jsinjin - Posted - 06/30/2026:  05:05:08

I have been practicing scales and chords. I’m going from 0 two years ago to Midwest banjo camp a few weeks ago. I practice a lot and read a lot. Over the last year I’ve collected many physics books about why a chord is made up of what it is made up of, how the perfect and major and minor thirds and fifths come together. But today I was going through both my scales and moving around chords and I wondered aloud why the collection of E Gsharp B was considered an E chord and not something else. I had heard the term inversion several times and had always assumed it was a hand shape thing of the chord and how your hand moved to invert a shape. Literally that is what I assumed. Then I learned it’s the chord itself inverting the starting note.

What frustrates me so much is that this simple information was so hard to find in all the banjo books I have and it is in a piano book but I didn’t translate it to banjo.

I know I’ve asked this before but why is the pedagogy for banjo so haphazard with the understanding of these basic aspects of theory? I feel like if I was taught the scales and chord shapes day 0 instead of basic tunes and learning by ear I would have been miles ahead of where I am today. This was such a revelation and an hour of practice later so much made sense to me moving up the neck and connecting the various chords. I could completely unlock so much of the whole banjo and I don’t think I would have ever figured this out just playing with people or learning tunes. But the actual learning of it is so fundamental and makes th music so much easier to internalize and understand. I know it’s here in the forums but every method I’ve started from brainjo to my own teacher to even banjo camp takes this as an intermediate or advanced part of learning and I just feel it should be first or second just after the clawhammer or how to hold the instrument. This theory and understanding of the harmonics and what makes the chord brings rhw whole 1 4 5 thjng together completely and explains so much.

banjoy - Posted - 06/30/2026:  05:26:25

For what it's worth, I began music on classical violin in 1970 at age 10. They taught us to be good technicians, reading all those dots to become musical notes. But the concept of chords or chord changes was not taught. That was something you're supposed to get through private lessons. So I got very good at the violin, made all-state orchestra and all that, but had no clue about the fundamentals about what I was playing.



So I switched to banjo in 1977 and soon realized I had to un-learn quite a bit. As I explored the banjo I came to the conclusion that not much was explained here either. Since I had taken a lot of private violin lessons I had already been introduced to the idea of scales, but never made the leap to how that related to chords. Anyway, I finally had a few "ah-ha" moments, which I'm sure you're having as well, and came up with a way to comprehend the 5-string fingerboard. It is based on the idea you mentioned, where the stack order of a chord is how they move up or down the fingerboard.



It sounds to me like you have an analytical way of approaching things, so maybe this will help. You may have already seen this and if so, well, cool. At least, it should not hurt:



banjohangout.org/topic/361633

Edited by - banjoy on 06/30/2026 05:29:18

earlstanleycrowe - Posted - 06/30/2026:  06:30:30

Some people's eye glaze over if you discuss anything that can be deemed "theory." People come at music from all different angles. I'm definitely in the OP's camp of finding a lot of value in learning the conventions of music.

Bob Buckingham - Posted - 06/30/2026:  06:31:22

Too often we are taught to play an instrument, not how to make music and understand the rules that underlie the making of music. I was fortunate enough to have a great teacher for guitar at 13 or 14. He explained the theory to me without calling it theory. He just said this is how it works. He taught me to hear chords and arpeggios and find scales. This was all done with me learning songs and tunes I chose. After all, music is music. When I took up banjo a couple of years later I realized that those arpeggios are the basis for banjo music. We tune to a chord and we play fingered and open strings together. Sometimes the notes are dissonant and that is part of the sound of banjo, and the charm.

I was also fortunate to have three years of music theory in public high school back in the 60's. All of this and some serious maturation on my part have made me a pretty good banjo player. I sometimes get to play with really great musicians who know no boundaries to their music. It humbles you.

Thinking too much is not good. Playing, feeling and thinking together is better.
The path has many obstacles. Each one has a lesson for you.

Joel Hooks - Posted - 06/30/2026:  06:38:53

It is on the first page of the chord section of the Bradbury Method.  Not hard to find. 

RB3 - Posted - 06/30/2026:  07:47:24

In general, there are two fundamental approaches to teaching and learning. One is deductive; the other is inductive. Below is the Google AI explanation. Folk art teaching is usually skewed toward the inductive approach.



"Inductive and deductive learning are two distinct educational approaches. Inductive learning is an inquiry-based, bottom-up method where students observe specific examples to discover a general rule or concept on their own. Deductive learning is a traditional, top-down method where the teacher provides the rule or formula first, followed by examples and practice."

Edited by - RB3 on 06/30/2026 07:50:14

localhost - Posted - 06/30/2026:  07:51:49

banjoy I'm at about a year of playing and recently read your PDFs. Its supercharged everything I was slowly learning, and exactly what I was trying to get to. I was desperate for this knowledge right when I found it. Literally an AHA moment when I put it to use. Just wanted to drop in and say thank you. Pat Cloud's stuff is next on my list to study.

Texasbanjo - Posted - 06/30/2026:  08:19:05

I have found that most beginners are more interested in learning to play a song than they are learning about chords, inversions or scales. Most would become bored and quit if that's all they were taught. Thus, most beginner books cater to what the beginner wants: to make music, not to figure out how it's made.

Often after beginners learn the basics and have a fair grasp of how songs sound, then they may want to learn more about how music is made and whyand how it all goes together.

earlstanleycrowe - Posted - 06/30/2026:  08:43:52

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsinjin

I know I’ve asked this before but why is the pedagogy for banjo so haphazard with the understanding of these basic aspects of theory? I feel like if I was taught the scales and chord shapes day 0 instead of basic tunes and learning by ear I would have been miles ahead of where I am today. This was such a revelation and an hour of practice later so much made sense to me moving up the neck and connecting the various chords. I could completely unlock so much of the whole banjo and I don’t think I would have ever figured this out just playing with people or learning tunes. But the actual learning of it is so fundamental and makes th music so much easier to internalize and understand. I know it’s here in the forums but every method I’ve started from brainjo to my own teacher to even banjo camp takes this as an intermediate or advanced part of learning and I just feel it should be first or second just after the clawhammer or how to hold the instrument. This theory and understanding of the harmonics and what makes the chord brings rhw whole 1 4 5 thjng together completely and explains so much.

---

I can tell you my take on it. Modern old time music (1970s on?) is heavily weighted toward instrumental tunes in a limited number of keys.

Some instruments (fiddle and banjo among them) are considered to play mostly melody, others mostly accompaniment (guitar, double bass).

Since banjo isn't considered a true accompaniment instrument (i.e., its role is primarily playing the melody), chordal accompaniment is less important. Knowing different inversions of chords isn't useful for the type of music that most current old-time players play.

You'll hear some fiddlers and some banjo players talk about old time being non-chordal music, and saying that they don't know the chords to accompany the tunes. Instruction takes the form or rote, phrase-by-phrase learning of instrumental tunes. 

EEB - Posted - 06/30/2026:  11:02:30

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsinjin

I know I’ve asked this before but why is the pedagogy for banjo so haphazard with the understanding of these basic aspects of theory? 

---

To paraphrase Prince...

Party like it's 1899.

Every single American or British-published banjo tutor from the heyday of the banjo introduces music theory in the first chapter. The best of them are extraordinary comprehensive studies of basic to advanced theory applied to the banjo with relevant exercises.

Today we are subject to a culture of immediacy and the illusion of 'instant simplicity'. What this modern culture has eroded is the awareness that meaningful simplicity is the intelligent choice not to use what we have at our disposal; rather than an enforced lack  of choice.

Edited by - EEB on 06/30/2026 11:24:48

jsinjin - Posted - 06/30/2026:  13:54:13

I disagree. I have five beginner clawhammer books in front of me right this second and I signed up for with subscriptions Brainjo and other banjo beginner works and in every one of them the focus was on tunes and learning to play by ear without tab. Then a gradual I IV V. There was absolutely no discussion of triads or the relationship of chords or inversions. In fact I had to go to a colleague in the department of music at the college where I teach to get recommendations on how to start learning the theory but it was very difficulty to put together.
I don’t feel that most banjo introductory stuff is set up to explain the basics early. And I believe it would have helped me learn much quicker than trying to play by ear.

I pay for and take weekly lessons from a very esteemed banjo teacher who was also on the faculty of the Midwest banjo camp. Only in two advanced courses at the four day camp in one session taught by Lukas Pool on “Melodic patterns in Double C tuning that gets you down the neck” and then an advanced session by Furtado on “Fretboard Fluency in double C chord inversions around the neck and arrangements” was there any discussion of “what makes up the notes and chords on the neck of your instrument.”

These two sessions helped me more despite being a beginner by actually explaining why things work.

I teach a lot of highly technical things and I am a firm believer that the understanding of why is critical to mastering a subject. And it has been a huge struggle to get the why in learning to play this instrument and I think that information being available to students would be so much more helpful.

I do agree that some people want instant answers and spoon fed stuff. In banjo I feel like there is very little deep explanation. While I’m still at very slow pickup and play by ear and I’m very much a beginner, those two sessions on chord theory and melody had me furiously taking notes and enjoying every second of the content while so much made sense. I definitely did not hide from worksheets and chord theory and the circle of fifths but it certainly was not part of the pedagogy and when I look at the same workbooks my kids had in piano, not a single tune exists in the first 20 pages of the book, it’s all about octaves, note placement, timing, understanding chords and keys.

EEB - Posted - 06/30/2026:  15:12:53

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsinjin

I disagree. I have five beginner clawhammer books in front of me right this second and I signed up for with subscriptions Brainjo and other banjo beginner works and in every one of them the focus was on tunes and learning to play by ear without tab. Then a gradual I IV V. There was absolutely no discussion of triads or the relationship of chords or inversions. In fact I had to go to a colleague in the department of music at the college where I teach to get recommendations on how to start learning the theory but it was very difficulty to put together.

I don’t feel that most banjo introductory stuff is set up to explain the basics early. And I believe it would have helped me learn much quicker than trying to play by ear.

---

Which is exactly why I'm pointing you in the direction of the richness of applied music theory resources freely available in banjo tutor books published  + or - 127 years ago. Search online.

What you currently have in front of you is the dehydrated powder, just-add-boiling-water modern 'instant' banjo version.

Edited by - EEB on 06/30/2026 15:27:06

Joel Hooks - Posted - 06/30/2026:  16:46:56

Are you also disagreeing with me? I literally posted an example… one of nearly 200 that have the same info, all of which are free to download.

Anti intellectualism has convinced people that they are not smart enough to learn this and the publishers agreed. All of modern method of clawhammer think you are too stupid to start with what children start with.

It is the modern simple method’s fault.

Nopix - Posted - 06/30/2026:  19:09:23

I learned piano at 50. I should've learned it when the rest of the grade schoolers were learning. Indeed, a piano keyboard is the embodiment of music theory laid before you.

If you've learned something kudos to you. Why not move forward then?
Oh yes, at what point do we learn to carve necks and stretch hides? Shouldn't we grown the tree? No wait. Shouldn't we learn agriculture, to grow the tree, to make the neck?

banjoboyd - Posted - 06/30/2026:  22:11:48

^ My thoughts as well. All this stuff is immediately evident on the piano. And if you can read music, shapes on the page correspond more or less directly to shapes on the keys.



If playing inversions in every key all over the neck was necessary for the music most banjo players today want to play, then you could expect to find it in current instructional methods. But that's just not the case. You don't need that stuff to play old-time banjo. You would have needed it 100+ years ago if you had wanted to be considered a skilled player, and instructional methods from that time reflect this.

EEB - Posted - 07/01/2026:  00:47:25

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjoboyd

^ My thoughts as well. All this stuff is immediately evident on the piano. And if you can read music, shapes on the page correspond more or less directly to shapes on the keys.



If playing inversions in every key all over the neck was necessary for the music most banjo players today want to play, then you could expect to find it in current instructional methods. But that's just not the case. You don't need that stuff to play old-time banjo. You would have needed it 100+ years ago if you had wanted to be considered a skilled player, and instructional methods from that time reflect this.

---

There is a tendency for correct but over-emphasised to inadvertently become a straw man. 

Not strictly necessary to play old-time banjo - true - but nonetheless the OP is identifying that the supporting context of guidance in music theory would help him.

EEB - Posted - 07/01/2026:  01:04:38

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joel Hooks

Anti intellectualism has convinced people that they are not smart enough to learn this and the publishers agreed. All of modern method of clawhammer think you are too stupid to start with what children start with.



It is the modern simple method’s fault.

---

Again, it's over-emphasis and overkill to cite the 'big guns' of anti-intellectualism here. That has the effect of reinforcing the 'difficulty' of traditional notation.

Actually there's nothing intellectual or 'difficult' about basic music theory as universally set out in the older banjo tutor books. In the culture in which those books were written and published it was simply common sense that a student was shown the basic building blocks of the sounds and patterns they were learning to play.

Tab has sidelined this logical and enabling explanation in favour of the dumb tyranny of the game 'Simple Simon Says'. Do this when I tell you without knowing what or why you're doing it.

Is it any wonder that the OP's hungry and inquiring mind senses something obvious is missing?

Edited by - EEB on 07/01/2026 01:11:14

EEB - Posted - 07/01/2026:  01:42:10

There is a place for tab. But when it becomes a stand-alone 'method' it literally excludes a student from the natural understanding of the musical structure within which they’re trying to function.



A system of imposed denial of musical understanding in relation to playing a musical instrument is an absurdity. 

Edited by - EEB on 07/01/2026 01:47:32

banjoy - Posted - 07/01/2026:  06:41:19

I don't think this is limited to folk or banjo world. When I was 10 and wanted to play violin, I just wanted to play violin. I had no idea about classical or folk or any of that. When I was indoctrinated (yes, that's the correct word here) into the classical world, they openly mocked folk musicians as some musician sub-species to be viewed with polite contempt. Yet, beyond Twinkle Twinkle Little Stars and here's the Key you're in, I was introduced to the concept of a scale through that system, then the rest ... hey, you're on your own buddy. Not even a mention of how a scale related to the tune we're playing or anything about what chords you can get from that scale that are the backdrop of what the heck is happening. Or that chords were happening at all. I played for 7 years, all state orchestra, 3rd chair first violins in high school ... and had no clue about music, not even what chords I was playing. But boy, could I translate those dots! And with feeeeeeling!!



It's my feeling that one need not be an expert in theory, not at all, but that at minimum knowing basic fundamentals (like what a freaking chord is) would have gone a long way for me way back then. So I can empathize with the OP in that.

Edited by - banjoy on 07/01/2026 06:44:18

Joel Hooks - Posted - 07/01/2026:  07:20:30

It is about this point where someone will inform me that the lute used tab.

I really don't understand what that has to do with banjo, but it gets told to me so frequently that there must be something to it.

banjoboyd - Posted - 07/01/2026:  10:44:02

quote:

---

Originally posted by EEB

 

There is a tendency for correct but over-emphasised to inadvertently become a straw man. 

Not strictly necessary to play old-time banjo - true - but nonetheless the OP is identifying that the supporting context of guidance in music theory would help him.

---

Don't get me wrong, I am all for people developing their up-the-neck chordal playing. But there is a reason why instructional materials present concepts on a selective, progressive, and need-to-know basis, with corresponding practical examples. It is the opposite of "haphazard." It is designed to develop the student's skills for playing a particular kind of music on a particular instrument, no more no less. Similarly, there are many materials on, say, tonal harmony that present concepts in the most abstract terms, removed from any particular instrument or musical setting. Both are useful for different purposes. The latter is where you can expect to find inversions discussed in chapter 2 or 3; not in a course on clawhammer banjo. That all being said, at some point, serious instrumentalists will have to delve into that more foundational/generalized knowledge to continue developing as musicians, and teachers are doing their (intermediate-to-advanced) students a disservice if they neglect this.



The primers you find in turn-of-the-century tutors were far more about reading notation and developing good fingering than they were about imparting any real knowledge of harmony, voice-leading, modulation, and so on. They aren't guides to composing or analyzing music, just necessary information for working through the book. 

Edited by - banjoboyd on 07/01/2026 10:44:51

ChunoTheDog - Posted - 07/01/2026:  10:49:43

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nopix

I learned piano at 50. I should've learned it when the rest of the grade schoolers were learning. Indeed, a piano keyboard is the embodiment of music theory laid before you.



If you've learned something kudos to you. Why not move forward then?

Oh yes, at what point do we learn to carve necks and stretch hides? Shouldn't we grown the tree? No wait. Shouldn't we learn agriculture, to grow the tree, to make the neck?

---

If you want to make an apple pie, you must first create the universe 

Nopix - Posted - 07/01/2026:  16:38:34

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChunoTheDog

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nopix

I learned piano at 50. I should've learned it when the rest of the grade schoolers were learning. Indeed, a piano keyboard is the embodiment of music theory laid before you.



If you've learned something kudos to you. Why not move forward then?

Oh yes, at what point do we learn to carve necks and stretch hides? Shouldn't we grown the tree? No wait. Shouldn't we learn agriculture, to grow the tree, to make the neck?

---

If you want to make an apple pie, you must first create the universe 

---

See, you get it!

250gibson - Posted - 07/01/2026:  17:19:04

One method teaches you how to play the banjo. The other teaches you music using a banjo. Both can and will have you playing banjo, One does not have to be exclusive nor independent of the other.

EEB - Posted - 07/02/2026:  01:31:04

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjoboyd

The primers you find in turn-of-the-century tutors were far more about reading notation and developing good fingering than they were about imparting any real knowledge of harmony, voice-leading, modulation, and so on. They aren't guides to composing or analyzing music, just necessary information for working through the book. 

---

Of course. I don't disagree at all with this general 'horses for courses' description of the practical relationship between instructional material and the intended repertoire.

But unless I'm mis-reading this thread the specific issue appears to be that the OP feels that the resulting generic 'no theory' clawhammer tutors are impeding and slowing his learning to play clawhammer style?

The 'apple pie' approach tutors are what are not working for him.

LouieChee - Posted - 07/02/2026:  06:44:15

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsinjin

"I teach a lot of highly technical things and I am a firm believer that the understanding of why is critical to mastering a subject. And it has been a huge struggle to get the why in learning to play this instrument and I think that information being available to students would be so much more helpful."



 

---

I don't fully agree with you in the context of old-time and bluegrass banjo. Bluegrass and old-time banjo are two styles defined almost entirely by a tradition of playing. In this music, the answer to "why?" is usually, "because that's the way it's done". I think some basic music theory can be helpful at times, but if the goal is to pick "blackberry blossom" or solid bluegrass banjo, I don't think music theory is directly beneficial to the goal.

There are some amazing bluegrass players who will admit to not knowing any theory behind the music.

Old Hickory - Posted - 07/02/2026:  08:39:11

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsinjin

...I have five beginner clawhammer books in front of me right this second and I signed up for with subscriptions Brainjo and other banjo beginner works and in every one of them the focus was on tunes and learning to play by ear without tab. Then a gradual I IV V. There was absolutely no discussion of triads or the relationship of chords or inversions. In fact I had to go to a colleague in the department of music at the college where I teach to get recommendations on how to start learning the theory but it was very difficulty to put together.

I don’t feel that most banjo introductory stuff is set up to explain the basics early. And I believe it would have helped me learn much quicker than trying to play by ear.

---

Some of what you're describing isn't necessarily "basic." And little to none of what you're describing is required to begin playing clawhammer banjo, which long before any of the methods or tutors described elsewhere in this discussion came into being was passed down through aural and oral tradition. (And I know it wasn't originally called clawhammer)

I totally understand you believe you would have made more progress with banjo had someone taught you music theory before having you make the first sound on the instrument. I continue to disagree, for the reasons  I described at length in another discussion on this same topic not too many weeks ago, and which I selectively repeat (and revise) here.

You didn't learn your native language by learning the rules of grammar or learning to read before you started speaking. Instead, you learned language by imitating the sounds of people talking to you. You heard and learned vocabulary, grammar, syntax, usage, and idiom through hearing and then speaking -- so that by the time you were three or four years old you were essentially fluent in your native language. I'll guess you had been speaking, reading and writing English for years in elementary school before your language curriculum included the first actual grammar lessons: to explain the rules and workings of the language you were already using all the time.

Likewise with music. And especially an instrument like 5-string banjo -- both clawhammer/old time/folk traditions and three-finger/bluegrass styles -- in which how it's played is as important as what is played. Learning by watching, listening and repeating makes the most sense for these modes of playing.

That's because banjo is not playing literal, linear, melody, or even only melody. It's accompanying itself with chord tones or other harmonizing tones wrapped around the melody or passing notes in between the melody, and the occasional hit of the open fifth string whether it's in the chord or not. In clawhammer, it matters what part of the stroke is making what sound. And before that it matters which of the 2 to 4 locations of most notes you're supposed to play.

Generalized music theory learned before playing is not going to help you make these instrument- or style-specific choices. 

The parts of theory that could be most helpful at the outset might best be presented simply as useful information: Keys and chords and the note names of the strings. Not a whole lot more.

Later on -- and for some players, "later" is years -- is time enough for theory to get into the why or be more fully explained. Even then, only as far as it helps the player. Theory is good for explaining the music you're hearing and making. Most of it is not necessary before you're making music.

I've often said that people who can play but think they don't know theory, actually know more theory than they realize. Again, this is the same as language. We all know our language's grammar long before we're taught the names for the parts of speech or get formal instruction in rules we've been following for years.

-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -

Hangout member Rick McKeon has written a very good introductory level book on the music theory that banjo players might find helpful, called, appropriately enough, Music Theory for Banjo Players. Published by Mel Bay.

The generalized theory information applies to every instrument. The application of theory to banjo is focused on G tuning and three-finger. So the few exercises might not be entirely appropriate to your needs. Still, iIt might be worth checking out the table of contents and sample pages.

-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -

I'm a broken record on this: but I believe if you want to advance on banjo, you need to listen to banjo music representing the type of banjo music you would like to play. Listen sometimes just to soak it in. Listen other times to engage and try to understand what's happening.

And to repeat something I've said elsewhere: If it's turning out that your accidental choices of banjo and clawhammer/stroke style play are not working out for you, there is still time to switch to a version of banjo or easier stringed instrument on which you can pluck linear melodies and strum chords with a flat pick, using standard notation available in countless songbooks. Four-string banjo or baritone uke would be especially suited to this. 

Old Hickory - Posted - 07/02/2026:  08:49:24

quote:

---

Originally posted by LouieChee

I don't fully agree with you in the context of old-time and bluegrass banjo. Bluegrass and old-time banjo are two styles defined almost entirely by a tradition of playing. In this music, the answer to "why?" is usually, "because that's the way it's done". I think some basic music theory can be helpful at times, but if the goal is to pick "blackberry blossom" or solid bluegrass banjo, I don't think music theory is directly beneficial to the goal.

There are some amazing bluegrass players who will admit to not knowing any theory behind the music.

---

Couldn't agree more.

As I just said at length above, these styles of banjo are best learned by diving in -- listening, watching, repeating (with or without tab or notation). Later -- maybe after one can play some songs or wants to play with others (where basic knowledge of keys and chords will be helpful) -- is time enough to learn theory: to explain the music you've been making, which will then help you progress.

There's not a lot of theory that's necessary or helpful before one can even play a tune or an exercises.

As to the amazing bluegrass players who admit to not knowing theory (Billy Strings being only the latest), I believe they know more theory than they know they know. If they can improvise on a song they've never heard before, play a song on the spot in a different key than they usually do, or use a capo, they definitely know some basic key and chord theory.

banjoboyd - Posted - 07/02/2026:  11:28:37

quote:

---

Originally posted by EEB

The 'apple pie' approach tutors are what are not working for him.

---

Well, the proof is in the pudding (or the pie, as the case may be): If that newfound knowledge advances his playing in a real and appreciable way, then I'll eat my words. But I'm fairly confident that will not be the case, as he is still working through basic material in an OT vein.

I won't restate Ken's excellent post, but the comparison to language learning is spot-on. Many people who have undertaken learning a second language as an adult can probably relate to the experience of discovering some rule or pattern that feels like a conceptual breakthrough. "Why didn't anyone just tell me this from the beginning!?" But when you confidently try to apply that rule/pattern in a real-time conversation, you completely botch it. Either you are forcing it into an inappropriate context, you are fixating on it to such a degree that it interferes with your thinking, or you are revealing yourself to be unaware of the many exceptions to that rule/pattern that native speakers simply "know." If you stick with the language and reach a more advanced level, looking back, you realize that explicitly conceptualizing the rule/pattern in that way wasn't actually that useful, and all you were really missing was sufficient exposure and practice. 

RB3 - Posted - 07/03/2026:  10:07:15

jsinjin,

In my experience, the people who teach banjo and/or provide banjo instructional material are those who have learned how to play the instrument, but haven’t necessarily learned much about music theory. Why would you expect those people to be able to provide you with music theory instruction? In pedagogical parlance, that’s beyond the scope of the curriculum.

banjoboyd - Posted - 07/03/2026:  12:21:57

I wanted to add that doing something like breaking down a clawhammer banjo part into bum-ditties, drop-thumb figures, brushes, hammer-ons, pull-offs, etc. etc., and then translating that into notation or verbal/written description is also engaging with music theory. Discussion of different tunings, how/why those tunings work for particular tunes, LH chord shapes and so on is also engaging with music theory. It's just not the "generalized" theory of tonal harmony we've ultimately inherited from the European art music tradition. And I put generalized in quotes because, while it is widespread, it is no more objective or universal or natural or even stable than other forms of music theory. 



For some perspective, the concept of chord inversions -- that you could rearrange the order of notes within a vertical sonority without changing it's basic identity -- didn't really exist until Rameau's 1722 Treatise on Harmony. CEG, EGC, and GCE were considered different structures with different functions and voice-leading considerations. How did people possibly get on without realizing the "fundamental truth" (/sarcasm) that these are all just permutations of the same C major chord? Because for a long time, thinking about it in that way wasn't relevant for the music people were trying to make.