Why do I have such a problem with understanding music theory?

Interesting. Did not expect to see it in a country rock setting. But in the 70’s artists like Carole King and Elton John used major 7 all the time.

Yup. Including the famous first chord (and the subsequent chords until the vocal comes in) in “Bennie and the Jets”.

Way back when learning Don’t Let the Sun Catch You Crying–the C cord with the C taken off the B string to play the B–is that Cmaj7 ? And taking the F off the F chord on the E string–is that Fmaj 7? If so, then adding the pinkie to the third fret of the G string (i.e., Bflat) when playing C–is that Cdominant 7? I’ve been playing my whole life–well since 14–and me and buddies always referred to the C with pinkie added as a C7, period. Just as when you add your pinkie to any E-shaped barre(sp) chord two frets up from the 5 you’ve got a whatever 7. Right?
Very enjoyable discussion, by the way!

Yes, you are correct on all counts.

Also, you can get a movable 9 chord shape (Dominant 7th plus Ninth - the ninth is just the second, but an octave higher) by fretting (starting on the A string) 2-1-2-2 with your middle, index, ring, and pinkie finger respectively. At the top of the fretboard this gives you a B9, and you can keep going up chromatically.

I call those first two C minus and F minus. Heh.

If you want to know why a V7 chord is not a I7 chord, you have to know what a I and a V are. You need to know key signatures and how scales work. You need to know intervals and how chords are constructed. The circles of 5ths and 4ths. You need to spend time with a book of blank staff paper and a pencil. You can’t do it with a computer. Well, you could print out the blank staff paper with a computer.

I’m actually the opposite. Once I figured out some theory from guitar/bass (yep, it’s all patterns superimposed on that sharp/flat nonsense if you like normal staff notation), it was super easy to figure out what to do with a keyboard. If the keys are next to each other, it’s a half step. If there’s a key in between them, it’s a whole step.

Jacquernagy’s post does a good job of getting to the heart of the matter. Start with thinking of scales and chords as an assembly of intervals, and they’re just a guideline. Break them at will.

I’m not sure this is true. It’s totally possible to understand the concept of intervals, chords, and chord progressions without reading music at all. I don’t think it’s even helpful at this point for the OP to be thinking in terms of key signatures and sharps/flats and which key signatures have however many sharps or flats. At this point he should be just focused on understanding the basics of intervals. The one (root) and various combinations of it with the three, the five, and the seven. After that, he should learn a little about the concept of inversions. (OP - all that means is “the notes of a chord arranged in a certain order.”)

From there, the concept of a chord progression. The “I” and “V” and “V7” and so on that you mention. I know, I know - Roman Numerals, for fuck’s sake, on top of the numbers and letters…it can seem confusing. It’s really not.

Just wanted to clear up a confusion between Biffster and Nava. English speakers use “do re mi…” only for RELATIVE pitch values (and even then, the terms are rarely used — basically only when discussing the Sound of Mucous, as Christopher Plummer liked to call it).

Spanish speakers use “do re mi…” to refer to ABSOLUTE pitch values, starting with C. “Do” just means “C,” “re” means “D,” etc.

So, when Nava said she had trouble with the English system, she was merely referring to the translation issue — troublesome and annoying, to be sure, but it’s not about a fundamental shift in musical world-view.

I had a bit of a hard time understanding basic theory. Then I had a mini revelation that made it much easier.

The revelation was ‘Don’t ask why, just learn the keys, the notes in the keys and basic chords, it will make sense later’. So I started there and, after a little bit, it started making sense. There are physical reasons why a 5th dyad (two note chord) sounds pleasant while a 2nd does not. However, while that physical reason matters, you don’t need to worry about it, other people have figured it out already.

My Pop is a mathematician. I had a problem in a class once in high school. Something didn’t make sense and I asked him about it. He said ‘I’d tell you why it works that way but it won’t make sense until you get past calculus*. For now just accept it.’ I did and got on with it and once I accepted that it just worked that way, it got much easier to handle. The point being, of course, is that sometimes you just have to learn the basics and take it on faith that it will make sense later on.

Also, you already know theory. If you can play by ear and can hear ‘wrong’ notes, then all you are lacking is the vocabulary to say what you already know.

Slee

'i don’t remember what had me confused but I remember saying ‘Holy Crap, that is why it works that way’ a few years later.

ETA: By “relative pitch values,” I mean that in English, for a given scale, “do” means the first note (root), “re” the second note, etc.

But again, it’s rarely used, even in its last bastion of teaching children (in my experience).

Thanks for the clarification. Sound of Mucous LMAO

:slight_smile:

The physics / neuro-acoustics of the note relationships I get. I have read all of those darn books:

  • Temperament - Isikoff: great book about the emergence of Well and Even Temperament in Western music to enable instruments to play across keys. Relevant to your comments on note relationships.
  • Music, the Brain and Ecstasy
  • This is your Brain on Music

And a bunch more.

Excellent post. Jaq and others clearly know more about this (and are able to express themselves better) than me, but I’ll add this. One difficulty I’ve experienced with music theory is that much of it is - in many ways - separate from what I am trying to do when I play. Or in another way of thinking about it, there is music theory in the abstract, and the narrower section of theory that will help me improve my playing. If you aren’t able to narrow down your inquiry, you may feel as tho you are trying to twist your brain around concepts that have limited practical application. Also, hearing, reading (words and notation) and talking about theory are all somewhat different. You may not need to master all 3.

I play bass (and a little piano/uke). One useful thing - which is also a bit of a crutch - is the ability to rely on how certain relationships “look” on the fret/keyboard. The same appearance would apply to playing scales on guitar (tho I have always found chord shapes a mystery! Not how they look - I rely on that all the time when reading a guitarist’s hands. But an A chord and a D chord do not resemble each other (to me) as much as my simply moving over a string to play the 4th). Bar chords make a lot of sense in the way I think. Once you have mastered a certain handshape, it plays related chords anywhere up and down the neck.

I was very fortunate in that, when I started learning bass, the VERY FIRST THINGS my roommate taught me were major scales and I-IV-V. On many occasions it has cracked me up when otherwise decent pickers have suggested I-IV-V as somehow obscure or advanced concepts, because on bass, that’s probably 90% of what I do! :wink:

But there are other aspects of theory which remain beyond me. The circle of 5ths, for example. I’m convinced it is a mythical creature! :wink: I mean, I can understand it intellectually; I have studied it; memorized mnemonics… But it doesn’t STICK with me in any way that aides my playing. There is a progression I recognize, and can anticipate and accompany - and afterwards someone will say, “It’s just a circle of 5ths.” And I had no idea that that pattern that sounded like that was following the circle. And being able to assign that terminology to those sounds does not (at my current stage) assist my playing.

And I can’t tell you how many times really smart, literate folk have explained to me why instruments play in different keys (please, do not try to do so again here!) It just doesn’t stick with me. So I’ve decided to be content to remain ignorant of such things, and focus on what practically helps my playing.

Final note - on guitar you are fortunate to be able to capo. Always drives me crazy when a guitarist calls out the shapes he/she is playing while capoed, rather than the actual chords.

Well, that’s all pretty useless rambling. I’ll circle back to repeat, figure out how to learn the segment of theory you need to apply/improve in the types of music you want to play, focus on those, and then decide how much effort you want to apply to trying to learn stuff which is less immediately applicable.

I’ve found books of limited use - especially because they tend not to be as narrowly focused as I suggest would help me. I’ve got Edly’s basic music theory book permanently sitting on my nightstand, but it seems like I’m always able to find something/ANYTHING else to read rather than digging back into even so simple a volume. I think really learning theory requires pretty dedicated study and application. Simply reading/hearing about it won’t stick.

Uh… I’m not only talking about the translation. Even the fact that the letters begin in La is a mental shift. It’s not as big as if my musical training had been in Chinese, but it is a shift.
And I have no idea what the heck a relative pitch value is. Are you saying that you guys would refer to the lowest note in any major scale as Do, even if the scale happens to be in F? That goes waaaaay beyond a translation issue.

Yes. There’s movable do and fixed do. In movable do (which is what I’m used to), the actual pitches don’t matter, just the relationship between pitches. Do-Re-Mi-Fa-Sol-La-Ti-Do is the major scale of any key you want it to be, depending on what pitch “do” is. In your example of the key of F, it would map to F-G-A-Bb-C-D-E-F. Fixed do (which I didn’t even realize existed until a few years ago) is fixed to C as “do.”

And movable do is not just used in the US. According to Wikipedia, "Movable do is frequently employed in Australia, China, Japan (with 7th being si), Ireland, the United Kingdom, the United States, Hong Kong, and English-speaking Canada. The movable do system is a fundamental element of the Kodály method used primarily in Hungary, but with a dedicated following worldwide. "

Movable do is a bit like Roman numeral notation for chords vs absolute pitch notation for chords. What’s important is the relationship between notes/chords, not the pitch of the notes/chords themselves. (Which I personally find vary handy, as it makes transposition much, much easier.)

That makes my head hurt :wink:

Oh, come on. I know you understood that! If you want it simpler: In movable do, the note that “do” corresponds to can be anything. In fixed do, it’s a C. Or if the terms “movable do” and “fixed do” are giving you a headache, just substitute “in some cultures” and “in other cultures.”