Jazz Theory: Bottom-Up or Top-Down Design?

[JonnyPac]

Greetings y'all,

I'm a musician into science- really just a layperson who reads pop science and subscribes to a naturalistic pro-science worldview (not that I ever intent to argue philosophy or religion here in any way!)...

Top-down and bottom up-design gets brought up regarding various topics and, of course being a jazz theory geek, I thought about certain views on composition and improvisation and how they might been seen in a new light.

Here's some info on the concepts from Wikipedia:

Top–down and bottom–up are strategies of information processing and knowledge ordering, mostly involving software, but also other humanistic and scientific theories (see systemics). In practice, they can be seen as a style of thinking and teaching. In many cases top–down is used as a synonym of analysis or decomposition, and bottom–up of synthesis.

A top–down approach (also known as step-wise design) is essentially the breaking down of a system to gain insight into its compositional sub-systems. In a top–down approach an overview of the system is formulated, specifying but not detailing any first-level subsystems. Each subsystem is then refined in yet greater detail, sometimes in many additional subsystem levels, until the entire specification is reduced to base elements. A top–down model is often specified with the assistance of "black boxes", these make it easier to manipulate. However, black boxes may fail to elucidate elementary mechanisms or be detailed enough to realistically validate the model.

A bottom–up approach is the piecing together of systems to give
rise to grander systems, thus making the original systems sub-systems of
the emergent system. Bottom-up processing is a type of information processing based on incoming data from the environment to form a perception. Information enters the eyes in one direction (input), and is then turned into an image by the brain that can be interpreted and recognized as a perception (output). In a bottom–up approach the individual base elements of the system are first specified in great detail. These elements are then linked together to form larger subsystems, which then in turn are linked, sometimes in many levels, until a complete top-level
system is formed. This strategy often resembles a "seed" model, whereby
the beginnings are small but eventually grow in complexity and
completeness. However, "organic strategies" may result in a tangle of
elements and subsystems, developed in isolation and subject to local
optimization as opposed to meeting a global purpose.

Ok, a lot of that is dense! But what I suspect is that ideas like "the melody comes first", "learn everything by playing tunes", transcribing, and seeing chords without associating them with scales in any way (anti-CST) are somewhat "top-down" perspectives on music. Even learning music as an aural tradition might be considered top-down because the "complex form" is exposed to the student with the assumption that a lot of it will be learned through imitation and osmosis, etc.

Whereas thinking from the ground-up starting with pulse and divisions, intervals, scales, tertian harmony, keys and related keys, counterpoint (a different kind of melody-comes-first dictated by voice-leading and careful attention to intervals) and of course, modern chord-scale theory. It seems that many theory-seeped students fail to make music that feels natural until they go back and apply all of the esoteric material to their instrument and get their hands dirty in the real jamming/gigging/recording music world.

I think both perspectives are beneficial as a serious developing musician, and I am sure there endless testimonies about what works "best" from students and teachers alike. I also think learning basic music theory and "jazz" theory are great tools, but I also know that no book or lecture can make your ears hear what they need to hear without heavy musical exposure. Rhythm (one of the primary elements of music) must be internalized, felt deeply, and expressed sensitively and accurately before any notes are truly "right".

Some of the "I don't need no theory" rants here might turn out to be "I don't need no bottom-up theory" and so on. Think about it!

I am not attached to much of what I have stated above, and some of my science-meets-music-theory may be totally off or lacking in data. Go ahead and consider this thread very subjective and feel free to add your personal viewpoints. This could be interesting...

Best wishes!

[JakeAcci]

I think it's the history that has to be considered. I think for the most part, people composed things like melodies first, and then later said "hey those seven notes sound pretty good together." If that's correct (and it may very well be incorrect) it seems to one of those issues of looking at the moon vs looking at the finger pointing at the moon.

My understanding is that for the most part, the theory always comes after the music. So melodies are written, scales are just ways of organizing the notes in the melodies.

[AlsoRan]

You cover several broad subjects so it would be difficult to comment on all of them in print without writing a term paper (smile); but like you, I love using the analytical part my mind and I love learning the theory.

For complex, multi-faceted subjects, I am not comfortable tackling them without getting a good overview. After years of reading theory while memorizing songs, I am just now starting to apply the theory. I am finding it all goes together and am really enjoying the experience.

I am a technician by trade and in my job, I have almost always ended up rewriting technical manuals because I enjoy taking my understanding down to the most basic level. Many others that I work with don't want to think on that level. It pains and stresses them. They just fix the problems they know and I get left with the complex ones (smile again).

Many of the musicians I have met are the same way. They don't want to know too much theory, they just want to go out and do what they do. They just want to experience it by doing and love to leave a little mystery to the process. They learn by doing and listening to others and it works very well (most were darn good at what they did) and this suits their needs.

We are all different but as for me, I like top down approach to get a look at the system, and then I can switch to bottom up and have all these options that the theory has given me. As your excerpts from Wikipedia stated, no theory can completely account for every action in a system, but you can get close and if you apply yourself hard enough, you know where the theory fails and can create your own.

Time will tell if I am able to succeed in applying all this theory or die with it locked in my head. I am no longer a youngster. But, learning theory first is not only accelerating my current progress, and but also eliminating the stress of hitting those "dead-ends" with no clue of where to go.

[AlsoRan]

Let me also add that since my time is in short supply, I need that summarized, orderly overview that theory can give to help me organize and target my learning. I know what I like and what I don't like so I don't spend time on the things I don't particularly like.

[brwnhornet59]

Reverse engineering is great and for me the easiest to apply on the fly. But I do both depending on how much time I have. Each has it's own benefits and rewards.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by brwnhornet59

Reverse engineering is great and for me the easiest to apply on the fly. But I do both depending on how much time I have. Each has it's own benefits and rewards.

Word.