Thinking theory

[Bobby Timmons]

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.

That is false. Theory is not always post hoc explanation of what the musicians spontaneously created without theory at the time period. Sometimes that is the case. But they also used theory. Theory being different during Bach's time doesn't mean he didn't use it. His music is extremely regimented theoretically. I think it's beyond foolish to postulate that he arrived at all that structure without theory.

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.

I'm simply admitting that while I disagree with the idea that Wes was a pure ear player and needing to polarize musicians into either ear or theory, I do understand and agree with what you're talking about about them being in different parts of the spectrum.

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.

Yeah no I totally get that. I'm analytical, but I totally get and observe that some musicians are more aural and intuitive and theory more follows their direct understanding of the music.

[Bobby Timmons]

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.

Theory was different in their time, yes. It wasn't like today but they still had it. No, an all encompassing 'jazz theory' subject probably didn't exist.

[BreckerFan]

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.

Yeah maybe this is the missing step, the emphasis that theoretical concepts don't directly apply to making music, but should be used to train your ear, and make their way into music that way. I've done this same kind of work with the Adam Rogers outside subs stuff. But it always has to be focused on the sound. I'm sure we've all heard (or maybe been haha) a guy who knows the theoretical right answers, but whose playing still doesn't sound good.

[pamosmusic]

That is false. Theory is not always post hoc explanation of what the musicians spontaneously created without theory at the time period. Sometimes that is the case. But they also used theory. Theory being different during Bach's time doesn't mean he didn't use it. His music is extremely regimented theoretically. I think it's beyond foolish to postulate that he arrived at all that structure without theory.

My dude. Find where I said Bach “didn’t use theory” … I’m saying that the things we think of as being immutable aspects of harmony and basic theory that everyone uses were derived post hoc from analyzing Bach’s music. And others like him, I suppose.

So you say it’s beyond foolish but I said no such thing.

I'm simply admitting that while I disagree with the idea that Wes was a pure ear player

again … I absolutely never said that. Find the place where you remember me saying that and you will also find me saying that Wes absolutely knew what he was doing and knew harmony.

Yeah no I totally get that. I'm analytical, but I totally get and observe that some musicians are more aural and intuitive and theory more follows their direct understanding of the music.

Lovely. So you might understand why this conversation is a little tiresome. You’re disagreeing and dismissing as foolish a bunch of things I didn’t say, and then agreeing with the things I actually did say and then making it an argument.

[dasein]

I think of the fundamentals of musicianship as consisting of three areas:

- Technical skills, the physical ability to play something
- Aural skills, the ability to hear what you're playing or what others are playing
- Theoretical skills, the ability to conceptualize what you're playing

You need all three to some extent. An obvious example: I can hear perfectly, in my mind's ear, a bassoon playing a C major scale. And I understand a C major scale very well on a theoretical level. But hand me a bassoon, and I wouldn't be able to play it if you held a gun to my head, because I have no technical skills on that particular instrument.

All of us have different levels of ability with those three areas. We might know theory better than we can hear. We might know little theory, but can play lots of things by ear. You might be able to play the Chopin Etudes flawlessly, but couldn't explain anything about it theoretically or be able to hear it anything but the most superficial way.

I have a very broad definition of theory: the ability to connect two or more ideas or concepts together. That's it. It can be as simple or complex as you want it to be. If I was feeling really bold, I might even say that humans are theoretical animals. But that's a different conversation.

There is no such thing as a musician who doesn't know any theory. It's not possible. Do you understand that when you put your finger on a particular fret, on a particular string, in a particular tuning, that it will play the same note every time? That's theory. A truly theory-less musician would be something like a deep-learning algorithm: from the outside it can play music that appears superficially similar to music played by flesh and blood humans, but it has absolutely zero understanding of any rules, contexts, or even what music actually is.

When people say that a certain musician doesn't know theory, what they really mean is a particular kind of music theory taught in colleges and conservatories. But there are different kinds of theories. When Charlie Christian soloed using chord shapes, that's theory. When Wes figured out how to use his famous minor 7 arpeggio on practically everything, that's theory.

We can't speak of one unified version of music theory, because there isn't one. There are different versions of music theory, with different degrees of usefulness. Is Allen Forte set theory analysis going to help you play bluegrass better? Almost certainly not. Is the common bluegrass theory of using common chord shapes to come up with lead lines going to help you write music like Milton Babbitt? Also no. Why has Barry Harris' ideas seen an explosion of interest in the last 10-15 years? Because people have discovered that his ideas lend themselves to learning classic bebop better than Berklee-esque chord scale theory. I remember once seeing a book that analyzed Charlie Parker solos using Schenkerian analysis. To say that I'm skeptical about its usefulness would be an understatement.

After many years of playing and learning and studying, here's where I now land on theory and where it helps:

- Trying to explain what other artists are doing. You want to play a certain kind of music, and you have models you want to emulate. Maybe it's Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Bill Evans, Chick Corea, etc. They have recordings that we can listen to and learn from. We can transcribe them, and get the notes that they're playing. The question is, what were they thinking when they made that music? What was their process? What concepts were they using? This is a bit of detective work, and I actually find it quite enjoyable. I love reading artist interviews to find clues. The point isn't to analyze it for the sake of analyzing it, it's to find concepts that we can use in our own playing.

- Communicating to others what we're doing. Hugely underrated. Unless we're playing in our bedrooms all day, music is a social activity. Playing with others means coming to a common understanding. Theory can help you do that. Being able to translate your personal theoretical knowledge into a language other musicians can understand.

- Finally, much like the best kind of theoretical work in math or science, theory can point to completely unexplored directions. "Wait, if I can do X, does that also mean I can do Y? Let's try it. Oh, that's a cool sound. I wonder if it would also work if..." There's a Sam Rivers quote that I love: "The brain is hipper than the ears." When I first heard it, I almost instinctively disagreed with it. There's this notion that music that's too theoretical is the purview of nerds, academic types who can talk the talk but not walk the walk, soulless music for other musicians. Everyone knows that music played by ear is the only true creative music. But after thinking about it more, I realized the wisdom he was imparting. The reality is, your ear only knows what it already knows. You can't play by ear something you've never heard before. Knowing theory can push you to try new things which your ear can then add to its collection. And even then, understanding something theoretical and putting a name on it can put a particular sound into a more easily digestible chunk. "That particular combination of three notes with a color that I kind of think of as happy and pleasant" is a lot harder to mentally summon than "major triad."

On the old AllAboutJazz forums, there was a jazz lifer who used to play with Chet Baker. Chet had absolutely fantastic ears, the very definition of a great "ear" player. But he also talked about how later in Chet's career, when he started adding younger players to the bands playing more modern tunes, how Chet struggled to make sense of how to improvise over a lot of them. Theory definitely helps fill in the gaps.

And how many of us have ears even close to Chet Baker?

[Bobby Timmons]

Define "theory" here.

Seriously? I did:

Any information explaining music that is not music is theory regardless of how elementary. Tuning the guitar EADGBE is theory.

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

Why shouldn't a definition be comprehensive and accurate rather than inconsistent and irrational?

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.

No problem with your clarification of the details here.

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)

Did you lose your ability to read or comprehend? I addressed every question you made or that you didn't necessarily make but that others brought up:

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.

Yep overthinking will mess you up every time.

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

No it doesn't. Not advocating theory-ing everything up without musical creativity, but the music only has to be internalized and the intention has to be what the musician wants when using theory. You don't have to divorce your mind from the idea of executing theoretical priciples while playing for the music to be legitimate.

[Bobby Timmons]

My dude. Find where I said Bach “didn’t use theory” … I’m saying that the things we think of as being immutable aspects of harmony and basic theory that everyone uses were derived post hoc from analyzing Bach’s music. And others like him, I suppose.

So you say it’s beyond foolish but I said no such thing.

again … I absolutely never said that. Find the place where you remember me saying that and you will also find me saying that Wes absolutely knew what he was doing and knew harmony.

Lovely. So you might understand why this conversation is a little tiresome. You’re disagreeing and dismissing as foolish a bunch of things I didn’t say, and then agreeing with the things I actually did say and then making it an argument.

Ok, I understand you on all points, and I agree.

[Bobby Timmons]

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.

Scales, arps, intervals, chromatics? It doesn't require that deep of a theory explanation to get the theory method on par with resulting in authentic music. You just have to go beyond step 1a of 'dur dur scale doesn't equal jazz.'

[SoftwareGuy]

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.

Maybe a little unfair. But point of many posts seems to be making sure the limitations a clearly stated.

I have said I don't think theory explains all musical things. But I think it is useful for me to consider how I might expand the use of the knowledge I have, rather than avoid its use. But that is my approach for myself.

Much discussion seems to discourage the exploration of an expanded use of the structural knowledge that has been developed regarding music.

[pamosmusic]

Ok, I understand you on all points, and I agree.

Well all right then.

The next thing is that you’re defining tuning the guitar as a use of theory.

Can you grant for a moment that you’re talking to a bunch of musicians about a bunch of other musicians?

When people talk about being more theory-oriented (again, referring to myself here as an example) they’re obviously talking about a higher order of music theory. Like no-sh*t I tune my guitar but so does everyone else. I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about that I sat down the other day and wrote out a bunch of rhythm changes progressions I wanted to work through, then sat down with each and worked systematically through some upper structure sounds with them that I liked, doing this with Jordan’s Quadrad stuff, adding approach notes and other chromatic devices as I go.

Thats how I think stuff through, eventually weeding out things I don’t like and leaning more heavily on things I do like. Improvising as much as possible with it all.

It took me a long time to be able to cut loose when I actually perform and still preserve what is a pretty effective practice method for the way I learn.

So when I say that Wes is more of an ear guy, what I’m saying is that from listening to him talk and hearing him play and transcribing him, I really really don’t think this bears any resemblance to how he plays. I would wager Pat Martino spent some time sitting down and doing some of this kind of work, probably Coltrane too. Might not have looked the same, but the same spirit anyway.

And if we don’t like the conjecture. I was visiting New York last summer and Jordan walked me back to Penn Station on my way out and we’re sitting there talking and I described something like this with respect to whatever it was I was working on. Jordan said:

“Pete would think you’re a lunatic. I bet Shepik would kind of dig it though.”

Referring to Bernstein and Brad Shepik respectively.

People do these things very differently. And insisting on calling tuning your guitar “theory” is not helpful in gaining any insight into how people learn or process music. You’re technically correct, but it’s so far below the baseline level of what anyone is talking about that it comes off as patronizing more than anything else.

[Bobby Timmons]

Peter, I see what you're saying about how you want to define the discussion, and I agree, but I'm not being irrational. Christian was over there saying 'what is theory?' and trying to say knowing chords isn't theory. One of your original statements was also: "Pat Martino: theory cat, Wes Montgomery: ear cat." I had no way of knowing what you meant by that until you explained yourself.

[pamosmusic]

Okay.

Knowing theory and really organizing the music on that basis are two very different things to me.

Pat Martino: theory cat.
Wes Montgomery: ear cat.

But Pat obviously had a monster ear. And of course there’s plenty of evidence that Wes could and would speak the language when it helped him communicate, it just doesn’t really seem like he preferred to organize the sounds in his head that way.

……………

so again it seems like you’re just kind of ignoring half of what you’re reading so you have something to argue against.

To quote a dear friend of mine:

Did you lose your ability to read or comprehend?

[Bobby Timmons]

I am not invested in being argumentative simply to win. You disproved me there good sir, and I concede. Sometimes you have to beat people down with the truth don't ya? :P

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

Well all right then.

The next thing is that you’re defining tuning the guitar as a use of theory.

Can you grant for a moment that you’re talking to a bunch of musicians about a bunch of other musicians?

When people talk about being more theory-oriented (again, referring to myself here as an example) they’re obviously talking about a higher order of music theory. Like no-sh*t I tune my guitar but so does everyone else. I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about that I sat down the other day and wrote out a bunch of rhythm changes progressions I wanted to work through, then sat down with each and worked systematically through some upper structure sounds with them that I liked, doing this with Jordan’s Quadrad stuff, adding approach notes and other chromatic devices as I go.

Thats how I think stuff through, eventually weeding out things I don’t like and leaning more heavily on things I do like. Improvising as much as possible with it all.

It took me a long time to be able to cut loose when I actually perform and still preserve what is a pretty effective practice method for the way I learn.

So when I say that Wes is more of an ear guy, what I’m saying is that from listening to him talk and hearing him play and transcribing him, I really really don’t think this bears any resemblance to how he plays. I would wager Pat Martino spent some time sitting down and doing some of this kind of work, probably Coltrane too. Might not have looked the same, but the same spirit anyway.

And if we don’t like the conjecture. I was visiting New York last summer and Jordan walked me back to Penn Station on my way out and we’re sitting there talking and I described something like this with respect to whatever it was I was working on. Jordan said:

“Pete would think you’re a lunatic. I bet Shepik would kind of dig it though.”

Referring to Bernstein and Brad Shepik respectively.

People do these things very differently. And insisting on calling tuning your guitar “theory” is not helpful in gaining any insight into how people learn or process music. You’re technically correct, but it’s so far below the baseline level of what anyone is talking about that it comes off as patronizing more than anything else.

Trane and Pat Martino both studied with Dennis Sandole. Trane took all that exotic scale stuff serious while IIRC Martino said if he was honest he rather copied from Sandole how to dress and behave than diving too deep into the theoretical stuff LOL (not saying he wasn't into his own theory concepts!).

IIRC it is Hal Galper who says something in the sense of "by transcribing and studying the stuff that appeals to you everyone is coming up with their own rules and concepts by somehow trying to reverse-engineering the thought processes of your idols". That is what e.g. Barry Harris developed through listening to Charlie Parker, Bud Powell and Dizzy Gillespie (and probably a few others but those are the names he most often mentions in interviews and recorded masterclasses).

What annoys me is that some people act as if there was some kind of Grand Unified Theory (in a Einstein-ian sense) for jazz ...

EDIT: What I really like about the concepts of e.g. Barry Harris or Jordan Klemons (or Werner Pöhlert) is how they break down things into easily comprehensible chunks. Like Martino Klemons had to re-learn everything after very serious health problems and he has explicitely described how that lead to looking for quick ways to find back to shape. Barry Harris explicitely criticized the overcomplicated theories taught in academic jazz education as a self-justification for the existence of the faculties. (The latter critique has to be taken with a grain of salt, because e.g. at Berklee there are/have been teachers like Richie Hart who criticize CST as well.)

[pamosmusic]

I am not invested in being argumentative simply to win. You disproved me there good sir, and I concede. Sometimes you have to beat people down with the truth don't ya? :P

Do I get a trophy for this?

[Bobby Timmons]

Yes

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

Do I get a trophy for this?

The JGO-Truther-Award in form of a transparent 3D printed Archtop guitar.

[Christian Miller]

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.

Ikr?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

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

I’m mad at listening


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

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.

People? Cool. What people?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jameslovestal]

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...

This post provides too much common sense for it to be in a thread about theory!

[Christian Miller]

That is false. Theory is not always post hoc explanation of what the musicians spontaneously created without theory at the time period.

It would be an unsupportable claim

Anyway I can’t help but notice instead of getting more specific you got broader and vaguer. It is hard to disagree with a statement so all encompassing.

Sometimes that is the case. But they also used theory. Theory being different during Bach's time doesn't mean he didn't use it. His music is extremely regimented theoretically. I think it's beyond foolish to postulate that he arrived at all that structure without theory.

We actually have a pretty good idea of how Bach taught music unlike Charlie Parker. It may qualify as ‘theory’ depending on what that is to you.

It’s worth noting that Derek Remes (Bach scholar) notes Bach regarded himself as a practical musician and that he regarded Rameau’s influential theory of harmony as overly theoretical.

[QUOTE]
I'm simply admitting that while I disagree with the idea that Wes was a pure ear player and needing to polarize musicians into either ear or theory, I do understand and agree with what you're talking about about them being in different parts of the spectrum.

the idea that you sometimes read of Wes being purely ear based in some books and accounts is contradicted the footage we have of him talking to his band. He certainly knew chords.

There are some players where it’s more of an open question. But I would go out on a limb and say all jazz guitarists pretty much can read chord symbols.

Yeah no I totally get that. I'm analytical, but I totally get and observe that some musicians are more aural and intuitive and theory more follows their direct understanding of the music.

Cool


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bobby Timmons]

It would be an unsupportable claim.

There's clearly some post hoc interpretive methodology, but theory was still utilized in whatever time period.

We actually have a pretty good idea of how Bach taught music unlike Charlie Parker. It may qualify as ‘theory’ depending on what that is to you.

For the 3rd time, theory is any information explaining music that is not music.

It’s worth noting that Derek Remes (Bach scholar) notes Bach regarded himself as a practical musician and that he regarded Rameau’s influential theory of harmony as overly theoretical.

Proof isn't needed that Bach is theory. You don't arrive at these extremely intricate, imposing works, all in a certain key, that outline set chord progressions, and elaborate on themselves in different voices etc while using zero theory.* Doesn't matter if theory was thought of in different terms back then or that we recreated the methodology now.

the idea that you sometimes read of Wes being purely ear based in some books and accounts is contradicted the footage we have of him talking to his band. He certainly knew chords.

Correct. You also heard him talking about the meter.

There are some players where it’s more of an open question. But I would go out on a limb and say all jazz guitarists pretty much can read chord symbols.

Because all jazz guitarists pretty much use some theory.

* This is theory. It's an immutable fact.

[wolflen]

122 posts..and the madness continues..

so the conclusion for me is..

as related to guitar..

player ONE does a chord melody of a tune and knows every chord name and reason they chose those chords and voicings of the chords and the why the chords work together

player TWO plays the exact same tune in a chord melody..does not know the chord names or the notes in the chords or why the chords work
together.

when I began to learn music I realized quickly I could not "figure" out" how to get the sounds in my head into music on the guitar..
so my choice was to learn the how and why approach..theory became the key for me..

It may not be the way for all..

today..as far as guitarists in all styles..education in music seems far more natural now..and in some cases mandatory to accel to near professional grades and beyond
in most cases if not all ..theory and harmony are required studies

so dear forum mates...if you were going to study with a teacher..would you want them to know theory or not.

for me the "or not" choice is learning a chord form but NOT knowing its correct name and where it came from or what it does. and that carries over to all
aspects of learning guitar (vs music)

[Mick-7]

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

Well then, tell us, what non theoretical composition strategies do you use?

I would say that the advantage of knowing music theory is that it enables you to better understand what you're hearing and playing. If you don't have a practical understanding of what you're doing, it's difficult to develop and refine it. Claude Debussy understood very well the conventional harmonic rules that he chose to discard and I imagine the same could be said of Charlie Parker, Thelonious Monk, et. al.

as related to guitar...

player ONE does a chord melody of a tune and knows every chord name and reason they chose those chords and voicings of the chords and the why the chords work together

player TWO plays the exact same tune in a chord melody..does not know the chord names or the notes in the chords or why the chords work
together.

I suspect your "player #2" is a mythical creature, no competent musician can be completely ignorant of the why and wherefore of what they play. But most musicians are probably somewhere in-between the two extremes you mentioned.