# Feel it or learn it



## wnpgguy

When improvising among friends or just by yourself do you rely on keys/rootnotes/theory, or do you just play by ear?

I am a little surprised as the lack of theory used in jamming and just straight up playing by ear. Often when I ask of there knowledge of any theory whatsoever they just shug it off and say they play by ear.


----------



## zontar

I'm not sure how to answer this.
I would say on one hand that I play more by feel, but that feel is informed by theory. I don't consciously think of theory while I play, but because I know theory I do use it. It's like a lot of things. 

Do you think about how to walk when you do it? Some people have to, but most of us don't--we just do. But a number of years ago I suffered a hip injury, and walked with a cane, then a limp/hobble for about a month. Then when my hip had healed I had to think about how to walk as I used to. I had to consciously remember how I moved my legs. Once I did that for awhile I was back to just walking without thinking about how.

Well, playing guitar is like that. You have to think about some things when you learn them, but as you get to know those things you can just play. But you're still using the things you learned. Since I don't see an option for that in your poll, I don't know what to pick.


----------



## satch09

Definitely a mix of both, I recognize the key for sure, which relies on theory, but after that my fingers just move, I don't think about whether the next note is going to be consonant or dissonant, or what note to end on to give resolution or build tension, that just happens on its own (at least I hope). But at first I can sometimes hear the key, or I just ask what key it's in, after that I go by feel. I DO however try to rely on theory when improvising on my own. I have this jam cd which is just instrumentals, and has no lead guitar, so when I jam to that cd I can afford to think it out, because if I screw up nobody hears it, so I try new ideas, like modes, and relative major/minors, substitution chords, and triads and all the other tools.


----------



## PaulS

To jam you need some basic theory such as knowing the notes, scales and a few modes, this combined with a good ear makes a good jammer. I know my basics plus a little more of theory but when I jam I rely on my ear to hear what is going on and find my groove.


----------



## shoretyus

PaulS said:


> I rely on my ear to hear what is going on and find my groove.


Or the Tounge :food-smiley-004:


----------



## Milkman

Someone with a natural sense of music and good ears can improvise effectively without any theory whatsoever.

The opposite is NOT true at all in my opinion.

Of course, as with most elements of music, a little (or a lot) of both will most often yield the best results.


I studied at Mohawk College and learned a lot, but at the end of the day it's my ears that save my a$$ in most situations.


----------



## caaustin02

I'm a little skeptical toward the no theory needed camp. The correct scales are practiced off the corresponding chord until they become 2nd nature. At this point little thought is required to play patterns. Without an avenue to apply your theory, it is useless.

Players like Van Halen and Buddy Guy admit to knowing very little theory at all; Guy says he can't read or write music. But at some point in their development they learnt things either by someone showing them, or by listening. Either way, learning is learning. When they obsessively practiced they began to memorize certain patterns on the fretboard, to the point where they pretty know their way around the guitar - (understatement for sure).

The point is that whether they knew it or not, their practice was rooted in theory. Playing these scales is like saying the alphabet over and over - that won't make you an eloquent speaker. Tying together words and phrases allow us to carry a conversation without pre-planning the whole dialogue. Same on the guitar, the feeling comes from how you take notes and put them into licks and phrases. That said, it is theory that affords you the knowledge how to move these phrases around the fretboard to play in the correct key.

I think you need to learn a minimum amount of theory to play what you want; blues - very little, Bach - a little more; practice the hell out of your influences, and let your good taste dictate what goes from your head to your fingers.


----------



## Milkman

caaustin02 said:


> I'm a little skeptical toward the no theory needed camp. The correct scales are practiced off the corresponding chord until they become 2nd nature. At this point little thought is required to play patterns. Without an avenue to apply your theory, it is useless.
> 
> Players like Van Halen and Buddy Guy admit to knowing very little theory at all; Guy says he can't read or write music. But at some point in their development they learnt things either by someone showing them, or by listening. Either way, learning is learning. When they obsessively practiced they began to memorize certain patterns on the fretboard, to the point where they pretty know their way around the guitar - (understatement for sure).
> 
> The point is that whether they knew it or not, their practice was rooted in theory. Playing these scales is like saying the alphabet over and over - that won't make you an eloquent speaker. Tying together words and phrases allow us to carry a conversation without pre-planning the whole dialogue. Same on the guitar, the feeling comes from how you take notes and put them into licks and phrases. That said, it is theory that affords you the knowledge how to move these phrases around the fretboard to play in the correct key.
> 
> I think you need to learn a minimum amount of theory to play what you want; blues - very little, Bach - a little more; practice the hell out of your influences, and let your good taste dictate what goes from your head to your fingers.



Well, I have to tell you that I was able to improvise over pretty much any changes well before I ever cracked a book. In fact, that's how I learned to improvise. I would turn the radio on and play to whatever came on. I'm not talking about reading charts and anticipating the changes. I'm talking about "hear the pattern once and instinctively know which notes will fit".


Again, just my opinions but I think a talented and / or skilled musician can improvise with no theoretical training.

I don't mean to imply that formal training is without merit. In my case, it enabled me to better communicate with other musicians in a common language. It also gave me tools to facilitate composition and arrangement.

BUT, all the training in the world will NOT make a non musical person a musician.


----------



## dwagar

I have to agree with caaustin02.

You gotta have some idea what you are playing, and why. Even if all you ever do is sit in the blues scale, and that's where your knowledge of theory stops, you still have to be grounded somewhere.


----------



## Milkman

dwagar said:


> I have to agree with caaustin02.
> 
> You gotta have some idea what you are playing, and why. Even if all you ever do is sit in the blues scale, and that's where your knowledge of theory stops, you still have to be grounded somewhere.


How do you explain the millions of players who can improvise and who have had zero training? Yes we all learn from each other but.... for MANY players it comes instinctively. Again, long before I cracked a book or took a lesson, I was improvising to whatever came on the radio, often while laying in bed with my eyes closed. And I would hasten to add, that I'm no monster. I know lots of people who can do the same and who have no training whatsoever.

Yes, Theory IS an asset, but I don't think it's indispensible.


----------



## caaustin02

Milkman said:


> Well, I have to tell you that I was able to improvise over pretty much any changes well before I ever cracked a book. In fact, that's how I learned to improvise. I would turn the radio on and play to whatever came on. I'm not talking about reading charts and anticipating the changes. I'm talking about "hear the pattern once and instinctively know which notes will fit".


OK, I'll bite:
If you could improvise and play along to the radio the moment you first picked up the guitar, that is very special indeed. However, if that isn't the case, then the things you did, saw, or heard all contribute to bring you to that level. Most songs on the radio are the I, IV, V chord progression, and that has to be learned either by seeing/hearing someone else or by trial and error. You then practiced that to get to the point to play along with the radio because all songs aren't in the same key. So...that little bit of theory was learned, practiced, and applied for your skill to be elevated. If you could feel that, then you would be able to play along to simple songs the moment you picked up the instrument. You don't need know how musical theory is devised or the history of it, even what things are called, but you do have to be able to apply it when you play, and the above is just one simple example.


----------



## Milkman

caaustin02 said:


> OK, I'll bite:
> If you could improvise and play along to the radio the moment you first picked up the guitar, that is very special indeed. However, if that isn't the case, then the things you did, saw, or heard all contribute to bring you to that level. Most songs on the radio are the I, IV, V chord progression, and that has to be learned either by seeing/hearing someone else or by trial and error. You then practiced that to get to the point to play along with the radio because all songs aren't in the same key. So...that little bit of theory was learned, practiced, and applied for your skill to be elevated. If you could feel that, then you would be able to play along to simple songs the moment you picked up the instrument. You don't need know how musical theory is devised or the history of it, even what things are called, but you do have to be able to apply it when you play, and the above is just one simple example.



Whoa nellie. I didn't say OR imply that I was born knowing how to play guitar, however the inate ability to know whether a note fit over a chord or not was obvious to me and to many others. As much as we would like to think otherwise, even NON musicians can do this.

As for learning guitar prior to improvising, who said anything about that? I thought we were talking about theory.


----------



## caaustin02

Milkman said:


> How do you explain the millions of players who can improvise and who have had zero training? Yes we all learn from each other but.... for MANY players it comes instinctively. Again, long before I cracked a book or took a lesson, I was improvising to whatever came on the radio, often while laying in bed with my eyes closed. And I would hasten to add, that I'm no monster. I know lots of people who can do the same and who have no training whatsoever.
> 
> Yes, Theory IS an asset, but I don't think it's indispensible.


Zero training involves never having picked up the instrument because as soon as one starts messing around, the player is building their acumen. Unless you are discovering a new scale, you are dabling and aquiring knowledge in some established theory in music. The important point to take from my two previous posts are that the player doesn't need to be aware that he/she is aquiring knowledge in music theory - it happens whether you like it or not, unless you remember nothing about what you did prior to each time you pick up the guitar.
Milkman, at what point in your career did you start to jam along to the radio - right away? Also, were you just randomly hitting notes all over the fretboard, or were you recognizing certain patterns?
Millions of guitar players knowing how to improvise? My fiance is into music, and can hear a sour note a mile away, but she can't play guitar to save her life. Knowing that some notes are out of place is more of a general thing that everyone can do, some better than others - that quality doesn't make a great improviser on guitar, but it sure helps.

I think it is more correct to say that "Yes, formal instruction in music theory is an asset, but I don't think it's indispensible"


----------



## Milkman

caaustin02 said:


> Zero training involves never having picked up the instrument because as soon as one starts messing around, the player is building their acumen. Unless you are discovering a new scale, you are dabling and aquiring knowledge in some established theory in music. The important point to take from my two previous posts are that the player doesn't need to be aware that he/she is aquiring knowledge in music theory - it happens whether you like it or not, unless you remember nothing about what you did prior to each time you pick up the guitar.
> Milkman, at what point in your career did you start to jam along to the radio - right away? Also, were you just randomly hitting notes all over the fretboard, or were you recognizing certain patterns?
> 
> I think it is more correct to say that "Yes, formal instruction in music theory is an asset, but I don't think it's indispensible"



At what point in my "career"? LOL. Long before it was a career. What I'm saying is that music is a natural, intuitive, instinctive medium. People all over the world can tell sour notes from good ones and that is the fundamental element of improvisation is it not?


Look, I'm trained so it's not like I have some aversion to theory.

I think it's a great asset, but if you don't have natural ear for music, all the theory in the world will not make you an effective improvisor.

Just my opinion of course.


----------



## droptop88

I'm one of the " know a little theory, but play mostly by ear" guys. It's become clear to me in the last year or so that I'm going to need to get off my lazy butt and dig into this, if I want to make my playing more interesting. By that I mean I'm tired of the same old blues scales and riffs. Don't get me wrong - there is no substitute for smoothness, groove and feel. But the notes! I'm bored with my note choices lately. I need to break out of this rut. 

Peter


----------



## caaustin02

Milkman said:


> At what point in my "career"? LOL. Long before it was a career.


Diversionary so disregarded...



Milkman said:


> What I'm saying is that music is a natural, intuitive, instinctive medium.


Can you develop intuitiveness and intuition through practice. If it is strictly intuitive, can you develop your improv skills? Is it a waste of my time to steal the licks of the blues giants to increase my musical vocab and phrasing because I can't improve at this point?
Theory is developed though practice.



Milkman said:


> People all over the world can tell sour notes from good ones and that is the fundamental element of improvisation is it not?


Great question, that is a huge part. In your opinion, what is the link between the good notes in your head to hitting the correct notes on your fretboard.




Milkman said:


> Look, I'm trained so it's not like I have some aversion to theory.


We are all trained through practice, some of us are trained formally.



Milkman said:


> I think it's a great asset, but if you don't have natural ear for music, all the theory in the world will not make you an effective improvisor.


I agree.


----------



## Milkman

caaustin02 said:


> Diversionary so disregarded...
> 
> 
> Can you develop intuitiveness and intuition through practice. If it is strictly intuitive, can you develop your improv skills? Is it a waste of my time to steal the licks of the blues giants to increase my musical vocab and phrasing because I can't improve at this point?
> Theory is developed though practice.
> 
> 
> Great question, that is a huge part. In your opinion, what is the link between the good notes in your head to hitting the correct notes on your fretboard.
> 
> 
> 
> We are all trained through practice, some of us are trained formally.
> 
> 
> I agree.


Diversionary? Please. It means exactly what it says and is not diversionary at all. I was able to do it before I ever conceived of making music a career. It's a straight answer to your question.

Theory is NOT developed through practise. It is what it is. You learn it and apply it to practical applications.

What is the link between good notes in your head and correct notes on the fretboard? Well I suppose that depends on how far you want to take it, but to put it in simple terms, as long as you can figure out (and it takes no theory to do so) that the smallest division of pitch on the neck is one fret (theory would tell you it's called a semi tone), your ears will tell you the rest.


Go back and read the original post. Don't confuse experience on the instrument with actual theoretical knowledge. I personally make a distinction between the two.


----------



## caaustin02

I knew I shouldn't have indulged.
I think there is enough information on the thread for us all to form our own informed opinion.

Good debate started from a poll though!


----------



## Milkman

caaustin02 said:


> I knew I shouldn't have indulged.
> I think there is enough information on the thread for us all to form our own informed opinion.
> 
> Good debate started from a poll though!


I was thinking the same thing.

I however, am generally happy to indulge.


----------



## Milkman

Paul said:


> That's probably the most important statement in this thread.
> 
> Most jamming seems to be blues based. I've subbed in on jobs where I'd never heard most of the material ever before. Tell me its a 12 bar in Bb, rhumba feel, and the bridge starts on the IV, and I'll follow along just nicely. Call out "rhythm changes in Eb", and most of the self taught guys without a lick of formal theory education will come up with a blank stare.
> 
> The next basic catalogue for jamming is the Classic Rock "standards". Many of those songs are simply derivatives of blues. Steely Dan's "Peg" is essentially a blues format.
> 
> The difference is when you start to move into jamming tunes that are much more harmonically sophisticated than a 12 bar blues. (Not that the blues has to be simple.....Charlie Parker could re-harmonize a blues and make it something that was both hip and down home gut-bucket blues).
> 
> If you want to jam on the basic SRV catalogue, formal theory isn't necessary. Hell, all 12 notes aren't even necessary for that. But if you want to start blowing on "You'd Be So Nice to Come Home To", then I will state that I beleive you have a waaay better chance at hitting the better notes if you have the background and training that allow you to understand what you are hearing, and what appropriate musical responses are available to you.
> 
> We all learn to talk by listening and talking. Everything we say in conversation is, essentially, improvised. But we've all come a long way past one word answers and simple direct responses. Even though we can all carry on a conversation in English, most of us don't have the improvisation skills needed for shows like "Whose Line is it Anyway?". At the same time, how many PhD's in English Literature can improvise skit comedy the way Ryan Stiles or Colin Mochrie can?
> 
> For those musicians who have a skill at improvised musical conversation, a solid understanding of music theory, (music grammar, if you will), will only make them better improvisors. At the same time, there are many gifted musicians who both cannot, and do not, need to improvise. When we go to Stratford to see _Twelfth Night_, we have no expecation that the actors will go "off book" and improvise. We also don't think any less of them as actors because they cannot do that.
> 
> I believe that any musicians ability to jam and improvise effectively will improve with a solid theoretical base.


I agree with all of this. I would like to point out however that even with the most complex changes, someone with a keen ear will be able to improvise over it after hearing the "song" once or twice.

That's really the point I'm trying to make.


----------



## washburned

I don't want to muddy the waters here ( pardon the pun), but way back when I studied music as a child I spent the first years on technique (piano by the way) which consisted of playing, reading, transcribing (writing) and ear training....much later on, when I could read and play quite well, I began to study theory, the history of music, development of various scales, modes etc, the relationships and structure of notes and the effect of changing their positions, inverting chords etc. As I grew older I moved from piano to percussion, and finally guitar. As to the original question, when playing with other folk, I rely on my ear: as soon as I hear something, my ear and hands play with it, there is no analysis "oh, he's playing a Cminor progression so I better do this"; nope, I just hear it and play it. I use my ear and technique, not theory. 
As a matter of fact, most of my theory training and piano technique are long gone, but I still love to play music, and value improvisational ability highly. Nothing takes the fun out of a jam like somebody stopping to ask what the pattern is and where it's going: it's going where it's going and if you can't improvise you ain't gonna get there.


----------



## Wheeman

Paul said:


> We all learn to talk by listening and talking. Everything we say in conversation is, essentially, improvised. But we've all come a long way past one word answers and simple direct responses. *Even though we can all carry on a conversation in English, most of us don't have the improvisation skills needed for shows like "Whose Line is it Anyway?". At the same time, how many PhD's in English Literature can improvise skit comedy the way Ryan Stiles or Colin Mochrie can?*
> 
> For those musicians who have a skill at improvised musical conversation, a solid understanding of music theory, (music grammar, if you will), will only make them better improvisors. At the same time, there are many gifted musicians who both cannot, and do not, need to improvise. When we go to Stratford to see _Twelfth Night_, we have no expecation that the actors will go "off book" and improvise. We also don't think any less of them as actors because they cannot do that.
> 
> I believe that any musicians ability to jam and improvise effectively will improve with a solid theoretical base.


I don't have much to add, but nice analogy using _Whose Line Is It Anyway?_. One of my favourite shows. Too bad its only on at 11:00 PM EST on one of the Atlantic CTV's (I've got satellite). 

Tangent:
Actors do improvise more than they let on because of the nature of live theater. The really, really, really, really, good ones can make it seamless in the show. Its part of the appeal of seeing a live show. No matter how many times you see it, it will be slightly different every time. Much like a live show or jamming.


----------



## Hamm Guitars

I learned to play as Milkman stated, along with the radio and records. I'm not saying that I was fabulous and that I always played on key or anything like that, I would just improvise (wank if you will) over what I heard and every now and then I could pick up on a melody line. I never bothered the learn the songs the way they were actually meant to be played, and every time I play along it is different.

I took lessons and then waisted six or seven years at the conservatory, but I always gravitate back to wanking over any backing track that is available.

When I (used to) jam, I would just make up a rythm part (a riff or group of riffs if you will) and just play aimlessly without any structure at all. The guys I played with would just sort of jump in and we would play off of each other. That's was I consider jamming to this day. Learning songs or playing songs you allready know is cool too, but I like to be creative and collaborate rather than do any actual work.

Some days it works, some days it doesn't - every now and then I suprise myself and it makes playing more fun.


----------



## wnpgguy

Paul said:


> We all learn to talk by listening and talking. Everything we say in conversation is, essentially, improvised. But we've all come a long way past one word answers and simple direct responses.



True, words and thoughts like music are strung up one after the other like notes to form something comprehesible.

Yet improvised language still comes from some sort of previous experience with words(notes). Whether you call that previous experience theory or not is really just a matter of definition. Theory is knowledge and knowledge creates language(music). People who play by ear contain this knowledge at some form or another, I guess its just a matter of realisation.


----------



## zontar

I still say it's a false dichotomy to pit the two against each other.

How did theory get started?
Many people act as if theory was crated back in the mists of time, in a dusty old room somewhere by sadistic old men who wanted to make life rough on music students.

Theory arose over centuries, as people looked at how people play music and why. It really took off as people travelled more and there arose a need for standardization so groups could play together, and music could be shared among other people. this as especially important before it was possible to record sound.

True music theory develops over time as new styles and techniques and combinations of them arise. In a very real sense I believe the ability to read tab, and all the symbols that have arisen for bends, vibrato, etc. are a form of theory. It's probably not the sort of theory you'd learn in a dusty old conservatory, but it is theory.

To me theory merely expresses how & what you play. That's theory--so if you "just do it"--well that's great! But you use some sort of theory to just do it--whether you are conscious of it or not. And for those reasons I feel it's a false dichotomy. I realize I'm coming at this from a different angle than some others in this discussion, and I'm defining some of the terms differently as well. But to me theory is simply expressing how, what, and even why we play what we do. It doesn't have to be formal or conscious. It just has to be.


----------



## Wheeman

Paul said:


> True, but no matter how much latitude the really, really, really, really good ones take, Juliet _always_ stabs herself in the end, (in the abdomen, actually):smile:. In "traditional" theatre, there is no expectation of any actor "taking a few choruses". Eric Idle apparently re-wrote the lyrics for one of the songs from "Spamalot" for every performance so that they'd be timely and newsworthy. That's more the exception than the rule. The long departed TeeVee show "Train 48" was a cool experiment in giving the actors the latitude to tell the story. Again, far from the rule.
> 
> Theatre Sports, and shows like The Second City are an entirely different fettle of kitsch. Anyone who has tried it knows how difficult it really is. Whirling around in the pentatonic vortex over a Bb blues is childs play compared to what Colin Mochrie can do. And as theatre evolves, (and it is), the fourth wall is broken down a bit more, and the audience is actually part of the experience.
> 
> Christopher Guest has a difficult time casting his movies. Lots of actors want to be part of films like "Best in Show", or "Waiting for Guffman". The reality is that very few actors a capable of delivering.


Again, tangent:

The drama teacher at the local high school has been in the business for a long time. Whenever the subject of something goes wrong, he tells one of his favourite stories. During a performance of a film noir/detective style story, the leading lady is supposed to get murdered and left in the middle of the stage. Welp, the one time her costume was torn completely off of her during the murder scene. The detective, when examining the body, took off his jacket and laid it on top of her to cover her up. Pretty classy I must say. 

Then again, he would probably get pretty miffed if one of his actors went off on his own unscripted tangent.

If there were more Colin Mochrie's and Ryan Stiles', there could be some really cool live theatre.


----------



## zontar

Paul said:


> Theatre Sports, and shows like The Second City are an entirely different fettle of kitsch. Anyone who has tried it knows how difficult it really is. Whirling around in the pentatonic vortex over a Bb blues is childs play compared to what Colin Mochrie can do. And as theatre evolves, (and it is), the fourth wall is broken down a bit more, and the audience is actually part of the experience.
> 
> Christopher Guest has a difficult time casting his movies. Lots of actors want to be part of films like "Best in Show", or "Waiting for Guffman". The reality is that very few actors a capable of delivering.


As someone whose done Theatre Sports, let me vouch for what Paul wrote. I enjoyed it, and did have some success in it, but I have nowhere near the talent of Mochrie or Stiles. And even though it is improvised--there are rules behind it--and the successful improvisor lives those so well it comes naturally--and they know when to break them and when not to. When you start to do Theatre Sports/improv it can take over your life, and everything is improv. In some ways that helps you think on your feet--in other ways, it's scary as it affects how you think about everything. I'm sure the more experienced improvisors do learn how to strike a balance--but I could be wrong about that.


----------



## Milkman

Paul said:


> Sadly, more people _think_ they have a keen ear than actually possess one..


Yup, I suppose so, just like more people think they're good drivers than actually are. Still, somehow I 've managed.





Paul said:


> For something we call a "point" it sure takes up a lot of space sometimes, doesn't it???.


Only when folks don't get it the first couple of times.


----------



## shoretyus

Those are the first steps out of the pentatonic vortex.


Interesting statement. I have made several attempts at theory but find it that it is something that just won't stick. Music made a lot more sense when I started keyboards. It was right in front of me. Still the theory part alludes me. Maybe because it's no fun. I suck at math too. 

Or is it the " rock guys play three chords to 1000 people and jazz guys play 1000 chords to three people" thing? Much easier to make listeners ( and fellow jammers) happy with stuff they recognize. The music and styles that I listen too are not understood in most of my music circles. Hard to play off beat stuff when the drummer *CAN"T*. So it's back to the same ol' groove.


----------



## Starbuck

shoretyus said:


> Interesting statement. I have made several attempts at theory but find it that it is something that just won't stick. Music made a lot more sense when I started keyboards. It was right in front of me. Still the theory part alludes me. Maybe because it's no fun. I suck at math too.
> :


Oh God! I'm so with you! I have a keyboard that I use to learn scales I find it much easier to Learn my scales that way then take them to the guitar, but I still have a hard time with it. I find I can learn most any song I put my mind to, but theory stumps me. I keep at it though and hopefully one day the light will come on!


----------



## Milkman

Starbuck said:


> Oh God! I'm so with you! I have a keyboard that I use to learn scales I find it much easier to Learn my scales that way then take them to the guitar, but I still have a hard time with it. I find I can learn most any song I put my mind to, but theory stumps me. I keep at it though and hopefully one day the light will come on!


It's not surprising that theory makes more sense on a keyboard. It's all laid out for you. White keys are the notes and black keys are sharps and flats.

All other instruments must "translate".

That's also one reason many notation books for guitar are inaccurate at best (most were transcribed by piano players).


----------



## Milkman

Paul said:


> It's very much that. Our music education system in the schools sux. Badly. By the time the average kid gets out of grade 8 their music education is not much more than the level of "See Dick, see Dick run." I think that's wrong. For the next 4 or 5 years in highschool pretty much every social, (or anti-social) decision will be made based on the music people listen to. Kids choose their friends based on music. With media players in everyones ear, listening to music is an hours per day activity. I think we do a great disservice to our kids and all Arts in general by not giving them the tools to critically listen and understand something that clearly dominates many waking hours of their lives.
> 
> Let me be clear....I'm not a jazz snob. Albert King could do more with his amp on standby than just about any "Rock or Jazz Guitar God" you could name. Sometimes simplicity is a beautiful thing. Dr. Seuss' "The Cat in the Hat only uses 223 different words. "Green Eggs and Ham" uses only 50 words, all but one of which are monosyllabic. It's possible to do great things with a pentatonic scale. (Amazing Grace, anyone????) And while I still read those two books once a year, I've moved on to more involved reading. So has my taste in music.
> 
> Unfortunately, the best time to learn new languages, (and I believe that music is a language), is when we are very young. The ability to learn new languages diminishes with age.
> 
> There are a lot of guitar players out there playing daily, making some $$ on the weekend, who are, for all intents and purposes, functionally illiterate in the language of music. This doesn't make them bad players, but it does make them less complete musicians.
> 
> There are thousands of intensely trained, techinically gifted, phenominal classical musicians out there who couldn't improvise a solo over a single chord Dorian vamp if the life of their Stradivarius depended on it. This doesn't make them bad musicians either....only different.
> 
> But I guarantee the classical musician will have a much greater understanding and appreciation for what the "illiterate" player can do than the other way around.


And yet, at the end of the day, the most highly trained musicians are often not the best musicians. Of course that's a matter of opinion once again.


Although I agree that music should be a higher priority in our education system, I suspect more education would not necessarily increase the popularity of jazz or classical.

Some things are from the gut and complexity doesn't translate into that nebulous, intangible quality that grabs people.

I listen to a lot of classical and some jazz. I like what I like because it grabs me at an emotional level, not necessarily because it's intelligent.


----------



## Milkman

Paul said:


> I think it would increase the popularity somewhat, (not to the levels they once enjoyed, tastes do evolve), but I think we'd get a lot more groups like Steely Dan, Dixie Dregs & Supertramp, and a lot fewer groups like Right Said Fred.
> 
> Radio would be a lot more interesting too, I imagine.


I think you're being a bit optimistic.


I'm....to sexy for my board, too sexy but it's all... that... I... can ..afford....


----------



## shoretyus

Paul said:


> Let me be clear....I'm not a jazz snob. .


Not what I was thinking at all Paul. 

Some of my favourite artists like Groove Holmes and Jimmy Smith for example are capable is slipping in any old mood ( or scale if you will) at a whim. 

Agreed with about the educated musicians. I have also seen lots of people with GR 9 that can't jam one lick. 

My high school music was a joke. An 80 yr old teacher. Played violin. Mastered the trumpet in 5 years and played in the Queens ( yeah her not it) military band. When it came to teaching theory for exams he handed us a sheet of paper a couple of days before and said learn it. This was the seventies. Nothing stuck. When I started to relearn the trombone it was all gone, bass clef everything. Memory bank failure. 

I may just have a short attention span ( ADHD ha ha or too much 70's) When I started to take piano seriously I stated that I was going to do this by reading. Twelve bars through Frankie and Johnny my mind went .. Oh so this is how it works..... haven't gone back to the books. Well that's no true. After Piano I got into Hammond. I start everyonce and while to kick bass pedals with some theory. But I get off on a tangent....the power of the tube amp and Leslie swirling is just too much fun. :smile:


----------



## Hamm Guitars

This is a great debate that has been going on for as long as I can remember, and it allways boils down to the same basic truth:

*You can't learn or teach talent.*

If you have talent, you might be able to build upon it by going to school and it will make you a better musician as far as playing with other schooled musicians goes - which is very important if you are looking for a career in music that involves anything other than being a rock star (sidemen excluded).

If you don't have musical talent, you can be taught how to play and you will be able to copy other player's styles, but you will basically end up being a human juke box playing country clubs and old folks homes.

If you have talent, and want a career in pop music, you don't need theory or school unless it interests you. You also do not need musical talent to have a sucessful career in the pop music business, you need charisma more than anything else. That also cannot be taught or learned. Same goes for soul.

Charisma, Soul and Talent - in that order is what makes people rich and famous in the music business.

I personally don't have any great measure of any of these traits.


----------



## zontar

Paul said:


> Tablature is a form of notation....the alphabet if you will. Lots of kids can read and sing the "Alphabet Song" long before they can read and write their own name. Other forms of notation....shorthand....the typing system used by courtroom stenographers....the cyrillic alphabet.
> 
> Theory is the set of rules that governs the structure of the musical language, the rules of spelling, grammar, syntax, pronunciation, etc. The better we know and understand the "rules", the better we can apply them to create new musical works.
> 
> _caveat:_ What we typically think of as "Music Theory" only really applies to western tonal music.
> 
> I am by no means a music theory guru. I have little documented formal training. (Five years of high school music and then a couple of single credit courses in jazz harmony at Laurier, and a whole lotta reading.) But this is an example of what my limited knowledge of theory can do:
> 
> I wanted to arrange the song "Spooky" for 5 horns, 4 rhythm and vox. I know the chord changes to the tune well enough, and also the melody line. I sat down with Sibelius, with the sound off and no guitar or piano at hand. I created a 6 minute arrangement, with a 32 bar horn section solo, on paper, in my head. I know enough about Music Theory to be able to put down on paper what will make sense out loud. After getting everything done, (and it took about twice as long as if I had used sound while arranging), I hit play and listened to my work. I had about a half dozen wonky notes in there, some were mis-types, others where really bad choices by me. We now play that arrangement in my 12 piece horn band.
> 
> You can't do that with tablature, and you really can't do that with tablature if your ability to use tablature is limited to putting your finger on the designated string/fret, and using the recording for guidance on how long to stay there.
> 
> Back to the original poll question.....I don't believe you need theory to jam a 12 bar blues...you need 5 notes. Players with keen ears will have copped some hip licks from hip players and will be able to apply them appropriately. Those are the first steps out of the pentatonic vortex. The really hip players know and understand why things work and why things don't, and manage to instantly create more harmonically and melodically complex music with far fewer clams.
> 
> YMMV.


So we're kind of agreeing on some of this--and kind of not.

Let me put it this way--theory--in general--not speaking music theory--is about ideas. It can involve putting those ideas to the test or into action. Music theory fits that as well. So even if you learn those 5 notes on your own by listening to 12 bar blues, you know those notes--and that's theory--it's the idea behind what your playing.

Playing music is just that--playing music. But theory is the bosy of ideas behind it.

And that's why I like the idea of theory developing. Music develops--and as you pointed out--there are different ideas about music around the world-Not all music fits formal western music theory.

So to wrap it up again--I don't think about the theory when I paly--I just play--but it is informed in some sense by what I know.


----------



## Guest

Paul said:


> ...Our music education system in the schools sux. Badly. By the time the average kid gets out of grade 8 their music education is not much more than the level of "See Dick, see Dick run." .... I think we do a great disservice to our kids and all Arts in general by not giving them the tools to critically listen and understand something that clearly dominates many waking hours of their lives.


I remember singing classes from grade five on.
Do-Ray-Me...so on. Square/Folk Dancing for gym.
It helped me choose the musical path I've taken.


----------



## caaustin02

zontar said:


> So we're kind of agreeing on some of this--and kind of not.
> 
> Let me put it this way--theory--in general--not speaking music theory--is about ideas. It can involve putting those ideas to the test or into action. Music theory fits that as well. So even if you learn those 5 notes on your own by listening to 12 bar blues, you know those notes--and that's theory--it's the idea behind what your playing.
> 
> Playing music is just that--playing music. But theory is the bosy of ideas behind it.
> 
> And that's why I like the idea of theory developing. Music develops--and as you pointed out--there are different ideas about music around the world-Not all music fits formal western music theory.
> 
> So to wrap it up again--I don't think about the theory when I paly--I just play--but it is informed in some sense by what I know.


I agree Zontar,

This is what I wanted to say in my earlier posts, but just couldn't find the right words.

To have knowledge in theory, you don't have to sit in a classroom you can gain the knowledge through practice - just by picking stuff up along the way.

Is it possible to separate playing the guitar from theory, as playing is the application of established theory?

I've worked with a lot of guys with a lot of experience that don't have an engineering degree, but still know a load about stress analysis and heat transfer, for example. They gained this knowledge by working in the field.

Maybe this supports the argument that it takes 10 000 hrs to become an expert, and that time spent overrides any kind of theory that is taught, but does not override talent and a natural ear, but that is another thread.

It takes more than one ingredient to make a cake.


----------



## Milkman

caaustin02 said:


> I agree Zontar,
> 
> This is what I wanted to say in my earlier posts, but just couldn't find the right words.
> 
> To have knowledge in theory, you don't have to sit in a classroom you can gain the knowledge through practice - just by picking stuff up along the way.
> 
> Is it possible to separate playing the guitar from theory, as playing is the application of established theory?
> 
> I've worked with a lot of guys with a lot of experience that don't have an engineering degree, but still know a load about stress analysis and heat transfer, for example. They gained this knowledge by working in the field.
> 
> Maybe this supports the argument that it takes 10 000 hrs to become an expert, and that time spent overrides any kind of theory that is taught, but does not override talent and a natural ear, but that is another thread.
> 
> It takes more than one ingredient to make a cake.



Practical knowledge and theory are two different things in my opinion. Both are very valuable.


----------



## caaustin02

Paul said:


> The problem with just picking stuff up along the way is that you don't know what you don't know. That is a very big limiter.


Paul:
I think that is true for sure,
I was thinking of the situation where a player has been listening to blues standards and has been able to pick out a lot of licks by ear. I thought for sake of improv argument that the player can apply the things that were picked out and practiced. Even if certain notes often heard were picked out, and the player made up their own licks and phrases in the jam situation.

To address what you said; I think as you go to more complex genres the harder it is to do this type of thing and players need some other avenue to gain this knowledge - and that usually means formal instruction.


----------



## wnpgguy

Hamm Guitars said:


> This is a great debate that has been going on for as long as I can remember, and it allways boils down to the same basic truth:
> 
> *You can't learn or teach talent.*


????WHAT.. you cant learn or teach talent? NOBODY is born with guitar talent, PERIOD. *Some people are FASTER learners*, but to say talent cannot be learned? Sorry no. Writers, musicians, whatever all talented in some form. They LEARNED how to do those skills. YES some are more talented than other but thats just environmental differences in there upbringing to become talented (time, intelligence, dedication etc.).

You can cleary learn "A" talent. I learned how to play and instrument.. a talent. I "learned how to play and was "taught" How clearly can that be stated. 


Talent is not in your blood or given from birth. A talent is a learned skill. Period.


----------



## Hamm Guitars

You might be able to learn a skill, but you are born with talent.

Bobby Orr and Rocket Richard had (have) talent. It has nothing to do with learning - I could start training my kid at age two, and if they don't have the natural talent for the game they will never come close to thoses guys no matter how long they practice or how much coaching they get.

Everyone has a limit to how good they are at certain things, talented people's limits are way beyond that of the average person that might have an aptitude for whatever it is they are doing. I think everyone has a talent or two, but it's not something that they ordered up in a school.

You can't learn to be something you are not. You might be able to learn music and make a living playing it without talent, but people with talent will make it look easy with alot less effort.

Tim Horton's is a good example - they are good at selling coffee, but not very good at actually making coffee. There is a talented businessman behind that company, not a guy that can make great coffee.




wnpgguy said:


> ????WHAT.. you cant learn or teach talent? NOBODY is born with guitar talent, PERIOD. *Some people are FASTER learners*, but to say talent cannot be learned? Sorry no. Writers, musicians, whatever all talented in some form. They LEARNED how to do those skills. YES some are more talented than other but thats just environmental differences in there upbringing to become talented (time, intelligence, dedication etc.).
> 
> You can cleary learn "A" talent. I learned how to play and instrument.. a talent. I "learned how to play and was "taught" How clearly can that be stated.
> 
> 
> Talent is not in your blood or given from birth. A talent is a learned skill. Period.


----------



## zontar

Hamm Guitars said:


> Tim Horton's is a good example - they are good at selling coffee, but not very good at actually making coffee. There is a talented businessman behind that company, not a guy that can make great coffee.


Well, several of my co-workers would strongly disagree with you on that one.
As for me, I don't like the taste of coffee--so it doesn't matter to me.

As for your talent/skill illustration--I agree.
I have a friend who has tons of talent on guitar--he still had to learn some of the skills--but he is a natural. Then his Mom bought a piano--and he picked that up as well. From a pure technique perspective he can be atrocious--his hands look deformed when he plays--but he can play some cool stuff on it.

I also had some students that were born with musical talent--anything they tried, they could do--including various instruments.


----------



## shoretyus

Hamm Guitars said:


> Y
> Tim Horton's is a good example - they are good at selling coffee, but not very good at actually making coffee. There is a talented businessman behind that company, not a guy that can make great coffee.


Ok ... it's 1 15 am ... I am drunk ..... but how in the F does Tim hortons have to do with a discussion about talent? 

There's natural talent and theory which in the end is about developing fine motor skills .... just where does the marketing of crappy coffee come in to play ?

Marketing theory?


----------



## Milkman

wnpgguy said:


> ????WHAT.. you cant learn or teach talent? NOBODY is born with guitar talent, PERIOD. *Some people are FASTER learners*, but to say talent cannot be learned? Sorry no. Writers, musicians, whatever all talented in some form. They LEARNED how to do those skills. YES some are more talented than other but thats just environmental differences in there upbringing to become talented (time, intelligence, dedication etc.).
> 
> You can cleary learn "A" talent. I learned how to play and instrument.. a talent. I "learned how to play and was "taught" How clearly can that be stated.
> 
> 
> Talent is not in your blood or given from birth. A talent is a learned skill. Period.



Wow, adding the "Period" there really makes anyone else's opinions irellevent I suppose, but mine is that talent is not necesarily something you can learn.

Some people have a natural predisposition to music. Yes this talent CAN be developed, in fact without some effort it's pretty much useless, but all things being equal in terms of practice and education, some will become brilliant and some will become average.

I don't pretend to know where this "talent" comes from. It could be genetics. It could be god. I do know that I've seem ample evidence to show that it exists.


----------



## wnpgguy

Sorry I just cant comprehend that talents are not learned. Some people may seem like they just pick it up faster...true, people are faster learners but its like you all speak of "talent" as some godly ora that only strikes some people. 

I am talking about talent that existes in an infanaite world. If I lived to be a million or more my "talent" could surpase anyones if I practiced hard enough. *THe only limiting factor is my body(finger length/shape). *

Example.. I can never become the best boxer in the world. Is it because I will never have enough "talent", no. If I trained for a million years I would be invinsable basically, *EXEPT my body would just not ever be big enough and people would beat me. Lack of talent?* I have the talent to do it the best(in an infanite world), I just was not given the "tools" (my body) to do it well enough, which is not a difference in talent.

The things a boxer is born with that limit his talent is just his/her body. And there are many limiting factors to many skills that make people more talented than others. Those limiting factors that make godly talent out of reach is physical.

What it boils down to in my example of a boxer is the talent he is born with is just the physical traits he "naturally" aquired and trained to become better.

If I was born with those factors in my favour I too could learn this talent, in an infinate amount of time.


----------



## Hamm Guitars

wnpgguy said:


> Sorry I just cant comprehend that talents are not learned. Some people may seem like they just pick it up faster...true, people are faster learners but its like you all speak of "talent" as some godly ora that only strikes some people.
> 
> I am talking about talent that existes in an infanaite world. If I lived to be a million or more my "talent" could surpase anyones if I practiced hard enough. *THe only limiting factor is my body(finger length/shape). *


Yes, you could say that talent is a godly aura that strikes certain people. I think everyone gets some, but not everyone gets a talent that is musical or performance oriented.

You don't need to have great technical ability to have talent, so it has nothing to do about how difficult or challenging things are to play. Look at Bob Dylan and Neil Young, simple stuff with loads of talent.

I've done more than my fair share of conservatory gigs (as a soundman) over the past twenty years - trust me eight years at the conservatory does not make you a talented performer. It certainly won't hurt you if you were though - if you would need it or not is debateable.

I spent more than a few years at the conservatory myself and I have no musical talent. I can play guitar, but I have little more than a knack at doing it. Having no talent doesn't mean you shouldn't play an instrument, because you can surely still enjoy doing so without it. 

The funny thing that I find with talent is that it seams to have a proximity effect. Take three technically good players and add a fourth person with talent and the other three will be somehow elevated. Take the talented person out of the group and the other three guys go back to being three technically good players. I'm not sure if that is just perception, or if the three guys were actually proped up by the fourth member.


----------



## greco

"Talent is a natural predisposition consisting of a unique set of abilities that creates potential for the development of skills" (according to my wife) 

What do you think of this definition?

Cool thread :food-smiley-004:

Dave


----------



## greco

greco said:


> "Talent is a natural predisposition consisting of a unique set of abilities that creates potential for the development of skills" (according to my wife)
> 
> What do you think of this definition?
> 
> Cool thread :food-smiley-004:
> 
> Dave


This attempt at a definition wasn't intended to kill this thread...c'mon ladies and gents.........Mrs. Greco keeps asking me what others are saying.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## Hamstrung

greco said:


> This attempt at a definition wasn't intended to kill this thread...c'mon ladies and gents.........Mrs. Greco keeps asking me what others are saying.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Dave


 
Way to go thread killer!!! :smilie_flagge17:
Actually I like that definition. 
As for the thread its my experience that my "natural" abilities take off where my preparation meets them. If I'm not practiced and comfortable in a certain area I hold back or sound like crap if I don't. When I'm comfortable with a song or scale or position I go to a new level with it but it's all relative and hopefully moves along a continuum. 

The desire to get better is different with everyone depending on how much they are personally invested in an endeavour. Then you get into motivation.

Someone mentioned limitations being only in the physical but I think guys like Django Reinhart and Tony Iommi show that even that can be overcome owing to the points mentioned above.


----------



## caaustin02

Isn't is great that we're complex organisms that are able to learn complex things. If all you had to do was put in time for excelling at certain tasks, life would be pretty boring. There would be no reason to go a concert or sporting event because we could all do everything ourselves. 

Having the predisposition to excel at a particular skill set is too difficult to predict when genetics, environment, and personality are involved.

A friend of mine played in the minor leagues for the Baltimore Orioles organization. He is a great athlete, but he knew he had a slim chance of making it to the majors. Everybody on the team was totally jealous and pissed at the best 2 - 3 players on the team because they worked the least and got the best results and were sure to make the big club.

Training and practice would make these guys even better, but everybody has a baseline of natural ability, and these guys were head and shoulders above the rest of the team with less training.

Any sport that I have played, the best players always made it look easier. They have a certain smoothness and efficiency to their movements. Some really good athletes don't give a $h!t, and some people say what a waste - I disagree, just because someone is good at something doesn't mean they enjoy doing it, so why would they waste their time on it?

I don't know if the sports analogy can be extrapolated to playing guitar, but the truely great players do amazing things, and make it look effortless. However, as a counterpoint to the above, you often hear of greats confessing that their typical day in highschool consisted of at least 10 hours of guitar. Who knows, who cares, just play to your own enjoyment!


----------



## dwagar

on the topic of theory as opposed to formal training, you might be surprised how much theory you actually absorb just playin' guitar in a rock n roll band.

when all that stuff you've learned by ear, by watching others or having someone show you this lick and that chord, all starts to come together, there's a word for that.


----------



## zontar

Paul said:


> I don't believe anybody will say "My life would have been so much easier if all that fancy book-learnin' hadn't got in the way." Literacy matters in our ability to go about our daily lives and interact with each other at the highest level possible.
> 
> I believe that the same holds true for music.
> 
> Musical literacy matters.


I have to agree on that one. You sometimes hear someone say if they learned to be "musically literate" they'd lose something in their playing. I say that's a cop out--it doesn't hinder, it helps.

Of course some people can get by without it better than others. Some absorb it better than others.


----------



## wnpgguy

caaustin02 said:


> Training and practice would make these guys even better, but everybody has a baseline of natural ability, and these guys were head and shoulders above the rest of the team with less training.



I am curious to see if there is a gene in the human body thats affiliated with "natural ability". Like savant behaviour creating insane musicians. 

I know there is a certain genetic desease that also comes with great musical talent... Forget which one though.. All the people with the genetic defect are all just natually and effortlessly musically talented. 

Imagine if you could find "the music gene", splice it into your dna and be able to play anything on command lol. But I'm just ranting along :tongue:


----------



## gtech

I'm a newbie on this forum, but here is my 2 cents.

The way it works for me is I have to learn a song, a solo or anything first to really know the feeling of the song, and then I try to improvise around what I learned.

That way, you always know what to play when you don't feel inspired, and you can do more when you feel about it. You need a kind of home for anything you do. The more you know, the more you can improvise.

As for being a natural, I now believe that it just means that some people can learn some things faster because they have that in their blood. Some people can play with numbers while some others can talk to crowds. And some can play guitar...

But these "naturals" still have to learn and practice to be able to play. It's just that they learn faster.

Gilles


----------



## Starbuck

gtech said:


> But these "naturals" still have to learn and practice to be able to play. It's just that they learn faster.
> 
> Gilles


That's really well said. I had a friend (who also plays we started at the same time) and when we were in the same place playing if people said I was good or could sing ect.. She'd say (in a rather scathing tone) Well she comes from a musical family! Used to make my blood boil! I had to learn and practice, practice, practice just like everyone else and I don't think it was any easier just because my Dad is a musician. I never picked up the guitar till I was 35. Play what you like.. Hopefully you'll like what you play and when I get in a slump I switch to theory.. When I go back to playing "music" It's almost like it's easier..


----------



## Big_Daddy

Just found this thread...great stuff! I've been laboriously learning the Santana tune, Samba Pa Ti, one of my all-time favourite guitar instrumentals. It's one of those tunes where you really need to learn what Carlos is playing and how he plays it and pretty much stick to what he does on the song. When I was gigging regularly, I'd always learn the "hook" to a song and then improvise my way through the rest of it, kinda lazy, I know. I can't (or won't) do that with this tune and _it is taking forever_. I'm almost there but, boy, what a lot of work.

So, how does everyone else here learn a new song? Are you like me, who can't read a note of music, struggles with tabs and has to rely on my ear? Or are you one of these wunderkids who can stand in front of a chart and just breeze through it? Or is there another way?


----------



## lbrown1

Big_Daddy said:


> Just found this thread...great stuff! I've been laboriously learning the Santana tune, Samba Pa Ti, one of my all-time favourite guitar instrumentals. It's one of those tunes where you really need to learn what Carlos is playing and how he plays it and pretty much stick to what he does on the song. When I was gigging regularly, I'd always learn the "hook" to a song and then improvise my way through the rest of it, kinda lazy, I know. I can't (or won't) do that with this tune and _it is taking forever_. I'm almost there but, boy, what a lot of work.
> 
> So, how does everyone else here learn a new song? Are you like me, who can't read a note of music, struggles with tabs and has to rely on my ear? Or are you one of these wunderkids who can stand in front of a chart and just breeze through it? Or is there another way?



I can't read a single note of sheet music - looks like gibberish to my eyes.....I used to (when I was starting out) learn songs note by note with tab....painful as frikkin hell....but as my theory knowledge progressed, I started to recognize the note patterns which led me to the miraculous discovery that songs are made of chords.....I haven't used tab since....just look up the chords and take it from there....I mean - I won't be playing in a tribute band any time soon so........

I learned a few basic rules - where the root notes for chords and scales are.....major, minor and pentatonic scales in all positions.....a pile of common movable and open chords....the concept of relative major/minor relationships......add in a couple of years of some good solid ear and rhythm training by osmosis and voila.....I can play rhythm and lead for the blues and rock all day and have a great pile of fun with it - which was my original intent....just don't ask me to play jazz


----------



## hollowbody

I'm mostly ear or tabs, with a little bit of theory smattered here and there.

I've recently realized what a huge limitation it is to not have any formal theory training, so I've been brushing up on my theory via books, and I've also finally got myself a guitar teacher. I wish I had done this earlier.

I'm still struggling, though, as you can see in my other thread where I'm trying to transcribe the solo to Brown Sugar from Sax to guitar in Open G. It ain't going great, but I'm learning a lot from the mistakes I'm making.


----------



## Starbuck

lbrown1 said:


> I can't read a single note of sheet music - looks like gibberish to my eyes.....I used to (when I was starting out) learn songs note by note with tab....painful as frikkin hell....but as my theory knowledge progressed, I started to recognize the note patterns which led me to the miraculous discovery that songs are made of chords.....I haven't used tab since....just look up the chords and take it from there....I mean - I won't be playing in a tribute band any time soon so........
> 
> I learned a few basic rules - where the root notes for chords and scales are.....major, minor and pentatonic scales in all positions.....a pile of common movable and open chords....the concept of relative major/minor relationships......add in a couple of years of some good solid ear and rhythm training by osmosis and voila.....I can play rhythm and lead for the blues and rock all day and have a great pile of fun with it - which was my original intent....just don't ask me to play jazz


Woo hoo! There's hope for me yet!! I would love lessons, but I.Just.Don't.Have.Time. By that I mean not only the time for the actualy lesson, but what would need to go into it to make it stick. So I noodle and learn as much as i can when I can.


----------



## lbrown1

Starbuck said:


> Woo hoo! There's hope for me yet!! I would love lessons, but I.Just.Don't.Have.Time. By that I mean not only the time for the actualy lesson, but what would need to go into it to make it stick. So I noodle and learn as much as i can when I can.


Starbuck, I think you noted you started at 35 - I did as well.....so I'm just about 5 years in......most of my learning these days is sponging off better players in jams and gigs....I'm focussed more on technique and phrasing these days than I am on learning that next funky scale or crazy tuning.....any new funky chords come into learning as they appear in songs we pick out to jam with or play live.....the other guitarist in the band I play in is one of those freakishly gifted players - so Im picking up everything I can from what he's throwing down....but a lot like you, there's a lot of noodling in the practice time.


I was thinking of getting some lessons to learn to play with a slide....that'd be cool


----------



## zontar

lbrown1 said:


> I was thinking of getting some lessons to learn to play with a slide....that'd be cool


I've considered that as well--I've been working on it on my own--but inconsistently.

If I had lessons that would make me do it more often and more consistently--still I am getting better at it, and I picked up some tips at a recent guitar clinic.

I think one offs may be a better option for me at this point in terms of time, but a regular thing would be good for consistency.

We'll see.
Although I keep thinking of this-
Brent takes lessons

(And as for the poll question--it presents a false dichotomy--so I can't vote.)


----------



## Vincent

Theory or no theory probably depends on the person...some people cant get into it (like myself) however theory can be a usefull tool as a jumping off point when writing or playing.

I think there are way more right notes to play than wrong ones when it comes to scales and improvising so instead of learning what notes to play i just avoid the ones that sound bad...seems easier for me that way however like i said everyone is different and i wish i knew or had more knowledge of theory however I could never get into it.

I think Steve Vai or someone like that said you should learn as much theory as possible and then try and forget it...not sure what he mean by that however i guess theory can broden your horizons however it also take away from creativity as well if your worried about what notes to play all the time.

Eddie Van halen said he hits wrong notes all the time in solos however if it sounds good who cares right?

I agree with that.


----------



## foghorn99

I think that without feel, and I could be wrong...but the players interest won't be there to keep them going to learn.

It's hard to teach someone rhythm and when/how to bend a note, IMHO.


----------



## felenoral

Learning theory built my foundation of improvising and feelin' it. It helped me get a better idea of improvising melodies and superimposing different structures over harmonies (comping, polymetrics, etc). All which happen to be very useful when jamming. So yeah, theory helps my ear immensely. I would say it's mostly theory.


----------



## warse22

I think this is kind of misleading...

I have a fairly extensive theory background...that doesn't mean I don't "feel it". All it means is that I'm aware of how the notes I'm playing are interacting with the chords underneath. 

I think a lot of the posters have made good points about the need to at least understand the basics of what you're doing, whether you intend to learn them or not.


----------



## parkhead

wnpgguy said:


> True, words and thoughts like music are strung up one after the other like notes to form something comprehesible.
> 
> Yet improvised language still comes from some sort of previous experience with words(notes). Whether you call that previous experience theory or not is really just a matter of definition. Theory is knowledge and knowledge creates language(music). People who play by ear contain this knowledge at some form or another, I guess its just a matter of realisation.




Bing we have a winner !!


This is how it works 

Reading the dictionary does not make you a good storyteller. 

Personally I find "thinking" about theory while playing a complete disaster...

When playing, music should flow like conversation in ones native language.

Just like improving ones literary/conversational skills is developed and 

improved by reading and understanding a wider range of subjects, the 

study of music and music theory internalizes the stuff you want to produce 

naturally while playing. 

I know a highly respected Jazz Keyboard player in the Toronto area, one 

night we were jamming and I asked, that was nice what did you play over 

that? his real answer "Man I just play some Sh1t, if it works its OK" 

A year later I got to meet Robben Ford at a seminar ...

one of the audience asks "what do you choose to play over XYZ" 

Robben leans into the mic and says 

"Man, I just play some Sh!t and hope it works" 

Now unless both of these Monsters attended the same school or read the 

same book of Scatalogical Jazz theory... There seems to be a trend 

happening. 

The point is these guys might have studied their theory and technique to death, 

but when the music is playing they are not using those things on a conscious level.

This is the same way we do not think about words when speaking, we have internalized the choices to the point where they pop out. 

If you've ever tried to learn a new language you find yourself refering to rules and theory as you struggle, trying to think of words. 

This does not mean you should skip theory. Any of us can tell a well educated person from their conversation, they have exposed themselves to a wider range of word choices and 

use them naturally. 

Eddie Van Halen won prizes as a youth playing classical Piano in competitions, don't let the awe shucks "I just do it" attitude fool you... at the same time I'm sure he's not "thinking" 

since it flows so naturally.... and playing Guitar allows him to tune out his inner piano teacher 

Check out Malcolm Gladwells excellent book "Blink" 

And the music book 

"effortless mastery" by Kenny Werner

p


----------



## seanmj

I took private guitar lessons for a long period of time. I later studied music at a colllege in the states. 

What people miss about theory is.... your mind learns much faster than your ears/hands. That is to say... what you can assimilate mentally in 20 minutes can take months/years to hear/use in a musical way.

That's why people give up so soon after going through any sort of real theory training... they never got to a point where it was relevent in a playing situation.

Theory for the most part is a way to accelerate your ear training. You learn something mentally... then through repetition... you try to get it in your ears.

What I have noticed is that people without any formal training... while they often can improve their craft in the beginning... eventually they plateau... and real progress happens much more slowly.

If you've studied a few different concepts... there's always new things to try... and progress is accelerated.

It's slow and tedious at the beginning... but give it some time and you'll get better at it.

Sean Meredith-Jones
http://www.seanmeredithjones.com


----------



## bw66

*Sorry I replied to a stale post and couldn't figure out how to delete it.*

Sorry I replied to a stale post and couldn't figure out how to delete it. Rookie!


----------



## Nohtanhoj

seanmj said:


> I took private guitar lessons for a long period of time. I later studied music at a colllege in the states.
> 
> What people miss about theory is.... your mind learns much faster than your ears/hands. That is to say... what you can assimilate mentally in 20 minutes can take months/years to hear/use in a musical way.
> 
> That's why people give up so soon after going through any sort of real theory training... they never got to a point where it was relevent in a playing situation.
> 
> Theory for the most part is a way to accelerate your ear training. You learn something mentally... then through repetition... you try to get it in your ears.
> 
> What I have noticed is that people without any formal training... while they often can improve their craft in the beginning... eventually they plateau... and real progress happens much more slowly.
> 
> If you've studied a few different concepts... there's always new things to try... and progress is accelerated.
> 
> It's slow and tedious at the beginning... but give it some time and you'll get better at it.
> 
> Sean Meredith-Jones
> http://www.seanmeredithjones.com


This I can relate to. In order to try to improve my improvisation I've taken up learning the modes and the full scale patterns rather than sticking to the pentatonic stuff I began with. Though I completely understand the modes and how to build them, I find it extremely difficult to switch 'on the go' from playing in D major to playing in F# Phrygian or A Mixolydian. 

I guess I've gotta keep working at it - 5 years playing guitar is not enough. =D What makes me really happy is that I have a good 60 years of playing left before I start getting too geriatric.


----------

