How Much Music Theory Does Jeff Know?

[cash]

I've had this sort of argument way too many times about other artists, and it's about time we discussed it here at VC. I'll start from the top:

 

All of my non-theory oriented friends believe that knowledge in music theory really hinders musicians because they spend too much time abiding by the rules, they note that the great songwriters: bob dylan, neil young, never took a calssical theory course...

 

I rebut by saying that those artists were naturally gifted, and had they learned more theory than they're songs could have been taken to a new level. It's about knowing the rules, and then consiously breaking them, not unreasond dismissal of them, which in turn creates new ideas. (i.e. bela fleck, best banjo player on earth)

 

This train of thought inevtiably wound up at Tweedy, and in general Wilco. I think the most technically talented players in the band are nels, sansone, and glenn; which are also the more recent editions to the band. But with Tweedy writing almost everything, I struggle to think that Jeff hasn't had some major exposure to theory, and that with either a lot of natural ability, or a lot of time spent writing, he's learned a lot of it himself.

 

Overall though I think it woudln't hurt for tweedy to abide by some of the simple compositional rules, if he did, I bet you Shake it Off would be worlds better.

 

Your thoughts?

[Groo]

Shake it Off is a fucking awesome song.

[quarter23cd]

[W(TF)]

All of my non-theory oriented friends believe that knowledge in music theory really hinders musicians because they spend too much time abiding by the rules, they note that the great songwriters: bob dylan, neil young, never took a calssical theory course...

 

True, but -- they all worked their asses off to become decent musicians. Naturally gifted...I don't know. Picking up music does seem to come a lot easier to some than others. Songwriting takes some discipline. I think Tweedy is a great arranger, and is benefiting from having really skilled musicians help with that.

 

Btw, is Nels classically trained? I read yesterday that someone showed him how to play a scale and he sort of took off from there.

[GtrPlyr]

Overall though I think it wouldn't hurt for tweedy to abide by some of the simple compositional rules, if he did, I bet you Shake it Off would be worlds better.

I find the idea of following "rules" regarding artistic expression to be a possibly self-limiting endeavor. If your head is too filled with what "you're supposed to do" instead of what feels right you can end up with work that is uninspired and unoriginal. From personal experience I've found that many people schooled in music theory often make for technically great players, but often not great songwriters. A lot of good songwriters seem to work intuitively which gives them their unique forms of expression. There's nothing wrong with coming from a theory background--I'm sure there's many examples of artists that have done so that are creating good music--but it's not essential by any means.

 

Bottom-line, if it sounds right it is right .

[cash]

Btw, is Nels classically trained? I read yesterday that someone showed him how to play a scale and he sort of took off from there.

 

I know he's a Jazz musician. Before he was in Wilco I saw him do some cool stuff in Newark.

 

All I know is that he's been exposed to a lot of musical technicians, and that's probably rubbed off on him. All jazz is is the rudiments of classical theory (ii V I) dressed up in as much fancy crazy no rules as possible, thats why a lot of people (the general populace of teenagers) find it difficult to listen to Jazz; its to complicated for their ear to comprehend.

 

Those who can play jazz correctly (nels) know that it takes knowedge of the rules to break them properly.

[WilcoFan]

I've worked in the studio a few times and have had classically trained musicians come it do lay down some kind of violin, dulcimer, etc. parts. Most of the time they ONLY will work from sheet music that you have arranged and written and they generally are not very creative. So I think too much school is bad. But wasn't Andrew Bird classically trained? He's very creative and I would say his last 2 albums are at least as good as Wilco's last two albums.

[cash]

I find the idea of following "rules" regarding artistic expression to be a possibly self-limiting endeavor. If your head is too filled with what "you're supposed to do" instead of what feels right you can end up with work that is uninspired and unoriginal. From personal experience I've found that many people schooled in music theory often make for technically great players, but often not great songwriters. A lot of good songwriters seem to work intuitively which gives them their unique forms of expression. There's nothing wrong with coming from a theory background--I'm sure there's many examples of artists that have done so that are creating good music--but it's not essential by any means.

 

It would be foolish to disobey your ear to follow a rule. Often what your ear likes, what sounds good to you, is suggjested in theory. Music Theory is the science of what sounds or feels good.

 

As for hakeneyed compositions, look at the majority rock bands today. We keep hearing those same chord progressions, the same key changes, the same bridgesl; had any of those bands had the least bit exposure to theory, they would have realized that they're using a formula to create music. I'm not saying wilco is one of those bands, by any means. A lot of my respect for tweedy comes from the fact that he is original, yet sounds pleasing to listen to. New music i think can be compared to abstract art, a lot of it sucks and displays no talent on the part of the artist, some of it is awesome.

 

Bottom-line, if it sounds right it is right .

 

Agreed.

[MattZ]

Music Theory is the science of what sounds or feels good.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[cryptique]

I think the question itself is pointless. Music is a creative medium, and while it's possible to determine certain "rules," or at least habits, regarding its "proper" construction, in the end it's just a bunch of songs, and either you like them or you don't.

 

Knowledge of music theory can help you compose symphonies or perform difficult pieces, but it doesn't take training to recognize a pleasing chord progression or a killer hook. Maybe training helps you understand why, on some intellectual level, that chord progression or hook works, but it doesn't necessarily help you write better ones.

 

But really, who cares? It's the end result that matters, not the amount of training that led up to it. Just enjoy the music.

[cash]

I think the question itself is pointless. Music is a creative medium, and while it's possible to determine certain "rules," or at least habits, regarding its "proper" construction, in the end it's just a bunch of songs, and either you like them or you don't.

 

Knowledge of music theory can help you compose symphonies or perform difficult pieces, but it doesn't take training to recognize a pleasing chord progression or a killer hook. Maybe training helps you understand why, on some intellectual level, that chord progression or hook works, but it doesn't necessarily help you write better ones.

 

But really, who cares? It's the end result that matters, not the amount of training that led up to it. Just enjoy the music.

 

People often make the mistake that theory is linked to classical music. This is only so, because it is only readily applied to classical music, if more musicians took the time to learn the intricasies of their proffesion, we'd have a more diverse catolog to listen to.

 

As for the "it's the end product that counts, not how you get there", i can't disagree more. the work that led up to the final product determines the final peice, so how can it not matter?!? Theory helps expands the artists aresenal of ideas, not limits them. The bigger the arsenal, the better your music will sound.

 

I cannot imagine how cool it would be if tweedy utilized picardy thirds, chromatic modulation, and subsituted parralel motion for contrary. Obviously i'm very pleased with what he has done without this knowledge (and who's to say he doesn't know about it), but it wouldn't hurt to explore the science behind composition.

[deepseacatfish]

From Nels himself (via his website): "I am virtually self-taught on the guitar. All i've done is try to make sound that has an affect on me, to listen, react, and be authentic in the moment. I've never had any real direction, any career design, and i've never been very disciplined."

 

I would doubt that any of the other members other than Glenn are "classically" trained on their instruments.

 

Having studied plenty of music theory (seeing as I'm a music major) there's certainly advantages and disadvantages to knowing the technicalities of music. Honestly, great music doesn't come from those who know the rules and follow them to any degree. Most of the "great" classical music doesn't follow any sort of theory rules exactly, great jazz is always conscious of chord progression but most of the greats aren't classically trained or well versed in theory. Rock has always been about anybody being able to play the music.

 

Theory helps to give you a better understanding of the pieces that make up music, but without instinct and originality that translates into boring and formulaic music. I'm sure by now all the members of Wilco have a good sense of chord progressions, modulations, and other basic theory just through practice--but that's about all you need.

[cryptique]

I mentioned classical pieces because it's an obvious comparison for making a point. I understand that music theory is not exclusive to such works.

 

As for the "it's the end product that counts, not how you get there", i can't disagree more. the work that led up to the final product determines the final peice, so how can it not matter?!? Theory helps expands the artists aresenal of ideas, not limits them. The bigger the arsenal, the better your music will sound.

And I couldn't disagree more. You're confusing training with talent. Music is not a secret, imparted only to those who undergo training. In that sense it is a wonderfully democratic art form, because even the most untrained songwriter can produce works of staggering beauty.

 

Knowledge of theory can grease the rails a bit for some people, but it is not a guarantee of inspiration.

[deepseacatfish]

As for the "it's the end product that counts, not how you get there", i can't disagree more. the work that led up to the final product determines the final peice, so how can it not matter?!? Theory helps expands the artists aresenal of ideas, not limits them. The bigger the arsenal, the better your music will sound.I cannot imagine how cool it would be if tweedy utilized picardy thirds, chromatic modulation, and subsituted parralel motion for contrary. Obviously i'm very pleased with what he has done without this knowledge (and who's to say he doesn't know about it), but it wouldn't hurt to explore the science behind composition.

Theory does expand your arsenal, but it doesn't always make better sounding music...inevitably it is the end that counts, because music made public is about the end listener.If a song calls for a chromatic modulation, swell, but if not why stick it in? I don't care if it's rock/jazz/classical/etc. techniques can make for more diverse or unexpected songs, but not always, and lots of theory is just integrated into the way we hear and play music.Plus, I don't think theory can explain a Nels Cline feedback wash.

And I couldn't disagree more. You're confusing training with talent. Music is not a secret, imparted only to those who undergo training. In that sense it is a wonderfully democratic art form, because even the most untrained songwriter can produce works of staggering beauty.Knowledge of theory can grease the rails a bit for some people, but it is not a guarantee of inspiration.

[cash]

even the most untrained songwriter can produce works of staggering beauty.

How often does this happen?

 

Knowledge of theory can grease the rails a bit for some people, but it is not a guarantee of inspiration.

I agree. I would also like to add that knoweldge of theory combined with creativity and originality will produce the best music. A lack in either area will result in your music not living up to it's potential.

 

Do you agree cryptique? I have a feeling that we're arguing apples and oranges. My point is essentially: theory is not given enough importance in modern music, and if it was, music would be better.

[cash]

a song calls for a chromatic modulation, swell, but if not why stick it in?

I'm scared that when the song does call for chromatic modulation, the artist won't know what to do and he will have missed an opportunity to make his music more colorful. I'm not forcing theory into songs, nothing should be forced in music.

[cryptique]

How often does this happen?

All the time.

 

I agree. I would also like to add that knoweldge of theory combined with creativity and originality will produce the best music. A lack in either area will result in your music not living up to it's potential.

 

Do you agree cryptique? I have a feeling that we're arguing apples and oranges. My point is essentially: theory is not given enough importance in modern music, and if it was, music would be better.

No, I don't agree. Theory is fine for some people, but not for others. In the end, it's inspiration and talent that matters, theory be damned.

[MattZ]

I always considered music theory to be a bit of a chicken and egg thing. And I say that as someone who knows a very little bit of theory and writes very bad songs.

 

Obviously, music existed before theory did. And one certainly doesn't need theory to write fantastic music. Add Paul McCartney and John Lennon to the list of not classically trained. As I quoted above -- music theory is basically the science of what sounds good, isn't it? What will theory tell you that your ear won't? If you are good at your craft, you don't need theory. You need a good ear.

[MrRain422]

Theory is nice to know to help you when you're stuck, but a lot of people lose sight of the fact that it's theory and not law. The most important thing is if it sounds good. And of course it's the end result that counts. Of course a songwriter can get some personal satisfaction from the work that they put in, but to the listener, all that matters is if it turned out well.

 

And I would guess that the vast majority of great rock songs were written by people who didn't know much, if anything, about theory.

[W(TF)]

if more musicians took the time to learn the intricasies of their proffesion, we'd have a more diverse catolog to listen to.

 

Like how Bob Dylan described hearing Robert Johnson or Woody for the first time. Or as Van Morrison wrote, "it stoned me like Jelly Roll".

 

I agree in general, it seems many current performers are pretty ignorant of their trade.

[deepseacatfish]

My point is essentially: theory is not given enough importance in modern music, and if it was, music would be better.

I disagree.

 

 

There are plenty of examples of phenomenal musicians/music with little or no theory consciously integrated in the musical process--but think what you want there's a whole world of music out there. I just think that concentrating too much on process or theory in music makes you miss a lot of really great art

[cryptique]

I just think that concentrating too much on process or theory in music makes you miss a lot of really great art

Yup.

[cash]

Obviously, music existed before theory did.

Just as gravity existed before Newton named it.

 

As I quoted above -- music theory is basically the science of what sounds good, isn't it? What will theory tell you that your ear won't? If you are good at your craft, you don't need theory. You need a good ear.

Theory will tell you how to apply what your ear wants to hear.

Having a good ear is great, and is half of theory, the other half is application.

 

Theory is not a strict set of rules and regulations laid down in a stone tablet. It is an evolving science just as physics is. New ideas and rules are being added to the book as we speak, not necessarily by some professor at juliard, by everyone who's ever picked up an instrument and done something that they thinks sounds nice.

[mfwahl]

Exactly. Music theory is a theory. It's not rules. And it's not as if music theory only comes in a classroom. Just because the Beatles weren't classically trained doesn't mean everytime they wrote a song they stumbled upon the relationships between the chords. You can have an idea of how music works and not be classically trained or bound by some set of rules. If someone feels bound by music theory they need to see a therapist. And if anyone's originality is hampered by learning something, they weren't all that original in the first place. There is a middleground between being trained at a conservatory and being an idiot savant.

[cryptique]

Theory is great stuff to know. So is drafting, woodcarving, clay throwing...

 

...but without inspiration, creativity, and passion, theory is almost useless. A musician can be technically brilliant, but if there's no passion in his playing, it's empty. A composer can know theory backwards and forwards, but if there's no inspiration in her compositions, they're lifeless.

 

You can create great art without formal training. You cannot create great art with formal training and nothing else.