Two categories of Jazz guitarists

[mr. beaumont]

Knowledge won't hurt - it can only help IMHO.

I agree, with my usual caveat of making sure you actually "know" something as opposed to "knowing of it."

Jazz learners like to make things complicated, for whatever reason. If you think about what improvising a single note line is, at it's core, it's a simple concept. The chord changes, you change. You create a melody that sounds coherent and addresses the harmony of the music.

The problem is there's a million access points for making that work. And I think some folks frustrate themselves...they dip into one thing, get frustrated with the fact that it takes a LONG time and LOT of practice to get good at it, so they dip again somewhere else...and again...and again...

[FuseHead]

I guess I would only say.. "being truly gifted does not come in any book"
I never perceived I had talent or gift, so for me it was all hard work, and not really work I even loved or even liked.

The only thing I ever loved or liked in music was live performance with a band. The rest was work and not work I really even liked.

Best of luck to those that want these sorts of answers.

[lammie200]

I agree, with my usual caveat of making sure you actually "know" something as opposed to "knowing of it."...

I see your point.

The problem is there's a million access points for making that work...

I don't see that as a problem, but as you pointed out, you can't let yourself be distracted by opportunities. You need to focus on the opportunity in front of you and let the next one present itself.

[MarkRhodes]

I've quoted this before, but I love Pat Metheny talking about Wes from the liner ntoes of the Jazz Icons DVD:

Thanks for that. This touches on what is (for me) the most important part of this "myth" as it touches on a young player: If you think Wes did all that without knowing anything, well, what's the advantage of knowing? (<<<I'm not saying that is a good question for a thoughtful adult who has mastered something or other to ask, but it is almost inevitable for a frustrated novice to ask.)

On a larger front, I think some earlier biographers of jazz musicians (some of whom did not themselves know much about music, just knew what they liked) emphasized the non-musical parts of people's lives (-who they slept with, how much they made and lost, whether they used narcotics and if so which ones to what extent and so on, + road stories) rather than what they practiced, how they learned, how they composed, what they knew (musically) inside-out and what they didn't know well at all. In a way, calling someone a "natural" relieves the writer of the work of explaining what was so special about him.

This is fine for non-musicians who read biographies of celebrity musicians only because they are celebrities. There's a place for that. But there should also be a place where musicians who really want to understand how jazz musicians develop to read about that too. (Paul Berliner's "Thinking In Jazz" is that kind of book.)

As a thoughtful adult who has learned a thing or two (and not just about music) I would be interested to know how Wes thought about improvising. It may be of no help to me in my playing, but I would be interested to know.

[jameslovestal]

The last three years I have been playing with a classical pianist who wants to learn jazz. This guy can sight read very well. I can read music (as a child I played classical violin), but not sight read. (e.g. I can't play a tune in 'real time' I have never heard before from reading the music, but for this pianist it isn't a problem at all).

When we started this pianist couldn't even play a 1\4\5 blues tune. He asked for the music but lead sheets were not useful. I got him an Aebersold transcription of one of the volumes (this showed the exact notes being played by the piano for the harmony). We focused on Summertime. He could sight read this and sounded just like the Aebersold recording (which I also provided) after a few weeks. The problem was without this music in front of him he was helpless. I.e. it didn't teach him how to play jazz piano. It took another year for him to apply what was in those transcriptions to playing music. E.g. how to approach 4 bars of a minor 7 chord, or a 2-5-1, or non-functioning Dom7 chords (Sweet Georgia Brown progression).

But he still can't play 'new' songs very well. I.e. the need for detailed sheet music is still out there.

[John A.]

On a larger front, I think some earlier biographers of jazz musicians (some of whom did not themselves know much about music, just knew what they liked) emphasized the non-musical parts of people's lives (-who they slept with, how much they made and lost, whether they used narcotics and if so which ones to what extent and so on, + road stories) rather than what they practiced, how they learned, how they composed, what they knew (musically) inside-out and what they didn't know well at all. In a way, calling someone a "natural" relieves the writer of the work of explaining what was so special about him.

This is fine for non-musicians who read biographies of celebrity musicians only because they are celebrities. There's a place for that. But there should also be a place where musicians who really want to understand how jazz musicians develop to read about that too. (Paul Berliner's "Thinking In Jazz" is that kind of book.)

As a thoughtful adult who has learned a thing or two (and not just about music) I would be interested to know how Wes thought about improvising. It may be of no help to me in my playing, but I would be interested to know.

As a practioner of [craft/discipline/art] I have never read a book written for a layperson that conveys how [craft/discipline/art] is practiced or offers anything other than inapt metaphors for what [craft/discipline/art] actually means. OK, maybe a bit hyperbolic, but I think it's close to impossible to describe what it's like to carry out a complex practice like music in a "meta" fashion. You can instruct and inform people in how to carry out the practice and help them implement it, but there's no description that duplicates the experience of actually doing the thing. "Writing about music is like dancing about architecure" rings true to me because the only thing that's really like playing music is playing music (just as the only thing that's really like writing a poem, or making a scientific discovery, or swimming, or ... is doing one of those things.)

John

John

[docbop]

The "Wes didn't know anything about music" myth has been debunked over and over and over and...

I always heard he had amazing ears and understood "sounds" and how to use and play thru the sounds.I've never seen where he viewed things from a theory based labeling system. George Benson is pretty much the same except he's learned some basic theory terminology. Both have great ears and memory for sounds.

[plasticpigeon]

I am a bit obsessed with Wes, and the reason I and probably many others want to know how good his music theory knowledge was, is to try and get a handle on what is important when trying to learn to play jazz (on the guitar). Personally I think there is a tendency to try and deconstruct and understand all sorts of subjects in an academic sense, when that isn't the most important thing to spend ones time doing, particularly when learning a skill, such as music, painting, stone masonry, wood carving, playing football or whatever. In the society I live in (UK), I think I (we) need to be constantly reminded that academic knowledge is not everything, and knowledge of how the greats approached their instrument can help get me back on track. However having said that I am certain Wes Montgomery understood loads about how to compose tunes and how to approach new tunes from a theoretical point of view as well as practical. He talks about resolving chords in this very awkward interview, and goes on to talk about how Nelson Symonds hits all the changes. Sounds like he knew very well what he was on about! Wes was so good it is easy to write him off as a freak savant, or a shamen channeling knowledge from a deity or similar, but I'm sure he was in reality a super smart and talented guy who worked super hard at something he loved to do.

[MarkRhodes]

"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture" rings true to me because the only thing that's really like playing music is playing music (just as the only thing that's really like writing a poem, or making a scientific discovery, or swimming, or ... is doing one of those things.)

I thought of that line when I was making my post! Yet I think some people have written well about music.

First, musicians know what it is like to be a musician and some musicians write well. If you've never read "Beneath the Underdog" by Charles Mingus, "Learning to Listen" by Gary Burton, or "Possibilities" by Herbie Hancock, you might want to try them. (Closely related to this would be books containing what some musicians said about themselves and their music in interviews and as-told-to books.)

Second, some good writers (such as Williams Zinsser) are amateur musicians and have a keen ear for music and a keen ability to write. (Zinsser's "Easy To Remember: The Great American Songwriters and Their Songs" is well worth reading.)

Third, some music critics, musicologists, and jazz historians are able to convey a great deal about music through prose. Ted Gioia's "The Jazz Standards: A Guide to the Repertoire" and Gunther Schuller's "The Swing Era" The Development of Jazz, 1930-1945" are fine examples. Also, Paul Berliner's "Thinking In Jazz" passes on what the author learned from a long study of several jazz musicians who were open with him about how they developed as players. (Thick appendix on that one, lots of musical notation, no tab. ;o)

Put another way, does anyone think it odd (or pointless or useless or hopeless) to write about architecture? Or painting? Or dance? Or printmaking? Or photography? Or design? Or sculpture?

The relation of "to write" to "music" (in this quote) is not all the same as the relation of "dance" to "architecture."

[dingusmingus]

I've often tried to imagine what it would be like to learn to play jazz very well without even the basics of music theory. We know that Diz and Bird and lots of other guys were actually quite fluent in music theory, but what about the guys who weren't?

To get good at music, it seems you'd still need an organizing framework in your head. You wouldn't know that something is called a tritone substitution, but you'd know what the sound was and how to reliably access it on your instrument. So, you'd be kind of reinventing the wheel, calling it "blue" or something. (I don't think you'd really have a name for it, but you'd have some kind of mental contruct so you could get to it when you want it, right?)

No harm in that, if you've got ears like Django, go for it. But it's just interesting that you'd ultimately wind up in a similar place, at least as I imagine it.

One difference, you wouldn't be able to use musician's shorthand, like Wes does with Pim Jacobs in that video.

edit to add: People mean different things when they say "music theory," kind of a a continuum from simple music terminology (Eb-7, major scale, minor triad, etc) and the knotty stuff (chord subsitutions, lydian chromatic concept, etc).

[mrcee]

[QUOTE=jameslovestal;769529]The last three years I have been playing with a classical pianist who wants to learn jazz. This guy can sight read very well. I can read music (as a child I played classical violin), but not sight read. (e.g. I can't play a tune in 'real time' I have never heard before from reading the music, but for this pianist it isn't a problem at all).

When we started this pianist couldn't even play a 1\4\5 blues tune. He asked for the music but lead sheets were not useful. I got him an Aebersold transcription of one of the volumes (this showed the exact notes being played by the piano for the harmony). We focused on Summertime. He could sight read this and sounded just like the Aebersold recording (which I also provided) after a few weeks. The problem was without this music in front of him he was helpless. I.e. it didn't teach him how to play jazz piano. It took another year for him to apply what was in those transcriptions to playing music. E.g. how to approach 4 bars of a minor 7 chord, or a 2-5-1, or non-functioning Dom7 chords (Sweet Georgia Brown progression).[QUOTE]

There's a problem with how the piano has historically be taught. In the US anyway there are lots of people, usually over the age of 60, that took weekly piano lessons for years and continued to play who sight read well but absolutely cannot play anything without sheet music. Also they often don't know basic triads or much chordal theory so they can't play off of a chord chart. If they find themselves in a band jam situation they'll play a rock or blues tune off the paper and it doesn't work. Playing the verbatim melody behind a singer or soloist. You try and tell them that that's not the way Elton John or Jerry Lee Lewis does it but they never seem to get it. It's just a habit they've picked up over the decades and they're not going, for the most part, to loose it. Like trying to retrain a dog that's a chicken killer. You can't do it. Maybe things have improved since the 60s when the rock and roll revolution happened and students demanded instruction that taught them how to play pop music as would be played in a band. Obviously even amateur jazz pianists don't suffer from this but jazz musicians on whatever level are cut from a different bolt of cloth.

[Lobomov]

But he still can't play 'new' songs very well. I.e. the need for detailed sheet music is still out there.

I have no idea why reading and music theory/musical knowledge has been linked in this thread. Both can easily exist on their own.

[John A.]

I thought of that line when I was making my post! Yet I think some people have written well about music.

First, musicians know what it is like to be a musician and some musicians write well. If you've never read "Beneath the Underdog" by Charles Mingus, "Learning to Listen" by Gary Burton, or "Possibilities" by Herbie Hancock, you might want to try them. (Closely related to this would be books containing what some musicians said about themselves and their music in interviews and as-told-to books.)

Second, some good writers (such as Williams Zinsser) are amateur musicians and have a keen ear for music and a keen ability to write. (Zinsser's "Easy To Remember: The Great American Songwriters and Their Songs" is well worth reading.)

Third, some music critics, musicologists, and jazz historians are able to convey a great deal about music through prose. Ted Gioia's "The Jazz Standards: A Guide to the Repertoire" and Gunther Schuller's "The Swing Era" The Development of Jazz, 1930-1945" are fine examples. Also, Paul Berliner's "Thinking In Jazz" passes on what the author learned from a long study of several jazz musicians who were open with him about how they developed as players. (Thick appendix on that one, lots of musical notation, no tab. ;o)

Put another way, does anyone think it odd (or pointless or useless or hopeless) to write about architecture? Or painting? Or dance? Or printmaking? Or photography? Or design? Or sculpture?

The relation of "to write" to "music" (in this quote) is not all the same as the relation of "dance" to "architecture."

"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture" conveys to me the limits (not the impossibility) of trying to describe an art form, practice, etc, outside the framework of that activity via the language of the layperson. It's not that doing so is pointless, or conveys no information. But it generally fails to convey what a practioner experiences or how the practice actually works and often gets stuck in irrelevancies and mistakes. Criticism written with a practioner's vocabulary is a different story. It may be hard for a layperson to follow, but it's more likely to be genuinely informative. All in all, it's a very tough act to balance.

As to other forms, I also have trouble reading descriptions of visual works. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but IMO not even a thousand words are as helpful as a reproduction of the picture. But all this is different from providing historical, social or biographical context, which doesn't have to rely on conveying technicalities to be informative or interesting, IMO.

John

[jameslovestal]

There's a problem with how the piano has historically be taught. In the US anyway there are lots of people, usually over the age of 60, that took weekly piano lessons for years and continued to play who sight read well but absolutely cannot play anything without sheet music. Also they often don't know basic triads or much chordal theory so they can't play off of a chord chart. If they find themselves in a band jam situation they'll play a rock or blues tune off the paper and it doesn't work. Playing the verbatim melody behind a singer or soloist. You try and tell them that that's not the way Elton John or Jerry Lee Lewis does it but they never seem to get it. It's just a habit they've picked up over the decades and they're not going, for the most part, to loose it. Like trying to retrain a dog that's a chicken killer. You can't do it. Maybe things have improved since the 60s when the rock and roll revolution happened and students demanded instruction that taught them how to play pop music as would be played in a band. Obviously even amateur jazz pianists don't suffer from this but jazz musicians on whatever level are cut from a different bolt of cloth.[/QUOTE]

Wow, it appears you have been listening in on our sessions (ha ha) because what you describe is on-target. How all of this relates to the actual topic here is while having various musical skills like slight reading and theory are useful they can also be limiting (hindrances) when it comes to playing jazz.

For years I was too tied to music theory; e.g. I knew what scales to play over the various chord progressions but it was way too obvious to anyone with an ear for music that that was the case. It took me many years to be able to solo and not sound like a band-in-the-box.

[Alter]

I 've asked the "wes reading question" lots of times, to lots of guitarists playing and teaching the wes style. I don't think anyone had a definite answer At the time wes was around, there were no computers, no multi tracking, no fixing it after the take, etc.. So, "being able to read" maybe meant being able to check a bebop head for like 5 minutes, and then play it? So it probably was easier for a player like wes to learn it by ear, but i don't believe he couldn't read. And i don't think he was an exception in the era on relying more on "hearing" than "reading".

[mrcee]

I've heard that Duke Ellington used to run the tunes down by ear and then pass out the paper.

[nick1994]

it's pretty clear wes knew what he was doing, he knew his stuff, probably just had it organised in different ways. if you look at his lines, they are full of scale patterns, chord subs, arpeggios, targeting chord tones and so on. point is, he knew his way around the harmony. he knew what he was doing

[cosmic gumbo]

A well trained and developed ear, worked by learning countless changes, tunes, cadences, melodies, will always be doing and putting into practice what theory tries to explain...

[mrcee]

Regardless of how much theory Wes knew, and I believe he knew his fair share, imo his playing doesn't always really reflect it in his vocabulary of chords and obvious scalar references in his lines. This is arguable but it's inarguable that it sounds fantastic. The comparison to Benson is apt. He's sort of the polar opposite of someone like Ted Greene who exhibited an encyclopedic knowledge of chords or a CST player.

I'm fascinated with the game of poker and I see some similarities to music. When I'm not practicing I often can be found playing online poker. (9/6 paytable Jacks or Better to be exact). I don't trust the online environment enough to put real money on it but I play anyway more as a study of probability. In a casino or online environment the odds on video poker are possibly the best of any game with the house having only a slight advantage. That slight advantage can eat you alive though over time. Las Vegas and Monte Carlo were not built on winners. And like the racetrack or investment markets there's smart and dumb money.

This relates to music in more than one way. A poker hand is not unlike a chord (or a series of notes in an improvised line) and unless you're finished and walk away from the table there's another hand or note or chord to follow it. It's a progression and the player can choose what cards to hold. Those choices are based on the mathematic laws of probability and there are formal strategies for how to play the almost endless possible hands and outcomes. There are both simple and optimal strategies with the optimal strategy having slightly better odds. But a person can be a winner using a simple strategy. And conversely they can play a perfect optimal strategy and lose their shirt. A player like Wes was using a simple strategy and he was a winner. Django maybe wasn't using any kind of formal strategy but his intuition and instincts made him emerge a winner and if you analyzed his playing I'm sure you'd find his choices to be the same as if he was applying a formal strategy. Players like Ted Greene and Van Eps were using an optimal strategy. And it's wise to keep emotion out of poker, and music, if you follow Hal Galper's advice.

There's a gambler's saying, and this applies to improvisation, that the past doesn't matter. A player can play the greatest, or worst, improvised phrase the world has ever heard but it's what comes next that is important.

[Vladan]

Yup. When I become famous, I'm gonna tell everyone "I can't read, I don't practice and I don't listen to other people. That's the secret to my success. Do it." Keep the competition at bay.
David

Kind of what I've been saying. But I'm not famous.

[Average Joe]

There probably aren't high profile players today who don't know formal theory. I think that for previous generations you could get the job done if you had know how, regardless of whether or not you knew the formal theory. If the Joe Pass instruction books are anything to go by, Pass knew perfectly what would get the job done, but he wasn't necessarily interested in the formal aspect of it. He appeared to prefer to simplify things to practically applicable units of information. More - this is a 7th chord, these notes will work, and less - over this chord you play mode x starting on step y.

Perhaps there is a distinction to be made there. The thinker-player and the get the job done-player. Not that one doesn't have aspects of the other, but there seem to be a distinction between those who like to dissect and those who arent. Or at least there used to be. Is there still room for the latter approach in today's often very academic jazz environment?

[Sam Sherry]

Perhaps there is a distinction to be made there. The thinker-player and the get the job done-player. Not that one doesn't have aspects of the other, but there seem to be a distinction between those who like to dissect and those who arent. Or at least there used to be. Is there still room for the latter approach in today's often very academic jazz environment?

This isn't meant to be snarky and I hope it isn't: I don't know what environment you're in.

I work (over my level) with a lot of players who have learned a lot -- tons of college jazz professors, school band directors and active teachers. Almost every one of them blows theory and scale-choice and nomenclature right out of their nose as soon as they start to play jazz. That is exactly what they are there for. It's beyond intentional -- it's a fundamental fact.

Some years ago I got into a loop of giving clinics to youth jazz players. My message was, "There is always time to learn the Gb Demolished scale in descending thirds later. Right now it's time to listen and play with the people who are with you. It is NEVER too early to listen and play with the people who are with you."

[sgosnell]

Theory, both music and scientific, is an attempt to explain observations. As in "when this happens, we observe that, and a theory of why that sequence occurs is such and such". Someone plays something that is successful, and then someone else tries to explain why. That's theory. The original player doesn't necessarily need any theory at all, just an ear. Theory comes later. IMO people who use theory to plan solos don't often play original or exciting music.

[Average Joe]

This isn't meant to be snarky and I hope it isn't: I don't know what environment you're in.

I work (over my level) with a lot of players who have learned a lot -- tons of college jazz professors, school band directors and active teachers. Almost every one of them blows theory and scale-choice and nomenclature right out of their nose as soon as they start to play jazz. That is exactly what they are there for. It's beyond intentional -- it's a fundamental fact.

Some years ago I got into a loop of giving clinics to youth jazz players. My message was, "There is always time to learn the Gb Demolished scale in descending thirds later. Right now it's time to listen and play with the people who are with you. It is NEVER too early to listen and play with the people who are with you."

No snark percieved . Thanks for the answer

[matt.guitarteacher]

I don't know about 2 types .

Maybe 4:

1. Those who can TALK about music but can't PLAY,
2. Those who can PLAY music but can't TALK about it so much, technically.
3. Those who CAN play AND can talk about what they're doing technically,
4. those who can neither PLAY nor TALK about technical aspects.

Number 1 is better than nothing I suppose. :-) NOBODY wants to be number 4. Number 2, in its pure form, is some kind of romantic ideal , to suit peoples fantasy, and for some, to suit their hopes of being able to one day pull it off - without actually knowing anything.

I'd say the REALITY is that most great players are some variation of number 3, but it's not an all or nothing, 50-50 mix either. It's more like a continuum. How well you can play and how well you can communicate? I don't understand this very strong NEED that so many seem to have - of making them somehow mutually exclusive.