.


----------



## yingmin (Aug 17, 2011)

Demiurge said:


> In mainstream rock music, the supposed enemy for the past 20 years is the notion of inauthenticity. What followed from that, apparently, is that technical proficiency and displays of it are evidence of not "playing from heart," and that a lifestyle that allowed receiving musical education and ample practice time is not in line with the populist-style personas that is considered more acceptable.
> 
> Of course, isn't going out of one's way to avoid education or to cover-up any that they've had just to convey the acceptable image- isn't that inauthentic? Yep.



This is EXACTLY it. There's a very strong perception that understanding the "science" behind what you're playing somehow makes it less real, less personal, less emotional. Once you know all that stuff, you're not writing music anymore; you're just doing math. 

Yet at the same time, I can't imagine how it would be possible to become good at the guitar - or any other musical instrument - without picking up at least a little theory along the way. Take a look at someone like Dime, or Stevie Ray Vaughan: there's no question that they had a very thorough understanding of the guitar, and how to make music with it. They weren't just plugging in random notes and seeing what fit. They KNEW the theory behind what they were playing, even if they'd never studied it, and didn't know what it was called.


----------



## drgamble (Aug 17, 2011)

The only time theory is a necessity is in a situation where you are improvising or playing unfamiliar songs or say during a jam session. I always hated these guys saying they don't know theory and then go on a full on musical discourse of how they wrote a solo. 

In jazz music, almost all of the music is improvised. I have a friend that is a jazz drummer down on Bourbon St here in New Orleans, he normally shows to a gig to play with complete strangers. They pull out the leadsheets that have time, tempo, and meter and then just shows the chord progression for the song they are playing. In this situation, you really have to have an advanced knowledge of theory that is second hand nature.

If I was to compare my knowledge of theory with that of my jazz friend, you could pretty much say I don't know theory lol. The fact is, he not only knows the notes, but totally understands off meter/time, polyrhythms, etc and doesn't even have to think about it.

The truth is the bigger the artist, the more bs you get fed. It's called a marketing plan and people make a living trying to figure out what you need to hear so you be separated with your money.

Metallica used to say they were just the average Joe, don't wanna be superstars. That was exactly the whole plan from the get go. If they came out and said they wanted to be as big as Micheal Jackson, people would have called them sellouts and would have never bought their albums. 

Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see. Music is just like the circus, it's all a Big Show.


----------



## Hybrid138 (Aug 17, 2011)

I've taken a few theory classes and theory helps me more when I'm stuck rather then it helps me write, as of now. My brother knows his theory very well and gets mad that I can pickup a ukulele and make some cool stuff on it without "knowing" what I'm doing. 

I know the notes on the strings and some chord shapes. I apply certain scale shapes from guitar. So I know what I'm doing. I'm not just randomly placing fingers and strumming. Do I know exactly what chords I played, no. Do I know what key I'm in, no. It doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing. I just can't explain what I'm doing or why it "works."

I'm not bashing theory either. I love learning it and I'm continuing my music education. I thinks it's awesome when Emil from DAATH goes and blows me away with his explanations.


----------



## ghostred7 (Aug 17, 2011)

Not sure where'd I fall into this...but a lot of my peers are the same.

I can't read music. I can play maj & min chords. I know the differences between a A3, A4, A5, etc....but where does that fall into the level of theory I "know?" 

I think a lot of people are like myself....we say we don't know theory simply because we can't explain how much we DO know. I acknowledge that I know some (little), but say differently simply b/c I can't explain it. Also is a solid reason why when doing improv jams/shreds, I'll occasionally hit an out-of-key note. The lack of theory knowledge bites me in the ass here. At that point, admitting that I know "no" theory is stated as a saving grace in front of peers/jam-mates.

This is also the reason why there are tons of people that haven't been alive as long as I've been playing that are a billion times better.


----------



## Nile (Aug 17, 2011)

I am completely unsure of all musicality, but I usually just write things that are equal in spacing, 12 14 on the G string also work with numbers 10 12 on the B string, is what I basically go by. 

Broderick is probably in the highest degree of people to know so much fucking theory.


----------



## MFB (Aug 17, 2011)

I say "I don't know dick about theory" because I really don't 

I know where the notes are on the neck and what interval would be between the two, some triads (or maybe it's tritones, stuff like A-C#-E, E-C-G, B-D-F#) and little things like that, but in the grand scale, I have the knowledge of a first grader.


----------



## yingmin (Aug 17, 2011)

MFB said:


> some triads (or maybe it's tritones, stuff like A-C#-E, E-C-G, B-D-F#)



You were right the first time. Tritone is literally three tones, or six half steps, which is a diminished fifth or augmented fourth, depending on your key.


----------



## synrgy (Aug 17, 2011)

yingmin said:


> You were right the first time. Tritone is literally three tones, or six half steps, which is a diminished fifth or augmented fourth, depending on your key.



Yeah, see? I can definitely rock out, but I have absolutely no idea what you just said.


----------



## chronocide (Aug 17, 2011)

In the majority of cases, because they simply don't, I think. Fretted stringed instruments lend themselves to not having to know any theory at all. 

And knowing what the notes on the dots are, a few chords, the shape of a major scale or knowing that putting this finger here and that finger here makes a 4th doesn't really mean you know any theory. And that's really about the limit of it for many, many guitarists.

Also, I know quite a lot of guitarists who REALLY no zero about theory, but could tell you what chords their songs are, what key they're in or what the solo mostly does. Because a friend has told them.


----------



## TheHandOfStone (Aug 17, 2011)

I always thought it was odd too. You don't see many authors bragging about their lack of grammatical knowledge, nor do you see many painters boast of their terrible shading and contrast. Some musicians seem to resent the very tools they require to be creative, as if these tools somehow "limited" them instead of enabling further innovation. Yet Picasso had to learn to paint the "traditional" way before he broke off and did his own thing. And if I want to write poetry that makes use of unusual metric structures, I'd do well to know a bit about more "conventional" structures first. In order to be truly "_un_conventional," you have to understand the conventions to which you are trying to respond - otherwise you're really just "_a_conventional." I blame rock music's obsession with what is actually aconventionality for helping to stagnate the genre. The musicians regurgitate the same basic patterns thinking they've "freed" themselves, but they're really just copying theory subconsciously anyway. To truly be free of these conventions, they must learn to recognize and understand them - then and _only_ then can one be rid of them.


----------



## Dvaienat (Aug 17, 2011)

I have not a single grain of knowledge regarding theory, not even time signatures, scales or basic chords. I come up with riffs by sitting down with the guitar and playing. I just go by what sounds good to me. 

In some way I'd like to take lessons on theory, because I'd like to understand why I do the things I do. 

I remember reading an interview with Iced Earth guitarist John Schaffer, and the way he learned to play guitar and wrote his music is exactly the way I do.


----------



## SenorDingDong (Aug 17, 2011)

I say it because I honestly don't know shit about Theory. I took Theory classes, but I never used it. I still have no clue how to play an actual scale, nor can I even begin to speak about music from a technical standpoint, as I honestly had so little interest in Theory's math-like principles that I lost interest and did just enough to get by and pass the courses. Some people are just natural musicians, and have a good ear.


----------



## steve1 (Aug 17, 2011)

theory is something all guitarists know and practice. its just that a lot of us don't know we're doing it, or understand it.

i have no idea what i'm doing most of the time, but i'm doing it.


----------



## Sikthness (Aug 17, 2011)

Louis Cypher said:


> As long as I can remember playing and reading interviews with guitarists this has been the case but why? Why do so many guitarists "claim" to know nothing about musical theory in interviews and then 2 questions later describe details of theory that clearly show they know a hell of a lot? I really don't get it... There are many to choose from but here is the most recent example I read today that caused this thread and one of my favorite examples...
> 
> Guitar World Interview with GnR/Sixx:AM guitarist DJ Ashba (Since joining GnR I do think in interviews he comes across as a tool but I really do like his playing)
> 
> ...





Well to be fair, the stuff you mentioned doesn't display any theory at all. Knowing the names of scales and some chords as well as some other absolute basic doesn't mean they knoew theory. It's not as if when someone claims they don't know theory it should be assumed they were raised by wolves and learned the guitar 100% by feel. I know some chord names and scales and whatnot, but I couldn't tell you shit about theory, so if someone asks me if I know theory, I respond, "no my good sir, i do not".


----------



## cyril v (Aug 17, 2011)

Well, maybe they mean that they barely know enough of it for it to be meaningful to say they know it... kinda like I know a handful of speaking terms in russian and vietnamese, but if someone asked me if I spoke either language, I certainly wouldn't bullshit them. Likewise if someone quiz'd me on jazz theory, I'd stare back at them with my derp-face on... just because I know a few licks doesn't mean I'd go as far as saying I know "IT".


----------



## Dayn (Aug 17, 2011)

Fashionable ignorance.

"Jimi Hendrix didn't know it, so I won't learn it either!" The interminable catch-cry of many beginners on UG... it's okay if one really doesn't care either way. But the fact that people are going _out of their way_ to remain ignorant...

It sickens me.


----------



## Triple-J (Aug 17, 2011)

I think a big part of it is that there's some kind of romantic ideal/myth about a musician who's self taught and people really want to believe in that much more than the idea that being taught by someone else or picking up a book can help.


----------



## jaydubsbud (Aug 17, 2011)

I don't know if this has been mentioned but theory is really just a tool. I say this because theory is only a theory of what sounds good and works really. A lot of my best riffs have come from me using scales but at the same time breaking the rules of that scale and using different notes that just sound good!


----------



## Dayn (Aug 17, 2011)

jaydubsbud said:


> I don't know if this has been mentioned but theory is really just a tool. I say this because theory is only a theory of what sounds good and works really. A lot of my best riffs have come from me using scales but at the same time breaking the rules of that scale and using different notes that just sound good!


Rather, theory explains what's going on in general without rules. There are general practices that will always sound good, but theory explains why, and can also explain why those different notes you used sound the way they do, too.  So it's less a 'rule book' to judge, but a 'rule stick' to measure.


----------



## Sephael (Aug 17, 2011)

knowing what sounds good by ear isn't knowing theory. Knowing cords and figuring out how to do some alternate voiceings is not knowing theory. Theory is knowing what and why.

I can get my car to do some amazing things when I'm behind the wheel, that doesn't mean I KNOW the physics theory behind what I'm doing.



That being said the lamest excuse I've hear for not learning theory was "it will ruin my style"


----------



## Trembulant (Aug 17, 2011)

All one really needs is to know the sound of intervals and how tones work together to make even the most seemingly complex music without even knowing the name of a single note or chord. Naming is irrelevant unless you are conversing with someone. If humans couldn't write letters or symbols and didn't have spoken language, but they had guitars - notes or theory would have no name. It would just be sounds, and they would figure out how to make music with it.


----------



## Oceans (Aug 17, 2011)

ArrowHead said:


> My friend doesn't know math, but he knows that 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples.
> 
> 
> Oh wait, looks like my buddy DOES know math. And your buddy knows theory.
> ...


um ok, I was just implying that he doesn't know anything about scales, or chords. Minors, majors, suspended, diminished you name it, he doesn't know what the hell you're talking about. If he plays something, and you ask him to name what he played he couldn't. So if you were to "ask him how it sounds cool" he wouldn't be able to tell you.
EDIT : And in my mind, anything can sound cool technically, and what my friend plays is simple. Some how I find his style unique though, like you said yes it can be easy if you don't think about it and do it in a spontaneous matter. Music can be made from anything, and once learn more about it, you begin to learn that there are infinite possibilities of what you can write. I have yet to learn everything about it, but I probably never will. Anything can sound good according to the person, for some reason some people like experimental even though I think it's just random nonsense, but some people can find the art in it and comprehend what is being played, I can too sometimes but most of the time not. I guess once you learn more about theory you could comprehend it, you'll probably start to like everything eventually.


----------



## Louis Cypher (Aug 17, 2011)

TheHandOfStone said:


> I always thought it was odd too. You don't see many authors bragging about their lack of grammatical knowledge, nor do you see many painters boast of their terrible shading and contrast. Some musicians seem to resent the very tools they require to be creative, as if these tools somehow "limited" them instead of enabling further innovation. Yet Picasso had to learn to paint the "traditional" way before he broke off and did his own thing.



This is my initial point with this thread actually, like you say you don't see successful authors or painters or anyone else in "creative" fields boasting of their lack of knowledge like its a badge to wear proudly. As I said before I am certainly not saying everyone who plays music MUST learn theory! It is the LAW! You pick up what you need to to do what you need to for the music you wanna play. Its the fact that people deny that they know anything at all! Even when they have learnt it by playing along and learning by ear and trial and error to their favorite CD, hello?!?! that is you learning musical theory. Just because you don't know that the NAME of the Key your in is Am and the NAME of the scale you are playing is the Harmonic minor scale doesn't mean that by learning the tune hasn't in some way given you perhaps a new understanding of musical theory. As Yngwie said in the notes to his transcription to Paganini's 5th caprice in GW few years ago (Yes I am still trying to commit that piece to memory!) The best way to learn theory is not to play endless scales and chords all day but to learn existing musical pieces by others, because not onlly do you learn the theory but you learn its practical application. Theory is a tool to understanding why something sounds so cool and why some stuff sounds so sh1t. Its shame that a lot of guitar "icons" would rather dumb themselves down to be cool rather than just be honest.


----------



## yacker (Aug 17, 2011)

Has anybody come in and just said.....because they don't actually know shit about music theory?.....because that's the correct answer.

I'm really not trying to be an asshole, but that is honestly the correct answer. Show the guys you posted interviews of some figured bass and ask them to play the correct chord accompaniment from classical music, avoiding parallel fifths and parallel octaves, using proper voice leading etc......see what happens.

I'm not saying that they should be upset because they can't do that, or that being able to do that would make them any better. Even in the classical tradition those rules have come and gone. That's theory from music school though.


----------



## Cheesebuiscut (Aug 17, 2011)

edit: ^well put. 

Knowing music theory is different than knowing guitar theory. 

I've taken 4 semesters of theory now and while I know a decent bit about theory I don't know shit about it when I pick up my guitar to play.

Its two very different worlds of thinking. They probably mean they don't know theory in the sense of picking up a piece of staff paper and writing it out but they know their bits and pieces of guitar theory.


----------



## PeteyG (Aug 17, 2011)

Louis Cypher said:


> Just because you don't know that the NAME of the Key your in is Am and the NAME of the scale you are playing is the Harmonic minor scale doesn't mean that by learning the tune hasn't in some way given you perhaps a new understanding of musical theory.



Music Theory is the examination of the language and notation of music, so actually no, if you can't recognise the key of a piece of music, or a scale that is being used upon inspection of what is being played, then you don't really know the theory that the piece is using.

I get what you are trying to get at, but there is a vast difference between knowing how to play a major scale and knowing that what you are playing is called a major scale.

In your first post in this thread you linked a video of George Lynch and Dave Navarro, and you misquoted George as saying "I couldn't even play you a major scale" when in actual fact what he said was "I couldn't even show you a major scale". This leads me to believe that you're just misinterpreting what people may be saying.



Louis Cypher said:


> Its the fact that people deny that they know anything at all! Even when they have learnt it by playing along and learning by ear and trial and error to their favorite CD, hello?!?! that is you directly learning musical theory.



This is absolutely not the case.

When you play along and learn from a CD, you are learning how to a play a track based upon fret and string numbers. This isn't music theory.

For example, I could show you how to play a major scale in G on a 6 string guitar, showing you the correct frets to play on the correct strings in the correct order. However that is not me explaining the music theory of it. Explaining the music theory of it is a separate act entirely, explaining the notes, the intervallic relation between each of the notes, even going as far as to explain the formula for forming a major scale from any note and any point on an instrument.

Then you would be able to legitimately say you know the theory behind the major scale.

Music Theory isn't simple, and knowing a little bit of it isn't equal to "knowing theory", hell I know enough German to have a few small conversations in German, but I wouldn't dream of claiming to know the German Language. Theory is the language of music, please treat it accordingly.


----------



## Louis Cypher (Aug 17, 2011)

PeteyG said:


> ..misquoted George as saying "I couldn't even play you a major scale" when in actual fact what he said was "I couldn't even show you a major scale".



Granted I will give you that that I have misquoted George, but my point is he could show you the major scale because as George himself has stated on a number of occasions he is a very thirsty player for knowledge and has had a lot of tutors you telling me not one of them has shown him that this shape is a Major scale? Of course they have. 



> I could show you how to play a major scale in G on a 6 string guitar, showing you the correct frets to play on the correct strings in the correct order. However that is not me explaining the music theory of it. Explaining the music theory of it is a separate act entirely, explaining the notes, the intervallic relation between each of the notes, even going as far as to explain the formula for forming a major scale from any note and any point on an instrument.



I agree with you on this one that there is a difference, and perhaps I haven't clearly explained myself and have made a blanket definition of "Theory" that is incorrect. As you are right there is a vast difference between knowing, for example, the 5 pentatonic box shapes and being able to then explain the intervallic relation between each of the notes and the mathematical relationship to the diatonic system of intervals... (check me out!) But I would still say that just because you can't explain WHY the Major Pentatonic has 3 steps between the first and second notes, fact you know that the interval between 1st and second is 3 steps for that scale means you do know some theory. If you know a scale even if its just the shape and the number notes and the odd chord it sounds good over then (to me anyway) you know some theory, same as with your example that just because you can have some limited conversations in German doesn't mean you know and can speak fluent German, it also doesn't mean you CAN'T speak some german... Music theory is not black and white where you either do or don't knwo it. Its all shades of grey... If you say "I know musical theory" then that does not mean your saying you know EVERYTHING about musical theory


----------



## ArrowHead (Aug 18, 2011)

Arkona said:


> If he plays something, and you ask him to name what he played he couldn't. So if you were to "ask him how it sounds cool" he wouldn't be able to tell you.




But he can PLAY it for you. So something, somehow, sounds good to him about it. And if he WERE to try to put into words why he chose what he played and how he played it - those words would then be called THEORY.

You don't learn theory to play stuff. Even complicated stuff. You learn theory to COMMUNICATE stuff you're already playing. And in the process of that communication, that's where you learn. Thus the impression that you need to know theory to learn. The "rules", the complex stuff, it's all just after the fact analysis of what we hear. 

Playing an polyphonic instrument while saying you don't know theory is like saying someone illiterate doesn't know english because they can't read it, even when they are SPEAKING it.


----------



## Louis Cypher (Aug 18, 2011)

ArrowHead said:


> You don't learn theory to play stuff. Even complicated stuff. You learn theory to COMMUNICATE stuff you're already playing. And in the process of that communication, that's where you learn. Thus the impression that you need to know theory to learn. The "rules", the complex stuff, it's all just after the fact analysis of what we hear.
> 
> Playing an polyphonic instrument while saying you don't know theory is like saying someone illiterate doesn't know english because they can't read it, even when they are SPEAKING it.



totally what I am trying (very badly!!) to say.


----------



## PeteyG (Aug 18, 2011)

ArrowHead said:


> Playing an polyphonic instrument while saying you don't know theory is like saying someone illiterate doesn't know english because they can't read it, even when they are SPEAKING it.



No.

Your analogy is pretty flawed and let me explain why.

I think we can all agree that music theory is what we use to explain and communicate music, it was formed so that we could adequately converse what is happening in music and understand one another well enough to collaborate.

Well the same can be said for the English language, it is essentially the theory of human nature, a way that we can communicate our wants and needs as human beings, to other human beings, and therefore co-exist with one another and understand one another.

Or to put it simply.

Human nature, thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc = Music
The English language, the ability to converse in specific grammatical forms = Music Theory.

Edit: To relate this more to your post, someone who can speak English but not read or write it, is simply someone who understands and knows the specific words of music theory and can explain music theoretically, but cannot read music or write music. The equivalency of someone who can play an instrument well, but not explain theoretically what they are doing, they just understand it in their own way, is that of someone who can feel and think very succinctly about what they want in life very very well, but just not communicate it in the language you speak.


----------



## xeonoex (Aug 18, 2011)

Theory is really complex. You could know every chord, every scale, and every mode and still not really know theory. Chords, scales, and chord progression are only the building blocks of theory. It's really hard to explain, you have to actually learn it to know how much there is to it.

I've taken 4 semesters of theory and 3 musicianship classes (then changed my major to computer science) and trust me, it gets way harder than you think if you just think it's chords and scales, but all you really need to write simple (non-classical or complex) music is a good ear. People who teach themselves also pick up a lot on what they learn from other songs. Just play a guitar for a month and you'll learn that a power chord (which technically isn't a chord) is used a lot, and some 8 note scales sound good. Even I wrote ok songs in high school using what I learned from the Horn and guitar. I showed some to one of my band directors and he wanted me to take theory in high school (and then I became a music major for a year and half).

I guess my point is, maybe they aren't lying, they just think that know some scales and chord isn't really theory. It's really hard to tell if someone knows what they're talking about if you don't know what they're talking about. I took the classes and it still takes me a while to remember all the terms sometimes, even if the concepts are simple.
Also, music is also learned by time and experience. I know college band directors with their doctorates that said they "finally feel like they have their band director's ears" in their 40s. Music is open to interpretation, and so is theory. No one will ever perfect it and everyone still has much to learn, no matter how good you are at it.


----------



## ArrowHead (Aug 18, 2011)

PeteyG said:


> No.
> 
> Your analogy is pretty flawed and let me explain why.
> 
> ...




You've WAY over analyzed. 

Let me simplify it, because it wasn't meant to be as deeply scrutinized as you have done:

If you speak english, but do not know how to read or write it, you still know english. You just cannot read or write it. The metaphor stops there.

If you can play a multi-tonal instrument, you're speaking the language. Even if you can't read it, or write it, you're still speaking it. You just can't communicate it to others as easily. 

You can say you're not well EDUCATED in theory, or traditionally schooled, or not as good at it as you'd like, but you just can't deny knowing any theory.


----------



## PeteyG (Aug 18, 2011)

ArrowHead said:


> If you can play a multi-tonal instrument, you're speaking the language. Even if you can't read it, or write it, you're still speaking it. You just can't communicate it to others as easily.



I understand what you're saying perfectly, but this quoted paragraph shows exactly why your metaphor was flawed in the first place, regardless of where it begins or ends.

If you can play a multi-tonal instrument you are expressing the music, you are acting with meaning and intent, however you are NOT speaking the language of music, and this is the point I was trying to make.

Just playing the music doesn't automatically mean that people experiencing it understand what you are doing, and this is the point of language, to convey intent and meaning. This is why music theory exists.

Someone who is able to understand a little theory, and is able to get a point across, albeit in a mangled half correct manner, is no different than me trying to have a conversation with someone in German. I don't know the German language, but I know enough to get the basics of what I intend and mean as a human.


----------



## Louis Cypher (Aug 18, 2011)

PeteyG said:


> Someone who is able to understand a little theory, and is able to get a point across, albeit in a mangled half correct manner, is no different than me trying to have a conversation with someone in German. I don't know the German language, but I know enough to get the basics of what I intend and mean as a human.



I do get where you are coming from here and I agree in part with what your saying. 

But I think this line of the thread has moved on beyond the original point I was making in the OP, re reading my OP the point was really to ask Why? Why if you have any kind of knowledge (music or otherwise) would you deny that you do? Doesn't matter if the knowledge is a few lines of German to get you to the pub or the station or Grade 9 KSE Music Theory, if you have spent the time and learnt it however you have learnt it, then be proud the fact you have and don't dumb yourself down for the sake of image and "cool".


----------



## PeteyG (Aug 18, 2011)

Louis Cypher said:


> But I think this line of the thread has moved on beyond the original point I was making in the OP, re reading my OP the point was really to ask Why? Why if you have any kind of knowledge (music or otherwise) would you deny that you do? Doesn't matter if the knowledge is a few lines of German to get you to the pub or the station or Grade 9 KSE Music Theory, if you have spent the time and learnt it however you have learnt it, then be proud the fact you have and don't dumb yourself down for the sake of image and "cool".



Haha yeah it has a bit.

I think it's simply this, a lot of famous skilled guitarists seem to run in the same social circles as people who transcribe for magazines, people who do session work, and even top composers, all of whom probably have a great deal more theory knowledge than them and use it in practice. They would know that what little theory knowledge they have isn't really worth all THAT much in practice so it's not really worth bringing up.


----------



## Louis Cypher (Aug 18, 2011)

PeteyG said:


> Haha yeah it has a bit.
> 
> I think it's simply this, a lot of famous skilled guitarists seem to run in the same social circles as people who transcribe for magazines, people who do session work, and even top composers, all of whom probably have a great deal more theory knowledge than them and use it in practice. They would know that what little theory knowledge they have isn't really worth all THAT much in practice so it's not really worth bringing up.



Moved on and become a bit of an epic but very interesting thread though....


----------



## Ntbillie (Aug 18, 2011)

I think that by theory..most guitar players mean the knowledge that John Petrucci and Chris Broderick have. Without sounding like technical buffs. Obviously chords and basic knowledge of the instrument is very important. The problem I've always had with theory,wasn't theory itself. It was how guitar players who had immense knowledge always wanted to prove that they were so much better than everybody else *Coughs* Petrucci. So I sorta developed a hatred for it. I personally don't know anything about scales. I won't deny the fact that I did try to learn theory..but I just couldn't get the hang of it. I read an interview of Omar Rodriguez Lopez in which he denied that he has any knowledge of theory. And I didn't believe him at all. I just thought he's trying to sound 'cool' and make people believe that everything he does on the guitar,all that amazing stuff is all him. (not that it's a bad thing)- So I went on a mission. And watched all the possible live footage I could find of him. And then I actually figured out that he might not have any knowledge of theory at all. You can notice that in his live playing,especially with ORL-Group. In which most of his work is basically just 'jamming'. Even though he utilizes alotta time signatures and weird meters in his music. He doesn't know how to count those. Lol?.. And then there are great guitar players like Joe Satriani and Buckethead,who have all the knowledge of theory a man can learn. And when they play their music they don't sound technical at all. It sounds as if it comes straight from the heart,which it does. Not to offend any Petrucci fans,but you can evidently notice in his playing that he relies on theory. Like Emil Werstler says 'If you suck at theory,just play' even though he's such a technical player. He denies theory in this interview. 




To each his own,I think many might deny not knowing theory so that people judge them on their creativity. And some might do it to maybe encourage others to be great. (If that makes any sense?) Guthrie Govan has denied not knowing theory in many interviews aswell,but when you watch this...it really does make you wonder?




Omar Rodriguez Lopez: 'Yeah, that&#8217;s what I&#8217;ve been focusing on. I want to figure out how to play less, and more subtly. I&#8217;ve gotten to the point where I&#8217;m most interested in my weaknesses&#8212; another one of which is that I don&#8217;t compose in major keys. I don&#8217;t know why, because I don&#8217;t really understand theory. Writing in major keys just isn&#8217;t something that comes naturally to me, or that my ear finds appealing, and I want to figure out why.'

GuitarPlayer: The Methodical Madnesss Of Omar Rodriguez Lopez


----------



## Edika (Aug 18, 2011)

This conversation has really bloomed from the last time I checked this thread and some people have already expressed what I wanted to say even though I don't completely agree with them. I liked the analogy of music being a foreign language because that is what it is exactly. If you see of course the history of music there was no theory in the beginning just playing what sounds nice and what works. Afterwards the theory was created to explain, formulate and progress music even further (just like most languages).

The vocabulary and grammar of music changes but not as fast as it is done in languages. Intervals that are considered dissonant and unpleasant in classical training are used in modern music, people combining scales and intervals in unique ways to create new sounds that might or might not work in the end.

Learning music without knowing theory is like learning a language without knowing grammar and syntax. You are able to do it and arrive at communicating even in a decent level as well as writing and reading. It just takes more time than actually studying the language in a school and it depends on the level of interest or curiosity you have in the language. I have seen this in personal experience by learning on foreign language in school and another while leaving in the country (and doing rudimentary courses). I speak om language very well (English) while with the other I am still struggling (French). But in both cases I can communicate with people just in a different level. 

This is similar with music. As other people have stated you can transfer the emotions, feelings, melodies without knowing theory but you don't know the formalization of what you are doing. In this case by studying and knowing theory could help you arrive in this musical conclusions faster and maybe give you more options as to what you can do to a music piece (use different scales, chord progressions, harmonizations etc etc).

But as another person stated music theory after a point can get very complex. To go back to the language analogy, it is like studying a language to a university level with complex expressions, words that can have regular and obscure meanings and studying the history of the language just to be able to go to the super market, communicate basic things or in the best case make fairly interesting conversations. Does it help? Of course! Is it necessary? That depends on you and what are your goals for the language.

And this is where it applies to people. Modern music is made up by three to 5 instruments. In some few exceptions you may have ten instruments. Even with these amount of instruments you can make complex music so think what it would mean theoretically to apply this to an orchestra. 

Most people don't know theory or have no idea of music other than what they hear in the radio. If you are fortunate enough and have parents or friends that have introduced you to more complex music you might (I say might get a craving) for it. So most people do not speak the language you are trying so hard to learn and will probably will not understand the more complex vocabulary you might put in your music. Also a stressful way of life tends to make people search things that will not tire them more. This is why pop music from it's creation has become so, well, popular. So most musicians try to translate with people to be able to make a living from music.


----------



## Sephael (Aug 18, 2011)

you guys seem to overlook the word theory. Knowing how something is implemented is not knowing theory.

example, knowing you have to plug a tv in to get it to work does not mean you know the first thing about electrical theory.


----------



## Jontain (Aug 18, 2011)

For me.... I know some theory, but if asked I will usually say I am unsure of it as people who ask are usually interested in learning some theory and as I dont know it well enough to teach I dont claim to that person that i 'know' theory.

Did that make sense? lol


----------



## ArrowHead (Aug 18, 2011)

PeteyG said:


> If you can play a multi-tonal instrument you are expressing the music, you are acting with meaning and intent, _*however you are NOT speaking the language of music*_, and this is the point I was trying to make.



But your guitar is. And it's not doing it alone. You are a fluent SPEAKER in the language, you just don't know the alphabet well enough to read/write it to convey to others as easily as someone who CAN read/write the language.

In other words, you HEAR the language, but you can't SPEAK it. THAT is the metaphor. You're getting hung up on the speaking part. You're getting hung up on the word "speaking" I think. Too literal - it's a metaphor.


The short version is pretty simple - theory is an attempt to explain what your ears already know. It was not derived through math, or with fancy tools. It was derived by_ listening_. 

Theory is easy. Sight singing, sight reading, and waking up for 9:00 classes were MUCH harder concepts for me to grasp back in college.


----------



## Rapture (Aug 18, 2011)

Rock music was never a theory-kind of music. I don't think anyone said to Hendrix "Hey dude, you should learn some theory"


----------



## PeteyG (Aug 18, 2011)

ArrowHead said:


> In other words, you HEAR the language, but you can't SPEAK it. THAT is the metaphor. You're getting hung up on the speaking part. You're getting hung up on the word "speaking" I think. Too literal - it's a metaphor.



I suffer from a couple of learning disabilities that make it difficult for me to understand certain things unless they're logically coherent, and trust me if a metaphor isn't entirely airtight in it's equivalent comparisons, then it becomes useless and nothing more than a way for someone to prove a false point.

I use metaphor often in conversation and have been known to mid way through a sentence have to say "No sorry this is completely logically flawed" and start over. I'm just trying to address this point with you.



ArrowHead said:


> But your guitar is. And it's not doing it alone. You are a fluent SPEAKER in the language, you just don't know the alphabet well enough to read/write it to convey to others as easily as someone who CAN read/write the language.



Playing an instrument isn't the equivalent of speaking a language, and a guitar is an inanimate object so no that isn't speaking a language either. 

Playing an instrument is the equivalent of me as a human carrying out any action with intent and meaning, but without explanation of any kind. Some people may see what I have done and may have some basic understanding of why I did it, others may see it and just not have a single clue why I did or even what I did, and then some others will see it and be able to analyse it for what it is and know exactly what I meant by that action. But this isn't a language, this isn't being able to speak and converse.

In order to convey my point and explain what I did I have to use a common language, in this case in the metaphor we are talking about the english language. So in order to explain my point to others I have to SPEAK english.

Then if I wanted to explain my point for people to understand without me having to be there to explain or to document my point to review later or to simply keep the point alive, I should probably learn how to WRITE IT in this language.

And lastly if I wanted to learn other peoples points without going and conversing with them or without hearing it second hand from somebody, I should learn to READ this language.

So no, by playing an instrument you are not a fluent speaker of any kind of language, you are able to commit an action that will effect other people emotionally and mentally, and in order to explain that action in hindsight, you should learn to speak the language.


----------



## ArrowHead (Aug 18, 2011)

Dude, not looking to get into a pointless argument. You're tearing apart a metaphor while missing the entire point. I don't think I'll be able to get through to you, and I doubt you'll change any opinion of mine formed from 30 years of music study.

Sorry if that's upsetting to you. You're elaborating on the metaphor, and missing it entirely, and you're going off on such tangents as to convince me I can never explain myself to you.

Some people can speak a language they cannot read. Some people hear theory they cannot convey in words. It's not a complicated metaphor, why are you making it one?


----------



## exo (Aug 18, 2011)

ArrowHead said:


> Dude, not looking to get into a pointless argument. You're tearing apart a metaphor while missing the entire point. I don't think I'll be able to get through to you, and I doubt you'll change any opinion of mine formed from 30 years of music study.
> 
> Sorry if that's upsetting to you. You're elaborating on the metaphor, and missing it entirely, and you're going off on such tangents as to convince me I can never explain myself to you.
> 
> Some people can speak a language they cannot read. Some people hear theory they cannot convey in words. It's not a complicated metaphor, why are you making it one?



I think what he's getting at is something along the lines of "if you can speak it, but not read it, can you _really_ say you know it?".


----------



## chronocide (Aug 18, 2011)

It struck me his point was that say you could play a bunch of notes or chords that you know work together, but have no idea why, the next stage would be being able to say to someone that "that was all in the key of C, for instance, and I was playing C major over the top" and then the next stage would be being able to communicate that in notation.

Given that both of the latter two fall within "theory" however, I really don't see the point in arguing semantics. The metaphor Arrowhead was making was clear enough, it obviously wasn't meant to be a like for like comparison.


----------



## ArrowHead (Aug 18, 2011)

Thank you guys. I think the point was that theory describes something that already exists, with or without using theory to discover it. A sound is a sound, a note is a note, an interval is an interval. If you know them well enough to work with them, it doesn't matter if you know the "theory" behind it or not - you're already using it.


----------



## PeteyG (Aug 18, 2011)

How am I missing the point, you are saying that by learning to play any multi-tonal instrument you are not only learning music theory, but speaking a language. I am saying that you are wrong. You may be learning your own version of music theory, because to learn any instrument you need to make sense of it in some way or another, but if the need to explain what you do comes up, and unless you can word it in a universally understood language, what use is that?

Language is the after the fact explanation of an action, or the pre-emptive expression of intent to act. Music is neither of these, it is the action that can be expressed and explained through the language of music theory.

Knowing music theory is not essential, knowing it doesn't make you a better musician, but if you ever find yourself needing to explain a musical point it's probably a good thing to get a grasp of.


----------



## PeteyG (Aug 18, 2011)

Final thing from me, I'm not putting my point very well and am going a very long winded route to get there.



exo said:


> I think what he's getting at is something along the lines of "if you can speak it, but not read it, can you _really_ say you know it?".



This is almost right, what I am saying relates to the original point, about why professional and accomplished guitarists might not admit to know much, if any music theory, and downplay what they do know.

The metaphor I take exception to that Arrowhead made makes it very easy for anyone who plays an instrument to say "I know theory!", when actually what they can do is similar to someone who speaks French doing something that someone who speaks only English might want to understand and have an explanation to.

The fact of the matter is that professional and accomplished guitarists like George Lynch probably spend enough time around people who use Music Theory in practice in their daily lives to know that if they try to explain what they do with the limited music knowledge they might have, they won't make a great deal of sense and it will be difficult to explain their actions.

For this reason I think it's silly to think that someone who knows a few of the basics of music theory, like what a major scale is, "knows theory". I don't think you need to know how to notate music, or read notation in order to "know theory", I just think you need to be pretty fluent in talking about it and explaining what you do as a musician in the language of music theory.


----------



## ShadyDavey (Aug 18, 2011)

Don't be so literal! When George says "I couldn't play a major scale" he's clearly not saying that that he's utterly illiterate when it comes to theory, but simply acknowledging that he doesn't know as much theory as he could, or perhaps should as a guy in his highly respected position.

I know a tiny, pathetic amount of theory but I should know an awful lot more........in my case it's certainly a handicap as I'm almost OCD about understanding what it is I'm listening to.....

*shrug*

Whatever works.


----------



## ArrowHead (Aug 18, 2011)

PeteyG said:


> How am I missing the point, you are saying that by learning to play any multi-tonal instrument you are not only learning music theory, but speaking a language.




No. You're stuck on a metaphor, man. Please, get over the language metaphor, it seems to have been lost in translation.

My last post summed it up pretty well.

I've spent a long time studying music. I've paid my dues, both in university and with instructors, and what I've learned is there's nothing I didn't already know. In my ears. I just keep learning more about how to put it together myself. But that collection of riffs, licks, chords, and cool noises I liked to make on guitar turned out to be all my favorite modes, scales, and compositional styles and techniques as I studied further. Who woulda thunk? Goodness knows it'll still take me a lifetime (and more) to learn to get all those sounds I like out of my head and into my guitar, but it's not like there were any amazing groundbreaking musical surprises for me in theory class. Those all came while writing/jamming/listening for me.


Saying you don't know theory, when you're Eddie Van Halen or George Lynch or whoever, is misleading. That collection of riffs, tricks, and sounds that make a guitarist sound unique IS theory. EVERYTHING they've LEARNED as a player is somewhere in a theory book. And you might go off to study that book to learn to do what they do. In this case, WHO knows the THEORY? The eager student, or the ignorant master?


----------



## PeteyG (Aug 18, 2011)

ArrowHead said:


> I've spent a long time studying music. I've paid my dues, both in university and with instructors, and what I've learned is there's nothing I didn't already know.



So you keep saying, but really how long you have been studying music or music theory means shit all in practice. And for the record, that's my opinion as a professional musician who has been studying music, and in particular music theory, for 20 years, in school, university, and even in my own personal learning persuits.



ArrowHead said:


> Goodness knows it'll still take me a lifetime (and more) to learn to get all those sounds I like out of my head and into my guitar, but it's not like there were any amazing groundbreaking musical surprises for me in theory class. Those all came while writing/jamming/listening for me.



For many people, me included, this is the entire purpose of learning theory, to be able to recognise and name what ideas are going on in ones head, to be able to have an idea and know precisely where on their instrument it is going to be played and what techniques they will use. This statement that you have made is a reflection of many people who I have known who dismiss theory and care not for it whatsoever. 

Once again I get what you are saying, growing up jamming on instruments I would discover things and think they were really cool, but wouldn't be able to organise them easily or recall them easily with ideas, and once I learnt the theory behind them suddenly a light came on and from then on I've been able to use them more effectively.



ArrowHead said:


> Saying you don't know theory, when you're Eddie Van Halen or George Lynch or whoever, is misleading. That collection of riffs, tricks, and sounds that make a guitarist sound unique IS theory. EVERYTHING they've LEARNED as a player is somewhere in a theory book. And you might go off to study that book to learn to do what they do. In this case, WHO knows the THEORY? The eager student, or the ignorant master?



No. 

That collection of riffs, tricks and sounds that make a guitarist unique is MUSIC. 

Analysing, explaining, notating and describing those riffs, tricks and sounds using language is theory.


----------



## drgamble (Aug 18, 2011)

Many on here will say they know zero theory, but I bet if I said play a blues riff, play a bay area thrash riff, play a death metal riff, etc. If you can do this you obviously have some idea of music theory even if it is a layman's knowledge. You have to know what elements of music make them what they are. If you start playing tremolo picked passages in an odd time meter when I ask for blues then yes you may have no idea about music theory. The truth is most guitar players can emulate others and write songs in different genres because they do know some theory. Saying you know theory does not mean your qualified to teach at MIT, that would be someone with an advanced knowledge of theory. 

I always hate he little bit about Hendrix. He was a session musician for crying out loud and played second fiddle for years before he made it on his own. I guess it's just by a stroke of luck that everything he wrote was in key and more often than not a variation on major/minor pentatonics and blues scales.


----------



## ArrowHead (Aug 18, 2011)

I'll give you kudos for finally dropping the nitpicking on a metaphor, but we clearly disagree and I'm through arguing it.

It's the chicken egg. You think theory first, I think after. We could argue til the end of time.


----------



## ArrowHead (Aug 18, 2011)

drgamble said:


> The truth is most guitar players can emulate others and write songs in different genres because they do know some theory. Saying you know theory does not mean your qualified to teach at MIT, that would be someone with an advanced knowledge of theory.



Bingo.


----------



## troyguitar (Aug 18, 2011)

drgamble said:


> I always hate he little bit about Hendrix. He was a session musician for crying out loud and played second fiddle for years before he made it on his own. I guess it's just by a stroke of luck that everything he wrote was in key and more often than not a variation on major/minor pentatonics and blues scales.



Yeah I always found that funny, there's no fucking way he built himself a good reputation as a sideman without knowing what he was doing. 

The whole idea that being able to analyze what you've played somehow makes your playing less "soulful" or whatever is just asinine.


----------



## squid-boy (Aug 18, 2011)

Theory is like math, once you learn the basics, the ambiguity of symbols, and representation of all that you really need to know, you can put shit together after that.


----------

