-
Haha sorry about BH.
I don't need to characterize musicians as theory or ear. Most good advanced musicians are gonna be a mix. I had the discussion with my teacher Tony Monaco if he thought his peers all use theory and he said yes.
Probably a good example of a pretty feral ear guy is my favorite popular music musician: Cobain. He did a shit ton with very little. He took drums in middle school band, got a guitar in 9th grade, took a couple lessons, and that was it for his music education. He figured the rest out or learned it from his peers and became a genius.Last edited by Bobby Timmons; 07-02-2024 at 12:39 AM.
-
07-01-2024 11:28 PM
-
Ear players, if they sound good, simply integrated sounds they heard others do, but those "others" probably did the groundwork using theory to help their lines make sense. And if those others didn't, then somewhere down the line they absorbed sounds that originated from someone who very likely did.
Making up your own sounds with a little help from theory just cuts out the middle man
. OK, so your own theoretically based lines won't make you sound like Cannonball Adderley, but it probably will win you some points for originality if you manage to find your own spin. Mix that up with some solid "handed down" vocab and bingo, you're a gigging modern jazz guitarist. Or go off on your own tangent and be even more modern- just with less gigs! 
-
Alternative music for youngsters is important, for a lot of reasons, and I followed it for years. But 5 or 7 decades of Garage Rock has uncovered very few "geniuses", and I dare say that Cobain was not one of them. Unless by "genius" you mean a rare proclivity for becoming exceedingly popular? But then, that would make Taylor Swift a genius... ?
Originally Posted by Bobby Timmons
-
Whoa whoa whoa whoa ... I happen to think Taylor Swift is a genius. Originally Posted by princeplanet
Anyway ... I've never been a huge Nirvana guy, but I would say that Cobain's genius is for songwriting, as a lyricist. Less so for the music itself. That would seem to be the important distinction here.
And also it's kind of apples and oranges ... lots of rock guys are pure ear guys. By some tellings that would include Hendrix, Prince, and Slash, among loads of others.
Jazz guys ... fewer.
-
Well, I certainly have respect for Cobain's lyrics. T.S. not so much. Willing to be schooled though. Could you point me to one song where her lyrics are special in any way? Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
Eh ... lots of good ones ... Red, Ivy, Stay Stay Stay, plenty out there that might hit a person the right way. Originally Posted by princeplanet
But I think her genius is more of the Bowie, MJ variety. Not so much a musician as a live concept artist.
Anyway ... this MIGHT be a discussion for another thread.
-
Is this in my head? I don't know what to think
He knelt to the ground and pulled out a ring
And said, Marry me, Juliet
You'll never have to be alone
I love you and that's all I really know
I talked to your dad, go pick out a white dress
It's a love story, baby, just say, "Yes"
Bop Lol
-
I only come to these threads to renew my astonishment that people believe in jazz theory. I prefer the wisdom of Paul Desmond: "Milton, of all people, gave the most perfect definition of the state of mind required to play jazz: 'with wanton heed and giddy cunning.' That's how you play jazz."
-
I love that quote! Thanks, I just remember it! Originally Posted by Litterick
-
But nothing to say about T Swift. Originally Posted by Litterick
-
If I understand it correctly, in the way you use the term "theory": Originally Posted by pamosmusic
- Knowing common harmonic and arrangement devices and knowing their names as they are commonly described in music texts (such as #IVdim to I) is not theory.
- Hearing and identifying the sort of voice movements that create the #IVdim to I effect is also not theory. (obviously you can't lead any voicing of #IVdim to any voicing of I and expect it to work the same).
But the ability to describe these voice movements intervallically is theory?
That's what I mean when I say that these "theory is bad" threads are close to meaningless without a clear definition of what people mean by theory.
Most musicians who are theory averse would find Barry Harris pedagogy very intimidating and theoretical. In fact, it is likely that the OP is also in this camp. Of course we won't know unless he elaborates a bit what he specifically means by it.
On the other hand, you have people who strongly endorse the BH approach and claim to have learned a lot from it and at the same time criticize theoretical teaching organizations that utilize notions like scales without a hint of irony. Clearly what they mean by theory is something very unique to their experience but is not obvious enough that it's reasonable to assume that when someone says theory, that's what they also mean.
-
Hey, original poster here. What I think of as theory is when one takes the musical knowledge (and by that I mean real-time available performance know-how) and “translates” it into non-performance offline information usually expressed in a combination of notation, English language and math. I am not theory averse, by any means, especially when it has useful information that I can take and bring to life with my playing. For example reading notated music and any exposition about what’s happening is useful. However, when the dissection of music goes so deeply into the weeds that it’s an academic self serving tomb (ok, in the extreme) it serves little purpose but to amuse other academics. The thing is, I can glean so much from music just by listening to it that I don’t need the intermediary steps of notation, English and math to describe it. Perhaps it’s because I’ve no interest in reproduction of anyone else’s work, and all I care about is improvising I live the majority of my time as an ear player. I think if anyone listens to my work that will be readily apparent. Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
Tal: the definition of theory isn't up for interpretation. By definition, theory is information explaining music that is communicated in language that is not music. BH not being theory is ridiculous.
That's how you play jazz, Litterick, with some knowledge of the mechanics of it. There's example after example of the greats using theory. But we don't know if you can successfully play it in the first place, so your naive, yet arrogant and accusatory ideal makes sense. Originally Posted by Litterick
-
It is possible that some people enjoy the academic aspect of music theory. But when it comes to jazz improvisation, I think a lot of people have more practical goals. Originally Posted by Mark Kleinhaut
For example, you may identify that some of the dominant language of the original bebop musicians come from the harmonic minor scale. That may inform how you practice making lines over altered dominant chords. The idea is practicing this way may help you organize your instrument, build phrasal muscle memory and in turn train your ears for the types of sounds you like to play. The assumption is that practicing this way will gradually improve your expressive freedom during performances when you are actually improvising. That doesn't mean that if you transcribe your lines, they will always strictly correspond to, say, the harmonic minor scale. But you got better at hearing your ideas before playing them and these ideas have some higher level direction.Last edited by Tal_175; 07-02-2024 at 09:17 AM.
-
Okay … I didn’t say that Barry Harris doesn’t use theory. Originally Posted by Bobby Timmons
I said he seems like someone who doesn’t really organize or interpret the music that way.
And the dictionary definition of theory is pretty straightforward.
When I teach young children, the “theory” is teaching them note names and rhythm values. When I teach high schoolers, it’s intervals and triad spellings. Older students it’s maybe diatonic chords etc. I just don’t think that’s really a helpful bar when you’re talking about whether or not a jazz musician is theory-oriented, because you’re probably not going to find any jazz musicians who don’t know that stuff. So pointing out that Hank Jones refers to chords doesn’t really tell me much about how he really organizes the music.
Honestly when I’m coming up with new sounds, I’m often sitting with paper and pencil and working out possibilities and then training my ear on them after I’ve come up with what theoretically might work. Thats what I mean when I’m talking about a theory-oriented player.
-
I agree about BH. But I think the term "theory" is highly interpretive as it's used by musicians. Originally Posted by Bobby Timmons
-
And I think Barry Harris’s approach is its own sort of theory. Which is kind of instructive.
He doesn’t really adhere to the usual theoretical rules, probably because he went to the music first and found what worked and internalized it and then came up with the explanations later. When I think about Barry Harris, I do it the opposite way. I think about his rules and ideas, try them all, and see what I like and what works for me.
That would be the fundamental difference I’m talking about.
Almost uses some mix of this, but there are people who fall on the far ends of the spectrum.
(I also could be totally wrong about Barry Harris, just the impression I get)
-
I know, that's why I didn't counter you directly the first time you explained yourself. Originally Posted by pamosmusic
Why would that be? Did you study with him and ask him what his thought process was? He has these elaborate theory systems that he teaches with, but he doesn't use them when playing? Have you not watched the BH videos where he hashes out his thought processes in theory while playing at the piano?I said he seems like someone who doesn’t really organize or interpret the music that way. (I also could be totally wrong about Barry Harris, just the impression I get)
I'm not the one confused about the definition.And the dictionary definition of theory is pretty straightforward.
Why do you have you polarly categorize a player as ear or theory? We know that the majority of good players, past and present, utilize both theory and their musicality to play. But that they fall in different parts of the spectrum. I understand your distinction between players that theory everything up like Coltrane or Martino and players that have base knowledge but then more or less just play, but that's just different degrees of using theory. Neither is a purely ear approach.I just don’t think that’s really a helpful bar when you’re talking about whether or not a jazz musician is theory-oriented, because you’re probably not going to find any jazz musicians who don’t know that stuff. So pointing out that Hank Jones refers to chords doesn’t really tell me much about how he really organizes the music.
Doesn't matter if many people have opinions which are false empirically, they're still false. Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
Got it … I don’t think anyone at all said it though, so not sure why it needed to be countered at all. Originally Posted by Bobby Timmons
Yes I have seen those. For what it's worth, a big reason for the existence of theory at all is as a teaching/learning tool. Since Barry Harris was acting in the role of educator in those videos, I'm not sure the way he talks about what he's doing is the way he arrived at what he's doing. If it works better maybe Peter Bernstein is a good example. Lessons with him were very much oriented around what to listen to and copy to help correct problems I was having. Didnt really mention harmony at all (except for a spot in a tune that I was just playing wrong). That doesn’t mean he doesn’t know loads about harmony (he does) it’s just not the way he’s organizing the music. Brad Shepik on the other hand, would listen to me play and then print out reams of paper with different conceptual things I should be working on to iron out issues he was hearing. He also has a wonderful ear and talked about the tunes and transcribing etc etc.Why would that be? Did you study with him and ask him what his thought process was? He has these elaborate theory systems that he teaches with, but he doesn't use them when playing? Have you not watched the BH videos where he hashes out his thought processes in theory while playing at the piano?
Barry kind of reminds me of Jordan Klemons (who I do know really well). Jordan has this fairly elaborate system worked out, but it’s worked out in such a way that a person could sort of plug and play. He’s very fundamentally an ear-oriented guy, which I think some people might find surprising. It’s hard to explain why I classify him that way. He can get on pretty deeply about theory but there’s an orientation to it that is quite different. I don’t know.
These thought process things are very interesting to me and I sort of thought that’s what the thread was about.
I mean sure. But the way you’re applying it isn’t terribly useful unless we’re thinking that Mark finds chord construction and stuff to be challenging and confusing? I kind of don’t think that’s the case, so I imagined he was talking about some higher order stuff. Could be wrong though.I'm not the one confused about the definition.
I don’t think I’ve done this at all. I’ve said it’s a spectrum and that everyone uses some mix of these things about a dozen times. That’s the l reason why I think pointing out that Wes Montgomery knows chord names isn’t particularly useful in distinguishing him from other improvisers.Why do you have you polarly categorize a player as ear or theory? We know that the majority of good players, past and present, utilize both theory and their musicality to play. But that they fall in different parts of the spectrum. I understand your distinction between players that theory everything up like Coltrane or Martino and players that have base knowledge but then more or less just play, but that's just different degrees of using theory. Neither is a purely ear approach.
”Math” has a definition, but when I’m talking about whether or not someone is “a math guy” that’s highly interpretive. It’s not super useful, when you're talking about engineers or something, to point out that everyone can count to their age, or whatever. When an engineer talks about what “a math guy” is, they’re talking about something else, pretty obviously. That’s what Tal is asking and what I’m trying to answer.Doesn't matter if many people have opinions which are false empirically, they're still false.
-
OK, you've obviously chosen a particularly bad example for comic effect? I mean, if you (or anyone) thought these were in any way "good" lyrics, and that you couldn't have done better yourself as a 12 year old, then I'm sorry, but I can't be your friend. Originally Posted by Bobby Timmons
-
Honestly this is kind of hobby horse but I feel like one of the absolutely best places to pull some arranging techniques is top 40 pop. Originally Posted by princeplanet
Also I just feel like, as a learner, the move is generally to take something I don’t care for and try and figure out why it objectively does work. Because if it’s on top 40 radio, it objectively does its thing very well. It’s way easier to try to think of all the reasons why 70% of the world is an idiot, than to try and think of the ways that 14-yo Taylor Swift might have gotten something 33-yo me might have missed. It’s easier but I tend to learn less that way.
Hanif Abdurraqib is a really interesting writer on that stuff. Writes really beautifully and unironically about a lot of great pop music. He has a particularly soft spot for Carly Rae Jepson, Ariana Grande, and Pop Punk of all varieties.
-
I’ll go back to the first pojnt. Music theory by analysis is simplification of music. For example, “an authentic cadence is V-I.” “Bird’s line here is from the Lydian dominant.”
In both case the language used disguises the assumptions made and incompleteness of the theoretical description.
Due to the very nature of using this type of categorisation, you lose information from theoretical analysis - where theory can be useful to the musician is if it distils some aspect of music that can be used to create further music. Not every V-I is an idiomatic authentic cadence, not every lydian dominant line has the characteristics of bebop line.
It’s obvious really.
So in a sense, useful music theory can be a form of creative simplification, perhaps even productive misunderstanding. People think it’s more than it is though.
I think this quite an important point, so I’m sure someone’s made it before lol.
I can think of no exceptions in the realm of music theory off the top of my head.
Music on the other hand - there’s a poetry in a simple melodic line that a scale lacks. There’s a magic to it that theory can’t get to that’s a product of human beings.
So that’s why I call theory prosaic.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
BH OTOH isn’t an analytical theory, it’s a way of putting together jazz material.
Obviously Barry did a LOT of analysis to get to that point. But i was always struck by the lack of emphasis on analysis in his lessons.
Otoh it is very detailed. We might be able to encapsulate the notes C E G Bb as a C7 chord , and then talk about a descending scale run of however long and using this rule etc - and notice no information is lost.
It’s a description of actual music on a 1:1 level. It’s as terse as you can get without losing some info. That may be theory to some but actually I think it’s quite different to the general terms used in most theory ‘play x notes on y chord’ etc.
Most often he’d sing it to you too.
Don’t get the wrong end of the stick from well meaning but flawed YouTube vids (including mine no doubt.)
In any case all that stuff can clearly be seen on the records, but it won’t make you swing.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Ideas of music theory I have come across
- describing music by a means other than music
- knowing how to transpose for alto sax and how many quavers make up a bar of 7/8
- that thing you just said that I’m going to say might confuse the OP, definitely nothing I said
- invented by Germans to give the ruling classes something to learn in music class at uni
- the literal secrets of the universe maaaaan
- handy resources for doing music
- knowing the names of stuff
- a way if explaining why music works
- a way if explaining how music works
- some interesting and unconnected observations about musical idiom
- a way of justifying why you like music you like/a means of denigrating music you don’t like
- institutional racism in academic garb
- an ongoing project to systematise and synthesise knowledge into a broader system (eg functional harmony.)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Exactly. Theory is not a dirty word. This effort to make it into one, frankly, is kind of strange, unhelpful, unenlightening, and misguided. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
I'd like to see this thread moved from "Theory" to "Everything Else". It's not a discussion of theory, it's a discussion of what the OP prefers not to do.
Reply With Quote
Moving from bedroom to stage...
Today, 08:38 AM in From The Bandstand