Singer prejudice

[Possessed]

I learned theory. Forgot it. Now I just play.

[Gallowglass]

...McCartney, Hendrix, Page, etc. come to mind...

It's a little known fact that Page took lessons from John McLaughlin in the mid-sixties. That counts as formal training to me (what I wouldn't give for that kind of opportunity).

[VENTGtr]

GG,

True, he ddid. He may have even learned a bit from Bert Jansch, if memory serves
correctly. I'm jes thinking more of knowing how to read music, etc. rather than lessons,
so, as Paul's survey will break down, all aspects would have to be considered by varying
degree.

Interestin'.

[metalchurch]

Iommi took lessons from Satan, it's in the liner notes on the Volume 4 album.
shhhhhh..........

[VENTGtr]

Iommi took lessons from Satan,

And all Satan got out of the deal were a coupl'a lousy fingertips.

[metalchurch]

Hey now!

Nevermind, that was funny dude!
Sounds like an awesome idea for a T-shirt.
First laugh of the day, thanks!

[bassist4life2004]

I like to just work things out on my own and not knowing keys that songs are in lets me think outside the box a little bit more, in my opinion.

I disagree with that statement. Whatever bias there is in the music community against singers, there is also a bias among musicians who are unfamiliar with music theory against those that are. I have heard many times that everyone that knows scales or how to read music is automatically a robot and unable to properly improvise or similar statements. I think its a pretty dumb thing to think. Yes its possible to play by ear, without knowing any theory, and knowing theory doesn't make a person a better musician, but it does give you an increased bag of tricks, and a head start on those that don't. I suspect that the bias mostly stems from jealousy (warranted or not)

Don't get me wrong, I would love to learn and know the theory behind what I do, and it may or may not help me, but I think that going by ear and doing everything on my own has worked out so far. I like the sound of our originals, and I think that I produced pretty well in all of them. I wrote the lyrics and melodies based on my own instinct, and while i always think there's room for improvement, I don't believe that I would have done them any differently with or without theory backing my writing. Would knowing theory make me robotic? I doubt it. Improvising on a song comes from the heart, and no matter how much theory you know, you can always dig down deeper. I just think that I'm better off without theory because I like how I do things now, not because i think it would make me robotic. Chances are it wouldn't change me.

The only form of formal training i would like to have is technique, I wouldn't turn down vocal training if it were how to hit higher notes or make my voice last longer. I'll take any advice from anyone on those topics, because I love learning things like that. Theory though, i could take it or leave it and I don't believe it would effect my singing.

I would, however, like to learn music theory for my guitar playing.

[nightcrawler_steve]

Just sing bitches ~ CHRIST!

[Banned]

The great thing about learning theory is that it helps you communicate your ideas in a standardized way. If you've already been playing for a while, you'd find that you're learning names for things you already know. "Oh, that exotic sounding riff is Lydian."

It's like being in a foreign country with a full bladder. You know what a bathroom is and you know how to use it. But if you don't know how to say "bathroom" in the local language, it may take you longer to find one.

[Gallowglass]

On the "Theory vs. No Theory" (it will make me a robot) question:

Let me preface this by saying that I think that any particular way one can cause frequency oscillations to repeat at something approaching an algorithm is a legitimate way to conceptualize and create (what we view as) the construct of music. Much of the Western tradition of music theory ultimately goes back to Pythagoras of Samos (damn Ionians) and has been contributed to by a huge number of people inbetween then and now (way too many to list). Many of these contributors have integrated new ideas into what had been at the time otherwise conventional theory.

But let's just draw this analogy. We will compare music and painting. Let all your natural abilities and intuitions about music equal some colors on the palette. When left to all your own devices, you may be able to paint w/ say, red and blue. Good colors to be sure, and you can do some amazing things w/ them but ultimately a bit limited. Now let's say you learn some theory. There are now some new colors on your palette. You have yellow, purple, and orange added. You also might have some new ideas about combining what you previously knew on your own w/ what you have learned through theory (blue + yellow=green). Unless you're a mindless idiot to begin w/ (in which case it's hopeless anyway), you have not become a robot slave, you still have red & blue (what you started out with) to work with, but now the range of your your palette has expanded to include new colors, that's all. If you're a creative person all you have ultimately done is enhance the spectrum w/ which you can conceptualize. Perhaps you are even creative enough to create something new that is so good it has to be integrated into the tradition.

I certainly enjoy musicians who think "outside the box" so to speak. I just think that in order to do so it certainly helps to know what the box is (not that learning theory is automatically "boxing"). It's also invaluable to be able to "speak the language". If I tell a musician I am working with that the line he/she should play is the same as mine, only harmonized in diatonic thirds, it's a hell of a lot easier than having to show them each note by itself.

The best thing I have ever heard regarding theory usage was quoted from Carlos Santana. To paraphrase the idea, it should be like the way we use grammar when speaking. When speaking, I am not thinking in terms of "subject, "predicate", or "accusative case", but I know what those things are and am cabable of communicating in more meaningful ways because of my ability to use them. When playing, I may not directly be thinking in terms of strict "theory", but because I have absorbed the theory to the point that I can use it meaningfully I am capable of creating more meaningful passages and phrases to better express the musical idea I am (hopefully) expressing.

[bassist_25]

Well stated, Jason!

[BDR]

Yeah, what he said ...

r:>)

[VENTGtr]

...cause frequency oscillations to repeat at something approaching an algorithm is a legitimate way to conceptualize and create

When speaking, I am not thinking in terms of "subject, "predicate", or "accusative case",

Oh, come on. It's not even noon yet! Let the coffee have a chance.

[Possessed]

I am not thinking in terms of "subject, "predicate", or "accusative case", but I know what those things are and am cabable of communicating in more meaningful ways because of my ability to use them. When playing, I may not directly be thinking in terms of strict "theory", but because I have absorbed the theory to the point that I can use it meaningfully I am capable of creating more meaningful passages and phrases to better express the musical idea I am (hopefully) expressing.

That's exactly what I meant when I said I learned therory and forgot it.
Now I just play.

[Gallowglass]

That's exactly what I meant when I said I learned therory and forgot it.
Now I just play.

I definitely know what you mean (and agree), but then have you really "forgotten it"? I would bet that if I stopped you in the middle of a song or phrase and asked you "what key (or mode...or whatever...etc.) are you thinking in?" I bet you could answer me. The distinction being that while you may not be thinking directly in theoretical terms, you can still apply the knowledge.