The low threshold to entry for guitar

[ViperDoc]

Training in music theory never hurts. Most of the world's greatest guitarists have/had no idea WTF it even is.

 

[Alnus Rubra]

I knew quite a bit of music theory before I started playing guitar.
I don’t think I would be nearly as versatile without the theoretical background. It helps me make better choices when I have an idea that is worth developing.
I am also certain that I wouldn’t have gotten the opportunity to play many of the shows I did, which it turns out made me a much better player.

Same here, I was a trumpet player originally and read purely from the score. Recorder at primary school before that.

I learn a lot of guitar parts by ear or from you tube, just because someone else has taken the time to digitally annotate them to save me time.

 

[Tedder]

Do you want jazz? Because that's how you get jazz!

 

[JasonE]

Fretboard theory and music theory is what really opened the doors for me. That is what gave me the ability to set in with a band and play songs that I don't really know without completely embarrassing myself. There is no better confidence booster than that, IMHO.

 

[FragileThunder]

I have to chuckle, in the context of the thread, that the OP would read as gibberish to someone with no understanding of music theory

I have a love/hate relationship with theory. Though I've been a musician in various forms for 40 years, I've had very little formal training in theory. I understand the basics (including the initial post ) but the degree to which it impacts my playing on a conscious level is pretty low. I went through a period of about 2 years some 20 years ago where I was really trying to apply theory to my bass playing and it completely f*cked me up. I was thinking instead of playing. I am at my best when I am completely free and let the music play me. I've had to train myself to not think while playing and just let my fingers do the walking and talking.

That said, I have a good understanding of what works from a theoretical standpoint because I've done so much listening. I can HEAR the theory in effect, even if I can describe in words what happening. I can't adequately explain, for example, various modes, but I can play in Mixolydian or Dorian just fine because I know intimately what that sounds like.

You can't possibly go wrong with a deeper understanding of theory. But that makes you a scholar, not a player. The music should come from the soul and not be limited by the brain.

$0.02

 

[WingerRules]

I have a hard time discussing this without it coming off potentially sounding wrong. I wanted a few days after reading the OP, debating whether or not to get in this discussion again. I think that whether or not it benefits anyone to know theory is 100% dependent on how good their ear is. I'll say the same things I've said in these threads before... I know friends who know all kinds of theory, and are "average" players. I have friends who know every inversion of every chord ever written but can't solo. And they know theory. But theory doesn't help them create solos. I have legitimate questions for those who say that it is "needed" but ONLY because I'm trying to tie that comment to that how it applies to what he does. And honestly, not having heard MOST of you play, I have no bases for knowing what you are actually using, or not using, theory for. I actually did start leaning some theory years ago and found it didn't help me at all and didn't change anything I played.

I'm not bragging to say that I know lots of people who play things that "sound right to them" and don't sound good, so I know that saying "I can play what I want to and what sounds right" probably doesn't carry any weight with you "educated" guys. But check my screen name... I'm into Hendrix and Trower, and other blues guys, and I'm into some pretty straight forward rock and hard rock. But I've also been playing prog music since the late 70s. So I'm not playing the simplest 3 chords and the truth stuff all the time. And even when I do, it's usually with some kind of hot shot guitar player. I ask this in ernest. If I can do this now, of what benefit would it be for me to learn theory? It's not going to make me play solos from Van Halen or Rush or Ozzie better, but I don't know how it would help me on my improvised solos any better either. So the big question is, how would it help me better in any other situation. And I'm not sure it would do that either... If playing existing or even helping write new songs, I have a sense of what is right and wrong, what is pleasing and not, what might be catchy or appealing or not... But it's all feel and ear. I fear I'd be like someone above said and be crippled by thinking about what is "right" versus just playing what is cool. And I'm not bragging or saying I'm some great guitar player or songwriter, but I've thought about this for years, and I just don't see the benefit for me.

I'd be more than happy to help. That goes for anyone too.

Even though I have a bachelor's degree in music with guitar as my principle instrument and did well in theory/aural training, it wasn't until I was out gigging 3-6 times a week that I was able to really apply those concepts.

I'm always interested in what you have to say on this topic, and this is an example of why. So, how did that knowledge benefit you when you were out gigging? In what scenarios, etc. was it beneficial, and how?

I knew quite a bit of music theory before I started playing guitar.
I don’t think I would be nearly as versatile without the theoretical background. It helps me make better choices when I have an idea that is worth developing.
I am also certain that I wouldn’t have gotten the opportunity to play many of the shows I did, which it turns out made me a much better player.

Another interesting comment. So for you as well, how did you feel it helped you get more shows? What was the advantage that made that happen? And no question on the last part. I know more shows/gigs would help us all be better players. Just curious how you feel the knowledge helped you get those gigs.

Again, obviously different circumstances completely, but to me, every gig, gig offer, band offer, or whatever I've ever had was either because someone heard me play, or heard about me from someone who played with me. It interests me to know how more theory could mean more gigs. I do understand how being a better reader would have gotten me more gigs. I know my mom played multiple times where people basically said "we know you're good but can' you site read this song" and when she said yes, she was in. That is definitely my weakness, as I can't site read music. Let me hear you play through one time and I'll jump in, but not a site reader. And I TOTALLY get how in some circumstances that would cost me a gig. But the theory angle has always interested me when I read how important it is.

Sorry for the long post.

 

[jak3af3r]

I'm always interested in what you have to say on this topic, and this is an example of why. So, how did that knowledge benefit you when you were out gigging? In what scenarios, etc. was it beneficial, and how?

I'll take this as permission to be long-winded.

For those who don't know, I played "professionally" in the sense that I made a living for 3 years just playing guitar. A typical week was maybe a gig or two in town (Nashville) at Wildhorse Saloon one or two days off. Friday we'd load up and drive to the out of town casino gig and play Friday/Saturday and drive home Sunday. Each gig was approximately 4 hours of playing so we're talking about a pretty substantial amount of material that was covered plus maybe an hour or two of songs that we could pull from if we got bored we read the room as bored.

Most of what we played was country, rock, and sometimes blues oriented. These obviously have quite a bit of overlap in structure and what I would consider "idiomatic expressions" that define their genres.

So how do you go from learning what scale to use over E7 depending on the key to cramming 6 hours of music in your head?

Chunking.

Essentially what I do to learn songs is ignore lyrics and make a mental numbers chart as the song goes by. Most of the time, a song will either follow a predictable form or have cues in the melody of chords that indicate a change.

For example, a lot of country music may only have 3 chords. 1 4 and 5. Some country music also has a tendency to drop beats or add measures to fit lyrics in or provide space so the phrasing isn't that nice 12 or 16 bar pattern. BUT most of the time the cue is to play 1 as a dominant right before the 4 (this is the same as 5 dominant to 1 in the key of 4 for theory's sake) and then carry on.

Then if there wasn't a melodic or chordal cue, I might pick a word or two as an orientation point to relate to where we are in the numbers chart.

Finding these patterns and classifying them decreases the amount of individual pieces of information I'd have to remember on a gig and the shortcut was through theory.



Then after I got comfortable and could play everything in my sleep, I'd start messing around with different chords and voicings. So let's take our country song again but instead of playing dominant 1 you can pick related chords. I tended to really like a minor 5 there which is really just a 1-dominant with the extension of 9. However, using it as a minor you now get a nice 2- 5 1 progression and all your jazz licks fit right in. Play that in the middle position of a tele i'm a classic country song and you sound legit.




Understanding classical voice leading and trying that over country songs because the simplicity of the chords was a good challenge too that really helped solidify where everything was in the fretboard.


Let's take 1 4 and 5 again. Key of D. That gives us D G and A. With classical-ish voice leading we want all our V to I (I'll switch to functions here as opposed to numbers) cadences to resolve with the 3rd of V going up to the root of I and the 7th (if there is one) of V going down to the 3rd of I. This will communicate a real sense of finality and resolution when executed well. However, this doesn't map on the guitar with our typical "cowboy" chords. One solution I would go for is to use voicings like everything was in C but up 2 frets. Then when you get to A you can get away with playing the notes G A and C# (on the D G and B strings) to resolve to F# A and D.


This also is a perfect way to craft solos and sound like a steel guitar if you bend the resolution. And then just speed it up to sound like Brent Mason.



Then a lot of times we'd get requests and I would have to really have my ears working to essentially build a decision tree for what's coming up next based on established patterns observed in similar genres codified with theory. Most times, it worked so well people wouldn't know the difference unless there was some signature riff that wasn't there.




TLDR; I took everything I learned in theory to recognize patterns. I also used theory to keep myself from sounding the same to myself with alternate chord voicings and positions. I used that to craft solos that were different that what a guitar player might play.

 

[WingerRules]

I'll take this as permission to be long-winded.

So here's the funny thing, and this is usually what I've found when I read one of these discussions. I was with you until near the end when you started talking more in theory. In general (and always when you list the notes, instead of just saying "the 9" or something) I can follow what you're saying. When I look at something like what you just said, and sit down with a guitar and go through a few of those notes, it's like "yes, that's what I would have played here" or "yes, those notes would have been in what I played" or something like that. That's why I always wonder why someone would say you "Need" to know theory. Again, not being arrogant, but, why do you need to know the theory if you already know what notes sound right in that place?

I also follow you on using theory to play different chord voicings or positions to avoid playing the same thing over and over, etc. Many times when I play I'll play rhythm until my lead part comes and I always find a different place or way to play the chords than the rhythm guitar player is playing.
Even when someone like you explains how it benefits you, I can't relate that to me, and not just because I don't gig 5 nights a week. But like I said, there's also a chance that you guys hear me play and say "OMG dude, you don't know what you're doing. You need to learn some theory so you'll know what notes you should be playing there!" (In a nice way, of course. )

 

[jak3af3r]

In general (and always when you list the notes, instead of just saying "the 9" or something) I can follow what you're saying. When I look at something like what you just said, and sit down with a guitar and go through a few of those notes, it's like "yes, that's what I would have played here" or "yes, those notes would have been in what I played" or something like that. That's why I always wonder why someone would say you "Need" to know theory. Again, not being arrogant, but, why do you need to know the theory if you already know what notes sound right in that place?

I don't think it's absolutely necessary to know it. I know a lot and have admittedly forgotten a lot but forgetting exactly what a Neapolitan chord is doesn't inhibit my ability to play guitar in the context of my previous and current gigs.

Knowing theory allows you to shortcut a lot of experimenting.


I could ask you this... What do or can you play over A7?

 

[veinbuster]

I have a hard time discussing this without it coming off potentially sounding wrong. I wanted a few days after reading the OP, debating whether or not to get in this discussion again. I think that whether or not it benefits anyone to know theory is 100% dependent on how good their ear is. I'll say the same things I've said in these threads before... I know friends who know all kinds of theory, and are "average" players. I have friends who know every inversion of every chord ever written but can't solo. And they know theory. But theory doesn't help them create solos. I have legitimate questions for those who say that it is "needed" but ONLY because I'm trying to tie that comment to that how it applies to what he does. And honestly, not having heard MOST of you play, I have no bases for knowing what you are actually using, or not using, theory for. I actually did start leaning some theory years ago and found it didn't help me at all and didn't change anything I played.

I'm not bragging to say that I know lots of people who play things that "sound right to them" and don't sound good, so I know that saying "I can play what I want to and what sounds right" probably doesn't carry any weight with you "educated" guys. But check my screen name... I'm into Hendrix and Trower, and other blues guys, and I'm into some pretty straight forward rock and hard rock. But I've also been playing prog music since the late 70s. So I'm not playing the simplest 3 chords and the truth stuff all the time. And even when I do, it's usually with some kind of hot shot guitar player. I ask this in ernest. If I can do this now, of what benefit would it be for me to learn theory? It's not going to make me play solos from Van Halen or Rush or Ozzie better, but I don't know how it would help me on my improvised solos any better either. So the big question is, how would it help me better in any other situation. And I'm not sure it would do that either... If playing existing or even helping write new songs, I have a sense of what is right and wrong, what is pleasing and not, what might be catchy or appealing or not... But it's all feel and ear. I fear I'd be like someone above said and be crippled by thinking about what is "right" versus just playing what is cool. And I'm not bragging or saying I'm some great guitar player or songwriter, but I've thought about this for years, and I just don't see the benefit for me.


I'm always interested in what you have to say on this topic, and this is an example of why. So, how did that knowledge benefit you when you were out gigging? In what scenarios, etc. was it beneficial, and how?

Another interesting comment. So for you as well, how did you feel it helped you get more shows? What was the advantage that made that happen? And no question on the last part. I know more shows/gigs would help us all be better players. Just curious how you feel the knowledge helped you get those gigs.

Again, obviously different circumstances completely, but to me, every gig, gig offer, band offer, or whatever I've ever had was either because someone heard me play, or heard about me from someone who played with me. It interests me to know how more theory could mean more gigs. I do understand how being a better reader would have gotten me more gigs. I know my mom played multiple times where people basically said "we know you're good but can' you site read this song" and when she said yes, she was in. That is definitely my weakness, as I can't site read music. Let me hear you play through one time and I'll jump in, but not a site reader. And I TOTALLY get how in some circumstances that would cost me a gig. But the theory angle has always interested me when I read how important it is.

Sorry for the long post.

How it got me more work is simple. I was a quicker study than anyone else in the area, so if a band was in town an needed somebody to fill in, I got called first. Sometimes they had music, sometimes a chart. Most of the time I didn’t get a rehearsal, just a playbook. If you don’t know enough to get transitions, you don’t get the next job. One month I played with five different bands, only one of which I ever rehearsed with.

I did get a 90 minute rehearsal before playing for the Ice Capades, but I felt that was one part audition and two parts learning the band master’s cues for adjusting tempo to fit a skater’s tricks. No chance I would have been invited to that job without a solid background.

 

[WingerRules]

I could ask you this... What do or can you play over A7?

I can’t answer that in your terms because I don’t talk theory. But I just went into the music room and played A7, and yes I had to look it up to remind myself which version that is, and didn’t seem to have a problem immediately finding solo notes

 

[Alnus Rubra]

To answer part of Howie’s share. I worked as a pro in the 90’s, in one year our band (house band) had to accompany about twelve different visiting artists when they performed.

Like Peter we had a quick rehearsal with, sometimes not and had to sight read charts. There was an expectation that you would just play what was written.

Theory was mandatory in this scenario. I was lucky to come from a musical theory background. Our bass player didn’t and he struggled.

 

[Alnus Rubra]

If you haven’t seen this, it makes for interesting viewing -

A cynic would say that it’s a set up, but if not and I hope so, it shows a musician that is at the top of his game, irrespective of his music theory knowledge, or maybe not.

 

[WingerRules]

What do or can you play over A7?

Lets do this. What SHOULD I play? I want to see how close I get.

 

[jak3af3r]

Lets do this. What SHOULD I play? I want to see how close I get.

Well the answer is it depends....

But before we go there, let's do something basic that we could count as knowing theory.

Just knowing the notes that make up A7 Is a start because you'll have to reference the A major scale. At this point, it doesn't matter how you get the notes. Counting whole steps and half steps, using the marker birds, or just hearing it is all fine.

What matters is understanding that your safe notes are all chord tones.

Those are A C# E and G.

But because the chord doesn't specify if B is natural or flat, D is natural or sharp, or if F is natural or sharp, you have options.

And by options, I mean theoretically (yes this is intentional) any combination of those using one of each letter.

So you could do...

A B C# D E F# G which probably sounds most natural depending on your musical tastes. This is mixolydian.

A B C# D# E F# G which is lydian dominant.

A B C# D E F G which I don't know it's name but is the 5th mode of melodic minor.

An exception to the chord tone thing that's quite useful is the altered dominant scale. A Bb B# C# D# F G




But a lot of this is dependent on what A7 Is actually doing (meaning it's function.)

A7 in the Key of D functioning as a V chord probably won't sound as coherent if you used the 5th mode of melodic minor listed above because the parent key has an F# and you're opening the possibility of playing F natural. Mixolydian is a better choice.

A7 in the Key of F really depends on what follows. If it functions as a V/vi, mixolydian is a bad choice for the opposite reason.

 

[RossF]

I can’t answer that in your terms because I don’t talk theory. But I just went into the music room and played A7, and yes I had to look it up to remind myself which version that is, and didn’t seem to have a problem immediately finding silly notes

I saw a video many years ago that was a Master Class with BB King. BB played stuff and a guy named Askold Buk analyzed it and used "theory speak" to describe what BB King was doing for the students. I found part one on YT.

After a while BB seemed to get annoyed and responded to Buk's analysis: "That's sayin' not playin'". It actually happened twice in the video.

You don't have to know "theory speak" to be a great Blues guitarist. That is a fact. And it is made obvious in the video. What was also made obvious was BB knew the theory on the instrument, but he couldn't communicate it effectively or Buk wouldn't have been there.

I read one post in this thread where a guy said that he was a "better musician" because he knew theory, even though he wasn't a better player than the person he was putting down. These types of people I call theory snobs. They make it difficult for people who know theory to try to promote it to people who don't, without "sounding snobby". Even if they aren't trying to be.

On the other hand sometimes people like BB in this example get a little defensive because they feel like they are being talked down to. These two human idiosyncrasies can cause a rift when there really is no reason for it.

Imo there are lots of advantages to knowing theory and zero disadvantages. It takes time to learn, but in the long run it saves time. But you don't have to know it to be a good player.

Theory speak allows communication about music between musicians without being instrument specific (like tablature) or without having to be shown/heard on an instrument.

Just my take.

As for the last post by @jak3af3r. Don't you think you are going a little too deep for someone who doesn't know theory? When you start to talk about A7 being in the key of F, you are talking about a using it as a secondary dominant.

I would suggest that for Rock hacks like myself the chord tones are the most important to know as mentioned and would add that in a simple Major key progression (which a ton of stuff is) the Dominant chord will be the V chord of the parent key. In this case D Major. So using chord tones and Major scale tones might be a good place to start before looking deeper imo.

A tangible/simple example of A7 not being in D Major for hacks like me would be using all Dominant chords in a I IV V Blues progression. In that case it could be any of them.

Not trying to be critical or say anything mentioned was wrong. But I am not sure the suggestions are accessible. DTR's head is probably spinning.

PS The 5th mode of the Harmonic Minor is the Phrygian Dominant. It is the the scale Blackmore uses in Snake Charmer

 

[jak3af3r]

As for the last post by @jak3af3r. Don't you think you are going a little too deep for someone who doesn't know theory? When you start to talk about A7 being in the key of F, you are talking about a using it as a secondary dominant.

I would suggest that for Rock hacks like myself the chord tones are the most important to know as mentioned and would add that in a simple Major key progression (which a ton of stuff is) the Dominant chord will be the V chord of the parent key. In this case D Major. So using chord tones and Major scale tones might be a good place to start before looking deeper imo.

A tangible/simple example of A7 not being in D Major for hacks like me would be using all Dominant chords in a I IV V Blues progression. In that case it could be any of them.

Not trying to be critical or say anything mentioned was wrong. But I am not sure the suggestions are accessible. DTR's head is probably spinning.

PS The 5th mode of the Harmonic Minor is the Phrygian Dominant. It is the the scale Blackmore uses in Snake Charmer

I do sincerely hope none of that came across as intentionally off-putting or that I think less of anyone's abilities simply because they don't know theory.

It could be too deep. But I tried to break everything down to an accessible level that was mentioned earlier so these other options could be explored.

My reasoning for using a secondary dominant is basically to say what works over one chord out of context doesn't mean it will always work.

The first time I remember learning I couldn't just copy/paste licks over chord types was a long time before extensive study in music theory. Some minor chords I could play a solo note a whole step above the chord letter name it sounded cool and others sounded terrible. I couldn't tell you why or which ones but I could hear it as soon as it came out of the instrument only later to learn that trying to put a 9 on iii doesn't fit the key.


Aso phrygian dominant is a jam. One of my favorite things to use in blues right before you hit that IV.

 

[WingerRules]

To answer part of Howie’s share. I worked as a pro in the 90’s, in one year our band (house band) had to accompany about twelve different visiting artists when they performed.

Like Peter we had a quick rehearsal with, sometimes not and had to sight read charts. There was an expectation that you would just play what was written.

Theory was mandatory in this scenario. I was lucky to come from a musical theory background. Our bass player didn’t and he struggled.

See, again, I don’t understand this. At the end of one sentance you say “there was an expectation that you would just play what was written” but then you say “theory was mandatory…”. Playing what is written is just sight reading so how are you tying the need for theory into that? Or am I missing something? Meaning, maybe you have to play the music as written but you do have to take an unwritten solo part and you feel you needed the theory to know what to play on the solos. Is that what you’re saying there? Something like that might be what you mean… and I guess I could understand that if it is.

 

[ViperDoc]

Music theory is a language and a science that is critical when communicating between players in a band, especially when playing jazz. It enables you to fake through a song just by reading the song chart. In that sense, it is incredibly useful. Indespensable, even. Blend a thorough understanding of it with raw talent and you get Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, Chick Corea, some of the greatest refined musicians on the planet. It's super useful. Many have proven that it's not required, but it never hurts.

When I started playing bass in a jazz band years ago (we were called Five Play), learning chord names/scales and reading charts made my participation even possible. Without it, I would have been useless. Being able to play over a C#m7 or a Ab13 chord is easy only when you know what the f6ck that means. It allows you to put the proverbial "felt books and wood blocks" back in the cubby. Knowing is a good feeling.

You want to learn music theory, it can only help. Unless it keeps you from enjoying your playing. Then I say screw it.

 

[dogrocketp]

I’m going to disagree about needing music theory to play jazz. I’m a trained seal who will play just about anything that piques my interest. Yes, I can read and write and have done so in many genres, including classical. If you can’t hear it you can’t play it. In music school, the ones who talked theory the most were always the worst players. The best players were in the practice rooms. I can pretty much pick up a chart and go, but it means absolutely nothing if I can’t hear it in my head. And it means less if the listener doesn’t get something from what I play.