-
I can only speak for myself. It seems that the goal is to realize your technical potential and be happy with your playing. Learning theory helps you to know your options, but to play jazz, you must understand the language and develop the vocabulary in order to tell your story. Take out of theory what you will. No one ever got worse from learning it. But at some point, your ear, your mastery of the medium, and your own creativity will have to take you where you want to go.
Last edited by zigzag; 01-02-2015 at 01:39 AM.
-
12-31-2014 06:39 PM
-
Why do you study history in school to learn from the past. Music theory classical or Jazz is about noting and labeling this great musicians before us did, so it's music history. So after the basics you continue on to helps discover things that you might not of heard, then you do like you do when listening to a great Jazz record you figure it out, study it, experiment with it, and trying incorporate it in your own music. Or as one of my favorite GIT teacher would say when teaching us something new..... See it, Feel it, Make it your own.
Originally Posted by henryrobinett
-
12-31-2014, 07:15 PM #28destinytot GuestI don't agree; I think the poster (Henry) simply values application above theory.well this post seems to have a presumptive aspect to it, as i read it.
Neither do I think the comment was intended to dampen the novice's enthusiasm.
I don't know Henry, but it's pretty obvious to me that it comes from an experienced and effective teacher (with a well-developed understanding of learning priorities).
I don't wish to be impertinent - and I apologise if I'm speaking out of turn - but I'm rather shocked by this question because there is a defining phrase in the comment, one which makes plain his position with regard to application:what the heck is wrong with a novice being fascinated by jazz theory until they have a handle on it?
once you've got the basic concepts.
-
Of course knowing theory is necessary, but it's only useful if it's explained according to what style you're going for. If you want to sound like Herb or Barney, then working through Levine's book would for the most part be a waste of energy.
I've noticed a tendency for amateur jazz guitarists to apply advanced concepts too quickly over a weak foundation. Most jazz theory books I've read tend to gloss over the really basic stuff which is important for guys who are starting out.
-
I don't think most Jazz Theory books are written for those just starting out, they assume someone has a basic level of music theory already. That's part of the reason I go back and look at my books from time to time because the more I know the more discover things that I didn't catch earlier on. It's like watching a movie you like again and again each time you notice you something you didn't before, or view something from a new perspective. Originally Posted by 3625
-
12-31-2014, 07:45 PM #31destinytot GuestAs I watched Singing in the Rain with my family today, I realised that my favourite sounds feature throughout that one film.If you want to sound like Herb or Barney...
The film hasn't changed - my ears have.Last edited by destinytot; 12-31-2014 at 08:09 PM. Reason: Clarity
-
Very true about going back to books/vids and picking up new stuff - I find that a lot. Originally Posted by docbop
I also agree about the books written not necessarily for those just starting out - problem is, you have a situation where the vast majority of books don't cover the basics in depth, but the majority of people reading them will be novice musicians, not guys who can already play well.
e.g. chapter 1: play C Ionian over Cmaj7.
Often it isn't mentioned to be careful of playing the F, cause it sounds like shit over that Cmaj7 if you don't know what you're doing. That sort of stuff is wayyy more important than something like learning the modes of the Harmonic minor scale - for someone who can't yet play melodically through a standard.
For this reason, a lot of guys can spend years wasting time on practicing the wrong stuff - then get really down about not being able to play.
-
12-31-2014, 08:48 PM #33destinytot GuestHappy New Year, Mark! Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
As a linguist, I was rather curious to know the significance of Strunk & White.
Sister Miriam Joseph's book looks fascinating, and I'd like to read it.
Regarding music, I was reminded of the audition scene in the Coen brothers' The Man Who Wasn't There; a piano teacher assesses a young pianist's potential by saying: "I think one day she'll make a very good.... typist."
-
12-31-2014, 09:01 PM #34destinytot Guest
This man has connaisance de cause:
-
As always, you made me self-reflect - and that's a good thing! Originally Posted by henryrobinett
1) In my case, I became enamored with Jazz theory because that is a personality trait of mine. Coming from a technical background, I have always tried to learn everything about a device or system. In most cases, I can rewrite and improve them and while it has served me well professionally and with most personal hobbies; but alas, it is not so with the guitar.
2) Also, I like to be able to view things from many perspectives and angles. It is gratifying to see the sense of order in things. It gives me something to hold on to.
The funny thing is that I feel like a fresh newbie now, as I use my ear to improvise and make music, yet I come to it now with a strong understanding of what I need to do rather than as someone frantically grasping at different concepts. And, my confidence is slowly building.
-
I remember thinking that there were answers in music theory, the more concepts I learnt meant more freedom I would have, but then I went back to the music, thinking that music doesn't come out of theory, theory comes out of music. A good example is George Russell coming up with the Lydian chromatic concept as a way of explaining the chromaticism in bebop, but from that theory he created a different sound all together.
-
Miles, Sonny Rollins, Jackie McLean, were bebop theory "experts" by age 19....without having to get college degrees. Then they went on to define the music.
-
For a player, or even a writer, theory is useful in terms of APPLICATION. The concepts are very simple and very basic. Once you understand them you can get as complicated as you want. If you don't FULLY UNDERSTAND the basic concepts that might send you on a never ending journey.
For myself I was able to grok basic theory stuff from very early on - high school I think. I remember playing a blues in high school by arpeggiating a jazz blues progression, with blues scales and some tri-tone subs and having a lot of other young musicians standing around asking me what I was doing. So I know I was doing that in high school. I remember about the same time listening to a lot of Coltrane modal stuff and figuring McCoy was playing 4ths, hearing the root coming back around every 8 bars and pivoting off of it. Word of mouth a lot. Teachers some, but in this way I was ahead of what they were teaching me. Not a lot of theory books. I'd skim through them. Dry reading. I was applying what I knew.
I don't mean to criticize people for reading jazz theory book after jazz theory book. I just honestly don't get it. Most people look for diversions because the ACTUAL SITTING DOWN TO PRACTICE DAY IN AND DAY OUT is hard. So some of us get into gear or magazines, forums, picks, guitars, amps, theory, collecting CDs or live music as diversions from doing it. But playing or writing is ABOUT doing it. And once you've got the basic gist of it it is time to apply it. And it takes a LONG time to learn to apply it so it sounds good. No mystery. It's just do it.
Apologies if I've been offensive in anyway. That was not my intention.Last edited by henryrobinett; 01-01-2015 at 12:54 PM.
-
But there was a big street scene going on and clubs and jams everywhere and they did study a lot on their own since they were in to arranging and composition. From the reading I've been doing they all studied music, but they in general didn't discuss music with each other. They would pickup musical things from each other by ear, then would try what ever it was in front of the other person at a gig or jam and if the person smiled that meant you figured it out. I fact appeared all of them were very picky what they would talk about with other people period. That if you tried to talk to one of them about everyday things they get rude and leave. So these guys lived in there own world. Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
-
Being Henry R is never having to say you are sorry. Originally Posted by henryrobinett
Most of us know where you are coming from.
But on the serious side, I am sure most got the gist of what you were saying, and that it was not a personal attack on anyone - just a statement.
And you were dead on in my case when you mentioned that people who don't sit down and practice can have a habit of using theory as a way of feeling like a musician without actually having to be able to walk the walk. In my case, theory and other Jazz pedagogy also helped me to feel close to the music when I did not have time to practice. It was like, "well, at least I am doing something to advance my understanding." But the rub is, as you said, you have to be able to APPLY it.
That is where I am at now, regular application. Its been fun so far.
-
AlsoRan,
I understand where you are coming from. For someone with a technical or analytic mind music theory can be seductive. A bit like crossword puzzles or sudoku.
Consider this: You could read dozens of books on the physical mechanics of running and still not be prepared to run a marathon or books on boxing yet not be ready to enter the ring or spend years reading books on exercise physiology and still be weak and flabby.
As Henry said, the amount of theory one needs to actually play is small. The amount of determination and discipline that it takes to practice, learn tunes and acquire vocabulary is huge.
I've studied music theory and I've played music. For me, playing music has always been more fun and more rewarding.
Regards,
Jerome
-
I've said it before one of my old improv teacher would get on students spouting theory. He'd say.... You can read all the books on screwing you want, but you won't know what it feels like until you actually do it! Now practice what I tell you!!!! Originally Posted by monk
-
Originally Posted by AlsoRan
Just another thought ... these are not really approaches to theory. Jimmy Bruno's scale fingerings have nothing to do with theory. They're just fingerings. That's not the same thing.
Furthermore ... the objective of any study of fingerings or methods is to eventually have nothing to do with it while you're playing. None of those scale fingering things enable much horizontal motion so to really be free around the fretboard fingerings shouldn't really be a concern at all.
-
great thread...happy NY to all..my take: theory is a map to not only find where things are but to find different ways to get there..when I go into a new town..i just drive around and make mental notes of things/roads/shops etc I discover until if find the boundaries of the town then find my way back through another route and make notes of the discoveries along that path..
when if first started to play..it was folk/rock type stuff..Dylan etc..basic chords..i had no idea how they were related to each other..jazz always pulled me in..how do you get "those" sounds..i would watch jazz guitarists (and keyboard players-thank you Dr. Billy Taylor-Jazzmobile series on local TV in NY) and some musicians would explain how they played a tune-what chords/scales they used..and I knew I was going to learn that language and understand it-
the study of diatonic harmony was such a revelation to me..like putting a jigsaw puzzle together..then studying with a master teacher of guitar/music/life for two years (thank you ted greene) who opened the path to endless ways to view impossible ways to finger chords/harmony/moving voices and V8 engines..
now Im in the study of symmetric harmony and its many aspects..(augmented and diminished theory-3 and 4 tonic systems) and how it is integrated into tonal structures..so yes theory is now being viewed from a very different place..but the application of it - to "giant steps" for example would not be possible by ear alone..i use it as a springboard to new ideas and trial and error are a large part of this study..much like driving without a map and making discoveries..now after I experiment..i can find guidelines in theory to verify and firmly establish my discoveries in my playing..like looking at the map after you drove around.."ahh yes I found that road and that location by the river"..etc
so to me theory is a constant reference
-
True. Very true. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
I should have used the word methodology, which would include theory, fingerings, chord choices, etc...
And each great guitarist seems to have his own unique approach and favorite musical devices and fingerings. Many call them their "system." Whether it be minor conversion or playing notes using sweep picking, alternate picking, legato, or their own favorite mixture.
-
The purpose of jazz theory is to learn the right way to play jazz so that you can tell everyone else they're wrong- at least on the interwebs. "You use the (choose one: Berklee, Barry Harris, Jimmy Bruno, Robert Conti, Chuck Wayne, Ted Greene, Lydian Chromatic Concept, harmolodics, Pat Martino's conversion to the minor, etc., etc., etc.)? You're WRONG, sucker!" Apparently to some the music you play is less important than how you think about the music you play. Except to the audience and since it's jazz they don't count.
The above is moderately tongue in cheek after 15-20 years of observing/being in the sometimes swamp-ness of Internet discussions about jazz. Sometimes the discussions take on all the fun qualities of religious wars. Thankfully relatively little of this takes place here, participants are usually pretty respectful and curious.
In practice, I think you start by stumbling across the way of thinking about this stuff that makes sense to you and you start with that. Berklee, the Lydian Chromatic Concept and the Barry Harris method seem to be maybe the most formally codified theoretical models. They seem to cover the same ground with differing explanations.
According to Ted Greene the four qualities for guitarists are Time, Tone, Touch and Taste. The first and the last are the hardest IME.
-
I generally think of theory as a justification to practice things I can't hear yet. If I'm working on some outside sounds then knowing about diminished substitution means I know that playing a ii-V a minor 3rd above or below or tritone away from the ii-V that's in the harmony can theoretically produce some cool sounds. I start practicing ii-Vs a minor third away from home base ... Fmin7 -- Bb7 -- CMaj7 instead of Dmin7 -- G7 -- CMaj7
Theory told me that I could use that substitution. The thing that I think hangs people up is that it becomes they're justification for using it in solos. You have to go into the whole endeavor knowing that the particular sound will not come out in any interesting or natural way until you've trained your ear to hear it and your hands to play it. Theory alone can't and won't make something apparent in your playing. It's more like the idea from this transcription or book or whatever at the beginning that prompts you to practice something obsessively for weeks on end.
Furthermore I think it's a little naive for students of Jimmy Bruno or someone to think that Jimmy himself (or Pat Martino or whoever's philosophy they buy into) learned using only 5 basic fingerings of a major scale or by playing only minor chords as subs over all chord changes. People treat these methods or teaching philosophies like they're some kind of law but they're not. When I started guitar I was told first fret, first finger, on the B string was a "C" note. Guess what. I came to find out that it's not the only "C" on the fretboard. In the case of Jimmy Bruno I think it's a method that he thinks will give his students a really nice foundation to build on. In the case of a more theoretical method like Pat's I think it's more of a distillation of his orientation toward the instrument. Anyone who really wants to get something out of that minor chord over every change thing would have to ask the glaringly obvious next logical question... can I play a major7 chord over every change? Ooh! Let's find out. Or maybe a different one ... why do some of the subs he likes have massive avoid notes in them and what makes them still sound good? It's about diving in and making it your own and seeing what sticks in your own ear.
I don't think anyone sets out to build a method or system for their improvising. I think they devour all the material (compositions, theory, transcriptions, classical music, etc) and make it their own. At some point someone comes along and asks them to teach what they do at which point they reflect and simplify/codify their thing and deliver it to all us eager jazz nerds.
-
Well sure, but they were merely emulating until then. No theory required, whoever they were emulating had already done the hard theory yards. But with those 3 , as well as hundreds of others, they went on to forge their own styles using theory to help understand how to get there. Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
While I agree that many overdo theory, let's remember that there's many who also underdo it, and perhaps to their detriment. There are a lot of modern concepts you'll totally miss if you don't have the theoretical understanding and foundations.
And if you're interested in composing, you want all the theory you can get. Not to use it all, but to discover the things that resonate within you from the many ideas out there already developed. You gotta try everything to know what you prefer.
I'm starting to notice comments like "Jazz isn't that hard", or "you need very little theory" etc, but some peeps may be reading these out of context. Jazz isn't that hard if you just wanna learn some standards and play some weddings. But if you wanna compose tunes, or push boundaries - even in older styles- you'll wanna know what the greats knew, and that's plenty!
-
agreed, it depends on who we're talking about. a casual player, a semi-pro, a pro, or a "name" recording artist.
regarding the latter, today's jazz artists really seem to eschew the recording of standards or other people's tunes relative to their own. remember that article that came out about year or two ago lamenting the lack of any new standards for the last 20-30 years? it seems everybody is a "composer" these days (a composer of forgettable tunes that is). so it was said above but i'll agree - application involves playing and composing.
i remember reading an interview with Dave Douglas a few years ago in DownBeat. he was stepping back to study counterpoint with someone. he felt like he'd hit a wall, not in his playing though.
and then there is the need to teach a little theory. a lot of pros have to teach to pay the bills. it's great to be able to demonstrate lots of concepts directly, but the more you can articulate without your guitar the more you can teach. you simply can't cover all the theory with your own demos for every concept, there's too much history and too many rich examples. i remember attending a master class where a world class virtuoso was making an emphatic point about an approach to playing but said "I can't play it". (he meant at that moment of course, it wasn't in his current repertoire, and he didn't want to give a half-baked demo).Last edited by fumblefingers; 01-01-2015 at 10:14 PM.
-
People writing more I think could be two things. First a lot of the younger player came up listening to rock and fusion and the fusion changes some to be influencing their writing. Second thought is the cracking down of the copyright so police writing their own heads to standard and Jazz changes. Which is a shame a lot of great melodies not being used so they have more freedom with how they use their recordings. Bergonzi a lot of his tunes are based on classic tunes, but he just uses the changes and write head to. Lage Lund on his recent tutor DVD is so funny in his dead pan style he's says I'm going to demo this example using one of my original tunes for you, that just so happens to be based on the changes of ATTYA, but the melody of my tune is just so sad the people start crying so I refrain from playing it. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
Reply With Quote
dearmond 1100 reissue vs original which one is...
Today, 03:30 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos