-
I think writing music is one of the best ways to learn to read it. Or rather, to correctly write melodies out, doesn't necessarily have to be something you created yourself.
I suppose I see how a notation program can help...but I like my student to discover the block of "whoops, that's one eighth note too many!" as opposed to having software make adjustments for them or simply not allow "mistakes," which is what most of them seem to do...maybe I just need more time with them. But I also don't really have the time in my life to get fluent with a new piece of software right now.
Lucky for me, being an art teacher mildly obsessed with handwritten text means my hand written charts look great
-
03-20-2015 09:18 AM
-
I'm reticent to hijack the OP's post and this feels way off topic so I'll try and make this brief.
Originally Posted by targuit
I teach what's called the core curriculum at the Musician's Institute: Harmony & Theory as well as Ear Training. Within the class students are not required to use any notation software although the school does require some competency in Sibelius. (I'm a Finale guy myself and have worked as a music copyist on shows like Battlestar Galactica as well as the Batman video games for Sony.)
However, as of the last year, the syllabus moved from a physical book to an online video instruction course that supplements the class sessions. These videos were created by myself as well as Jamie Findlay, Ron Dziubla and a number of other very talented people at the school. To build these, I not only needed an extensive knowledge of the material I was presenting but I needed to be comfortable working in Keynote (mac version of powerpoint) and Finale.
At the moment I'm writing a guitar curriculum book dealing with some advanced concepts for soloing within the bebop tradition, but to do that I need to be able to work with a page layout software program ( I'm jumping between a few right now to decide which to use) and finale again for all the musical examples which you can imagine take up the bulk of the book.
So whilst it is true that notation software is not required to learn jazz, it is required to be a well rounded musician in today's competitive marketplace. MI aims to make professional musicians out of our students, not just someone that can solo over giant steps at 300 bpm. Personally I need as many skills as I can handle to stay gainfully employed in this business.
BTW, notation software is way faster at notating than doing it by hand. If you write music you are doing a disservice to yourself to not learn it. But yes, you can learn how to play jazz without knowing how to use a notation software.
-
If I could do it again I would have been more "disciplined" and actually learned to read music and know a lot more about theory in a way I could evolve and better communicate with other musicians.
To have a very good set of ears and be very proficient at relative pitch is something priceless for me and probably mandatory for the pros. With that said, there is just so much tactile memory and play over what you hear (not what you hear necessarily) can bring you up to, I think.
When Stingray Jazz Masters radio station is playing on cable TV and I see myself playing over it for hours noodling around quite successfully, it doesn't bother me I can't read or understand really what I am doing.
I also realize I am more of a reactive musician in that context, expressing, improvising on the spot on what I hear.
I don't need to understand the theory behind what I play, there is no band to communicate with and my living room audience is not asking for credentials
To play with other musicians (read communicate in an organized and understood language), transposing on the spot what is written on a music sheet and stuff like that requires knowledge.
If I would do it again I would do it the proper way and not rely only on my ears and tactile memory of 30 years playing on the instrument.
-
Originally Posted by vinlander
If I could do it again I would have been more "disciplined" and actually learned to read music and know a lot more about theory in a way I could evolve and better communicate with other musicians.
To have a very good set of ears and be very proficient at relative pitch is something priceless for me and probably mandatory for the pros. With that said, there is just so much tactile memory and play over what you hear (not what you hear necessarily) can bring you up to, I think.
When Stingray Jazz Masters radio station is playing on cable TV and I see myself playing over it for hours noodling around quite successfully, it doesn't bother me I can't read or understand really what I am doing.
I also realize I am more of a reactive musician in that context, expressing, improvising on the spot on what I hear.
I don't need to understand the theory behind what I play, there is no band to communicate with and my living room audience is not asking for credentials
To play with other musicians (read communicate in an organized and understood language), transposing on the spot what is written on a music sheet and stuff like that requires knowledge.
If I would do it again I would do it the proper way and not rely only on my ears and tactile memory of 30 years playing on the instrument.
+1 Well put.
Say you want to be a musician and not learn theory is like saying you want to be a professional football player, but don't want to study the playbook. Or moving to a foreign country to live and refusing to learn the language and customs. I know a guy to actually did that for "Love", but after about six months and only two gigs even she sent his ass back home. He couldn't communicate.
Music is a language and you have to learn to speak it. You don't have to become a Shakespeare, but you do need to learn to basic language spoken in the streets.
-
I'm glad someone teaching at a collegiate level chimed in, thanks for your input, and I don't see it as a hijack at all...the conversation is steering towards shortcuts...and we all know there are none... Originally Posted by setemupjoe
-
To the OP ...
1. How do you know what key a tune is in?
2. How do you negotiate a tune like I Remember You, Out of Nowhere, or Stella By Starlight?
3. If you play a C major scale over a Dmin7 chord you are - in reality - playing a D Dorian mode for a short time. You may not be aware that you're using modes but technically you still are.
4. The real purpose of theory is to give you a way to communicate verbally with other musicians. "Hey man what's that turnaround were playing on this tune?" "Oh it's a iii VI ii V back to the top". If you discard theory how do you communicate with me when you want to play a tune w me?
i don't want to be the wet blanket here and I also should say that I am not a theory nut and I do think people over intellectualize music. I just think that this is something that you're going to either abandon quickly or be static for a while and then abandon it. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions.
-
Oh this deceptive expression - 'in reality')))
-
Well ... I don't need all those silly modes. Just major scales. But ... Kind sir ... Tell me what modes are? Major scales with a different tonal axis. So those major scales over different chords are ... In reality ... Modes ... Because in reality they're the same groups of notes utilized in different ways.
-
Ironically, my latest blog post is about this VERY thing.
...the link is in my signature.
-
You see... I think in classics theory in most cases represents and reflects the essence of thins, its language, how it works... I think it is because classics classical music deals with completed piece of music and second point is that written traditon is legitimate part of it... and another point usually theory in classics developed simultaneously with practice: composers learnt it, knew it, worked with it.Well ... I don't need all those silly modes. Just major scales. But ... Kind sir ... Tell me what modes are? Major scales with a different tonal axis. So those major scales over different chords are ... In reality ... Modes ... Because in reality they're the same groups of notes utilized in different ways.
Often this approach is mechanically transferred to jazz - that is ' theory is something absolute, and something that can explain how this music really works'... I am not sure.
Mostly jazz theories are practical approaches how to organize improvization... if you take - say - recorded track of Coltrane and try to analyze it from audial point view (I mean not what players had in mind as concepts for improvizing but you as a listner can hear in it): what are realations, tensions, how motive, what ornamention brings in it, rythm, form etc. it will be close to classical theory approach... I know theory analysis that tried to work like this - pure musicological approach, trying to undestand it as completed piece of music.
Why not? But... maybe even 2 years I wuld also say so... now I am not sure... there is certain thing in jazz that makes this approach not qiote correct in my opinion. Jazz originaly was 'here and now' - so there is no 'completed piece of music'... if something is wrong it can be corrected next time... like in tango forget it and go on.. the audience and the players both lived this way ... that is why recording also gave negative result with time...
But back to theory... there is not the theory there are theories and approaches and when you say
No .. you play in reality D Dorian, and I play in reality just in C major over ii chord, and someone probaly in a-minor over iv and also in reality...If you play a C major scale over a Dmin7 chord you are - in reality - playing a D Dorian mode for a short time. You may not be aware that you're using modes but technically you still are.
It is just different approaches, CTS is not explainig everything and besides it is quite controversal theory at least for me now..... not sure that it explains anything at all... just helps to organaizeLast edited by Jonah; 03-20-2015 at 04:57 PM.
-
Haha ... Okay fine ... One person plays D Dorian, the other plays a C Major Scale and the last plays an A minor scale. Pray tell what's the difference? There isn't one (provided we were referring to a natural minor). Same group of notes. The difference is in how the player visualizes those groupings. I LOATH CST. Hate it with a burning firey passion. I hate the idea of thinking of modes over each individual chord. I think it's absurd. BUT ... My point was that pushing modes aside and deciding not to learn from written music is not a judgement against theory. You still need theory. You need to know what you're playing. Because imagine I wrote a modal tune and said "oh it's a Dorian thing" and you didnt know that all that meant was that you'd be using your C major scale over that D minor chord then you'd have a problem. You don't have to think of chord changes that way (I'd argue that you really shouldn't) but knowing what the words mean and being able to translate it on your own guitar is important. Is it not?
-
You're more than welcome to get metaphysical and stuff but "in reality" D Dorian and a C Major scale are the same god-be-****ed 7 notes and it's important to know that. Knowing that is theory. I don't like CST but the OP discarded scales and modes and referred to positions and playing in keys and relative minors so we ended up in that ballpark.
-
What I most like about jazz is the complexity. For example, I've been playing rock and blues for years and years and yes it's great but you get fed up of the same thing. I have a music degree and have played in rock tributes for years so I feel confident in what I do. However with jazz I get that same feeling I had when I first started playing guitar, I have a long, exciting journey of learning in front of me and the last thing I would want to do is take short cuts. Jazz has revived my interest in music and appetite to improve.
-
Actually I did not get this from your initial post.. probably my fault.My point was that pushing modes aside and deciding not to learn from written music is not a judgement against theory.
yes but it's not theory... just conventional system of.. signs... whateverBecause imagine I wrote a modal tune and said "oh it's a Dorian thing" and you didnt know that all that meant was that you'd be using your C major scale over that D minor chord then you'd have a problem. You don't have to think of chord changes that way (I'd argue that you really shouldn't) but knowing what the words mean and being able to translate it on your own guitar is important. Is it not?
I think if you use scales it is not important to understan that D Dorian has the same notes that C major because they have no relation...You're more than welcome to get metaphysical and stuff but "in reality" D Dorian and a C Major scale are the same god-be-****ed 7 notes and it's important to know that. Knowing that is theory. I don't like CST but the OP discarded scales and modes and referred to positions and playing in keys and relative minors so we ended up in that ballpark.
Metaphisical stuff is important only because I see it in every pratical thing daily)))
No problem anyway.. I am not much into argument or something... just every time I see 'in reality' or 'objectively' I just cannot resist from saying something...
-
I find that using notation for composing is actually good for my musical ear, probably more so than actually playing the guitar.
If you do it enough you gradually need your instrument less and less. People that are really good at it can compose/notate what they hear in their head without touching an instrument. They can also transcribe without refering to an instrument. I see this as a high level of ear development.
For me, I have my piano or more often guitar handy to find what I'm hearing/writing, but ocassionally I go straight to the notation as I sometimes know what the line/chord is without having to check on the instrument.
-
Well disclaimed! :-) Originally Posted by setemupjoe
(Anyway I sympathise with the OP! I'm not sure if I appreciate the method used, but if a few box positions gets him started, why the hell not.)
Re: physics. I had to jump in on this. I studied astrophysics a long time ago at Uni.
One of my heroes is Richard Feynman, and he was very keen to draw a distinction between naming a thing and understanding a thing. Naming things is really only a convention.
If you can hear what you play and reproduce it, naming is really useful only if you need to teach it. Theory is often names for things - not always, but the other theory you can work out yourself, by listening to and working out how to play music by ear.
In any case, the proof is in the pudding. If someone can play, they can play, it's irrelevant how well they talk shop on jazzguitar.be. And if they can't play, all the theory in the world doesn't change matters. That's why we have jobs for people in musicology - here people can theorise all day, without ever having to play a note, and good for them, if it makes them happy.
Anyway I have great sympathy for someone who wants to make music, but is put off by the pseudo science of it all. They should go for it. All the guys at college, and all the books- they're just tying to sell something anyway (that may help, if you work that way), and back in the days when people actually had gigs, they just got on with it.
Now, I love hangin' out here, but I doubt Wes or Django would have had a clue what we are on about most of the time :-)Last edited by christianm77; 03-20-2015 at 09:51 PM.
-
I dig the rage, and I relate to it. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
Don't get me started on the super-clunky names for the minor scale modes. That's just pretentious jargon.
I mean, the Altered scale is a sensible name, but Superlocrian, Mixolydian b6, Lydian Augmented? Oh p**s off.
But, you do appreciate that the notes that CST generates can be really lovely. The melodic minor modes do sound really hip if used alongside other things.
Let's have simpler names. And less of an obsession with teaching bloody scales from day one.
-
Those names ARE easy. Lydian Augmented...lydian + a raised fifth...Mixo b6...mixolydian, but lower the sixth.
Not sure how much simpler it can get.
-
Of course ... but "use your Lydian scale over your maj7 chord" doesn't actually do much good. Which notes are the lovely ones and ways to highlight them would be what you want to get at. You could play all over a Lydian scale all day and if you don't know how to make that 9 and #11 stand out then you'll never make that mode sound lovely. You're just checking a box. But I digress ... and this is all beside the point. A working knowledge of theory is what makes musicians able to communicate with one another. It's what allows a musician to codify what he liked about a part of his playing so he can practice it and expand on it. I genuinely agree with the OPs spirit here because CST and the overly theoretical chord substitution approach this and tritone sub that book-learnin culture of jazz is a bit grating ... but I'm saying his methods are misguided and won't get him the results he wants. Gotta know what's happening out to decide what you want to participate in. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
OK,
It we are going to teach CST with 7 note modes, it would simplify part of the process if we were to rename the scales after the chord type with alterations. For example, Dominant Seventh (Dominant or Dom7 for short) instead of Mixolydian (Barry Harris does this.) Also influenced by BH, interval/degree names are always within the octave.
I suggest a convention that the non chord tones are major scale unless you are instructed other wise by the scale name (as with chord symbols, by and large). So for example a minor seventh scale is:
Minor seventh scale, 1 b3 5 b7 - 1 2 b3 4 5 6 b7
Admittedly the m7b5 scale is a bit weird, but I think that's OK.
Dominant #4 = Lydian Dominant
Dominant b2 b6 = Phrygian Dominant
Advantages
1. It maps directly to both chord symbols and the fretboard (if taught numerically.)
2. Furthermore, once the chord types are learned and the convention understood, the name tells you how to make the scale right away.
3. You basically have to learn 'major #4 = lydian' when learning modes anyway, so no extra knowledge needs to be acquired.
4. In fact less knowledge is required as we have got rid of the polysyllabic, unfamiliar extra name, which is largely irrelevant anyway. You see a dom7 chord - play the dominant!
5. Note that the system invites mucking around with and experimentation - why not try a dominant with a b9 and a natural 6 for example? Hmmm what does that sound like?
6. The relationship between chord tones and non chord tones is given, again, in the scale name.
7. Most of the time the scale name draws attention to the interesting, colourful, notes in the scale.
Disadvantages
1. Rest of the world uses different names.
Descriptive names are cool - calling the Dominant b9 b6 'Spanish dominant' or the Major #4 'Dreamy major' - as it helps the larnin'. Encourage students to come up with their own.
Altered (Dominant) is a good and practical shorthand for Dominant b2 b3 b4 b5 b6, which is probably why it was coined. (People who call it the Superlocrian baffle me.)
I'll admit, we don't have a good division name wise between the 1 b3 5 b7 chord/scales and 1 3b 5 7 chord/scales. The latter have a true minor function, and the former are more subdominant in character. Maybe Minor seventh (or Dorian) and True Minor (minor for short)
True minor scale = jazz minor/ascending melodic minor
True minor b6 = harmonic minor
True minor b6 b7 = natural minor
Hang onto these names as they are understood by most (non-jazz) musicians.
The major mode names have a certain mystery and poetry about them, and i's probably worth introducing them at some point in the process to help the students communicate. But, chances are if they pick up, say, the Mark Levine book, it's clearly explained enough that they'll be able to go 'oh Lydian Dominant is what he calls Dominant #4, fine' and continue anyway.
In many ways, it's a rather trivial change, and could be slowly phased out in favour with the god-awful common practice terms over time, but I think this nomenclature could make things quite a lot easier as it focusses on the important information required to teach CST - how the scale is constructed, and what chord it works on.
In any case, I wouldn't bother with any of this stuff, because my approach (influenced by Barry Harris) is to always refer to the substitute scale by its theoretical tonic, not the mode, so your G altered to me is the tritone m6, which is the Abm6 scale (melodic minor.)
Because the system is based around substitute chords being turned into scales, I find it pretty workable. I can understand that some may not though.
TBH, I wonder how essential modes really are to our understanding. I'm sure there are some views on this.
Time for bed anyway... :-)
TL;DR
My names are way easier.Last edited by christianm77; 03-21-2015 at 12:17 AM.
-
I've spent a life time looking for Short cuts !!! There is NONE.
only faster ways of doing things !,once you've learned the skill. sorry guy's !!! With the effort, i see some people putting into finding , the easiest ways to do this???? play guitar, Not just guitar, but Jazz guitar. with out learning how to understand your instrument !!! why, and how it works the way it does. Not to even mention the language ! is Crazy talk. Learning to play this guitar for over 30 years has been the funnest !!! HARDEST thing I've ever done in life. and 1000's of hours hard work. and i'm no way near where i want to be as a player
. that's the next 30 years of hard work.
-
I haven't been part of the conversation but I'm just going to give my thoughts.
First of all, there's levels of theory. I'm sure any musician playing jazz today has some concept of chord progressions. There's absolutely no way around that and I can't imagine any jazz musicians being able to play tunes other than a blues by using a pentatonic scale without that bit of knowledge. The fact that the OP didn't study theory doesn't mean he doesn't know that, and at the very least he must have picked up on that jargon.
Now, advanced theory is not necessary, and I'm talking about things from tritone subbing and reharmonizing to atonal and serial harmony. I mean, what you know, in a way, measures how far you'll take the music. If you just know basic chord progressions, then you're very likely to stay at a "spang-a-lang" level of playing the music. The deeper you go in the theory, the deeper you can take the music, since you know how far you can take it. Personally, I like pushing boundaries, so I study A LOT of theory. My current reading list includes Schoenberg's Theory Of Harmony, a book on Barok's composition techniques, a book on Fibonacci numbers and Fux Gradus Ad Parnassum. I'm taking my theory knowledge very far, because I want to take my music far.
Regarding music language, school's have kind of introduced a way of thought that is kind of incorrect. I'm pro-music school, but I had to make a lot of discoveries on my own about how things are codified. Since we're all talking about modes, this is a good example. Modes were introduced centuries ago in chant music, when things were still monophonic. Modes stayed in that tonality and didn't modulate, so they were there for a tonal effect. In jazz, we're using a system that uses constant modulation/tonicization. The only time modal playing really works to it's purpose is playing modal tunes. Not necessarily static tunes like So What, but even non-functional parallel movement stuff, like Cyclic Episode. Playing over a functional tune, speaking modally is kind of like a he-said-she-said thing, because in our reference, it's basically many words for the same thing. Regardless, the names aren't there to sound pretentious or anything. They're a reference to the origin of why they exist.
Regarding the Finale thing... I don't think Finale is as important as learning to hand write a chart. Some things you can't do digitally, so you might not be able to get as detailed if you directly learned a software. Knowing to hand write it should let you visualize how exactly to set it up.
Anyways, this is me speaking for myself, but I would also not want to study with someone who doesn't know theory.
-
Originally Posted by TruthHertz
Is this real life?????????
-
Just saw this and this thread was the first thing I thought of.....
Last edited by docbop; 03-21-2015 at 04:27 PM.
-
Theory is of little use if you cannot execute in practice.
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions