Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Posts 51 to 75 of 102
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by gitman
    IMHO these two really missed a chance to show off all the different tonal capabilities of these guitars. With a little more effort and some homework they could have pulled up some T-Bone Walker,
    some Scotty Moore, some early BB King, then jump ahead to Steve Howe (YES) , Eric Gale , Pat Metheny and all who came after (and no, Ted N. is NOT on my list).... instead they stab around on the fretboard, try very hard to show some cliche "jazzy" runs and collect egg on their faces while doing so. Ok, they are funny at times and joke around like your best friends but THIS show they didn't take very seriously. Mission failed.
    When a half way serious player looks around the www for info on Heritage archtops he/she will eventually find Rich Severson and will actually learn a thing or two.
    Jesus Christ that guy has great tone.

    I asked him once (rich) how he got it and things got complicated quickly.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    I think part of the misunderstanding is once you've internalized a whole bunch of theoretical concepts to the extend that you can hear them, mentally identify them in tunes as road maps and you can instantly find them on your instrument, you don't think of them as theory anymore.

    So when the typical jazz musician who absorbed shitloads of theory over decades downplays the significance of theory in their development, they actually believe it.

    It's like someone who has perfect pitch may not realize how much they actually rely on their perfect pitch until they lose it.

    When kids want to form a grunge band (at the risk of showing my age), they don't go around looking for a grunge book. They already memorized all the Nirvana, Pearl Jam etc tunes and can play them backwards. But when a rocker wants to learn jazz and if you tell them to go listen to Jim Hall, you gonna have an extremely slim success rate unless the student is Ed Bickert or something.

    There are various tools and resources besides the records that can help a musician boot strap the process. A basic understanding of common harmonic patterns found in jazz tunes and the ability to play musical structures that realize the harmony everywhere on the instrument are greatly helpful.

    Then you have people who don't consider the last paragraph as theory. Well they are greatly out-of-touch with people who actually mean it when they say they don't know theory.
    Last edited by Tal_175; 10-23-2021 at 06:09 AM.

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    I think part of the misunderstanding is, once you've internalized a whole bunch of theoretical concepts to the extend that you can hear them, conceptually identify them in tunes as road maps and you can instantly find them on your instrument, you don't think of them as theory anymore.

    So when the typical jazz musician who absorbed shitloads of theory over decades downplays the significance of theory in their development, they actually believe it.

    It's like someone who has perfect pitch may not realize how much they actually rely on their perfect pitch until they lose it.

    When kids want to form a grunge band (at the risk of showing my age), they don't go around looking for a grunge book. They already memorized all the Nirvana, Pearl Jam etc tunes and can play them backwards.

    But when a rocker wants to learn jazz and if you tell them to go listen to Jim Hall, you gonna have an extremely slim success rate unless the student is Ed Bickert or something.

    There are various helpful tools and resources besides the records that can help a musician boot strap the process. A basic understanding of common harmonic patterns found in jazz tunes and the ability to play musical structures that realize the harmony everywhere on the instrument are greatly helpful.

    Then you have people who don't consider the last paragraph as theory. Well they are greatly out-of-touch with people who actually mean it when they say they don't know theory.
    Perfect!

    But I also think there is a human element in not admitting to how much hard work you've done, when showing a skill.
    Mostly because if you had to work hard at it, it's not considered talent.
    And everyone wants to be talented/gifted'.

    I miss the Grunge days. Listening to a lot of Pavement recently.

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    Actually music is a lot dumber and continues it’s downward trajectory like rollercoaster unfortunately!
    We are living in the visual and narcissistic age of me myself and I.
    I need no one else and if I get the most Likes, Dings,etc I win!

    The game has changed where actual talent and skill in many things sans sports, is no longer needed to achieve fame and fortune.
    The Kardashians, Kanye West, Rap have replaced many true talented people.
    And you can use a computer to replace actual musical skills. Especially since no one cares to listen to anything more than a 4 bar phrase looped and synched to a Click Track.

    All of the synergy by great musicians is basically a dinasour of the past. No Kind of Blue, Weather Report, Irakarae, Mahavishnu Orchestra, James Brown, etc….

    All of the real magic of what the Blues influenced from Louis Armstrong, Muddy Waters, SRV, Jimmy Hendrix, Pat Martino and so on. All of that is dead and gone and replaced with amateurs selling their YouTube Videos for advertisers. And although Lee Anderton and Danish Pete are nice enough people. This is what sells?

    YUCK!!!!!

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchtopHeaven
    Well I can only tell you my experience and my experience is this.

    Most jazz musicians lie about how much training the've had.
    They lie about how much they practice.
    And people always think that those who came before had less knowledge.

    Whilst the third point is true it's not clear because and for example, when I was younger, I thought music, like technology, was linear.
    I thought Cream and Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix, The dude from Emerson Lake and Palmer, who was clearly a genius, were the pinnacle of 20,000 years of human and musical evolution.

    But then someone told me about Django Reinhardt.

    Looking back is like asking a fortune teller the future. You're going to get a lot of BS and the answer you went looking for, for the most part.

    Jazz and classical music are advanced art forms. Pop and rock is not. There is a reason why 90% of rock guitarist never took or needed a lesson.

    There is as much a study of human psychology in why people tell you the things they do, especially musicians, than there is trying to learn from the past.

    Everyone wants to look good. There are very few people who will tell you "yeh I had no friends growing up, I practiced like 16 hours a day and I didn't lose my virginity til I was 26"

    They're much more likely to tell you "yeh I don't practice much, couple hours here and there"

    No one will tell you how hard they worked in any field, unless working hard means you get more money and zero street cred means a juicy bonus.

    That's not to say that it's bad or that people who do this are bad. Everyone does it to some degree. I'm talking about human behaviour not that musicians are inherently untrustworthy. They are normal ppl.

    I'm too many red wines in to have this conversation lol.

    Cheers
    I find this quite curious. I don’t actually know anyone who says they have never practiced. And I know lots of professional jazz musicians.

    And as you mention Django - well it’s a matter of conjecture how he thought about music, but again learning his music by ear is the way Manouche and Sinti jazz players learn to this day; and not a jot of theory. For the players within the community they often learn this at a very young age, as a ‘mother tongue’. But even adult learners interested in ‘gypsy jazz’ are encouraged to learn it this way. And Andreas Varady is a great example of a non Django style player from a similar community who learned to play jazz guitar by ear alone at an early age.

    I still think you are a bit hung up on stuff that isn’t quite connected to what I’m saying, it seems that you think I am making an argument I am not, that theory is never useful. But I would also dismiss an argument that theory is necessary for learning jazz as well through my own experiences but also the weight of historical evidence.

    It may be necessary - or more accurately we may feel it’s necessary - for you or me - but for what it’s worth there really are jazz players out there who don’t know much or any theory; it’s less common these days but it exists.

    sometimes these arguments are like ‘I didn’t do it this way so I can’t imagine anyone else doing it that way.’ For the record I didn’t do it this way either, but my playing progressed the most when I started focusing much more on ear learning. My theory background was always strong.

    But actually, I can easily see how someone can learn to be conversant in straightahead jazz guitar through the appropriation of vocabulary by ear and fretboard mapping via chord ‘grips’, and learning a ton of tunes. It’s the way Manouche style players continue to learn as I say. This might not be the be all and end all, but I don’t think there’s any great mystery to it; in fact for early stages jazz guitar it’s a time honoured and straightforward learning strategy you can see reflected in players from Herb Ellis, Charlie Christian, Joe Pass and even to an extent Peter Bernstein (who certainly knows theory but often bases lines on ‘grips’) and you actually need to know very little formal theory. Most of all I know people who actually learned to play this way. Most of them are ‘lick players’ but they all sound good.

    This understanding is helpful to focus on what is important on music, and I daresay I don’t need to tell you that it isn’t what’s in the theory books.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 10-23-2021 at 04:32 AM.

  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    To take an analogy it’s like saying that just because you had to use a textbook to help you learn French, everyone in France learned this way..

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    And as you mention Django - well it’s a matter of conjecture how he thought about music, but again learning his music by ear is the way Manouche and Sinti jazz players learn to this day; and not a jot of theory. For the players within the community they often learn this at a very young age, as a ‘mother tongue’. But even adult learners interested in ‘gypsy jazz’ are encouraged to learn it this way. And Andreas Varady is a great example of a non Django style player from a similar community who learned to play jazz guitar by ear alone at an early age.

    .
    .

    I don't think that's true. I think you're being a romantic.

    I'm not sure what you think I'm getting hung up on, we're just having a discussion and my point still is germane to your position.

    You can't keep talking about weight of evidence without providing any. You mention the manouche, you could mention roman gypsy. They hand down knowledge to the young. Joe Pass studied for 8 hours a day. Do you think he wasn't learning scales and harmonic ideas, likely from a teacher or book?

    You are also taking extreme positions based on my comments. It is not say that people 'never practice' I claim that they deny how much they practice. Which is a common human trait.

    I'm also fully aware that there is many ways of doing things. I'm far less dogmatic than you think.

    Cheers.

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    To take an analogy it’s like saying that just because you had to use a textbook to help you learn French, everyone in France learned this way..
    The overwhelming majority of people in France learnt French at school.

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    There is a truth to the language analogy but I find that people tend to push that analogy too far. I'm sure Wes Montgomery had to put a lot more conscious afford towards developing his musicianship and learning jazz than he did to become a native English speaker. The subject is precisely the conscious afford.

    The correct analogy is not between becoming a jazz musician and being able to say "mommy I want some milk." in your native language.
    The analogy is becoming a jazz musician and becoming a literary writer in your language.

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    There is a truth to the language analogy but I find that people tend to push that analogy too far. I'm sure Wes Montgomery had to put a lot more conscious afford towards developing his musicianship and learning jazz than he did to become a native English speaker. The subject is precisely the conscious afford.

    The correct analogy is not between becoming a jazz musician and being able to say "mommy I want some milk." in your native language.
    The analogy is becoming a jazz musician and becoming a literary writer in your language.
    So from that presumably you think a great poet or author learns by going to college as well?

    Well again there’s plenty of counter examples.

    Read interviews with writers and you realise that they learn by, for instance, reading a lot of great literature and writing a lot of crap until they get better. So it is a good analogy, I think? (This can of course be done in college on a creative writing course; but it doesn’t have to be.)

    You might go to uni to STUDY English or French literature, say, but I found that my studies of literature at school had little to do with the process of writing; more analysis of Chaucer, Shakespeare etc. It may help you write, or it may not… there’s also the difference in music between university and conservatoire/trade school (that has become blurred in jaze. A pivotal date is 1974 and Berklee’s accreditation to teach at College level.)

    I often feel on this forum that people think I come to my understanding of music via some sort of theoretical exercise and therefore that it is debatable. Which is why I hate discussing it. My views have changed a lot over the past 25 years.

    OTOH I’ve found it very hard to change peoples minds about this. People have a lot of skin in the game too - how much does it cost to go to jazz school in the US? The psychology is not hard to understand. I’m not trying to say this stuff is worthless anyway, just that knowing a bunch of theory cannot teach you to play jazz. And I can’t imagine anyone who can play disagreeing with that.

    In fact, even today there’s diversity in approach and background out there among professional level practitioners including people who don’t know any theory. (You can say my friends are lying to me of course haha.)

    You may not believe me (or my friends and colleagues) either, but that’s not my problem lol.

    So anyway my original point naturally follows on from that really. I’m not trying to argue how jazz should be taught, but rather pointing out my own experiences as a working player and teacher. Take it or leave it.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 10-23-2021 at 02:24 PM.

  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    So form that presumably you think a great poet or author learns by going to college as well?

    Well again there’s plenty of counter examples.

    Read interviews with writers and you realise learn by, for instance, reading a lot of great literature and writing a lot of crap until they get better. So it is a good analogy, I think? (This can of course be done in college on a creative writing course; but it doesn’t have to be.)

    You might go to uni to STUDY English or French literature, say, but I found that my studies of literature at school had little to do with the process of writing; more analysis of Chaucer, Shakespeare etc. It may help you write, or it may not… there’s also the difference in music between university and conservatoire/trade school (that has become blurred in jaze. A pivotal date is 1974 and Berklee’s accreditation to teach at College level.)

    I often feel on this forum that people think I come to my understanding of music via some sort of theoretical exercise and therefore that it is debatable. Which is why I hate discussing it. My views have changed a lot over the past 25 years.

    OTOH I’ve found it very hard to change peoples minds about this. People have a lot of skin in the game too - how much does it cost to go to jazz school in the US? The psychology is not hard to understand. I’m not trying to say this stuff is worthless anyway, just that knowing a bunch of theory cannot teach you to play jazz. And I can’t imagine anyone who can play disagreeing with that.

    In fact, even today there’s diversity in approach and background out there among professional level practitioners including people who don’t know any theory. (You can say my friends are lying to me of course haha.)

    You may not believe me (or my friends and colleagues) either, but that’s not my problem lol.

    So anyway my original point naturally follows on from that really. I’m not trying to argue how jazz should be taught, but rather pointing out my own experiences as a working player and teacher. Take it or leave it.
    I am surprised this discussion is still going on. It's been beaten to death here over the years.

    Christian is 100% right. Jazz is a language, not a body of applied theoretical concepts. You can learn it like any language, by mere exposure, without studying its theoretical (grammatical) rules. Plenty of players have proven that. The greatest player on the planet (Bireli) has proven it. He knows nothing about music theory (by his own words). The gypsies in a camp less than 20 miles away from my home prove it (the home of the Rosenbergs yes). These guys do not even know the names of the chords they are playing. You enter the local music store here and and a 14 year old kid will blow you away on Donna Lee without having the slightest idea what he is doing. They have learned it as a first language. They start at a very early age and assimilate what they hear from the older players.

    The opposite is true too. You can know all about theory and type a great solo here and still sound like shit. Theory and scales are NOT the jazz language. You have to go to the source itself. The sounds, the idiom, the vocabulary, the stylistics of it.

    Is CST bad? No. It may help. Especially "foreign" learners, so those that learn it as a second language. But do not confuse it with the actual language of jazz. Try learning how to speak German by means of a grammar book only. You need exposure to and assimilation of the real thing. Best thing is to move to Germany at an early age IMHO.

    DB

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    So form that presumably you think a great poet or author learns by going to college as well?

    Well again there’s plenty of counter examples.

    Read interviews with writers and you realise learn by, for instance, reading a lot of great literature and writing a lot of crap until they get better. So it is a good analogy, I think? (This can of course be done in college on a creative writing course; but it doesn’t have to be.)

    You might go to uni to STUDY English or French literature, say, but I found that my studies of literature at school had little to do with the process of writing; more analysis of Chaucer, Shakespeare etc. It may help you write, or it may not… there’s also the difference in music between university and conservatoire/trade school (that has become blurred in jaze. A pivotal date is 1974 and Berklee’s accreditation to teach at College level.)

    I often feel on this forum that people think I come to my understanding of music via some sort of theoretical exercise and therefore that it is debatable. Which is why I hate discussing it. My views have changed a lot over the past 25 years.

    OTOH I’ve found it very hard to change peoples minds about this. People have a lot of skin in the game too - how much does it cost to go to jazz school in the US? The psychology is not hard to understand. I’m not trying to say this stuff is worthless anyway, just that knowing a bunch of theory cannot teach you to play jazz. And I can’t imagine anyone who can play disagreeing with that.

    In fact, even today there’s diversity in approach and background out there among professional level practitioners including people who don’t know any theory. (You can say my friends are lying to me of course haha.)

    You may not believe me (or my friends and colleagues) either, but that’s not my problem lol.

    So anyway my original point naturally follows on from that really. I’m not trying to argue how jazz should be taught, but rather pointing out my own experiences as a working player and teacher. Take it or leave it.
    Just to clarify, I didn't say anything about the necessity of going to college to learn jazz. I understand and agree with your original point which was to challenge the perception that jazz is some intellectual pursuit that you learn from technical music books.

    My point is there is no meaningful distinction between theory and any form of conscious learning. The language analogy (when it's pushed too far) downplays the role of the conscious mind in achieving mastery in any subject.

    We learn a lot of musical skills subconsciously like we learn our native languages. Pretty much every 3 year old can sing as well as they can speak. That's because every culture is musical (unless they suppress it artificially). Every non musician has had an enormous amount of subconsciously musical learning. If you could find an adult who has never ever heard music for a single moment, and you play them music, it would be very difficult for them to make sense of it. But the difference between a musician and a non-musician is the conscious afford and training.

    I think every good musician, especially jazz musician develops their own conscious mental organization and approach to music and their mental model of music informs how they practice and play it. Is every musicians conception of music the same as theory they teach in colleges? Who knows. But likely a lot of it is just a different way of looking at the same thing.

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchbopper
    I am surprised this discussion is still going on. It's been beaten to death here over the years.

    Christian is 100% right. Jazz is a language, not a body of applied theoretical concepts. You can learn it like any language, by mere exposure, without studying its theoretical (grammatical) rules. Plenty of players have proven that. The greatest player on the planet (Bireli) has proven it. He knows nothing about music theory (by his own words). The gypsies in a camp less than 20 miles away from my home prove it (the home of the Rosenbergs yes). These guys do not even know the names of the chords they are playing. You enter the local music store here and and a 14 year old kid will blow you away on Donna Lee without having the slightest idea what he is doing. They have learned it as a first language. They start at a very early age and assimilate what they hear from the older players.

    The opposite is true too. You can know all about theory and type a great solo here and still sound like shit. Theory and scales are NOT the jazz language. You have to go to the source itself. The sounds, the idiom, the vocabulary, the stylistics of it.

    Is CST bad? No. It may help. Especially "foreign" learners, so those that learn it as a second language. But do not confuse it with the actual language of jazz. Try learning how to speak German by means of a grammar book only. You need exposure to and assimilation of the real thing. Best thing is to move to Germany at an early age IMHO.

    DB
    No disagreement on my part, but I feel one has to be careful about a specific aspect in this line of thought, perhaps best exemplified by a conversation I once had with somebody, who came up with a point to the effect that a specific gypsy guitarist we happend to be talking about "had the music in his blood" or something. I found that strange. Put differently, I would say that whenever *I* perceive someone professing to having no theoretical knowledge to be a great player, this does in no way diminish the brainpower that I think must have been involved in the process of evolving into a great player. At least I am perfectly capable of reconciling these two concepts in my head.

    Illiterate yet perfectly intelligent adults are probably are another good analogy, in that, obviously enough, not all literate adults are equally good writers, whereas illiterate adults may have a lot to say but be impeded by the extremely hard time they have learning to read and/or write (both are not the same) later in life, with many literate adults who perhaps don't have nearly as much to say drawing a total blank as to why it should be difficult to acquire these skills (if a child can do it).

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchbopper
    I am surprised this discussion is still going on. It's been beaten to death here over the years.

    Christian is 100% right. Jazz is a language, not a body of applied theoretical concepts. You can learn it like any language, by mere exposure, without studying its theoretical (grammatical) rules. Plenty of players have proven that. The greatest player on the planet (Bireli) has proven it. He knows nothing about music theory (by his own words). The gypsies in a camp less than 20 miles away from my home prove it (the home of the Rosenbergs yes). These guys do not even know the names of the chords they are playing. You enter the local music store here and and a 14 year old kid will blow you away on Donna Lee without having the slightest idea what he is doing. They have learned it as a first language. They start at a very early age and assimilate what they hear from the older players.

    The opposite is true too. You can know all about theory and type a great solo here and still sound like shit. Theory and scales are NOT the jazz language. You have to go to the source itself. The sounds, the idiom, the vocabulary, the stylistics of it.

    Is CST bad? No. It may help. Especially "foreign" learners, so those that learn it as a second language. But do not confuse it with the actual language of jazz. Try learning how to speak German by means of a grammar book only. You need exposure to and assimilation of the real thing. Best thing is to move to Germany at an early age IMHO.

    DB
    It seems the biggest issue here is one side is taking things incredibly literally and the other, is claiming that the learning is being done in what you could describe as a school but doesn't have to be one. The discussion should then breakdown into what you consider being taught, or learning when those around you are your peers and teachers.

    I do not see how it is possible for a gypsy player to know nothing of music theory. They just don't call it theory. Again that human spirit of 'look how mystical and god like I am to have done this all own my own talent'.
    Bireli grew up in a gypsy institution of music with its own language and ways of teaching.
    I find it far more likely that an adult said to him as a small child, here is a guitar, here is a chord play this lick over that chord. Otherwise Gypsy music would be completely ferrel and it isn't. It has quite a predictable theoretical style.
    It is very much in the lineage of eastern classical music and old French musette.

    Just as many blacks in the early days of jazz didn't go to 'music school' although many did, they learnt the 'rules' of jazz from others through osmosis, through the band stand and those bandstands, would have been buzzing with the lattes theoretic ideas.

    Later on those ideas were codified in a 'college' but this in my opinion is just an advancement of the gypsy camp and the bandstand, where as before, a style of music was created and developed.

    It is possible for a ferrel guitar player to play in a style of 'jazz' like Alan Holdsworth who made up his own theory and for all we know, Bill Frisell or John Scofield don't need to know anything about Jazz or theory because the music they invent, has a completely different structure, than what came before. Yet they are all well educated musicians in the language of jazz, as is the gypsy guitarist who grew up on the travellers sites.
    Last edited by ArchtopHeaven; 10-23-2021 at 11:26 AM.

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by palindrome
    No disagreement on my part, but I feel one has to be careful about a specific aspect in this line of thought, perhaps best exemplified by a conversation I once had with somebody, who came up with a point to the effect that a specific gypsy guitarist we happend to be talking about "had the music in his blood" or something. I found that strange. Put differently, I would say that whenever *I* perceive someone professing to having no theoretical knowledge to be a great player, this does in no way diminish the brainpower that I think must have been involved in the process of evolving into a great player. At least I am perfectly capable of reconciling these two concepts in my head.Illiterate yet perfectly intelligent adults are probably are another good analogy, in that, obviously enough, not all literate adults are equally good writers, whereas illiterate adults may have a lot to say but be impeded by the extremely hard time they have learning to read and/or write (both are not the same) later in life, with many literate adults who perhaps don't have nearly as much to say drawing a total blank as to why it should be difficult to acquire these skills (if a child can do it).
    When I say that a player does not know theory I mean that he does not know chord scale theory (CST). Not that he is unconscious or brain dead while practising Of course there will be some cognitive activity! I simply refer to the aural way of learning as apposed to learning and applying the chord scale theory approach. Many of the jazz greats simply learned by ear, rather than by CST. I never said they did not think. When a gypsy learns an 8 year old kid some licks that is not a theoretic approach - meaning: not talking about chords and scales but rather visualising and hearing sounds. The good old aural tradition. If you equal the occurence of any brain activity to using theory yes, than everything is theory of course. But that is not what I would call it at all. I think this may answer Archtop heaven's reply too. With a non theoretic approach I simply mean: not using the chord scale theory but rather using your ears and eyes.

    Plenty of the old masters were NOT into the CST thing. For, In the 1950s the CST thing as we know it did not exist yet.

    DB

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    The basic difference is it used to be guys or gals that actually gig a lot have a way better understanding of how to speak the Jazz language.
    It’s not just understanding the mechanics of it. It’s applying it with others in the real world, and not just understanding the theory part.As well as understanding others functions in the band and Listening!

    And in the gigging world now we’re flooded with Jazz Theory students who sound very stiff and don’t Swing!
    I think it’s much like your Blues Jam guys who don’t actually play Blues. But on a higher skill level

  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    This thread is proof that every thread here has the capacity to morph into something else. Each thread has a life of it’s own.

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchbopper
    When I say that a player does not know theory I mean that he does not know chord scale theory (CST). Not that he is unconscious or brain dead while practising Of course there will be some cognitive activity! I simply refer to the aural way of learning as apposed to learning and applying the chord scale theory approach. Many of the jazz greats simply learned by ear, rather than by CST. I never said they did not think. When a gypsy learns an 8 year old kid some licks that is not a theoretic approach - meaning: not talking about chords and scales but rather visualising and hearing sounds. The good old aural tradition. If you equal the occurence of any brain activity to using theory yes, than everything is theory of course. But that is not what I would call it at all. I think this may answer Archtop heaven's reply too. With a non theoretic approach I simply mean: not using the chord scale theory but rather using your ears and eyes.

    Plenty of the old masters were NOT into the CST thing. For, In the 1950s the CST thing as we know it did not exist yet.

    DB
    OK, I'm aware you never meant to equate theorylessness with brainlessless.

    My only point, in fact, was that musicality being endemic in specific circles has a potential of getting misconstrued as a group-specific trait (or worse) rather than a combination of individual diligence and talent, but also a function of applied brainpower (given that many people, I'm sure, associate high-level performances of instrumentalists primarily with motor functions of virtuosity).

  20. #69

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchbopper
    When I say that a player does not know theory I mean that he does not know chord scale theory (CST). Not that he is unconscious or brain dead while practising
    Dammit, I knew I was going wrong somewhere.

  21. #70

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchbopper
    I am surprised this discussion is still going on. It's been beaten to death here over the years.

    Christian is 100% right. Jazz is a language, not a body of applied theoretical concepts. You can learn it like any language, by mere exposure, without studying its theoretical (grammatical) rules. Plenty of players have proven that. The greatest player on the planet (Bireli) has proven it. He knows nothing about music theory (by his own words). The gypsies in a camp less than 20 miles away from my home prove it (the home of the Rosenbergs yes). These guys do not even know the names of the chords they are playing. You enter the local music store here and and a 14 year old kid will blow you away on Donna Lee without having the slightest idea what he is doing. They have learned it as a first language. They start at a very early age and assimilate what they hear from the older players.

    The opposite is true too. You can know all about theory and type a great solo here and still sound like shit. Theory and scales are NOT the jazz language. You have to go to the source itself. The sounds, the idiom, the vocabulary, the stylistics of it.

    Is CST bad? No. It may help. Especially "foreign" learners, so those that learn it as a second language. But do not confuse it with the actual language of jazz. Try learning how to speak German by means of a grammar book only. You need exposure to and assimilation of the real thing. Best thing is to move to Germany at an early age IMHO.

    DB
    I wonder if there’s just not many self taught (or rather community taught) players in the US now? Mostly jazz is built around the colleges these days it seems to me… (NYC is kept going tourism.) Americans I’ve spoken to tend to be very into the college thing…. (Americans also tend to assume that if something doesn’t exist in the US it doesn’t exist.)

    while in Europe you still find non college trained players especially in ‘gypsy jazz’ but even among people from outside the ethnic group who play that music.

    Friends of mine talk about who Manouche players would cut visiting American stars at jams… (I’ve not been to Samois, never been able to make it down) - it has to be seen to believed. Ridiculous level of skill and virtuosity. The level where you are is crazy, some of my favourite jazz guitarists and not just the gypsy players….

    of course, theres something special about NYC players - the energy and the swing is unique - - but that comes from being in NYC and being around that vibe all the time.

  22. #71

    User Info Menu

    Theory informed learning:
    Over the dominant chord, go up diminished from the third, come down tritone's minor (or altered) into the 3rd of the tonic.

    A more natural, child like learning with no theory:
    Memorize this over this (shows the same idea over the same chord).

    Both can work especially if the student is driven and talented. But it's a bit difficult to see why the second approach is superior.

  23. #72

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    Theory based learning:
    Over the dominant chord, go up diminished from the third, come down tritone's minor (or altered) into the 3rd of the tonic.

    A more natural, child like learning:
    Memorize this over this (shows the same idea over the same chord).

    Both can work especially if the student is driven and talented. But it's a bit difficult to see why the second approach is superior.
    Because the second example shows a real jazz phrase in action that you can imitate and assimilate and the first one is just a phantasy that ignores jazz essentials. Scales and arps are not the real language now, are they? Chromaticism, neigbor tones, passing notes etc. are all missing. Not to mention swing and phrasing.

    DB


    Verzonden vanaf mijn iPad met Tapatalk

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    Well diversification is the name of the game when surviving as a pro musician. So without face to face conversations it’s easy to to bear off the rails, LOL!

  25. #74

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jads57
    Well diversification is the name of the game when surviving as a pro musician. So without face to face conversations it’s easy to to bear off the rails, LOL!
    Yeah. Apologies to the OP. I did not even read what the thread was really about. It seems it derailed before my entrance though.

    DB


    Verzonden vanaf mijn iPad met Tapatalk

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    I wonder if there’s just not many self taught (or rather community taught) players in the US now? Mostly jazz is built around the colleges these days it seems to me… (NYC is kept going tourism.) Americans I’ve spoken to tend to be very into the college thing…. (Americans also tend to assume that if something doesn’t exist in the US it doesn’t exist.)

    while in Europe you still find non college trained players especially in ‘gypsy jazz’ but even among people from outside the ethnic group who play that music.

    Friends of mine talk about who Manouche players would cut visiting American stars at jams… (I’ve not been to Samois, never been able to make it down) - it has to be seen to believed. Ridiculous level of skill and virtuosity. The level where you are is crazy, some of my favourite jazz guitarists and not just the gypsy players….

    of course, theres something special about NYC players - the energy and the swing is unique - - but that comes from being in NYC and being around that vibe all the time.
    Scandinavian jazz musicians are exceptionally talented. I put it down to the long dark winters. For me American Jazz (apart from whatever's cooking in New Orleans) was dying a death, having run out of room for some time. Swedish and Norwegian players and composers picked up the slack admirably. They have a real scene out there. They have unique style which I find very interesting, due to the melancholic folk music it's often fused with.
    Lars Guilin was aa fantastic composer and baritone player who could swing like hell and fuse American Jazz with Scandinavian folk music.


    Later on bands like Fattigfolket did well pushing those ideas further. I saw them live once at one off the best Jazz clubs in the world, Glen Millers bar in Stockholm. I've never forgotten that performance.