-
"Lego" comes from a Danish phrase
"leg godt", which means "play well"!
-
02-07-2026 04:41 PM
-
This advice from the Wyble Classical Country book is pertinent to this discussion:
"Some people, outside Los Angeles, even relate the color (blue) to the color of the sky."
-
I am very interested in trying to understand how other players think while improvising or preparing to improvise. To summarize an approach in one paragraph is remarkable.
When I've asked great players what they were thinking when improvising something great, the usual answer is "I don't know". One player said, "I was thinking, darker". These are mostly players with advanced theoretical knowledge which, I imagine, they put to use in the practice room, but not consciously on the bandstand.
My own process is like an excavation of the site of an archeological dig. One layer on top of another, haphazardly connected. Sometimes an older layer is visible at the surface, other times it just subtly alters the landscape. What emerges is an attempt to distill a hodgepodge into a coherent melodic statement.
An example. If the chord is C, I know, instantly where all the notes are and how they're going to sound. I've got arps and scales, licks chord patterns and reharm all at the ready. However, if the chord is B, my brain processes it a little differently. If I just go by sound, I'll play the same sort of stuff as for C. But, if I start to think about it, I may end up processing it too slowly. Whereas I instantly know that Em7 is a reasonable arp to superimpose over C, in the key of B, I'll have to think a moment to realize that D#m7 works the same way. That's just one simple example. The whole thing is like that. I don't recommend it, but I don't know how I could have avoided it.
So, it's that kind of spotty knowledge that I'm trying to navigate like an off-road vehicle on complex terrain.
-
I do one key thing very differently. I make no effort to identify and NAME the sounds I’ve just discovered. Rather, when some chord (or more usually it’s a short two line invention or some thing contrapuntal) I go right to using it in some various contexts with a couple of tunes and more so with some free playing to get a feel for how it connects to other blocks. I simply NEVER name the notes or what momentary chords are being formed. No analysis or calculations. It’s all for me about musical relevancy. When I say I don’t “know” what I’m doing I really mean it
Originally Posted by Mick-7
This advice from the Wyble Classical Country book is pertinent to this discussion:
"Some people, outside Los Angeles, even relate the color (blue) to the color of the sky."
!!!
-
Perhaps distinguishing between "most" guitarists and "good" guitarists would put a finer point on this discussion. Although there are great strictly-by-ear players out there, many great players (e.g. Martino, Pass, Kreisberg, Bernstein, and numerous others) are very much aware of the harmonic content over which they are playing. They've internalized the mental connection between sound, theory, and mechanics to the point that they need not think consciously about it, but those connections are there. Just like you learned to speak as a child and maybe studied grammar and literature as you matured, but don't need to consult your secondary-school textbooks to express an idea in conversation. Originally Posted by Mick-7
-
Absolutely agree with this. When I say I don’t name what I’m playing or think about anything that way it’s not that there is lack of awareness or understanding intellectually. You just don’t need that when playing as it just slows you down. That said, everyone assumes the practice room is where all the thinking is going on and I’d say yes sort of, but it’s also where experiments are conducted, and I’ve said before writing those down by name for repeatability purposes isn’t anything I ever do. Originally Posted by starjasmine
-
How do you overcome this obstacle? - "To retain information for very long, we must relate it to something we already know, and apply it in that context." Originally Posted by Mark Kleinhaut
I do one key thing very differently. I make no effort to identify and NAME the sounds I’ve just discovered. Rather, when some chord (or more usually it’s a short two line invention or some thing contrapuntal) I go right to using it in some various contexts with a couple of tunes and more so with some free playing to get a feel for how it connects to other blocks. I simply NEVER name the notes or what momentary chords are being formed. No analysis or calculations. It’s all for me about musical relevancy. When I say I don’t “know” what I’m doing I really mean it!!!
-
I just don't how pertinent the mental comprehension is to what they play, e.g., Joe Pass learned to play by ear, the theoretical knowledge came later. I attended a couple of workshops he gave and often when people would ask him to explain the theory behind something he played, he could not do so - "This works. Why? I can't say." Originally Posted by starjasmine
-
Thanks, I never knew that. It’s a perfect “fit” Originally Posted by pauln
.
-
I think this is a crucial difference from the "official" Lego blocks approach which relies so heavily on classifying and naming the components, often with names that are more difficult to recall than the sounds they represent. Your approach relies instead on aural memory and a sophisticated grasp of tension, resolution and movement. And it clearly pays off in your case. Originally Posted by Mark Kleinhaut
-
To me the relate to and apply it is separate from the naming it. I remember what I did on the fretboard to make a sound and immediately looks for ways to incorporate it into ans with other things. To weave it into the quilt of the one-great-song that each of us has within themselves. I’d bits a really good block it sticks. There’s probably 1000’s of discarded ones over the years. Originally Posted by Mick-7
-
Lego also means "I put together" in Latin, but LEGO Group (the toy manufacturer) claims this is only a coincidence. Originally Posted by Mark Kleinhaut
Thanks, I never knew that. It’s a perfect “fit”.
-
Maybe Pass was not a good example. All I'm trying to say is that it is common to put names to things (although Mark said he specifically avoids this) as a memory device. Someone tells you that this thing is red and that thing is green, the other thing is apple and another one is lemon. Then when you are cooking up your own dish or your own solo, remembering that thing you want to incorporate is part of it. Whether you call it "G13" or "that cool sound I stumbled on the other day" is besides the point. I do use names of sonic colors and theoretical knowledge to help me express them. Not everyone does, but many players do. Originally Posted by Mick-7
-
It’s always been a false dichotomy. Having a good ear is a defining aspect of being a good musician. Music “theory” is generally a way of categorising ahem… schemata … generally because you want to talk about them with others. If you are actually playing music the verbal classification is irrelevant.
OTOH schemata make it easier to hear music. For example, we might listen out for II V I’s or the changes of a 12 bar blues. Or a clave rhythm. Or the Licc.
Obviously it’s easier to talk about these things if you call it the same name as everyone else. The question I have which is very hard to answer is how much of this categorisation goes on when that terminology isn’t being used. I expect it’s strongly dependent on utility. (Whereas much of the impulse in more academic music theory is towards unifying diverse aspects under a single system.)
It’s interesting though. Names pass in and out of use. Is there much point calling a common bridge after a defunct department store for instance? Otoh Bach didn’t know the term “harmonic minor scale” but us knowing what one is is probably not the main thing stopping us from attaining musical genius lol.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Back in teacher school the idea of schema, often described in terms of a framework or scafolding, was usually presented as when developing a lesson to try to “attach” the new to something known.
The building of musical ideas to me is for practice in the woodshed. Pack it in there by relating the new to anything known that can help it stick.
While under the immediacy of performing one can’t “think” but only hope that something emerges from the shed session.
-
I would just like to mention that we needn’t leave it to luck for things to emerge in the bandstand that we loaded into our brains earlier during practice. That emerging or conjuring of latent knowledge into real time performance is one of the most important things we should practice in the practice room. In other words, at home when practicing, a good amount is time and resources should be spent in imaginary performance.what I do many times a day is I close my eyes and imagine I’m on stage and everyone who matters is out there listening. And I just play. Originally Posted by Aiq
-
For a solo player that really resonates.
My lifelong model, for better or worse, has been work on my bits in practice.
Then when whatever ensemble I’m in rehearses that session is for playing as if an audience is there.
It’s a dying model…I fear.
-
Are we sure this is true? Our brains are notoriously capable of injecting information into our senses when there’s any missing data in order to present a complete package for us to experience. This process of hallucinating seems very much tied to concepts of schemata eg. We hear that 2-5 cadence because we expected it? Isn’t it possible schemata is causing us NOT to hear what’s actually there? Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Both things can be true. Originally Posted by Mark Kleinhaut
We’re more likely to recognize similar sounds as similar when we have given things a name. It doesn’t have to be theoretical … in fact the names don’t actually mean anything at all until they’re applied to the sound. That’s why ear training classes often teach intervals by giving you songs you’re likely to have heard (m3 is greensleeves, M2 is happy birthday, etc). You don’t need to know it’s a major second. You can’t call it the happy notes or whatever, but we almost can’t help but put stuff in categories. People who reject theory are usually rejecting the name “major second” without realizing that they’re doing some idiosyncratic version of the same thing.
But we mortals would also be prone to hearing a cool minor version of Happy Birthday and assuming the Hap-py syllables were a major second, when really they’re a minor third.
Benefit generally far outweighs the risk, though. Not to mention that it’s generally really really difficult for us not to put things in buckets that way. May as well lean into it.
-
It’s certainly well established that human brains operate on a compare, contrast and catalog everything we encounter about the world through our senses. Cataloging (with names) is no different. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
In music, the speed at which our brains can perform various functions is critical to the task at hand; learning music vs performing are two different animals- I think we all agree.
I don’t know any decent players who reject theory or even the grounds anyone could argue such a thing. It’s really helpful for learning and virtually useless for performance.
-
Of course that's possible. I remember in an early jazz lesson, playing over a chord going from a Bbmaj7 to a Bbmin7. I had managed to flub this in the previous lesson. This time I, very clearly I thought, played a line including both the major 7 and 3 and then repeated the line playing the minor 7 and 3. The teacher stopped me and said "why didn't you go to the minor there?" I repeated the line I played and he said "well, you need to make that clearer there." His ears expected me to flub the line again and that's what he heard, rather than the line I played. Originally Posted by Mark Kleinhaut
Putting on my psychologist hat, misperceiving or misremembering because of cognitive schema is different than hallucinating, which is a false sensory experience generated within the brain for mainly biological reasons. The person who is hallucinating really experiences the voices or visual stimuli even though there is no external referent. However, the specific content of hallucinations does sometimes seem to be shaped by cognitive schema.
-
For sure. I think that what I said is true and what you said is also true. Originally Posted by Mark Kleinhaut
Schemata create expectations, but interest in music often comes from subverting expectations. The subversion doesn’t occur unless the expectation is set up.
OTOH if music entirely follows expectation it becomes boring or generic or the listener familiar with the style.
This includes hallucinating things that aren’t there in the music. Happens all the time when I’m transcribing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I do know some excellent players who say they don't know theory. They don't discount it though. Originally Posted by Mark Kleinhaut
Human beings are pattern recognition machines. So my supposition - which is hard to prove - is that players who say they don't have theory are still making connections and spotting patterns in the music they learn. An obvious example would be common chord progressions in jazz standards.
The distinction probably lies more in the way this learning is done. Someone who learns primarily by ear is involved with music and makes those connections whether or not they know 'a fourth from a rissole'. This is obviously different from learning theory - well - theoretically, from a classroom or a textbook.
(OTOH analysis is rather subjective. How different people analyse the same music depends on their background and viewpoint. This is a whole rabbit hole...)
So, if you learn the chords to 300 standards, it is likely at some point you will notice this thing called a 'II V I' in the classroom comes up a lot. You may not even have a name for it, but you will know and it and feel it. And standards, unlike non-functional modern jazz tunes, is kind of a small room. We go II V I, but not often I V II. It is more important to someone learning to play straight ahead jazz to hear and be able to effortlessly play one combination than the other. I'm sure there are equivalent things from other genres. The melodic figures that form part of the Raga in Hindustani music come to mind, for example.
It's a little bit of a digression but one challenge of more modern non functional jazz is that there are less well defined schemata. Or the schemata that are present are more idiosyncratic to the composer. Like there's a thing Wayne Shorter likes to do with a minor pentatonic melody on a progression that goes I-7 bIImaj7 (or I7#9 bIImaj7) for instance. So I do wonder if you need a more of a textbook theoretic basis for that music just because there's more possibilities.
-
The endless debates between theory vs ear players isn’t really on topic with what I was saying about Lego improvisation except I wanted to emphasize that the Lego analogies were in no way intended to take sides in such debate. How we acquire knowledge, organize and access such knowledge, and whether analysis is part of that process is a different subject entirely. I realize it’s nearly impossible for this to be avoided, and maybe it shouldn’t be, but I’d like to think there’s general consensus that theory has little or no role when engaged in the actual act of improvisation. Is that not so? Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
What doesn’t help with answering that question is people seem to have different definitions of ‘theory’ anyway. Originally Posted by Mark Kleinhaut
I’d go as far to say that nothing I have discussed qualifies as theory. But that’s quite a minority position. I tend to define theory as something which aims at an explanation of how music works, not simply categorise objects or schemata.
So, by my understanding, recognising a twelve bar blues progression is not theory, but discussing why and how the twelve bar blues works the way it does is theory (and overlaps with the field of academic musicology.)
This rules out a lot of things people tend to classify as “music theory” in everyday usage, including a lot of the ABRSM Music Theory syllabus we teach to kids in the UK lol. So it’s not mainstream use, I’ll admit.
At the other end people seem to argue that any music at all is theory because it contains theoretically identifiable musical objects like chords and scales and so on.
This seems an unhelpful definition because it is so wide as to overlap with “music”.
So rather than get stuck into that, I’d say if you mean that improvising music is primarily an intuitive act I’d tend to agree. There’s a high level guiding decision making going on, but you can’t be thinking about on the note by note level.
You have to internalise whatever you are learning to the level of embodied or tacit knowledge. Which is obvious from experience, no?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
Calling you Framus folk
Yesterday, 09:38 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos