6 Things Most guitarists

pdfcrowd.comopen in browser PRO version Are you a developer? Try out the HTML to PDF API

Tab Pro

Facebook Google

guitar tabs / updates / news / reviews / interviews / columns / lessons / forums / contests

6 Things Most Guitar Players Don't Understand About Music Theory, date: june 13, 2013

Welcome home, StrangerPlease Sign in or Sign up

you can also use

Search!

FRESH TABS | 0-9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | TOP 100 TABS

Advanced + Submit tab

+ Submit review

+ Submit article

6 Things Most Guitar Players Don't Understand About MusicTheory

author: tommaso.zillio date: 06/13/2013 category: music theory

"You should not study too much theory oryou will destroy your creativity." Do youagree with that? If you do, you areprobably better off not reading the rest ofthis article as I am going to show that thisand other commonly held beliefs about music theory are completelyfalse and harmful to you.

When I started playing guitar I was a strong believer in the "learn-by-yourself" method i.e. collecting all the

UG plus: remove banner


I like this

82 19

voted: 101

COLUMNS


information I could from internet, journals,book, and friends. After all, the moreinformation the better, no? What I did notrealize at the time is that there is a lot of badinformation handed down as if it is theabsolute truth, and I was completelyincapable of discriminating between the usefulstuff and the damaging stuff. In short: Ineeded some help from somebody whoactually knew things.

Of course eventually I found help, and now Iam here to offer some.

The first thing to know is that music theory is not "hard": everybody can understand it. Onthe other hand, music theory is "complex": is made by many little things that all worktogether, each one of them being simple. Of course, it would be a daunting task to learn allof them at the same time. This means that there IS a simple way to go through musictheory (more than one in fact), but it also means that if you encounter these thins in thewrong order, then you are going to be completely confused. In fact, as we are going to seein a minute, there are many approaches to music theory that are common on the net thatare simply damaging to your progress if you try to follow them

So, let's have a look at some of the major roadblocks that can delay or completely stopyour understanding of music theory, together with some suggestion on how to get rid ofthem. This list is not exhaustive, but it covers at least some of the major problems:

I Don't Need Theory: I Can Play By Ear

I wish I had a dollar for every person I heard saying that so I could retire on a privateisland and not work for the rest of my life. And while sipping my Mohito, I would reflect onthe fact that this "play by ear" excuse is just that: an excuse. In fact most of the peoplethat use it have never done any ear training worth mentioning: they can't transcribe thesongs they like, they can't play the musical ideas that pop in their minds. Ultimately forthem "playing by ear" means adopting the "Hail Mary" strategy: playing something random



while hoping that something good will come out of it. Most of the time, it doesn't.

We musicians need to know theory as writers need to know grammar. It is not the ONLYthing we need to know (far from it), but it is absolutely necessary. While it is a commonoccurrence for many famous musicians (or their fans) to boast that they do not know anytheory, once you go and actually check the facts you will find that this is never the truth(the first one to post in the comments that "Hendrix never studied theory" will get a paton their head and a lollipop before being sent back to music pre-school).

So, now that we have established that there ain't such a thing as a free lunch and weneed to actually put some effort in if we want to be great or at least good, let's see whatnot to do.

I Need No Ear Training

It goes without saying that the previous point should not be construed to mean that youdo not need to train your ear. Duh.

Learning music theory and training you ear go hand in hand. Trying to do only one is liketrying to ride a bicycle without one wheel: useless, overly difficult, and a guarantee thatyou will hurt yourself. In fact I do take the radical position that ear training and musictheory are in fact the same thing. If you think about it, all music theory concepts can beexplained as "If you do X, that's how it sounds": "If you play a cadence, it sounds thisway," "if you play the notes of the chord while improvising it sounds this way," etc.

As you can see though, if you don't know what "this way" is for every single concept youlearn, then you are not really learning much! This is why there are a lot of people who saythat music theory is useless: they didn't connect the "formal" aspects of music theory withthe actual reality of music. After all, a map of your city is useful only if you know therelationship between the funny lines on the paper and the actual streets.

Luckily, there is a very simple solution for that: every time you learn something new intheory, PLAY it. Make sure you have at least 3-4 examples for each concept you learn (youcan compose them yourself in case).


Theory Will Harm My Creativity

If music theory destroys creativity, as many claim, then it follows that never in the historyof music there was a musician who knew music theory and was creative at the same time.In other words, all the following musicians composed uncreative music: Bach, Beethoven,Schubert, Chopin, Tchaikovskij, Coltrane, Parker, Django Reinhardt, Hendrix,Satriani, Vai, Jason Becker (Yes, Hendrix knew theory. Get over it!) I don't think this isa tenable position, in fact I find it plain ridiculous.

The truth is that if you study theory the right way, then it helps and support yourcreativity. The wrong way to learn it is to think of theory as a set of "rules" to followotherwise the "music theory police" will put you in jail. But this is not what music theory is:rather you should think of it as the collective experience of all past composers, a set ofprocedures and "tricks" that you can use when appropriate to move from a musical idea toa complete piece. Of course, even if you do not know anything about music theory youmight have an occasional spark of musical genius, but you won't know what to do with it.

I Can Teach Myself

Would you consider teaching yourself how to drive a car? What could go wrong after all? :-) Learning to drive by trial and error does not seem the best idea, right?

By the same token, you should not consider teaching yourself music theory by trial anderror. You may thing that while trying to drive a car you can hurt people, there is no harmdone in trying to learn theory without help. Or is there? Sure, there are musicians out therewho are able to compose even if they did not study music theory. But I can't help to thinkthat all these guys had to rediscover the wheel by themselves, that it would have been somuch easier for them if they knew more theory, and in fact what songs we are never goingto listen because these guys didn't realize their full potential? What could they have done ifthey knew more?

The composer with the greatest amount of raw talent ever was probably Mozart. And evenwith his incredible natural gifts he had to study composition for more than ten years. Unlessyou think you are more talented than Mozart, then don't try to learn alone.


The Information Is All Available On The Net

The net is a great resource, and there is definitely a lot available just one click away. Andyet all this information can work against you rather than helping you. How? Well, in order tobe useful to you, the information you come across needs to be relevant to what you wantto do. You see, you will need to study different things if you want to compose music forfilm than what you should stud if you want to improvise on a Blues. It's not that one is"better" or "more difficult": they are just different and require a different skillset.

For this reason - and I realize I'm not the first to say that - you need to know what yourgoals are and have a plan in place in order to reach them. Without a plan you are simplygoing to end wherever chance will take you, and in most cases this is not what you wantedat all!

In order to help you find what your goals are and how to arrive there, I have written foryou a "map" of music theory that you can download and will show you where you are andwhat you need to study next. You can find a link to it at the end of this article.

I Can Ask My Friend Joe

Everybody has a "friend Joe" that is supposed to be more knowledgeable. But are you reallysure that he actually knows what he's doing? Where did he learn what he knows? In fact,this is a good question to ask regardless if you apply it to your friend Joe or to your teacheror to the author of the article/book you are reading.

I am probably stating the obvious, but many self-styled "teachers," both online and offline,are simply coping each other without really understanding all the concepts they copy. Andwhen you read a copy of a copy of a copy of the original concept, then it is no wonder youare getting confused! You would be surprised how many WRONG things I found in books anDVDs that are sold all over the net.

My point here is: trust only people who are actually doing what you want to do! Do not buybooks from people who say "I am a teacher but not a performer/composer/writer." Thesepeople do not have a first-hand knowledge of what they teach, and most likely there areerrors in what they teach. Of course with this I do not mean that all teachers are failed


+ Should You Learn How To Read Music? General Music 03/05/2012+ Using Arpeggios In Blues - An Introduction General Music 08/12/2010+ 7 Tips To Make Your Everyday Guitar Practice More Fun AndEffective

General Music 03/31/2010

+ 8 Reasons Why Your Guitar Improvisation Does Not Sound LikeMusic

General Music 02/26/2010

+ Ideas Without Limits. Part 2 General Music 01/18/2010+ Ideas Without Limits. Part 1 General Music 09/17/2009

+

musicians - this is simply not true. But make sure to check the quality of your informationsource.

As a side note: when I say you have to check your teacher, I do not mean to ask him if hehas a music degree. There are many musicians out there who do not have any "official"degree but are still very competent in what they do and teach. The only relevant questionis: is this person able to do what you want to do? It's not the piece of paper, it's theactual skill that counts.

What Should I Do Now?

Three things: 1) forget about learn-by-yourself books for the time being. 2) decide whatyou want to be able to play and write down a plan on how to arrive there. If you need helpin this respect, download this map of music theory that I wrote for you and will tell youwhere you are and what is your next step. 3) Either follow your plan, or take it to acompetent teacher that will help you implement it in the fastest way. Don't waste yourtime by running in circles.

About The Author:Tommaso Zillio is a prog rock guitarist and teacher with a passion for Music Theory appliedto Guitar.

More tommaso.zillio columns:

submit Tweet233Like

view all

comments policy 218 comments posted


I used to think like that but than I realised that I was wrong so I begun studying theory and I can saythat it's the way to progress. Absolutely awesome tips!

posted on May 13, 2013 11:07 am # +47TheFlake

Right on!

posted on May 14, 2013 02:55 am # +6tommaso.zillio

Recorded with Street Smarts - https://soundcloud.com/ivztian/sets/quin...

posted on Aug 21, 2014 03:10 am #IVZTIAN

Definitely! I used to think theory was stupid because of famous guitarists that didn't know it butafter learning theory, I have progressed so much as a musician and a guitarist.

posted on May 17, 2013 03:20 pm # +1GangsterLi

Maybe it's just me, but for me.

"All great guitarists KNOW theory, that doesn't mean that they have studied it" to quoteanother thread. Not all great guitar players know the names of every scale. And some peopletrain their ears just by listening to something and replicating, over and over again. I knowsomeone that has more than 50 hours of tabbed instrumentation that knows not a single scalename.

And lastly, you dont need ear training to know that some frets dont sound appealing when youpress them down.

But maybe that's just me.

posted on Aug 06, 2013 03:12 am # +1lee.deane.528

posted on May 13, 2013 11:37 am # -24Ripshadow


I'm confused. Where's the link to Tom Hess' site? I think a lot of guitarists and musicians are interestedwith stumbling upon their own stuff that sounds cool by themselves and the extremely broad, andmisunderstood, idea of music theory being like a shortcut to said 'stuff' (i.e input chord progression ->recieve the correct notes to play over it) mightn't just appeal to them. I've heard plenty of people saythat "Hendrix never studied theory" crap alright, but I think to say this:

"The composer with the greatest amount of raw talent ever was probably Mozart. And even with hisincredible natural gifts he had to study composition for more than ten years. Unless you think you aremore talented than Mozart, then don't try to learn alone."

..is a even sillier thing to say, totally different end of the spectrum and just as wrong I feel. It doesn'ttake a musical genius to know that a V-I cadence sounds great to end a song on, and through thecombination of ear training and basic theory, one could learn a lot of things by themselves. Of course Iimagine the more advanced levels of theory like the stuff they teach for university jazz courses orwhatever might get heavily diluted through the internet. But for the basic theory, sites like this andmagazines like Guitar Techniques are fantastic I think. Anyway where's that Hess link?!

Tommaso isn't Tom Hess. If he chooses to post certain Tom Hess articles, he can. But don'tcall him Tom Hess.

Also, your point about Mozart. The point of not learning music theory alone is so that you canhave someone explain things to you. In other words, you have an experienced guide. It's likeif you were hiking in the remote parts of the Andes Mountains, you would hire a guide. Youcould just hike it without a guide, but the guide knows the best routes and what to do inemergencies and such because he or she has been training longer than you have.

posted on May 17, 2013 11:18 am # +13crazysam23_Atax

Never said he was the ubiquitous and all powerful Mr. Hess 'crazysam23'. And don'tbother with the commands either lad.

I might as well respond to Tommaso's reply below, and I'll break it down a bit also.When I quoted you in my first post, the part about Mozart, I commented on yourfaulty logic. To put it in my own words this time, you said that if one were to attemptto learn theory by themselves, and unless they believed they had the same rawtalent as Mozart ('Talent is NOTHING,' you said in reply to N7Crazy belowremember?) they would fail.

posted on May 17, 2013 07:19 pm # -6Ripshadow


I went on to say that it doesn't take a musical genius to know that a V-I cadencesounds great to end a song on. Ironically it was through musictheory(dot)net that Ilearned about cadences a few years ago. I learned this information through theinternet anyway, and I connected the dots myself as to how powerful the resolutionsounds firsthand. You seemed to believe that I thought the V-I cadence was anoutline of what all of Mozart's music was. Your deductive skills are baffling.

And I don't agree with your assertion of 'only basic theory' either, but I'm notmerely going to write a large reply just because it would look impressive. I justknow you're wrong. The argument of building blocks is pretty much universallyapplicable, it's just some basics are more basic than others.

It's not that I disagree with the general idea of the article Tommaso. Music theory isbeneficial to all musicians. I just don't agree with any of these Hess clan articles thattend to claim we 'Joes' are too thick and lazy to learn theory for ourselves. It's overaggressive marketing.

Nice to see diversity of opinion anyway.

Ripshadow,I have read what you have to say and all I have gathered fromyour convoluted, poorly-worded, and unnecessarily extensive commentsis that you are simply an ass.

posted on Jun 04, 2013 06:14 pm # +6Fender52

Unless you were familiar with the area and an experienced hiker. And once again Imust say Johann Sebastian Bach "had the greatest amount of raw talent" (whateverthat even means) of any composer before or since. Don't believe me? Go listen toMagic Flute, then the Brandenburg Concertos.

posted on May 19, 2013 11:14 am #NewModelNos15

What I meant is that Mozart was the one with the largest head start. Hehad a phenomenal musical memory. He had an incredible facility atlearning piano technique. A great natural attitude to performing too. He

posted on May 19, 2013 12:23 pm # +2tommaso.zillio


had many of the possible advantages that genetic can give you. And YEThe still had to study - under a teacher.

What I DIDN'T say is that he was the best composer - just the one whostarted with the largest initial advantage. Mozart is, in fact, quite anaverage composer compared to many others.

Bach, to take your example, is much better as a composer. Incidentally,Bach is also someone who had little natural attitude and had to work reallyhard to achieve what he did. How? Again, studying under a teacher. Whatyou hear in Bach it's just the product of hard work, anyone of us can dothe same with enough study. Bach said it himself in his letters

To say Mozart was average makes me genuinely believe youare a retard when it comes to classical music... Stick to guitar...I'm genuinely offended by how much you THINK you knowabout classical music

posted on May 20, 2013 03:06 pm # -5bassgiant

Uh, whether or not Mozart's a great or average composer verymuch depends on how much you enjoy lengthy scale passagesinterspersed with the occasionaly arpeggio. He's certainly notobjectively good in the same way that Bach is.

posted on May 26, 2013 11:31 pm #rebel13ster

Wow, Mozart was ... average?? Interesting take there pilgrim

posted on Jun 02, 2013 10:35 pm #flatwound

Cool article, and some harsh truths!

posted on May 13, 2013 11:38 am # +11James Scott

posted on May 13, 2013 11:39 am # -15Ripshadow


*Computer issue, damnit!*

"Hendrix never studied theory" crap alright, but I think to say this:

"The composer with the greatest amount of raw talent ever was probably Mozart. And even with hisincredible natural gifts he had to study composition for more than ten years. Unless you think you aremore talented than Mozart, then don't try to learn alone."

..is a even sillier thing to say, totally different end of the spectrum and just as wrong I feel. It doesn'ttake a musical genius to know that a V-I cadence sounds great to end a song on, and through thecombination of ear training and basic theory, one could learn a lot of things by themselves. Of course Iimagine the more advanced levels of theory like the stuff they teach for university jazz courses orwhatever might get heavily diluted through the internet. But for the basic theory, sites like this andmagazines like Guitar Techniques are fantastic I think. Anyway where's that Hess link?!

You want a link to Tom Hess website? I really don't get why, but since you want it here it is:http://www.tomhess.net/

Mozart: if for you Mozart's music is "end a song with V-I" then you TOTALLY need to learn yourtheory properly.

As for "basic theory". There is ONLY basic theory. All "advanced" theory is just made by morecomplex applications of basic concepts. But if these basic concepts are not crystal clear, thenyou go nowhere. In other word: there is no "secret technique" taught in jazz university courses- it's just a proper understanding of the basics and their scope that allows you to build up onthem and combine them to create the music you want. And no, I don't think the Internet isdoing a good job at teaching even "basic" theory.


http://www.musictheory.net

this site goes over pretty much everything "basic". Obviously, it's not entirelycomprehensive, but it's a damn good resource.

posted on May 15, 2013 04:01 am # +1Calymos


The same thing I wrote on a comment below:

"I'm glad you cite musictheory.nt, as it is one of the prime example ofwhat I say above. While I commend the authors for their effort, they aremaking your life more difficult. For instance (and this is a non-comprehensive list):

- Notice how the "basic" lessons are ALL about reading music. As I wroteextensively in another column here on UG http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/columns/g... music reading is NOT music theory, the two are largely independent andyou should learn your theory before you learn how to read (and manySuzuki teachers would agree with me on these points)

- Then they go immediately on compound meters and odd time signatureBEFORE they even do the major keys. I guess they want you to playDream Theater before you can play Twinkle Twinkle Little Star

- Then they even have you learn all inversion of 7th chords BEFORE youput together a chord progression with triads! As if 7th chords are justobjects you can put one after the other... 7th chords arise due to voicesmoving in a specific way. This is not a different "style" of learning: if youlearn to build 7th chords (and suspended chords, and altered chords...)with moving voices, your chord progressions sound MUCH better, MUCHfaster and are MUCH easier to learn...

I could go on and on regarding this specific site. This is just to show youthat I was not bullshitting: there ARE very specific issues with what I seeon the net in most sites, and these issues are making YOUR life muchmore difficult than it needs to be."


My reply to your comment below.

"You know what, no. Absolutely not. Music theory- by definition,mind you - is the study of musical notation. It is the writtenlanguage of music, which is impossible to separate from the

posted on May 15, 2013 02:31 pm # -2Calymos


spoken language- if you play it, it can be written.

I intrinsically disagree with what you're saying, andsimultaneously believe that you are committing multipleinformal logical fallacies by means of red herring, reification(citing self as source), and slippery slope.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the website going overcompound meter- by saying "I guess they want you to playDream Theater before you can play Twinkle Twinkle Little Star",you're suggesting that what they are doing is misleading; thereare quite a few simple folk songs that run in 3/4, (Star SpangledBanner, Take me out to the Ballgame), and for that matter, I'dsay that popular songs such as Pink Floyd's Money in 7/8,suggest that this is an integral part of music theory.

As far as learning all of the inversions go, I again disagree withyou, but not on terms of the site itself. If somebody is going outof their way to learn music theory, this is not the end of theirjourney; this is part of it. What you're suggesting in this counterargument is that this is the only site the student is going to belooking at, and this should, quite simply, not be the case.Resources aren't like that; they do not exist in a vacuum, andshould not be treated as a linear expanse of knowledge.Personally, I went through the first little section of the websiteand then proceeded to learn the things that I was interested in,completely skipping most of the site.

Also, you say :"This is not a different "style" of learning: if youlearn to build 7th chords (and suspended chords, and alteredchords...) with moving voices, your chord progressions soundMUCH better, MUCH faster and are MUCH easier to learn..." -however, this is entirely subjective. A side effect of learningtheory is that you learn to teach yourself, and as such, onewould experiment more. This is contradictory to what you say inthe rest of your paragraph, as "7th chords are just objects" isinherently false. I mean, really, if somebody is learning what aninversion is, don't you think it follows that they would thenexplore different ways of creating them?


So moving back to my original point, I believe that you'recommitting the fallacy of ambiguity. You're citing yourself as asource, and frankly, you are not a reliable one. You've gotsome good points, and I do not disagree with everything yousay. However, for you to rag on people about learning online,and then cite your source, to me you are tarnishing your ownname.

I'd be more than happy to continue this, if you feel it necessary.I've used this website for the past 7 years, and do notappreciate users like you trying to scare young guitarists intodownloading your ebook, especially considering how hypocriticalyour argument is for it."

TL;DR

You're bullshitting and I've got logical proof of it.

"Music theory- by definition, mind you - is the study of musicalnotation. " Wrong. This is EXACTLY one of the problems inreading stuff online and taking it for granted I'm sorry, butyour "definition" is plain wrong. Music theory is the study of whymusic works, why it evokes some specific emotions in us, andhow to leverage this knowledge to make more music.

Music notation is just how to put down music on paper. You canstudy how to put together (say) a great chord progressionwithout knowing how to read a note. You can also be able tosight read anything, and have no idea (say) how to write a soloon a chord progression. The two things are unrelated.

I do think that musictheory.nt is making a good job at teachingmusic NOTATION, but I think it's making a terrible one atteaching music THEORY. Not that YOU took out this websitehere. I purposefully avoided naming any in my article. Icommend the authors for their effort in putting it together. Iknow their intentions were good. I have no beef with them.



As a final note, Pink Floyd's Money is in 7/4. Fail

I thank you for making this point, as I've argued much thesame myself. My high school music theory teacher used thatsite specifically to create all lessons, and once I realized whatwas happening, I failed out of the class on purpose because itwas such a waste of time. I knew more theory going into theclass that I'd learnt from my guitar teacher, than what I learntfrom that woman who was so clueless as to not even realizethat what she was teaching was NOT music theory.

posted on May 16, 2013 10:17 am # +2hallowedshred

If she was teaching 7th chords, major keys, etc., that IS musictheory despite what Tommaso and his tom-hess-self-proclaimed-virtuoso-fan-group are claiming. Music theory is whythings work and don't work. Music ANALYSIS is why certainthings evoke certain feelings. Tommaso, you're very unreliable!

posted on May 18, 2013 02:17 pm #bassgiant

both of your definitions of music theory are wrong. Music theoryNEVER attempts to explain why it evokes specific emotions inus. It does not answer why music works either. Both of thesetopics belong in the field of psychomusicology.

"Music theory" in the most common sense is the description ofcommon musical idioms and structures in western music sincethe development of tonality.

If I were to provide my own definition...

Music theory is the study of the relationships and organization ofpitched, rhythmic, dynamic, and/or color elements of sound.

posted on May 16, 2013 11:44 am # +2shreddymcshred


Comments

noavatar,

clickto add

guest

Post a comment!

This definition includes the study of intervals, chords, scales,modes, etc; it covers serial elements of 20th century music withthe inclusion of rhythmic, dynamic, and color aspects; finally, itincludes structural analysis (organization) which is an incrediblylarge part of music theory/analysis in art music.

shreddymcshred: while I agree on the definition of the technicalart of music theory as based on relationships etc, I have topoint out that if music theory as a whole does not relates toemotions, then it is useless for musical purposes.

I do agree that many sources teach only the technical part ofmusic (say, the difference between a major and a minor chordis the 3rd). But what you NEED, and what a correctly taughtcourse in music theory will give you is how to use thesetechnical elements to make art, i.e. the emotional connection(i.e. everything else being the same, a major chord is heard ashappier than a minor chord).

Mind you, it's not just me saying that, it's a number of greatmusicians that happened to be also great teachers (Schoenbergin his Harmony book, Hindemith in his theory series, etc...)


B I U :)

6 Things Most guitarists

Documents

Transcript of 6 Things Most guitarists