JPF Home Page Forums Musician Gear and Techniques Music Theory and Education I Know What I'm Doing...But Haven't A Clue About The Theory!

Mike, or anyone else...

I am not sure if this is a question, a comment, or what. But, here goes.

I know, literally, thousands of chords on the guitar. I know when, where and how to use them almost all of the time. But, some of them...I do not even know what the chords are. I know very little beyond the very basics of theory. Regarding chords, I know the majors, major7ths, Major6ths, 6ths, Augmenteds, minors, minor 7ths, diminsheds, 9ths, 7thflatted9th, etc. But, I have no clue, in theory, how they all work together. But, indigenously it seems, I know how to make them all work. However, I couldn't explain it for a million bucks. I can listen to most songs and immediately figure out the chords, but may not know what the chords are. I can play them and use them, but do not know their names, etc.

One chord sequence I use often, particularly in slower pieces when going from the 1 chord to the 4 chord(in the key of C) goes as follows: c - c11th - c13thflatted5th flatted9th - F. It's the 13th flatted5thflatted9th that I do not understand. I only know the chord by that name becasue someone told me that's what it is. I know how to make the chord and how to use it, but I have no idea of the chord's structure, as far as explaining it is concerned. This just one example of many.

Is it unusual for musicians to know HOW to play a song, or chord pattern, and how to properly use it, without any technical knowledge of how and why it all works together? At 60 years of age, I'm not sure I am interested in starting to learn theory. If I can use the chords properly (at least I think I can) is there reason to start learning theory at this point?

Over the years, I have made a pretty good chunk of change with my guitar as I wallowed around in my ignorance!

In 1976, I was offered a job with Ernest's Tubb's Trubadors by band member Don Helms. Junior Pacheko was on bass at the time. Don't remember the others. I don't mean that as a brag, although it was a thrill, but as some verification that I actually do have a little bit of talent on the guitar, in the midst of my knowledge defecit. For personal reasons, I was unable to accept. (I had just reenlisted in the Army for 4 years...damn!)

Just wondering your opinion on this. Thanks in advance to anyone who cares to express a thought about this.

Alan

I can't find the link at the moment Alan, but type gootar chord finder into you browser search and go there, and you will find a great place you can click in what you are fingering and it will tell you the chord name along with the scale numbers etc.
I ahd one they didn't have and asked them and they not only replied they liked it, but also included it in their stockpile.
Remember you share your problem with B B King and many others, so you are in good company.
I'm the other way around in that I I know what chords I play, and how to make ones i want but play them badly.
I wish i had your problem rather than mine believe me.
Thank goodness for harmonucas i say.
Graham

Alan,

You know a LOT about theory, you just don't use words to explain it. You know that when you're playing the blues in E, you put your fingers on that fret there and wiggle them over to that fret, then bend that string while you pick and blues comes out. That's a theory of music.

The theory I use here on the forum is, mostly, a theory of music based on numbers. That's not traditional theory, though it's been used for centuries...the fact is, your style of theory has been used longer than the one that's taught in the colleges...the college style of theory was developed to explain your style on paper.

Music theory (and the word "theory" in music is not defined exactly the same way that "theory" is defined in science) is simply a way of organizing available sounds so they can be understood, recognized, and utilized. You do that "by ear" and with muscle memory.

My opinion is that it benefits anyone to learn anything. Just the act of learning strengthens the mind and affects life, in general, for the better. But if you decide to learn Sudoku (Suduko? Sukodo?) or a new language or a new program for the computer rather than either traditional or numerical music theory, I applaud you. Do I think studying music theory can help a musician, yes, if they apply it to their music rather than applying their music to it. It can be a little like a golf pro changing their golf swing, but notice that even Tiger Woods does that from time to time.

Basically, Graham's saying the same thing.

All the Best,
Mike

Graham...

Thank you. I'll do that Google search tomorrow and see what I come up with. I appreciate you taking the time to reply.

Alan

Thanks, Mike.

I appreciate your encouragement. But, my follow-up question would be: Is it the same to APPLY a process, with no technical knowledge of why it works, as it is to have an UNDERSATNDING of the process as you employ it?

I have always viewed music as structured syntax, much as a written/spoken language. I speal fluent German, a fair amount of Spanish ands enough French to get in trouble...but not enough to get out of trouble! Languages come to me easily. It's not imtelligence...it's just a God-given talent (Thank you, God!).

In my mind, I know the syntax of what I am doing on the guitar, but couldn't explain it to you if my life depended on it! I know if I want to vary the sound, or the color, of the piece, I could go to the 6minor instead of the 1 major; or go to the 2 minor instead of the 4 major, or split the measure between the 5minor7th and the 1-7th, etc. But, I have no idea what their literal relationship is. I am debating if I should look more into the theory of finding out WHY they relate the way they do. Or, should I simply be satisfied that I know HOW to use them, but don't worry about the mechanics of why they work.

Guess that's a decision that I'll have to make pretty soon. Hell, I'm getting too old to put too many things off for too long! I can see my headstone inscription: "Here lies Al David, Guitarist. RIP. Died in Music Theory class trying to explain the technical workings of his G-String".

Thanks for all you do for all of us here at JPF, and other places. Those who have knowledge and freely share it are the richest of all. You should be a wealthy man, by those standards! Thanks again.

Alan

Hi al

Just read your question regarding the chord.
FOr me I started to play a piano and later learn to read the chord and use chord when playing piano.

One thing i notice all song follow the same chord progression.

I try to transpose it to several keys and they use same chord progression but in a different pattern and and a diiferent length.

SO I stumble this CHORD CLOCK. This chord clock when I was a kid give me this kind of power in all songs that I memerorize all the song and play it even without looking the piano pieces or lyric sheet with chord in it. Just follow the chord clock a little uido on the melody.

for example in guitar i used the key of G because it so easy to play. and here is the family related to G. G is the root and the 2 major chord C and D. Below are the minor chords Am, Em, Dm.

On this patern you can change the major or minor into augmented7 minor7 major7 etc, etc.

SO the 6 chords is the start of your songs it depends upon you which chord you start. Ussually it start with the Root G and ends in D or D7.

SOmetimes you go out with the group of 6 chord and try to experiment the chords not related to the group like Bflat F.

TRy to search the google and look or chord clock and use this to find the right accompaniment of your melody in mind.

Mabuhay!!!

Lynman

Hi al its me again.

Sorry for the 3 minor chords

Em, Am, and Bm. Not Dm.

SOme known artist use 3-4 chords in their songs. SOme as elaborate as 10-15 chords. But the hit songs usssually run as 3-4. like the U2 With or without you.

Lynman

I cannot read music and have never been taught to play an instrument properly. Theory is OK but in practice some people get by and even excel whether they know the theory or not. One of the worst players I ever knew was brilliant at theory unfortunately he did not have a feel or an ear for music. He could not play even the simplest of tunes unless he read it on sheet music. On the flip side one of the best guitarists I ever heard was self taught and could BUSK/play anything without even thinking. Theory is nothing without talent and feel. Some of the best songs were written by self taught people who had no formal education in music theory. They did not have a template or boundaries or ground rules to follow broke the mould and produced revolutionary music. However if you have both the theory and the practical ability to experiment with new ideas and concepts WOW. Music should not have to follow a set pattern it should just sound good.

I just lost a whole long post I was typing here. (We have internet phone, which sometimes interrupts the web when we make a phone call) I can't retype it all now, but I was saying THANK YOU to Mike Dunbar and this theory board -- because even the small amounts of theory I've been able to absorb here so far have improved my piano skills SO much more, that I'm still amazed what I'm able to do now.

That said--Al, it sounds like you already know more theory than I do, anyway. I am still struggling to name the chords I use, and figure out where they fit on the scale/key I'm in. But learning the concept of "I, IV, V" (yes--I didn't get even that far in my piano lessons as a kid) has freed me from having to rely on sheet music so much, and helped me be able to memorize and retain songs in my head. Memorization has always been a challenge for me.

I have a long way to go still--but I can absolutely say that learning theory improved my ability to play by ear and memorize by leaps and bounds.

THANK YOU, Mike and everyone, for this board!!

Linda

Big Jim

I agree with you....SOme known artist that we worshiped dont know the basic of music. Their instict is good enough to turn their passion into who they are now.

I know alot of artist who exibited this kind of power. One of my favorite is Mr. Ozzy osbourne. This guy will rule this planet with his wonderful art. Especially the bat biting thing.

Mabuhay!!!

Lynman

Lynman,

When I was a kid, I had a Nick Manaloff Chord Finder for the guitar. I've seen the clock, and it's somewhat similar. They're all based on the circle of fifths, something else one can google. Old Ozzie bit the bat. I bit a bat once on stage, it was a baseball bat.:)

Big Jim,

There's no need for any musician to be classically trained. Here in Nashville we've got some amazing musicians who can't read a note, but most of them can read numbers. I know a great pianist, he plays blues and jazz, he can also read notes. He used to work for the Nashville Ballet during the day as a practice pianist and could read music he'd never played before right up to speed for the dancers without a mistake. I also have a friend who's a totallly brilliant studio pianist and background singer, he can't read either notes or numbers, he's blind. But, my thinking is that anyone who plays an instrument is using some kind of music theory. When I began college, I couldn't read a note, nor did I know numbers, but I knew how to transpose from that Nick Manaloff Chord Finder. I could play the blues and transpose music on the guitar better than most of the kids who grew up playing classical piano. I was using a theory, it was just my theory, not the colleges. The classical players had a less useful theory...just read the notes but don't relate one piece to the other. I believe everyone benefits from improving their knowledge of theory, but it might not include learning traditional, classical theory.

Linda,

Thanks. I like to see people learn. JPF is an amazing resource. Glad to help.

All the Best,
Mike

I had a really neat little transposition card. It had a circle with a little window in it. You could turn the circle to different keys and see what the equivalent chords and notes were in a different key. When I was younger it helped me memorize but I am old now and have forgotten a lot. It didn't show the chord fret board diagram but I think it showed the name and notation of the chord. I wonder if that card is still available? It was a lot easier than using a transposition chart. I can't remember who made it.

Hi Jean,

Here are some transposition tools:

http://johncomino.tripod.com/trans.htm

http://www.shanemcdonald.org/music/easy-music-transposer.html


http://www.ukulelestrummers.com/Transpositionpage.html

http://www.guitarnoise.com/faq.php?id=67

http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/music/music-transpose.htm

http://www.abclearnguitar.com/transpose.html

http://www.simusic.com/transpose.html

Some are repetitive, the last one does it for you, just type in the chords.

All the Best,
Mike

Thanks Mike
You have more or less explained how I feel and what I was trying to put in words. As I said I am not trained in any formal way. But I have learned a lot over the years and ALSO from this site.

Mike...

You mentioined your friend, the blind piano player. Did you ever know Pig Robbins? He, too, was a blind piano player who did so many Nashville sessions you couldn't count them with a calculator.. He was heck of a nice guy, too. Just wondering.

Al (Often known as Alan)

Too funny Mike.
That scale and chord finere and trasposer of mine you use started out from reading Nick Manaloff's note transposer, and realising it could say a whole heap more.
I still have the Hawain guitar book it was in along with a whole heap of others that came with my first guitar.
Twix that and what I learn in this joint, and saying "what the hell. Give it a go," I believe I have actually come to understand some stuff better.
Now if I could only play.
Graham

Hey Al,
I would say that unless you are writing jazz or classical that theory knowledge is not so necessary, I studied theory but use none of it in my rock writing. I write like you do (or at least I think you do), one chord at a time with chords I like. I find that less is much more when you're writing anything other than jazz or classical, and often in jazz and classical less is more as well. In fact, more than half the time I write classical I am not thinking of the theory behind it. My 2 cents,

Mike

Alan, your songs demo nicely with whatever amount of theory you've learned & you at least know your chords.

I can read notation in a limited fashion... If the notes stay
on the staff and don't get too complicated I can read them.
I can read them but I have a true dis-connect between what I see
and what happens with my hands and brain. I can play simple songs by reading them..but I get almost dsylexic when you throw too many notes at me at a time. I can play songs by ear that I'd never attempt to play ( in this life )..by
reading the notation... (uh. NOT that I think I play that well...but well enough to get the melodies to a listen-able stage)

I don't really think very much when I'm writing a melody. I don't write anything down...and I prefer to play with my eyes shut. If I write at night, I turn the lights on long enough to get the piano set up and then I shut the lights off. I feel like if it's a good melody I'll remember it...and if it wasn't, I won't . On the other hand, I have to think till my brain hurts to write lyrics some times.....

I have realized over the years that I have a few learning limitations...it hinders me on the music theory side of things......but unless I'm in a "beating myself up a bit mood"...I try hard not to let it stop me. However, being able to figure out what I play and get it down correctly in a sheet music format...would truly be a dream come true for me. That is where I wish I knew music theory, the counting of beats, time signatures,and what key I'm playing in. There are lots of print music opportunities out there which require sheet music.

Keep growing...keep writing....
hugs,
Kaley


http://www.soundclick.com/bands/4/willownwind
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/9/kaleywillowmusic.htm
http://www.flashfast.com/kids/
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/kwwg

Mike...

I do not have a consistant manner in which i write my songs. Sometimes I will write all the lyrics first...then the music. Other times, just the ooposite. And I often will write them together.

I don't give a lot of thought to why the 6 minor is a nice subsitute for the major root chord, but I know it is. Likewise, I know a 2 minor (or 2 minor7th) will often work in place of a 4 chord. I know how a diminished, and sometimes an augmented, chord can breathe new life into a lyric...much as a key modulation can. But, I could not begin to tell you the theory of why those things are true. I just know that they are.

As I write a song, I hear the entire band arrangement in my head as I go along. The chords are there for me to "hear" mentally. I rarely have to search for the right chord.

As Graham had indicated, and I am paraphrasing, I guess it is better to have an ability you cannot explain, rather than know what to do and why, but be incapable of doing it. So, I guess I will just continue to tromp around in my ignorance while still doing things right much of the time, even though I do not know why they are right. As you implied, is it necessary to know why, as long as you can do it? I guess not...unless you are trying to teach it. Would I better myself in some ways by knowing? Of course. But, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot know everything (did you here that, Helen?...my wife!) And if this remains one of the unknowns in my life, I guess I can deal with that.

Mike, I always appreciate your input. I always find it intuitive and often beneficial. Thanks!

Alan

Hi Kaley!

And hugs to you, as well!

The several times I saw you perform in Nashville, I did notice that you always play with your eyes closed. I often do that on the guitar or bass. It seems to help me get lost (in a good way) in what I am playing. It just seems more personal and more intense when, visually at least, it's just you and your instrument. Whoa! I'm getting too Dr. Phil, here! Somebody...help me...please!!!

Sheet music, for me, might as well be a disertation in Finnish, written by a drunk German! Yep...they're notes, okay!

As far as my demos...thank you for your kind words. Any theory that seems apparent in those cuts is purely coincidental. Not wanting to sound like a braggart, but, I guess they are an appreciable accomplishment born of pure ignorance. But, I do appreciate the fact that God gave me the ability to do what it is that I do, whether or not I can explain it, or understand it.

Thank you again for your encouragement and most kind words. And, BTW, I am starting to recover from my affliction of "Dot Deprevation" now that you are back at JPF on a more regular basis! It feels much better, now! Thanks! All the best to you.

Alan

I think everyone plays by some theory or another. No one just picks up an instrument and plays at random. It sounds like you've developed your own "theory" based on understanding what chord types sound like.

Traditional theory is a very powerful way to communicate what you're doing, but as other folks have said here, theory isn't music. If it were, mathematicians would always be the best players because theory is really just a weird sort of math.

A basic understanding of theory is pretty simple of you know the names of the notes on the fingerboard and know that there are half steps between adjacent notes (G,G#,A, for example, or D,Db,C)except for E and F and B and C. Why? Has to do with physics.

Anyway, chords are built from scales. Say you have a C scale: C,D,E,F,G,A,B,C.
To build the chords in the key, you stack every other note starting on each tone in the scale.
So you'd have CEG, DFA, EGB, FAC, GBD, ACE, BDF

A major chord has a major third (two whole steps) on top of the root and a minor third (a step and a half) on top of that. (It's called a third because it's the third note on the scale from where you're starting.)
A minor chord is the opposite -- a minor third on top of the root followed by a major third.
The chord built on the seventh note of the scale is diminished -- which is a minor third stacked on the root, followed by another minor third.
(An augmented scale is a major third stack on the root, followed by another major third. There isn't one in a basic major key.)

Things start getting a little more complicated when you add notes to those "triads." For example the chord built on the fifth tone of the scale will usually have the next third added, the "seventh." Seventh flavors can vary a lot. (Jazz tends to stack four notes to make the chord -- add the 7 -- much more than other genres.)

So in a major scale the basic chords are C Dm Em F G(7) Am Bdim
Notice that the I IV and V chords are major. That, according to "theory" is why those chords are so prevalent.

Of course, songs often don't stay in one key. But that is the basics.

Other numerical attachments to chords are also related to scales. Say you have a C6 chord. It just means you count up the scale from C to the sixth note. It's an A. So C6 means you add an A to a C chord. A C9 would have a D added to the C chord.
A C11 would be a C chord with an added F.
A C13b5b9 would have an A for the 13, a Db for the flat 9 and the G in the chord would be flatted for the flat 5. Just count up from C along the scale to get the notes.

(What chords are called can depend on where they are in the progression and what specific notes in them are being played, but that's close enough to give you the idea.)

The chord progression you gave seems to be in the key of F. The C chord is altered in ways that are typical substitutions for a V7 chord. So it looks like you're going from the V(C) chord to the I(F chord.)

I think jazz is really the only musical genre where a thorough understanding of theory is absoluelty necessary to play well. I know a lot of classical players who read music very well and are virtuostic on their instruments, but couldn't tell you what's going "theoretically" in a piece of music to save their soul. Composing is a different thing.

The 6 minor is a nice substitute because they are almost the same chord.
Say the root is a C. It's made up of C,E,and G. notes. The Am is A,C,and E. There's only one note difference.

Same with the iim7 substituting for the IV.
In C, the IV chord is F. F is made up of F,A,and C notes. The iim7 is a Dm7. It's made up of D,F,A and C. Once again, there's only one note difference.

Those chords are almost like inversions of the chords they're replacing, except the root of the chord changes, giving them a different "tonality."

I studied music theory in college as a music major and am reasonably sure that it hasnt aided my ability to write music. In my opinion, just knowing the chords, and how they sound, is the most important aspect of writing- not knowing why they sound the way they do is of minor (no pun intended) importance.

"But, I could not begin to tell you the theory of why those things are true. I just know that they are."

AL, I DON'T REMEMBER BEING TAUGHT THE WHY. I feel the word "theory" in "music theory" is a misnomer because the emphasis is less on the why but rather the WHAT.

It was probably dopey to talk about scales and chords in a post. There's a ton of stuff online about it. I really don’t think theory is necessary to play music. More music has been played without Western music theory than with it in the history of the world, that’s for sure.

But the what and why really depends on how you study theory.

As you can tell from the other post I did here, it can be about as musical as solving differential equations.
You have to learn it in conjunction with hearing what it’s describing for it to be very useful.

My theory teacher in college wouldn’t pass us if we couldn’t demonstrate that we could hear what we were discussing. It was always part of the test.
Once we had an assignment to write a four-part harmony for a melody and I just did it “mathematically.”
After class I sat down at the piano and start to peck it out -- not much of a piano player. I made the mistake of telling him that I hadn’t played it before, and he said “You don’t know what it sounds like? You haven’t learned anything.”
He knocked my grade on the assignment down from an A to a C.

The why of music comes from the individual, and it’s what makes it an art.
You don’t play a iim7 substitution for a IV chord every time, for example.
But what you know how to play, what you listen to, and, yes, what you study -- whether that’s formally or just by listening and playing -- informs your playing.

If you understand theory you have a powerful tool for understanding the what behind the why of other people’s playing. It can give you more choices, that’s all.

joyboy...

I hope you will not consider it rude if I answer all 3 of your posts withone reply. I'm getting old and lazy! Well, I've already become old...starting to work on the lazy part!

I am familiar with how the notes are numbered in the scale, ie.; I know that "A" is the 6th of "C", etc. Following is a quote from Mike Dunbar's post on "Augmented And Intervals":


"An augmented interval augments a major interval...makes it larger. (a major interval, by the way, is one whose top note is in the key of the bottom note but the bottom is not in the key of the top e.g. C to D is a major second...D is in the key of C, but C isn't in the key of D.) So to augment the major second, you sharp the top note...C to D becomes C to D# (neither is in the others' key). or you flat the bottom note...Cb to D.

A diminished interval diminishes a minor interval. (a minor interval is one whose bottom note is in the key of the top note but the top is not in the key of the bottom e.g. A to C is a minor third...A is in the key of C but C is not in the key of A). To diminish the minor third you reduce it by one half step by either sharping the bottom note, A# to C, or flatting the top note, A to Cb...neither is in each others' key."


I haven't a clue in the world what 90% of that means. But, I know when and how to use a dimished chord, or an augmented chord. I know how to use 11ths, 7ths with flatted 9th, a minor 7th rather than a straight minor, etc. Heck, there are songs where I have even used a 13th flatted 5th flatted 9th! I know how to make them and when to use them, but, as I have said, I could not begin to explain to you how they work the way they do,

In Willie Nelson's song "Blue Eyes Crying In The Rain", here is the chord progression he uses to go from the end of the verse into the chorus (in the key of E):

E-C-E11th-E13th,flatted5th,flatted9th-A

I have no idea why these chords work together the way they do. But, I can hear them and immediately know what they are. I do not need a chord chart, sheet music or instruction. I simply hear them and know what they are and then I can play them. And once I learn to use them in one song, I can figure out an appropriate place to use them in another song.

If you go to my Soundclick page: http://www.soundclick.com/pro/view/01/default.cfm?bandID=276329&content=music

you can listen to any of these songs..."Piano Purgatory", "Funked Up Pianos", "Alternative Action", "Jazzed Up And Baroque" or "So Easy In Love", all instrumentals, you will find that most of them have relatively complicated chord patterns. As I was writing these songs, those patterns just came to me from who knows where. But, they seem to work!

Perhaps I have been asking the wrong questions. Maybe the more appropriate question should be: "Why is it that I know nothing about music theory, yet I can hear, play and compose these more complicated arrangements and amke them work reasonably good? And, is it really important that I do know?"

Thanks for your input and trying to educate me a bit. I appreciate you taking so much of your time to impart your knowledge. Thanks!

Alan

Jake,

Thanks so much for your reply and encouragement! The only way that I can explain how I just know what to play when I hear it, is by analogizing it to a foreign language. I speak a couple of foreign languages quite well and anohter good enough to get by if I have to. Music, in my mind is much the same. The languages have a prescribed grammatical syntax. After hearing the language spoken for a while, that syntax just starts sounding natural. I know the correct usage of the grammar without thinking about it. It's the same with the music. After I hear chords used a certain way once or twice, that syntax in which they are used registers in my brain and seems to be on-call upon demand.

I feel fortunate to have that ability. I am assuming that it is a God-given talent that I should put to good use. I try!

Thanks for your support of the fact that it is better to be able to do it than it is to explain it! I still have hope...even after all these years!

Al

Alan,

You wrote:

"Perhaps I have been asking the wrong questions. Maybe the more appropriate question should be: "Why is it that I know nothing about music theory, yet I can hear, play and compose these more complicated arrangements and amke them work reasonably good? And, is it really important that I do know?"

You know the most important things there are to know about music theory. You know the chords and how to use them effectively. This is more important than knowing the words used to describe them and the math used to explain them but not being able to use them.

I wonder if Shakespeare knew what a subjunctive clause was. Or if Van Gogh understood the mechanics of optics or the color spectrum. Either way, they certainly had a theory about their art that worked.

Alan...to put it simply you have a "gift"...a very good ear..
This gift grows the longer you play...but it also brings with it
"i know i can hear it!...but what is it?"...you want to expand your musical knowledge...But the main thing is..you can hear it and apply it...you are probably like me..kinda set in your ways music wise...you know the old saying ..you can't teach an old dog new tricks...or are we gettin a bit long in the tooth to start exploring musical theory....i know i probably am..but in regard to putting an instant handle to all these.. various musical formations...i remember my old Polish Musical Master telling me a long time ago...keep your melody simple and pleasurable...and keep your complimentary chords(ie the one's we cant put a name to, but we hear them) Short&Sweet...So i have kinda stuck to that principle in my writing...Anyway, great topic for discussion..Thanks...Terry Moore..

Mike...

Thanks for your reply. I am certainly thankful that I have this "gift", as terry calls it. And I am not particularly unhappy that I do not know an appreciable amount of formal music theory. More than complaining about my lack of knowledge, I have always been curious why I have the ability without being able to impasrt how and what I do to others. Any lack of knowledge I have is my own danged fault.

I practice my guitar work about 2 hours a day...sometimes more, sometimes less. I do not run scales, etc. I simply sit down and work with a large number of chord variations and see how I can make them work such that they are pleasurable to listen to. I also try to learn at least one new lead riff every couple of days. That is how I have learned for over 45 years.

Your Shakespear and Van Gogh analogies are very appropriate...although I doubt my musical compositions will ever be compared to their accomplishments! But, I get what you are saying.

I think I have beaten this to death, so I will let it die a harmonious and chord-laden death.

Alan



Terry...

Thanks for kind words. I agree with all that you said. And thanks to everyone who has commented and generously offered their knowledge.


Alan

Al, just one last thing if you come back. On that Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain progression -- if you look at the notes in those chords, you'll see that he's keeping an E note going in all the chords, and the other "voices" are passing a half step at a time to an A chord. He throws in some accidentals that do the same thing.

That's an idea someone could use to come up with other progressions. That's pretty much what theory is all about.
Good luck to you.

Al: If you know the names of all the chords you are playing and you understand substitution, then you know a lot more theory than most folks -- you need to give yourself more credit.

Mike said "Music theory is simply a way of organizing available sounds so they can be understood, recognized, and utilized." I like to use a simpler definition: Music Theory is the study of why "music" sounds the way it does. Music came first, the study of music and theory came way after.

I think EVERYONE can benefit from the study of music theory -- how can it hurt? However, for folks that don't have a great ear (me for one) theory is an excellent tool to overcome natural deficiencies. Having said that, I am lousy at theory too, but I am going to get better.

Kevin

Hi I've been thinking (I KNOW IT IS DANGEROUS) but maybe I should just concentrate on the "I know what I'm doing" part and leave the theory to the experts.

I'll chime in on the non-theory side. I've no idea how to read/write music (notation, tabs, etc.) and that's never hurt me when trying to learn a song (or write one). Although i'm now 45 and have probably learned a few things over the years... Al, you know more than I do from reading your post (1 chord to 4 chord?).

My worst experience in music has to have been my recent playing with literate musicians in the school band (my Tavern play). I've never seen musicians get so upset when the was no teacher around to wave his hand in their face in order for them to know the tempo, even after weeks of practice. There was so much they couldn't do without him there and we just couldn't mesh (me on guitar trying to start the tunes during some practices when the teacher wasn't there or late).

If it wasn't on paper, they couldn't do it. No feel, no intuition. A four count seemed beyond their comprehension at times (not on paper). It was probably as frustrating for them as it was me.

I've always figured (assumed - heh), that those who can read were smarter and more intuitive music-wise. Maybe it's just that they were kids with only a few years of reading behind them. But I was in a band once with a great piano player who could read but never make up anything (solo's, improv, etc.) and could never understand why. I still don't.

Especially if you know theory and read/write notation, you should be able to write a song or make something up (I asked the flute player to come up with a solo during a break and you should have seen the horror on her face!) because your that good (here I go assuming again).

So, I'll also leave the theory to those who require notation to learn or write songs. I'll just listen to the record.

If your happy and comfortable with what & how you write music then stay that way, if you feel you need more or want to expand your abilities, then go ahead.

A question I was asked by a music student at the school:
"How could you write a musical without knowing how to write (sheet) music?"
I answered, "Why do you need to know how to write music in order to write a song?"

hI Jim l
Amen to that. But it would be great to be able to do both.

A couple of thoughts.

I like to quote Chet Atkins on music theory. When asked how much theory you needed to know, he said "Enough to know what you're doing, and not enough to get in the way of your doing it."

I'd be tempted to encourage your kids to watch the movie "School of Rock." One of the things Jack Black the teacher tells (and shows) the kids is to abandon preconceptions and feel the music. Sounds like your kids could use to do that.

A number of the musicians in our Friday Night Group had formal music-school training, and are appallingly dependent on sheet music. Playing with the rest of us has been a real experience for them, because we do the "circle thing," and there are folks like me that just don't have sheet music for everybody else to follow. I asked one of our accordion players (who travels with a huge volume of sheet music) how she was coping with it, and she told me, "I've learned to ignore the book and listen to the music." Another tip for the kids.

Lots of luck.

Joe

I started out making music by ear, learning a bit of music reading along the way. Got very used to working things out sans notation, at least when it comes to singer/songwriter stuff.

THEN I got into classical music (and later, musicals and film scoring) and just =had= to learn the whole shebang. Did that, in spades. (You know that "Ph.D." stands for "piled higher and deeper," right?)

The end result is that I can work with and without the safety net of music notation.

And just for the record, many of my favorite musicians wrote some of their best work without being able to notate it. (McCartney is the first of many to come to mind, although by now I'm sure he does read/write notation at some level.)

Also, in the late '70s/early '80s I worked for a major music publisher, where we often transcribed tunes off the recently-released records so we could then write the piano-vocal arrangements that became the official sheet music. Fascinating work, that.

Almost forgot.

When I teach music theory I make it a point of saying the following to ease the tension that beginners to the subject usually feel:

"Much of music theory is just learning the jargon for what you already hear."

Bingo, Jim!

I wanted to add my two cents to this--I learned sheet music beginning at the age of four when I learned to read--so sight reading has always been easy for me.

HOWEVER--it wasn't until learning some basic, basic theory on this board that I started to be able to "free myself" from the pages and be able to play by ear--and memorize more than I was ever, ever able to during my piano lesson days.

AND... I've written songs since age 14 and painstakingly, frustratingly tried to notate and score piano arrangements for them. Once I got the things notated out, I couldn't PLAY them anymore... I couldn't figure out why my "arrangements" off the cuff (improv) never sounded the same way twice, and sort of thought that was a "bad" thing.

It never, ever occurred to me that all the music I've heard all my life on the radio... may NEVER have been written down as sheet music. I thought in order to get anyone to listen to my music, I *had* to produce that elusive and difficult "perfect" sheet music arrangement. (Too bad JPF wasn't around in 1986...)

It was totally weird to realize that all that "sheet music" I'd bought books and books of all my life was never made up by the songwriters... it's done just like you mentioned, by others listening and copying into notation what they hear in the song.

I never had the opportunity to rub shoulders with any what you call "REAL musicians" before discovering this board, really... thank goodness for the education. It's such a relief to realize all I really need is a "lead sheet" and a lyric sheet. Lead sheet, can do. Improv from the chords, am learning that too (pretty fast, since mostly I didn't know their names).

So, now that I'm approaching 40 in a hurry and way past the "debutante" stage of my life, NOW I figure out what I needed to know to do what I've always wished I could do. Duh. Well, better late than never...!

I just wonder how many other people there are out there who are a lot like me. Able to write songs--with no clue what to do to get them out in front of people. The internet DOES make finding out all that info so much easier! Still... Hm.

Linda

Linda, there were and still are songwriters who notate their own music. They hum a melody and write it down as they go. A good many people use software and a midi instrument and play in the notes. Some still do it by hand. I started learning to notate about the same age as you are now. At the time I started writing, the publishers I needed to send songs to required lead sheet notation. Many require a very good demo now instead, but some still want the music notated.

As you have discovered, it's one thing to sight read music and another thing to notate it. You do need some basic theory for that. There are a number of software programs you can use to help you learn how to notate. The application plays the music back and you can hear immediately where you need to make adjustments. I use Finale but there are other ones.

For me it has been a great help. The program helped me to learn rhythmic values better. Pitch usually isn't a problem - it's the note values that are tricky.

Bingo, Jean! Absolutely right.
I use Finale too (NotePad). It's been so helpful for note values. It plays back exactly what I wrote in, so if it doesn't sound right, I know *I'm* the one to blame, not the software!
I've tried the MIDI method a little, but my playing isn't perfect enough, and I wind up with reaaaaally strange note values. I noticed Garage Band notates on a MIDI instrument, and can "guess" to correct your playing to whatever note value you specify (1/4, 1/8 note etc.), but sometimes its guessing winds up kinda strange.

I love Finale most for correcting my handwriting, and making it legible to people other than myself. Ha!

Linda

Computers are ok (i guess) for transcribing your music to printable sheet music - if you've got a keyboard and know how to play it and only want those key parts written out (am I wrong? I've really no idea about such things). Then you need cables & cards and an interface whatchamacallit doohickey thingy and...

It's much easier to just plug in your (insert name of main electric instrument - a jews harp comes to mind...) and hit the record button, then record a vocal(s) track and then add all the other bits (frosting and such) that will be played (improved) by the rest of the/a band.

As long as (and I'm obviously not talking about classical/opera here) the main chord changes are there, the 'rest' of the instrumentation just needs to follow along and compliment the tune (i won't get into particular identifying riffs that are a signature part of the tune but everything still has finite chords as a basis).

I tried notepad once and after flattening my forehead on the monitor screen, I was told by a music teacher that you can't put the lyrics in first so for someone who doesn't read/write, it's a waste of time. But I now know you can't stuff 32 black dots into a staff measure...;>)

Make each dot a different color that coincides with a note (A is blue, B is green, etc...) and I might have a chance...
or...
"Books are for reading, music is for playing,
food is for eating and love is for making"
Hey, I think i've got a hit rap thing here... unless I add music, then it'll be a song...
I'm on a roll!
"Sound is for hearing and lips are for speaking,
flowers are for smelling and air is for breathing"

ok, i'll stop now...
-Jim

I'd just like to point out that reading music isn't the same thing as theory. It's as easy to learn to play a flute part by rote, for example, as it is to play guitar chords by rote.

Theory is a description, imperfect as it may be, about why something is being played. Notation, on the other hand, descibes whatis being played.

If you're going to notate something, you're going to have to have something of a handle on basic theory -- key signatures, enharmonic names and all, but that's still what's being played, not why.

When I used to do covers a lot more I would learn mostly by ear and just use the music books as a starting reference.
I don't know if it is just a stereotype that someone has to know music theory in order to play that musical form inside and out.

I'm into mainly rock/pop, alternative, and a little bit of early punk.
I learned the blues scale and what some of the time signatures meant, and when playing something with theory, all I could come up with is the most basic form of music. Had a lot of fun playing off of a few chords.
Not much room for anything of other kinds of music that really inspired me though.

To some, having juist a little bit of theory and winging it can be an interesting combination.
To the theory bound it is more like noise.

The thing with theory is there is just this mechanical side of it that bores me stiff.
I'm trying to relearn it, but I don't have the inspiration to play it.
It's also like a hard form of math I can't do.

Maybe it's just me, but all the talk with the math and movements seems pro-opposite of anything that is inspired.
Maybe I would learn better if I heard those blues greats and really liked their blues other than just respect the craft.

Matt

Hey Everybody!

Lots and lots of very interesting replies here. What intriques me the most is that there is such a huge variance in the points of views. But, I think the various creative arts and processes tend to have that characteristic about them. If you recall back in high school and college, various teachers who taught the same subject had different approaches.

How many times have you heard a comments similar to this when you were still in shcool: "Yeah, I'm taking Creative Writing 202 next semester. I sure hope I get Mrs. Jones instaead of Mister Smith. I hear that Mr. Smith is boring as heck; but Mrs. Jones' class is a riot." So, same class, same subject, same educational weight...but two totally different approaches.

When it comes to songwriting, in general, I see the same thing on the boards here at JPF. As far as me personally; I do not torture myself or beat myself into submission trying to write the song that has perfect structure, perfect prosody, perfect sancsion or perfectly follows the "prescribed" structure, according to the pros. I am much more concerned with writing a song that I think and hope is pleaseant and enjoyable to listen to, and will cause the listener to be singing it in his/her head several more times after having heard it. If it is also structurally pretty darned good as well, so much the better.

If every critiquer and songwriter in the wor1d were to go out and buy 10 copies of my CD because of the perfection in its composition, I doubt I could make the house payment for more than a month or two with that income. But if only 10% of the typical listening audience bought my CD because the songs on it were enjoyable and easy to listen to, or were catchy enough to make them get excited about then, I could probably retire comfortable in a couple of years.

So, I guess the musical "theory" that I subscribe to is: Tell a good story or make a comprehesible statement; make it either fun to listen to or emtionally provacative; or leaves the listener with an uncrontollable need to sing it in their head...even when it's not being played (such a "They Call Me Mellow Yellow" or "We All Live In A Yellow Submarine"...yeah, most of you will be singing one of those two songs in your head for the next hour or two after reading this! But, that's the point I'm trying to make).

I recently spoke privately with another songwriter who stated that he beats himself up to no end trying to write a song that is as close to perection os possible. He stated that he frets endlessly about getting it as perfect as possible. I can't do that. My theory...make it pleasant to listen to and tell a story or make a statement in the process.

Thanks to everyone for all their opinions and observations. Each and every one has been interesting to read!

Al