Thinking theory

[Litterick]

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.

I must have missed your examples. I was ignoring you, no doubt.

I am sure jazz musicians who had some training in music schools or marching bands would know some theory. But in the absence of anecdotes and documents, I doubt they had jazz theory, unless they were sworn to silence and destroyed all written evidence.

[Christian Miller]

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.



Okay … but then …



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.

People also often undervalue the role of intuitive processes in artistic creativity.

It's like with Wayne - why did he put those chords together? There's no text book he wrote or read to get there.

I think that's really scary to some people. I'm also quite technical, so I tend to at least start with some sort of theory style idea, and at some point the intuitive processes kick in and I'm no longer dealing with an exercise. But not all musicians do this at all.

I used to play in a band with a bass player who wrote these crazy, but good sounding progressions. I asked him how he came up with them. He didn't really have an explanation (he did have a sound knowledge of scales etc, it's just he couldn't say why he'd chosen to put those chords together other than it pleased him). He did also listen to a LOT of music.

There's also things like the Kenny Werner 'chords out of a hat' exercise which can be stimulating if the muse deserts you.

[Doctor Jeff]

I must have missed your examples. I was ignoring you, no doubt.

I am sure jazz musicians who had some training in music schools or marching bands would know some theory. But in the absence of anecdotes and documents, I doubt they had jazz theory, unless they were sworn to silence and destroyed all written evidence.

Recently listened to the audiobook of Kansas City Lightning, about Charlie Parker and the KC music scene. Parker and probably many contemporaries had rudimentary music education in school, though IIRC Parker left at age 15 to become a professional musician. The music courses in many schools were quite good, and some of the teachers were highly lauded in the black arts community, including Parker’s own band teacher. (Parker had a pretty comfortable middle class growing up in KC.)

However, with some exceptions this was just a framework for playing jazz, and yes the students could read music, knew what a scale was, etc., but it was not top-tier music theory. Most guys—Parker’s contemporaries—learned by playing. As you probably know, Parker would learn a song or work on a series of licks or progressions and play it until he had mastered it in every key. Not easy on the saxophone.

Quite a few famous musicians couldn’t even read music. I think that Stanley Crouch mentions Basie as one example. Erroll Garner is another. Supposedly Buddy Rich couldn’t read music. Getz and Benson had some knowledge but were not “theory guys”.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Jazz/commen...s_who_couldnt/

[Christian Miller]

Yeah, I'm struggling to get what Bobby Smith is getting at tbh.

That there was some widely distributed and unified body of theoretical knowledge that instructed people how to play jazz in the 1940s and 50's (or 20s)? (No)
Or that people who play instruments often have music lessons? (Yes)

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

Recently listened to the audiobook of Kansas City Lightning, about Charlie Parker and the KC music scene. Parker and probably many contemporaries had rudimentary music education in school, though IIRC Parker left at age 15 to become a professional musician. The music courses in many schools were quite good, and some of the teachers were highly lauded in the black art community, including Parker’s own band teacher. (Parker had a pretty comfortable middle class growing up in KC.)

However, with some exceptions this was just a framework for playing jazz, and yes the students could read music, knew what a scale was, etc., but it was not top-tier music theory. Most guys—Parker’s contemporaries—learned by playing. As you probably know, Parker would learn a song or work on a series of licks or progressions and play it until he had mastered it in every key. Not easy on the saxophone.

Quite a few famous musicians couldn’t even read music. I think that Stanley Crouch mentions Basie as one example. Erroll Garner is another. Supposedly Buddy Rich couldn’t read music. Getz and Benson had some knowledge but were not “theory guys”.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Jazz/commen...s_who_couldnt/

Bob Mover has this favorite quote about Chet Baker (from Gerry Mulligan? IIRC, not sure): "Chet knows all the chords but he does not know their names."

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

[...] Yeah, I'm struggling to get what Bobby Smith is getting at tbh. [...]

The amateur shrink in me diagnoses: "Unsatisfied confirmation bias."

[pamosmusic]

Bobby Smith

Jimmy Timmons

[SoftwareGuy]

Can somebody please explain something to me.

Why is it so bad to have an organized body of knowledge? It seems so useful in so many activities. Why is there such resistance? It can't be the case that someone, in the past, was able to play music without theory and that should inform everybody else.

[pamosmusic]

Can somebody please explain something to me.

Why is it so bad to have an organized body of knowledge? It seems so useful in so many activities. Why is there such resistance? It can't be the case that someone, in the past, was able to play music without theory and that should inform everybody else.

Im not sure anyone here thinks it’s bad to have an organized body of knowledge. Just some people don’t utilize it as much as we might think.

People who use theory more than the average (myself included) seem to think that body of knowledge and particular system of organization is the end all be all

[princeplanet]

OK, so I think I've got it :

Too much theory and your playing sounds too stiff.
Not enough theory and your playing sounds too loose.

Hmm, I think I have the solution for everybody! - Why don't we all just employ just enough theory to avoid being too stiff and too loose?

Or maybe just debate it for another 10 pages...

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

Can somebody please explain something to me.

Why is it so bad to have an organized body of knowledge? It seems so useful in so many activities. Why is there such resistance? It can't be the case that someone, in the past, was able to play music without theory and that should inform everybody else.

I have absolutely nothing against music theory (e.g. I was glad that someone posted a link recently to the long out-of-print English version of Werner Pöhlert's "Grundlagenharmonik" -- "Basic Harmony"). But I have something against insisting in something without delivering a proof.

[princeplanet]

... 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....

Curiosity kills cats (not to mention precious Time)...

[SoftwareGuy]

Im not sure anyone here thinks it’s bad to have an organized body of knowledge. Just some people don’t utilize it as much as we might think.

People who use theory more than the average (myself included) seem to think that body of knowledge and particular system of organization is the end all be all

Sure, some people are more/less organized than others. Sure, music theory doesn't explain everything.

It seems from the content in this thread that the feelings run deeper. It is my impression that some are against having a structured approach to musical knowledge. There seems to be denial about theory being useful.

[Christian Miller]

There seems to be denial about theory being useful.

Who is denying this?

Again this 'theory' word as well. What do you mean? Playing chord tones on a tune? Reading figured bass? Making a neo-Riemannian analysis of a Wayne Shorter composition? Knowing what a treble clef is? Making a chord scale analysis of a Lester Young solo?

There are specific things we can say about all of those things and how they relate to jazz practice and how useful they may or may not be in that context. "Theory" as a word doesn't mean anything to me at all.

Everyone uses theory, or some do, or no-one does. All of these things can be simultaneously true unless people are specific.

[Mark Kleinhaut]

Sure, some people are more/less organized than others. Sure, music theory doesn't explain everything.

It seems from the content in this thread that the feelings run deeper. It is my impression that some are against having a structured approach to musical knowledge. There seems to be denial about theory being useful.

No doubt theory is useful, but what is the appropriate context for it? I found organizing and structuring knowledge to be very helpful in learning about music, but not so much when it comes to performing it. The variety of how different guys develop might well hinge upon whether their primary environment is a classroom ot a bandstand. Most everyone these days experiences both.

[Christian Miller]

I found organizing and structuring knowledge to be very helpful in learning about music, but not so much when it comes to performing it.

Yep overthinking will mess you up every time.

It has to stop being theory for it be accessible as music.

[pamosmusic]

Who is denying this?

I get the impression that we are the “anti-theory” crowd in this thread.

Which is a little bit of a weird experience for me because usually people are telling us we’re pompous and annoying and pedantic for being too interested in theory.

[BreckerFan]

No doubt theory is useful, but what is the appropriate context for it? I found organizing and structuring knowledge to be very helpful in learning about music, but not so much when it comes to performing it. The variety of how different guys develop might well hinge upon whether their primary environment is a classroom ot a bandstand. Most everyone these days experiences both.

This. Theory has contexts where it is useful and contexts where it is very counterproductive, but it's not clearly taught in that way. I've been around people who treat theory like math for generating music. As if with enough sophisticated concepts and theoretical analysis, the equations will converge and incredible music will just appear. Needless to say, most of the time it doesn't.

You don't learn to speak by reading a grammar textbook. You can learn a lot of about language, and maybe even use that knowledge to improve your speaking. But you really learn the most by listening. Not to make the tired music is language analogy, but I think the relationship between music and music theory is the same.

The greats with the most abstract analytical approach are still first and foremost guided by musical sensibility. Trane or Holdsworth or whoever were after a sound, not just doing the math. But there are a lot of people who are very impressed by the math and forget about the sound.

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

This. Theory has contexts where it is useful and contexts where it is very counterproductive, but it's not clearly taught in that way. I've been around people who treat theory like math for generating music. As if with enough sophisticated concepts and theoretical analysis, the equations will converge and incredible music will just appear. Needless to say, most of the time it doesn't.

You don't learn to speak by reading a grammar textbook. You can learn a lot of about language, and maybe even use that knowledge to improve your speaking. But you really learn the most by listening. Not to make the tired music is language analogy, but I think the relationship between music and music theory is the same.

The greats with the most abstract analytical approach are still first and foremost guided by musical sensibility. Trane or Holdsworth or whoever were after a sound, not just doing the math. But there are a lot of people who are very impressed by the math and forget about the sound.

There are so many "(mad at?) theory" threads. Maybe it is time to start some "listening" threads.

[SoftwareGuy]

Who is denying this?

Again this 'theory' word as well. What do you mean? Playing chord tones on a tune? Reading figured bass? Making a neo-Riemannian analysis of a Wayne Shorter composition? Knowing what a treble clef is? Making a chord scale analysis of a Lester Young solo?

There are specific things we can say about all of those things and how they relate to jazz practice and how useful they may or may not be in that context. "Theory" as a word doesn't mean anything to me at all.

Everyone uses theory, or some do, or no-one does. All of these things can be simultaneously true unless people are specific.

Come on. So much of this thread is about discussing the limitations and shortcomings of music theory. People seem invested in making sure theory gets absolutely no credit for anything but the most basic uses.

It seems there is something going on among the posters who are so intent on minimalizing music theory.

[pamosmusic]

This. Theory has contexts where it is useful and contexts where it is very counterproductive, but it's not clearly taught in that way. I've been around people who treat theory like math for generating music. As if with enough sophisticated concepts and theoretical analysis, the equations will converge and incredible music will just appear. Needless to say, most of the time it doesn't.

You don't learn to speak by reading a grammar textbook. You can learn a lot of about language, and maybe even use that knowledge to improve your speaking. But you really learn the most by listening. Not to make the tired music is language analogy, but I think the relationship between music and music theory is the same.

The greats with the most abstract analytical approach are still first and foremost guided by musical sensibility. Trane or Holdsworth or whoever were after a sound, not just doing the math. But there are a lot of people who are very impressed by the math and forget about the sound.

Yeah the best use case for theory is either to streamline a technical process or to start training my ear on something that I don’t really get intuitively (which is most things, whoops).

So a case of the first might be how Pat Martino uses his kind of elaborate processes to get everything down to a minor sound, at which point it’s just plug and play and he can use the same vocabulary over every chord and he doesn’t have to worry about whether he should use Lydian dominant or the diminished scale or whatever over various things.

A case of the second is just honestly I think how I practice a lot … I’m spending a few weeks back in Jordan Klemons land. The way he plays and thinks doesn’t make much sense to me, and the theory is a way of laying it out in a way I can access. I generally believe process matters … so seeing that laid out is a way for me to start accessing some of those sounds until my ear can get a hold of it. I do the same thing with the Barry Harris stuff, where I don’t use it all the time, but I’ll dive in for a few weeks and see what sticks.

[pauln]

The video of Wes showing the pianist the tune "End of a Love Affair":
- pianist asks the name of the tune, Wes says, "I dunno..."
- pianist asks what key, Wes say it starts in "x" key of "y", then corrects that, then corrects that again, but still incorrect
- Wes plays the song beautifully

Wes interviewed on a variety show after playing a tune:
- host's first question, "What was that first chord you played?"
- Wes, "I dunno, I just chill".

YouTube video of an old VHS of Joe Pass with a musical interviewer discussing how he plays:
- Joe plays a G13 rooted from the sixth string third fret
- interviewer stops him and asks Joe the chord name
- Joe stares at his hand for a very long 5 seconds before answering G13
- everything Joe plays is beautiful

Clearly, these fellows were not utilizing names for all things when playing. There may be many attributes and relationships of these things in their ears and minds, but their names look like they are way down the list of importance.

How do we talk or write about musicians' theory thinking and playing if they might not use names to think and play?

[Reg]

Yea... I guess it just depends on what and where your playing.

It's always great to play gigs where.... everyone has their shit together, whatever that is in a context. Usually having your technical skills at the level required and not having to do much thinking...

Sometimes... I actually do use theory on gigs. When there is a few horns, piano or vibs... anyway eventually after a set and playing a bunch of tunes... and I'm looking for some different reference for developing a solo...

I'll think... maybe I'll change the harmonic references.... simple example,

Blues or dominant harmonic references.... I'll develop the related Minor... harmonic relationship, and then the related maj chord of that related Min. ..... ex. Bb7..... F-7....... Ab lyd... ( I know this is basic, but it's a theory based thinking process).

It can become almost Mechanical.... so really I guess it is more in Mark's direction. The actual theory is or has long ago been internalized.

Anyway... there are tons of those somewhat theory references that I still Think or Hear.... and because.... I play Chord Patterns.... lots of chords, not just voicings.... Chord Patterns that imply References.

I guess I'm thinking Theory..... But I'm also comfortable having conversations while playing.

I do always enjoys Marks posts... And his somewhat free form playing. It is cool to hear his thinking.

[Bobby Timmons]

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.

No problem.

BH?

Joe Pass taught master classes using theory.

Pat Martino was heavy into theory.

Herb Ellis

Barney Kessel said theory is a prerequisite to his course.

Chords and arps:

Universal Mind of Bill Evans. Talk about theory ideas throughout. A key part is at 28:55 he said he learned classical as a child up to 13 (1943) but could not improvise a lick until he learned about harmony then.

Monk and Rouse going over the chords to Boo Boo's Birthday. Monk has his tune written in piano score and he reduces the chords for Rouse who obviously wants to know them so he can play the tune correctly. 1:10:43

[pamosmusic]

Come on. So much of this thread is about discussing the limitations and shortcomings of music theory. People seem invested in making sure theory gets absolutely no credit for anything but the most basic uses.

It seems there is something going on among the posters who are so intent on minimalizing music theory.

So this is kind of unfair. People are discussing the limitations of music theory. Yes. No one is invested in making sure theory gets No Credit for anything. I’ve been sitting here saying over and over again the way I use theory all the time.

I think what Christian is saying might be illustrated by a simple example.

What do I play over a minor ii-V?

Berklee: harmonic minor
Barry Harris: dominant up a minor third
Sheryl Bailey: ii V of relative major

These are ways of saying the same thing.

But play a harmonic minor scale over that ii V. Does it sound like jazz? Play a dominant scale up a minor third? Does it sound like jazz? Outline the chords of the major ii V. Does it sound like jazz?

Theyre all saying or driving at the same thing and none of them quite hit the mark. I have found explanations like this to be helpful in the past. But I think the first sort of tricked me into thinking I was playing something interesting or correct when I wasn’t, and the second and third didn’t really click until I understood that they were only really ways of applying vocabulary. They’re not trying to describe the vocabulary, they’re taking for granted that you have the vocabulary and telling you where to put it. It’s the vocabulary that is king.

I can play anything over any chord and it’ll “work” if it is rhythmically interesting and draws from idiomatic jazz vocabulary.

I love esoteric theory and use it every day I pick up a guitar, but things that work don’t work because they adhere to a theoretical rule. They work because they work and the theory helps me sort out things that work in the same way.