Thinking theory

[Christian Miller]

Exactly. Theory is not a dirty word. This effort to make it into one, frankly, is kind of strange, unhelpful, unenlightening, and misguided.

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.

I think it’s an unhelpful term because it means different things to different people. I have quite a specific idea of music theory which is something like ‘a body or system of knowledge aimed at categorising elements of how, or understanding why music does what it does.’ The attempt at a science of music, if you like.

So things like Schenkerian analysis, Riemannian and Neo-Reimannian analysis and maybe chord scale theory qualify, but not so much Barry Harris or the study of species counterpoint.

In the UK you can take an exam in music theory which has zero to do with anything we discuss as theory on this forum, and certainly nothing to do with my high falutin definition, for example.

On the other side theory overlaps with things like musicology and the study of acoustics.

I also don’t like ‘theory’ as a term in general. It implies there’s just one body of theory that everyone studies. Which isn’t even true in traditional western music.

OTOH a lot of guitar players think knowing what notes make up an Abmaj7 chord is theory. After decades of this nonsense (jazz music) I see it more as ‘basic practical music skills’ necessary for music reading and composition, but for a rock guitar player with no background in notation that would seem intimidating and mysterious. ‘Ooo theory.’


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mark Kleinhaut]

Exactly. Theory is not a dirty word. This effort to make it into one, frankly, is kind of strange, unhelpful, unenlightening, and misguided.

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.

actually, this thread evolved in ways that have very little to do with me. Not one mention of the many videos I’ve posted here or what “non theoretical” organizations I may have used to come up with them. But that’s fine, this has been fun reading- sort off

[ccroft]

actually, this thread evolved in ways that have very little to do with me. Not one mention of the many videos I’ve posted here or what “non theoretical” organizations I may have used to come up with them. But that’s fine, this has been fun reading- sort off

As I you may have noticed, I enjoy your videos a lot. I for one would be very interested in hearing about your non theoretical organizations. Whatever could they be? It sounds to me like you're following something down a path. There may be surprises along the way. I think we've talked about that.

Myself, I do theory better with a guitar in my hands than a computer. I kind of glaze over when the discussions get too thick. You know... the ones about what a particular cluster of notes should named. There's only so much reading about it I can do. Having said that, I've gleaned some useful nuggets here. Things like a new-to-me substitution or voicing.

I'm not the jazz player Mark is, but I feel I understand what he's saying. I studied. I can read. I know what the Roman Numerals mean, the modes, and so on. Do people think about this stuff while they're playing? I get tripped up if I think too much!

[pauln]

The four usual interpretations of mathematics:
Platonism - it's only discoveries of extant things
Conceptualism - it is only novel invented things
Formalism - it's only application of specific rules
Intuitionism - it's the strictly constructible things

However music theory is interpreted, music will
manifest phenomenologically (invisible illusion).

[SoftwareGuy]

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.

I don't think you have to explain this. After listening to some of your posts, I would never think that you used theory in your music.

[pamosmusic]

I don't think you have to explain this. After listening to some of your posts, I would never think that you used theory in your music.

I would be actually be curious to hear it explained.

What would it sound like if someone did use theory?

[SoftwareGuy]

I would be actually be curious to hear it explained.

What would it sound like if someone did use theory?

Music has structure that provides the listener a framework. Common theory enumerates many common elements that works well.

When the sound meanders without structure (for the listener) it sounds to me like some (maybe) interesting sounds, but not coherent enough to keep me listening to the entire piece.

Music theory has lots of room for individual expression and creativity. It provides common structure that the listener is familiar with and thus assists in appreciating the piece.

[rpjazzguitar]

I would be actually be curious to hear it explained.

What would it sound like if someone did use theory?

I'll speak for myself.

Sometimes it sounds like my solo is clamless because I'm using theory. Clamless isn't the goal, but it's better than clamful.

Other times it sounds like I'm mindlessly running a scale because I'm using theory.

It never sounds great if I'm actually thinking about theory when I play.

That said, there are some things theory helped me get under my fingers, but in the practice room over time, not on a gig.

[Bobby Timmons]

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.

No good? How about this one? :P

[Bobby Timmons]

Got it … I don’t think anyone at all said it though, so not sure why it needed to be countered at all.

Tal brought up the notion sir.

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.

That isn't true, music and musicians follow it. It's not only a teaching tool, it's intrinsically the syntax of music.

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.

You don't know that. Why do you have to purport stuff?

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. Didn't 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.

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 hear you that many musicians have a more imaginative or abstract or aural and less regimented approach.

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.

He knows the melody and harmony to these tunes. Again, the definition of theory is the definition. Doesn't matter if people want to say they don't use theory to seem elite while coincidentally already having a full base of theory down.

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 to characterize him a certain way? Is there some necessity to spin things? He knew theory and he had an ear. He doesn't need to be characterized as some special ear side of the spectrum case (unless that is proven). He used theory and ear like the vast majority of players.

What would it sound like if someone did use theory?

How all music sounds lol. The vast majority of good musicians use theory to some degree whether actively while playing or learned instinctually or engineered away from the instrument.

”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.

I agree. I think it's interesting and helpful to understand how the greats lie on the spectrum.

[Bobby Timmons]

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.

As if a scale is as precise of a tool theory offers to explain melody..

Yes, your point is true that theory, and especially base theory, is often an extreme simplification of the real music. And a great way to learn how to play authentically is to practice going directly to the music. But that doesn't mean that applied theory is an inadequate tool to get to the authenticity of the music. It absolutely is. You just have to use it correctly.

It's not like science can't explain music, it's not as complicated as some subjects. If you applied theory to the complexity of understanding that some regular dude auto mechanic applies to his trade, you'd be doing pretty well.

[Bobby Timmons]

actually, this thread evolved in ways that have very little to do with me. Not one mention of the many videos I’ve posted here or what “non theoretical” organizations I may have used to come up with them. But that’s fine, this has been fun reading- sort off

If you want to further explain your process, we're all ears. To me, it sounds like you have your base theory down, you studied music in college you said, and you know the form of the tune, the melody and harmony, then you purposely play aleatorically, allowing your ear and intuition to guide you, with vocab you've come up with.

[rpjazzguitar]

IMO the problem with theory is that you can know all of it (however you define it) and it won't mean you can sound like Wes.

[Bobby Timmons]

^ That's not theory's fault lol.

[Litterick]

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.

I don't need to take lessons from you, 'Bobby'. You are not even a guitarist. You are, though, a nasty piece of work. You seem to hang around here just to be unpleasant. I remember calling you out, not long after you joined this forum, for telling members they were 'retards'. I guess you haven't forgotten that. You are obsessed with correctness and success, and bragging about your teacher. I suggest you practice more, because you won't get anywhere by charm.

[Christian Miller]

The four usual interpretations of mathematics:
Platonism - it's only discoveries of extant things
Conceptualism - it is only novel invented things
Formalism - it's only application of specific rules
Intuitionism - it's the strictly constructible things

However music theory is interpreted, music will
manifest phenomenologically (invisible illusion).

It seems to me most musicians are platonists. There are historical reasons.

I’m an ‘it’s only a model’ guy. I forget which of the isms that is. The popperites got to me first, what can I say?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

I would be actually be curious to hear it explained.

What would it sound like if someone did use theory?

It would sound like basically all contemporary jazz.

So I see this as a backhanded compliment, you have a unique approach Mark.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bobby Timmons]

I don't need to take lessons from you, 'Bobby'. You are not even a guitarist. You are, though, a nasty piece of work. You seem to hang around here just to be unpleasant. I remember calling you out, not long after you joined this forum, for telling members they were 'retards'. I guess you haven't forgotten that. You are obsessed with correctness and success, and bragging about your teacher. I suggest you practice more, because you won't get anywhere by charm.

Well it would seem like some sort of break with reality on your part when I post example after example of the greats talking about theory yet you continually push your alt facts that jazz theory is a post hoc approximation of real jazz.

[Christian Miller]

jazz theory is a post hoc approximation of real jazz.

Man that’s a really beautiful and terse summation of what I think. Says in ten words basically everything it usually takes me pages of blather to get at.

Thank you. I’m yoinking that.

Actually it’s more complex. And to be honest the discussion is quite academic unless we have detailed information on how musicians conceptualised their work, which is common today and rare during the bop era and before. As Jimmy Raney put it ‘we didn’t have it worked out in that way.’

It is also a mistake to think there is a singular jazz theory as well. That’s not true today and it certainly wasn’t true 70 years ago.

That said Jazz theory has been evolving since at least the 1940s. Pretty much all of it has the character of a post hoc explanation. Barry Harris and Tristano are two excellent examples. They came into their ideas by analysis of music, and both schools are quite different in many ways.

In these cases jazz musicians did start using these ideas (some big names of the post bop era) as a basis of their improvisation. In which case it is no longer a post hoc explanation. The same can be said for chord scale theory. Most jazz musicians today have a CST background and do CST* stuff. Musicians are much more verbal about their process today.

But Bird? He didn’t say much about the mechanics. Any analysis is a post-hoc one, in a way it is certainly not for Lennie, Barry Harris or Kurt Rosenwinkel

* although I don’t think CST was originally intended as a way of analysing for example bebop, although that is one way it is used today.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

You must be joking Christian. You think Duke Ellington heard up all his big band arrangements in the 1920s rather than using some theory as a guide?

I have no clear idea of how Ellington came up with his music and neither do you.

I can say he had some training in classical piano early on. I’m sure he knew something, possibly quite a lot about chords and so on.

But Ellington’s unique sense of harmony did not exist before Ellington.

You can say ‘theory’ but unless you can provide more detail on what that theory exactly was, and how it was used to create this music, from the horses mouth, any analyses of Ellington we make must necessarily be post-hoc ones.

I’d also note that these analyses would probably be quite divergent. And there’s wouldn’t be worthless, some musicians can convincingly pastiche Ellington’s style after all, but obviously an attempt to understand something mysterious rather than somehow acquire a text book on how to Ellington from 1928.

(For platonists that might philosophically amount the same thing, I suppose, which does seem silly if there exist divergent understandings of the same thing. I should say I can’t take platonism seriously especially for music theory.)

Even if you could write convicing Cotton Club era dance orchestra scores in his style (big bands did not exist in the 20s) and explain how to do it, it would still not necessarily mean that you were composing music in his way. You might feel this, but you couldn’t prove it. (In practice it wouldn’t matter, of course, and that would be a really good thing to have done.)

This is what we also must bear in mind if we think Bird was inventing music using something like the Barry Harris method. (I think it’s quite clear he wasn’t, actually.)

Your use of the term ‘theory’ is so wide as to risk rendering your points of discussion tautological. And to be honest just seems an attempt to ‘win’ a debate that I’m not actually having with you.

It tells us nothing about his music or his creative process. Which is the sort of thing I am actually interested in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bobby Timmons]

I agree with you that theory used for jazz evolved as jazz evolved.
It probably wasn't the same as it is now, but the basics were probably recognizable. They had knowledge back then..
I agree that knowledge of the methods of the early greats is limited.
However there are several examples of mid to late golden age players talking about their use of theory.
I'm sure theory was also used at the beginning, there wasn't some drastic change.
Disagree that theory overall is post hoc to jazz. That's absurd, we have greats talking about it.
Disagree with this strange red herring of trying to define basic theory principles like chords as somehow not theory.
Any information explaining music that is not music is theory regardless of how elementary. Tuning the guitar EADGBE is theory.

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

[...] However there are several examples of mid to late golden age players talking about their use of theory. [...]

Please show me. I am collecting oral jazz history stuff ATM. But please something more precise than just a Hank Jones saying his idols were playing the correct changes.

EDIT: Could be recorded or transcribed interview.

[pamosmusic]

That isn't true, music and musicians follow it. It's not only a teaching tool, it's intrinsically the syntax of music.

No, it very much is true. Like Christian said, theory is necessarily post hoc. Bach didn’t know chords the way we think of them. People derived our concept of chords from Bach’s music (and the music of others). And our rules don’t perfectly explain what he was doing.

Why do you have to characterize him a certain way? Is there some necessity to spin things? He knew theory and he had an ear. He doesn't need to be characterized as some special ear side of the spectrum case (unless that is proven). He used theory and ear like the vast majority of players.

Okay … but then …

I agree. I think it's interesting and helpful to understand how the greats lie on the spectrum.

This is a bit of a weird argument for you to be having.

Youre literally just taking issue with me saying that Wes was seems like more of an ear guy, even though you know I’m talking about an orientation to the music and you know I’m not saying he doesn’t know any theory or whatever.

Also if I’m going to be a little bit blunt, I think you’d be surprised by how other people learn and think and navigate music.

I am rigidly left brain and analytical and I have one student in particular who will play things and I’ll be like “that’s a tritone substitution” and he’ll be like … hmm never thought about that before. Or he’ll play a chord and say he likes the sound and I’m like “that’s a sharp nine,” and he’s like …. why.

And it’s actually quite difficult for me to understand how he could play those things and not want to know what they are. But he gets along just fine. Then again, he’s also studying with me so he wants to know some of it.

Another good example would be teaching younger students. Teaching them the theory can actually be detrimental. Setting things up so they hear something a dozen times in a dozen ways, copy it a dozen times in a dozen ways, and then have actually use it. Usually it’s only after that that I even bother giving something a name. They’re like “oh cool I didn’t realize I was learning something.”

But in general people learn in very very different ways and it’s interesting to consider how they learn. I’ve said this before so pardon the broken record, but I tell students all the time that music theory is the Dewey Decimal System—not the knowledge in the books. It’s incredibly useful but if someone else had come along and thought up a different system, that would work just fine too and wouldn’t change what was in the books.

[frabarmus]

This is already a rather long thread... I apologise for replying before reading every post on it.

My take is... (personally) I do need theoretical knowledge when I'm away from the instrument and I need to forget about theory when I'm on the instrument (mostly, at least)...

[Christian Miller]

Disagree that theory overall is post hoc to jazz. That's absurd, we have greats talking about it.

Define "theory" here.

Again you use the term in a quite an all encompassing way, so it's really impossible to know if I agree or disagree.

For instance, I agree with the following:
- Knowing what notes are in an Ab major 7 chord etc familiar most jazz musicians historically (although we see from Monk and old charts that symbols etc vary)
- A detailed analysis of Duke Ellington's music using theoretical tools not referenced in his own writings or interviews would be post hoc.

Second point is self evident.