I always like to compare music theory to the grammar of a language. Even if a native speaker doesn't "know" the rules of the language in the academic sense, he still has a working understanding of them. Same with music theory. Of course guys like Marty Friedman or Dimebag Darrel understand how scales, modes and harmony work even if they haven't studied it in an academic sense
truth is that by practising and learning by yourself which patterns work and which doesn't, writing your own stuff and making it sound good or the way you want it to sound, you're learning / applying theory, even if you don't know the name of what you're doing
Nico, Thank you very much for this analysis, it’s always nice to hear about modes and guitar theory, absolutely love your content mate, I’m a guitarist and these things help me improve everyday, thank you very much my friend.
Great video as always Nico! As a linguist, I believe the same is true for creative writing and technical knowledge of language. The best authors and writers don't have to know what a past participle or head phrase adjunct is. They have a natural 'feel' for language. As humans, we have a built-in faculty for music, language and most of the arts. Some are more in touch with this than others naturally. Some are better at getting in touch with it than others. On the other hand, if someone has an intricate knowledge of syntax and semantics, it doesn't mean they'll be a successful writer. If anything, if they wrote a novel from a rules-based approach instead of using their in-built faculty for art, 'over-thinking it' would only ever take away from the creative flow (i.e. the transcription of feelings or events in the real world into words/ music/ pictures etc.) (...in 95% of the cases!) But, if they want to explain to others the gears behind what they're doing (or the science/ theory), we use the accepted nomenclature (mostly Italian words and phrases in music) and the underlining maths to explain harmonics etc. to convey the science behind the art. Loved this video as always. Hope you had an excellent weekend Nico
That is a very good analogy, and I can relate to this one very well! Now I'm actually sorry I didn't mention it in the video 🤦😅 I can speak and write in Italian, French, and English, at the mother tongue level, mostly without grammatical or spelling errors - but I cannot explain the grammatical rules to you. If you ask me to conjugate the verb to go in the imperfect subjunctive in French or Italian, I might look at you like this 😳 but in the very rare occasion I might have to use it in a sentence, I have no problem doing so either verbally or in writing. This is because I was a horrible student in class (back then ADHD was rarely diagnosed) but I loved to read so I just developed an intuitive grasp of correct usage. 🤷🙂
@@LicksOfTheBeast Exactly! We have an inherent ability to learn languages, namely speaking and listening - these are natural phenomena that we're biologically endowed to learn whereas writing systems are human 'inventions'. So our parents and teachers sit us down and teach us how to use a pen on paper to produce written language. But we don't sit and explain why we use the past participle when using the past perfect (parents often find themselves 'teaching' their children 'taught' instead of 'teached - but that's another story of how children over generalise rules and this 'teaching' from our parents doesn't actually 'help' them to rectify this... that's one for another day 🤣 But I wonder if, in the same way, we are biologically endowed to create art. That is to say, I wonder if we have an inherent, built-in system to create it in a similar way that we can make music or draw pictures? When it comes to explaining the rules, i.e. the science we've discovered that underlines the art we make, then the science kicks in. I'm not a drawer but I think the 'rule of thirds' is one such underlying theory. I wonder if, in the same way, we have a feel for it which is why we can naturally produce it, but we don't naturally have the ability to explain what's going on beneath the surface. To relate back to your original video, I think knowing the rule of thirds can make you a better drawer! So having that knowledge can certainly help us create better art! I'm glad that you discovered a love of reading and it's certainly paid off if you're now trilingual! Channelling our focus or energy into these things when we're young really can pay off when we're older! I have to go to work now but great to chat with you Nico about things outside to realm of music! And I look forward to your next video on the comparison between language and music! 🎶😄
Hi, love your content and great player you are. My favorite rock metal quitarist of all time Randy Rhoads and he has great music theory knowledge and teaching ability. He did so mutch in that short period of time.
Thank you so much for the kind words and yeah, Randy was definitely one who kept learning as much as he could, even though he was already able to do quite a bit just by knowing only the more basic things and having a good sense of melody. 😊
Hey Nico, just wanted to say thank you for the Iron Maiden song breakdowns. They really helped me get a better grasp on what’s going on during some of those solos. Even if I can’t replicate them perfectly it definitely helped me improve from what I was playing before. So thanks again!
Queen are a band that exemplify music theory knowledge. They have songs that sit well in every genre. In the metal world, flat 5s and Em pentatonic rule supreme. It's a shame because bands like Judas Priest always did all the cool metal stuff but were still very musical.
I am 53 and started playing at 10. For the first few years it was just a toy to make sounds and trying to imitate the sounds I heard around me. I did not know it at the time but of course I was learning the fretboard and learning the instrument. I was learning where the sounds came from on the fretboard. In my teens I took basic lessons. After a few years of being frustrated with bad teachers who did not teach me theory, I decided to go to the library and learn it myself. For years I was playing in bands and applying the basics I learned from horrible teachers. But when I truly started learning theory, I realized why the riffs I was writing fit together nicely. I realized my riffs had a tonic and how the chords I chose just sound correct because they resolved eventually back to the tonic. So now when I wrote new music it was a much quicker process. I knew the road map. Before when I would put riffs together, I realized my old music had key changes. Without knowing it I was applying chords or notes from a parallel key such as C major and C minor or changing a key with a secondary dominant. Now when I wrote music, I knew how to change keys, so it sounded like it flowed better without having to constantly try something new to make it sound correct. It is a much quicker process. Before I learned theory, I would get into a writing rut and had problems with new ideas. Now that I understand theory I have an endless number of resources to pull from to be creative. So, it's possible to know some theory without even knowing that you know it. But this comes with years of experience to be able to pull from it.
I would also say that Losfer Words riff is in A mixolydian and not A Dorian. Yes it has the notes of Dorian but it has the feel and architecture of a classic rock mixolydian passage. Whenever you combine elements of blues (b3, b7), the rules get very grey. The biggest difference is a minor mode vs a major one; LW sounds major thus the mixolydian
I do understand complex music theory, and even I tell people who think music theory is hampering that they're looking at it the wrong way. Music theory happens AFTER the music happens. Ergo, there's no theory OF music, WITHOUT MUSIC. I'm not trying to "get in the head" of the artist who made the song and understand their creative process, that's not the point. Rather, I'm listening to my favorite music, gleaning interesting things they're doing, putting a name to it, and then putting that idea in a grab bag of musical tricks. Plus, where did the idea that knowing theory all of a sudden means you play with no feeling or you stop using your ears to guide you? Nowhere is that even mentioned. Like, not even once. The ear is king, and ALWAYS WILL BE KING. If it sounds good IT IS GOOD.
I do find it interesting that people assume "self-taught" mean you don't know any theory. Like you said you, can find it all online. Even in the 80s there were books. Kirk Hammett talked about buying a ton of books so he could learn to compose harmonies without needing to asking Cliff every time.
@@lets_rock_it I think your knowledge base is usually going to be a combination of formal instruction and being self-taught unless you spend years in formal instruction. I myself took lessons for a while, but most of my theoretical knowledge is self-taught.
George Lynch said in an interview with Dave Navarro that he "couldn't play a G major scale if you put a gun to his head", and the went on to pontificate how he loves the sound of the flat 6. I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no way that he could NOT play a major scale.
I think the best guitar players have come to the top of the pile through years of playing live and jamming with other musicians. When they say they are self-taught, they are in the way they haven't had lessons. But the good self-taught guys are naturally able to play the guitar and find the melody they need. But soloing really good solos, you have to understand the chords and key relationships at very least.
Adrian Smith uses the MINOR pentatonic added Major 2nd = Minor Hexatonic Scale? Iron Maiden often harmonizes the melody a minor 6th down or major 6th down?
I’m someone who used to constantly wonder what the big deal about theory was and I thought that every popular musician and composer just “wrote was in their head, and didn’t know what (theory-wise) they were actually writing, we’re just using theory to explain it”. I’m an oboist and almost two months into my undergrad at a conservatory, taking theory, and I can assure everyone I was wrong. Every great composer of all time obviously used an insane knowledge of theory to write, and especially artists like Billy Joel use theory to specifically get certain musical and emotional ideas across to the listener, by knowing what chords will work best, etc. Overall, i thought knowing theory would make me hear music in a worse way, because I thought the magic would be gone and that I would think everything now sounds boring and calculated. That didn’t happen. Knowing theory just makes everything way more awesome for me now. I’ll find myself listening to any song and being like “wait a second I didn’t realize how cool that was that he wrote that, and that that key change is there”. Not to mention the massive boost it’s given my playing, just in the ability to better comprehend music. But it absolutely is true that you can know zero academic theory, like I did for a long time, and still be a great musician by just feeling it. Even though you might not be able to put your musical ideas into definition in words, they’re still there!
I never would've been able to connect the dots on the guitar without a little theory. Maybe I was just too dumb to discover triads or intervals on my own. I didn't have a band to teach me, and not enough time to reinvent the wheel. Glad I finally bought a theory book and startrd working, and stopped believing the nyth of the magical guitar player
This is an age long debate. :) I need to say that there is a reason, why theory is considered to be a set of rules. In academia, the theory is taught as a part of a certain musical tradition, which we call "classical". While self-learinng theory in my 20's, I used a couple of acclaimed academia books and I need to say, they were quite imperative on many aspects. And that annoyed me to hell, because I wanted to understand, why the stuff that I like works. And what I liked... It was not dubbed wrong in those books, it was just considered non-existent. Having said that, it is obvious, that anyone who ever said something like "the key is F sharp minor", "move this up a fourth", "triplet", "off-beat" etc, is already using a theory ))))
I think it's really about how you want to write a song. Either you go to theory or you just jam and see what comes out. For me, approaching theory has always felt wrong, like it demystifies the creative process. Often I never really know what my song will end up sounding like. And I wouldn't want to change that for a deeper theoretic understanding. That ruins the magic for me. So rather, I let my subconsciuos collection of music theory emerge as it wants. Which I think is what you are referring to here, so maybe that's whera the resistance towards music theory lies.
I have had many conversations over the years with people who agree with you, that theory will ruin the magic of the creative process. In my opinion, this statement comes from a misunderstanding of theory. Theory should be used to identify and replicate sounds in your head, rather than be a set of rules that dictate the outcome. I'm not saying this is the case with you, but usually this creative process that must be preserved, is just playing random notes, until something that sounds good is stumbled on by accident.
I like to think that there is no knowledge that is not potential power. Most things have a theoretical aspect and practical one. Look at riding a motorcycle for example. You have theory that tells you about stuff like countersteering, lean angle and cornering, breaking dynamics etc etc. and you have the practice, which is how you learn to actually get from point a to point b safely and smoothly. You can learn to ride by watching others and trial and error, but you can get faster results and probably avoid a few painful mistakes by studying a little theory beforehand. Either way, once you know how to ride, you don't ever think about any of those things when you're actually riding. Knowledge just becomes a part of you, and the process becomes intuitive. Music is not that different in the sense that once you know what sounds good and you've developed a playing style, you don't ever think too much about it. You just play what sounds good and communicates the vibe you're trying to convey - and experience and practice will give you that, regardless of academic knowledge. However, in situations like if you're working on a composition, having a little deeper knowledge of music theory can give you more options when arranging or coming up with more interesting transitions, harmonies, progressions etc. That's where I think you might notice a more tangible advantage.
Obviously, more knowledge is always usefull. But for me, just speaking for me, I have not got the time or interest for theory. That's not why I got into music, and I'm still satisfied with my accomplishments and with my development. It's just a matter of opinion in the end. I remember learning theory early and it almost made me quit music. Instead, it has got me through som tough times. You can't replace talent with theory but, of course, it's always a strong tool. Not necessary but certainly powerfull.
It's not a must, but learning some can be helpful. If it's something you would like to get into to any degree, don't be deterred by its apparent complexity. Just start from the basics and take what is useful to you. 😊
Thank you very much! I never use amps in any of my videos. It's all audio plugins, mostly Neural DSP. The heavier tone is SLO-100X and the clean tones are from Archetype: Asato
I was a classically trained pianist before taking up the guitar at around age 14. Perhaps I was poorly trained, but I never heard of 'modes' and lots of other concepts until I figured it out by trial and error. I even went to a private school on a music scholarship, but I always found the hidebound and rigid adherance to 'classical' theory and rules to be nonsense. Sure, it helps, but a little knowledge can be detrimental. What is the saying? 'You know enough to get yourself into trouble'.
That's the danger of the so-called Dunning Krueger Effect, combined with a rigid mindset that sees rules as inviolable laws rather than helpful general guidelines 🙂
I feel like asserting a player ignores theory and strictly goes with feeling is not complementing the musician, but actually disrespecting their intellect and work ethic. It's great to have talent and intuition (it implies the individual is special and destined for greatness), but accumulating experience and earning actual comprehension is far more useful in my opinion. I suspect most great and successful players have talent and feeling, but also work hard and learn the system to master their craft.
I once saw a drummer say he knew ZERO theory. That's b.s. 100%. My response: so if someone says 4 to the bar you have no clue what to play? Of course not, cause 4 to the bar is rhythm theory. Do you know what 4/4 is vs 3/4? Of course, that's music theory. .... Essentially, too many folks think music theory is advanced jazz chords like a flattened 3rd and add9, but its not. Its everything.
Can I argue that some riffs, licks from metal guys, especially from first albums, when they were like 20-22 years old are really a thing of "it sounds cool" or pure "visual accident" (because lot of young guitarist learn guitar by shapes, and then they learn what those shapes actually are and why are they like that way later), and they really didn't know theoretically what they were doing. I can even argue this for when they were older, I watched a video of Adrian Smith explaining and playing The Wicker Man solo, he did some diminished stuff, and he said I do this, I have no idea what it is (he said something like that). So basically he learned a shape and how it works on the guitar, and played it, not knowing the theory behind. You can also argue it for The Number of the beast riff, they start with Major, but I don't believe they wanted to play Major, they just find that shape cool sounding and they went like: "let's do it from D position then drop it to C because it sounds cool". Many metal/rock bands (especially 70s, 80s), or if we talk about guitarist, were drunk or on drugs when they created music, thus I think they just played whatever sounded cool, and not because it's that scale and that mode and that interval. Exceptions are always there of course.
That's pretty much what I'm saying. 😊 Although a lot of those things sound good because they make sense musically. Adrian doesn't know that the reason that lick is a diminished seventh arpeggio, and that the reason it sounds cool is that the repeated tritone you hear between E and Bb builds tension that needs to be resolved. He just knows the sound he's going for, and because he's absorbed so much music over the decades, he knows how to get it. But it's easier for me to explain or refer to it by saying "he plays a diminished seventh arpeggio in a sextuplet pattern for one and a half bars" than "ok so here he goes like meedly meedly meedly meedly meedly meedly meedly meeeeeee" (Stong Bad, anyone?😁)
You can hear the lack of theory knowledge in a lot of metal. Quite often metal songs will have a cool riff and then a very, very mediocre verse that’s just basic chords in which the vocal melody distracts the average listener. You also end up with solos that, while sometimes flashy, are not really musically interesting. You get bands such as Iron Maiden who play the same chord progression for over half of their catalogue. You get Kirk Hammett who was able to get 3 albums worth of decent solos before ol’ reliable pentatonic ran out of steam. You do get some guys who play so much that they eventually develop a knack for writing cool stuff, but the bands that actually know theory never really put out total duds such as St Anger or Supercollider. Lastly, a lot of guys will say they “don’t know music theory” when what they actually don’t know is how to sight read, but they actually know theory just fine.
Theory explains what was already played. But there still needs to be understanding of the music language. A band like maiden is actually very repetitive and limited in its musical scope; you can tell that they don’t know a lot about music- they’ve simply milked E minor for everything it’s worth. As a veteran musician myself, I cannot fathom how a musician wouldn’t want to study the language in all of its forms
A lot of people who play up music theory just want to sell you a course. *Cough* *Cough* ShredmasterScott. Just do what feels right to you. There is no right or wrong way to play guitar
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with advocating for the value of one's goods or services, especially if one is truly passionate about what they do.
Love to see Criss Oliva getting a shout out ❤. One of my favourite metal players for thirty years. Taken from us far too soon R.I.P.
I always like to compare music theory to the grammar of a language. Even if a native speaker doesn't "know" the rules of the language in the academic sense, he still has a working understanding of them. Same with music theory. Of course guys like Marty Friedman or Dimebag Darrel understand how scales, modes and harmony work even if they haven't studied it in an academic sense
Marty has absolutely studied theory. He can't read sheet music, but he knows theory.
this is a fantastic take on this discussion. you explain this stuff in a very tangible, approachable way while keeping the information valid.
That's a very kind compliment. Thank you!!
truth is that by practising and learning by yourself which patterns work and which doesn't, writing your own stuff and making it sound good or the way you want it to sound, you're learning / applying theory, even if you don't know the name of what you're doing
Nico, Thank you very much for this analysis, it’s always nice to hear about modes and guitar theory, absolutely love your content mate, I’m a guitarist and these things help me improve everyday, thank you very much my friend.
That's so great to hear! 😊
Great player and Great teacher.🎸
Great video as always Nico!
As a linguist, I believe the same is true for creative writing and technical knowledge of language.
The best authors and writers don't have to know what a past participle or head phrase adjunct is. They have a natural 'feel' for language. As humans, we have a built-in faculty for music, language and most of the arts. Some are more in touch with this than others naturally. Some are better at getting in touch with it than others.
On the other hand, if someone has an intricate knowledge of syntax and semantics, it doesn't mean they'll be a successful writer. If anything, if they wrote a novel from a rules-based approach instead of using their in-built faculty for art, 'over-thinking it' would only ever take away from the creative flow (i.e. the transcription of feelings or events in the real world into words/ music/ pictures etc.) (...in 95% of the cases!)
But, if they want to explain to others the gears behind what they're doing (or the science/ theory), we use the accepted nomenclature (mostly Italian words and phrases in music) and the underlining maths to explain harmonics etc. to convey the science behind the art.
Loved this video as always. Hope you had an excellent weekend Nico
That is a very good analogy, and I can relate to this one very well! Now I'm actually sorry I didn't mention it in the video 🤦😅
I can speak and write in Italian, French, and English, at the mother tongue level, mostly without grammatical or spelling errors - but I cannot explain the grammatical rules to you. If you ask me to conjugate the verb to go in the imperfect subjunctive in French or Italian, I might look at you like this 😳 but in the very rare occasion I might have to use it in a sentence, I have no problem doing so either verbally or in writing.
This is because I was a horrible student in class (back then ADHD was rarely diagnosed) but I loved to read so I just developed an intuitive grasp of correct usage. 🤷🙂
@@LicksOfTheBeast Exactly! We have an inherent ability to learn languages, namely speaking and listening - these are natural phenomena that we're biologically endowed to learn whereas writing systems are human 'inventions'. So our parents and teachers sit us down and teach us how to use a pen on paper to produce written language. But we don't sit and explain why we use the past participle when using the past perfect (parents often find themselves 'teaching' their children 'taught' instead of 'teached - but that's another story of how children over generalise rules and this 'teaching' from our parents doesn't actually 'help' them to rectify this... that's one for another day 🤣
But I wonder if, in the same way, we are biologically endowed to create art. That is to say, I wonder if we have an inherent, built-in system to create it in a similar way that we can make music or draw pictures?
When it comes to explaining the rules, i.e. the science we've discovered that underlines the art we make, then the science kicks in. I'm not a drawer but I think the 'rule of thirds' is one such underlying theory. I wonder if, in the same way, we have a feel for it which is why we can naturally produce it, but we don't naturally have the ability to explain what's going on beneath the surface.
To relate back to your original video, I think knowing the rule of thirds can make you a better drawer! So having that knowledge can certainly help us create better art!
I'm glad that you discovered a love of reading and it's certainly paid off if you're now trilingual! Channelling our focus or energy into these things when we're young really can pay off when we're older!
I have to go to work now but great to chat with you Nico about things outside to realm of music! And I look forward to your next video on the comparison between language and music! 🎶😄
Great Great 🫡 man keep on Going and make us more clear 😍
Thanks 🙏
Good stuff, Nico!
The ignorance of some people is painstaking to deal with. But it does generate great videos like this one!
🙌🙌
Great video as always! 👍
Hi, love your content and great player you are. My favorite rock metal quitarist of all time Randy Rhoads and he has great music theory knowledge and teaching ability. He did so mutch in that short period of time.
Thank you so much for the kind words and yeah, Randy was definitely one who kept learning as much as he could, even though he was already able to do quite a bit just by knowing only the more basic things and having a good sense of melody. 😊
Hey Nico, just wanted to say thank you for the Iron Maiden song breakdowns. They really helped me get a better grasp on what’s going on during some of those solos. Even if I can’t replicate them perfectly it definitely helped me improve from what I was playing before. So thanks again!
That's awesome to hear! 😃🤘🤘
Seconded! If only he'd provide us tabs too....
Some tabs are already available on the website and my Patreon page and more will be added in time. 🙂
@@LicksOfTheBeastOoh! Thanks for reply! And the tabs! Keep up the good work, best Maiden channel on the tube!
Queen are a band that exemplify music theory knowledge. They have songs that sit well in every genre. In the metal world, flat 5s and Em pentatonic rule supreme. It's a shame because bands like Judas Priest always did all the cool metal stuff but were still very musical.
I am 53 and started playing at 10. For the first few years it was just a toy to make sounds and trying to imitate the sounds I heard around me. I did not know it at the time but of course I was learning the fretboard and learning the instrument. I was learning where the sounds came from on the fretboard. In my teens I took basic lessons. After a few years of being frustrated with bad teachers who did not teach me theory, I decided to go to the library and learn it myself. For years I was playing in bands and applying the basics I learned from horrible teachers. But when I truly started learning theory, I realized why the riffs I was writing fit together nicely. I realized my riffs had a tonic and how the chords I chose just sound correct because they resolved eventually back to the tonic. So now when I wrote new music it was a much quicker process. I knew the road map. Before when I would put riffs together, I realized my old music had key changes. Without knowing it I was applying chords or notes from a parallel key such as C major and C minor or changing a key with a secondary dominant. Now when I wrote music, I knew how to change keys, so it sounded like it flowed better without having to constantly try something new to make it sound correct. It is a much quicker process. Before I learned theory, I would get into a writing rut and had problems with new ideas. Now that I understand theory I have an endless number of resources to pull from to be creative. So, it's possible to know some theory without even knowing that you know it. But this comes with years of experience to be able to pull from it.
Thank you for this video. I feel like I needed to hear this. ❤
It's like when Yngwie said "I have never practiced in my life. I just spend a lot of time making my playing look and sound perfect." 😅😅😅
Classic. 😂
👍👍 I love Licks of the beast , it's always very interesting.....and Nico you are such an awesome musician...so much knowledge too.🤟🤠👍
Thanks so much! It really means a lot to read a comment like this. 🙏
I would also say that Losfer Words riff is in A mixolydian and not A Dorian. Yes it has the notes of Dorian but it has the feel and architecture of a classic rock mixolydian passage. Whenever you combine elements of blues (b3, b7), the rules get very grey. The biggest difference is a minor mode vs a major one; LW sounds major thus the mixolydian
They went for "hey, let's do our Into the Arena".😅
I do understand complex music theory, and even I tell people who think music theory is hampering that they're looking at it the wrong way.
Music theory happens AFTER the music happens. Ergo, there's no theory OF music, WITHOUT MUSIC.
I'm not trying to "get in the head" of the artist who made the song and understand their creative process, that's not the point. Rather, I'm listening to my favorite music, gleaning interesting things they're doing, putting a name to it, and then putting that idea in a grab bag of musical tricks.
Plus, where did the idea that knowing theory all of a sudden means you play with no feeling or you stop using your ears to guide you? Nowhere is that even mentioned. Like, not even once.
The ear is king, and ALWAYS WILL BE KING. If it sounds good IT IS GOOD.
1000%!
I do find it interesting that people assume "self-taught" mean you don't know any theory. Like you said you, can find it all online. Even in the 80s there were books. Kirk Hammett talked about buying a ton of books so he could learn to compose harmonies without needing to asking Cliff every time.
Kirk also had lessons from Satriani
@@lets_rock_it I think your knowledge base is usually going to be a combination of formal instruction and being self-taught unless you spend years in formal instruction. I myself took lessons for a while, but most of my theoretical knowledge is self-taught.
2:35 exactly, the porcess, I agree🤘🤘
Very good point!
George Lynch said in an interview with Dave Navarro that he "couldn't play a G major scale if you put a gun to his head", and the went on to pontificate how he loves the sound of the flat 6. I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no way that he could NOT play a major scale.
🤣🤣🤣 That's exactly the kind of thing I had in mind.
I think the best guitar players have come to the top of the pile through years of playing live and jamming with other musicians. When they say they are self-taught, they are in the way they haven't had lessons. But the good self-taught guys are naturally able to play the guitar and find the melody they need. But soloing really good solos, you have to understand the chords and key relationships at very least.
I love to reverse engineer music that I like with theory, so I can find out exactly what it is about the sound that I like.
Nice topic!
Nice tutorial! And Hi to Rick!
PS maybe little tuning for B string? )))
Adrian Smith uses the MINOR pentatonic added Major 2nd = Minor Hexatonic Scale? Iron Maiden often harmonizes the melody a minor 6th down or major 6th down?
Great video, but it looks like the original title or thumbnail were changed. I figured this might happen... 😅
I’m someone who used to constantly wonder what the big deal about theory was and I thought that every popular musician and composer just “wrote was in their head, and didn’t know what (theory-wise) they were actually writing, we’re just using theory to explain it”. I’m an oboist and almost two months into my undergrad at a conservatory, taking theory, and I can assure everyone I was wrong. Every great composer of all time obviously used an insane knowledge of theory to write, and especially artists like Billy Joel use theory to specifically get certain musical and emotional ideas across to the listener, by knowing what chords will work best, etc. Overall, i thought knowing theory would make me hear music in a worse way, because I thought the magic would be gone and that I would think everything now sounds boring and calculated. That didn’t happen. Knowing theory just makes everything way more awesome for me now. I’ll find myself listening to any song and being like “wait a second I didn’t realize how cool that was that he wrote that, and that that key change is there”. Not to mention the massive boost it’s given my playing, just in the ability to better comprehend music. But it absolutely is true that you can know zero academic theory, like I did for a long time, and still be a great musician by just feeling it. Even though you might not be able to put your musical ideas into definition in words, they’re still there!
I never would've been able to connect the dots on the guitar without a little theory. Maybe I was just too dumb to discover triads or intervals on my own. I didn't have a band to teach me, and not enough time to reinvent the wheel. Glad I finally bought a theory book and startrd working, and stopped believing the nyth of the magical guitar player
This is an age long debate. :)
I need to say that there is a reason, why theory is considered to be a set of rules. In academia, the theory is taught as a part of a certain musical tradition, which we call "classical". While self-learinng theory in my 20's, I used a couple of acclaimed academia books and I need to say, they were quite imperative on many aspects. And that annoyed me to hell, because I wanted to understand, why the stuff that I like works. And what I liked... It was not dubbed wrong in those books, it was just considered non-existent.
Having said that, it is obvious, that anyone who ever said something like "the key is F sharp minor", "move this up a fourth", "triplet", "off-beat" etc, is already using a theory ))))
I think it's really about how you want to write a song. Either you go to theory or you just jam and see what comes out. For me, approaching theory has always felt wrong, like it demystifies the creative process. Often I never really know what my song will end up sounding like. And I wouldn't want to change that for a deeper theoretic understanding. That ruins the magic for me. So rather, I let my subconsciuos collection of music theory emerge as it wants. Which I think is what you are referring to here, so maybe that's whera the resistance towards music theory lies.
I have had many conversations over the years with people who agree with you, that theory will ruin the magic of the creative process. In my opinion, this statement comes from a misunderstanding of theory. Theory should be used to identify and replicate sounds in your head, rather than be a set of rules that dictate the outcome.
I'm not saying this is the case with you, but usually this creative process that must be preserved, is just playing random notes, until something that sounds good is stumbled on by accident.
I like to think that there is no knowledge that is not potential power. Most things have a theoretical aspect and practical one. Look at riding a motorcycle for example. You have theory that tells you about stuff like countersteering, lean angle and cornering, breaking dynamics etc etc. and you have the practice, which is how you learn to actually get from point a to point b safely and smoothly. You can learn to ride by watching others and trial and error, but you can get faster results and probably avoid a few painful mistakes by studying a little theory beforehand.
Either way, once you know how to ride, you don't ever think about any of those things when you're actually riding. Knowledge just becomes a part of you, and the process becomes intuitive.
Music is not that different in the sense that once you know what sounds good and you've developed a playing style, you don't ever think too much about it. You just play what sounds good and communicates the vibe you're trying to convey - and experience and practice will give you that, regardless of academic knowledge.
However, in situations like if you're working on a composition, having a little deeper knowledge of music theory can give you more options when arranging or coming up with more interesting transitions, harmonies, progressions etc.
That's where I think you might notice a more tangible advantage.
@@LicksOfTheBeast The motorcycle analogy is a good one. Ultimately though, if it sounds good, do it. Theory be damned!
Obviously, more knowledge is always usefull. But for me, just speaking for me, I have not got the time or interest for theory. That's not why I got into music, and I'm still satisfied with my accomplishments and with my development. It's just a matter of opinion in the end. I remember learning theory early and it almost made me quit music. Instead, it has got me through som tough times. You can't replace talent with theory but, of course, it's always a strong tool. Not necessary but certainly powerfull.
@@rikardplaystheguitar Too true! We each have our own path.
Rules are forbidden but knowledge is mandatory, whatever the source is. That is the reason we are here
Guilty as charged. I barely know any theory, to my detriment.
The person that learns within reasonable time, becomes the bests. Denial, isn’t just a river in Egypt. Professionals, are not made, were born
It's not a must, but learning some can be helpful. If it's something you would like to get into to any degree, don't be deterred by its apparent complexity. Just start from the basics and take what is useful to you. 😊
Again, the tone is very cool. What amp were you using?
Cheers from Portugal 🤘🍺🇵🇹
Thank you very much!
I never use amps in any of my videos. It's all audio plugins, mostly Neural DSP. The heavier tone is SLO-100X and the clean tones are from Archetype: Asato
Theory works when communicating with other musicians.
I was a classically trained pianist before taking up the guitar at around age 14. Perhaps I was poorly trained, but I never heard of 'modes' and lots of other concepts until I figured it out by trial and error. I even went to a private school on a music scholarship, but I always found the hidebound and rigid adherance to 'classical' theory and rules to be nonsense. Sure, it helps, but a little knowledge can be detrimental. What is the saying? 'You know enough to get yourself into trouble'.
That's the danger of the so-called Dunning Krueger Effect, combined with a rigid mindset that sees rules as inviolable laws rather than helpful general guidelines 🙂
@@LicksOfTheBeast Very true.
"It's just a theory" ;)
Exactly. 😂
I feel like asserting a player ignores theory and strictly goes with feeling is not complementing the musician, but actually disrespecting their intellect and work ethic. It's great to have talent and intuition (it implies the individual is special and destined for greatness), but accumulating experience and earning actual comprehension is far more useful in my opinion. I suspect most great and successful players have talent and feeling, but also work hard and learn the system to master their craft.
I once saw a drummer say he knew ZERO theory. That's b.s. 100%. My response: so if someone says 4 to the bar you have no clue what to play? Of course not, cause 4 to the bar is rhythm theory. Do you know what 4/4 is vs 3/4? Of course, that's music theory. .... Essentially, too many folks think music theory is advanced jazz chords like a flattened 3rd and add9, but its not. Its everything.
The lack of musically correct music, is why I really only listen to Maiden
Can I argue that some riffs, licks from metal guys, especially from first albums, when they were like 20-22 years old are really a thing of "it sounds cool" or pure "visual accident" (because lot of young guitarist learn guitar by shapes, and then they learn what those shapes actually are and why are they like that way later), and they really didn't know theoretically what they were doing.
I can even argue this for when they were older, I watched a video of Adrian Smith explaining and playing The Wicker Man solo, he did some diminished stuff, and he said I do this, I have no idea what it is (he said something like that). So basically he learned a shape and how it works on the guitar, and played it, not knowing the theory behind.
You can also argue it for The Number of the beast riff, they start with Major, but I don't believe they wanted to play Major, they just find that shape cool sounding and they went like: "let's do it from D position then drop it to C because it sounds cool".
Many metal/rock bands (especially 70s, 80s), or if we talk about guitarist, were drunk or on drugs when they created music, thus I think they just played whatever sounded cool, and not because it's that scale and that mode and that interval. Exceptions are always there of course.
That's pretty much what I'm saying. 😊
Although a lot of those things sound good because they make sense musically.
Adrian doesn't know that the reason that lick is a diminished seventh arpeggio, and that the reason it sounds cool is that the repeated tritone you hear between E and Bb builds tension that needs to be resolved. He just knows the sound he's going for, and because he's absorbed so much music over the decades, he knows how to get it. But it's easier for me to explain or refer to it by saying "he plays a diminished seventh arpeggio in a sextuplet pattern for one and a half bars" than "ok so here he goes like meedly meedly meedly meedly meedly meedly meedly meeeeeee" (Stong Bad, anyone?😁)
You can hear the lack of theory knowledge in a lot of metal. Quite often metal songs will have a cool riff and then a very, very mediocre verse that’s just basic chords in which the vocal melody distracts the average listener. You also end up with solos that, while sometimes flashy, are not really musically interesting. You get bands such as Iron Maiden who play the same chord progression for over half of their catalogue. You get Kirk Hammett who was able to get 3 albums worth of decent solos before ol’ reliable pentatonic ran out of steam. You do get some guys who play so much that they eventually develop a knack for writing cool stuff, but the bands that actually know theory never really put out total duds such as St Anger or Supercollider. Lastly, a lot of guys will say they “don’t know music theory” when what they actually don’t know is how to sight read, but they actually know theory just fine.
Theory explains what was already played. But there still needs to be understanding of the music language. A band like maiden is actually very repetitive and limited in its musical scope; you can tell that they don’t know a lot about music- they’ve simply milked E minor for everything it’s worth. As a veteran musician myself, I cannot fathom how a musician wouldn’t want to study the language in all of its forms
Remember, every wrong note is a half step away from being a correct note 😉
A lot of people who play up music theory just want to sell you a course. *Cough* *Cough* ShredmasterScott. Just do what feels right to you. There is no right or wrong way to play guitar
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with advocating for the value of one's goods or services, especially if one is truly passionate about what they do.