How Much Music Theory Does Jeff Know?

[mfwahl]

Oh, I forgot to answer the original question. He knows 37%.

[W(TF)]

Many of the jazz greats who really changed the game....Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Charlie Parker, Ornette Coleman...had little if any formal training.

[jff]

I don't know how much theory Jeff knows, but I'll bet his lesson with Richard Lloyd involved a bit of theory. Richard Lloyd refuses to reveal what their lesson covered. Based on the lesson materials available on Lloyd's website it'd be hard to imagine they didn't work through some theory based ideas.

 

As for Nels, a couple quotes form his Guitar Player cover story suggest that although he is "mostly self taught", he did a pretty thorough job of teaching himself theory:

 

>>>How important is gear to making music?

 

Ultimately, it comes down to the imagination and the physical touch of the musician on the instrument. So many kids spend so much time thinking about the gear that they never learn any chords, and even if they do learn a few, they don

[cash]

...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.

I agree. But you must understand that the same is applicable if I switch the words up:

 

But without theory and technical skill, inspiration, creativity and passion are almost useless. A musician can be creative inspired and passionate, but if he cannot apply his brilliance, there is no music to hear. You can have the craziest most original ideas in the whole damn world, but if you cannot manifest your thoughts into sound, you will have no music.

[cash]

As for Nels, a couple quotes form his Guitar Player cover story suggest that although he is "mostly self taught", he did a pretty thorough job of teaching himself theory:

 

>>>How important is gear to making music?

 

Ultimately, it comes down to the imagination and the physical touch of the musician on the instrument. So many kids spend so much time thinking about the gear that they never learn any chords, and even if they do learn a few, they don

[cryptique]

I agree. But you must understand that the same is applicable I i switch the words up:

 

But without theory and technical skill, inspiration, creativity and passion are almost useless. A musician can be creative inspired and passionate, but if he cannot apply his brilliance, there is no music to hear. You can have the craziest most original ideas in the whole damn world, but if you cannot manifest your thoughts into sound, you will have no music.

I disagree. John Lennon was an average guitar player at best and knew little, if any, musical theory. But he had inspiration, creativity, and passion. Sometimes that's all you need.

[W(TF)]

Just keep in mind that the Beatles appeared at a time when jazz snobbery was in full bloom. They were dismissed outright by "real music lovers" as just bubblegum pop. My father-in-law and his brothers played jazz in a band in those days, to hear them tell it, they still think the Beatles are crap - "guys who can't even play their instruments".

 

Whatever..

[jff]

Here nels aknowledges its about imagination, while stresing the importance of knowing why what your imagination has created for you sounds pleasing. If fits together, you cannot have one without the other and still be great! Nels is living proof!

 

I think Nels' solo in Either way is a great example of using theory, technique and a great imagination to come up with a fantastic musical moment. A guitarist with no (or very little) knowledge of theory coming up with that solo would be like a monkey typing Shakespeare.

[jff]

I disagree. John Lennon was an average guitar player at best and knew little, if any, musical theory. But he had inspiration, creativity, and passion. Sometimes that's all you need.

 

Not to take anything away from Lennon's obvious talent, but he also had George Martin, a classically trained musician, to help him refine his ideas into the finished products.

[cash]

Many of the jazz greats who really changed the game....Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Charlie Parker, Ornette Coleman...had little if any formal training.

Just because they didn't go to school to study music doesn't mean they all weren't incredibly well veresed in theory.

 

John Coltrane wrote some of the craziest stuff on the planet, to say he did not understand the intracisies of jazz would be a gross misstatment. (And he played in high school, under instruction of his chorus teacher is where he was first exposed to technically difficult songs).

[W(TF)]

Just because they didn't go to school to study music doesn't mean they all weren't incredibly well veresed in theory.

 

John Coltrane wrote some of the craziest stuff on the planet, to say he did not understand the intracisies of jazz would be a gross misstatment. (And he played in high school, under instruction of his chorus teacher is where he was first exposed to technically difficult songs).

 

I didn't say they didn't study music, but they didn't have much formal music theory - that was your original thesis, right?

 

Coltrane understood the intricacies of jazz on a plane most of us can't relate to. If the question was simply "can they read sheet music" then maybe the answer is different again.

[cryptique]

I didn't say they didn't study music, but they didn't have much formal music theory - that was your original thesis, right?

I believe the original thesis was that Tweedy would be a better songwriter if he would just "abide by some of the simple compositional rules," the implication being that he should learn some theory.

 

I say he's been doing just fine without it.

 

Anyone who plays music picks up a smattering of theory by osmosis (though they may not be able to explain the theory they've picked up), but my point is that formal training in theory isn't a prerequisite to creating great music, or great art in general.

[cash]

I didn't say they didn't study music, but they didn't have much formal music theory - that was your original thesis, right?

 

Coltrane understood the intricacies of jazz on a plane most of us can't relate to. If the question was simply "can they read sheet music" then maybe the answer is different again.

 

*edit*

The broader question that I meant to pose was whether the world needs more theory, as I feel it is unappreciated by modern artists. I feel that if Jeff picked up some theory (more than he already has) his songwriting would improve beyond his current level of ability.

 

Do you beleive that a fundemental knowledge of theory paired with creativity will yeild better results than creativity all alone?

 

The debate boils down to this: Skill and Originality. I aknowedge that one needs both to master the art of music. Some people feel that skill, diligence, and hard work will not only fail to improve your compositions, but hinder them...

[cryptique]

Do you beleive that a fundemental knowledge of theory paired with creativity will yeild better results than creativity all alone?

You'll have to define "fundamental knowledge of theory." To me, this is something that a musician can acquire simply by playing and listening to music. Are you talking about training and study?

 

The debate boils down to this: Skill and Originality. I aknowedge that one needs both to master the art of music. Some people feel that skill, diligence, and hard work will not only fail to improve your compositions, but hinder them...

I don't think a grounding in theory inherently hinders one's compositional ability, but I do think that many who have that grounding find themselves far too tempted to show off their knowledge of theory in their compositions, and rely more on their technical background than on their own creativity. And that results in music I don't particularly care to listen to.

[Hoodoo Man]

FWIW, I think that Jeff's knowledge of theory is similar to that of other great songwriters in that what he has learned has come mostly from listening to hours and hours of music. I think great musical minds absorb what they hear and then can use it when it's needed. This may not be a nuts and bolts knowledge, but as someone stated earlier, theory is the study of what sounds good. Therefore, if the artist has been exposed to music that reinforces or presents "proper" theory, he can dig a sound, progression or scale from his mind that in his ear fits into the song that is being written. I think The Beatles are possibly the best example of untrained musicians who drew upon the theory they learned through listening to create their own masterpieces.

 

I've heard brilliant, trained musicians who were boring as hell and I've heard self-taught, passionate musicians who couldn't write a song with a gun to their heads. I think a little of both is the best situation.

 

Incidentally, I think the reason most popular music sucks is because the people listening are uneducated musically. As long as they continue to buy the crap the record companies put out, popular music will continue to suck.

[jff]

Some people feel that skill, diligence, and hard work will not only fail to improve your compositions, but hinder them...

 

 

That's a pretty common belief. I read an article about the Allman Brothers back when they regrouped with the Gov't Mule guys. Apparently Dickie Betts expressed an interest in taking some music classes to learn some theory. His bandmates were scared and talked him out of it because they felt that most of his compositions technically should not work, but somehow manage to sound great. They were worried that if he learned theory he would become a slave to "the rules" and his creativity/inspiration would suffer.

[a.miller]

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

Amen, Cryptique. Your points in this thread have been great.

 

Personally, I feel the technical music-theory based songwriting vs. natural ability is akin to Einstein (supposedly) failing high school math. I've played with some great musicians who didn't know a lick of theory and conversely, have played with theorists who lack any creativity.

[cash]

You'll have to define "fundamental knowledge of theory." To me, this is something that a musician can acquire simply by playing and listening to music. Are you talking about training and study?

Do you know a chord is three notes or more?

Do you know to modulate is to change key?

Do you know what key your even playing in?

Have you ever listened to beethoven?

Can you play a scale?

Do you know the difference between a major and minor scale?

Do you know what forte means?

 

If you answered yes to five or more of those thenyou know the rudiments of music theory!

 

I don't think a grounding in theory inherently hinders one's compositional ability, but I do think that many who have that grounding find themselves far too tempted to show off their knowledge of theory in their compositions, and rely more on their technical background than on their own creativity. And that results in music I don't particularly care to listen to.

If an artist is tempted to show off his ability in his music, and therefore loses some creativity from doing it, I don't think they'll make it anywhere.

 

Here again you seem to think that technical ability and orignality cannot co-exist. Specifically that ones knowedge in theory will decrease you creative juice. You've argued that point and I can't seem to accept it.

 

lunch break!

[jff]

I don't think a grounding in theory inherently hinders one's compositional ability, but I do think that many who have that grounding find themselves far too tempted to show off their knowledge of theory in their compositions, and rely more on their technical background than on their own creativity. And that results in music I don't particularly care to listen to.

 

That is probably true. Conversely, many guitarists rely too heavily on base level skills like the pentatonic scale for their note choices, which makes most of the music we hear melodically and harmonically limited, and therefore, very similar sounding. It's a rare musician who can take great amounts of knowledge and use it to create a purely musical statement. It's equally rare for someone with very little knowledge to create a purely musical statement.

[hwllo]

this from an interview with neil young. i love how he answeres the question. everything about it is dead on in my opinion.

 

 

JO: What are your views on people going to college to learn guitar?

 

NY: Paints a pretty doomed picture of the future, doesn't it?[Laughs.] First of all, it doesn't matter if you can play a scale. It doesn't matter if your technique is good. If you have feelings that you want to get out through music, that's what matters. If you have the ability to express yourself and you feel good when you do it, then that's why you do it. The technical side of it is a completely boring drag, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, I can't play fast. I don't even know the scales. A lot of the notes that I go for are notes that I know aren't there. They're just not there, so you can hit any note. I'm just on another level as far as all that goes. I appreciate these guys who play great. I'm impressed by these metal bands with their scale guys. Like I go, "Gee, that's really something." I mean, Satriani and Eddie Van Halen are genious guitar players. They're unbelievable musicians of the highest caliber. But I can't relate to it. One note is enough.

[OOO]

In my opinion, I don't think I'd like Jeff to know a ton of musical theory, since he's done SO well without it. Ditto with Lennon/McCartney and a ton of other untrained songwriters.

 

However, I think it's really a case by case thing. Some songwriters could benefit from a better knowledge of musical theory, and some would probably get worse. Whether it be because they lose their "edge", rely on the rules too much, or just can't think the same way about music after learning all the nuts and bolts...I really do think there are songwriters out there that would be worse with more theory.

 

I have read interviews from some great musicians who said their greatest strength was having limitations. The fact that they didn't know everything and couldn't play perfectly forced them to be more creative with what they did know. So who knows?

 

P.S.

 

"Have you ever listened to beethoven?" -----> " then you know the rudiments of music theory!"

 

doesn't make sense.

[caliber66]

Do you know a chord is three notes or more?Do you know to modulate is to change key?Do you know what key your even playing in?Have you ever listened to beethoven?Can you play a scale?Do you know the difference between a major and minor scale?Do you know what forte means?If you answered yes to five or more of those thenyou know the rudiments of music theory!

You seem to be changing your point. Clearly Jeff knows much (certainly more than three) of the above, and I'm not sure how having listened to Beethoven once would be a qualification for knowing the rudiments of music theory. If you're talking about Wilco applying the rudiments of music theory to their music, they do that already. If you're talking about more in depth training, I'm not sure they need to do any more. As has been pointed out, inserting theory for the sake of theory doesn't tend to lead to positive results. Jeff knows what he's doing, and I wouldn't presume to tell him to go take a class on anything.

If an artist is tempted to show off his ability in his music, and therefore loses some creativity from doing it, I don't think they'll make it anywhere.Here again you seem to think that technical ability and orignality cannot co-exist. Specifically that ones knowedge in theory will decrease you creative juice. You've argued that point and I can't seem to accept it.lunch break!

Nobody says technical ability and originality cannot coexist. I'd say creativity is more important than theory, though, by a long shot.

P.S. "Have you ever listened to beethoven?" -----> " then you know the rudiments of music theory!" doesn't make sense.

[W(TF)]

this from an interview with neil young. i love how he answeres the question. everything about it is dead on in my opinion.

 

 

JO: What are your views on people going to college to learn guitar?

 

NY: Paints a pretty doomed picture of the future, doesn't it?[Laughs.] First of all, it doesn't matter if you can play a scale. It doesn't matter if your technique is good. If you have feelings that you want to get out through music, that's what matters. If you have the ability to express yourself and you feel good when you do it, then that's why you do it. The technical side of it is a completely boring drag, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, I can't play fast. I don't even know the scales. A lot of the notes that I go for are notes that I know aren't there. They're just not there, so you can hit any note. I'm just on another level as far as all that goes. I appreciate these guys who play great. I'm impressed by these metal bands with their scale guys. Like I go, "Gee, that's really something." I mean, Satriani and Eddie Van Halen are genious guitar players. They're unbelievable musicians of the highest caliber. But I can't relate to it. One note is enough.

 

Righton, Neil is a great example. His bout of epilepsy has always limited his technical skill - speed, accuracy, etc - but he has created some of the most soulful, memorable guitar solos of all time. Especially during the mid 70's; just listen to Cortez The Killer, or Powderfinger, or Like A Hurricane, and tell me that guy's not a "musical genius". And up until recently he could even channel Hendrix on occasion.

 

I have trouble thinking of too many fave music artists who were formally schooled. Bruce Cockburn is one for sure, but I don't think I could name very many.

[jff]

In my opinion, I don't think I'd like Jeff to know a ton of musical theory, since he's done SO well without it.

 

How do we know Jeff doesn't know theory?

[cash]

this from an interview with neil young. i love how he answeres the question. everything about it is dead on in my opinion.

JO: What are your views on people going to college to learn guitar?

 

NY: Paints a pretty doomed picture of the future, doesn't it?[Laughs.] First of all, it doesn't matter if you can play a scale. It doesn't matter if your technique is good. If you have feelings that you want to get out through music, that's what matters. If you have the ability to express yourself and you feel good when you do it, then that's why you do it. The technical side of it is a completely boring drag, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, I can't play fast. I don't even know the scales. A lot of the notes that I go for are notes that I know aren't there. They're just not there, so you can hit any note. I'm just on another level as far as all that goes. I appreciate these guys who play great. I'm impressed by these metal bands with their scale guys. Like I go, "Gee, that's really something." I mean, Satriani and Eddie Van Halen are genious guitar players. They're unbelievable musicians of the highest caliber. But I can't relate to it. One note is enough.

Neil young may have not considered himself a technical player, but for his style of music, he had the ability to express his musical thoughts. He was happy with it, I (am a huge neil young fan) am happy with it, everybody liked his simpleness. I have the entire young collection at my house (sheet music) and I can tell you that Neiler knew his shit (particularly his use of 7th chords, see cowgirl in the sand).

 

Theory doesn't have to be scales, chord progressions, or cadences if you don't want it to. Neil played a lot and discovered a lot on his own. What frustrates me is when people think that had neil known a bit of theory, his ability to write creativly would have been harmed. I hate to say things like that (neil would be better off knowing more theory) because I love neil's work as it is.

 

My growing impression is that people who are familiar with theory tend to like it and utilize their knowledge to express themselves more clearly through their music, where as people who are unfamiliar with theory tend to think that theory is worthless and that their better off without it.

 

Don't judge a book by its cover.

Always try new things.

Don't not eat something just because it looks bad, take a bite, then judge!

 

Learn my fellow VCers. Those among us who have studied at least the basics of theory and have thought the results were negative, please say so. As for me, my induction into the world of theory not only changed the way I write music, but it has started an affair with music that will stay with me so long as I live. If you do learn a bit of theory, and come back and find your compositions more trite and boring than before, then you have proved me wrong. Keep in mind, do not cater to the rules of music theory, keep them as a guide, and let your own ideas rule your music!

 

EDIT:

P.S. my little survey about whether you understand music theory was a bit of a joke, but it might give you the right idea. I put beethoven on there because he is the smartest person who's ever walked this earth. Listening to him would probably increase your musical ability more than learning what all that other stuff meant.

 

P.S.S. as for my opinion changing. After a while it became clear to me that my definition of theory was not being understood. I don't think my opinion was changing, I was merely clarifying myself, if in the process of making myself clearer i seemed to change opinions, I apologize.