-
I know what you mean. I draw inspiration from that type of playing too. And I do often think that's one of the good ways to come up with swinging material. However as an organist I can't get away from the theory framework, since I'm responsible for holding that down with my bass and comp. That's more or less defined, you can't wing that.
-
03-05-2023 06:08 AM
-
The whole problem with this discussion is that the discussants play instruments at different levels.
As far as I know, Jimmy is just learning to play and is fascinated by the theory that helps him understand jazz.
I had theory lessons at a music school and I don't remember much from that period of study.
However, I like to get to know the ways of thinking of jazz musicians and I learn the most from them.
You can also learn a lot by listening to jazz music in the right way - hearing different ways of phrasing etc.
In general, it's about the development of a musical ear, without which nothing will work well.
The essential question is can any person learn to play jazz?
I mean rhythm, feeling and the so-called. musical hearing.
-
Then start practicing on the guitar - maybe it will be easier to grasp it all.
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
In my opinion, the guitar is one of the most difficult instruments.
-
I studied music in college starting in 04, kris.
-
It's like it's impossible to communicate with you guys. When did anyone say anything to the contrary of all that? Lol. If someone says anything pro-theory, everything the person has ever said along the lines in your quote gets flushed out of your brain and you go on another rampage assuming the other person only thinks in theory, doesn't care about actual music, and is a beginner lol. But you're not mad at theory.. Originally Posted by kris
-
So talk less about theory and play with musicians and get gigs.
-
the past six moths or whatever it’s been on JGO
‘Theory is super important! Everyone who can play jazz well uses theory to a high level .’
’Theory can certainly be helpful when used in a constructive way, but the primary factors that develop improvisation are listening to and applying musical ideas, which can actually be done without that much theoretical analysis. Some people seem to get into a bit of a rabbit hole with it, so it’s worth bearing in mind the ultimate goal is to play music: especially bearing in mind you do sometimes meet excellent players with very little theory background including some long term members of JGO.’
’Why do you hate theory?!!! You are presenting alternate facts and distorted arguments!!!’
‘Eh?’
-
That IS an alt fact Christian. Most players don't get good at jazz without a theory foundation. They need what you mentioned of listening to and applying musical ideas AND a theory foundation. We've been over this like 100 times. Neither is expendable for the majority of players. If what you said were true, there would be several competent players on the forum who know no theory. But there aren't! There are literally zero good players on the forum who know no theory! What are you on about?!
-
so is it fair to say I’ve correctly categorised the nature of your responses on JGO (not just to me)? Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
It's not one-sided. You're constantly pushing your rhetoric and superiority.
-
(Selfishly I wish Dutchbopper were here just to see the fireworks. It’s probably best for his cardiac health that he is not.)
-
I'm sure he can't spell chords.
-
I don't think it's because your brain is different, I think it's because you have a natural talent and the confidence of experience. Also, of course, you do a lot of listening, going to gigs and watching the pros play, and all that. Originally Posted by grahambop
-
Sure, if you say so. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
However, is what I said a reasonable representation of your responses?
I think the second para sums up my point and those of several other commenters as succinctly as I can. I feel that the third para sums up what I feel I’ve been getting back from you, so am I being fair?
-
I'm not accepting blame for defending the truth. You go scrub it with your false rhetoric. Go quote me where I posted something that's false.
-
You're absolutely right. Let no one say otherwise. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
I just want to know if that’s a fair representation of our interactions. It’s a yes or no answer. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
The point being, the third para is not actually a response to the thing being said in the second para if you actually read it through.
So, if you think it’s not a fair representation, the next question would be, what have you been saying that I’ve missed?
If it is a fair representation is, the question remains what’s your actual response to the second para?
I think you’d struggle to find a jazz musician who wouldn’t basically agree with it, but maybe I’m wrong.
-
For example, this statement is not a contradiction of the statement in the second para. I said ‘you sometimes…’ Read it carefully. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
(Second you’ve described a correlation but not necessarily a causation. But let’s park that for a minute.)
this isn’t rhetoric, it’s understanding what’s actually being said and not just reacting angrily to what you think is being said.
-
Christian, he speaks English. What he said is what he said. It doesn't need to be represented (presented again), it is what it is. Why repeat it differently?
It moves the discussion from the subject of theory to a dispute about personal interpretations. Not necessary. Cut and paste a direct quote and respond to it as is.
-
I’ve been doing that for six months mate. I’m trying a different approach. Originally Posted by ragman1
I think some people just go in with an adversarial mind set. Believe it or not I’m trying to point out to Jimmy where we agree, define where we disagree (and my reasons for doing so) and trying to clarify the way we are talking about this.
I don’t think it’s useful to bandy words like ‘theory’ around if one person is go to respond as if the word is being used in a different way. Notice that when I don’t use the ‘t’ word, things kind of cool down.
-
Oh, okay! Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Anyway, apart from a rather hazy line as to where theory begins and ends, there's no question, hopefully, that theory is necessary to fully understand and play jazz.
That's not in dispute, is it?
-
Don't forget that there are most musicians who know the theory and are poor jazz musicians.
All theoreticians are brilliant musicians - this is not so!
Where is the artistry in all of this?
-
Yeah it really depends how you define theory so I’ll be more specific. Here are some opinions: Originally Posted by ragman1
Instrumental technique aside, what’s the most important things for an aspiring beginning jazzer to work on?
Acquiring jazz vocabulary, preferably by ear, and applying to tunes. learning repertoire, again preferably by ear as much as possible.
Do I think you need to know all the stuff in the Berklee jazz theory syllabus to play bebop?
No.
Do you need to minutely analyse the harmony of bop lines to apply them to a tune?
No.
Do you need to be able to read a lead sheet?
Yes (most likely)
Do you need to have a thorough command of your instrument?
Yes
Do you need to know the names of the notes you play on the fretboard?
No, but it’s helpful professionally to be able to read
Is Berklee style theory never useful?
No.
It may actually be essential for contemporary jazz, not sure. At the higher levels of developing your music, theory can be a useful tool for inspiration. As ravel said, you need to sit at the piano to invent harmonies you can’t already hear.
etc etc.
-
Christian,
When I listen to what some people play on the forum, I get the impression that there is no theory.
Reply With Quote
Eastman Jazz Elite 16 for les Paul or small body semi.
Today, 08:36 AM in For Sale