alaskafiddler - Posted - 12/20/2013:  15:42:51

There was a recent topic about "modal tunes" fiddlehangout.com/topic/35477 to which aspects about music theory came up - as often does, some folks sure get uptight about the idea of "music theory". Perhaps due to a misuse of the term "theory"? Perhaps due to negative experience? For some they think of it as merely "academic" - Only pertaining to stuff written in books, or studied by egghead scientist / mathematician like folks, measuring and calculating, abstract ideas - and that is nothing to do with "real" world music.

It is possible to have theory without music but music can survive without theory.

I think of it as this.

MUSIC HAS ORGANIZATION TO IT.

Music theory is just addressing understanding what the organization is; and the different ways of how music is organized, different structures and schemas (differentiating these tunes from those tunes, why each make sense). IMO, it's that organizational understanding that turns a random sequence of pitches into having meaning, making musical sense. (theory in this context is not used as guess or conjecture; rather as theorem, principles and rule sets) Can music exist without organization, structure, principles of sound?

"If you can play the tune, forget about the theory, and if you can't play the tune, the theory won't help"...

I think that might be missing the point; it's about the process of learning how to play that tune, what was useful in learning how to play that tune and other tunes. Replace the word "theory" with "understanding the organization"

Without any understanding of organizational, you would be left with viewing music as a mysterious sequence of a bunch of random (and infinite) pitches (as well as other components like rhythm). Each and every tune, as it would lack any transferable organizational similarity. (that would be a lot to memorize).

Does any musician not have an awareness of the concept of what an octave is, the concept that it's divided into just select pitches; nor find that useful? IMO, I think every musician has found it useful, and to further what helps them play a tune, for example in D major, is understanding something about the organization of pitches of tunes in D major. As a matter of fact, just the process of playing lot's of similar tunes, I don't think it can be avoided in noticing and forming an individual understanding about the organization. That is, as I stated previously,  they actually do form and use "music theory" - form a set of guidelines, rules, theorem, self-explanation. At least for the music they are most familiar with. Unfamiliar music (say Dorian tunes) are simply organized in a different way, and the previous "rules" might conflict, require different explanation.

To me, the organizational is the concrete heart and soul of "music theory" - but it extends to another part, which is in then labeling, names and terminology; the above doesn't require it; but it is useful for communicating and discussing to others, as note names "play a G note" and as a shorthand "it's in D major"; "play an A chord", or "play a V (5) chord"...  and extends to clarify fuzzy notions and then communicate/discuss different concepts; especially unfamiliar ones (like modal tunes). Then there is another expansion which delves deeper into "why" of things; finer differentiation (which I won't go into). Along this though is that there sometimes exists different use of terminology, and different ways to explain the organization; with different degrees of simplicity and complexity.  Generally simple is better; but the oversimple then runs into limitations, anomalies, that in sticking with the oversimple might be more complex and confusing.

That said, you don't always need expansive detailed full blown complex explanation (nor terminology), just enough understanding to grasp the music at hand. No doubt many have had the negative experience encounters with folks who learned (and memorized) written "rules" and and terminology and then notice they aren't really that better of a player, or worse that they then proceed to apply those rules and calculations, and it's simply "wrong" (like emphasis, chord choices, phrasing, rhythm) for the intent of the music. Can get quite defensive about it (citing textbooks and such). And in hearing their explanation can seem quite complex, and that one HAS TO understand it all.  - It can also seem like it's about following abstract  "rules" that academic, science folks invented to dictate to us musicians. (it's actually the opposite) -To me, this is simply not really what music theory is really about.

Again I don't think any musician lacks ANY understanding of organization; theorem, principles, rules and such. Those, however acquired, can sometimes lead to a filtering in limiting how they hear the music, fail to grasp what's actually going on and applying the wrong principles. Being aware that the existing understanding, "rules" don't seem to fit or work, is a good start; but IMO, don't see how it's particularly useful to avoid understanding, just treat it as mysterious and random. 

Lee Mysliwiec - Posted - 12/20/2013:  16:07:12

Nicely stated..

Swing - Posted - 12/20/2013:  16:36:17

I have to respond to this, if nothing other than the topic title...   I have run into many fiddlers who do not want to learn the instrument, learn scales and arpeggio's, read music or have anything to do with music theory... why, simply because it doesn't necessarily fit the way they learn or some other foolish notion, they just want to play the tune(s).

I will be the first to admit that I do not know as much as I should about the basics of theory, but I am leaning more all the time and easily can see where it is becoming more important to my playing.  Having said that, I know a terrific dance fiddle who hasn't studied a thing and can play circle around any one else in the room... and then on YouTube I saw a young fiddler, age seven, play better than most adults... I don't think he knows what music theory is...   I believe that it is a matter of how much do you want to learn, not whether you will use it or not...  music is a wonderful thing that way...

Play Happy

Swing

Lee Mysliwiec - Posted - 12/20/2013:  16:57:52

I can only respond by talking about my own experience.. When I was 30 I decided it was time to learn to play the fiddle.. I had no friends who were musicians, no lessons, no history of music in my life, no classes in theory, no radio stations to listen to hear what the tunes should sound like, no tape recording, no books.. Just me, my fiddle and my ears.. Add to that the fact that I worked 12 hours a day six days a week, had a wife and a couple of kids (eventually four of our own and several foster kids). I tried to play the fiddle when I could, usually after everybody went to bed...THis went on for over ten years.. I would have loved to learn theory but I had never even HEARD of it...It wasn't an option.. I continued learning everything the hard way and then after 15 YEARS I found a friend who thought we might get together once a week. After these 15 years, I still couldn't tap my foot and play and the tunes I knew, I knew poorly. It would have been wonderful if I had had learned theory, but again, life did not present this topic to my consciousness. Eventually, little by little, I became functional on the instrument and then finally went from being really terrible to "scratchy".. Now I am comfortable with my instrument and my playing and I even get to teach the techniques...
It would be nice if we all knew what Dorian meant but I NEVER EVEN HEARD OF THE WORD until just about five years ago. I'd already been playing over 25 years by then.. Now, I live in a college town with a world renowned music school and I rub elbows with people who know more theory than probably most people on the Hangout..When I say I survived this long without knowing theory I mean it.. It WASN"T BY CHOICE.. My life's musical path took me one way and people who know a lot about theory were on another path.. Neither path is bad, just different.. I chuckle when I say I got by without theory but is meant to be an ironic statement... I have stated how I admire those who know theory. OK.. I'm done.

alaskafiddler - Posted - 12/20/2013:  17:14:34

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swing

I know a terrific dance fiddle who hasn't studied a thing and can play circle around any one else in the room...

 

---

Might want to reread what I posted.

When I hear folks point to themselves or others (that can play circles around) and the claim of not studied a thing, or know anything about theory; well IMO it's quite nonsense. They might lack knowing terminology, or written definitions and rules, and language to explain it - but will bet they "KNOW" quite a bit in how that tune(s) works; what "rules" are involved; that it's not just a bunch of random pitches; and generally because they studied that music; if in just listening to it; and learning to play the tunes; forming or building an intuitive understanding of what notes work when, to what affect; as well as what sounds wrong.. 

Certainly if you understand that, then you don't need any written definitions, terminology, rules and such... and you only need what you need. But one can also more direct study on it, is just a more intent in thinking about what is going on, the "ah-ha" of how things are organized, noticing the sound and feel of the notes used. The more formalized study, verbal or written, is just using words as a way to then help communicate, to explain some of the concepts, what's going on; which can be useful in directing one's attention to that which was elusive in just listening.

Fiddler - Posted - 12/20/2013:  17:48:28

I'll add to this.....my 11+ years of formal piano taught me very, very little about music theory other than the basics - key signatures, time signatures, measures, treble and bass cleffs. Zippo. Nothing about relationships. Nothing about modes. It was all about reproducing exactly what was on the page in front of me. Forcing my fingers to push the correct keys at the proper times. I was so frustrated with this and convinced my mom wihen I was 15 that I would NOT be the next Van Cliburn and she let me quite. I never touched another instrument until I was exposed to the mountain dulcimer in 1977. Good grief! It all made sense! This whole thing about 5ths and 3rds and 7ths and flatted 7ths. My head exploded with the concept of mode - ionian, mixolidian, aeolian, phygrian, dorian. It made sense - total sense! My only problem was transferring this information to the fiddle. Gaaaaahhh!!!!! But nevertheless, it all made sense!

I do know people who in some way intuitively understand the musical relationships. They can sing (or play) harmonies. They can take any melody and play it with harmonies on the piano. My mom was like that. She could not read music, but could she play the piano! -- especially, hymns and ragtime.  My step-mom could sing alto to any melody without having the music. My dad could play anything he could hum on the harmonica. Not one of them had formal music training. I sometimes am jealous of their abilities.

The information that very knowledgeable folks, e.g. alaskafiddler, et. al., have posted about music theory here on FHO has been such as incredible resource for me and has increased my own understanding. I can't begin to express my appreciation!! THANK YOU!

Lee Mysliwiec - Posted - 12/21/2013:  05:42:07

My first thought was to be 'put out' by the original post because the quotes used as examples were made by me in the mentioned previous thread.. After rereading the comments I have decided to be a big boy and realize that Alaskafiddler is making good and polite points and I shouldn't feel offended..Also, I'm willing to admit that if music theory is just the study of the organization of music that I've been studying music theory from day one.. I think I may have been limiting my definition to that of 'formal study' of music...Ok, I'll broaden my definition and maybe buy a copy of Music Theory For Dummies and have Alaska autograph it for me.

bandsmcnamar - Posted - 12/21/2013:  09:04:11

Let me first say, I did study music in college, so I did work my way through all the theory courses.  That in and of itself doesn't make me either less of a legitimate fiddler or more of one.  When 8th notes are flying by at 3-4 per second, I don't stop and think now does that work with this scale, or this chord change.  Maybe there are folks that can think like that, but I just play.  

I've always kind of thought music was a bit like talking.  First you learn words(licks or musical phrases), then pretty soon you can use the words to make sentences(entire A parts or B parts, or sections). Then obviously move on from there.  Most folks learn how to talk initially from other people, their parents etc.  Then they go through school and learn that it ain't necessarily proper to say ain't.  Which doesn't really change the meaning of what they say, just affects how they say it.  Getting lost in this analogy yet, me too.  LOL  

Here's the point finally........It's all good.  Those of you who have had the luck/advantage, to grow up around fiddlers, or have made the effort to seek out people to learn from are every bit as legit as those of us who have studied music, either formally or through books and the internet.  The other side of that is, it goes the other way too.  There is nothing to fear of the study of music, and certainly no reason to think less of a musician because they read music.  

If there was only one way to go about this learning to fiddle stuff, then there might be some areas that could be debated, but really really, it's all good.  Learn to read music, or don't, it's okay!!   Learn some theory, or don't, it's okay.  Study scales and arpeggios, or don't it's okay.  Buy books and learning DVD's, go to workshops, if it's moving you forward and that's what you are looking for, it's all good.  

A case in point and then I'm done........   I learned about 40 Christmas tunes on the fiddle in the last 6 weeks, most by ear, but not all, then played at one of the Salvation Army kettles twice.  It was fun, rewarding, and the best part for my fiddling was that since then a couple of the phrases have magically shown up and became useful in some other tunes I'm working on, it all moved me forward.  

Lee Mysliwiec - Posted - 12/21/2013:  09:21:40

quote:

---

Originally posted by bandsmcnamar

 

Let me first say, I did study music in college, so I did work my way through all the theory courses.  That in and of itself doesn't make me either less of a legitimate fiddler or more of one.  When 8th notes are flying by at 3-4 per second, I don't stop and think now does that work with this scale, or this chord change.  Maybe there are folks that can think like that, but I just play.  

I've always kind of thought music was a bit like talking.  First you learn words(licks or musical phrases), then pretty soon you can use the words to make sentences(entire A parts or B parts, or sections). Then obviously move on from there.  Most folks learn how to talk initially from other people, their parents etc.  Then they go through school and learn that it ain't necessarily proper to say ain't.  Which doesn't really change the meaning of what they say, just affects how they say it.  Getting lost in this analogy yet, me too.  LOL  

Here's the point finally........It's all good.  Those of you who have had the luck/advantage, to grow up around fiddlers, or have made the effort to seek out people to learn from are every bit as legit as those of us who have studied music, either formally or through books and the internet.  The other side of that is, it goes the other way too.  There is nothing to fear of the study of music, and certainly no reason to think less of a musician because they read music.  

If there was only one way to go about this learning to fiddle stuff, then there might be some areas that could be debated, but really really, it's all good.  Learn to read music, or don't, it's okay!!   Learn some theory, or don't, it's okay.  Study scales and arpeggios, or don't it's okay.  Buy books and learning DVD's, go to workshops, if it's moving you forward and that's what you are looking for, it's all good.  

A case in point and then I'm done........   I learned about 40 Christmas tunes on the fiddle in the last 6 weeks, most by ear, but not all, then played at one of the Salvation Army kettles twice.  It was fun, rewarding, and the best part for my fiddling was that since then a couple of the phrases have magically shown up and became useful in some other tunes I'm working on, it all moved me forward.  

 

---

I love it when you talk like that!!

Bradford - Posted - 12/21/2013:  14:42:10

quote:

---

Originally posted by bandsmcnamar

 

 

Here's the point finally........It's all good.  Those of you who have had the luck/advantage, to grow up around fiddlers, or have made the effort to seek out people to learn from are every bit as legit as those of us who have studied music, either formally or through books and the internet.  The other side of that is, it goes the other way too.  There is nothing to fear of the study of music, and certainly no reason to think less of a musician because they read music.  

 

---

The problem with this black or white thinking is that it's wrong. Learning theory in school doesn't preclude you from having learned from 'real fiddlers"

Frankly - It's a loaded line of crap .  I went to music school and I got to sit in many a fine fiddlers kitchen. Does my music school education wipe out getting whacked by Paddy Reynolds bow when I bowed something to his dissatisfaction? Or long conversations with Andy McGann and Ronnie Gilbert about their teachers Michael Coleman and James Morrison respectively?

No, it doesn't and I'm done playing nice when people act like you can only have it one way or another.

Lee Mysliwiec - Posted - 12/21/2013:  14:49:40

quote:

---

Originally posted by mad baloney

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by bandsmcnamar

 

 

Here's the point finally........It's all good.  Those of you who have had the luck/advantage, to grow up around fiddlers, or have made the effort to seek out people to learn from are every bit as legit as those of us who have studied music, either formally or through books and the internet.  The other side of that is, it goes the other way too.  There is nothing to fear of the study of music, and certainly no reason to think less of a musician because they read music.  

 

---

The problem with this black or white thinking is that it's wrong. Learning theory in school doesn't preclude you from having learned from 'real fiddlers"

Frankly - It's a loaded line of crap .  I went to music school and I got to sit in many a fine fiddlers kitchen. Does my music school education wipe out getting whacked by Paddy Reynolds bow when I bowed something to his dissatisfaction? Or long conversations with Andy McGann and Ronnie Gilbert about their teachers Michael Coleman and James Morrison respectively?

No, it doesn't and I'm done playing nice when people act like you can only have it one way or another.

---

Maybe I missed something.  I didn't think that it was black and white thinking, but rather that he was allowing for ANY experience to be valuable?? Could you elaborate...???  I'm just a little confused.  (typical, for me).

alaskafiddler - Posted - 12/21/2013:  15:55:02

I think because the way bandsncnamer stated it (similar to how others sometimes have) as either/or; that you learn either at the knee of an old master fiddler, OR lacking that, learned from more formal study in books and such.

I agree with brad - as is often the case one can learn from both; that is the explanation, principles, theorem and terminology in the books, but as well hearing it in actual action of folks playing; and connecting the two in a very concrete practical way.  The words can clarify (perhaps simplify), help understand what you are hearing, the why; the playing can clarify the interpretation (or initial misinterpretation) of the words.

I think most musicians do this to some degree.

bandsmcnamar - Posted - 12/21/2013:  16:26:51

Man, I must be losing the ability to write so that what I'm trying to say might be understood.  Yes leemysliwiec you took what I said that way I meant it, and no Brad , you did not.  If you read the paragraph after the one quoted, which includes this "If there was only one way to go about  learning this fiddle stuff, then there might be some areas that could be debated, but really really, it's all good." you can see that this doesn't sound like black and white thinking.    

Alaska fiddler, I meant to basically 100 % agree with you, but apparently no longer possess the ability to express myself.  And Brad, I've learned from written music, LP's slowed down to 16 rpm, cassettes played over and over till the tape comes apart, the internet, jamming, putting myself in situations to observe masters and learn from what they do, workshops etc.  everyway you can conceivably imagine, and they have all moved my playing ability forward.   Again not a black and white way of thinking at all.  

Sorry to cause such an uproar!  I will mostly keeps my thoughts to myself on these sorts of subjects in the future.  Merry Christmas Gentlemen!! 

Edited by - bandsmcnamar on 12/21/2013 16:29:10

Lee Mysliwiec - Posted - 12/21/2013:  16:35:54

quote:

---

Originally posted by bandsmcnamar

 

Man, I must be losing the ability to write so that what I'm trying to say might be understood.  Yes leemysliwiec you took what I said that way I meant it, and no Brad , you did not.  If you read the paragraph after the one quoted, which includes this "If there was only one way to go about  learning this fiddle stuff, then there might be some areas that could be debated, but really really, it's all good." you can see that this doesn't sound like black and white thinking.    

Alaska fiddler, I meant to basically 100 % agree with you, but apparently no longer possess the ability to express myself.  And Brad, I've learned from written music, LP's slowed down to 16 rpm, cassettes played over and over till the tape comes apart, the internet, jamming, putting myself in situations to observe masters and learn from what they do, workshops etc.  everyway you can conceivably imagine, and they have all moved my playing ability forward.   Again not a black and white way of thinking at all.  

Sorry to cause such an uproar!  I will mostly keeps my thoughts to myself on these sorts of subjects in the future.  Merry Christmas Gentlemen!! 

---

DON"T QUIT on us.. You are a breath of fresh air... really.

alaskafiddler - Posted - 12/21/2013:  17:24:16

Didn't intend to imply that's what you actually meant, just in how it can be interpreted. And that a few folks do make it a polarized issue.

DougD - Posted - 12/21/2013:  17:36:34

Fiddler, you said in 11 years of lessons you learned nothing about modes (among other things). So I'm curious - for those of you who studied music in college, or had other extensive training, did that include much study about modes? I'm not sure they're really considered a part of modern Western music theory, or at least weren't for me in 9 or so years of piano lessons and some college courses.

Sue B. - Posted - 12/21/2013:  17:46:45

My students play classical and fiddle with me. They can explain, on a couple of hearings, how those fiddle tunes are put together: matching & contrasting phrases, shortened or lengthened melodies, where the phrases exactly repeat or almost repeat (variation), and other facts of construction or sound. They pick up tunes in 15 or 20 minutes, and hold onto them quite well. That's music-theory at work.

bandsmcnamar - Posted - 12/21/2013:  17:57:13

No, I'm not going to quit anyone.  Just got my feathers ruffled a bit and had to work through it.  And yep, modes were discussed in my college theory courses quite extensively, but since it was 30 some years ago, I'm not sure the phrase "modern Western music theory" applies here.  Just a joke about the passage of time, don't want any chance of being misunderstood again.  LOL

amwildman - Posted - 12/21/2013:  18:06:38

My teacher has a masters degree in something related to classical guitar.  I would call him an expert when it comes to theory, including modes.

alaskafiddler - Posted - 12/21/2013:  18:49:55

quote:

---

Originally posted by DougD

 

Fiddler, you said in 11 years of lessons you learned nothing about modes (among other things). So I'm curious - for those of you who studied music in college, or had other extensive training, did that include much study about modes? I'm not sure they're really considered a part of modern Western music theory, or at least weren't for me in 9 or so years of piano lessons and some college courses.

---

My observation over the years is that it is not covered much; of all the formal textbooks I own, or have perused - often it's just a very thin chapter, or few paragraphs/pages. Often in reference to older church, plagal, Greek that was limited and no longer in use (having been replaced with the superior major/minor system that dominated classical music) and those textbooks are geared to teach that major/minor system of classical music; you know the ONLY music folks listen to (or worthwhile of listening to) - A neo-modal idea emerged and dabbled around with, especially starting in very late Romantic era; but was generally filtered through the major/minor - still a bit different than the older idea of modal.

Much of the older modal concepts and composition structure, IMO survived in older folk music; noticeably the old ballads, and of course, the fiddle tunes of Ireland and Appalachia (among many other places).

In looking at pre-major/minor CPP music, like Ren/Early music - a lot of similarities exist to these fiddle tunes.

Edited by - alaskafiddler on 12/21/2013 18:52:25

bandsmcnamar - Posted - 12/21/2013:  19:20:41

I went and dug out an old theory book of mine, and Alaskafiddler is again right on the money.  There were about 15 pages or so out of a 400 page book.  I also took music history courses and one of them spent way more time and emphasis on modes and modal music.  

Fiddler - Posted - 12/21/2013:  21:32:58

Yes, no theory - no modes. Just play the notes. Push the foot pedal where indicated. Repeat to Coda, ad nauseum. And, I despised those &^%$**!& scale practices!!! My knuckles still bear the bruises from the whacks I got with a ruler from my "teacher." Fingers not arched ---- whack!  Miss the timing ---- whack!!  Miss a note ---- two whacks!!!

Keys was memorizing sharps and flats - wrote - nothing else.

Regarding baroque music, I saw an article in "Early Music" journal that someone in Nashville (I think) had gotten a grant to study the relationship of OT fiddling and Baroque technique and ornamentation. The result was that Baroque musicians should listen carefully to early field recordings. Those fiddlers retained much of the Baroque ornamentation. Anyway, it was very interesting.

fiddlepogo - Posted - 12/21/2013:  21:57:06

quote:

---

Originally posted by alaskafiddler

 

There was a recent topic about "modal tunes" fiddlehangout.com/topic/35477 to which aspects about music theory came up - as often does, some folks sure get uptight about the idea of "music theory". Perhaps due to a misuse of the term "theory"? Perhaps due to negative experience? For some they think of it as merely "academic" - Only pertaining to stuff written in books, or studied by egghead scientist / mathematician like folks, measuring and calculating, abstract ideas - and that is nothing to do with "real" world music.

It is possible to have theory without music but music can survive without theory.

I think of it as this.

MUSIC HAS ORGANIZATION TO IT.

Music theory is just addressing understanding what the organization is; and the different ways of how music is organized, different structures and schemas (differentiating these tunes from those tunes, why each make sense). IMO, it's that organizational understanding that turns a random sequence of pitches into having meaning, making musical sense. (theory in this context is not used as guess or conjecture; rather as theorem, principles and rule sets) Can music exist without organization, structure, principles of sound?

"If you can play the tune, forget about the theory, and if you can't play the tune, the theory won't help"...

I think that might be missing the point; it's about the process of learning how to play that tune, what was useful in learning how to play that tune and other tunes. Replace the word "theory" with "understanding the organization"

Without any understanding of organizational, you would be left with viewing music as a mysterious sequence of a bunch of random (and infinite) pitches (as well as other components like rhythm). Each and every tune, as it would lack any transferable organizational similarity. (that would be a lot to memorize).

Does any musician not have an awareness of the concept of what an octave is, the concept that it's divided into just select pitches; nor find that useful? IMO, I think every musician has found it useful, and to further what helps them play a tune, for example in D major, is understanding something about the organization of pitches of tunes in D major. As a matter of fact, just the process of playing lot's of similar tunes, I don't think it can be avoided in noticing and forming an individual understanding about the organization. That is, as I stated previously,  they actually do form and use "music theory" - form a set of guidelines, rules, theorem, self-explanation. At least for the music they are most familiar with. Unfamiliar music (say Dorian tunes) are simply organized in a different way, and the previous "rules" might conflict, require different explanation.

To me, the organizational is the concrete heart and soul of "music theory" - but it extends to another part, which is in then labeling, names and terminology; the above doesn't require it; but it is useful for communicating and discussing to others, as note names "play a G note" and as a shorthand "it's in D major"; "play an A chord", or "play a V (5) chord"...  and extends to clarify fuzzy notions and then communicate/discuss different concepts; especially unfamiliar ones (like modal tunes). Then there is another expansion which delves deeper into "why" of things; finer differentiation (which I won't go into). Along this though is that there sometimes exists different use of terminology, and different ways to explain the organization; with different degrees of simplicity and complexity.  Generally simple is better; but the oversimple then runs into limitations, anomalies, that in sticking with the oversimple might be more complex and confusing.

That said, you don't always need expansive detailed full blown complex explanation (nor terminology), just enough understanding to grasp the music at hand. No doubt many have had the negative experience encounters with folks who learned (and memorized) written "rules" and and terminology and then notice they aren't really that better of a player, or worse that they then proceed to apply those rules and calculations, and it's simply "wrong" (like emphasis, chord choices, phrasing, rhythm) for the intent of the music. Can get quite defensive about it (citing textbooks and such). And in hearing their explanation can seem quite complex, and that one HAS TO understand it all.  - It can also seem like it's about following abstract  "rules" that academic, science folks invented to dictate to us musicians. (it's actually the opposite) -To me, this is simply not really what music theory is really about.

Again I don't think any musician lacks ANY understanding of organization; theorem, principles, rules and such. Those, however acquired, can sometimes lead to a filtering in limiting how they hear the music, fail to grasp what's actually going on and applying the wrong principles. Being aware that the existing understanding, "rules" don't seem to fit or work, is a good start; but IMO, don't see how it's particularly useful to avoid understanding, just treat it as mysterious and random. 

---

Heh.... you are talking about scales and stuff like I talk about bowing patterns....

"IMO, don't see how it's particularly useful to avoid understanding, just treat it as mysterious and random."

A lot of people want to treat bowing as mysterious and random!

I use scales (and modes) very much the way I use bowing patterns:

I think about them intensely at the beginning, and memorize them to the point where I no longer have to thing about them... THEN I can use them intuitively in a seat-of-the-pants, "right-brained" way.

The analytical mind is good for breaking down music into teachable steps, whether for oneself or for others, but it is WAY too slow to be of any use when actually playing music.  Note choices and pattern choices have to be made in a split second, and analysis can take whole MINUTES.

groundhogpeggy - Posted - 12/22/2013:  13:56:11

If you wanna learn modes, start playing lap dulcimer...the kind without the extra half cheater frets that allow you to play everything in one tuning (usually DAD).  Once you have to tune to not only a key, but also a mode...you will be forced to confront modes or not be able to play.  If you wanna learn chord progressions, inversions, substitutions--- play the guitar.  You can learn your Is, IVs, Vs, but sooner or later you'll want changes-- either by adding a bright chord here and there, like a II before the V, especially on gospel songs...or you'll want the G chord up the fretboard, inverted by playing it out of the usual D shape up in the 7th fret, or some such other inversions...or you might think in situations the IV just doesn't get it, and the II minor is the substitute you need is some situation.  If you can't get a bowing groove going, play Clawhammer banjo, and get yourself some wicked bum-diddies or if you're really hard-core, some boom-a-lackas going and then translate all that junk in your mind toward fiddling--- well, it might work!

eeee - Posted - 12/22/2013:  16:26:15

quote:

---

Originally posted by bandsmcnamar



 

Here's the point finally........It's all good. 

---

That's a fact: it's all good. Though I'm not bothered by those who'd rather not understand theory, I am bothered by those whose attitude is that learning theory is "bad" for their kind of music. That's nonsense but there are people like that. My whole approach is that the more one can learn the better.

That said, theory comes in slightly different flavors and there can be confusion in nomenclature, and just confusion in general. Sometimes (and I think alaskafiddler has occasionally been guilty of this, and maybe I have too) it can be hard to understand what is being said, and that can put people off. It helps, in a group like this with a widely divergent membership, to define one's terms as much as possible when expounding on this or that.  Since we're all here to exchange information every effort should be made to do that well, and not in just trying to make onself sound knowledgeable.

Fiddler - Posted - 12/22/2013:  18:35:51

Research on learning theory shows that for adults we tend to learn new things as we need the knowledge or skill. If you look at many community/technical colleges, the reason their programs are so successful is that many students start those programs knowing what they want to learn to do. In addition, instructors have had work experience and can provide students with the "bigger picture" about why a particular topic or skill is important. It is not "learn this because I said so." I know this first hand because I have been in technical education and preparing students for the workforce for 30 years.

I see the same thing here in music theory. The "fun" part is the camaraderie of making music - creating something that will never, ever be the same again. EVER! We can try, but it will never be the same the next time we play. We have an innate need to create, to be creative. For many, music provides that outlet. And, it can happen without having to know all of the details. We learn those through experimentation, much as the painter experiments with colors. textures, brushstokes, etc. We find what satisfies us mostly through trial and error.

As we get more involved in music, many of us become curious. We want to know more. We know there is some kind of system. We want to understand that system. But, we want to take sips. We want to nibble. We need to learn it in small doses and fully assimilate it. Drinking from a fire hydrate will not satiate thirst. We need a fountain - a trickle.

Everyone learns at a different rate. Everyone has different needs and motivations. Everyone has different physical limitations. The joy of OT music is that EVERYONE can participate at whatever level is right for them at that time in their lives.

So, whether or not someone is interested in music theory is not a concern to me. I would rather enjoy the act of creating something unique with another human being.

mmuussiiccaall - Posted - 12/24/2013:  06:16:58

I'm a big champion for theory and I use the "c" word purposefully because of this little story:

About 15 years ago I was at at recording session in Kentucky with some players I did not know, one of them being a gent named Michael Cleveland! When it came time to run thru the tunes to be recorded one of the players he was with started telling him the key, mode, tempo etc. and Michael started yelling " No I don't want to hear that stuff, let's just go!" Now you can imagine my jaw dropping when I heard what happened next.

​As a teacher I need theory to explain questions I get from my students and to generally show them the ropes. But some people   j u s  t    d o n 't   n e e d   i t.

rustycase - Posted - 12/24/2013:  18:41:02

Undoubtedly there are some who do not have a need to study, and learn music theory.
They are gifted, and have that knowledge inherently.
It's certainly not me! lol

Gifted musicians and entertainers may become distracted from their creativity by theory, then again, others will discover the reasoning why something worked out so well.

Yes, I should study to understand theory better.
:-)
rc

I have learned that practice won't necessarily make things perfect, but it will sure improve my playing.
...and an off day just might not get better... best to put it down for a day! lol

groundhogpeggy - Posted - 12/26/2013:  04:20:16

One thing to remember: theory only explains the music, but does not dictate it.

wooliver - Posted - 12/26/2013:  06:01:18

quote:

---

Originally posted by groundhogpeggy

 

One thing to remember: theory only explains the music, but does not dictate it.

---

Amen, GHP.

I learnt how to play music like a little kid learns to talk. I only leant about theory later on. It's good for discussing, dissecting, or otherwise communicating the workings of music, after the fact. If somebody is into something deeply, they will eventually start dissecting and hanging labels on the bits. Indeed a head, leg, or thorax, does not make for a whole ant.

Edited by - wooliver on 12/26/2013 06:06:09

fiddlepogo - Posted - 12/26/2013:  11:05:00

quote:

---

Originally posted by groundhogpeggy

 

One thing to remember: theory only explains the music, but does not dictate it.

---

Ah, but it depends on the style or genre of music, and how you're approaching it.

IF the music is focused on traditional melodies (and Old Time IS), you don't really need to know the theory for what scale is being played... you just play the melody.

BUT in an improvisational genre, like blues, knowing a scale or a mode gives you a focus so what you make up doesn't sound like 12- tone Schoenberg stuff. (Ahem.... I wanted to use a harsher word than "stuff", but.... refrained.)

The theoretical knowledge of the mode doesn't dictate what IS played, but it does dictate what is NOT played, with the result that what is played has a halfway decent chance of sounding like it belongs together.  Within those limitations, the musician can play around with and perhaps make something up that will be so catchy, that people will then be able to learn it without knowing or caring what mode or scale it is.

What it boils down to is that theory is of MOST use to composers, and improvisation in it's highest form is composing stuff really fast, "on-the-fly"... so theory is of interest to improvisational musicians as well.

So... a traditional musician "don't need no stinkin' music theory"... but someone composing tunes that sounded traditional MIGHT.... except you could just say:

"Contains all the notes of "Frosty Mornin'"... but then, you might actually have variants of Frosty Mornin' that have different notes... from different modes... so then the theory of modes could explain the difference.

Hmmmm.... thought of one particular aspect of music theory that might be of use in Bluegrass.

There is this raggy thing that goes on in some Bluegrass tunes and a few Old Time tunes of Ragtime origin.

Say, you're in G, and the chords you have been playing are  G, C, and D (I, IV, and V)

If the tune has this raggy thing in it, it will start to hang around the D, avoid the D and throw in an A chord (the II chord)... AND the scale used over that part of the tune will be a D major scale, not a G major scale.  In effect the tune changes key for a little bit, maybe just a single short phrase.

Redwing does it, if you want an example.

Now, if you could be guaranteed that the tune would STAY in the same key, you could just use chord names, and skip the theory part.  And for fiddle tunes that tend to stay in the same key, you can easily do that.

BUT, if the tune is actually a song (and Redwing is a song as well as a fiddle tune) the singer may not WANT the tune in G.   You will have to figure out new chord names for the new key, and two new scales... but the relationships between the chords and the two scales used are exactly the same as far as the mathematics of the music (that is, the theory) are concerned.

IF you know the theory, then the theory will give you the new chord names (the names of the I, II, IV, and V chords) and of the two scales used (the main scale being the scale of the I chord and the secondary scale being the scale of the V chord).

A really basic and useful theory tool is the "Circle of Fifths"

Now, for a fiddler, one part of the circle should be VERY familar... the part that goes "G, D, A, E".  That's because the fiddle is tuned in fifths.

If you're a guitarist or a bass player, the same letters will be familar, but backwards, since the bottom four strings of a guitar and the four strings of a four string bass are tuned in fourths.

If you play viola and fiddle, or have a 5-string fiddle, the C, G, D, A, E part is familar.  Then add F at the beginning, and B at the end, and you have F, C, G, D, A, E, B, and that's all the major keys in the circle of fifths.   And once you have this circle of fifths, or have parts in your head, there are tricks:

1. Any 3 letters around the circle of fifths are the names of the 3 "cowboy chords" in a key- the I, IV, and V, but the main chord, the I chord will be in the middle of the three.  The next letter over from these three is the II chord for that ragtimey change I was talking about.  And pick a chord, and count over 3 more, and you have the relative minor for that first chord, although some pictures of the circle of fifths show the relative minors inside in smaller letters.

The I, II, IV, and V chords and the relative minor of the I chord basically covers all of the chord changes you will find in traditional Bluegrass. (Except for modal tunes, but they are really the I, II, IV, and V of something else...)

Another really useful theory tidbit is the pentatonic scale.  Bluegrass sometimes needs the fiddler to do "fills"- little noodly phrases under the long notes at the end of a line of a song.  Pentatonic phrases are a good choice, because they blend well with almost anything.

The pentatonic scale skips the fourth note and the seventh note in a major scale.

Any 5 letters on the circle of fifths are a pentatonic scale based on the first of the five letters, but then you rearrange the other four in alphabetical order.

None of this stuff was really necessary for me in Old Time jams, and not really in Irish Trad sessions either (because they both are melodically based)... but it's REALLY useful in a Bluegrass or Blues jam (because they are improvisationally based, AND also because they  feature singers who will demand that you change the key to accommodate the range of their voice.

Anyway, it sounds like a contradiction in terms, but stuff like this could be called "practical music theory".... music theory that helps you in practical playing situations, including situations where you just plain DON'T know the melody of the song, but the band still wants you to play something anyway!

Using music theory like this helps you to FAKE IT, and still sound halfway decent!!!

fiddlepogo - Posted - 12/26/2013:  11:21:21

quote:

---

Originally posted by mmuussiiccaall

 

I'm a big champion for theory and I use the "c" word purposefully because of this little story:

About 15 years ago I was at at recording session in Kentucky with some players I did not know, one of them being a gent named Michael Cleveland! When it came time to run thru the tunes to be recorded one of the players he was with started telling him the key, mode, tempo etc. and Michael started yelling " No I don't want to hear that stuff, let's just go!" Now you can imagine my jaw dropping when I heard what happened next.

​As a teacher I need theory to explain questions I get from my students and to generally show them the ropes. But some people   j u s  t    d o n 't   n e e d   i t.

---

Michael Cleveland might not have needed it.... but the other players in the recording session MIGHT have!  (I know YOU know that, but I'm pointing this out for the champions of "don't need no stinkin' music theory!")

Like all language, music theory is about communicating between different people, and hopefully getting them on the "same page".

I play electric guitar with a particular pianist quite a bit.   I've found a way of figuring out what key he's playing in that's pretty quick and fairly subtle, but it's still quicker and more risk-free if he just tells me! 

And since time in the recording studio is expensive, NOT getting the other musicians on the same page quickly COULD be expensive.

fiddlepogo - Posted - 12/26/2013:  12:07:41

Perhaps one little application of theory for Old Timeys:

Learning tunes really quickly in jam sessions.  The tune may not get played for that many minutes, and the sooner you get "up and running" the better the chance you have of learning the whole tune before it's over, and getting to play along, instead of floundering around.

(I don't know about you, but I go to jams to have fun, and floundering around on a tune is not my idea of FUN!!!)

It helps if you know how to play guitar, or have learned to recognize guitar chords.

If the tune is major, the main chord the guitarist plays will give you the key to the song, and so you only pick notes from the possibilities in the scale of that name.  Also, usually the tune parts will end on the chord whose name is also the name of the key.

That might be pretty easy to intuit though.

However, since most Old Time modal tunes are in A, the main chord the guitarist is using will tell you the scale to use.

If the guitarist is using A minor, you need to use the same notes as in the G major scale (and the tune is in "Dorian" mode, if you want to impress people with how much you know!).

If the guitarist is using A major, you need to use the same notes as in the D major scale (and the tune is in "Mixolydian" mode if you want to impress people with how much you know!)

fiddlepogo - Posted - 12/26/2013:  12:27:02

quote:

---

Originally posted by mad baloney

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by bandsmcnamar

 

 

Here's the point finally........It's all good.  Those of you who have had the luck/advantage, to grow up around fiddlers, or have made the effort to seek out people to learn from are every bit as legit as those of us who have studied music, either formally or through books and the internet.  The other side of that is, it goes the other way too.  There is nothing to fear of the study of music, and certainly no reason to think less of a musician because they read music.  

 

---

The problem with this black or white thinking is that it's wrong. Learning theory in school doesn't preclude you from having learned from 'real fiddlers"

Frankly - It's a loaded line of crap .  I went to music school and I got to sit in many a fine fiddlers kitchen. Does my music school education wipe out getting whacked by Paddy Reynolds bow when I bowed something to his dissatisfaction? Or long conversations with Andy McGann and Ronnie Gilbert about their teachers Michael Coleman and James Morrison respectively?

No, it doesn't and I'm done playing nice when people act like you can only have it one way or another.

---

Well, that's a little brutal, but I know what you mean.

So many of these things are not a dichotomy- not an "either-or" situation- NOT mutually exclusive.

But the nature of arguing and discussing and debating tends to push us into an "either-or" mindset.

For instance, it took several bowing discussions with me arguing on the side of pattern downbowing before I realized that "anywhichway" is in fact a bowing style that I can and do use in numerous instances.... just not much for Old Time.  Since then, I try and present it as another tool in the toolbox.

Because it is so easy to fall into an either-or mindset on these things, I do think we need to "play nice" with people who are stuck in such a mindset, because they may not even realize what they are doing.

One thing that having BOTH a theoretical background AND a practical background is that you can then figure out what the parts of musical theory are that have practical applications, and just focus on teaching those to people who really don't have the patience to learn the whole nine yards of it.

Like with modes, for Old Time, and I think Irish Trad as well, there is no point in teaching Locrian, Phrygian, or Lydian modes... they are really a colossal waste of time for such players.  And calling major "Ionian" is kind of pointless, and probably calling "minor" Aeolian is pointless as well.

Henry - Posted - 12/26/2013:  16:23:04

quote:

---

Originally posted by fiddlepogo

Like with modes, for Old Time, and I think Irish Trad as well, there is no point in teaching Locrian, Phrygian, or Lydian modes... they are really a colossal waste of time for such players.  And calling major "Ionian" is kind of pointless, and probably calling "minor" Aeolian is pointless as well.

 

---

I am sure you wont mind if I disagree? IMO,  if you are going to teach any one, from any genre, the concept of the mode. I would include all the modes in their order, just to show how simple they are, and to appreciate all the different tastes presented by the modes. There is nothing more simple and musically pleasing than playing around with the modes. All genre use the modes as various musical effects, such as phrases in sequences where the exact phrase is repeated in the next mode. And modes would be included in basic instrument exercises which would extent to an advanced level if so desired by the student.       

timfiskwa - Posted - 12/26/2013:  20:16:50

Because I have distant past piano experience, I purchased a Yamaha 76 key keyboard, played around with it, and learned the 7 modes in the key of C . It makes sense. Thanks to all FHO contributors, I stand corrected. That being said, I believe there are multiple paths to the same goal of explaining Modal tune structure. It is not an either/ or learning curve. I was ignorant of modes and theory, and learned modal tunes using a double tonic method, which worked for me. Now I see the Dorian and Mixolydian modes are theory versions of the same thing, giving modal tunes the Oldtime or Scots/Irish feel with the extra sharps and/or flats not accounted for in the single keyed major or minor tunes. I still hear the keys change in my head, but I have learned Dorian and Mixolydian modes I'll be internalizing gradually. Learning alternative music methods is a good thing so long as they work for you, so keep an open mind...you may need some stinkin music theory sometimes.

fiddlepogo - Posted - 12/26/2013:  21:37:41

quote:

---

Originally posted by Henry George

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by fiddlepogo

Like with modes, for Old Time, and I think Irish Trad as well, there is no point in teaching Locrian, Phrygian, or Lydian modes... they are really a colossal waste of time for such players.  And calling major "Ionian" is kind of pointless, and probably calling "minor" Aeolian is pointless as well.

 

---

I am sure you wont mind if I disagree? IMO,  if you are going to teach any one, from any genre, the concept of the mode. I would include all the modes in their order, just to show how simple they are, and to appreciate all the different tastes presented by the modes. There is nothing more simple and musically pleasing than playing around with the modes. All genre use the modes as various musical effects, such as phrases in sequences where the exact phrase is repeated in the next mode. And modes would be included in basic instrument exercises which would extent to an advanced level if so desired by the student.       

---

Of course I don't mind!  I think you do have to assess the individual player.... I tend to think of someone into Old Time or Irish Trad as being somewhat like I was in my early days of fiddling-  very goal-oriented towards the specific goal of playing Old Time, very impatient to get playing, and not wanting to take long detours into something I wasn't interested in playing.  But someone else might have a more leisurely mind set, and might be interested in a complete tour of all the modes.  I DID play them all at some point myself, on piano, I think,  but I couldn't appreciate the "different tastes presented by the modes" Locrian, Phrygian, and Lydian.  Perhaps I could now, or perhaps I needed to hear some folk music that uses them, so I could hear them in the context of a musical style.  Since I had already heard oodles of Ionian and Aeolian, and quite a bit of Dorian and Mixolydian when I studied the modes (from an explanation in Jeannie Ritchies dulcimer book) it was easy to appreciate their music potential, but the other three seemed kind of abstract and disconnected from real music.   In fact, if you feel so inclined, by all means post some links to some exampls of Locrian, Phrygian, and Lydian being used in real music... preferably ethnic folk (Balkan?) would have the most appeal, but also jazz-  I'd be interested in giving them a listen.

Edited by - fiddlepogo on 12/26/2013 21:43:34

muzioabelardo - Posted - 02/25/2014:  01:12:29

quote:

---

Originally posted by alaskafiddler

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swing

I know a terrific dance fiddle who hasn't studied a thing and can play circle around any one else in the room...

 

---

Might want to reread what I posted.

When I hear folks point to themselves or others (that can play circles around) and the claim of not studied a thing, or know anything about theory; well IMO it's quite nonsense. They might lack knowing terminology, or written definitions and rules, and language to explain it - but will bet they "KNOW" quite a bit in how that tune(s) works; what "rules" are involved; that it's not just a bunch of random pitches; and generally because they studied that music; if in just listening to it; and learning to play the tunes; forming or building an intuitive understanding of what notes work when, to what affect; as well as what sounds wrong.. 

Certainly if you understand that, then you don't need any written definitions, terminology, rules and such... and you only need what you need. But one can also more direct study on it, is just a more intent in thinking about what is going on, the "ah-ha" of how things are organized, noticing the sound and feel of the notes used. The more formalized study, verbal or written, is just using words as a way to then help communicate, to explain some of the concepts, what's going on; which can be useful in directing one's attention to that which was elusive in just listening.

---

I guess. I guess it's much like learning your native language - you may be able to speak without knowing the technical terminologies attached to it,  but that doesn't mean you don't know the rules pertaining to grammar and whatnot. Even if you're not an  English major, you would know intuitively that something is wrong if a non-native speaker would use the language wrongly.  One doesn't need to be a music major to understand music, but music theory would be helpful to clear out the rules. Just my two cents.

eeee - Posted - 03/03/2014:  16:06:04

quote:

---

Originally posted by fiddlepogo

 the C, G, D, A, E part is familar.  Then add F at the beginning, and B at the end, and you have F, C, G, D, A, E, B, and that's all the major keys in the circle of fifths.  

!!!

 

---

What? What about the rest of the flat keys?

fiddlepogo - Posted - 03/03/2014:  19:12:21

quote:

---

Originally posted by abinigia

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by fiddlepogo

 the C, G, D, A, E part is familar.  Then add F at the beginning, and B at the end, and you have F, C, G, D, A, E, B, and that's all the major keys in the circle of fifths.  

!!!

 

---

What? What about the rest of the flat keys?

---

I was basically talking about applied music theory for Old Timeys, showing that if they know the string names in order on a 5 string fiddle, they are two key names away from knowing all the major ones in order.

The flat keys just aren't all that important for traditional fiddle tunes  I know one fiddle tune in F, and on in Bb. 

I actually DO find playing in F, Bb, and Eb, and their relative minors D minor, G minor and C minor pretty easy, but I'm much more likely to use them for something else besides Old Time.

Peghead - Posted - 03/06/2014:  09:46:58

In my 20's I was already playing professionally (guitar) before I knew anything about music theory. I could take a song, work on it, figure out the right chords and a reasonable break that fit. That and a strong natural sense of rhythm was all I needed. In the 70's I moved to Boston and became friends with lots of musicians, many of them Berkeley grads, and several instructors too. While I could hold my own with the material that I was familiar with, I began to be aware of a major difference, a lack of fluidity,  and a discomfort with the piles of new material that was regularly played, especially a shortcoming in my ability to improvise reasonably. It seemed I would need 100 years to work it all out the way I was used to. Even though I was a "better player" mechanically than many of my friends, I noticed that the players with a theoretical understanding and knowledge of the underpinnings of the music, a familiarity with chord substitutions, scales, variations modes, etc, were  much more comfortable and frankly, able to make more interesting (better?) music. It seemed to me they were never at a loss and were always able to play something on the fly that sounded good and "in". The difference of course comes down to applied knowledge. Keep in mind, that was guitar. Now, if you want to be a tune player or a dance fiddler, does any of that matter, maybe not, especially with fiddle - you learn the tunes, you play the tunes.  Does the knowledge hurt, no. Does it help, maybe, it depends on your personality, your musical goals and what you choose do with it.            

Edited by - Peghead on 03/06/2014 10:05:13

Bradford - Posted - 03/06/2014:  12:57:39

quote:

---

Originally posted by fiddlepogo

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by abinigia

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by fiddlepogo

 the C, G, D, A, E part is familar.  Then add F at the beginning, and B at the end, and you have F, C, G, D, A, E, B, and that's all the major keys in the circle of fifths.  

!!!

 

---

What? What about the rest of the flat keys?

---

I was basically talking about applied music theory for Old Timeys, showing that if they know the string names in order on a 5 string fiddle, they are two key names away from knowing all the major ones in order.

The flat keys just aren't all that important for traditional fiddle tunes  I know one fiddle tune in F, and on in Bb. 

I actually DO find playing in F, Bb, and Eb, and their relative minors D minor, G minor and C minor pretty easy, but I'm much more likely to use them for something else besides Old Time.

---

Look at the Hornpipe and Clogs section in Ryan's, there's a lot of good flat key tunes there. The Northumbrian fiddle tradition gravitates towards flat-key hornpipes with a lot of chromatic tidbits.