To Theory or Not to Theory

[Brown-Note]

This is not intended to be an argument about Music Theory, more a discussion as to why some guys believe if they learn a bit about what they are doing, and why it works, their nuts will shrivel up and drop off! Or even worse, they will get so good that their playing will become boring, and sound like (insert name of guitarist who knows their theory, but they don't like their style of playing, here. eg Satriani, Vai, Gilbert,Petrucci, Batten, Malmsteen, Kotzen, Laiho, and thousands of others) First up, it is Music THEORY, not Music FACT. Music theory doesn't say "You must play these notes over this chord and no other notes. If you do play any other notes but the ones we tell you to, your balls will shrivel up and drop off! What theory does tell you though is-- If you want to sound a bit middle eastern, use the 5th mode of the harmonic minor scale over that E major, F major, D minor riff and it will work. If you play the E minor Pent over the same chords and leave out the thirds, it will still sound O/K, but it won't sound middle eastern. ( Into The Lungs Of Hell-Megadeth- for one example) Those of you that know your theory will know the common name of this mode. Or, if you play the notes E, G and B over an E minor chord that will fit perfectly, but if you play D ,F# and A (which is D Major) over E minor, we won't tell you off. That will just imply an E minor 11th. It will sound a bit out there, but work fine. Theory doesn't tell what you must play, it just describes and explains why what you are playing sounds good or like crap. I've heard all the arguments like, player X is a great guitarist, he plays all this cool stuf,but he doesn't know a thing about music theory. So why should I bother learning it if he didn't? Or, Petrucci knows his theory, but I don't like Dream Theatre, so why should I learn it if I end up sounding like him? Non musical people love to relay stories about player X, who plays in the local band, knows a few chords, but they think he's gifted. "Does it all by ear you know, doesn't know any theory, he's really talented" Talented my ass! Thousands of other muso's and I will be the judge of that, not some Wanker who thinks a bar chord is what you play in pubs. Me, I think he's just copped a heap of tabs of the net, and plays them fairly well. If that's all he wants to do, then that's fine. I believe that guys who play exremely well and claim they don't know any theory, actually do. Otherwise how would they be able to improvise ,come up with cool melodic lines and riffs, then remember how they played them? If you guys are interested in why I think this, I will continue.

[RelentlessOblivion]

Re: To Theory or Not to Theory I do know my theory but don't ask me to rattle off what I know from the top of my head, I have a hard enough time doing that when I'm not bed-ridden with the flu so right now it's pretty much impossible, as I was saying I know my theory pretty well so it helps give me an idea of what notes will work in a given scenario and what won't, that being said I only use theory as a rough guide when I'm working on something original I don't follow it to the letter, if I'm writing a solo I generally start by playing through a scale, then I add extra notes or remove some or play notes that aren't in the scale, if it works I keep going, if it doesn't I'll play something else, with riffs I start with a chord (generally) then depending on the feel I want I'll either play other chords that work with the starting point or I'll throw in some individual notes that work with my starting point, I think it's important to get at least a basic idea of theory but I also think that just sitting there and playing, experimenting to work ou t what works with what you're playing and what doesn't can be a great way to learn

[Brown-Note]

Re: To Theory or Not to Theory Yep, that's sort of what I am getting at. That is sort of similar to what I do. Except, I allready know what will work scale or mode wise over the particular chords, diads or riffs I have underneath. I tend to choose a scale or mode based on its overall sound. Some chord or riffs allow quite a few different scales. Pretty much every time you add or subtract a note from a starting scale it becomes another scale or mode, or a passing tone. I have two ways of playing leads . One I call playing with the changes. That means if you listen to the melody by itself, you can almost hear the chords in there. I target the chordal tones in the melody and interconnect them with scalar tones. The other way is playing through or over the changes. If you listen to it by itself, it doesn't sound that good. just a heap of disjointed licks, but sounds fine as soon as the rhythm is underneath it. But, if you didn't now all the scale names,where they come from, what there degrees are, what chords can be made from them, but play them because your mate showed you this cool scale, or you learned a pattern off the net, you would still be forrming your own theory on where that works and where it doesn't. What I'm trying to say I guess is it's not how you learn it but how you use it. A lot of guys actually know a lot of theory and don't realise it. They have set patterns and shapes that they know from constant experimenting work with certain chords for a certain sound. They know which notes in the patterns to target for different chords. They don't know why, or the proper names, just that it works. They might have a way of naming it something I don't understand. However, when I listen to what they are doing. I might say "That's just a Phrygian Dominant over the B chord and then you modulate to A minor over the Amin, G maj chords. He says " whatever!" The point is we are both playing the same thing, our ears tell us both that it works, I describe it in music theory terms and he calls it whatever. An Apple by any other name is still an Apple. I would say it's just about impossible to come up with a set of notes that has not allready been used and classified in some way. But, there are infinite combinations,permutations and rhythms of these note sets just waiting to be discovered and put together. That's what makes music so exciting. 'Specially Metal. You will never live long enough to learn it all.

[RelentlessOblivion]

Re: To Theory or Not to Theory there are some guitarists who play everything randomly and disnointed yet make it work, Kirk Hammett springs to mind, I've found it more difficult to learn some of Metallica's songs then some of Megadeth's and yet in my opinion Megadeth is the more complex band it's just that what Hammett plays doesn't make a whole lot of sense

[Brown-Note]

Re: To Theory or Not to Theory Yep , I remember KH playing a G minor pent over E minor in something, might have been MOP. That is certainly out there sound wise, but O/k if you like that sound. I don't. Weird. But,KH is renown for Pent and blues scales, Mesa and Wah. I don't get into Metallica , but always liked Orion and MOP.

[RelentlessOblivion]

Re: To Theory or Not to Theory Metallica's first four albums aren't too bad apart from the solos KH wrote being all over the place but they aren't as great as people make them out to be

[Brown-Note]

Re: To Theory or Not to Theory

there are some guitarists who play everything randomly and disnointed yet make it work' date=' Kirk Hammett springs to mind, [/quote'] Randomly and disjointed is just timing and phrasing. Or do you mean random note selection? Either way if he plays it exactly the same a second time, it's no longer random. Some like his playing others don't. However he does play some nice melodies that involve more than just pentatonics.

[Brown-Note]

Re: To Theory or Not to Theory YAY, 15 posts now I'm a Metal Mervin. Can I play my one note now Eddie? Those that have seen Fur TV will now what I mean.

[RelentlessOblivion]

Re: To Theory or Not to Theory I prefer Megadeth, Arpeggios, chromatic runs, pentatonics, played at hyper speed but still easier to learn then something that jumps five frets and two strings at seemingly random times in a solo

[NTNR]

Re: To Theory or Not to Theory Theory is necessary on an academic level but that's it. Learning more about what should and shouldn't go together completely ruins the joy of music. My band just throws stuff out there and if it works it works, if not we try something else. This is my problem with prog. There is no soul or feeling in the music and not because the guitarist or keyboardist or whatever can play 80 notes a second. It's because it just comes across as fake. Why bother making music if you're just going to follow a set of rules?

[The Strategos]

Re: To Theory or Not to Theory I think really it's often best if you combine theory with a free spirit. I mean, look at Picasso, he could draw perfectly well but went real dah-dah with his art (one of the very few modern painters I like, along with Hooker and Munch). I mean, as I think I said before, Korn can make an O.K. song, but in the end most song's makes one raise one's eyebrows and that's a bit of a mess. On the other hand, bands like Ax7 are over thoery-centred, a bit boring and one often feels one's attention wandering while listening. But, what solo dosen't sound better with a quick ascending scale run or a snazzy little two string arpegio repeating lick - which you can use theory to invent. Without theory one really is in danger of simply reinventing the wheel. On the other hand, sometimes people use theory simply to write their songs for them. That's just what I think anyway!

[RelentlessOblivion]

Re: To Theory or Not to Theory like I said before I think it's important to have some theory knowledge but it shouldn't be the be all and end all of what you play, I use it as a starting point and go from there, I have a hell of a lot of fun when I play just going with the flow once I get started