The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Posts 51 to 75 of 332
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    I was more able to play endlessly all day many years ago before I took guitar seriously but I don't think I was improving much.
    Some of the skills that helped me the most (working on different time feels, rhythmic independence, working on application of concepts on different part of the guitar, internalizing fretboard, learning difficult progressions etc. etc.) actually require a lot of concentration and can get exhausting after an hour. These are also the types of things you don't get rewarded for immediately. That's the part that requires drive and discipline. Because you need to work on them regularly with a concentrated affort and gradually develop the skills. But being driven and disciplined in order to develop a skill at a high level is a blast.

    Maybe all these skills came effortlessly to you but I know many good musicians also worked this way and still do. I think Bruce Forman said that when he "really" practiced, he could only do it for a short amount of time.
    I'm not saying the process of getting good at jazz improvisation requires no effort. I'm saying (as are you) that it's a blast, not an ordeal. But too many people make it seem more like an ordeal than a blast.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John A.
    I'm not saying the process of getting good at jazz improvisation requires no effort. I'm saying (as are you) that it's a blast, not an ordeal. But too many people make it seem more like an ordeal than a blast.
    Seems like we are getting into a silly disagreement here.

    It's a ton of work. Or rather, it takes effort and time. There's no way around the time part. Or the effort part.

    The people who are able to enjoy the time and effort that it takes--well, they're the ones who succeed.

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    Ah, with the mad at theory thing again. I'm not mad at theory at all. I just don't think it's a prerequisite to being able to play jazz. Nor does it take any kind of precedent over listening, copying, assimilating, tunes....

    Of course, there's things people call theory that I don't think are "theoretical" at all. Fretboard knowledge isn't theory. I don't think there's anything "theoretical" about scales or building chords either, but maybe some folks do.

    I'll say it again...almost ALL of the time the song itself gives you all the information you need.
    I see. You're not mad at theory. But you have some sort of motivation to make a false dichotomy of listening, copying, and learning tunes vs learning theory structure when they're all important. And you're motivated to say that learning theory - the fretboard, scales, and building chords - isn't in fact theory, it's something else related to musicianship only; so you can say that learning theory isn't important. Ok...

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by John A.
    I'm not saying the process of getting good at jazz improvisation requires no effort. I'm saying (as are you) that it's a blast, not an ordeal. But too many people make it seem more like an ordeal than a blast.
    I don't know how much time you spend practicing your guitar a day...
    I had days when I played - I practiced the guitar 8 hours a day and it's hard for me to call it fun.
    On the other hand, playing at a concert gives me great pleasure.I just enjoy making music.

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    I see. You're not mad at theory. But you have some sort of motivation to make a false dichotomy of listening, copying, and learning tunes vs learning theory structure when they're all important. And you're motivated to say that learning theory - the fretboard, scales, and building chords - isn't in fact theory, it's something else related to musicianship only; so you can say that learning theory isn't important. Ok...
    Define what the word theory means to you.
    is it about theories of how to play jazz music?...or...
    is it about playing music in general?

  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    My view of it is no different than the definitions in the search bar:

    define music theory in google:

    Music theory as a practical discipline encompasses the methods and concepts that composers and other musicians use in creating and performing music. Wiki.

    Music theory examines musical qualities such as timbre, tone, pitch, and texture, as well as compositional elements such as rhythm, dynamics, tempo, and more. Britanica.

    Music theory denotes the practice that musicians apply to communicate and understand the musical language. study.com

    Music theory is a practice musicians use to understand and communicate the language of music. iconcollective.edu


    Being silly about 'not knowing' how to define the topic, or purposely misdefining it is just another tactic in the mad-at-theory campaign.

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    In the context of the forum there is a another definition of theory that's commonly used. It's a more experiential, subjective definition:

    Theory for person A: A miscellaneous category of concepts, ideas, knowledge and notation "the person A" doesn't find useful as a musician. Because if they were useful, "the person A" would've considered them applied, practical knowledge and not theory.

    On the other hand, some members consider theory as anything within the scope of a Music Theory 101 book and beyond.

    No wonder the debate never goes anywhere.

    I like both definitions, BTW.

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    Why should the narrative get nowhere when the 1st definition is false? I don't conform to putting up with constant alt facts. If you apply theory, it doesn't make it not theory, it makes it applied theory lol.

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    I know musicians who play great and communicate well with other musicians and don't know the 'theory'...;-)
    There are also those who do not know the notes.
    I also know those who show off their theoretical knowledge and are poor musicians .... interesting ...

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    I'm taking lessons with the most prominent Hammond player in the entire world. He uses theory for everything and his playing is incredibly musical. Interesting.


  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Lordy. The ground-zero definition of music theory is anything that explains music. Explaining what a note is is theory. And, of course, it becomes more and more complex the more one gets into it.

    But the technical explanation of something is not the thing itself. Just holding down and strumming a C chord on a guitar is one thing but the academic explanation of chords, intervals, scales, and so on, is another.

    As one school kid quipped when asked how a fridge works: 'Plug it in, turn it on, and if it goes wrong get the man'.

    So is theory necessary? No, not just to play something on an instrument. But if one wants to really understand melody, harmony, composition, and the various other elements of music, especially jazz, then it obviously helps if one's studied it a bit. It also means you can communicate and discuss the music with others.

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by kris
    Define what the word theory means to you.
    is it about theories of how to play jazz music?...or...
    is it about playing music in general?
    Tbh I think Jimmy’s definition changes to whatever it needs to be so that he can be pissy on JGO.

    Seriously, like Jeff I don’t regard fretboard mapping and knowing what notes are in a scale as theory… many do, so fine.

    otoh there are some amazing guitarists who don’t know that stuff who can piss rings around most members here. Denying they exist doesn’t mean they can’t take your gigs ;-) they are out there, and they have too many gigs to post bullshit on JGO.

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Constant alt facts is annoying, Christian. Also your premises are false. I don't start trouble if there's no reason. Ragman's definition is correct and is what I'll be using from now on.

    Are you going to post these players and prove they don't use theory?

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    Constant alt facts is annoying, Christian. Also your premises are false. I don't start trouble if there's no reason. Ragman's definition is correct and is what I'll be using from now on.
    dude, all I’ll say is, get out there in the wider musical world and you’ll realise not everyone is the same and not everything is as neat and simple as you once thought.

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    I know. It's an advantage to directly grasp music. It's not an advantage to not use theory.

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    Tbh I don’t regard... knowing what notes are in a scale as theory
    You must be joking.

    Now you're not only arguing about theory but arguing about its very definition. Absurd. Music theory is the verbal description and explanation of music and its elements. To think otherwise is coo-coo land.

  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    I see. You're not mad at theory. But you have some sort of motivation to make a false dichotomy of listening, copying, and learning tunes vs learning theory structure when they're all important. And you're motivated to say that learning theory - the fretboard, scales, and building chords - isn't in fact theory, it's something else related to musicianship only; so you can say that learning theory isn't important. Ok...
    Yes, I'm changing the definitions to suit my own anti-theory agenda.

    I'm not sure why we want to be difficult about this.

    You obviously need to know your instrument to play jazz. Even somebody like say, Django, who folks like to Romanticize about not knowing anything of music theory, could certainly find every F# on the fretboard in seconds--even if he didn't know it was called F#.

    And obviously to play jazz guitar you have to be able to understand chords, and where to find them.

    Is that theory? If it makes the conversation get back on track, then yes, you absolutely need that theory. You also need some technical facility on the instrument. There's no getting away from that, either.

    For me personally, the knowledge set needed to play a whole lot of jazz (the theory, if you will) is actually pretty small. Fretboard knowledge, major scales, chord building (and knowing how to add tension/extensions to chords) arpeggios...that will get you a long way. Nothing really heavy, just a matter of getting really good at 5 things rather than dabbling in 50. Do you stop there? No. Could you spend a lifetime just getting really good at that stuff and still play great music? Absolutely.

    Does theory come before the music? Never, in my opinion. You can give a person all of the theoretical knowledge available, but unless they listen to a ton of jazz, internalize it, copy it, play it back, learn tunes, tunes, tunes, ear train, play melodies...they'll never play jazz. Conversely, you can leave out the theory, take those other things, and you can learn to play jazz. How do I know this? Because the people who invented jazz did it that way. But those people DID know the knowledge/theory set I mentioned--whether academically or intuitively. That's why I say that stuff is most important (and that I argue that there's nothing theoretical about them, they just are...they're facts...but that bogs the conversation down)

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    Some definitions of music theory are not only the basic one, as above, but also include possibilities that can be conceived from the essential ingredients.

    Personally, I wouldn't go that far. A 'possibility' based on accepted musical theory is certainly theoretical but does not alter the fundamental order upon which it's based. Any new composition began as a possibility but is still part of the established order.

    We have two meanings of the word theoretical. One is a conceptual possibility, the other is the name we give to established musical principles. A hypothesis derived from established principles is not a contradiction of those principles.

    Can anyone name any idea which contradicted (not embellished or expanded) basic theory and which then became an accepted part of that basic theory?

  20. #69

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    Some definitions of music theory are not only the basic one, as above, but also include possibilities that can be conceived from the essential ingredients.

    Personally, I wouldn't go that far. A 'possibility' based on accepted musical theory is certainly theoretical but does not alter the fundamental order upon which it's based. Any new composition began as a possibility but is still part of the established order.

    We have two meanings of the word theoretical. One is a conceptual possibility, the other is the name we give to established musical principles. A hypothesis derived from established principles is not a contradiction of those principles.

    Can anyone name any idea which contradicted (not embellished or expanded) basic theory and which then became an accepted part of that basic theory?
    You mean like the tritone being able to summon demons?

  21. #70

    User Info Menu

    And here I was excited to think a useful posts were coming this thread. Instead you guys are having another circle jerk over the same dead horse.

  22. #71

    User Info Menu

    I don't think it's our duty to have to avoid debating theory because it causes contention, it's the members' duty who push alt facts to give it a rest and conform to the truth. It's intolerable. Theory is an essential part of music. Further, we're on a forum and it's essential to many discussions on music!

  23. #72

    User Info Menu

    That's a nice visual Allan

    I thought my post was helpful. I mean, I've been posting here for like 15 years, posted hundreds of videos, it's very obvious what I can and cannot do, and I'm not hiding anything about my process either. I'm still in the process of mastering those few things I said were crucial. It might take me the rest of my days. But it hasn't stopped me from playing music.

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    Constant alt facts is annoying, Christian. Also your premises are false. I don't start trouble if there's no reason. Ragman's definition is correct and is what I'll be using from now on.

    Are you going to post these players and prove they don't use theory?
    You should change your teacher to Ragman.

  25. #74

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by kris
    I don't know how much time you spend practicing your guitar a day...
    I had days when I played - I practiced the guitar 8 hours a day and it's hard for me to call it fun.
    On the other hand, playing at a concert gives me great pleasure.I just enjoy making music.
    How much I practice depends on how much time I have available. With a day job and a family plus what ever gigs and jams come up it's difficult for me to find 8 consecutive hours to play. But if I get the opportunity I'll play all day. Otherwise, it's somewhere around an hour a day. I enjoy it. If I didn't, I wouldn't do it.

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    I know. It's an advantage to directly grasp music. It's not an advantage to not use theory.
    The real Jimmy Smith had a lot of club gigs - how did he play so much. What was the 'theory" behind it?
    I know these jazz giants had so many gigs they didn't have time to talk about theory....that's life.