Music theory is like a blind man trying to read a road map

[Anonymous]

Like most of you here, whenever I’m learning a song, or even just a lesson arrangement, I like to try understanding what’s happening within the composition that makes it work. That’s why I lean towards sites like Brian’s and a couple others because they like to explain the why about things. Frankly I’m often flabbergasted. When learning songs, I constantly run into key changes and chords that I would never think about using. I suspect it’s because I started learning at such an old age. For example, I was looking at the chord progression in Glen Campbell’s Wichita Lineman. It’s like a roller coaster or something random, like pulling chords out of a hat. Yet, everything works so well together. I would never in my life think about putting that progression together on my own. Sometimes I feel proud of myself for being able to work my way up and down the fretboard in pretty much any major or natural minor key. All it takes to totally humble me is to start working on a new song and thinking to myself how little experience I actually have when it comes to creative writing. It’s like, what the heck made the song writer think about using that? The whole thing about western culture music theory is that it appears there’s only one strict rule. If it sounds good, use it.

[Jean-Michel G]

The song you mention (“Wichita Lineman”) was composed by Jimmy Webb, a guy with a very strong musical education, who knows a lot of music theory and knew what he was doing. In fact, it is probably because he knew a lot of theory that he was able to come up with a sophisticated song.
Also remember that Webb is a pianist and so his arrangements are bound to be slightly more involved than your typical three cowboy chords.

Intro:
Fmaj7 C9 Fmaj7 C9
The expected resolving Fmaj7 is not played, but the melody (“I am a lineman for the…”) spells an Fmaj7 arpeggio, so that C9 chord actually resolves.
We’re in F major, obviously.

Part 1:
(Fmaj7) Bbmaj7 Fmaj7/A C9: I – IV – I – V, still in F major.
Dm7 Am7 Gsus G D: modulation to D (Aeolian) and then to D (Major or Mixolydian)

Part 2:
(D) Cadd9 G/B Gm/Bb D/A A7sus4 Bbmaj7
We have a very common descending bass line (even J.S. Bach used that) while the D note is kept as a pedal throughout (see how each chord contains a D?). Note how the A7 is suspended so it doesn’t sound like a V requesting a resolution to D; instead the bass line moves up to Bb again and that Bb is turned into the IV of F major. And we start all over.

So, where is the “roller coaster randomness”? To me this song is very well organized.
Granted, there are modulations, and the switch from D back to F is creative… But there is nothing in that song that has never been done.

Music theory is not like a blind man trying to read a map. Music theory is the map. You just have to learn how to read it. And yes, occasionally composers may depart from the map and run through the unexplored wild territories out there. But that too will become part of the map, eventually.
If it sounds good, it is good, and if it is good, it will become part of the theory.

[John H]

Here is my humble suggestion-quit chasing the theory and just let it come to you while developing your repertoire. The theory thing used to drive me crazy b/c I wanted to know it all and understand how to apply it to improve my playing. I was chasing this unknown quality with zero results. After some time with Active Melody, it dawned on me that while mastering different lessons in many styles and genres, the theory I needed appeared. The rest is superfluous. Don’t let guitar theory get in the way of your playing. The average mind can only hold so much information. In other words, I was gleaning all the theory I needed from mastering some of Brian’s performance worthy tunes as I went along. Otherwise, my quest to understand an infinite subject just got in my way. Hope that makes sense. If you learn it, it will come!😊

JH

[Anonymous]

John H wrote:

Here is my humble suggestion-quit chasing the theory and just let it come to you while developing your repertoire. The theory thing used to drive me crazy b/c I wanted to know it all and understand how to apply it to improve my playing. I was chasing this unknown quality with zero results. After some time with Active Melody, it dawned on me that while mastering different lessons in many styles and genres, the theory I needed appeared. The rest is superfluous. Don’t let guitar theory get in the way of your playing. The average mind can only hold so much information. In other words, I was gleaning all the theory I needed from mastering some of Brian’s performance worthy tunes as I went along. Otherwise, my quest to understand an infinite subject just got in my way. Hope that makes sense. If you learn it, it will come!

JH

Very good advice John. I did not seem to express myself very well in this thread as my intent was to convey how little I actually understand about the workings of theory. Recently I went out of my generally loved genres and decided to learn a short fast moving country diddy based on one simple lick idea. The composition was only 30 seconds long, with a backing track that was 2 1/2 minutes long. I thought I’d try my hand at writing another two minutes to the song, trying to stick within variations of the single lick idea. What I find is my mind, theory wise, is too uneducated. My writing is too simple, too beginner, too basic. I love music theory. I fully regret that I was not exposed to theory from first grade on. I’m not sure I totally agree with Jean Michel that theory is THE map. To me it’s more of a suggestion. I feel like a little kid trying to color inside the lines when the lines are not really the thing to worry about. It’s ok to go way outside the lines. The chord progression in Wichita Lineman was not actually what I meant. I do see how it all resolves. It’s the actual chords themselves that are fascinating, like a grab bag of creative sounds. If I wrote that progression it would sound so different and so basic. I didn’t mean to sound frustrated. It was more of a statement of how much I see daily about how little I know about the music I love to learn and play. For me, the infinite subject always gets in my way, but I kind of like that. I find so much wonder in the compositions. I keep thinking, wow, what made that writer think of this? I was messing around with Miserlou by Dick Dale. I start to look over the sheet music and it’s a scale I didn’t recognize. So, I stopped trying to learn the song and studied up on the composition. Now I end up learning about what the heck a Double Harmonic Major Scale (Arabic Scale, Gypsy Major Scale, whatever) is. Then I discover it’s the same scale as a Phrygian Dominant scale and on and on. I still can’t play Miserlou (mostly because tremolo picking that fast is not in my wheelhouse right now), but I sat down and learned a ton of stuff. Sometimes I like that more than playing. I can’t see that I’d ever quit letting myself get distracted in that way. I want to color outside of the lines.

[Author]

Posts