A little background first, unfortunately.

I learned reading music in middle school, playing the oboe up through high school. Then I started messing with audio apps, but didn't do anything with Oboe or piano. Then I decided I didn't understand chords well enough, and I took about 2 months of piano and theory lessons. I also read through a book, Music Theory for Computer Musicians, which wasn't that hot but it did the job, and I did learn a good bit. I've also got a small book on learning piano that I've been through. Nothing in those books mystified me, and it all works great.

Then at the end of last year, I took a music class that focused on chords and arrangement. As I was took this course, I confirmed something I'd been suspecting for a while: That the way I work with, and understand theory, appears to be different from a most musicians.

When I listen to, or read other musicians discussing it, they talk about scales and chords as if they're individual entities. As if chords or scales are learned one at a time, as if one can know some chords, some scales, but not others. This confuses me hugely.

By contrast, my understanding of them is fairly systemic in nature. I see scales and chords as a pattern of intervals that can be applied to any note, and elaborated to build any given scale, or voiced differently for different styles of chord. If you know the interval patterns of a major or minor scale, how is it possible to know one scale or chord without knowing the others?

Yet, when I was sitting in class, listening to the other students' questions(many of them far more advanced than me), and then listening to my instructor's responses, I started seeing that even though I shared a lot of knowledge and understanding in common with these other students, and the instructor, I was off on a different planet in how I saw it.

I tried to talk to my music teacher at the time about this oddity, but he was busy and I didn't really get much out of him. If I'd have taken the prereq classes, I'd have a better understanding probably, but that wasn't gonna happen because I'm paying through the nose for an engineering degree, not a music degree.

So the class is through, and although I know a bit more than before, I'm left with a massive sense of confusion. I thought I had my understandings down, and my knowledge base is highly functional in my music now. But whenever I hear other musicians speaking music-tongue, I sometimes have a hard time following what they're talking about. This is even though I'm pretty certain that my level of understanding is basically on par with theirs.

We're looking at the same thing, but from a different angle. I suspect my angle is wrong, somehow. Well, not wrong, but not common. And that pretty much undermines a huge part of the point of music theory; it's a tool for communication. I want to switch around so that my understanding is more like everyone else's, so I gotta try and figure out what the difference is, here.

I don't know how, precisely, my understanding is different. If there's holes in my knowledge base, I don't know where they are. If it's reliant on formal training with a polyphonic instrument, like piano or guitar, then I'm in trouble.

I'm wondering if, based on this, anyone has ideas about what's going on here. If anyone might know what I'm babbling on about. Because I need to re-orient what I know.... somehow.

I hope all that made sense. Apologies for length; I felt the context was important.

I am not sure where your confusion lies. First, just because some people babble using a bunch of big words, that doesn't necessarily mean they know what they are talking about. Second, what you said about scales and chords was correct. They are just patterns of intervals. A scale is a series of whole and half steps or in other words, major and minor 2nds. A chord is a series of major and minor thirds with occasionally some modifications. If you know the pattern for one scale, you know all of them since they all are the same. If you know the pattern for one chord, you know how to build a chord on every note. It really isn't that complicated.

The people here are very generous with their time and knowledge, so if you have specific questions, ask them here and you should get some good answers.

Even though there is no difference between a C scale and an F# scale, or a C chord and an F# chord in theory, there is a difference in fingerings. And that is the main reason why many musicians only care to learn a few of them.

In my experience this approach is most widely spread among rock musicians and self-educated guitarists. In certain rock genres, if you can play four major chords and a single dominant seventh, and have a sense of rhythm, you are already considered a guitarist.

If you have a look at songbooks, many guitarists learn chords as "magic spells", through fingering charts, instead of finding each way a chord can be voiced on the six strings. So that's why.

(And well, in a way they are right. They play music in a band while many of us practice scales at the piano for hours. XD)

I know what you mean. I think your issue might be easily related to engineering in a way. It seems to me that you have a kind of big picture understanding Of how things work in music theory, and I think I'm gleening from what youre saying tha you are able to take that and apply it to situations in your own way that works for you. This is all well and good, however there are definite advantages to learning the terminology and forms that are taught in music theory. It provides a structure for you to work through. you might understand how electricity works in a conceptual way, but if you've never learned what a transistor does its going to make learning about circtuits a whole lot slower.


The way I think of music theory is just a way to label all the sounds that are already freely roaming around your head. You're not going to learn about anything that you haven't already heard a thousand time, but with each concept you learn, youll be like "OH, so thats what that is!". And pretty soon you'll have a vocabulary of concepts that you can string together in fancy music theory talk to impress your friends with, but more importantly, you'll be able get from a to b (musically speaking) much quicker and with more purpose.


hope that helps!

This is a bit of a shot in the dark, but there actually IS a difference between the intervals of, say, a D major and F# major chord... but only when using old-style tuning systems.

The current tuning system that is widely accepted, 12-tone equal temperament, has only been the universal standard since the introduction of Les Paul's electric guitar. In the 19th century, there was a wide variety of tuning systems, and in the 17th century, the current standard did not exist. In other, older standards of tuning, the distance between each semitone was slightly different.

This gave different scales a different "feeling" or "quality". For example, D Major is more "gay" and "happy" while F# Major is more "distressed" or "tense".

In the modern day, theorists have invented thousands of tuning systems, and some of them are quite effective and yet completely different from our 12-tone system.

This may have nothing to do with your situation, but these kinds of things do come up in music theory classes with an emphasis on history.

I don't get the source of confusion. Music scales/chords are a system, not independent. Some 'advanced' systems work by applying certain scales or modes against a particular chord in certain context, but it's all based on a chord/scale system. It's possible to apply various scale/modes within a bar where a given chord applies, but there's nothing independent about that. It is a system with rules that arise from the key/scale/mode/chord in use.
Reharmonization takes it all a few steps further out, but it all still comes down to the same 'rules' of harmony. It's possible someone could talk as if the number of option sthat apply make it sound independent. but I don't tthonk it is.

Any example of how these oters talk about things may help.
I don't think bringing up scale systems prior to equal temperament is helpful.

I wanna apologize for the massive ambiguity of the post. Unfortunately, that's unavoidable because that ambiguity is my ambiguity. I don't know precisely what my question is. Instead, I observe that some musicians are seemingly approaching theory from a different angle than me. Or that they know something I don't, whose nature is a mystery.
Since I value theory in large part for it's use as a common language, this apparent lack of parity is a problem.

I think that D.Josef might be correctly interpreting what I'm seeing. It might be an elaboration of how one learned theory, where it's slanted toward your 'instrument' in a utilitarian way. Fingerings, for example, is something I'm never concerned with. But I can see how a guitarist would focus extensively on a specific voicing of a specific chord in a specific key, in order to learn how to actually play it.

By comparison, my primary instrument, my primary way of relating theory to reality is with a DAW. Not even a piano. So my top-down view really serves me pretty well in a utilitarian way. But if I were to talk to a pianist, I'll probably run into some communication snags, because their understanding is probably going to shift a bit towards a voicing emphasis.

But I think, as another person highlighted, I'm kinda at a dead-end until I can provide more specificity of what another musician say that has me confused. Sadly I can't remember any of that. I'll have to keep my eyes open.

Still thank you guys for your input so far. It's all been helpful. Thanks for reading all that text, and suffering my vagaries - It was typed in a moment of frustration. =/

You are seeing the forest; they have confused the trees for it.

I'll put it out this way. Harmony is my universe.


In a blues setting the blues has two primary progressions and lots of variations. If someone calls out blues in E The bass player plays basslines derived from the progression, The rhythm guitar and keyboards play the progression possibly mixing it up with different ideas and the lead instrument plays blues in E. They all know all the chords They all know it's a 12 bar progression and after measure (bar) twelve they all come in again.
The lead instrumentalist knows the chord that's playing and knows the next one. Where by you can focus your attention to playing a line that supports the chord and/or play a line that leads to the next chord. "Play them Changes"
The blues has it's own set of rules for circumstances there are do's and don'ts which do not fit into traditional theory. Many are shared with Jazz, rock, pop, country. Some are not depending on circumstance. Jazz has it's own derivations for Jazz/blues But the same concept of working from the chord progression applies.

A remedial knowledge of chords does not survive the acid test of learning songs. There are endless variations and in some circumstances the fact that you are repeating a progression even if it doesn't adhere to one key give it's own validation.

While I disagree with some of this young fellow's rant a lot of it hits home for me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4uCWDlWrMI


When I first learned guitar I learned chords. Before notation before scales. I always learned chords in the context of songs. As soon as I could put two successive chords on the fretboard (first day) I was learning accompaniment.
In the first week I'd learned three songs and wrote two.

I never practiced a chord out of context of a song like one would learn scales. If you want to learn "Pop" songs you learn the chord progression(s) first. This gives you the outline of the song. When you pick up a fake book you see,,,,chord names If you have a fair ear and hand at rhythm you can "fake" your way through a song. usually you pick up little things along the way like rhythms/arpeggiation 9sic) that get you closer to the truth.

This adds on to what I got from D.Josef's post, and it makes even more sense now. This would fundamentally change the way a person talks about theory.

So how do I bridge this gap? If I want to be able to get together with two guitarists who learned by the route espoused in the TapperMike's video, and try to make or play music, how do I alter the way I listen and talk? How do I approach their way of trying to convey an idea, or convey my own idea such that it doesn't make unnecessary complication?

Anyone got tips on that?

Well if they are guitarists they know how chord progressions work for the most part. Same with a reasonable keyboard player.

In the old days I'd simply say "It goes D-A-G-Bm-A for first verse and D-G-D-G for the chorus.

Or I'd pen out the changes to paper, play and they would come in.

BIAB makes everything easier. Even If I'm only using the drums from the style.
Since I've talked about the blues and the fact that it has several variations.
Lets say you wanted you and your mates to jam over one of these blues progressions.

Okay before you hit play look at the markers I've got a Am Blues 12 bar progression. The repeat bar indicates to play three times but on the third time end on Am not E7

Here is your link.
http://tappermike.com/theory/amBlues1.html

When you do hit the play button you'll hear a two measure count in. 1-3,1234 Playing with others they will need a count in and they will now how long the count in is. Most of the time the person calling the count in just counts to four.

Notice how the chord is highlighted while being played. If there is no chord shown it means the chord is the same as the previous measure.

Usually when sitting in with another musician and biab I'll use the drums or drums and one instrument (the bass if there are no bass players available)
http://tappermike.com/theory/amBluesbd.html

See the chord>play the chord. That simple

let me condense my above post.

There's no magic bullet, period. Just learn as much about theory as you can, and in any given situation use that knowledge combined with your resourcefulness. That's how it works. The more details you analyze, the more your brain will relate them to the big picture.

So get out there and just start memorizing and applying things about theory. Learn your key sigs by heart. Memorize the roman numeral chord notation system. learn your inversions. Analyze songs as best you can, and the more details you learn, the more things will start to make sense. Like I say it's like engineering, it's made up of many concepts and details. There's no way around learning them one by one, so stop wasting time and just start chipping away.

I dig. But acquiring and placing knowledge in a useful way isn't the problem. My depth of knowledge is pretty good, growing, functional, and I'm not afraid to practice.

The issue is when guys(who are sometimes less advanced as me in their knowledge-base) talk about things that I feel like I already understand, and yet their way of talking about it are confusing me. Like pointing at a green apple, and calling it sharbleblox. I KNOW what it is, and apparently they do too, but they're coming at it differently.

So doesn't appear to be a matter of familiarizing myself with more theory, as I've already been progressively doing.

Assuming they aren't fracking with you just to frack with you.


Some players have done that with me as well. Some pretended to know less then they did just to annoy me. Some players actually aren't as knowledgeable and are trying to fake their way thru understanding.

Some players may be referencing the rhythmic structure not the harmonic structure (styles) Though most know a reggae style is called reggae straight 8 means even 8th note patterns and swing/shuffle means 12/8 triplets with the middle note omitted. Instead of calling a style by it's name they'll refer to something familiar about it.


That being said even with the plethora of information on the web. So much disinformation is passed along it's a wonder anyone can think straight.

(another one of those old man stories) Back when I was a kid I lived in a rock and roll town. Three guitar stores, two sheet music stores and a piano store inside the city limits and many more just on our border. People playing guitar on the porch, People playing guitar in the park. After school we'd work things out. Wear out records trying to decipher a song. Play it play it again and play it again. Open a fake book and study a song.

Ten years later Still before the internet. I could find jammers (people who don't play professionally but can play tunes with other people. Thirty plus years later it is a different story. Guys who claim to be guitarists can't string together two chords. have no clue about key and think because they've watched a video on how to shred they're gonna be the next big thing.

There are still talented, educated, and versatile guitarists of all ages. But they are few and far between in my neck of the woods.

As an addendum There is a system for non sight readers which I don't use called Nashville.

Nashville system starts very similar to numbers
You say Dm-G-C I say ii-V-1 in C Nashville says 2-5-1

Nashville gets tricky when using "Over chords"