The Ultimate goal of Jazz Theory?

[AlsoRan]

After reading Jazz theory books, looking at theory DVDs, intently reading through the many threads on this forum and from other websites, I wondered what kept me reaching for yet another bit Jazz instructional material. I realized that I enjoyed Jazz pedagogy, and all the little ways you can view the fretboard and the art of playing Jazz. Now, I have reached the point I which I want to create my own system that is intuitive for me - and stick with it.

It seems every advanced Jazz player has his own particular approach to things like seeing the fretboard, fingering, harmony, chords - you name it. I now am pretty comfortable with understanding several approaches, but not good enough to be able to apply them in real time.


So I just want to know, you lovers of Jazz theory, are you looking to create your own more focused view or are you happy mixing in different fingering such as using Jimmy Brunos and then maybe Frank Gambale's on another? Or are you looking to have or create your own approach that will be your go to personal Jazz method?

Heck, do you advanced players think that it is essential to have your own approach and not mix too many, or can one dip and dabble with different approaches, such as using Garrison Fewell's triad melodic approach and at other times using say, Elliots arpeggio-based approach.

I just think I need to finalize my approach, and then I can add to it with other methods and ideas, and I am using the Linear Harmony to that with every line I know where I started and where I am going to end up and why. I have been using my different scales and arpeggios that I already know to make the connections and throwing in sequences where and when I can. This is the approach I plan to keep.

Long winded- I know. Sorry, but I would love to hear feedback.

[pkirk]

For me,"theory" provides a source of ideas, shortcutting the time it might take for me to stumble on said idea by experiment. Every idea is worth exploring.

That said, <curmudgeon> I think that a whole lot of effort is spent in "theorizing" in a million slightly different ways about improvising bebop/function harmony/standards, when it's not that hard understand (though impossibly hard to play well). Its like finding 100 different ways to do arithmetic. One way will do, so lets turn to group theory or topology... I think the main reason for such a proliferation of bebop theory is that jazz musicians understandably need different sources of income, and you'll make more scratch producing a "new" way to play bebop than you will with more obscure forms of jazz.
</curmudgeon>

What's interesting to me are theories that inform other approaches to other streams of jazz: Modal, Slominsky, Andrew Hill, Wayne shorter, harmolodics, AACM, Garzone triadic, Steve Coleman/Steve Lehman/Ari Hoenig's rhythm ideas, Wayne Kranz and Goodrick, and what the hell are Chris Dave or Jason Moran or Bergonzi thinking? Typically just a superficial effort trying to learn what these and other jazz improvisors with strong idiosyncratic vision do gives me a bunch of new things to try. (Can't play any of them, though)

[pamosmusic]

So I just want to know, you lovers of Jazz theory, are you looking to create your own more focused view or are you happy mixing in different fingering such as using Jimmy Brunos and then maybe Frank Gambale's on another? Or are you looking to have or create your own approach that will be your go to personal Jazz method?

I would argue that those are all essentially the same thing

[mr. beaumont]

Theory doesn't have a "goal," really.

Theory puts a name to shit that sounds cool so you can find it again, and talk to others about it and be on the same page.

[jtizzle]

Yeah, theory is just a good collection of musical possibilities that you combine to create sounds. A lot of people identify with certain sounds, and that's what you end up sounding like.

[Jabberwocky]

I listen to a lot of Keith Jarrett Trio. Lately, I have been digging Chet Baker and Dexter Gordon (who is the avatar of God as a cool black dude to me). I don't know if theory runs through their minds when they play. Certainly, what works where what how is done during practice.

I am a little bothered by the thought of formulating a personal jazz theory. Because it implies working within a rigid ambit of self-imposed "rules" Play as few or as many bum notes as one pleases. Eventually the ear informs you. Don't shut off your ears.

[TH]

Sound is ordered noise. Music is control over the chaos of possibility. How that goes together is theory. Every person that creates something that is not a blind recreation of something else is using theory. How much of that is inspired by, instructed by or dictated by an outside source, that's a measure of your own personality.
Some people cook with recipes they pull from a wall of cookbooks. Some people have developed an elaborate intuition based on experience and their own taste. If you're happy with what you do, your hand was in the making, there's a theory in it.
This duality of theory and music is a vexing one. The more conviction you have in what you do, the more you own the sound; wherever it was we borrowed our building blocks from.
Or that's what I think at the moment-theoretically.
David

[destinytot]

Sound is ordered noise. Music is control over the chaos of possibility. How that goes together is theory. Every person that creates something that is not a blind recreation of something else is using theory. How much of that is inspired by, instructed by or dictated by an outside source, that's a measure of your own personality.
Some people cook with recipes they pull from a wall of cookbooks. Some people have developed an elaborate intuition based on experience and their own taste. If you're happy with what you do, your hand was in the making, there's a theory in it.
This duality of theory and music is a vexing one. The more conviction you have in what you do, the more you own the sound; wherever it was we borrowed our building blocks from.
Or that's what I think at the moment-theoretically.
David

Loved this.

[pingu]

the number type analysis 'music theory' is only so useful

apropos of nothing .......

if you take a (C) major scale and lower the 3rd , 6th and 7th
you get C D Eb F G Ab Bb C

just get an plain old Eb scale

so three changes make not much change really

however .....
but if you take a C major scale and only lower the 3rd
you get a whole new world of sounds , the melodic minor world

I don't know what theory can enplane that stuff

Less Is More maybe

I believe you can quite easily have too much Theory (and not enough Practice)
well I can anyway !

[cosmic gumbo]

Most confident players have used some theory, their ear, and a lot of listening, playing, and trial and error to organize the abstract logic of jazz into a personal codex that allows them to address the music from their unique and ever growing perspective. Jazz isn't about some universal method for everyone.

[AlsoRan]

And you folks described the plight I found myself in - knowing (or kind of knowing) a lot of theory and rules yet not being able to apply them.

In recognition of this, I am using the theory to create lines, phrases, and passages - that I can remember - and using them to make the music I hear in my head. Approaching everything one note at a time but with some idea of what others before me have done.

So in the end, while I feel I lost of lot of time that could have been better spent on songs, I also feel I have gained a lot of "tricks" that I can use, now that I am using my ear more in concert with theory and transcription.

So for an serial "overanalyzer" such as myself, I have few regrets on the approach I have taken.

[fumblefingers]

there is theory and there is application/practice. theory explains how music works and how it's organized. all this talk about your instrument (guitar) and improvisation may be clouding the issue a little bit?

IMO, the reasons to study and understand theory are so that you can play, write, and teach music; to enable you to function effectively and productively in a group of other musicians using a common language and common understanding of concepts.

for jazz studies performance majors, universities train you in a (hopefully) broad manner and do the following:

1. train all instrumentalists/vocalists in theory (harmony, melody, rhythm, form, etc). you don't bring your instrument to class.

2. train you on your instrument - "applied study" - weekly private lessons on your instrument, every semester

3. train you in improv: 3-5 full semester improvisation classes.

4. require you to play in an ensemble of some configuration: big band, combo, vocal ensemble, etc.

of course you can blend all of these together if studying on your own or with a teacher. it helps to keep them separated in your mind from a focus perspective though. for one thing you can track your progress and development for each, without deluding yourself.

that said, the goal is to bring them all together, to bring them to full, artful, realization, when you play.

[rmsmarr]

I just finished reading a book that might be of some benefit to those in this discussion that has helped me personally put things in perspective and find some focus in my practice routine and jazz theory study.

In the book he discusses the concept of practicing out of fear, which really hit home for me.

Effortless Mastery: Liberating the Master Musician Within is a book for any musician who finds themselves having reached a plateau in their development.

[AlsoRan]

I just finished reading a book that might be of some benefit to those in this discussion that has helped me personally put things in perspective and find some focus in my practice routine and jazz theory study.

In the book he discusses the concept of practicing out of fear, which really hit home for me.

Effortless Mastery: Liberating the Master Musician Within is a book for any musician who finds themselves having reached a plateau in their development.

This looks interesting, kind of similar to the Goodrick book, "The Advancing Guitarist" maybe?

It seems both books try to give you philosophical and practical approaches to learning and playing Jazz.

This is where I am at in my development. I want to create music and not learn another system or approach.

I finally have the time to pursue it more earnestly and really internalize things.

Thanks.

Just as a sidenote I took piano lessons for a little over 3 years and quit at age 13. At age 43, after not having touched the piano, I could still get on it and play a lot of the Preludes, minuets, and other songs I had learned.

This is what I call internalizing something. This is what I am after with my Jazz pursuits. I just hope it is still possible to get a large volume of music at my fingertips.

[destinytot]

but if you take a C major scale and only lower the 3rd
you get a whole new world of sounds , the melodic minor world

I don't know what theory can enplane that stuff

I don't want to go off the deep end, but I think that goes to show how context determines a note's identity.

I've never found CST to be directly useful for improvising, so I avoided it for a long time. That was a mistake; it does help me to study pieces that would otherwise be impossible, and to compose strong melodies for songs I write. Not for interacting with others, but for study.

Just like parsing written texts for clause analysis, reflective learning in the study of music will inevitably yield insight, knowledge and understanding; I think the choice of how one synthesises and applies this is a hugely important one.

[MarkRhodes]

PS Writers write by reading works of great writers or dimestore hacks or anyone they enjoy and stealing some of their style. Nobody writes by reading grammar texts. But a little Strunk and White doesn't hurt.

As a writer, I appreciate this. (And I kept Strunk & White handy for a long time.)


Grammar and rhetoric were different in Shakespeare's day and a "schoolboy" learned by copying and imitating examples of great writers. Sister Miriam Joseph wrote a good book about this:

http://www.amazon.com/Shakespeares-L.../dp/1614274894

[MarkRhodes]

PS Writers write by reading works of great writers or dimestore hacks or anyone they enjoy and stealing some of their style. Nobody writes by reading grammar texts. But a little Strunk and White doesn't hurt.

As a writer, I appreciate this. (And I kept Strunk & White handy for a long time.)


Grammar and rhetoric were different in Shakespeare's day and a "schoolboy" learned by copying and imitating examples of great writers. Sister Miriam Joseph wrote a good book about this:

Amazon.com: Shakespeare's Use of the Arts of Language (9781614274896): Sister Miriam Joseph: Books

[rmsmarr]

This looks interesting, kind of similar to the Goodrick book, "The Advancing Guitarist" maybe?

It seems both books try to give you philosophical and practical approaches to learning and playing Jazz.

This is where I am at in my development. I want to create music and not learn another system or approach.

I finally have the time to pursue it more earnestly and really internalize things.

Thanks.

Just as a sidenote I took piano lessons for a little over 3 years and quit at age 13. At age 43, after not having touched the piano, I could still get on it and play a lot of the Preludes, minuets, and other songs I had learned.

This is what I call internalizing something. This is what I am after with my Jazz pursuits. I just hope it is still possible to get a large volume of music at my fingertips.

This book is not really any theory at all but more about a mind set and focus. About being a conduit for the music and letting the music come through you. There is a disk that includes some positive meditations. Through interviews and observations he says there is a place where the masters go when they create. That's why they make it look so simple.
It is an extremely good read

He is teaching this course at Berklee.

[docbop]

This book is not really any theory at all but more about a mind set and focus. About being a conduit for the music and letting the music come through you. There is a disk that includes some positive meditations. Through interviews and observations he says there is a place where the masters go when they create. That's why they make it look so simple.
It is an extremely good read

He is teaching this course at Berklee.

I think first read Kenny's book about a decade ago and it's become very popular. There are YouTubes of Kenny doing seminar at I think NYU demoing him explaining and applying his approach also a JazzHeaven DVD. Before Kenny going back into the 60's I believe Coltrane and other Jazz musicians were reading Autobiography of a Yogi, by Paramahansa Yogananda. Jazz musicians for decades have used various ways to let go and let the music come through.


Jazz Theory for me is organizational tool and also a source of ideas to experiment with. I read a theory book and something will intrigue me and next thing I know I'm grabbing my guitar and maybe investigation the concept anywhere from hours to days or longer. I try to avoid treating it like rules and see many fall into that and not exploring what else can be done. But that's me I'm an 60's "Question Authority" type and rules are meant to be played with.

[marcwhy]

I haven't ordered this (yet), but knowing some of his other works, I bet it would be a good -- and fun -- read:

The Lobster Theory (and other analogies for jazz improvisation): Greg Fishman, Jon Ziomek, Judy Roberts, Mick Stevens: 9780991407804: Amazon.com: Books

[TH]

I'm going to write a book addressing why it is that so many guitarists are seduced by books on why they can't find the motivation to play but instead turn to books on what to do about it.
Please buy it when it's published.
Thank you
David

[zigzag]

I always had a great appreciation for jazz, but I'm a very pedestrian musician. I get by. I like to think that my main instrument is vocabulary.
Tom Waits

[henryrobinett]

It seems really stupid to be enamored with jazz theory. I just use it to think with. And even that seems too grandiose. For the life of me I don't know why one would continue reading jazz theory books once you've got the basic concepts. What else is there? APPLICATION. That's why it exists. Helps you play or write the acceptable notes. Or it will help explain the hard to understand notes. But after a while just adopt different viewpoints. But if I never crack open another theory book I'll be fine. And I haven't read a theory book probably since the mid 70s. That's how old I am.

[fumblefingers]

It seems really stupid to be enamored with jazz theory. I just use it to think with. And even that seems too grandiose. For the life of me I don't know why one would continue reading jazz theory books once you've got the basic concepts. What else is there? APPLICATION. That's why it exists. Helps you play or write the acceptable notes. Or it will help explain the hard to understand notes. But after a while just adopt different viewpoints. But if I never crack open another theory book I'll be fine. And I haven't read a theory book probably since the mid 70s. That's how old I am.

well this post seems to have a presumptive aspect to it, as i read it.

the first point is that it's "stupid to be enamored" with jazz theory. the second point is very pragmatic with regards to how one positions theory into their musical mindset and investment of time, once they're knowledgeable and well experienced.

the problem with the first point IMO is not atypical of what happens frequently on this site, and that is that we offer untailored advice that spans the spectrum from what we should provide to the novice to what we should provide to the professional, and all points in between.

put another way, what the heck is wrong with a novice being fascinated by jazz theory until they have a handle on it? why rain on their enthusiasm/motivation parade? they'll likely need it to push through.

i think it wise to assume less experience on the part of the inquirer when dispensing counsel rather than more. then one can adjust upwards, depending on the OP's response.

[marcwhy]

I'm going to write a book addressing why it is that so many guitarists are seduced by books on why they can't find the motivation to play but instead turn to books on what to do about it.
Please buy it when it's published.
Thank you
David

Dave, can I please pre-order two copies?!