who are some great jazz guitarists that didn't know theory and just relied on their - Page 3

ESCC · #61 10-21-2011, 08:37 AM

With jazz, the final assessment is always based on how you finish the song.

Double 07 · #62 10-21-2011, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonR

Right - because it's just about defining functional categories. It's seeing the various subs you might choose for (say) a dom7 chord as just all doing the same job. Like you say, it's somewhat of a "glass half full" question: "They're all different sounds" "Yes, but they're all dom7-type sounds", "Yes, but they're all different"... etc etc.

Really it depends on why we're talking about differences in the first place. Do we want to stand in awe at all the myriad little different inflections that are possible? Or do want to construct a theoretical overview?
Naturally, a tree is not just a trunk, any more than it is just all the leaves and twigs at the periphery. To say it all sprouts from one trunk is not to deny all the detail it ultimately results in. It's just a way of understanding how it all works.
Yes, very reasonable. Russo's six - as I see it - was mainly about sorting those three into their different roles in major and minor keys. So a tonic minor chord is a different beast from a minor ii or vi chord in a major key. And the two diminished chords (as vii chords) both have dominant functions, one in major and one in minor.
Of course, even at this level there are complications and overlaps. A half-dim chord can be a ii in a minor key (subdominant function) as well as vii in major (dominant function).
And are I and IV chords in a major key really the same thing? Or are ii, vi and iii chords in major all the same type? (the functions are different)
And can we really consider an altered dominant as essentially the same as a plain major key V? Function is the same, but the sound and structure is very different.

IOW, Russo's categories are just one possibility among many. I think they generally work pretty well, in clearing some of the fog around "1000s of chords". We need some kind of system.

(BTW, he does talk about subs such as bIIs - tritone subs - later in his book.)

Still JonR I would assert that really the only limit to what one can do musically is your imagination. For example you could play "How Insensitive" everyday for your whole life and never play it exactly the same way twice. The complexity is all there it really just depends upon how creative you are that determines what you can do with it. On a guitar you have six moving voices that you can move individually at will through this matrix we call music theory. Thoughtfully considering all of the available options that creates results in a huge palette of available harmonic and melodic devices.

Also the importance of Subs is one that should not go under-appreciated. For example, listening to a Guy like Joe play something like "stella by Starlight" you'll hear chords "flying around everywhere". All of that complexity created from a basic lead sheet is mainly a result of a well thought out application of chord Subs. Amazing variety created and Joe was primarily a grips player so he's not even using many "exotic" chord forms. He obviously spent a lot of time thinking about that stuff and applying it to his playing.

I wonder if anyone has ever learned everything there is to know about music? Seems to me no matter how accomplished a musician one becomes there would always be something else one could work on as a musician, if one was so inclined. To me that's part of the fun of it.

Double 07 · #63 10-25-2011, 08:08 PM

One last thing. The ear is the final arbiter isn't it? A player could know "all there is" to know about music theory and then, theoretically, actually not be that good of a player because of other factors. Not spending enough hours and years actually applying the theory to the instrument, or perhaps just having a tin ear, or perhaps just a rather vanilla imagination musically.
Take your pick

JonR · #64 10-26-2011, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double 07

Still JonR I would assert that really the only limit to what one can do musically is your imagination.

Of course. But I would add that the limits of one's imagination are dependent on the music we're presented with (or should be).

IOW, it's not terribly useful or interesting (IMO) to say one's imagination is the only limit. Of course it is, ought to go without saying!

The limits of our imagination - when improvising on a tune - depend on what we know about the tune, what we know about harmony and jazz theory, as well as all the music we have heard in our life. (Never mind the physical limitations our technical skill imposes.)
What's interesting to me is not the breadth of this ocean of imagination, but how we make the choices we do make. That's always according to some system, whether it's conscious or not.
An experienced improviser doesn't have to think (much) about what he/she is doing. They feel free, as if their imagination is limitless. But in fact there are subconscious habits and learning involved. There have to be. (If there weren't we'd be totally lost as to what to do.)

This what underlies the myth than some great musicians are just effortless, and do it all from their hearts or souls, or whatever. No they don't. Just because it might feel like that (subjectively) and look like that (objectively) doesn't mean it's true. "Heart" and "soul" are only metaphors for unconscious knowledge. After all, the heart doesn't think, and there is no such organ as the soul.

I'm not trying to say that we should all play in full consciousness of what we're doing - far from it! We can only really play and improvise properly when we have learned all the necessary stuff well enough that we don't have to think (consciously), and can just "feel".
I'm only dealing with the topic at hand - a false perception that some great musicians "don't know theory", and - even worse - the belief that this supposed ignorance makes them better than musicians that have studied.
Study (intensive and extensive) is the prerequisite to artistic achievement - whether you study at a college, or with a private mentor, or just by listening to records and copying. You learn theory either way. Everybody who plays well knows theory - if they didn't, they couldn't.

Of course, there's differences between individuals in how they handle and apply that theory. That's where personality and (yes) imagination come in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double 07

For example you could play "How Insensitive" everyday for your whole life and never play it exactly the same way twice. The complexity is all there it really just depends upon how creative you are that determines what you can do with it. On a guitar you have six moving voices that you can move individually at will through this matrix we call music theory. Thoughtfully considering all of the available options that creates results in a huge palette of available harmonic and melodic devices.

Sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double 07

Also the importance of Subs is one that should not go under-appreciated. For example, listening to a Guy like Joe play something like "stella by Starlight" you'll hear chords "flying around everywhere". All of that complexity created from a basic lead sheet is mainly a result of a well thought out application of chord Subs.

Exactly - "well thought out application". He had a system, a body of learned knowledge. That is the "limit" on his imagination, its parameters if you like. The limits are broad in one sense, but necessarily narrow in another.
IOW, "limitation" shouldn't be thought of in a negative sense, but as parameters within which one works, that define the genre we're playing in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double 07

I wonder if anyone has ever learned everything there is to know about music? Seems to me no matter how accomplished a musician one becomes there would always be something else one could work on as a musician, if one was so inclined. To me that's part of the fun of it.

Absolutely. I find, the more I learn, the more I realise there is to learn. There's no such thing as "everything" in this sense. Musical knowledge has no end. No "limit" if we can use the word in that sense

.
That's simply another reason for applying limits when we work. If we consider infinite possibilities, we get nothing done. "I could do this. Or I could do that. Or I could do that..."

IOW, it comes back to the selection process. The choices are infinite - let's accept that. Now, how do we actually play anything?
As you point out with Joe Pass, we learn systems and strategies. We organise a relatively small body of information (eg patterns we have found in 100s of jazz standards and popular songs), and we draw from that. We build a database, if you want a computer analogy. That database has important limits (parameters) which define it.
This is not a rigid structure which inhibits creativity. It's an environment in which the creative process can have meaning.

To take Stella By Starlight: we don't want to improvise on that in the exact same way we improvise on everything, or every tune we play wil sound the same (when we're improvising). We want to explore what the structure of that song allows; bring out various nuances that occur to us. We can bend it and use subs, but we don't lose sight of the identity of the tune. That's the "limit" we accept, for creative purposes.

Of course, as Hal Galper says, it's important we don't apply a "closed-end system" - which is how he characterizes chord-scale theory. ("It's this chord, so it has to be this scale" - job done.

) "Let the melody be your guide" is an open system. It's fertile and productive. It's the kernel of the song's identity, but it also allows all kinds of embellishment and substitution. (The field is still not infinite, but we need never tire of what it offers.)

JonR · #65 10-26-2011, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double 07

One last thing.

That was a little too optimistic, wasn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double 07

The ear is the final arbiter isn't it? A player could know "all there is" to know about music theory and then, theoretically, actually not be that good of a player because of other factors. Not spending enough hours and years actually applying the theory to the instrument, or perhaps just having a tin ear, or perhaps just a rather vanilla imagination musically.
Take your pick

Sure. As I touched on above, I think this comes down to personality differences. Some people strain at the leash of theory, always pushing the boundaries, bursting with stuff they've just got to say.
What they have to say might still be garbage

, but at least there is an interesting tension between the song and what they do with it.

Other people like to play safe, and use the rules as a secure guideline through the scary jungle. What they play won't necessarily be boring, if they have sensitivity. But it will inevitably be bland, reliable, not edgy or exciting.

I have to say that IMHO it comes down to basic intelligence. In my experience, the most intelligent and quick-witted people I've ever met have all been professional jazz musicians. Other people may well be artistic, sensitive, clever and creative. But only jazz musicians (again, in my experience) have that sparky frame of mind, always alert, and often funny with it. (I've never met any professional comedians, but I suspect they are similar.) It has to be the kind of intelligence that can respond immediately in any situation, and also be able to think out of left field easily. Jazz musicians and comedians alike have to think on their feet, and spot the productive and entertaining connections before anyone else does.
For what it's worth, I have a very high IQ, but jazz musicians are the only people in whose company I feel dumb.

Unfortunately, many people who love jazz, and want to play it, are not of this type. They can be very nice people, and highly accomplished in some other sphere, but they will only ever be amateurs at jazz.

So, yes the ear is the final arbiter. "If you can't hear it, you can't play it", as Hal Galper says (he's my current guru

). But even those with good ears need some sense of taste and judgement - a deep understanding of the music - in order to be good, creative, original improvisers.

Double 07 · #66 10-27-2011, 03:17 PM

Oh back-handed compliments how gracious of you.

I just think it's good to not be over-simplistic about it in general. On the one hand you don't want to get overly bogged down in the quagmire of theory but on the other hand having musical options can spark creativity. I think we would agree on that.There are tools (theory) you can use, however the musical possibilities are IMO almost endless. The basic tools of improvisation are chord tones with arpeggios, scales, and chromatic passing tones. Most good solos combine all of those. However a good solo also incorporates good rhythmic and melodic phrasing, which in actuality is not an easy thing to teach. Perhaps the most difficult thing to teach? For example a major scale may not sound like much but in the hands of a great player, using hip phrasing and maybe a few chromatic passing tones, it can be spectacular.

Since I was on major I was just thinking about the possibilities with major. If you include triads in the category of arpeggios, off the top of my head that makes 8 arpeggio choices you can use over a major chord (okay one of them I throw out because I really don't like the sound of it so that leaves 7 arpeggios). Still seems like alot of possibilities from my viewpoint and I still haven't even thrown in the scales or chromatic devices.

Anyway enough talking about music for today I have the day off and I'm going to go make some music. Peace

bluewaterpig · #67 10-29-2011, 01:01 AM

To answer the OP, Wes knew more theory than most musicians on the planet, he simply didn't know the names of things. He was always shaky with chord names and qualities (like describing a chord as a G minor seventh) but he got a grip on that as time went on simply from playing more and more and hearing the note names discussed.

Wes didn't know things like the term 'tritone substitution'. He just knew that as when you go down a half step and use a dominant seventh. That's where his whole illiterate rumor came from. And of course, he never learned to read music.

pauln · #68 10-29-2011, 02:15 PM

The other night I watched Joe Pass in a series of cheezy youtube videos... he said his intent was to try to answer questions about how he played and what was in his mind when doing so.

Of course he played like an angel and sounded amazing.

What was interesting was that he got flustered constantly when explaining what he was doing. When naming the chords he was playing, he would have to look and think for a bit to name them - at one point he stared at his G13th chord at the third fret for a good two or three seconds before grinning with embarrassment and finally naming it.

At more than one point he admitted that the numbering system was confusing to him and that he was not good with that system.

He clearly understood everything he was doing instantly and comprehensively at some internal level, but naming the things seemed to be an after thought that required additional time and thought to work out.

I did see him play some chord forms new to me that I have since been exploring - very cool stuff.

The one thing he explained that really made the most sense to my understanding of what he was doing was when he described harmonic chord substitution. He would say this chord "x" can be replaced by this chord "y", but why stop there - because "y" can further be replaced by the "z" chord... and so on. Apparently he stacks these chord subs three, four, even five levels high over the original progression with ease, and THAT seems to be much of source of the complex beauty in his harmonic development.

So starting with a standard progression, which most would use the numbers to describe as one-six-two-five or whatever, his method of stacking chord subs results in a transformation of the progression that would then need to be named using an alternate set of numbers - a different set of numbers for each permutation of the various way to sub the chords...

I can see why he does not try to use the number system to keep track of the various possible chord subs stacked on top of the original progression because he would not only need to remember the numbers of the original progression, but all the possible sub chord numbers stacked over the original chords in the progression.

With only three chord stacks (original plus two levels of sub) for a four chord progression the total number of different progressions to keep track of by number name would be 3^4 (three to the fourth power) = 81 - the original progression and eighty harmonic variations from which to choose! And that does not take into account all the varieties of alteration, inversion, voicing etc for each of those chords....!!

I can see why it takes him a few seconds of thought to unravel those sub-stacks when trying to explain verbally what he did.

He mentioned often that his approach was to keep things simple in his head... yet his hands where just amazing. He knows theory, but he has abstracted it so well in his head that he does not seem to "think about it" when playing - just a direct connection from his wonderful musical ideas and his execution of those ideas on the guitar.

IanX · #69 11-04-2011, 01:44 PM

There's quite a lot of stuff in this thread, and I have not read it all in detail (that's an admission). But getting back to the original question about how famous musicians can play whilst appearing not to have much if any formal understanding of theory -

- I have to agree with those who say the likelihood must be that guys like Wes Montgomery (whose playing I don't know well at all) knew theory by working out for themselves what produced satisfying sounds vs. what did not.

Really that's all you need to know. Though of course most of us find that much easier said than done!

Today we are all very lucky that we can find literally thousands of books and other instructional media that explain how to play. In fact, some of them explain different approaches and ideas of how best to play. When Charlie Christian was learning to play guitar, he would not have any books like that.

In a way you might say that's an advantage. Because the lack of instructional books means you are forced to seek out other musicians and to learn from them, and learn with them ... or else, pretty much give up!

But somewhere back near the start of this thread I think I read that Wes Montgomery was known to practice all day long. And I think I recently read the same thing about Charlie Parker, ie where someone said they owned a house next door to him and could hear him practicing literally 15 hours a day!

Of course even 15 hours a day won't help you much if you are not using that time to really think about what you are playing and how you are playing it. That is - the reason some guys appear to succeed with only say 2 or 3 hours a day, whilst others put in 8 hours and still don't achieve as much, seems to be that what's really needed is not just many hours spent practicing, but many hours concentrating seriously on what you are practicing, how you are practicing it, and why you are practicing it ... eg so that you don't duck stuff that seems hard, and so that you force yourself to face up to your shortcomings and find ways to improve those things.

You don't need to be a musical genius to play well (though I suspect a degree of higher intelligence is a big help). But if you want to play jazz, or other forms which demand a high degree of skill and knowledge (which, in the end, probably applies to most types of music), then you do need to practice and learn in a way which involves facing up to the task of overcoming all the hurdles that appear in your way ... and that may mean doing rather more than simply putting in a lot of hours practicing in a relatively mechanical simplistic way .... you have to think about it ... sometimes quite deeply.

2:cents

jazzuki · #70 11-04-2011, 02:56 PM

Great piece of commom sense writing! By the way did you know that Parker was laughed off the stage at his first gig aged seventeen then he did his 15 hrs a day FOR THREE YEARS,when he went back he blew them off the band stand and NOBODY laughed at him ever again.

Sailor · #71 11-04-2011, 05:50 PM

Great response IanX. I still believe that anyone with the opportunity should take the time to learn to read music and understand theory...no excuse. Most play-by-ear musicians don't end up being Wes or Joe...they just live in a musically ignorant world, and it takes 100 times longer to "figure it out" on your own.

Take a theory class at a community college...cheap, accessible, and you'll learn more in a few months than you will in years sitting on your couch trying to make sense of language you don't speak

2 cents, Sailor

pauln · #72 11-09-2011, 10:45 AM

Sailor,
As a play-by-ear musician, I think you misunderstand some things.

I read music and I know theory, but I don't use either to perform or figure things out - I use my ear. A lot of play-by-ear musicians read and understand theory, and choose to play by ear in concert and use their ear to figure things out.

Figuring things out by ear does not take 100 times longer than using theory; for ear players the ear is faster than theory, both for figuring things out and for performing. It may take a long time for those who do not play and understand music by ear to figure things out by ear, but for ear players it is the natural fast way. Ear players may review what they have figured out by mapping theory after the fact, but the primary means of understanding the music is directly by the way it sounds, not by what things are named.

Ear players are not ignorant, they understand music by hearing it rather than assigning names to things. Ear players could just as well claim that theory players are ignorant because they don't hear the sound of the music well enough to play without theory.

Ear players don't view music as a language they don't speak, we view it as a language that we do speak, hear, and understand directly and naturally without having to name things - just like you can speak, hear, and understand sentences without identifying the individual words as nouns, verbs, etc.

Play by ear musicians learn by figuring it out on their own because they can, because it is fast, because it is understandable and fits within their personal internal abstract representation of music that does not use named things, and because a lot of us actually enjoy the act of figuring things out. One of the things I like best about music is figuring things out.

So from the play by ear perspective, the idea of naming everything and using verbal concepts to relate these things is quite far from what we consider the true element of music - the way it sounds. For we who understand music by the way it sounds, the theory approach is foreign, clumsy, the hard way, the long way, not really applicable, and maybe kind of mechanical. And ultimately unnecessary, a hinderance, a distraction, unneed baggage. The whole idea of having to "learn music" seems like a misunderstanding - music is already understandable and makes sense, it's just a matter of spending time with an instrument to be able to play it learning by listening.

Some musicians think in terms of verbal strategies and theory may serve them well. Others think in terms of visual strategies that lend themselves to various methods and approaches. Play by ear musicians develop their own personal abstract internal representations that are neither verbal nor visual, and unique to the individual. Pressing an approach to music that gives names to things and then verbally or visually sets up to introduce a formal system of how these named things interrelate with each other may be totally lost with someone who naturally hears, understands, and plays music by ear.

Sailor · #73 11-09-2011, 06:35 PM

Nice response Paul...your points are valid and thought provoking. I was always a classical guitarist so you can see where my music reading and theory bias comes from....you can't play Bach "by ear"

Also, you can't really teach music "by ear" either. (I was an elementary music teacher for years and have just started teaching myself jazz in the last couple of years).

I am totally dependent on having music in front of me and I have a shitty ear despite playing music for so long....(some say it's because I don't listen enough to live or recorded music).

My main point was certainly not a put down, but more of a question. Why are guitarists, especially, so dependent on charts, diagrams, tabs, scale patterns with little dots all over the neck, etc....the whole language of music is written on a tiny staff...12 tones...much easier than figuring stuff out all the time. I guess I'm frustrated because I have many beginning students who are turned off, and even frightened of the idea of the staff...my 6 year old little girl knows the notes and can read for soprano recorder already...ergo...how hard can it be. AND, why wouldn't any musician want to know the written language of the art that they play, love, and listen to???

I wish I had spent much more time playing by ear as well as reading....yeah, I can open up my RealBook and read the heads but I never hear what is going on the way you do...I'm assuming.

Peace out, Sailor

Flyin' Brian · #74 11-09-2011, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor

Great response IanX. I still believe that anyone with the opportunity should take the time to learn to read music and understand theory...no excuse. Most play-by-ear musicians don't end up being Wes or Joe...they just live in a musically ignorant world, and it takes 100 times longer to "figure it out" on your own.

Take a theory class at a community college...cheap, accessible, and you'll learn more in a few months than you will in years sitting on your couch trying to make sense of language you don't speak

2 cents, Sailor

Although I agree with your statement that time should be taken to learn the architecture of music, I disagree and even object to the musically ignorant comment. I'm 64 and have been playing the guitar since I was 8. I spent most of my teen years playing in rock bands and really graduated to jazz at 19 or 20 by getting a job playing bass in a piano trio. I played 3 nights a week for 7 years in the same room on that gig and I learned more about listening and music than I could have in a dozen classrooms. I did not and still don't read bass clef although I understand it.

I understand the concept of modes, what all of the notes on a scale mean to the key and to each other, voice leading and how chords are formed. I understand the concept of tritone subs and so on and I originally learned ALL of that simply by listening. I attached the "proper" names to things well after I understood how to use them and again, learned it all by ear. My bass playing came from listening to Ray Brown with Oscar Peterson. My guitar playing has come from listening to many, Wes, Johnny Smith, Howard Roberts and Metheny in particular.

I have met and worked with many people who did the same thing. One can be the most educated, most informed and most technically astute practitioner, but if one doesn't develop an ear, no jazz will be played. The ear is the first, foremost and most important thing to develop in the jazz world.

You're right about one other thing, you can't learn it sitting on your couch. You have to get out and play. You have to be willing as Metheny says, to be the worst player in the band, to suffer occasional embarrassing moments
and to get yourself out on a limb so that you can learn the return path.

That's not gonna come from sitting on your couch or from reading a book.

As far as reading (which I can do) is concerned, it has been postulated that if for some unknown reason all of the printed music on earth were to disappear, the last musical group you would hear would be a symphony orchestra, leading the way would be simple folk and ethnic tunes that were passed on by ear, rock bands and jazz groups, who would simply say "Hey lets jam, I'll start with Stella".

pauln · #75 11-09-2011, 08:32 PM

Thanks Sailor, I'm glad my post is being taken well; I tried to make it informative without being too onesided...

Not to the same intensity as Fly'in Brian, but I also began jazz by jumping into the fire; my first ever stage appearance was sitting in with a straight ahead jazz combo. They would not let me off the stage all night and I ended up playing with them two nights a week for four months. I had been fooling around with teaching myself some jazz - not even sure yet if I would like it, could do it, or would be any good at it. After the work with the serious combo I was hooked, and I definitely got a quick education - not just what I learned (which was a lot!), but more importantly what was still to be learned (a whole lot more).

Jazzaluk, your explanation "...basically used the instrument itself as a vehicle to organize sounds. ... In order to relate their acquired musical knowledge to conventional theory was like translating from one language to another." really hits the mark with how I feel about it. Very insightful.

Jazzaluk · #76 11-09-2011, 09:29 PM

Excellent posts Pauln.

Whenever someone points out that Joe Pass or Wes were not able to communicate music very well using the language accepted by academia, it seems to be accompanied by the notion that their acquired understanding of music was a exceptional case and that music theory should always trump ears.

The fact of the matter is that sounds can be categorized, organized and understood through different means. Joe and Wes were guitarists and basically used the instrument itself as a vehicle to organize sounds. It was direct and very effective. In order to relate their acquired musical knowledge to conventional theory was like translating from one language to another. It was sometimes clumsy in presentation but in no way lacked sophistication in content.

When theorists try to reverse engineer their playing using conventional theoretical language and notation, it can obscure the underlying simple concepts that they applied, which were in many cases born out of the tasteful manipulation of fretboard geometry governed by great ears.

JonR · #77 11-10-2011, 04:32 AM

^ Another excellent post!

Sailor · #78 11-11-2011, 06:27 PM

Great thread...well thought out...intelligent and insightful.

My only question that still remains is why are guitarists afraid to read notes??

The idea that reading and studying theory will kill your creativity would be impossible to prove.

There is also another side to music beyond playing or listening...studying history, examining manuscripts, transposing, transcribing, psychology and philosophy of music, Music ed from the Steps of Parnassum to Gordons learning theory.

It helps in the gestalt study of music to understand the basic theory and read the notes...NO, it probably won't help you improvise though

Sailor

pauln · #79 11-12-2011, 01:11 PM

I can tell you why I personally don't like reading the notes and using theory in general for playing.

Each pitch has multiple names, depending on the key signature. This causes a separation and confusion between what things are called and what they sound like. In formal systems, having multiple names for things is a violation of referential integrity.

Diatonic scales are defined in such a way that each pitch is forced to have a unique letter note name. To do this consistently requires that some pitches be named using flats, sharps, double flats, or double sharps to prevent the same letter name from occurring more than one time. This furthers the separation from what things are called from what they sound like. I understand that it makes staff reading easier, but it makes relating the sounds to the names for more complicated.

The whole naming of musical intervals is confounded by early music theorists not understanding the difference between cardinal and ordinal numbers. When you assign numbers to things, it makes a difference what kind they are. What happens if you examine the step from the open E to the A on the first string?

In terms of intervals, the distance between these two is a fourth, so E is the first and A is the fourth. These are ordinal numbers.

But in cardinal numbers (ordinary math), the diatonic distance between E and A is 4-1=3, because you make three steps to get to the "fourth".

In terms of frets, the A is the fifth and the E is the zeroth, not the first (the first fret is F). So the distance is five frets. These are also cardinal numbers.

So now I have the step from E to A described by 3, 4, and 5... multiple number names depending on how I'm looking at it.

So a single note on the guitar might have six names/numbers... but I hear just one pitch.

Personally, I just don't care for a system that supports multiple names and numberings for such simple things. I'm not "afraid to read notes", it's just that the names, numbers, and notation seem poorly designed, and even if these were designed perfectly they still could never relate to the phenomenological reality of music - how it actually sounds. Only the ear can do that, and it is instantaneous, direct, and real.

JonR · #80 11-12-2011, 05:47 PM

Quote: