Two categories of Jazz guitarists

[VKat]

Jazz started out as a simple folk improvisation style and to our day developed into highly sophisticated and theoretically justified music art form.

Right now I'm reading a thesis on Jimmy Raney and it's interesting to find out throught the author's research that is backed up by interviews of people who knew J.Raney personally that he was well-trained in composition and was most of all interested in classical music rather than Jazz.
I know quite a few more examples of notable Jazz guitarists including Jim Hall who are well trained theoretically.
On the other hand some interviews in the thesis suggest J.Raney was as much an ear player.

Reading about Wes Montgomery I understand he was on the opposite side of relationships with music theory. All my previous readings about him indicated he never studied theory and could hardly read any score at all. Sort of a pure raw natural talent.

If the latter is true I wonder who else was largely ignorant of music theory and played completely by ear. Maybe Joe Pass?

[mr. beaumont]

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

[MarkRhodes]

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

I would likes some good sources for that. (I do not doubt it; I would just like to have a few good sources.)

When I just Googled Wes Montgomery knowledge of music, this was the first thing to come up, from The Bloom School of Jazz in Chicago:
>>>>Wes Montgomery is considered by many as the greatest jazz guitarist of all time. And to some, the greatest jazz musician to ever take the bandstand. Wes's inability to read music and poor knowledge of written music theory, placed him in a league of his own, as one of the few musicians in jazz history that was able to play purely from the feeling and harmonic direction of a tune, without ever having to be troubled with over-thinking the technicalities behind the music. When you listen to Wes Montgomery play, his poetic charm and ability to restrain and explode at the appropriate moments, gives you a feeling of true narrative that few jazz players are able to master. <<<<
Wes Montgomery | Jazz Greats | Bloom School of Jazz


I don't take that to be the last word on the subject. But nothing came up debunking the idea. Again, I'm not denying the claim Wes knew (some) theory. I am hoping to find a few sources for the claim, that's all. For future reference.

[destinytot]

'Declarative knowledge' vs 'procedural knowledge'. I think the former's essential for teaching.

[grahambop]

On the 'Jazz Icons' DVD Wes runs through 'End of a Love Affair' with the Dutch rhythm section and tells them all the hip chord changes he wants them to use. So he certainly knew the names of all the chords, even if he couldn't read music.

[mr. beaumont]

I would likes some good sources for that. (I do not doubt it; I would just like to have a few good sources.)

When I just Googled Wes Montgomery knowledge of music, this was the first thing to come up, from The Bloom School of Jazz in Chicago:
>>>>Wes Montgomery is considered by many as the greatest jazz guitarist of all time. And to some, the greatest jazz musician to ever take the bandstand. Wes's inability to read music and poor knowledge of written music theory, placed him in a league of his own, as one of the few musicians in jazz history that was able to play purely from the feeling and harmonic direction of a tune, without ever having to be troubled with over-thinking the technicalities behind the music. When you listen to Wes Montgomery play, his poetic charm and ability to restrain and explode at the appropriate moments, gives you a feeling of true narrative that few jazz players are able to master. <<<<
Wes Montgomery | Jazz Greats | Bloom School of Jazz


I don't take that to be the last word on the subject. But nothing came up debunking the idea. Again, I'm not denying the claim Wes knew (some) theory. I am hoping to find a few sources for the claim, that's all. For future reference.

I always just go back to the video where he clearly calls out the chord names and teaches the tune to the band. He speaks in a way that sounds very direct, like he knew his stuff.

I also don't know where Bloom gets the idea that Wes never had to be troubled by the technicalities of the music. To play at his level, you have to be obsessed with the technicalities! Just the right technicalities...if you transcribe Wes, you see his grasp of harmony, how he superimposed sounds over chords to get new sounds, how he understood chord construction. He just was obsessed with the right details...not most of the junk we talk about here!

As for being able to read, I don't have any proof of that. But one need not read to understand music.

[destinytot]

@14m

[MarkRhodes]

'Declarative knowledge' vs 'procedural knowledge'. I think the former's essential for teaching.

I appreciate that distinction. With Wes, though, I had heard he didn't know anything about music theory but as I grew older I realized that seemed to be assumed rather than demonstrated.

Much writing about jazz---and rock and blues musicians---seems to WANT them to know nothing theoretical about music, so that it all "instinct" or something.

Some years ago there was a debate about whether jazz critics should know much of anything about music theory; one camp argued no, they were better off NOT knowing because that made their response to the music more authentic. I didn't find that persuasive, though many others did.

I realized I didn't know anything about how Wes started out and what he learned. If he could do all he did with a minimal understanding of music theory, good for him. But if he had some, that is good too. I really don't know what Wes knew (-in the "declarative knowledge" sense).

[lawson-stone]

'Declarative knowledge' vs 'procedural knowledge'. I think the former's essential for teaching.

I find one model of knowledge that helps me a lot in music. Michael Polanyi writes about "explicit" and "tacit" knowing. Explicit knowing is focal and conceptual, while tacit knowing is more bodily and conceptually subsidiary. Lots of traffic back and forth between these two dimensions of knowing.

I think musical performance, in which the kinesthetic, sensory, affective, and cognitive domains all participate heavily is perhaps one of the most complex types of knowing imaginable.

[MarkRhodes]

I seem to remember Steve Kahn talking about Wes. (Steve published a book of Wes transcriptions many years ago.) IIRC, Steve was taken by his father to see Wes when he (Steve) was very young. I think he saw Wes several times and talked to him, peppered Wes with questions about this and that aspect of his playing. Wes didn't seem to have answers. I don't know if that's because he thought a child couldn't follow them or because he didn't think about music in that way.

This is a hazy memory. Someone with Kahn's book may be able to check and let us know what he (Steve) really said about his sense of Wes's musical knowledge.

[destinytot]

I appreciate that distinction. With Wes, though, I had heard he didn't know anything about music theory but as I grew older I realized that seemed to be assumed rather than demonstrated.

Much writing about jazz---and rock and blues musicians---seems to WANT them to know nothing theoretical about music, so that it all "instinct" or something.

Some years ago there was a debate about whether jazz critics should know much of anything about music theory; one camp argued no, they were better off NOT knowing because that made their response to the music more authentic. I didn't find that persuasive, though many others did.

I realized I didn't know anything about how Wes started out and what he learned. If he could do all he did with a minimal understanding of music theory, good for him. But if he had some, that is good too. I really don't know what Wes knew (-in the "declarative knowledge" sense).

Quite a minefield... in my opinion the most compelling argument I've heard for why a player might need to acquire what I'm calling 'declarative knowledge' is so as not to be fooled or put off by critics and dissenters.

But there are diminishing returns, and I suspect such was the case with Wes.

[destinytot]

I find one model of knowledge that helps me a lot in music. Michael Polanyi writes about "explicit" and "tacit" knowing. Explicit knowing is focal and conceptual, while tacit knowing is more bodily and conceptually subsidiary. Lots of traffic back and forth between these two dimensions of knowing.

I think musical performance, in which the kinesthetic, sensory, affective, and cognitive domains all participate heavily is perhaps one of the most complex types of knowing imaginable.

'Talking about it' is yet another (abstract) representation of 'what is' - or rather 'what seems to be', which is to say 'what is, at least for practical purposes'.

But it's only 'talking'.

[TH]

I know quite a few more examples of notable Jazz guitarists including Jim Hall who are well trained theoretically.
On the other hand some interviews in the thesis suggest J.Raney was as much an ear player.

You're right on. There are two categories of jazz guitarists. But the line is drawn in a different way.
Those that play (improvise): They know theory and use it. They love to swim, it's a big pond.
And those that don't play: Theoretically, they can swim, they know all about it; they just never liked the idea of getting wet.

David

[mr. beaumont]

I seem to remember Steve Kahn talking about Wes. (Steve published a book of Wes transcriptions many years ago.) IIRC, Steve was taken by his father to see Wes when he (Steve) was very young. I think he saw Wes several times and talked to him, peppered Wes with questions about this and that aspect of his playing. Wes didn't seem to have answers. I don't know if that's because he thought a child couldn't follow them or because he didn't think about music in that way.

This is a hazy memory. Someone with Kahn's book may be able to check and let us know what he (Steve) really said about his sense of Wes's musical knowledge.

Depends on the questions too.

Sometimes, even if you know your stuff, specific questions are hard to answer if your thinking is broader conceptually.

You see this all the time, at clinics. A student asks a question (one they've probably been formulating for hours so that they sound "smart") like "I noticed on the bridge to (whatever) you kick off your solo line with a locrian #2 scale. What was your thinking there?" and the player is usually like "I did? cool."

[John A.]

I don't have sources handy at the moment, but there are multiple interviews with Wes and people who knew him (e.g., Orrin Keepnews and Buddy Montgomery), and they actually give conflicting accounts of how well Wes could read. Buddy implies that he couldn't even spell out notes (which seems pretty implausible to me); others (including Wes) say that he could read well enough to learn tunes if he had time, but couldn't sight read. He didn't have much formal training (SFAIK, no one has ever been cited as Wes's teacher), and he learned by teaching himself and by getting guidance from people he played with, but that doesn't mean he was unsophisticated. The video Jeff cites (where he shows a group of dutch players how to back-cycle and uses functional harmony terminology) quite clearly shows that he knew what was going on in tunes on an intellectual, not just intuitional, level. There are a lot of people in that camp.

Tal Farlow is another -- there's an interview with him where he goes into really deep detail on harmony and composition, while at the same time saying he couldn't sight read. In that same interview, he also goes on at considerable length about designing and building electronic devices. They guy was not some sort of "savant". He was just really smart, but happened not to have gone to college (nor did Ben Franklin, or Leonardo DaVinci, or Bach, or Frederick Douglass, or ...).

I think the main insight one should draw from this is that the combination of self-teaching, learning from peers, and learning via quasi-apprenticeship with more experienced band-leaders is a very effective way to learn how to play jazz. Not having a conservatory diploma is not a marker of lack of training or knowledge.

Also, the OP's premise that jazz "started out as a simple folk improvisation style" is pretty shaky. By the time jazz became recognizable as such (or at least was recorded) it was neither simple nor a "folk" form. Jazz was born in cities that were cultural crossroads, among sophisticated people. It has antecedents in folk forms, but all of human culture started as as simple folk forms, so that's not really saying anything. The people usually cited as the earliest jazz musicians were urban, aware of multiple musical traditions, in many cases literate, and born and raised in a time and place of huge cultural ferment.

John

[Binyomin]

I would likes some good sources for that. (I do not doubt it; I would just like to have a few good sources.)

When I just Googled Wes Montgomery knowledge of music, this was the first thing to come up, from The Bloom School of Jazz in Chicago:
>>>>Wes Montgomery is considered by many as the greatest jazz guitarist[COLOR=#555252][FONT=Arial] of all time. And to some, the greatest jazz musician to ever take the bandstand. [U]Wes's inability to read music and poor knowledge of written music theory, placed him in a league of his own, as one of the few musicians in jazz history that was able to play purely from the feeling and harmonic direction of a tune....

Are there so few of them? Erroll Garner and Stan Getz come to mind. Tal Farlow says in an interview somewhere that he couldn't really read music but he could decipher it if given enough time.

[medblues]

Not a guitarist but Dr. Lonnie Smith is pretty much going by ear all the time according to what I read. Confirmations/refutations ?

[mr. beaumont]

I always wonder why people wonder about this so much.

I mean, if you had proof Wes couldn't read a lick, would you say "Well, if Wes didn't read, I don't need to?"

[Binyomin]

I always wonder why people wonder about this so much.

I mean, if you had proof Wes couldn't read a lick, would you say "Well, if Wes didn't read, I don't need to?"

Actually the opposite (I need to teach you guys the word "adaraba"): you read about someone like Erroll Garner and say I'll never be on that level.

[MarkRhodes]

You see this all the time, at clinics. A student asks a question (one they've probably been formulating for hours so that they sound "smart") like "I noticed on the bridge to (whatever) you kick off your solo line with a locrian #2 scale. What was your thinking there?" and the player is usually like "I did? cool."

Carol Kaye says Joe Pass answered the question after a show, "What were you thinking at such-and-such a point?" with "That I had to pick up a quart of milk on the way home."

I suppose musicians who get asked the same question (or same sort of question) over and over come up with pat answers for them.

[MarkRhodes]

I think the main insight one should draw from this is that the combination of self-teaching, learning from peers, and learning via quasi-apprenticeship with more experienced band-leaders is a very effective way to learn how to play jazz. Not having a conservatory diploma is not a marker of lack of training or knowledge.

I think so too. I think that was the norm for a long time.

Lack of formal schooling doesn't mean lack of learning. If you know how to read--I mean here English, or Spanish, or French, not music--you know how to read, whether you learned it at school or at home.

Sight reading is important to those who must (or hope to) play in situations that call for it. I don't think the question of whether one can sight-read is central to the question of whether one understands music, and it's less related to the question of whether one can improvise convincingly on jazz standards.

The basics of music theory are not beyond anyone of normal intelligence. It's not some special feat to learn them. Some do, some don't. Many pick up a little here and there along the way and are unsure how much they actually know. (Because the question of how much of it they know does not concern them.)

That said, and going back to the OP, some players in the history of jazz have been primarily "ear players" while others have taken a more conceptual approach. It does not mean "ear players" cannot think or that the thinkers can't hear. It's a question of prevalence and convenience. Some have used the conceptual approach to reach a point where they become, in their own minds, "ear players" while someone with a great ear may develop a keen analytical sense and look at some compositions and improvisations as puzzles to solve. That may be what keeps them engaged.

[TH]

I always wonder why people wonder about this so much.

I mean, if you had proof Wes couldn't read a lick, would you say "Well, if Wes didn't read, I don't need to?"

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

[dingusmingus]

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

These few minutes in discussion with pianist Jacobs lay to rest one of the mythologies surrounding Wes and the nature of his musicianship. How often in liner notes and articles have we been dutifully reminded of Wes’ supposed inability to read music, the fact that he was “self-taught” and all of the other points of lore trotted out to somehow mystify the genius that is utterly self-evident in the legacy that is his music?

In a particularly illuminating exchange, we see Wes discussing the harmony with pianist Jacobs. In requesting one of his favorite variations on the tune’s descending harmonies we hear a musician not only fluent in the traditional nomenclature of harmony, but one who is thoroughly enlightened, eloquent and direct. (Instead of Bb-7/Eb7/AbMaj7 direct to the following Ab-7/Db7/GbMaj7, Wes requests that an additional II-V anticipating the next change a half step higher be added to set up the next sequence, resulting in Bb-7/Eb7/AbMaj7/A-7/D7/ then onto Ab-7/Db7/GbMaj7 etc.)


It is somewhat of a relief to hear him lay it out in such clear musical vocabulary. It was always apparent in Wes’ music that he had devised one of the most detailed harmonic conceptions ever on the instrument, and as a beginner, when I read album notes and magazine pieces that harped on some kind of almost savant-like description of Wes’ insight into musical invention, I often struggled with trying to imagine how exactly he might have arrived at some of the amazingly ingenious results that infuse his playing without at least occasionally thinking in these kinds of terms (tritone relationships, substitutions, etc.).

The whole piece is great:
Pat Metheny : Writings: Wes Montgomery Jazz Icons DVD Liner Notes

[lammie200]

...placed him in a league of his own, as one of the few musicians in jazz history that was able to play purely from the feeling and harmonic direction of a tune, without ever having to be troubled with over-thinking the technicalities behind the music. ...

I am no Wes Montgomery by a long shot, but the above is why I picked up the guitar in the first place. It wasn't my job, and wasn't going to be my job to play guitar for a living. I didn't need to know everything about music theory to enjoy playing. Now I want to know more, but I don't knock myself for only knowing what I do know. That said, if you stay at this long enough you might know more than you think you do. Pretty sure that is where I am at.

Carol Kaye says Joe Pass answered the question after a show, "What were you thinking at such-and-such a point?" with "That I had to pick up a quart of milk on the way home."...

I have seen a Joe Pass video where he was having trouble ending a tune. When he finished he said he thought that the song would never end. Clearly he was searching for some sort of resolution to end the tune and hunted to find it. You would think that someone that knew all about music theory wouldn't have had to do that. Ultimately, I think that someone like Joe Pass relies on a combination of knowledge, technique, and feel to improvise. In the case above, he may have been using less knowledge and more technique and feel. Knowledge won't hurt - it can only help IMHO.

[John A.]

I always wonder why people wonder about this so much.

I mean, if you had proof Wes couldn't read a lick, would you say "Well, if Wes didn't read, I don't need to?"

I think some people have this idea that knowledge and profieciency come through a narrow definition of formal study. When they see people who arrive at that profieciency by other paths they don't quite know how to process that; they're like "wow, how did he do that? he must have been some sort of special natural genius -- I mean he couldn't even read!" Well, the seven wonders of the ancient world were built by people who didn't have calculus or a theory of gravity. The pyramids are still standing.

John