How important are scales and theory in your guitar playing?

[miroslav]

... who cares? It didn't seem to hinder John Lee Hooker much. All players have limitations in one form or another. Some can sight read on the guitar really well; most guitar players can't. Some know tons of chords and scales; lots of players only know/use a few. Some can play really fast; others can't or choose not to try. In the end, it doesn't really matter. If a player is able to communicate effectively and touch others with their playing, then they're doing their job I guess, right?

Well, that's one way of looking at it..."who cares", and I certainly don't worry about what another player knows or doesn't know...but we all know our limitations.

All I'm saying is that the 7 modes are part of the major scale...period.
I don't need to know (or care to know) what mode I'm in, in order to play through the modes...I just need to know the key of the scale, as I find that to be the "key" information really needed.
The guys who want to focus on specifically playing within a mode(s) and nothing else...well, I guess they need to know and care about them.

AFA "creativity"...
You were saying that people who just follow the rules, the theory, often think they have to use the specific chord progressions defined by them....which implied that was somehow a hindrance to true creativity.
I'm saying using/knowing some theory is much less of a hindrance than it is when you're poking around until you accidentally stumble on a chord progression that the theory would have already defined...had you known it.
I use to stumble may way around...sometimes I still do when I'm looking for something outside the theory box...but it's funny how in the end, 9-out-10 times, the theory is right....so it pays to know it a little and use it.

You don't have to be theory fanatic to play or to make good music...the point here is that knowing some theory, certainly makes things easier...not just for "conversation" with others, but even when you are all alone playing and creating.

It's no different than the recording process.
You can stumble around, and wait for something good to happen...or you learn some of the known techniques and theories, and you will get there a little faster, and probably with something a little better, because it's coming from some point of knowledge...rather than accidental selection.
Of course...sometimes trial and error is a great teacher too, as long as you learn from it...rather than use it as regular tool...because, IMO, if all your creativity is coming mostly "by accident"...then is it really about your skill or your luck...?

 

[famous beagle]

All I'm saying is that the 7 modes are part of the major scale...period.
I don't need to know (or care to know) what mode I'm in, in order to play through the modes...I just need to know the key of the scale, as I find that to be the "key" information really needed.
The guys who want to focus on specifically playing within a mode(s) and nothing else...well, I guess they need to know and care about them.

I still don't think we're on the same page regarding modes, but I don't really seem to be able to explain what I mean. You seem to be saying that, since you know major and minor scales, and modes are just "parts of a scale," then you don't need to bother with them ... unless I'm misunderstanding you. I'm saying that I don't think that's right, but I can't seem to explain it, so I guess I'll just let it go.

AFA "creativity"...
You were saying that people who just follow the rules, the theory, often think they have to use the specific chord progressions defined by them....which implied that was somehow a hindrance to true creativity.
I'm saying using/knowing some theory is much less of a hindrance than it is when you're poking around until you accidentally stumble on a chord progression that the theory would have already defined...had you known it.

Again, I think we're misunderstanding each other here. Just because someone isn't knowledgeable about theory doesn't mean they only use trial and error or they luck into things. It can also (and many times does) mean that they simply don't know the names for what they're doing, but they know how to do it. They may have a great ear and know what they want just without being able to name it.

Think about the English language, for instance. Lots of people are eloquent speakers and/or writers without knowing a great deal about grammar. (How many people can tell you what a past participle or a split infinitive is, for instance.) They simply know what sounds right because of the time they spent reading/listening/etc. Would you argue that knowing all the rules of grammar would make it easier to write a novel? I certainly wouldn't. (I'm not saying it would make it harder either. I'm just saying that there's not a correlation, IMO.)

Take Paul McCartney. He claims to not have learned musical theory. (I'm sure he picked up bits and pieces over the years, but in the early days, he probably didn't know much.) But he did things in his songs that indicated he knew what he was doing---he knew the sounds---even if he didn't know the "theory"---the names---behind it.

For example, in the bridge to "From Me to You," they use a minor v chord in the bridge: a Gm chord in the key of C. I remember seeing an interview with him where he talked about them figuring that out --- i.e., using a Gm chord in C. They did the same thing in "I Wanna Hold Your Hand," only in the key of G. So the minor v chord was a Dm.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't think anyone can deny that McCartney has a hell of an ear. And even though he might not have known that it was a minor v chord --- or ... more specifically ... a ii chord in a secondary ii-V-I of the IV chord --- he clearly recognized the sound and was able to use it in different keys.

You may say, "Yes, but he certainly used trial and error to first discover that minor v chord." And that may very well be true. But learning theory takes time to do as well. So some people may choose to spend their time learning theory, while others may spend time learning what "sounds good" to them and learning how to acclimate it in their own internal way.

I mean ... there are jazz greats who can't/couldn't read music or don't/didn't know any theory. There's no music more theory-heavy than jazz. But they had developed their ear to the point where they didn't need the names. They played and listened and played and listened and just internalized the sounds. They probably thought of things in their own terms. Sometimes when you hear those people talk, you can see evidence of this. They certainly don't "know theory" in that they couldn't tell you what notes are in a Bm7 chord, for instance, or they couldn't tell you what a III-VI-II-V progression in the key of F would be. But they could play all over that shit up and down.

I remember Clint Strong coming to a do a clinic for the guitar and bass club while I was at UNT. He was just a good ol' country boy who could barely tell you where a G was on the guitar neck, but when the band called out any jazz standard, he could tear it up.

To be honest, it's hard for me to say whether knowing theory makes things easier. I've known a lot of theory for a long time now (music theory was my major in college), so I've kind of forgotten what not knowing it feels like. But ... when you consider that there are likely more great musicians---at least in the rock, blues, and jazz styles---that don't know much theory than those who do, can we really definitively say that knowing theory makes it easier to create (good) music? I sincerely don't know. I certainly believe that it's not a hindrance in any way, as some people claim it will be if they learn it. But I don't know that you can clearly say it's a great help either ... at least when it comes to creating music.

If you need to analyze the chords of a Bach chorale, then yeah, you need to know some theory.

 

[Nola]

I think what Miroslav is saying about modes is instead of learning them all he'll just know he can play in the key of G and start on the A and know it's Dorian but it doesn't really matter he's just starting on a different note. And I think what Beagle is saying is not to think of modes like that but instead compare them against their major scale (So play C Dorian against C major to get the flavor of that mode). To me both are right, and I think there is debate on how to think about modes. Beagle's method will give the flavor more.

Theory shouldn't hinder creativity. Many people who don't know theory use that excuse as a reason not to learn it, or they claim Hendrix didn't know it (He did...not formally but he picked it up from albums he listened to and musicians he was around). I can't think of any situation where less knowledge is a good thing -- maybe if your wife is cheating on you or something, but even that's debatable!

 

[Nola]

I mean ... there are jazz greats who can't/couldn't read music or don't/didn't know any theory. There's no music more theory-heavy than jazz. But they had developed their ear to the point where they didn't need the names. They played and listened and played and listened and just internalized the sounds. They probably thought of things in their own terms. Sometimes when you hear those people talk, you can see evidence of this. They certainly don't "know theory" in that they couldn't tell you what notes are in a Bm7 chord, for instance, or they couldn't tell you what a III-VI-II-V progression in the key of F would be. But they could play all over that shit up and down.

I remember Clint Strong coming to a do a clinic for the guitar and bass club while I was at UNT. He was just a good ol' country boy who could barely tell you where a G was on the guitar neck, but when the band called out any jazz standard, he could tear it up.

But a lot of those jazz greats who say they don't know theory kinda do because they grew up learning all those jazz songs off albums. So in a way it's impossible to avoid theory. If you're a jazz great and know a half diminished sounds great moving up a half tone to tonic and do it all the time because your heroes did it on albums, then you kinda know theory. You learned it off albums from heroes but that still counts. I don't think those jazz greats come out of the womb knowing what a m7b5 chord sounds like, you know? They learn it. Whether it's from albums, other musicians, or a college, they have to learn it.

A lot of those guys play the same patterns over and over. I was at a jazz club last weekend, and I think the bassist was just riffing on a diminished scale all night. What's weird is the first time I saw him I thought he had total freedom over his instrument, but the last time I saw him I thought he was kinda confined to the box of scales. I also noticed he never played slow, and there is (generally speaking) a tendency to play "more notes" as you know more theory and have technical skill. I don't like that part about improving as a player.

 

[famous beagle]

But a lot of those jazz greats who say they don't know theory kinda do because they grew up learning all those jazz songs off albums. So in a way it's impossible to avoid theory. If you're a jazz great and know a half diminished sounds great moving up a half tone to tonic and do it all the time because your heroes did it on albums, then you kinda know theory. You learned it off albums from heroes but that still counts. I don't think those jazz greats come out of the womb knowing what a m7b5 chord sounds like, you know? They learn it. Whether it's from albums, other musicians, or a college, they have to learn it.

+1 This is exactly what I was trying to say. They know the sounds; they just don't know the names for what they're doing. "Knowing theory" is often just being able to put a name to something. What's more important, to me, is being able to hear it and produce/reproduce it when needed. And many, many players who claim to not know theory still have that skill in spades.

 

[miroslav]

Again, I think we're misunderstanding each other here. Just because someone isn't knowledgeable about theory doesn't mean they only use trial and error or they luck into things.

No...I never said they "only" use trial and error or luck...and I don't think I implied that.
I'm saying that if you use trial and error or luck, or whatever "non-theory" method you choose...and then you go look at the theory...
...with most Rock/Pop/Country/R&B/etc music you will end up in the same place that the theory describes.

So my point is...knowing the basic theory, gets you there faster and easier.
It's not simply about following rules that force specific chord progressions, etc... because even when you use some "non-theory" method, you end up with the same chord progressions anyway in much of modern Rock/Pop music.
You can take the Circle of Fifths...and the chords groups/associations in it will apply to like 90% of Rock/Pop/Country/etc...so knowing the Circle of Fifths doesn't really make for bad creativity by forcing specific chord choices...it just IS what much of modern music tends to follow.
The trick to making that not be boring and done to death...are the melodies and rhythms that you pick.

So likewise, knowing the key and the scales that work with a set of chords...makes it simpler/easier to put it all together.
I'm not saying you must know theory...which is why I mentioned BB King, etc...they didn't know the theory, but still knew what sounded good.
IOW...not knowing those things, and just letting your creative imagination run wild...will not, in most cases, yield something that doesn't follow the known chords progressions and keys and scales that music theory describes.

It was kinda implied earlier by some comments...that using theory somehow puts you in a box, where just going with what you think sounds good, doesn't.
I'm saying knowing or not knowing...you're still going end up following the theory 9-out-of-10 times when you write or play modern music.

I think what Miroslav is saying about modes is instead of learning them all he'll just know he can play in the key of G and start on the A and know it's Dorian but it doesn't really matter he's just starting on a different note.

Right.

I'm simply saying that I don't need to drill down to a mode level consciously...and that by playing any major scale, I have access to and often will play through many of the modes...I just don't dwell on "what mode is this?"...but I DO want to know what's the key and what's the scale(s) I'm using.
Consciously "restricting" your playing to a certain mode(s) over a certain chord(s)...is fine if that's what you want to do to get a certain sound...I'm not debating that...just saying I don't play with any conscious focus on specific modes, but I'm sure I play them all the time, I just look at the bigger picture...the whole scale.

And don't get me wrong...I am not one of those theory fanatics that get all hung up on the minutia. My teachers drove me nuts with that stuff...and I just wanted to play and improvise freely...but that was in my youth, and over the years, I found myself looking at basic theory more and more, because it was simply a tool that made some things easier...plus it sometimes makes the communication with other players easier...but I hate the guys who want to always school you with theory...like you'll say, "play a D# there"...and they jump in with "it's technically an Eb because of the key you are in" ...

So getting back to the Circle of Fifths...
I'll be sitting there flushing out a new song...and I know the key I'm in, and the first couple of chords...and I can easily use the Circle of Fifths to tell me what my next chord options should/could be....but I'll do everything I can to NOT use that, because I'm wanting to find something different, just to try and avoid the obvious...
...and no matter what I try to "jam" in there, while it may work, it just doesn't fit the song or it suddenly forces a hard turn left into some other direction that doesn't feel right...
...so in the end, the theory wins again, and I give in to what I knew from the start had to be my choice.
Of course...that doesn't mean it has to be the same sound over and over for every song. There's lots of ways that a handful of notes/chords/rhythms can go.

 

[famous beagle]

I think maybe an example will help explain the mode thing better (maybe it won't). You seem to keep saying that --- something to the effect of --- you just concentrate on the key, and therefore, since the modes are part of the scale, you don't need/want to bother with them.

Here are three examples, all played over a Bm7 chord. The key is B minor in each example.

In Track 23, I'm playing B Dorian
In Track 24, I'm playing B Aeolian (natural minor)
In Track 25, I'm playing B Phrygian

You can hear how each gives a different sound, even though the key is still B minor in each instance.

This is what I mean by each mode having a distinct sound of its own. It doesn't matter that they are "part of the major scale." They're still scales on their own, each with a unique intervallic construction and therefore unique sound.

It seems that you're still thinking of them in relative terms. In other words, "If I'm playing in G major, what difference does it make whether I play G Ionian, A Dorian, B Phrygian, etc.? They all contain the same notes." And that's true. That's why I said that thinking of modes in this way isn't really all that helpful.

But, if you're playing in G major, it makes a big difference if you use different modes with a G tonic. In other words, it's quite a difference if you play G Ionian or G Mixolydian. Or if you're in G minor, there's a big difference between G Aeolian or G Dorian.

That's all I'm saying. And if you just think in terms of the key and the diatonic modes contained within it, you'll never have access to these other sounds. And maybe you don't want/like those sounds, and that's fine. But to imply that you don't need to bother with modes because they're just "part of the major scale" is not considering the whole picture, IMO.

With regards to modern music following the Circle of Fifths 9 times out of 10, I'll have to disagree there. There are countless examples of huge hits that don't follow conventional harmony. Listen to Soundgarden ("Black Hole Sun"), Nirvana ("In Bloom"), Beatles ("I Am the Walrus"), Sting ("Fortress Around Your Heart"), Rolling Stones ("Gimme Shelter"), Tom Petty ("Runnin' Down a Dream"), and on and on and on.

I mean ... it's not as common in country for sure, but in rock music ... non-diatonic chords are all over the place. In fact, I'd even go as far as to say that a song with at least one non-diatonic chord is more the rule in rock music than the exception.

 

[Nola]

With regards to modern music following the Circle of Fifths 9 times out of 10, I'll have to disagree there.

I agree, even the most simplistic pop usually has a trick up its sleeve. Like a lot of Jackson 5 sounds like bubble gum pop but there is chromaticism all over the bass line. Pretty Woman is a great example. Sounds so simple yet not only had non-diatonic stuff going on but a total key change. That's a fascinating song, structurally.

Agree with Beagle it's best to look at modes in relation to their root (parallel) vs relatively (e.g. "if I start in A in G I'm in Dorian) to hear their flavor. Though, it's weird because we do usually look at Aeolian mode relatively. Why is this, Beagle? I don't like the sounds of modes, so that's the main reason I don't bother much with them!

 

[miroslav]

I think maybe an example will help explain the mode thing better (maybe it won't). You seem to keep saying that --- something to the effect of --- you just concentrate on the key, and therefore, since the modes are part of the scale, you don't need/want to bother with them.

And everything you played in all three examples, I play without ever needing to know what mode I'm in...but I certainly need to know the key and scale I'm using.
That's what I'm saying. That's a pretty simple explanation.

With regards to modern music following the Circle of Fifths 9 times out of 10, I'll have to disagree there.

OK...so if we look at one million Rock/Pop songs of the last 50 years...100 thousand don't stick specifically to the Circle of Fifths for chord selection, which is a lot of songs...and which is 1 out of ten.

My point really wasn't about exact numbers...it was about how most modern music is often described by existing theory.

You're kinda getting all nit-picky now in a "teaching" sort of mode here...and you're missing the broader points.

 

[famous beagle]

Well, the original question was "how important are scales and theory in your playing?" I'm trying to address that.

But you're kind of arguing two different points. On the one hand, you say that theory is important and helps you get to where you want to get faster. But on the subject of modes, you basically just kind of said, "I don't need to know the names of modes; I just play those notes by ear once I know what key I'm in."

It's as if you're saying that some theory is helpful to you, but some (modes) is not. Is that a fair assessment?

 

[famous beagle]

As for this:

OK...so if we look at one million Rock/Pop songs of the last 50 years...100 thousand don't stick specifically to the Circle of Fifths for chord selection, which is a lot of songs...and which is 1 out of ten.

I would say it's probably more like if we took a million songs of the last 50 years, 800 thousand (or more) don't stick specifically to the Circle of Fifths.

 

[miroslav]

Well, the original question was "how important are scales and theory in your playing?" I'm trying to address that.

But you're kind of arguing two different points. On the one hand, you say that theory is important and helps you get to where you want to get faster. But on the subject of modes, you basically just kind of said, "I don't need to know the names of modes; I just play those notes by ear once I know what key I'm in."

It's as if you're saying that some theory is helpful to you, but some (modes) is not. Is that a fair assessment?

Yes, I think I said that pretty clearly earlier...that knowing basic theory can go a long way, but that I was never one for drilling down into the technical minutia.
I think I even gave an example of the kind of theory fanatics I find annoying at jam sessions.

I would say it's probably more like if we took a million songs of the last 50 years, 800 thousand (or more) don't stick specifically to the Circle of Fifths.

OK...



...I know that's a goof on a lot of Pop music...but most 3 and 4 chord Rock/Pop/Country pulls from the Circle of Fifths.
Not saying there isn't also plenty of music that kinda dodges that or finds ways to augment it to give some freshness...but it is a starting point and foundation for a LOT of modern song writing even if it doesn't exclusively use a chord grouping from the Circle of Fifths.

Like if you do a song with just C and Am...it's not all the chords, but they came from that Circle of Fifths relationship.

 

[famous beagle]

Yes, I think I said that pretty clearly earlier...that knowing basic theory can go a long way, but that I was never one for drilling down into the technical minutia.
I think I even gave an example of the kind of theory fanatics I find annoying at jam sessions.




OK...



...I know that's a goof on a lot of Pop music...but most 3 and 4 chord Rock/Pop/Country pulls from the Circle of Fifths.
Not saying there isn't also plenty of music that kinda dodges that or finds ways to augment it to give some freshness...but it is a starting point and foundation for a LOT of modern song writing even if it doesn't exclusively use a chord grouping from the Circle of Fifths.

Like if you do a song with just C and Am...it's not all the chords, but they came from that Circle of Fifths relationship.

Yeah, that's cool. We can pretty much wrap it up.

I will say that, most likely, the vast majority of those 4-chord songs in Axis of Awesome do contain a non-diatonic chord at some point in the song, although the main progression is diatonic.

At any rate, I didn't mean to sound "teachy." Sorry if I did.

 

[Nola]

Beagle, why do we need to look at most modes parallel to get the feel for them, yet we look at Aeolian relatively?
And feel free to be "teachy"!

 

[miroslav]

Yeah, that's cool. We can pretty much wrap it up.

I will say that, most likely, the vast majority of those 4-chord songs in Axis of Awesome do contain a non-diatonic chord at some point in the song, although the main progression is diatonic.

At any rate, I didn't mean to sound "teachy." Sorry if I did.

And I agree with that...and I wasn't trying to say that most songs are made up exclusively from Circle of Fifths chords...but that they have that as the starting point or foundation...so even when you toss in that non-diatonic chord(s), it doesn't completely remove the Circle of Fifths influence.

Like I said earlier...I often work hard to find something that at least steps a little to the side of the CoF exclusivity.
Sometimes I can, other times it is what it is, and then it all comes down to the melody and the rhythms to create the "freshness" for the song....but as the video jokingly shows, way too often the cookie cutter effect is obvious, and even hard to avoid....too many songs using the same chords and modes.

I was just busting your chops about "teaching"...because I know that you know a lot of the small details of music theory, and you do those "self help" pubs.
Hey...when you are deep into fine details, it's only natural to speak from that perspective...I just think it's also good to step back sometimes and look at the whole forest, and not each of the trees.

 

[Nola]

Hm, well he circle of 5ths is kind of "inductive" reasoning of a phenomena (music) that's mathematically based, so it kinda makes sense it would be the foundation of most songs. Even the non-diatonic chords have an inductive, mathematical explanation theoretically speaking. So, that's another reason learning theory can't hurt because it's just giving terms and language what already exists.

 

[kevin6string]

scales are a part of music theory... and knowing music theory goes a long way...towards composition writing, arranging, etc. hap hazzard chord hopping to find what works is a waste of time. i have seen manyfriends try to be "songwriters" but have no idea what goes where when it comes to music theory. they have no idea why a chord would be called
" AUGMENTED 13th" and so on...they hear wierd chords and can't figure them out due to poor ear training and lack of music theory...you need to know what chords are major , minor, 7th, diminished in a given key scale ...you would need to know in the key of C major that the number 2 chord is a " d Minor" and so on ...you must first know scales to know your dominant, subdominant and resolving chords......i was a music education major at Missouri Baptist University... play various instruments besides the guitar...so not bragging but i do know what i am talking about... if anyone wishes to learn anything i would be happy to share what knowledge i do have with anyone...can look me up on Face book under Kevin Henderson ( look for the guy with the cowboy hat ) LOL

 

[DebErney]

Once i learned my first Pentatonic scale my guitar playing soared higher than I ever dreamed possible. Always practice with scales off my chords. Do double stops up and down for each chord, runs with chords whenever I get a chance. So, I would agree with learning the major scales.
I have come a long way without a lot of music theory. I’ve always had a good ear and could always play what I heard. Couldn’t tell you much about chord construction beyond the 1-3-5, b’s, #’s, basic knowledge of the circle of 5ths, pentatonic scales, double stops, Nashville number system, step positions, but it hasn’t hindered me from playing guitar, recording my songs and entertaining others.
The mathematics of music was never very appealing to me. I just want to make music.

 

[miroslav]

I'll tell you the thing about guitar "theory" (I don't think it really has anything to do with theory) that makes me go cross-eyed...

...are guitar tabs.

While I understand what they do and how they are used...every time I go online to find the chords for some song I heard, and I get to a webpage with tabs...I always go...WTF?

I mean...the whole idea of teaching/learning how to play each chord and note to a song by looking at finger numbers on a string/fret layout...makes me laugh, and at the same time cringe.
I've seen entire 5 minute guitar solos from songs transcribed into tabs.
I guess some people can only learn by being told what string/fret to put each finger on...but I find that weird.
I mean, the time it takes to learn that, you might as well learn the actual chords notes and use your ears instead of a numbered finger chart....and also use your common sense about where to put each finger, based on what is both consider "right", and what is most comfortable to you.

Anyway...there was no such thing back in the day, and it wasn't really until maybe 10-15 years back when I first started seeing that on the net, though it might go back further than that, and I just missed it because I wasn't looking for chords to song on the internet...but now, it's sometimes hard to find the chords to a song!
I'll hit 5 sites and they all just have fucking tabs! I end up just figuring out the chords by ear.
Like doesn't anyone actually learn chords and notes and basics anymore?

I see them as cheap crutch, and some people who learn that way, can then only "read music" in tab form.

 

[Nola]

The tabs are almost always very wrong, too.