http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f22/theory-over-rated-795999/
There's a lot of crap posted as I can read. A lot of it I disagree both on the agreeing and disagreeing sides of the arguement. The problem is how people are framing the problem. The closest to the truth they get to is trying to answer it as a musician who plays covers and someone who plays originals.
One incredibly glaring post to me was written by Staind's bassist. Now I don't know his/her name, nor do I know if he/she can even play, but let's assume in this multi-plantinum band, the bassist can at least play at the level of The Foo Fighters.
Staindbass: "if you follow theory, you end up playing stuff everyone else played already.. similar to cooking from a cookbook instead of inventing your own creations. it is a fact you dont need theory to be successful. i think it is a good thing to know, but not required. maybe if i had studied theory i would not be where i am, i play the way i do because i figured it out myself. 15 million albums aint that bad."
Now, on so many levels this is completely wrong and for an actual working musician sets a bad prescedent for young musicians learning to survive in such an turbulent environment. Without going into the metaphysical element of theory as a language, "15 million albums aint that bad" is not a justification. Milli Vanilli sold a ridiculous amount of albums. Record sales is never an indication of musical talent.
Ok, now the real argument against Staind's bassist's statement. "if you follow theory, you end up playing stuff everyone else played already" omg. Composition, yes can be completely original (hard to find), with infinite combinatations (combinatorics majors please) you can do your own thing (especially with each instrument added). But actual chord structures and scales, no you will not create a "new scale" that no one has ever played before. That is just ridiculous. If you stick within the dodecaphonic (12 note) structure of most modern music, you aren't finding anything new. (still looking for that brown note though) I'm sorry, what was written in those old dusty books are the only tools you have. Just a few days ago, going through my Harmony book I discovered a Supertonic seventh chord paired with a imperfect cadence followed by a perfect cadence. Used it in a song, something I would have never thought of doing if I didn't pick up a book. If you play something you've never played before, you'll find that someone has already done it, and written it in a book somewhere. So in theory, you would have found it faster if you read a book. Don't be stupid. Stop having some romantisized version of what music really is. Don't be naive enough to think you are the greatest thing ever, because you are the first person to play this, because you aren't. I don't see any music professor coming with a big cheque to learn what you just played. To them what you just played is boring in theory. Some blatent copy of so-and-so. Sorry, if you want to look at your music on paper, it's nothing short of plagerism. lol, so no the argument that "if you follow theory, you end up playing stuff everyone else played already" is actually true, but if you don't follow theory, ur also following stufff that everyone else played already.
Now, on so many levels this is completely wrong and for an actual working musician sets a bad prescedent for young musicians learning to survive in such an turbulent environment. Without going into the metaphysical element of theory as a language, "15 million albums aint that bad" is not a justification. Milli Vanilli sold a ridiculous amount of albums. Record sales is never an indication of musical talent.
Ok, now the real argument against Staind's bassist's statement. "if you follow theory, you end up playing stuff everyone else played already" omg. Composition, yes can be completely original (hard to find), with infinite combinatations (combinatorics majors please) you can do your own thing (especially with each instrument added). But actual chord structures and scales, no you will not create a "new scale" that no one has ever played before. That is just ridiculous. If you stick within the dodecaphonic (12 note) structure of most modern music, you aren't finding anything new. (still looking for that brown note though) I'm sorry, what was written in those old dusty books are the only tools you have. Just a few days ago, going through my Harmony book I discovered a Supertonic seventh chord paired with a imperfect cadence followed by a perfect cadence. Used it in a song, something I would have never thought of doing if I didn't pick up a book. If you play something you've never played before, you'll find that someone has already done it, and written it in a book somewhere. So in theory, you would have found it faster if you read a book. Don't be stupid. Stop having some romantisized version of what music really is. Don't be naive enough to think you are the greatest thing ever, because you are the first person to play this, because you aren't. I don't see any music professor coming with a big cheque to learn what you just played. To them what you just played is boring in theory. Some blatent copy of so-and-so. Sorry, if you want to look at your music on paper, it's nothing short of plagerism. lol, so no the argument that "if you follow theory, you end up playing stuff everyone else played already" is actually true, but if you don't follow theory, ur also following stufff that everyone else played already.
Enough of that, let's go to my opinion of theory.
Theory is essential to becoming a good musician. It is not essential to becoming a good bassist, a good trumpet player, a good pianist, a good violinist, etc. It is not essential to becoming a good artist. The only thing it is good for is becoming a good musician.
You can be a good instrumentalist without knowing a lick of theory. That is obvious.
You can be a good artist without knowing a lick of theory. Simply because being an artist goes beyond music.
You cannot be a good musician without knowing any theory. A musician is someone who is given any playable instrument, given any genre of music, given a room of other knowledgable musician, can lead the group to make music. Let's go with worst case scenerio and you are given a baton. If you can command the room to play the music that is in your head, then you are a great musician. The more theory you know, the stronger your command will be of the room. Not only will you be able to communicate what is in your head, but your confidence and respect will be high because the players are being spoken to in their language. An artist cannot do this and an instrumentalist cannot do this. Both these types of players tell others just to follow them. It is true that groove cannot be taught or read about in a book. But taking that groove and giving it to others is something that needs to be learned in a book.
Now with that said, the modern western, 12 tone, theory taught is not the be all end all. It is just one form of language. Just as there is English, French, and Chinese. There is also, Pentatonic and Quarter tones. Theory is essential to becoming a great musician because it is the uniform norm of the majority. It's just like great business men need to know how to speak English in order to compete in the big markets because it is the business norm. Much akin to people arguing that we should learn Chinese because they are the emerging market that will be the norm (hahahahaha).
The worst thing about theory is that it is boring and there is no secret to it. Everything that is, is written in that book. There are no shortcuts. It is important to understand at the very least the basic concepts of musical theory because it is how we as musicians communicate with other musicians. What we communicate to the audiences is not be communicated thru forte and cantabille. No, but our language is Arnold Schoenberg's alogrhythm. How it is interpretted is a whole different issue.
Stop being lazy.
Theory is essential to becoming a good musician. It is not essential to becoming a good bassist, a good trumpet player, a good pianist, a good violinist, etc. It is not essential to becoming a good artist. The only thing it is good for is becoming a good musician.
You can be a good instrumentalist without knowing a lick of theory. That is obvious.
You can be a good artist without knowing a lick of theory. Simply because being an artist goes beyond music.
You cannot be a good musician without knowing any theory. A musician is someone who is given any playable instrument, given any genre of music, given a room of other knowledgable musician, can lead the group to make music. Let's go with worst case scenerio and you are given a baton. If you can command the room to play the music that is in your head, then you are a great musician. The more theory you know, the stronger your command will be of the room. Not only will you be able to communicate what is in your head, but your confidence and respect will be high because the players are being spoken to in their language. An artist cannot do this and an instrumentalist cannot do this. Both these types of players tell others just to follow them. It is true that groove cannot be taught or read about in a book. But taking that groove and giving it to others is something that needs to be learned in a book.
Now with that said, the modern western, 12 tone, theory taught is not the be all end all. It is just one form of language. Just as there is English, French, and Chinese. There is also, Pentatonic and Quarter tones. Theory is essential to becoming a great musician because it is the uniform norm of the majority. It's just like great business men need to know how to speak English in order to compete in the big markets because it is the business norm. Much akin to people arguing that we should learn Chinese because they are the emerging market that will be the norm (hahahahaha).
The worst thing about theory is that it is boring and there is no secret to it. Everything that is, is written in that book. There are no shortcuts. It is important to understand at the very least the basic concepts of musical theory because it is how we as musicians communicate with other musicians. What we communicate to the audiences is not be communicated thru forte and cantabille. No, but our language is Arnold Schoenberg's alogrhythm. How it is interpretted is a whole different issue.
Stop being lazy.
