I would say that our grandparents generation and before, did actually learn to play that way - theory first (scales rather than blindly learning chord shapes). Some time in the 1970s lots of new tutors decided they could teach lots more budding players by dispensing with music theory (and music notation) until later on. That reverse way of learning appealed to the laziness in us to my mind, whereby we learn to play songs and basic chords from the outset, and don’t get dispirited and give up from too much theory early on. That’s good and bad of course, as many more people can now participate in making music, but many never take time out later to understand scales, chord formation and reading printed music.
However, let’s not open up another debate over tablature versus music notation, because with instruments like the banjo, I believe you need both sometimes to fathom out how something is actually being played. Note that the first Scruggs book had both side by side, though most presumably rely on the tablature. I think I’m right in saying that Earl himself didn’t actually read music, but then none of us would question his musicality.

I spent my life as an educational psychologist and one thing I learned is that we are all wired slightly differently ( and some extremely differently); so that one way of understanding something isn't always the way somebody else learns it or understands it. That being said, I took piano lessons from a rote-learning teacher and my son took piano from a teacher who taught the theory along the way. As a result he could write orchestral arrangements in high school. I still struggle with what key I'm in. I also never figured out what the heck differential equations were good for, although I did learn not to say that in front of a bunch of engineers, because then I would have to listen to the explanation all over again.

I found as a teacher that most students aren't intersted in learning music theory, learning what a chord is and how it's constructed. They want "results"; i.e., want to be able to play something that resembles a song and don't care how it's made, at least at first. If you don't keep them interested by giving them songs to learn, most get bored, disgusted or lose interest.

People learn in different ways. Your way is right for you as you've discovered. Nothing wrong with it, as it works for you.

Ha:

I know I am wired differently and it’s fine. My wife puts up with it; some of my coworkers do too.

I put a slim piece of post it note at the top of my banjo that tells me the base note for the tuning and then I can think through each chord position moving down the frets while I practice.


I totally understand the Nashville numbering system and its relationship to the chords now but I wanted to understand the reason why a chord actually is a chord first.

I agree with Sherry: You've found a way to understand the topic that works for your particular background and learning style. It will not meet everyone's intellectual or musical needs, but so what? It works for you, and that's great!

I recall a festival workshop I taught in a few years back. I was describing my view of how, in bluegrass banjo, a forward roll and backward roll can segue one into the other. Afterwards, someone from the audience--an engineer by training--came up to me and said he understood what I'd said as an analogy with how a three-phase motor works, or some such thing. I had no idea what he was talking about, but it made sense (briefly) while he explained it. Several years later, I certainly couldn't explain to you what he meant, but it worked for him!

Chords? An idea that goes back to Darwin -- though likely much earlier -- is that music or rather singing in particular came before the evolution of spoken language. Certainly, the pipes and strings were chosen because of their resemblance to human song. So, I imagine that much of the most basic structure in music has something to do with human physiology and neuroanatomy.

Helmholtz identified that the information content of spoken language (in particular, for vowels) is not in the fundamental frequency of the voiced sound but in the relative strengths of the next three harmonics.

The great Yogi philosopher once said: "baseball is 90 percent mental; the other half is physical". I think that the banjo is just the opposite. It's 90 percent physical and the other half is mental.

I think that's why some prefer an inductive approach to learning. In order to make music, you have to conquer the physical aspects of playing the instrument. If you can't do that, your understanding of music theory will just be an academic accomplishment.

I had a musician friend who became a PGA professional golf teacher. In order to become a PGA teaching pro, you have to pass both a playing test and a written test. He told me that the PGA used to allow the testing to be done in any order, but a few years ago they adopted a policy that requires that the playing test be done first. They realized that many who passed the written test could not pass the playing test.

You are learning music. Learning the theory, (and to some extent physics) of how and why music is the way it is can be applied to any instrument in any genre with a lot less steeper learning curve. If you are taught just to play songs, then you are really not learning music. You are learning how to play songs. This is the difference between being a musician who plays banjo and a banjo player.

I think I’m interested peripherally in the instrument but fascinated by the music theory. The instrument I happened to choose is the banjo. It could have been anything I suppose. Songs and playing with people are probably fun but my joy so far has been hearing the banjo playing notes, chords and things I was understanding in one key or another. Is do practice a lot but my practice is structured less around song learning and a lot around technique and the work with music theory

When we were at school, they’d teach us the rules, that govern the music that’s played in the West;
Each scale on the stave, will make an octave, with only eight notes, no more and no less.
For fate has decreed, that eight’s all you need, for most of the music that you might create;
That’s one and that’s two, and then three and then four, then five and then six, and then seven and eight.

Scales and Modes

Lest you’re to forget, a short alphabet, will help you remember and not lose your way;
When starting at c, it parts then at g, then jumps back to start again right back at a.
That’s when the tune climbs, but where it declines, it all then reverses, whatever the key;
That’s c and that’s b, that’s a and then g, then f and then e, and then d back to c.

Whilst intervals shape, our winning soundscapes, and that’s how our musical scales are derived,
I want to say this, pentatonic scales miss, a couple of scale notes, so only have five.
Those scales can be either, a major or minor - one crops up in Country, likewise Pop and Soul;
The other one tagged with, quite often a flat fifth, is damned done to death in both Blues, Rock and Roll.

Whilst natural majors, are happy in status, sad natural minors in Folk tunes abound,
With ancient tunes neither, a major or minor, in Celtic and Bluegrass, they’re commonly found.
True sad minors boast, their flattened third notes, but harmonic minors, have seventh notes bent;
Melodics, it’s true, have note six sharp too, but weirdly not when the tune wends its descent.

Now most scales use codes, from those ancient modes, originally from Greeks, but the classical kind;
First you’ve Ionian, or choose Aeolian - the major and minor we use most the time.
Then Dorian, Phrygian, Mixolydian, as used in Folk music, Flamenco and Blues;
But other than Jazz, no ‘beggar’ much has, a clue where the Locrian and Lydian are used.

Keys and Chords

Your Tonic chord’s C, the Dominant’s G, Subdominant’s F, when you’re in key of C;
But when G’s the key, it’s then that it’s G, Subdominant’s C, and the Dominant’s D.
Now Nashville has numbers, to mask any blunders, where One is the Tonic, whatever key pitch;
Subdominant’s Four, but not without flaw, your seventh chord then is Five, once you know which.

With scale notes the first, when taken with thirds, and added to fifth notes, gives you a full chord;
So have a note c, and add in note e, together with g, your C major is formed.
Then find the flat third, so minor is heard, - since minor comprises c, g and e flat;
Or add a flat b, to that c, e, g, and get a C seventh chord, simple as that.

You’ll find not just sevenths, but ninths and elevenths, and each with inversions all there to be used;
Plus sixth chords, suspendeds, fifth chords and augmenteds, I really don’t know just why some get confused.
We’ve sadly not finished, there’s that called diminished, and those minor sevenths and major sixth strains;
You may be surprised, the same notes comprise, C sixth and A minor seventh rearranged.

If that’s not enough, those last notes make up, C aug major seventh with flat fifth of course;
When mixed they’re fine for, G sixths add nine or, E minor elevenths with suspended fourths.
Now names of augmenteds, you’ll claim are demented, just like London buses, they all comes in threes,
Diminisheds as well, I insist must tell, have four different names, so to tax expertise.
But might you agree, just like A,B,C, you’re now not confused by chords, scales, modes and keys?

Jerry Crossley.


.