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
My biggest issue is trying to learn sight reading and memorizing things. If I don't find something really interesting I have a hard time keeping my attention on it. They need to make a fun version of learning all that stuff LOL
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.Okay try this, I am playing a C major and change to a D major. What key would you use for a solo?
VP
Theory is the language of musicians. (TheChikenMaster)
music is the language of musicians.
I'd say theory is more analagous to the grammar of music.
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
your point that being able to communicate with the other players is correct and accurate.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
I dont think so, there are some notes and intervals that just dont harmonically nor melodically belong with other notes and intervals.
VP.
I dont think so, there are some notes and intervals that just dont harmonically nor melodically belong with other notes and intervals.
VP.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.