Victory Pete
Banned
Okay try this, I am playing a C major and change to a D major. What key would you use for a solo?
VP
VP
How important are scales and theory in your guitar playing?
- Thread starter Victory Pete
- Start date
Hakea
New member
You've hit the nail squarely on the head there. Few people really think that having more knowledge is any kind of disadvantage - it's how much of a pain it is to get it that can be off-putting. Some "theory" books can be really dry, but a good teacher or mentor should be able to bring it to life.
I put off reading notation for a long while, but once I started it was surprisingly easy to learn. The slow part wasn't learning what all the dots and lines meant - that only took a few minutes - it was doing it over and over and over until my hand/eye/brain coordination was quick enough. That does take a lot of time. The good news is that most of us never need to read at speed and we can take the time we need.
What helped me learn to read was to find something that gave a USEFUL payoff quickly. And that was to take music from songbooks and type the notes into a (cheap) notation program like Finale Notepad. It gave me a heap of practice at note recognition, without having to treat that like a separate chore, and would then play it back so that I could hear it. I could also use it to make backing tracks using midi. I don't know how much fun that counts as, but it was useful enough to keep me doing it until reading became easier. Now I can pick up a song-sheet and read it like a book. Not only does that give me a lot of satisfaction, it's extremely useful.
Cheers,
Chris
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
have to hear it in context. Simply saying you're using a C major and going to a D major doesn't give you the same info as if you're listening to it. It basically doesn't tell me anything at all.
It could be any key there is from your brief description. You could be nb Bb and using the Cmajor as a major 2nd chord or you could be in Ab and be using that C as a passing chord or absolutely any other key there is. That's the very reason ear is an important part of this ...... more so that 'calculating'. ..... plus, keys never enter into my thinking when playing rides anyway. It's all about how the solo sounds against what's going on.
mshilarious
Banned
The classical answer is you are going to resolve to G.
The butt rock answer is you're playing a progression in D Mixo, so you solo in D penta min, using your butt.
The jazz answer is you play whatever the hell you feel like
My answer is I play C# (not *in* C#, just a C#) and hope everybody leaves the club
The butt rock answer is you're playing a progression in D Mixo, so you solo in D penta min, using your butt.
The jazz answer is you play whatever the hell you feel like
My answer is I play C# (not *in* C#, just a C#) and hope everybody leaves the club
Victory Pete
Banned
Do you play guitar? Well I dont understand your reference to A and B flat, (Do you play horns?). There is only one (Harmonically Correct) key these 2 major chords could be from. But there could be other variations. My point is if I can communicate with the other players what key I have in mind everyone will be on the same page.
VP
VP
Hakea
New member
Comparing music with English works well. They're both languages in the sense of being sounds arranged in a way that communicate something.
Now, I don't need to be able to read and write English to talk it. I could be a social success, an excellent story-teller and a fine orator or singer without necessarily being able to read or write. I don't "need" to be able to read or write music either. But there are clear advantages - with both English and music - to be able to read and write.
Music "Theory" could indeed be compared to English grammar. Do I actually need to know any in order to make conversation? Or can I just pick it all up by ear? I don't think too many people would disagree that ear usually wins that one hands down. I don't need to know what a 'conjunction' is to learn how to use one in speech. As kids we learn to speak by listening and imitating. We learn much about music that way too. However, that doesn’t mean that grammar lessons are a waste of time - because they’re not.
It may not matter much if I say “He done that” when I should have said “He did that” but most of us would see the value of some basic knowledge of grammar. Most of us already know what a verb is, or what the words ‘noun’ or ‘adjective’ mean. If we plan to use our writing creatively, then a bit more knowledge can be useful too.
I’ve been using written English for over 60 years. My written words have been published in newspapers and magazines and performed on stages. But, to be honest, I don’t refer to books of grammar now and my “theory” knowledge is not especially deep. I use a combination of those old grammar lessons at school, plus half a century of practice.
Perhaps surprisingly, I actually use theory a lot more with music. Apart from finding it interesting, it’s just incredibly useful. It actually speeds things up by providing tools and guidelines (without demanding that I follow restrictive “rules”) and by offering numerous alternative paths if I get in a rut. I love experimenting and improvising with music - it’s the major way I learn - but I don’t have another sixty years left to re-invent the musical wheel. “Theory” is just a bunch of information about the structure of music that has been discovered to work well by tens of thousands of other musicians over the years. It doesn’t demand that that I do anything in a particular way, but just sheds some useful light on some of the pathways. It’s a handy map, not a set of handcuffs. I can't see any good reason to resist learning more.
Cheers,
Chris
Victory Pete
Banned
Comparing music with English works well. They're both languages in the sense of being sounds arranged in a way that communicate something.
Now, I don't need to be able to read and write English to talk it. I could be a social success, an excellent story-teller and a fine orator or singer without necessarily being able to read or write. I don't "need" to be able to read or write music either. But there are clear advantages - with both English and music - to be able to read and write.
Music "Theory" could indeed be compared to English grammar. Do I actually need to know any in order to make conversation? Or can I just pick it all up by ear? I don't think too many people would disagree that ear usually wins that one hands down. I don't need to know what a 'conjunction' is to learn how to use one in speech. As kids we learn to speak by listening and imitating. We learn much about music that way too. However, that doesn’t mean that grammar lessons are a waste of time - because they’re not.
It may not matter much if I say “He done that” when I should have said “He did that” but most of us would see the value of some basic knowledge of grammar. Most of us already know what a verb is, or what the words ‘noun’ or ‘adjective’ mean. If we plan to use our writing creatively, then a bit more knowledge can be useful too.
I’ve been using written English for over 60 years. My written words have been published in newspapers and magazines and performed on stages. But, to be honest, I don’t refer to books of grammar now and my “theory” knowledge is not especially deep. I use a combination of those old grammar lessons at school, plus half a century of practice.
Perhaps surprisingly, I actually use theory a lot more with music. Apart from finding it interesting, it’s just incredibly useful. It actually speeds things up by providing tools and guidelines (without demanding that I follow restrictive “rules”) and by offering numerous alternative paths if I get in a rut. I love experimenting and improvising with music - it’s the major way I learn - but I don’t have another sixty years left to re-invent the musical wheel. “Theory” is just a bunch of information about the structure of music that has been discovered to work well by tens of thousands of other musicians over the years. It doesn’t demand that that I do anything in a particular way, but just sheds some useful light on some of the pathways. It’s a handy map, not a set of handcuffs. I can't see any good reason to resist learning more.
Cheers,
Chris
You do have a "Way with words", I would like to hear you solo!
VP
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
your point that being able to communicate with the other players is correct and accurate.
The idea that there is only one possible key that you could have a Cmajor going to a Dmajor is not.
Incidentally ..... my major, although 42 years of professional playing in the past, was composition.
FoulPhil
Well-known member
Capt Hair
Jeff
Says who?
Just because a relationship does or doesn't work in terms of theory doesn't mean it's right or wrong. If someone wanted to put a "sour note" for laymans terms into a solo to create a sense of tension, traditional theory would advise against it. Which is why I always and always will see theory as a means for explanation for most of, if not all traditional western music. Once you start getting out of the box enough, there are no rules. And theory makes up for that by there being accidentals in scales and keys.
That's how I've always approached my guitar playing, chromatically. You can always leave the scale because there is always a way, and multiple ways of getting back to the root without having it sound too foreign to the song. Proper phrasing has a huge amount to do with it as well.
Last edited:
mshilarious
Banned
An accidental has not been a "violation" of theory since . . . oh, the 16th century or so. In fact when accidentals were first introduced, musicians referred to them as "marks for idiots" because a musician already knew when they were required. Of course that changed as music grew more harmonically complex in the ensuing centuries.
Theory is descriptive, not proscriptive . . . at least once you graduate from learning the rules of four-part harmony in HS
Seriously, this thread is like third graders arguing over whether or not they should learn to read.
Theory is descriptive, not proscriptive . . . at least once you graduate from learning the rules of four-part harmony in HS
Seriously, this thread is like third graders arguing over whether or not they should learn to read.
Capt Hair
Jeff
An accidental has not been a "violation" of theory since . . . oh, the 16th century or so. In fact when accidentals were first introduced, musicians referred to them as "marks for idiots" because a musician already knew when they were required. Of course that changed as music grew more harmonically complex in the ensuing centuries.
Theory is descriptive, not proscriptive . . . at least once you graduate from learning the rules of four-part harmony in HS
Seriously, this thread is like third graders arguing over whether or not they should learn to read.
It's not a violation, but people are hesitant to use them in any given context. I know people that will not go outside the box of a traditional major/minor note grouping over a chord progression...It's just blows my mind. If it does the song justice and fits the song, that's one thing, but to not even consider going outside of the box because as you said, a "descriptive" theory says not to and that a certain note doesn't belong there in context to the others...that's another.
Victory Pete
Banned
I didnt say "only one possible key". I said one "Harmonically Correct" key, G Major of course. There are many other "Variations".
The Blues form for instance uses different chords and intervals than the "Major Scale" based system, which is the most mathematically correct system.
VP
Victory Pete
Banned
Oops! Double post
Victory Pete
Banned
mshilarious
Banned
Sorry VP, the major scale is not the most "mathematically correct", as if that phrase has any meaning. A quick review of the overtone series would tell you that. It's just a western cultural tradition, nothing more.
Again, theory is not proscriptive. If a tonality is outside the western diatonic scale, that doesn't make it incorrect, it makes it a different but still valid tonality.
Even within the western twelve-tone system there are different, incompatible sets of "rules": the rules for Gregorian chant are not compatible with the rules of classical four-part harmony which are not compatible with serialism.
So you might as well give up your quest to be a bonehead.
Again, theory is not proscriptive. If a tonality is outside the western diatonic scale, that doesn't make it incorrect, it makes it a different but still valid tonality.
Even within the western twelve-tone system there are different, incompatible sets of "rules": the rules for Gregorian chant are not compatible with the rules of classical four-part harmony which are not compatible with serialism.
So you might as well give up your quest to be a bonehead.
Victory Pete
Banned
You dont have to say your sorry. I am not hurt or affected by your post in any way.
VP
mshilarious
Banned
You could try reading this for example:
https://www.msu.edu/user/millett1/hanson.htm
Or just try playing a major sixth or seventh harmonic on an open string . . .
https://www.msu.edu/user/millett1/hanson.htm
Or just try playing a major sixth or seventh harmonic on an open string . . .
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
On the one hand I'm gonna go out on a limb and say VP has always seemed like someone who has good intent and a genuine interest in the things he cuts and pastes.
But he's NEVER willing to learn additionally or acknowledge any other people as knowing anything and that's where he misses out.
I can play a solo over anything ..... period .
And really without thinking about it much ..... it's what I get hired for.
And some of these deep jazz things I have to play on have absolutely nothing to do with VPs ideas about the rigidity of acceptable harmony and/or progression.
Try analyzing 'Giant Steps' for example. You'd damned well better be able to play along by ear as the kindergarten level harmony rules simply don't apply.
But he's NEVER willing to learn additionally or acknowledge any other people as knowing anything and that's where he misses out.
I can play a solo over anything ..... period .
And really without thinking about it much ..... it's what I get hired for.
And some of these deep jazz things I have to play on have absolutely nothing to do with VPs ideas about the rigidity of acceptable harmony and/or progression.
Try analyzing 'Giant Steps' for example. You'd damned well better be able to play along by ear as the kindergarten level harmony rules simply don't apply.