I don’t know if I should revive an old-ish post but I have my doubts about the derivation or the link to the word “theos, god”.
I believe Theory derives from the word thea = sight, spectacle, and the verb oro = to see or observe.
The word “theos” has a very obscure etymology and there is no concensus on it so I’d be hesitant to link it with theory.
Having said all that, ancient Greek was not my strongest point at any of the 6 years we were taught at school Much later I realised that I should have studied it harder.
Personally, I wouldn’t get rid of the word “theory” totally as the suggestions by @iainism, while sounding more benign, still do not cover entirely what music theory is about, and a lot of people probably need some encouragement to face this word head-on (the introduction on the 1st page of the course is already a step in this direction).
Even Justin’s course has more advanced topics which are beyond the foundations, and “principles” sounds a bit vague to me, probably because it’s kind of an opposite to practice. And “understanding music” could be about any and all aspects of music, whether it’s playing, composing, listening, or the various effects of music, etc.
My suggestion would be something like “How (music) theory can help you in practice”, “Practical benefits of music theory”, “Music theory - A practical aid” or something along those lines that could “sell” the word and emphasize the practical aspect at the same time. “All the theory you need to know” may sound encouraging, but I think there’s always more in case of theory, and one’s needs may not be the same as someone else’s.
@Jozsef Yes I totally agree if you put a word in the middle of a title and not at the beginning or the end. Like “Fun music theory - Beginner basics” everybody emphasizes that learning guitar has to be fun and enjoyable. And we’re not talking about the entire coarse we’re just talking about the first couple of lessons. I only started this because this was my opinion… Iv’e seen people give out bad information like how many notes there are on the fret board… it may look like alot more but there are only 12 actual notes. It was something I learned in those first lessons and it really simplified some stuff for me and made learning other things alot easier.
I have to say that I have enjoyed reading through the discussions in this thread on theory in music – what it is, and what it isn’t – almost as much as I am enjoying the course itself. As others such as Jason @J.W.C , Keith @Majik and Jozsef @Jozsef have commented, I also don’t have a negative reaction to the term “theory”, either in music or, for that matter, in general. As a matter of fact, as I was reading through the posts and came to Justin’s @JustinGuitar comment about rebranding the course soon due to perceived negative connotations, my initial reaction was something like: “Oh, no! Don’t do that”, because it was that very word that had attracted me to the course to begin with. I wanted to learn about what is commonly referred to as music theory, even though, strictly speaking, I know the term is so often misapplied. What I wanted was to understand the key elements, the components, the structure and organization, and the logic that underlies music, and then how those combine with rules, syntax, meter, symbols and so on to make music the unique language that it is. Theory, itself, is a cut above all of this and, as Joshua @Jamolay has so aptly pointed out, represents a whole other dimension to the hearing and appreciation of what we call music. In his words:
I think that the difficulties of coming up with a better course title are due to us grappling with efforts to be inclusive and descriptive, on the one hand, while avoiding the negative connotations that the term “theory” may carry on the other, and trying to be as brief as possible at the same time. But I believe that we may be over-thinking the issue, and expecting too much of a title. Descriptions and qualifiers about what is and isn’t included in the course can always be part of a course summary and/or intro. So, in keeping with my belief that most of the time simpler is better, I’m gravitating toward another suggestion of Joshua’s, which is to just call it “Understanding Music”. Succinct and inclusive. And I find I can’t agree with the sentiment that such a title could be about any and all aspects of music. While I believe that discussions about composing can and should be included, at least to some degree, in a comprehensive course on music, playing can be quite independent of understanding, at any formal level, and listening or various effects of music might more properly belong to the domain of music appreciation.
As far as the issue of theory, per se, is concerned, Glen @OpsRes has suggested that the term is often misunderstood to mean an unproven idea or speculation. Both Keith @Majik and Richard @Richard_close2u echoed this sentiment, and Richard went on to highlight the role of theory as central to the scientific method, while Keith characterized it as “…the pinnacle of human understanding of a subject”. I agree with all of these positions. With my own background in psychology, I’m no stranger to the scientific method and the process of generating hypotheses, derived from theory, which, when tested empirically, either support certain aspects of theory or prompt the modification of the theory to accommodate the findings, and thus steer or guide the further development of the theory at hand. In this way, a theory is never the final word on a subject. It is always in a state of evolution. But, at any given point, it does represent the best organization and interpretation of all relevant available data and in that sense is, indeed, “…the pinnacle of human understanding…”, as stated. In principle, that’s how it’s supposed to work. In practice it’s not always quite so clean. And when you have competing theories, well, that’s a whole other story for another time.
However, what we commonly refer to as music theory is not this. It has more to do with understanding what well-accepted and unvarying components are comprised of, and how they all fit together, according to fundamental rules, to build an integrated structure that is solid, functional and coherent. And to me the study of all this is intrinsically rewarding because at different points, as I’m able to see various connections, I have many “aha” moments, as I’ve said elsewhere, where I experience the thrill of discovery which was such a rush to me as a kid learning about the world. The opportunity to discover and appreciate all this is something that should be available to all, and everyone should therefore be encouraged, or at least not actively discouraged by the use of terminology that is potentially off-putting or a deterrent, such as the word “theory”, to enrich themselves with such learning.
There is a book I want to recommend that, because of the nature of so many of the posts on this topic, I think many here would like. It’s entitled “This Is Your Brain On Music: The Science Of A Human Obsession”, by Daniel J. Levitin. It may already be a book that readers are familiar with. But if not, it’s worth a look. It’s something that Joshua in particular, because of his background, would likely appreciate, but I suspect a lot of others as well. The author is quite unique. Google him and check out his bio. I think you’ll find that he’s one of those rather rare, multi-talented individuals with irons in a lot of different fires – from musician and studio sound producer to neuroscientist to author and, of all things, stand-up comedian. His discussion and presentation on the substance of music and how we perceive and interpret it is quite far-reaching and thought-provoking, and certainly rests squarely within the realm of theory. And with that, I’m off to follow up on my own reading: Wooten’s “The Music Lesson” and, now that Toby @TheMadman_tobyjenner has flagged it, a peek at Byrne’s “How Music Works”. Happy reading, all.
Wow, this community never ceases to impress. Many thoughtful people here. Love it.
@J.A , thanks for taking the time to write a very nice addition to a great conversation.
I would also recommend the book “This is your Brain on Music…”. I read it ages ago and should probably have a look at it again. Byrne and Wooten are definitely also eclectic and thoughtful people and I should check them out as well.
As we thrash out the theory of theory, the theory of music and the practical application of playing music, I can’t help but think I need to quit my job so I have time for all this. But then, I couldn’t afford to buy a new guitar… nuts.
Apologies if these points have been made before I have no issues with the title.
Without delving in the precise dictionary definition of the words, to me theory is what it is and the word Practical implies that it useful.
I was not put off at all and even the first module explained some very basic things that I never understood before, thanks Justin.
Are Justin’s “Theory” courses about general music theory? I’m pretty sure I have covered general music theory at least to an intermediate level, so in this case I could probably skip them.
Or are they taught especially with guitar in mind? So if he talks about chords/harmonies or scales, for example, how you find those chords/harmonies or scales on guitar? This would help me a lot, I suppose.
Although they will likely cover a lot of the theory you know, they are not only guitar specific but also practical hands on application of that theory, as the name of the course suggests. Given that you are not limited to playing one note in one place on the guitar, it really does provide a hands on benefit of how to navigate the fretboard but also chord construction and extensions. Try the first 3 modules for free but the lifetime sub for the whole course is value for money but hey Just MHO.
I think after chapter 5 Justin goes into chord manipulation but as you are just starting I would probably wait for the purchase until you get through F chord
@Klimperer42
As a complete newbie I would hold off on the theory course for now. The practical aspects that add so much value to it are going to be things your fingers are unable to do until you have progressed further. You will undoubtedly understand the knowledge being detailed but it will be only mental, not practical and physical until your guitar skills develop more.
@Klimperer42
I based my timing on paying something back…
‘Donations keep the lessons free’ but buying the course is a win win.
Early doors I bought the beginners songbook, which is probably the best place to start.
No harm in trying the free modules though.
As with some others, the Theory backstory appeals to me, but I can say it helps with learning songs - especially if they are out of range technically, you can work out what else may work in place of xyz…
Much later I realised that I should have studied it harder.
