Are you a left-brain or right-brain guitar musician?

[mr. beaumont]

A few things about Django.

Yes, couldn't read or write...possesed an amazing work ethic...probably practiced more in a day than many of us do in a week...had a highly trained ear from. From playing musette and learning guitar from an auditory/ oral tradition. Was playing 8 hour gigs 6 nights a week in his teens. Likely had 10,000 quality hours on the instrument by the age most of us picked it up and first pounded out "smoke on the water."

Those are extraordinary circumstances. For the rest of us, who picked up a guitar to score chicks and look cool sometime in our teens and didn't get serious about it till 10 years later, things are different.

So if we're going to talk about Django Reinhardt, we're talking about somebody very special...one in a very small group of musicians, those who excelled in jazz without the ability to read or write music. It's a very small group of amazing musicians.

Me, I need all the resources necessary....all the help I can find...and until I feel strong enough to be out there fronting a group, I'll gladly play second or third fiddle and learn on the job...for those purposes, reading has been crucial.

We're all here to play jazz, right? Why discount any resource available? This stuff ain't easy!

[elixzer]

That's a really useful article thanks!

> "Would you ask your child to spell mommy before s/he says 'mommy'?"
That's interesting too. I think I'd argue that you can't have a very interesting conversation with a child until they are able to read and write .

But what about people that used to have conversations way before having to read and write. There is a great book I have read called The Spell of the Sensuous, by David Abram, He goes into great depth about how preliterate peoples could be much more sensually attuned to nature. So it is just not true that we need to read and write to converse or sing. In comparison with the invention of reading and writing wees been doing it since time immemorial.

But the analogy I'd like to focus on is when the baby is learning how to make different noises "Umma umma DahDah googoogaga" and blowing raspberries. The baby is teaching itself that making its mouth and tongue into lots of different shapes, it can control the sort of sound that comes out. Some or maybe most of this is unconscious, the brain is not willing each muscle into place (as the above article says too). But the baby is learning how to make all the different noises that are needed for language.

But didn't the author mention about walking also. Have you ever been bed ridden for a while and you regress and forget how to walk. I have, and it is --looking back--very comical, cause its not as easy as you think LOL, but eventually do you have to even think about it? I like to think my self a good mover/dancer, but some people think SO much about the moves to do they look ridiculous lol. Its better when you just let go.

If you ask me to play a GM7 my hand will more or less automatically go into the grip and I'll play it.

If you play a GM7 (without telling me what it is) and ask me to copy it, It will take me a several guesses to get anywhere near. I'm like a baby, hearing the word "Mommy" and trying to imitate it by blowing a raspberry!

Have you ever done any Ear Training?

Anyway I shall use my leftbrain logic to escape this predicament:
- There are lots of ways to learn music and I have been practising only some of them
- I am not very good at music
- therefore, I must have been practising the wrong stuff!

Cheers

just feel sad you feel that. Do you think you would ever be satisfied?

[mr. beaumont]

That assumes satisfaction is an end goal on a musical journey.

Personally, I like the fact that I could always have room for improvement, that I could always learn more...it means I never have any excuse to be bored

[elixzer]

I just want to say for now cause i have to shoot off in a mo, that the reason for this thread is not 'trolling' which was suggested above. Far from it, I am personally fascinated by the exploration of this inquiry and enjoy the company of more experienced musicians and less so sharing this discussion

I have found a thread at another place at these forums I have been reading and will like to link it to here later, and quote a few things and hopefully those that haven't joined in who did there might here to also

It is not really meant to be a one way versus another way, but rather understanding diverse understandings and approaches to music

[Mike Floorstand]

But what about people that used to have conversations way before having to read and write. There is a great book I have read called The Spell of the Sensuous, by David Abram, He goes into great depth about how preliterate peoples could be much more sensually attuned to nature. So it is just not true that we need to read and write to converse or sing. In comparison with the invention of reading and writing wees been doing it since time immemorial.

Do you see the irony of what you're saying - you have read a book, you were talking earlier about Apollo and Dionysus, we are having an interesting conversation about it. You would not have this conversation with preliterate people. We would not be able to play bebop with preliterate people.

Have you ever done any Ear Training?.

That is one of the things I have neglected - tried and found it too hard or takes too long to see any benefit. Now looking to put that right (probably with transcribing, I'm not convinced of the business case for abstract ear-training).

Do you think you would ever be satisfied?

That is another topic I think! There is something about music that leaves me wondering why I am not better. If I practice an hour a day or 12 hours, or if I practice one thing or another, always wondering if it's the right thing. I do get a huge amount of satisfaction from making music - memorising a tune, composing a chord melody, recognising a theoretical concept. But still feeling that, given the hours I put in, I should be better and quicker at certain things, be able to improvise, etc. Therefore, I must have be putting hours into the wrong stuff (or at least not enough hours into the right stuff).

Cheers

[mr. beaumont]

A well trained ear is the single most important asset a jazz musician can have.

[fep]

That is another topic I think! There is something about music that leaves me wondering why I am not better. If I practice an hour a day or 12 hours, or if I practice one thing or another, always wondering if it's the right thing. I do get a huge amount of satisfaction from making music - memorising a tune, composing a chord melody, recognising a theoretical concept. But still feeling that, given the hours I put in, I should be better and quicker at certain things, be able to improvise, etc. Therefore, I must have be putting hours into the wrong stuff (or at least not enough hours into the right stuff).

Cheers

I feel that way all the time.

It's hard to practice things that I'm not good at. But, if I only practice what I'm good at, I'll never get any better.

[fep]

A well trained ear is the single most important asset a jazz musician can have.

That makes sense. And for me it's the hardest thing to develop.

[elixzer]

Do you see the irony of what you're saying - you have read a book, you were talking earlier about Apollo and Dionysus, we are having an interesting conversation about it. You would not have this conversation with preliterate people. We would not be able to play bebop with preliterate people.

Question: have you ever personally met any preliterate people? I am guessing no, so how would you know what they can do? How do you know you have not lost? Why is my reading a book about that mean that preliterate people are inferior?

All the tracks he follows, and there are many, lead him to what he posits to be the single most important technological innovation our species has achieved: the phonetic alphabet. Drawing on extensive anthropological literature, he demonstrates that the way oral, pre-literate cultures experienced the world is radically different from our own. To begin with, time was (is) experienced as cyclical in nature, with great, repeating mythological stories defining the cycle of the year. No meaningful distinction was made between time and space. Story and meaning derived from and were tied indissolubly to place: the body of wisdom developed by a community, often in the form of songs and stories, represented its store of wisdom on how to live well and sustainably in its own, unique place. Jonathan Dawson's reviews of The Spell of the Sensuous, by David Abram, and The Other Side of Eden, by Hugh Brody

Originally Posted by elixzer
Have you ever done any Ear Training?.

That is one of the things I have neglected - tried and found it too hard or takes too long to see any benefit. Now looking to put that right (probably with transcribing, I'm not convinced of the business case for abstract ear-training).

Do you take advice from an amatuer ? Here's an interesting thing. it was a question I asked the guitar teacher in the video link above. In his Ear Training sessions he advises starting off simply with nursery rhymes beginning on 1, 3, and 5 of the scale, eg Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, Mary Had a Little Lamb, and London Bridge is Falling Down. He advises to not think of the notes as letter but as numbers, and to count the notes as you do the rhymes. I found that NOT counting I was more fluent and not fukin up, so I just emailed him short while ago, and asked:

HI,

THANKS very much for sending me your lessons I asked for, it is much appreciated.

I would like to ask you a question. It really hit the mark where you ask this question: "would you ask your child to spell mommy before s/he said it?" IE., you are saying first learn the language of the guitar before you begin reading music (if you choose to), and letter the notes.
So for your Ear Training lessons you suggest we number the scales, and patterns of the tunes from the scales. I am doing that with your help, and I see great value with that, but here is my question:

I often will be exploring melodies, and sometimes will NOT think or voice the numbers, and this feels more fluent to me, more spontaneous, and I dont fumble with mis-takes and so on.... so.....could you dig that like you saying not to letter the numbers BEFORE you learn the language of guitar that the same principle could be added to numbering the notes? That before you worry overly about numbering the notes first just sense the melody without lettering them or numbering them?

I am not going to abandon the lessons of numbering of them, of course, but I just wonder what your thoughts are on this?

Kind Regards

To which Rob answered:

Yes you could. Most people would be too confused by that. I would say it would be better to not even use numbers, but most folks need a little something to help them out, and numbers at least relay the idea that notes are higher and lower than each other by certain degrees.

Good observation though.

By the way. Do you sing?

Originally Posted by elixzer
Do you think you would ever be satisfied?

That is another topic I think! There is something about music that leaves me wondering why I am not better. If I practice an hour a day or 12 hours, or if I practice one thing or another, always wondering if it's the right thing. I do get a huge amount of satisfaction from making music - memorising a tune, composing a chord melody, recognising a theoretical concept. But still feeling that, given the hours I put in, I should be better and quicker at certain things, be able to improvise, etc. Therefore, I must have be putting hours into the wrong stuff (or at least not enough hours into the right stuff).


Cheers

If its any comfort, I am intending to quote some stuff from another thread that was previously exploring this question in the near future. I was watching a video about Wes Montgomery, and as you know he was an exceptional player and it is claimed he also did not read music, but according to people talking about him they said he was never satisfied with his cuts. So even a genius like him could feel that maybe you better resign yourself to never being satisified, so you may as well just enjoy playing haha
Speaking personally, I have been through many phases like that where I have put the guitar down. Often I have been self-conscious of people hearing me cause I feel I should be 'more advanced by now' but I am starting to see thru this trip. It is the feeling which is important I reckon. The emotion is impossible to teach. And you can express that in subtle ways. EVEN with one note, one string.

[elixzer]

Here is another thread that was talking about a similar subject as here
who are some great jazz guitarists that didn't know theory and just relied on their

There some good insights here, and advice.

I think it is all to do with one's nature, and maybe the trickiest part is being bold enough to feel it and know what is best for you.

theres this old Chinese saying I kind of like which goes: the right way for the wrong man isn't the right way
OR words to that effect. it says to me that you can find a way you struggle with, but maybe the struggle is not some great strategy but is telling you its not for you

Maybe that is a good thing for all the different means we guitarists (ooops dare I even call myself that? well I choose to play guitar--for now anyhow) is that we dont HAVE to adhere to 'a way' if it is not suiting us

What IF some musicians is more analytical? Am I saying that is bad? No. But what about the person who is a different type? Should he try and do it like the other or try other things. I suppose thats what this thread is all about--espesh for me lol. It is encouraging liberation FOR those who feel different
it is ALSO saying that you dont have to be a 'virtuoso'. Nothin bores me more rigid than seeing some self-appointed 'demi'god' rock guitarist, long tresses flying back from a fan and 'shredding' notes 'superfast' ---i HATE that shit
Yet i can listen to some Delta Blues player who just overwhelms me with feeling from their playing and singing

[Flyin' Brian]

The distinction is a myth. Music is multi-faceted.

Yep. I spent 37 years of my life flying airplanes for a living. The connection between good music and flying is significant...both appealing strongly to both the intellectual and visceral side of our being. The parallels are significant.

That said I flew with some very "mechanical" pilots and have played with some pretty mechanical musicians. The two sides of the brain are seldom developed equally.

[elixzer]

In that link I liked this:

pauln I won't disagree with what makes sense to others, but I play by ear and assigning names to sounds is a redundant step that takes me away from the part of my mind that enjoys, understands, and performs music - the part of my mind that knows nothing of things with names..
The best I can explain it is that I recognize chord types and their functions etc by the way they sound just like I recognize a familiar face - I don't have to know the person's name to recognize their face.

I am really good with faces. I usually can recognize a face even when only a bit is shown. But with names I am hopeless, and so often struggle to follow plots of detective films--remembering the characters names

At first reading him say that I imagined he was gonna say he had never studied theory, but in a later post he said he did as a child, yet what he is saying there reminds what I imagine I would hear someone like Django say, or any other musician who cant read music, and approaches music in a less theoretical way. I dont know if THATs the right way to put it either.

[fep]

It's too late for me. I've got the connection between notated music, the fretboard and the sound already hardwired in my brain.

But, Elixzer, I'll be interested in your progress if you truly proceed using only your ear (i.e no sheet music, chord charts, or tab) until you develop a good ear. Seriously, I think it's an interesting approach.

I don't think I'd have the patience for it. I've spent a lot of time with every ear training approach I could find that look promising (including the nursery rhyme and other simple melody approach). For my ear, it's a long journey and I'd have to forego a lot of beautiful music I was able to play while my ear develops.

[elixzer]

It's too late for me. I've got the connection between notated music, the fretboard and the sound already hardwired in my brain.

But, Elixzer, I'll be interested in your progress if you truly proceed using only your ear (i.e no sheet music, chord charts, or tab) until you develop a good ear. Seriously, I think it's an interesting approach.

I don't think I'd have the patience for it. I've spent a lot of time with every ear training approach I could find that look promising (including the nursery rhyme and other simple melody approach). For my ear, it's a long journey and I'd have to forego a lot of beautiful music I was able to play while my ear develops.

I am not doing it the way you think...lol
I cannot undo what I have done which includes trying to get me head around the reading music. But this is a nother phases from over a year ago and I forgot

Also when a kid i took piano lessons and read music--simple stuff--then also
No, I am just curious about trying all different ways and not being caught up in someone elses box--as in thinking that their way is the only way

I think we are always using our ears. However I have heard several times that some musicians if TOO theorized find it hard to let go into the chaos of improvisation and thus can come off mechanical...?
I wouldn't know this because i have no experience of being in the throes of improvisation in advanced musician ship as it were. But I am trying to encourage this through ear training. I have noticed that when I dont number notes I am feeling freer finding melodies on the strings

but that dont mean I am going to NOT do exercises where i call out numbers of the scale on tunes

[fep]

but that dont mean I am going to NOT do exercises where i call out numbers of the scale on tunes

I had a sheet of a bunch of titles of tunes with simple melodies including nursery rhymes. I kept building it and I got to were there were maybe 100 titles or so. They all fit into a major or minor scale, so that was the 'simple' requirement.

When I took my dogs for there morning walk, I'd softly sing a few of the melodies with numbers. When I got home I'd check them with a guitar or piano for accuracy. It was pretty much 'found' ear training time.

[jtizzle]

All jazz musicians are the listening type. I know countless of jazz and classical musicians who can read and really are solid on their theory, and base a lot or most of their playing on their reading and theory. However, only in Jazz there are people who can really improvise something as complex (sometimes even more complex than) as classical music.

However, musicians should be able to improvise at this day and age. Beethoven was a master improviser. I'm not saying everyone is at Beethoven's level, but at this day and age, we have so much studying material that as a classical pianist, you should be able to at least be able to play a I-IV-V progression and be able to make something out of it, it doesn't even have to swing. It doesn't even need rhythm. But play something with it.

That being said, I believe a professional musician of these two genres needs to be able to be familiar with both styles, at least a little. Classical musicians should spend some time with Jazz, and Jazz musicians really need to spend time with classical. However, I rarely see the first one happen, but the latter is very common.

[elixzer]

All jazz musicians are the listening type. I know countless of jazz and classical musicians who can read and really are solid on their theory, and base a lot or most of their playing on their reading and theory. However, only in Jazz there are people who can really improvise something as complex (sometimes even more complex than) as classical music.

However, musicians should be able to improvise at this day and age. Beethoven was a master improviser. I'm not saying everyone is at Beethoven's level, but at this day and age, we have so much studying material that as a classical pianist, you should be able to at least be able to play a I-IV-V progression and be able to make something out of it, it doesn't even have to swing. It doesn't even need rhythm. But play something with it.

That being said, I believe a professional musician of these two genres needs to be able to be familiar with both styles, at least a little. Classical musicians should spend some time with Jazz, and Jazz musicians really need to spend time with classical. However, I rarely see the first one happen, but the latter is very common.

I have seen one of those programmes where they try and teach popular singers how to sing opera. One great singer picked was Jocelyn Brown. I thought when watching it, hmmm it is all very well this, but I would sooner also like to see the vice versa----pick opera singers and see if they can learn to sing Jazz, Soul! I am sure they would have a harder time with it because it is so averse to their training. Yet I know that some soul singers in order to fortify their range and breathing have taken opera singing lessons.

As you may know Nina Simone had classical training, and in one interview she even said that Classical music was best.

My interest in music is eclectic. If I am listening to the radio I nearly always put the classical music on because much of popular music AVAILABLE on this 'ever so multi-digital channel age where we have so much choice HAH! LOL' is SHIT, plus the classical music station I will listen doesn't have commercials which for me is heaven as I hate adverts.

[oldane]

In that link I liked this:

pauln I won't disagree with what makes sense to others, but I play by ear and assigning names to sounds is a redundant step that takes me away from the part of my mind that enjoys, understands, and performs music - the part of my mind that knows nothing of things with names..
The best I can explain it is that I recognize chord types and their functions etc by the way they sound just like I recognize a familiar face - I don't have to know the person's name to recognize their face.

I am really good with faces. I usually can recognize a face even when only a bit is shown. But with names I am hopeless, and so often struggle to follow plots of detective films--remembering the characters names.

To stay in the analogy, it works OK for you to remember a person by the face, but it's not so practical to have to describe the face in detail to others every time you want to bring them up in conversation. It's much easier to mention they names.

The same way, music reading and music theory are tools which are very useful when people are communicating about music. They ensure we have a common understanding of the words used and that we can communicate musical ideas (to a certain extent, notation has its limitations) when we are away from an instrument and are not in each others company. Playing by ear is fine when playing in a jam session situation. But in more formal settings such as a big band, music notation comes in extremely handy and those who can't read music needs to have bigger ears than most of us have if they want to be called for more than the first rehersal. Lester Young has described vividly and with disgust the long and boring rehersal hours he spent in the old Basie orchestra because a few of the musicians were poor readers and thus couldn't learn their parts in advance.

Standard music notation is in fact a small miracle in that it is used the world over, by all kinds of instruments and in all kinds of music. Where else in this world has there been a universal language like that since the tower of Babylon?

To bring up the subject of tablature, I have always deliberately stayed away from it. It can work if you play alone or with other guitarists. But try asking a band leader to provide a tableture for your part instead of standard music notation. and you'll learn very quickly that tablature is NOT a universal laguage like standard notation is.

For me, reading music and knowing some theory is not working against being creative (well, if I am that) and it hasn't ruined my ability to play by ear. After all music reading and theory are just tools, not the essence of the music. I was a very late starter with reading and theory, but it has helped me a lot and I wish I had learned it much earlier.

Some of the greatest jazz guitarists are/were top level readers. Both Barney Kessel and Kenny Burrell had profitable carreers in the studios for a number of years. Kessel was a member of "The Wrecking Crew" in the 1960s - those who always got called first in the LA studios. Burrell quicly outcompeted several other studio players when he arrived i NY in the 1950s.

[elixzer]

To stay in the analogy, it works OK for you to remember a person by the face, but it's not so practical to have to describe the face in detail to others every time you want to bring them up in conversation. It's much easier to mention they names.

lol, it can be a drag and strangely can offend people if you forget names. So you have to explain in detail your 'predicament' and how you will never forget their face once seen--hoping that will make up for the outrage

But say I had an option top choose either being able to remember faces or remember names, I would without hesitation choose the former. But I AM intrigued how come some people are like me and some never forget a name once told--even of someone they have just met at a social gathering, and some say this is the right brain left brain thingy in action.

I have noticed this in debating stuff at various forums. How for some people who I would see as left-brained, they do not seem to see the bigger picture of a subject--see patterns. But if you point this out they go ballistic.

(Btw a quick question, does standard music notation cover Indian music also? I am just curious)

what I am really about is this----what do we say to people who struggle with reading music? Do we say you MUST, trust me? Or are their alternative roads that will not make them feel inferior

Its like school--which i hated. That trip seems to be the forcing all children into boxes without understanding each child's capacity.

In this thread when musicians who apparently haven't read music have been mentioned there tends to be an hostile reaction to the very thought of this, and/or the suggestion that eg--well these people are different, they are 'geniuses'. This also would alienate a creative person (and I am not implying someone who is very into reading music isn't creative) making out that they never ever can BE a genius. But if you look at the etymology of that term:

genius
late 14c., "tutelary god (classical or pagan)," from L. genius "guardian deity or spirit which watches over each person from birth; spirit, incarnation, wit, talent;" also "prophetic skill," originally "generative power," from root of gignere "beget, produce" (see kin), from PIE root *gen- "produce." Sense of "characteristic disposition" is from 1580s. Meaning "person of natural intelligence or talent" and that of "natural ability" are first recorded 1640s.

It is the creative muse. Genius does not mean a specific special individual 'you cant ever reach' (as popularly understood) but rather a creativity you can nurture in yourself. EVERYone can. But culture can block this confidence in our natural genius.

[elixzer]

The word 'music' itself derives from the Muse:

music

mid-13c., from O.Fr. musique (12c.), from L. musica, from Gk. mousike techne "art of the Muses," from fem. of mousikos "pertaining to the Muses," from Mousa "Muse" (see muse (n.)). In classical Greece, any art in which the Muses presided, but especially music. The use of letters to denote music notes is probably at least from ancient Greece, as their numbering system was ill-suited to the job. Natural scales begin at C (not A) because in ancient times the minor mode was more often used than the major one. The natural minor scale begins at A. To face the music "accept the consequences" is from 1850; the exact image is uncertain, one theory ties it to stage performers, another to cavalry horses having to be taught to stay calm while the regimental band plays. To make (beautiful) music with someone "have sexual intercourse" is from 1967.

Off the top of my head I think it was Pythaogoras who derived number to music?

[oldane]

(Btw a quick question, does standard music notation cover Indian music also? I am just curious)

I don't know. I know nothing about indian music. But I know that standard notation is used all over the world in classical music, jazz, pop, rock etc. And we play jazz, so ....

what I am really about is this----what do we say to people who struggle with reading music? Do we say you MUST, trust me? Or are their alternative roads that will not make them feel inferior

Its like school--which i hated. That trip seems to be the forcing all children into boxes without understanding each child's capacity.

I think you make too much out of it. I won't deny that there are people who has the musical equivalent of dyslexia and thus have great problems ever learning to read music. But then we don't discourage learning to read and write text altogether because we know dyslexia exists. Yes, learning to read and write - may that be text or music - is a struggle, and it's definitely like school. But IMHO it's a well spent effort. And I do think that anybody who doesn't suffer from "music notation dyslexia" can learn it. I think I am a good example myself. I had the same resistance as you for many years, and I didn't begin to learn reading music notation until after my 40 years birthday. Learning to read music won't force you into any boxes - especially now that you are already good at playing by ear. Reading music will just be another additional tool available to you which will make your musical life easier in many situations. Nothing less, nothing more.

Of course, if your ears are big enough, you don't NEED to read or write music, though it is still convenient in many situations. But few have ears that big, and they WILL feel inferior when some bandleader hands out parts, lead sheets etc. they can't read. Tal Farlow didn't read music, and once - only once - he made the big mistake of accepting a call for a studio date. The conductor placed a music sheet on his music stand and expected him to sight read it. He - by then a famous jazz musician - had to pack up and go home. He later said it was one of the most humiliating experiences of his life. Now, Farlow had big ears for sure, and he was also a great jazz man after that, but still there were situations he couldn't cope with because of his inability to read.

Reading and writing is not so much about being a musician/artist as it is about musicianship/workmanship. It's not about choosing EITHER right brain OR left brain. You can chooce BOTH. But of course, depending on your inborn talents, the proportions of each will vary from one to the next person.

[mangotango]

Sheesh, guys, I feel like I added fuel to the fire and then ducked out when things got hot. Never meant to.

On Saturday, I asked my teacher to devote my lesson to working on learning to sight-read; he warned me that it will take time and I accepted that. So I'm back to the way that you'd teach a child, except for the last bit of the lesson blowing over Stella, Worksong and Green Dolphin Street!! Two steps forwards, two steps back, and much walking round in circles - but I'll get there.

The most bizarre thing is that I don't have a problem with the "other laguage" simile - I speak another language and because of studying Latin, can understand a few more. So there's no issue there; must be something else in the way. Maybe the attitude that I was so rawk'n'roll at school that reading music and having lessons wasn't for me. Or the fact that I'll be 54 very soon and can't really get psyched up for starting again at the bottom, at my age.

But I WILL crack this, or die trying. I'm with Tal on this one, though. Too many guys I know who can't play even as badly as I do, can kill me when it comes to reading a chart. So I will beat this, and then vengeance will be mine. Mwahaha and such.

[elixzer]

some questions though.

You all agree that musicians HAVE played music yet not reading music. That this was both anciently and in Jazz, and Blues cetra?

How then could they play together and share ideas if this is so?

That guitar player who is said above to have had big ears. WHY was he humiliated? Could he not have absorbed what was being played, and blended in? I of course am no way experienced in band playing where sheets of music are expected to be read so it may be a naive quetion, but I gotta ask it.

[elixzer]

"Theory, or music?"

"Sound is what drives my solos, not verbal concepts: I never think 'I'm going to use a Lydian Dominant scale and then go up a half-step', even though that might be exactly what I end up doing..."

-John Scofield

Now as I seeing it there is two ways to understand this. a) we learn theory, and like the driving a car analogy described way above in this thread. At first it is clinky but somehow the moves you need become kinda unconscious and you dont have to 'think' about them anymore. You can now )dont tell the cops and maybe you shouldn't--ride yo wheels eating an apple, puttin on a cassette or disk, having a conversation, and yet managing a car lol


b) NO 'theory' has been read and yet you still do that (on guitar)--by ear, feel

[aniss1001]

It's sort of like asking if you're a left or right leg walker I mean in jazz you really need to get it all working together somehow.

I think in styles such as blues, rock, funk, pop, etc. reading music and generally thinking too much is rather useless. Better to just go with your gut IMO.

But in jazz you really need to think also. Not necessarily reading or over-analyzing everything. But it is necessary to know your basic theory and how to apply it. Having said that there is a huge difference between players. Some are more intuitive and others more cognitive. I definately find myself in the intuitive end I think.

About reading; I have no ambition of ever learning how to read. Don't think it makes one a better player at all in the sense that what you play is better. It does however facilitate learning new tunes faster I guess. And if you wanna be a pro it seems like you have to learn it. I mean as a pro you'd have to maximize you options and sometimes you may not have the time or opportunity to sit down and learn every detail by ear. So you'd be missing out on gigs if you can't read.

Another thing; To me the standard notation system is absolute horrible. I can barely think of a more clumsy, akward and less intuitive way of doing notation for a guitar. Probably it's great for piano and other instruments but for guitar it requires a lot of intermediate layers of thinking. So yes I could learn it if I put in the time but I wont. I would rather spend the time training my ear, transcribing, practicing, playing etc. But then again I don't think becoming pro is an option for me so...