Theory.. Am I dumb??

[TonyMoroney]

Guys,

I've been reading Pete's great article over at SOTW (http://www.saxontheweb.net/Rock_n_Roll/RockSax03.html) and for some reason, I just can't seem to grok the whole theory thing. Now I don't consider myself dumb by any means (I've designed and built some of the largest computer networks in the world) but when it comes to Music Theory I seem to be missing something, the bulb just isn't lighting up.

Is this normal, has my brain turned to mush, or is it straight forward and I'm just not getting it?

I'll be taking the article to my teacher this week, I'm guessing it will test his mettle as a teacher :whistle:

All help and hints are appreciated on how to move forwards with this.

Cheers

T.

 

[Rogerb]

It's like learning nuclear physics in a new language, using a new alphabet, IMO, like, say, Japanese 😱

You just have to creep up on it, as I am having to do with my playing *as well as* learning to read Japonusic 😀

I reached 'brain overload' very quickly trying to read & understand the concepts on the page you referred to....... and I'm not thick, either 😀

 

[sharon]

OK I thought it was just me 😉 When I read something like that my eyes glaze over and I hear a hazy version of the girl from ipanema in my head. 8|

I assume it is because I'm at the beginning of a very long road. It seems the more you learn the more you don't understand. I thought music was just following the dots on the page. How wrong I was! I think Roger is right, it is like learning another language.

Sharon

 

[Pete Thomas]

I'd be really interested to know at which point this becomes unclear. My original jazz theory articles (ie the ones on my main site not labelled "beginner", were originally written for music undergraduates and of course to understand those it's necessary to have a grounding in basic music theory (e.g. Grade V), and desirable to be in touch with someone in the role of a tutor who can explain specific bits - if you don't have someone like that you have this forum.

All the beginners articles on my main site were written in respons to beginners who obviously found the starting point of the main theory articles a bit too advanced. If they are still not clear or basic enough I need to know how to change them.

Now the SOTW articles if I remember correctly were not written for absolute beginners, I think my brief was to write something for saxophone students who had progressed to an intermediate level, but not yet had any experience of rock & roll. They were tried out on vraious students in the "target audience" and revised based on feedback before being published.

Perthaps my subtitle there "Basic Rock & Roll Theory" is a bit misleading and implies that this is for absolute beginners on the saxophone with no music theory knowledge at all.

If I've got ot right, the SOTW articles should make more sense to beginners if you have already studied the beginners jazz theory on my main site. If not please let me know, ideally with specific examples of any hurdles.

 

[Rogerb]

No, Pete, I am sure those articles are fine for your intended 'target readers'....... but for those of us who still sometimes struggle with FACE & EGBDF (and especially the notes above and below), let alone all the major scales, phew :x

It's the word "Basic", I guess, which draws some of us to (start to) read such pages..... I'm still at a VERY 'basic' level, even after 18 months, with both playing and reading 🙁 But I AM improving, albeit at a snail's pace 😀

 

[Pete Thomas]

As I suspected. "Basic" is the problem word, maybe I should get that edited to make it clearer.

Roger, can you tell me if there is also a problem with the beginners jazz theory on my main site. Feedback is very useful.

 

[sharon]

Yes I agree with Roger completely. There are many people who are saxophone beginners but not beginners to music. I am like Roger (I think) in that I am learning the music in order to play the sax. The stuff that is listed in the article is aimed at sax novices but not music novices IMO. For me it's like I understand the words but not the meaning (a bit like maths). This I'm sure is because I have not learnt musical theory, just the notes that I play.

I think of it like learning a language in as much as you can learn some french or spanish for your hols but that is different from actually learning the rules of grammar for that language.

You're right Roger, the word "basic" does draw you, but without the necessary background musical knowlege of all the scales etc. it is hard. I find it easier to understand this type of thing I think if I can hear it in action.

By the way, Pete I think the basic instructions on this site for sax techniques e.g. saxophone sound, tone and effects are spot on and easy to understand and try. I can't speak for the other beginners, but it's the diminished patterns, chromatic type stuff that is beyond me, because I just don't have enough musical knowledge yet.

Sharon

 

[philthd]

basic is the necessary word because what you outline here is the necessary knowledge before you can move on to deeper theory.

basic is not necessarily a synonym for simple - in all fields, pros still need to work on getting the basics right

calling a section "beginners", however, does imply a certain level of simplicity, and if the concensus is that it lacks that you might think about calling that "basics" as well




the main way i find that music is like a language is that once you are fluent in it, it can be hard to remember what was hard about it.
[EDIT:] by which i wasnt levelling some sort of accusation at this site which is an excellent resource that i have found useful on numerous occasions

 

[TonyMoroney]

Hi Pete,

The beginners Jazz Theory is kinda interesting, because my background has a lot of Blues as I write and photograph for rock and blues mags in my spare time, so I'd covered off the I IV V triads, and a bunch of "keys" and how the number of sharps noted on the stave ties back to the scales. It helped me a lot to have the scales written out and ordered by the number sharps in the scale, which gave me a quick reference and ease of access to the appropriate triad.....

I think Pete you've done a great job on this article which with a bit of practice I'll be able to learn it, the hardest part about writing articles, is the lack of interaction and real-time feedback to allow the opportunity to clarify the points which the reader doesn't understand.

Can people really commit all of this to memory though and act on it without the mechanical thinking process, obviously they do, the pro's are living proof 8| ???

People say that you know you are fluent in a language when you are able to "think" in that language (people that are not fluent obviously have to think in their own language, then translate in their heads before saying what they need to).

But the concept of being able to remember these scales to a point of fluency and improvisation I think seems daunting to beginners (at least it does to me). I think a part of the problem is that, when "you don't know, what you don't know" it's hard to create structure and understand the starting points... for this you must trust your teacher, and I suppose, finding the right teacher is the hardest thing of all. I'm about to start with my second Sax teacher in the next few days. My original question though wasn't as to the suitability of the article per se, but more of wanting to know if everyone found music theory as difficult as I do 🙂

T.

 

[philthd]

TonyMoroney wrote:
People say that you know you are fluent in a language when you are able to "think" in that language (people that are not fluent obviously have to think in their own language, then translate in their heads before saying what they need to).

rapidly veering off the subject, but this is a concept that really annoys me.

thought is independent of language. even those with no language such as young children are constantly having thoughts. if it werent for the ability to have thoughts which we were unbounded by language, society would never develop (and nor would language for that matter)

what you actually mean is that someone fluent in a second language can articulate their thoughts directly into it, rather than the longer process of mentally expressing it in their own language and then translating it.

many people have tried to tell me this is the same thing, but it is fundamentally different.


pretty irrelevant to the subject in hand, however. sorry

 

[Rogerb]

Pete
I think Sharon and Tony have answered the question you addressed to me, in pretty much the same way as I would have liked to, but probably more clearly!

I think what makes it a bit indigestible, for me, is that I feel I'd like you to stop every now and then, saying "Like this!..... Now you try that!"
There are just to may words, discussing rather abstract concepts, and I need something 'concrete' to 'attach ' it to....if you follow me?

As someone once explained it to me, you need a balanced mixture of 'Mass' and 'Significance'....... if you have, relatively, too much 'significance', it's a bit like trying to teach typing without a typewriter 😱

I hope that makes sense to someone other than me 😀

 

[Pete Thomas]

Yes, thanks Roger. That makes comnplete sense and its how I feel about software manuals.

 

[Greywolf]

Don't go down to Dover and try and swim the channel. Enjoy paddling with your toes in the water first, then up to your ankles. Take it easy.

Music is a bit like an ocean with bays and creeks and open water.

Very few musical explorers know every creek and inlet, most know a lot about their own home waters....but it takes time learning to navigate. A chart and compass are useful and a knowledgeable pilot invaluable otherwise you may find yourself in trouble in deep water.

You wouldn't expect to sail single handed round the world at 52 after 3 sailing lessons.