What about writing?

[Travis]

I haven't been playing bass (or music alltogether) for that long, not quite 3 years. There's a big aspect that I've been able to avoid for the most part up until now, but it seems to have been growing on me lately - Theory. I was taught the basics of theory when I first started playing, but none of it interested me. I never used any of it, and I pretty much instantly forgot everything I was taught. I've been playing pretty sucessfully for the most part without it, granted I have my bad days just like everyone else, but I've managed to move my fingers and use my ear pretty well. Though there has been one thing I've never been able to do, no matter how hard I try or how much time I put into it - write my own music. It is extremely rare that I come up with something that satisfies me, 90% of what I write just isn't creative. Lately, I've been having more influences around me pressuring me to start learning theory. It will help my technicallity and physical playing in the long-run, it will open doors for me to jam with better musicians, and the list goes on...but here's my question -

What about writing?

I've read in a previous thread that you approve of theory, Steve, that you think that there's so much out there to learn about music that anything that you can learn can and will help you, but specifically how useful is theory in your writing?
Anyone else who comes across this thread, by all means give me your thoughts too...
-Travis

 

[Nothinggod]

Travis.

To theory or not to theory, that is the question. I think that learning as much theory as possible is a wise choice personally. There are some things about theory that you need to realise though I think. Firstly that learning theory is about learning how the music functions as a whole more than it is about learning which are the right notes or chords or rhythms to play. In my opinion what is right is a matter of style, taste, application and what is required for the specific project. It is about learning what choices you have and why. One of the first things you need to learn about theory is how the major scale is used to compare and name chords, scales and progresssions etc. Basically everything you will come across that is based on a western tonal music system and isn't based on serialism will be named according to the major scale. I think that as a bassist it is important to know how chords and chord progressions function just as much as it is important to know how to play melodically. By melodically I mean playing notes in succession.
Learning as many different types as thoery as possible and keeping an open mind is important too I think. A lot of people get caught up in 'jazz' theory and worship II V I progressions while not realising that playing that progression can be just as cliched as I IV V in rock music. In other words try not to get too elitist about a certain style and learn as much about as many types of music as possible, because when it comes to writing what you really need to draw on is vocabulary. If you want to write something that is your unique expression, then the more refernces you have the more vocabulary you will have.
Knowing theory can definitly help you make choices with writing music as far as knowing how certain cadences will sound and how certain types of counterpoint will work. It will also give you an understanding of how things like using non-scalar notes and chords can create tension and resolution and also things like mood and movement. But at the end of the day you need to draw on your experiences and experiment and learn through the process of writing itself what works and doesn't work for you. When it comes down to things like style and so on there is really no way to theoretically define what something is. I mean, can you define exactly what 'metal' is? Sure you can say it has certain elements but I would almost guarantee that not all of those elements would fit into everything defined as metal, nor would all or even any of those elements be exclusive to music defined as 'metal' alone.
Simply put though, learn as much theory as you can. Try and learn as much about as many different types of music as you can, and write as much music as you can until you start to really know what you are doing. Bela Bartok, the Hungarian composer would only teach piano as his philosophy was that teaching composition was impossible. There are people that do teach composition and they do teach a lot of worthwile information, but in one respect I agree with Bartok because when you are writing as I said you are drawing on personal experience.
As far as actually learning about theory; The internet is full of resources for theory, from scales and chords and so on to things like lydian dominant theory and serialist composition and theory. Some resources are obviously going to be better than others. But what I recomend is that you try and find a good instructor, and someone that is going to teach you about how theory works and not just a few scales. Teaching scales is useful but unless you know how they work it only gives you a limited number of tools. If you know how to describe a scale or chord progression then you can use any scale or progression or chord you can think of and know how and why it has a certain 'sound'.
Anyway I hope my thoughts are useful. I would be interested to read what Steve has to say on the matter. Being pretty familiar with his work, as I guess we all are, I would say that he knows his share about theory and uses it all the time, whether in development or analysis of his music.

 

[Nothinggod]

By the way Travis, is that a picture of you or Lars K Norberg in your profile?

 

[Travis]

Nothinggod - Thank you so much for your response. After reading that, I probably will start to teach theory. I have a good friend who's a bit older than me, the guitarist to the last band I played for, he teaches music at a shop not too far from where I live, and has offered to give me some free lessons if I'd like. I'll probably take him up on that now. Thank you so much.

Heh, yeah, thats a picture of me. (fullsize)

 

[MaskedJackal]

I know basic theory myself, and for me, it's choosing when to use it. For example, I love and am constantly trying to integrate Middle Eastern sounds into my stuff, and I tried forever to until I learned the Harmonic minor scale- BINGO! Sometimes it's worth learning a little more, and sometimes not. If I just want to noodle without thinking, I go for it. If I don't like what I'm getting through blind exploration, then I think about where I could go "within the rules."

Then again, Chuck Schuldiner never learned any theory and he was amazing. Same for Steve Harris.

On a side note, Travis, theory or not...your stuff on MySpace is INCREDIBLE! I've been playing a little longer than you, and you totally slay anything I could ever bring to the table in matters of originality, tone, and overall sound. Keep up the amazing stuff!

 

[Travis]

Thanks so much for the encouraging words, Nocturnals, it means a lot to me.

 

[Nothinggod]

Just to respond to TheNocturnals' post. I think you have to bare in mind that there is really no such thing as theoryless music. It's not really a matter of knowing or not knowing theory, in my opinion, but of understanding it. Everyone uses theory whenever they play or write music, even if they are not concious of it. The difference is really whether you are concious of what is going on. There are going to be times when you are more analytical of what you are doing and there are going to be times when you are less analytical. Even using a shape you learned or a particular sequence without saying 'oh that is a hungarian major scale', for example, is still a type of theory. In Indian and Middle Eastern music they have theory that is based on certain types of patterns or even on vocal interpretations. They are still theory and can be analysed even from a western tonal point of view theoretically. As far as Chuck Schuldiner goes, I might be wrong and this is certainly the thread to get some feedback on the matter, but even though he maintained he didn't know any theory, I would still say that he had certain methods that he used that let him access certain ways of expressing the ideas he had, which would, in my opinion equate to theory. Even 'noodling' around you are still going to employ some kind of theory, whether it be that you are using shapes you know or whether you are more aware of the scale/scales that you are using. Also let me point out that thinking about theory doesn't mean that you are going to be there worrying about playing the 'right' notes all the time. In fact I personally find it's the opposite. I think a lot less about whether the notes are the right ones and often it leads me to using a lot more non-scalar notes and also to use multiple scales and modulations.

I think though that the main point that Travis was making was that would theory help in writing. I think you would be hard put to make an argument that knowing more theory could make you less of a composer. That doesn't mean that you are necessarily going to be worried about how it looks on paper versus how it sounds either. What it does do though is give you the ability to look at your work and understand why a certain thing works a certain way. Also it might help you to think of an idea in a technical sense when you are stuck and just can't seem to play the sounds that you want to hear. As I said in my previous post you need to build up a language to draw on. Kind of like when you are a literary writer. The more vocabulary you have the better. It only helps you to express your ideas more fully and gives you more options in what you want to say.

Also if you are into sounding 'Middle Eastern' check some of these scales out

Byzantine, or Double Harmonic - {1, b2, 3, 4, 5, b6, 7}
Hungarian Major - {1, #2, 3, #4, 5, 6, b7}
Neopolitan 1 - {1, b2, b3, 4, 5, b6, 7} - I guess you could call that a Harmonic Phrygian too. I like the 4th mode of that scale a lot too -
{1, 2, b3, #4, 5, b6, b7}
Persian - {1, b2, 3, 4, b5, b6, 7}

I tend to think though, that sounding 'Middle Eastern' is as much about the rhythm and application of other qualities as it is about the scale being used. Also things like instrumentation can play a huge role too.

By the way Travis that picture of you does look like it could be Lars K Norberg, the pose and the hair I guess.

Once again I hope my thoughts are helpful.

 

[MaskedJackal]

Just to respond to TheNocturnals' post. I think you have to bare in mind that there is really no such thing as theoryless music. It's not really a matter of knowing or not knowing theory, in my opinion, but of understanding it. Everyone uses theory whenever they play or write music, even if they are not concious of it. The difference is really whether you are concious of what is going on. There are going to be times when you are more analytical of what you are doing and there are going to be times when you are less analytical. Even using a shape you learned or a particular sequence without saying 'oh that is a hungarian major scale', for example, is still a type of theory. In Indian and Middle Eastern music they have theory that is based on certain types of patterns or even on vocal interpretations. They are still theory and can be analysed even from a western tonal point of view theoretically. As far as Chuck Schuldiner goes, I might be wrong and this is certainly the thread to get some feedback on the matter, but even though he maintained he didn't know any theory, I would still say that he had certain methods that he used that let him access certain ways of expressing the ideas he had, which would, in my opinion equate to theory. Even 'noodling' around you are still going to employ some kind of theory, whether it be that you are using shapes you know or whether you are more aware of the scale/scales that you are using. Also let me point out that thinking about theory doesn't mean that you are going to be there worrying about playing the 'right' notes all the time. In fact I personally find it's the opposite. I think a lot less about whether the notes are the right ones and often it leads me to using a lot more non-scalar notes and also to use multiple scales and modulations.

I think though that the main point that Travis was making was that would theory help in writing. I think you would be hard put to make an argument that knowing more theory could make you less of a composer. That doesn't mean that you are necessarily going to be worried about how it looks on paper versus how it sounds either. What it does do though is give you the ability to look at your work and understand why a certain thing works a certain way. Also it might help you to think of an idea in a technical sense when you are stuck and just can't seem to play the sounds that you want to hear. As I said in my previous post you need to build up a language to draw on. Kind of like when you are a literary writer. The more vocabulary you have the better. It only helps you to express your ideas more fully and gives you more options in what you want to say.

Also if you are into sounding 'Middle Eastern' check some of these scales out

Byzantine, or Double Harmonic - {1, b2, 3, 4, 5, b6, 7}
Hungarian Major - {1, #2, 3, #4, 5, 6, b7}
Neopolitan 1 - {1, b2, b3, 4, 5, b6, 7} - I guess you could call that a Harmonic Phrygian too. I like the 4th mode of that scale a lot too -
{1, 2, b3, #4, 5, b6, b7}
Persian - {1, b2, 3, 4, b5, b6, 7}

I tend to think though, that sounding 'Middle Eastern' is as much about the rhythm and application of other qualities as it is about the scale being used. Also things like instrumentation can play a huge role too.

By the way Travis that picture of you does look like it could be Lars K Norberg, the pose and the hair I guess.

Once again I hope my thoughts are helpful.

You're totally right. Well put, man.

And as for Mideastern rythym, I'm definitely checking those out too, doncha worry

Thanks SO MUCH for the scales...since I'm short on time would you mind tabbing them in C? I don't mean to impose..... thanks even if you don't!

 

[Nothinggod]

I will give you the notes in C, you can figure them out as far as fret position and such.

Byzantine {C, Db, E, F, G, Ab, B}

Hungarian Major {C, D#, E, F#, G, A, Bb}

Neopolitan 1 {C, Db, Eb, F, G, Ab, B}, 4th mode in C {C, D, Eb, F#, G, Ab, Bb}

Persian {C, Db, E, F, Gb, Ab, B}

 

[Miguel Suerte]

Just to respond to TheNocturnals' post. I think you have to bare in mind that there is really no such thing as theoryless music. It's not really a matter of knowing or not knowing theory, in my opinion, but of understanding it.

Been crackin' out the Wittgenstein recently? I loved that intro so much I just had to respond. My rejoinder would be, "If you're playing a game but aren't aware of it, it doesn't mean you're not following some type of rules just because you aren't aware of the fact you're playing the (or a) game." Understanding is one thing incorporation and use is another. You guys have already pretty much reached the same conclusions I suppose. But still, I think nothing beats a great ear.

 

[MaskedJackal]

You guys have already pretty much reached the same conclusions I suppose. But still, I think nothing beats a great ear.

Agreed. I'm working on that.....

 

[Nothinggod]

"Nothing beats a great ear". Tell that to Beethoven

I should go further to say that playing a/the game is really not a very accurate analogy either though. For example to play chess you have to know some of the rules, such as piece movement and capturing ability. On the other hand, playing craps is a matter of chance and playing the odds. With chess, though, you will find that the better players are the ones that have the ability to assess and analyse their game. On the other hand anyone can throw dice. So I guess it all comes down to which game you are playing.

People with a "great ear" tend to be the ones that know how to interpret what they are hearing anyway, in my opinion

 

[Miguel Suerte]

Well that's all great. The "having a ear for form" was just what I THOUGHT the priority was when I was arranging anything musical. It wasn't like I thought that was the standard. The game analogy wasn't meant to be applied to chess its principle victim was the enterprise of language -which is a game you aren't given the rules for in advance; you just start half-way through.

Perhaps the last paragraph is applicable only to studio producers (everything Hip-Hop comes to mind), but for that position having the arranging ear is ever more important where as in rock...not really. But I'm gonna go back to a game I don't really know well and don't have the choice whether I want to play or not -Chemotherapy. I'll just stick to drumming and opining on everything Sadus in the future. Beethoven had a tough life...that ain't a zombie I want after me.

 

[Nothinggod]

Actually, I don't really think it has to be or necessarily should be one or the other concerning songform, if that is what you are refering to. It really comes down to the tools you have to choose from. I think the whole point of this thread was that Travis wanted advice on whether knowing theory would help him with his songwriting and, as I said before, I would find it hard to support an argument that knowing less about theory gives you more options, or that knowing more theory gives you less options.

Back to the point about having a good ear though. In my opinion you can look at having a good ear in two ways. The first way, which I think is the common perception is that having a good ear means that you can meet the expectation of what you think the music should be doing so it 'sounds right'. Generally this is going to result in satisfying conditioned responses to certain cadences and progressions; I IV V being the obvious example in western tonal music. The second way is that you could look at having a good ear as having the ability to analyse a piece of music and respond to it through a series of choices made as a result of theoretical anlysis. That isn't to say that you are responding technically rather than emotionally. On the contrary having a greater choice of technical options gives you a wider choice of emotional 'colours', in my opinion. What I am saying, to sum up, is that it doesn't have to be intellect versus emotion and can be a combination of both.

I don't really understand the comment about hip hop versus rock and roll, though. I look at music as being music regardless of what category it falls into by some arbitrary labling system. You could say that there are only superficial differences between a lot of hip hop and rock and roll anyway. The basic song structures and the progressions used are often exactly the same. And I'm definitly not refering at all to production values here. It seems that there is a 'them versus us' mentality where hip hop is just pretend music and rock and roll is more valid. I personally don't see that this is the case. I don't really look at a bass player playing hip hop as really all that different to a bass player playing rock for example. They both have the same notes to use, both can be more or less technical and both can use a variety of techniques. Also compositional values in hip hop and rock can be more or less complex. Feel free to elaborate on this subject though if I have missed the point of your remarks. Also the game analogy wasn't really about chess or craps specifically from my point of view either. I was just using those as an example to illustrate that knowing the rules of a game isn't really the same as what I was saying about using theory and not knowing it. Your reference the "enterprise of language" was well put though. I would say also that in linguistics knowing words and grammar are technical aspects of language even if you don't analyse the specifics of them. You can still make a sentence and say what you intend to say. The difference is that someone that is trained in the technical aspects of language will have more options with which to express themselves. I have to say, I am not entirely sure whether we are agreeing or disagreeing on these points, though.

Lasty, back to Beethoven. The whole point of bringing him up is that in his later life, as most of us will know, Beethoven was very deaf, and yet still managed to write a considerable body of work. The only way that he was able to accomplish this was that he could respond emotionally to concepts he had intellectualy. Had he not known anything about the theory and analysis behind what he was doing he would never have been able to make those choices.

 

[Miguel Suerte]

Lasty, back to Beethoven. The whole point of bringing him up is that in his later life, as most of us will know, Beethoven was very deaf, and yet still managed to write a considerable body of work. The only way that he was able to accomplish this was that he could respond emotionally to concepts he had intellectualy. Had he not known anything about the theory and analysis behind what he was doing he would never have been able to make those choices.

And the correct combination of intellect and emotion is what makes it good. It's just a question of degrees and which choices/combinations you make from what is available. Obviously more choices means more options. Theory giving you a wider range of things to choose from. It's just that the emphasis on theory I think is overrated because a lot of great music is just hard work, trial and error, and accident. Still though, if you can get it, by all means.

All I was saying about Hip-Hop that is very different from Rock is (final) production. What you hear on a CD, LP, or cassette tape can be very different than what was going on in the studio. It's amazin' what you can do with those 800,000 dollar studio decks. It's just that in Hip-Hop, for the most part, most of the sound comes after the recording not before. The producer who produces hip-hop has to arrange most of the work with the artist to come up with the final sound. In rock it's still tough to produce and the reason why is you are doing much finer tweaking while trying to keep the bands original recorded sound in tact. So in rock and all it's subgenres, the difference between Scott Burns and Bill Metoyer (the two best Thrash/Death producers of all time) is not as great as the difference between Dre and another random hip-hop producer. That's all for that one.

It's debatable how "deaf" Beethoven was. They seem to think that he could hear distant sounds from tonal vibration (ya know, like putting his ear to piano while he was playing). And another thing is, greatness is often debatable history being written by the winners. One can have a lot of respect for an artist without appreciating their work. Taste is a useless thing to argue about because it doesn't come down to logic: "right" or "wrong" just don't apply. Tastes differ. I prefer some of his other Euro contemporaries to him by leagues.

 

[MaskedJackal]

I will give you the notes in C, you can figure them out as far as fret position and such.

Byzantine {C, Db, E, F, G, Ab, B}

Hungarian Major {C, D#, E, F#, G, A, Bb}

Neopolitan 1 {C, Db, Eb, F, G, Ab, B}, 4th mode in C {C, D, Eb, F#, G, Ab, Bb}

Persian {C, Db, E, F, Gb, Ab, B}

Much thanks, friend.

 

[Nothinggod]

I don't think I ever implied that Beethoven was great. Just that he was "very deaf" The point reamins that he is significant because despite being, what was by accounts considerably deaf, he was still able to produce a body of work. Whether it was great or not wasn't the issue. I mean you might like his contemporaries more but unless they were deaf they don't really have any real significance to the conversation. The whole point about Beethoven I am trying to make is that he could continue to write, because he had an intellectual basis for what he was doing.

 

[Miguel Suerte]

Last thing on theoria and then I'm done. In Jazz it's called standards, but there are always things in life I call under the category "the exception that proves the rule". Don't know what this proves but I still think it is significant because if the decision was soley based on intellect, the conclusion would be different. Take Monk. Now, there is a standard(s) soley attributed to Monk because "in theory" none of it should work out but for some reason "in reality" it does. Theory tells ya one thing, reality tells you another. Interesting to note that when Miles and Parker (or whoever) went out to party all Monk wanted to do was go back to his room and watch movies. Apparently that's where he got his inspiration.

 

[Nothinggod]

Personally I think you are mistaking what I am saying about Beethoven, and theory in general, for some kind of paradigm where you are playing by set rules. I could be wrong but your statement ""in theory" none of it should work out but for some reason "in reality" it does.", leads me to think not. Sorry if I am harping on this, but I need to make myself clear. There is nothing that can't be analysed in terms of theory, even something that apparently shouldn't work. I would say there is a type of theoretical analysis where it does work. Theory isn't about knowing the rules. I might have said this before, but it is the ability to analyse certain things in reference to different types of applications. There is really no cirteria for what should and shouldn't work. It's a matter of knowing when you have a certain thing that works a certain way, why it works that way and how you can use other alternatives or points of view as a reference to what you are doing. I'm definitly not saying that Beethoven, having gone deaf resorted to his 'rule book' so that he could keep writing music. I'm saying that having been able to understand how certain motifs and such work structurally and how they sound when played was what allowed him to transpose his works from ideas to music.
I definitly do not agree that theory tells you one thing and reality tells you another, because reality is theory in the end. You can play the most random bunch of chromatic notes, even throw in some microtones for good measure and there will be a theory to analyse why it sounds the way it does.

 

[Nothinggod]

By the way, Nocturnals, you are welcome