How Should I Rethink Theory?

[zigzag]

I've been committed to playing and learning on and off for close to 25 years. From 2002 to 2012, I took lessons from a very competent teacher, and I suspect my issues have more to do with my shortcomings than his. He taught me scales, modes, the cycle of fifths, intervals and chord structure, and the basics of reading notation. After all of this, I think I have developed a somewhat intuitive feel for intervals on the fretboard, but much of theory beyond what I was taught escapes me. When I read posts on this board about chord substitution, dropped chords, voicing, etc., none of it really makes sense to me. I think part of my problem is that my reading skills are poor, and I don't readily associate notes in a scale or on the fretboard with their actual note names... just their scale/chord intervals.

I struggle with music theory... even though I am very good at math, I don't really get music logic. Have I already identified the shortcomings I need to work on, or are there other recommendations for things I need to work on or ways I need to perceive or conceptualize music logic?

[fep]

I seem to have a pretty good head for music theory. However, I really don't think it's very important as far as being a good player. All the theory I've studied/learned, hasn't made me much of a player.

Dropped chords for instance, I've seen it explained and realized I already do that, doesn't need a name.

Theory is good for communicating on a forum though.

[DB's Jazz Guitar Blog]

I've been committed to playing and learning on and off for close to 25 years. From 2002 to 2012, I took lessons from a very competent teacher, and I suspect my issues have more to do with my shortcomings than his. He taught me scales, modes, the cycle of fifths, intervals and chord structure, and the basics of reading notation. After all of this, I think I have developed a somewhat intuitive feel for intervals on the fretboard, but much of theory beyond what I was taught escapes me. When I read posts on this board about chord substitution, dropped chords, voicing, etc., none of it really makes sense to me. I think part of my problem is that my reading skills are poor, and I don't readily associate notes in a scale or on the fretboard with their actual note names... just their scale/chord intervals.

I struggle with music theory... even though I am very good at math, I don't really get music logic. Have I already identified the shortcomings I need to work on, or are there other recommendations for things I need to work on or ways I need to perceive or conceptualize music logic?

The problem with chord scale theory is that nobody plays scales. So describing the changes in terms of scales is artificial. CST is not the real thing. The jazz language is not spoken like that. In addition, it is a cognitive way of looking at the jazz language after the fact whereas the real jazz language is not a cognitive thing at all when it is being spoken. You can't improvise and think at the same time. There is no time for that. Jazz improvisation is behavior, not cognition. It's a skill that is based on having internalised sounds and having built an inner ear. So you don't need to think when you are blowing over the changes of Cherokee ...

There are other ways to learn how to improvise. Just like a kid learns how to speak without knowing the rules (CST).

CST is great for typing solos though.

DB

[Average Joe]

Start with the tunes: Do you understand how the notes relate to the underlying changes? Do you understand why the changes move like they do? Can you pick out key centres?If you study somebody else's solo, do you understand how the notes played relates to the changes? Can you pick our recurring intervals or sequences? If you answer no to any f those, then that's what theory is there for. To help explain what is going on.

But always start with the tunes and the playing.

[ragman1]

Go slow, be methodical. 'Theory' is a word for a big subject so begin at the beginning and do one step at a time.

Find a site, or some other source, and start at the beginning, one thing at a time. If you already know it, fine. If you don't, don't go further till you've got it. Actually, none of it is very complex taken piecemeal but, all thrown together on a site like this, it can look very opaque.

I predict you'll probably get bored with it before long because it hasn't - as fep just said - got a lot to do with playing. Although some of it can be helpful.

There's a theory section down the page here:

Free Jazz Guitar Lessons

[zigzag]

I get those points, and it seems likely that I just don't speak the language well. You'd think that as much of the language as I've heard and love, it might come out more in my playing, and that is likely the disconnect. Practicing those areas would be the logical procedure, and I might benefit from spicing up chord progressions as I move through the linear melody lines hearing the relationships between the melody and the changes... maybe?

[ragman1]

I get those points, and it seems likely that I just don't speak the language well

At the moment. You'll learn it as you go along, right? Don't make it a problem before you start!

Like I said, theory on paper is one thing and playing is another. It's the difference between studying the Highway Code at home and driving a car on the road. They're related, but not the same thing.

Did you know Wes Montgomery couldn't read music?

[DB's Jazz Guitar Blog]

I get those points, and it seems likely that I just don't speak the language well. You'd think that as much of the language as I've heard and love, it might come out more in my playing, and that is likely the disconnect. Practicing those areas would be the logical procedure, and I might benefit from spicing up chord progressions as I move through the linear melody lines... maybe?

All the old jazz masters of the 40s and 50s that we love so much learned the jazz language by ear. It was an aural thing. You know, the imitate, assimilate, innovate thing.

Dutchbopper's Jazz Guitar Blog: Why You Should Study That Lick

DB

[zigzag]

And perhaps I just get frustrated by hearing the greats play mind numbing stuff and not being able to understand how it's done.

[ragman1]

[John A.]

I've been committed to playing and learning on and off for close to 25 years. From 2002 to 2012, I took lessons from a very competent teacher, and I suspect my issues have more to do with my shortcomings than his. He taught me scales, modes, the cycle of fifths, intervals and chord structure, and the basics of reading notation. After all of this, I think I have developed a somewhat intuitive feel for intervals on the fretboard, but much of theory beyond what I was taught escapes me. When I read posts on this board about chord substitution, dropped chords, voicing, etc., none of it really makes sense to me. I think part of my problem is that my reading skills are poor, and I don't readily associate notes in a scale or on the fretboard with their actual note names... just their scale/chord intervals.

I struggle with music theory... even though I am very good at math, I don't really get music logic. Have I already identified the shortcomings I need to work on, or are there other recommendations for things I need to work on or ways I need to perceive or conceptualize music logic?

Theory is not an end in itself. It's a tool that people use in varying degrees to organize their playing and solve problems of figuring out what chord subs to play, and or generate melodic ideas, and/or analyze music, and/or compose. But many, many players do just fine with fairly little in the way of theory. I mean you don't need to have a whole lot of deep analytic knowledge of music to be able to blow over blues changes or Autumn leaves.

Also, you're expressing this pretty abstractly. It's tough to have any real sense of what you're struggling with without talking about particular musical contexts and problems. For instance, are there particular tunes that are giving you trouble, and what specifics aspects of that trouble do you think are rooted in not having a good handle on the theory you've been taught?

John

[DB's Jazz Guitar Blog]

And perhaps I just get frustrated by hearing the greats play mind numbing stuff and not being able to understand how it's done.

Many of those old jazz masters even do not understand it themselves haha. Sorry CST is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Study all the theory you want.

DB

[ragman1]

One other point is: what do you mean by 'theory' exactly?

Terminology isn't theory. Knowing terms like interval, drop 2, melodic minor, and all that, isn't really theory, it's just the formal names for things. Theory is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Music theory - Wikipedia

[christianm77]

Just remember this; theory should be descriptive, not prescriptive

[christianm77]

And perhaps I just get frustrated by hearing the greats play mind numbing stuff and not being able to understand how it's done.

Theres a common misunderstanding that theory drives the process of making music.

Music drives the process of making music. You start by listening and copying.

As you do this more and more (and become a better ear musician as you go) you may notice patterns and reoccurring concepts that could be useful in developing ideas. That’s where theory should come in.

[ragman1]

I bet he wants prescriptive :-)

[ragman1]

When we speak English do we ever, and I mean ever, think in terms of past participles, present subjunctives, declension, determiners, infinitives...?

Thought not :-)

[GTRMan]

Most people who say they don't understand theory, deep down, don't want to. They typically also don't do the work. How else does one explain a perfectly intelligent person struggling with a topic that is only moderately complex?

I've studied theory off and on since high school. It's always good to get a refresher when you get away from a topic for awhile. But - I have always studied it with excellent sources, that is with books. There are a number of good books.

It's like anything else, a teacher is a mentor/guide/tutor, not necessarily an author. Any other topic you can think of has both texts and a teacher. Some college courses have 3+ books for one semester. The teacher tells you to read, do the exercises/assignments and also lectures and explains things. Rarely does an instructor/professor carry 100% of the load of "information exchange/knowledge transfer". A student has to study.

So if you want to understand theory, get the best books and study them yourself. Do the homework assignments. And if you need a teacher as a guide, get one.

You may find that you do very well with theory after all.

[zigzag]

How many of you play a 13th chord and don't know it's a 13th chord when you play it? The point is that you hear it at all, and know how to play it when you want it or need it, even though it doesn't register to you that you're playing a 13th chord. I know that my language is much more expressive and descriptive when I use an adverb, even though I don't think of it as an adverb. I want to use more adverbs in my playing.

[GTRMan]

An arranger/composer/musician/teacher that I once studied with said something like: The goal is to play what you hear, play what you read, hear what you play, hear what you read, write what you hear.

Something like that. Meaning, complete musicianship from his perpective meant having no major shortcomings in one's functional capability. The course of study to reach that goal includes multiple levels of the following;

Music fundamentals (if needed)
Harmony and theory
Sight Singing, Ear Traning, dictating/transcribing
Instrumental study
Improv studies
Arranging
Ensemble work

Music school, basically. :0

[fep]

How many of you play a 13th chord and don't know it's a 13th chord when you play it? The point is that you hear it at all, and know how to play it when you want it or need it, even though it doesn't register to you that you're playing a 13th chord. I know that my language is much more expressive and descriptive when I use an adverb, even though I don't think of it as an adverb. I want to use more adverbs in my playing.

I'm often not registering chord names when I'm playing chords. So I might play the below chords and all I'm thinking is A dominant stuff to D dominant stuff. I suppose some players don't even think at all.

[jameslovestal]

How many of you play a 13th chord and don't know it's a 13th chord when you play it? The point is that you hear it at all, and know how to play it when you want it or need it, even though it doesn't register to you that you're playing a 13th chord. I know that my language is much more expressive and descriptive when I use an adverb, even though I don't think of it as an adverb. I want to use more adverbs in my playing.

In your initial post you said you knew "chord structure" but here you imply you play chords, like a 13th, and you don't know you're playing one; to me that falls under chord structure and not musical theory: regardless, one can know what intervals are being played in every chord they play (1, 3, b3, 5, #5, etc...), without knowing much about musical theory or one can just memorize chord voicing (grips) with no knowledge about what notes are being played.

As for when to use a substitute chord (e.g. when can one use that 13th chord voicing instead of just a Dom7 chord); this can also be done by increasing knowledge of chord structure.

To me it all comes down to what area of your playing you wish to improve; learning more about musical theory is just one way to 'get there' and may not be the most practical.

[zigzag]

I don't want to get caught up in the semantics of what is music theory. I understand chord structure and intervals. Where I struggle is hearing the tonal/chordal options that add color and spice to a melody line and help it move.

Thanks to y'all for giving me a direction. I think I may start considering all of the chordal possibilities surrounding the melodies I choose to explore. That will be a matter of just sitting down and figuring it out (then maybe I can figure out what I've done in terms of theory). It may be that I can do the same with the improvisational lines that I develop from that melody line or chord progression, understanding that chord and melody work together. It also sounds like this could actually be fun.

[fep]

I don't want to get caught up in the semantics of what is music theory. I understand chord structure and intervals. Where I struggle is hearing the tonal/chordal options that add color and spice to a melody line and help it move.

Thanks to y'all for giving me a direction. I think I may start considering all of the chordal possibilities surrounding the melodies I choose to explore. That will be a matter of just sitting down and figuring it out (then maybe I can figure out what I've done in terms of theory). It may be that I can do the same with the improvisational lines that I develop from that melody line or chord progression, understanding that chord and melody work together. It also sounds like this could actually be fun.

And sometimes the melody and chords don't have to work perfectly together. From a theory perspective it would bother me when they don't work theoretically together, I'm trying to let it go. What I like is... here is this G7 chord grip on the 3rd fret, and I've got a bunch of chord and line stuff that works with it. So I have an awareness that I'm playing my stuff for that grip, but not an awareness of the chord names or scales. Because of my theory knowledge I could stop and go back and figure it out what scale or chord or arp.

But having "stuff" that works over a grip is very useful way for me, maybe it's a simple or beginner approach. Kind of like hammering and pulling off the E note on the 4th string while playing a C cowboy chord. Not sure if a friend showed me that 50 years ago, or if I figured it out myself. It doesn't come from theory, it's just "C stuff" that works over a grip. It becomes a lot fancier with jazz stuff but not really any different in approach. This way you can think simple and play fancy.

[zigzag]

Yes. I heard Joe Pass used to work from barre chords as his "base."

[pauln]

In the world of the classical musician, theory means learning to read standard notation, the Italian words, time and key signatures, the position of the notes and the meaning of their tails and ties and dots, accidentals, and the marks that indicate articulation, dynamics, and various expressions, etc.

In the world of the jazz musician, theory very often means everything except the above!

[Matt Milton]

Sounds like you haven't played many actual tunes! I'm new to playing jazz guitar and i also don't really 'get' theory. (Despite the fact I'm classically trained on violin - I just glaze over when people start talking about chord names and sequences and whatnot)
But I have learned (rather than perfected!) a few jazz standards.

Basically I've started off by just learning some tunes, chord-melody style, from videos and books. I find videos much more helpful than books generally as you can see and hear what people are doing. I've been doing that for a few months and now I'm finally slowly starting to appreciate a bit of the 'theory', but still not much - I'm an ear player, not a 'brain' player. It's a problem in the sense that every time I try to learn a new song it's a bit like having to reinvent the wheel each time - I'm not even that great at remembering and recognising chord shapes. But it's not like I'm gonna be playing any gigs soon, so I'm in no great hurry...

[ragman1]

How many of you play a 13th chord and don't know it's a 13th chord when you play it? The point is that you hear it at all, and know how to play it when you want it or need it, even though it doesn't register to you that you're playing a 13th chord. I know that my language is much more expressive and descriptive when I use an adverb, even though I don't think of it as an adverb. I want to use more adverbs in my playing.

That's not theory. Any more than knowing a tin opener is called a tin opener when you use one.

I know what a 13th chord is. I know what a 13th chord sounds like. I know how to use that sound to create a certain effect. It's all one thing, not compartments.

All you're really saying is there are gaps in your knowledge. You don't have this problem when you're playing a C chord.

[starjasmine]

In short, you should rethink it in sound. GTRMan's quote said it all. Sound, notation, chord construction, and the mechanics of realizing all of the above on your primary instrument should all be linked inextricably in your mental model. Then you will know a 13th chord when you hear it, see it or play it. Just as easily as you tell red from blue, sweet from salty, no thinking, no delay, no guessing, no mistakes.

IDK whether you really mean that you don't know how to talk about theory or if that's your way of expressing the difficulty you are having ... it seems like you do know the words but they aren't connected to the sounds. No offense, but if your teacher did not show you each theoretical construct in sound, that is a huge gap. It's like memorizing "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" without ever actually tasting a souffle. (sorry can't seem to get the diacritical mark over the e!) And it's why you are struggling.

If you can find a teacher who will show you everything in sound and on paper you should be able to then realize it on your instrument. And, of course, there are many helpful folks here. Not all of whom will agree, but you'll definitely get answers :-)

You might try your local community college. There's no reason you can't learn theory in sound over a remote video connection. Finding the teacher who will take the time to train your ear and connect it to your mental model is the secret.

I hope this helped. Good luck!

PS @DB, with all respect, CST does not encompass all of music theory, it's a subset of the larger subject. Music theory as analysis of harmony or rules of style (e.g. 18th century counterpoint vs newer) goes back hundreds of years. CST is a newer facet that some people apply to jazz improv.

[GTRMan]

In the world of the classical musician, theory means learning to read standard notation, the Italian words, time and key signatures, the position of the notes and the meaning of their tails and ties and dots, accidentals, and the marks that indicate articulation, dynamics, and various expressions, etc.

In the world of the jazz musician, theory very often means everything except the above!

There's truth in that, especially for those who don't have aspirations for composition, and especially for arranging and orchestration.

"Theory" in classical and jazz alike, focuses largely on harmony. Probably more so in jazz.

[rpjazzguitar]

It is clearly possible to know absolutely nothing about theory and play great jazz guitar. Andres Varady is my favorite example.

It is also possible to be encyclopedic about theory and not sound very good.

I would suggest strumming chords, scat singing and then, when you get a line you like, put it on the guitar.

Later on, you can think about a theoretical explanation for what you did.

That's not to say theory can't inform playing. It can. But, if you know how to play a major scale against a major seventh chord and you can't make jazz with it, theory is not your problem. Jimmy Bruno has a great video demonstrating how good it is possible to sound playing major scale tones only.

[ragman1]

zigzag -

First of all, music isn't math. Or chemistry, or anything like that. I understand the similarities but let's not get carried away!

Music is about sound, how it feels, and all that. It's about the effect it has on the listener. Consider the music you yourself find interesting and exciting. What do you think makes it so?

I've been through all your posts and these points seem to pop out:

When I read posts on this board about chord substitution, dropped chords, voicing, etc., none of it really makes sense to me.

I don't readily associate notes in a scale or on the fretboard with their actual note names

it seems likely that I just don't speak the language well.

I might benefit from spicing up chord progressions

Where I struggle is hearing the tonal/chordal options that add color and spice to a melody line

I may start considering all of the chordal possibilities surrounding the melodies I choose to explore.

There are actually only a few effective things to do with chords. There's a lot of theoretical stuff that theoretically can be applied but it can end up sounding contrived and not that good.

In my experience it's not worth changing (or messing about with) the changes to a song as given. Far better to play it straight - and know well what you're playing - than to wade in and try to make it ultra-fancy for the sake of it.

If I were you I'd first find a tune. That'll give you a basis to work from right away. For instance, take 'Satin Doll' - it's in C, not fast, not too difficult.

Dm7/G7 - % - Em7/A7 - %
Am7/D7 - Abm/Db7 - C6 - Em7b5/A7b9

Why change that? You could change it, of course, but why? First play it 'as is' properly and effectively.

Now look at this vid and see what he's done. It might look complex but it's not really, it's just putting in very well-known substitutions here and there. Seriously, it's all standard stuff.

Once you understand the principles behind this then you can apply it to what you like.

Strong advice: Take it all out of the abstract. Apply it practically to something. Give it context and you'll make real progress.

No one can give you experience you don't have. You have to work at it yourself a lot and basically find out things for yourself. Which includes listening to everything other people say and do as well, of course.

You've got to jump in and find out yourself how to swim. That's how anybody who's any good did it. No short cuts, no other way.

So you have to be very clear about what you want. If you're not, you'll just float around vaguely with a lot of good intentions and not get very far.

[grahambop]

CST is not theory

wonder what the ‘T’ stands for?

[ragman1]

I suppose it's a theory in the scientific sense of a working hypothesis.

I never thought CST per se was so wrong. What was wrong was taking it as a set of dogmatic rules fixed in stone, thereby taking it out of the working hypothesis arena.

Gosh, that was scholastic, weren't it :-)

[ronjazz]

Sounds like you haven't played many actual tunes! I'm new to playing jazz guitar and i also don't really 'get' theory. (Despite the fact I'm classically trained on violin - I just glaze over when people start talking about chord names and sequences and whatnot)
But I have learned (rather than perfected!) a few jazz standards.

Basically I've started off by just learning some tunes, chord-melody style, from videos and books. I find videos much more helpful than books generally as you can see and hear what people are doing. I've been doing that for a few months and now I'm finally slowly starting to appreciate a bit of the 'theory', but still not much - I'm an ear player, not a 'brain' player. It's a problem in the sense that every time I try to learn a new song it's a bit like having to reinvent the wheel each time - I'm not even that great at remembering and recognising chord shapes. But it's not like I'm gonna be playing any gigs soon, so I'm in no great hurry...

This is where diatonic theory will help you greatly; you will discover that tunes are often very similar to each other in chord motion. Really learning the diatonic structures through harmonized scales will help you to learn and remember tunes more efficiently. If you get good at it, you'll her a tune on the radio and be able to play it.

[cosmic gumbo]

This is where diatonic theory will help you greatly; you will discover that tunes are often very similar to each other in chord motion. Really learning the diatonic structures through harmonized scales will help you to learn and remember tunes more efficiently. If you get good at it, you'll her a tune on the radio and be able to play it.

This is the only actual revelation one needs from theory to get an understanding of harmony. It's probably the one thing that transforms a clueless musician into one who now has the most used tool theory has to offer.

I don't know why some folks advise it involves some serious journey into music academia....

[christianm77]

Players who know no theory often tend to be lick players - their theoretical understanding might literally be as basic as "this lick works well on these chord progressions." They might not go beyond licks but they will still sound a million times better than a player who tries to use theory to govern their pitch choices. There's quite a few professional players who are licks oriented.

So learning licks is an important phase, but its not necessarily the end of the line.

Theory (at least in jazz) is really about understanding some aspect of music and seeing how you can use that knowledge to create new music, or to vary and develop existing ideas. Analysis is a creative act - no two musicians will see or hear the exact same things in a bop line, for instance, although there may be some overlap.

Theory or analysis should be a divergent thinking exercise (the fact that it seems like a list of rules is a failure in the way it is taught.)

Each quality you might notice about the music could suggest a potential avenue for exploration. Looked at it this way the application of theory becomes a very creative thing. It doesn't have to be harmonic.

As an exercise, let's take the following example of a line with the harmonic context given.




How many things can you say about this line?

[BWV]

that Charlie Parker guy obviously does not know what he is doing because in the last beat of the third measure he plays the natural 4th of a maj7 chord

(Just kidding)

CP was JSB, not CST.

I had a year of Jazz theory and thought, in my wannabe shredder days, I needed to know a bunch of modes and scales relative to a given chord without any other context. But then as I got more into classical music, realized how stupid chord scale theory was in regards to actual tonal music. Charlie Parker did not know CST either, but he did know music and that line above is like Bach’s lines - the harmony is there in every bar but not in trite or pedantic ways.

[christianm77]

Haha yeah... Well, one example, if you use forward motion, you'll see/hear the Eb C D enclosure across the barline. If you aren't used to looking out for that stuff, you might miss it ... CST isn't wrong exactly (it describes the note choices in the first two bars quite well, in fact), you just need the experience and knowledge to know when it is useful and when it isn't.

And there are often quite a few ways to understand the same pitch choices.

For instance -

• don't we also have a Cm7 arpeggio on beat 3 in bar 3?
• Or is it all Bb6/maj9 notes with a couple of notes into an enclosure into D at the end of the bar?

Neither explanation is 'right' per se.

BTW What is JSB?

[Tal_175]

Theory (at least in jazz) is really about abstracting some qualities of music and seeing how you can use them to create new music, or to vary and develop existing ideas

It must be said that it's "new music" with respect to the person who is learning and applying the theory. It's not necessarily about going into an unexplored territory.

It's a tool to expand as a musician. If you never used altered notes on a dominant, then that's new to you. You start working on creating lines, see if you like what you hear. In time that develops your ears for these color tones on the harmony as well as your fretboard awareness and it becomes a second nature. You learn about chord substitution principles. Work on driving substitutions on tunes you know, work on them until they become second nature etc.

I'm surprised some people make a distinction between "ear player" vs "brain player". Or say you can't perform with theory. That's not how theory works. The idea is not to use it in the band stand to algorithmically drive lines and voicings. That's a straw man view. It is possible to use highly internalized theoretical principles on the band stand when playing tunes one doesn't know but that's exception not the rule.

Theory is a woodshed tool. It helps you find new materials for practicing towards obtaining a richer musical language. In the end practicing this way develops your ears and your command of your instrument. Probably not the only way to find new ideas to practice and expand but a good one if used with some common sense.

[BWV]

JSB - JS Bach

[christianm77]

Oh JS Bach.

Yeah... in the pitches.

Well CP's rhythmic language was very different to JS of course, more advanced and African... Although it's not like JSB was shy of a bit of syncopation... not bad for a European haha. (Brahms too.) Still pretty baba stuff though.

Take the middle 8 of a Night in Tunisia and work out how its different to a typical JSB 2-5-1 type line (of which there are many) and you understand what jazz is, right? The pitch choices are not that different....

[christianm77]

It must be said that it's "new music" with respect to the person who is learning and applying the theory. It's not necessarily about going into an unexplored territory.

Could be as simple as lengthening or shortening that bird line, or playing it on different set of chords. Or putting it in minor. That moves you away from simply being a lick player, because you are working with material.

Short modules are good too.... you can combine and recombine them in interesting ways...

It's a tool to expand as a musician. If you never used altered notes on a dominant, then that's new to you. You start working on creating lines, see if you like what you hear. In time that develops your ears for these color tones on the harmony as well as your fretboard awareness and it becomes a second nature. You learn about chord substitution principles. Work on driving substitutions on tunes you know, work on them until they become second nature etc.

I'm surprised some people make a distinction between "ear player" vs "brain player". Or say you can't perform with theory. That's not how theory works. The idea is not to use it in the band stand to algorithmically drive lines and voicings. That's a straw man view. It is possible to use highly internalized theoretical principles on the band stand when playing tunes one doesn't know but that's exception not the rule. Theory is a woodshed tool. It helps you find new materials for practicing towards obtaining a richer musical language. In the end practicing this way develops your ears and your command of your instrument.

Yeah. As Hal Galper said, everyone's an ear player. You play exactly as you hear. If you hear weak, you play weak.

[BWV]

Haha yeah... Well, one example, if you use forward motion, you'll see/hear the Eb C D enclosure across the barline. If you aren't used to looking out for that stuff, you might miss it ... CST isn't wrong exactly (it describes the note choices in the first two bars quite well, in fact), you just need the experience and knowledge to know when it is useful and when it isn't.

And there are often quite a few ways to understand the same pitch choices.

For instance -

• don't we also have a Cm7 arpeggio on beat 3 in bar 3?
• Or is it all Bb6/maj9 notes with a couple of notes into an enclosure into D at the end of the bar?

Neither explanation is 'right' per se.

BTW What is JSB?

Yes its a bit of a plagal cadence to me, a shift to the subdominant and back. Its not that CST is wrong, it just does not add anything to conventional tonal analysis - when you look at Bach or Mozart you have chord tones and non-chord tones, which can be anything - the full chromatic scale is in play. Thinking about the locrian mode on vii or ii in minor provides no useful information

[John A.]

Players who know no theory often tend to be lick players - their theoretical understanding might literally be as basic as "this lick works well on these chord progressions." They might not go beyond licks but they will still sound a million times better than a player who tries to use theory to govern their pitch choices. There's quite a few professional players who are licks oriented.

So learning licks is an important phase, but its not necessarily the end of the line.

Theory (at least in jazz) is really about understanding some aspect of music and seeing how you can use that knowledge to create new music, or to vary and develop existing ideas. Analysis is a creative act - no two musicians will see or hear the exact same things in a bop line, for instance, although there may be some overlap.

Theory or analysis should be a divergent thinking exercise (the fact that it seems like a list of rules is a failure in the way it is taught.)

Each quality you might notice about the music could suggest a potential avenue for exploration. Looked at it this way the application of theory becomes a very creative thing. It doesn't have to be harmonic.

As an exercise, let's take the following example of a line with the harmonic context given.




How many things can you say about this line?

In the context of OP's question (how should I rethink theory?) ...

First, I'd either put a key signature there (Bb) or transpose to C to take away all of the accidentals (except the one that truly belongs there, Gb in Bb or Ab in C), so that it's easier to see what's going on. This makes it easy to see that all of the notes except Gb are part of the key of Bb. I'd also put Roman numerals above the chords (ii - V - I). Next I'd play the melody line -- learn it well enough to play without reading, then add some very sparse harmony, e.g., just play the root note of each chord in the bass on the first beat of each measure, and continuing the line (holding the root note to ring, if possible). Add some more voices to the harmony as I go to fill in the harmonic context a little (or not).

Keep at that for a while, then start thinking about what's going on. Right off the bat, an 1/8 note rest introduces syncopation. What's bebop? That's bebop. Now look at the shape of the line, the way it goes up and down, how frequently it changes direction. Now look at the mix of intervals in the line -- there's both stepwise motion and leaps of thirds and fourths. Now go back to that one note that still has an accidental. What is it? What part of a chord is it? It's the flatted 9th of the V7 chord. One color tone in four full measures of music is enough make the line interesting and establish it as of the idiom. Take that flat 9, now put some other notes from an F7 chord below it and see how it turns into a diminished 7th chord. Now move the diminished 7th chord around in intervals of a minor 3rd.

So this "analysis" yields ideas for how to build lines over ii-V-I progressions (i.e., most tunes), in a way that's idiomatically bebop-like (more so, once you add some transcriptions that include triplets). It also shows you how to use a flat 9 on a V7 (and other Bird phrases would give you more altered tones). It shows you the most basic chord substitution -- a dim7 a half-step up from a dominant -- and allows you to see the "symmetrical" nature of diminished chords as a vehicle for creating motion in the harmon. These devices (altered dominant tones in otherwise completely diatonic tones, syncopation, phrasing, shape of the line, steps and leaps) occur all over jazz, and this sort of analysis is applicable all over jazz. If you know enough theory to see these occurrences as specific instances of general techniques, you're well on your way.

John

[Tal_175]

Five other common bebop phrasing observations in that lick:
- The 7th of Cmin goes to the 3rd of F7.
- This is done with an enclosure pattern.
- Over F7, arpeggio from the third is played (3 to b9).
- F7 phrase then continues with a descending scale into the BbMaj7 chord with an arpeggio up, scale down shape.
- C minor phrase starts with a 2nd inversion triad, very common in Charlie Parker music. It also goes up arpeggio, down scale into the next chord (with an enclosed guide tone approach as stated above).

[WILSON 1]

It's all out of the Bb6 diminished scale.

[BWV]

It's all out of the Bb6 diminished scale.

Question - is the Barry Harris thing 'theory' or a useful shortcut? Certainly Charlie Parker and the composers who wrote the standards never heard of this scale. There is no value in teaching this scale to someone who does not already know functional harmony. Nor is this a scale in the sense that it 'diatonically' connects chord tones more than a step apart, the way the major scale does. A 'scale run' through the 5th, b6 and nat6 over a maj chord is kind of goofy and not, I think, the purpose of what Barry Harris is getting at

[Tal_175]

Also the phrase ends on an up beat. Be-bop!

[christianm77]

Question - is the Barry Harris thing 'theory' or a useful shortcut? Certainly Charlie Parker and the composers who wrote the standards never heard of this scale. There is no value in teaching this scale to someone who does not already know functional harmony. Nor is this a scale in the sense that it 'diatonically' connects chord tones more than a step apart, the way the major scale does. A 'scale run' through the 5th, b6 and nat6 over a maj chord is kind of goofy and not, I think, the purpose of what Barry Harris is getting at

Goofy it may be, but it’s also a common feature of many jazz lines from the swing and bop era.... see for instance ‘Donna Lee’