How Much Music Theory Does Jeff Know?

[mfwahl]

I don't think music theory is necessary to write better music but I don't see how it's bad. It's a tool to pick up and use. Creativity and knowledge are not mutually exclusive. If someone is learning music theory and they feel themselves getting squarer and less original: Stop! But they probably have bigger demons to wrestle with. I think why people think that music theory makes people square is probably because if someone already had a knack for writing they wouldn't feel theory is important and if someone didn't get how music works they might take a class in it. That would put good natural songwriters in a position of not needing to learn and bad ones needing to learn it. But if a good songwriter learns some theory I can't see how it can hurt. I took theory classes and was still able to retain my own ideas about music. I just don't understand how people think that theory is some crippling thing. Take it with a grain of salt. If you come across an idea use it, and if not, no one will tell on you for not following the rules (but it is "theory" not rules anyway). Also, the same ideas in theory can e learned outside of a classroom. With the internet and instruction books and camps these days, how can someone not come across something about theory. Or even just owning ears. Listening to music and learning songs is just as much a form of learning music theory. It's just a theory to explain what sounds good. After seeing a 12 bar blues a few times even in different keys someone who is not classically trained should pick up the pattern. I IV V chords become apparent and the concept of keys comes to light this way.

 

Also someone said that Miles among some other jazz musicians weren't classically trained. Actually Miles studied trumpet in school since he was a kid and went to Julliard, a classical school for college. While he dropped out of there because he thought it was square, his classical training is what gave him his big break. Charlie Parker was too busy with heroin that he needed his new trumpet player to be able to write arrangements. That's how Miles got the job playing with Bird. Fun fact.

[foolnrain97]

^^^ foolnrain, that was beautiful man. I could not have possibly said it any better.

thanks MB.

[jff]

i have this unsupported thing to say: the idea that a songwriter such as Dylan at the height of his creative output could've done better by studying music theory is fucking silly.

 

I agree that is silly, but nobody is talking about stopping what you're doing and "studying" music theory. Dylan and Neil Young, as much as they might try to tell you they're playing strictly from their heart or their balls, or whatever other garbage, both have plenty of knowledge of music theory. How they aquired it doesn't matter. It's there, and their music is what it is in part because they have that knowledge.

[Dan-O]

Music Theory, classically speaking, is like a giant puzzle to me, I love figuring it out.

I agree. I don't think it's helped me become much of a better guitar player. But I find it interesting to apply that knowledge and understand why the standard EADGBE tuning became the standard. Or just pick up any other instrument and quickly understand it and be able to play things on it with no instruction.

[caliber66]

I agree that is silly, but nobody is talking about stopping what you're doing and "studying" music theory. Dylan and Neil Young, as much as they might try to tell you they're playing strictly from their heart or their balls, or whatever other garbage, both have plenty of knowledge of music theory. How they aquired it doesn't matter. It's there, and their music is what it is in part because they have that knowledge.

The same can be said for Jeff Tweedy and Wilco, and if so, what's the debate?

[quosh]

surely, theory has conly ome about after hundreds of years of studying the dynamics of music. this argument kind of reminds me of the christian dilemma of what happened to the souls of people before christianity if the only way to heaven was through christ? did the music makers before the dawn of theory not write great music simply because they werent schooled in any kind of formal technique? there are many ways up a mountain but the map will show you the easiest path, not neccessarily the best.

 

knowing the way to do something doesnt mean you will neccessarily execute it with style, panache or quality. i notice that most of the bands that i like have never set foot in julliard, chethams or the vienna choir. the blues/folk idiom is a great example- no formal training involved and now its pretty much the rossetta stone for virtually all popular music.

 

as for music theory being the science of what sounds good, what about the the development of the tri-tone scale? its not a traditionally 'pleasing' sound.

 

my main bug-bear is with guitar technique doyens. to my ears, most of what are considered the great guitarists post-1980 (i.e widdlers, shredders, fret-wankers - satriani, malmsteen and, to a lesser extent vai) sound more like a bunch of speed exercises stitched together to make a solo. ive always held the opinion that it doesnt matter how fast you type, it doesnt mean you can write a good book. in fact, it tends to be the opposite.

 

all in all, theory is fine if you want to use it but it doesnt seem to make the slightest difference in terms of personal songwriting, performance, lyrics, atmosphere and dynamics. there is a lot more to this than things that look like brokeback tadpoles on a stave.

[MattZ]

I remember an absolutely wonderful story from the Beatles Anthology where George (or was it Paul?) says they took a bus across town when they were kids because rumor had it there was a kid over there who knew how to play a B7 chord. Someone who understands theory and the building blocks of chords doesn't need to do that. But someone without formal training who knows what he wants to express and doesn't know how to do it, will find a way. Even without theory. If he/she is skilled enough and driven enough (no pun intended) to do it.

[jff]

my main bug-bear is with guitar technique doyens. to my ears, most of what are considered the great guitarists post-1980 (i.e widdlers, shredders, fret-wankers - satriani, malmsteen and, to a lesser extent vai) sound more like a bunch of speed exercises stitched together to make a solo. ive always held the opinion that it doesnt matter how fast you type, it doesnt mean you can write a good book. in fact, it tends to be the opposite.

 

That's not theory, that's motor skills. Totally different discipline.

[Aeglos]

In regards to Jeff's songwriting i think his lack of formal education is a little misleading. He strikes me as a perfect example of autodidacticism. Basically he has a very high musical intelligence coupled with a rapacious musical curiosity (e.g. never heard another rock/pop musician mention Morton Feldman with familiarity). I'm sure he knows a great deal about it but in an idiosyncratic way, because he's picked up what he wants, or what he's responded to, and been able to put it all in a framework.

 

Formal training is the hard road. It furnishes you with a great deal of ability and knowledge but you have to have the courage and ability to sublimate it and make music through your emotions and feelings. That's a bloody tricky process and due to that, in a lot of people's cases, musical theory could be damagingly inhibiting - it doesn't suit everyone. There are great songwriters with zero training (much lower proportion in longer musical forms however), and great ones with plenty. Horses for courses, blah blah. We have inherited a musical canon that runs from Hildegaard von Bingen and Ockeghem over 600 years to the present and its almost all from classically trained composers and songwriters, so it can't be all that bad, right? Elvis Costello has said songwriters would really benefit from getting to know Schubert (i agree ).

 

Lastly i don't think we will ever to get Jeff's full knowledge of musical theory on display because Wilco are a direct band (imo) and Jeff has a really good intuition about how far he can go in terms of challenging and pushing his audience. Ultimately, if they can't play it live and have it connect for people we won't see it, but i do harbour the hope that one day they'll just forget we're here and make an album of their most out there ideas.

[jff]

I remember an absolutely wonderful story from the Beatles Anthology where George (or was it Paul?) says they took a bus across town when they were kids because rumor had it there was a kid over there who knew how to play a B7 chord. Someone who understands theory and the building blocks of chords doesn't need to do that. But someone without formal training who knows what he wants to express and doesn't know how to do it, will find a way. Even without theory. If he/she is skilled enough and driven enough (no pun intended) to do it.

 

That kid knew where to place his fingers on the fretboard to make that chord (that's not theory), and perhaps he also knew how to put that chord into the context of a song (that IS theory). Learning how to use a particular chord in a musical context IS a lesson in music theory.

[jff]

The same can be said for Jeff Tweedy and Wilco, and if so, what's the debate?

 

The debate is "do musicians make better music if they know music theory"?

 

I would argue that there are virtually no musicians who have ZERO music theory skills (including Neil Young), so it's an impossible question to answer.

[MattZ]

That kid knew where to place his fingers on the fretboard to make that chord (that's not theory), and perhaps he also knew how to put that chord into the context of a song (that IS theory). Learning how to use a particular chord in a musical context IS a lesson in music theory.

 

I disagree -- someone who understands that a chord is made up of 3 notes (1, 3, 5) and what one has to do to those notes (or others) to make a chord minor, aug, 7th, etc. is someone that is relatively well schooled in the basic building blocks of theory. If Paul/George knew that, they would not have had to be shown how to finger a B7. They could have built a B7 in their living room.

 

And you don't need a lick of theory to know that the song you are playing really could use the pizzazz of a 7th chord right about now.

[caliber66]

The debate is "do musicians make better music if they know music theory"?

 

I would argue that there are virtually no musicians who have ZERO music theory skills (including Neil Young), so it's an impossible question to answer.

Exactly. Jeff applies music theory already to the music he makes. So what's there to debate here?

[MattZ]

I would argue that there are virtually no musicians who have ZERO music theory skills (including Neil Young), so it's an impossible question to answer.

 

Yes. All musicians have music theory skills. Whether they realize it or not.

[jff]

I disagree -- someone who understands that a chord is made up of 3 notes (1, 3, 5) and what one has to do to those notes (or others) to make a chord minor, aug, 7th, etc. is someone that is relatively well schooled in the basic building blocks of theory. If Paul/George knew that, they would not have had to be shown how to finger a B7. They could have built a B7 in their living room.

 

What are you disagreeing with exactly?

 

EDIT: Nevermnind, I think I figure out what you were disagreeing with. What I meant was if you only know the shape of a B7 chord, but you don't know why that shape makes a B7, you don't know the theory behind it.

[cryptique]

Yes. All musicians have music theory skills. Whether they realize it or not.

I think the debate here comes from an implication in the initial post that formal training is somehow better.

 

I rebut by saying that those artists were naturally gifted, and had they learned more theory than [sic] they're [sic] songs could have been taken to a new level. It's about knowing the rules, and then consiously [sic] breaking them, not unreasond [sic] dismissal of them, which in turn creates new ideas.

 

[...]

 

Overall though I think it woudln't [sic] hurt for tweedy [sic] to abide by some of the simple compositional rules

(Emphasis mine)

[jff]

I think the debate here comes from an implication in the initial post that formal training is somehow better.

(Emphasis mine)

 

I don't know if that was implied or not. Formal training meaning "conservatory" or university training? I don't want anyone who feels that way around when I'm listening to music.

 

There are lots of INformal ways to get training in music theory. Some of my friends took basic music theory class in high school. Others learned a lot of theory from guitar or piano lessons. You can learn quite bit from being in the school band. You can self-instruct with any number of books or internet programs. You can do none of those things and wind up learning from your friends who are in the school band or have taken instrument lessons, etc.

[Sir Stewart]

I remember an absolutely wonderful story from the Beatles Anthology where George (or was it Paul?) says they took a bus across town when they were kids because rumor had it there was a kid over there who knew how to play a B7 chord. Someone who understands theory and the building blocks of chords doesn't need to do that. But someone without formal training who knows what he wants to express and doesn't know how to do it, will find a way. Even without theory. If he/she is skilled enough and driven enough (no pun intended) to do it.

I just watched that this weekend! It was Paul telling the story.

[caliber66]

I could be mistaken, but I believe that story is also in I, Me, Mine, which I read recently.

[cryptique]

Formal training meaning "conservatory" or university training?

Not necessarily. "Formal" as opposed to "informal," or rather, setting out to learn theory intentionally in some kind of instructional setting versus soaking it up on your own.

[jff]

Not necessarily. "Formal" as opposed to "informal," or rather, setting out to learn theory intentionally in some kind of instructional setting versus soaking it up on your own.

 

OK, in that case I would say the vast majority of musicians in the non-classical realm only have informal knowledge of music theory, even in cases, like Nels, where the knowledge is pretty extensive.

[MattZ]

What are you disagreeing with exactly?

 

EDIT: Nevermnind, I think I figure out what you were disagreeing with. What I meant was if you only know the shape of a B7 chord, but you don't know why that shape makes a B7, you don't know the theory behind it.

 

Haha, yeah sorry. We agree, I think.

 

I think the debate here comes from an implication in the initial post that formal training is somehow better.

(Emphasis mine)

 

Yeah, I know. The debate is all over the place, though. I suppose the point I tried to make (inartfully) is that musicians know theory and use theory whether they know it or not. Theory is going to tell you which is the right 7th chord to use. But so will your ear. My point with the Beatles example is that Paul's/George's ears told them they needed a B7 chord for whatever song they were playing (not theory -- or at least, not theory that they were conscious of). Even though they didnt know how to build the chord -- they searched it out and found it. So you don't necessarily need theory.

[cryptique]

Haha, yeah sorry. We agree, I think.

[quosh]

That's not theory, that's motor skills. Totally different discipline.

this is in regard to the early quotes about nels cline and it is music shooling, after all. holistically speaking, it does fit in with the notion of theories and practise in terms of performance, but i do take your point.plus, isnt theory only codifying information. what was that information before it was formalised as theory? you might not know the dots on the page but you know how it sounds.

[cash]

The same can be said for Jeff Tweedy and Wilco, and if so, what's the debate?

 

some people think that music theory is not necessary, and will hinder your composition abilities...

 

EDIT:

i regret the use of the word formal in my initial post.

 

I do believe that artists in general should try to learn as much about the music as possible, whether that be from a text book, or a web site (http://www.musictheory.net/), or just from playing.

 

The greats, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Woody Guthrie, don't need any more music theory because they know the ins and outs of the music they play. For a lot of artists elementary knowledge in music theory wood take their music to a new level, not the same shit over and over and over again.

 

The post was intended to discuss examples of complicated writing in Tweedy's music, and from there we could gauge just about where he is knowledgeable. There is no doubt in my mind that tweedy knows a lot about the theory he needs, but nobody has ever mastered there job to a point where there is nothing more to learn.

 

Lets just say we got a bit sidetracked...