Thinking theory

[Bobby Timmons]

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.

It is. But for some reason we have to establish that as the basis for legitimate musicality..

[Christian Miller]

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

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

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.

Correct. You also heard him talking about the meter.

Because all jazz guitarists pretty much use some theory.

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

What do you mean by this word theory you keep using?

I’m not sure if that post had any actual meaning I could discern.

Bach knew counterpoint. Of course. We know how he taught it.

Did he know chord scale theory? Of course not.

I have no idea what any of this has to do with anything lol.

If theory just means ‘can put music together’ then by definition all composers and improvisers can do that. But it tells us absolutely nothing.

If I want to learn to play bebop the fact that Bach practiced x y and z is neither here nor there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

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

BACH IS THEORY

But seriously … for the love of all that is holy who on this godforsaken rock has said that Bach used zero theory?

No one. Zero people.

I am not invested in being argumentative simply to win.

……. sigh ……

[pamosmusic]

Bach was very well studied. Bach knew loads of theory. Bach’s theory bears little to no resemblance to the theory we use now. The theory we use now was derived after the fact from Bach’s work, and the work of others. Bach didn't concern himself with the constraints of the theory he knew or the theory that would be derived from his work when he wrote.

As far as specifics to how he worked and learned, I’d wager Christian knows more about his than the rest of us combined (except probably Rob, but I doubt Rob would be caught dead on this thread.)

[pamosmusic]

I’m so tired

[Jimmy blue note]

For the love of all that is holy who on this godforsaken rock has said that Bach used zero theory?

Wilheim Friedeman Johann Nichts (also known as Professor WFJ Zero) b. 1660 was a leading theorist of the late baroque. He taught at the academy at Leipzig and had many notable students (SL Weiss, GF Telemann, Rocky Rococco, etc) and was known as much as a music theorist as well as a frequently consulted bar tender. His "rules for engagement" were well known as early progenetors of modern dating "Cosmo" tips. These he kept over his tavern bar counter and came to be known as Professor Zero's Counter Points for meeting women.

JS Bach was such an apt student of Zero Theory that he credited Zero Counter Point Theory in the legacy he left in his family of 20 children. This, and the fact that his organ had no stops.

[pamosmusic]

Wilheim Friedeman Johann Nichts (also known as Professor WFJ Zero) b. 1660 was a leading theorist of the late baroque. He taught at the academy at Leipzig and had many notable students (SL Weiss, GF Telemann, Rocky Rococco, etc) and was known as much as a music theorist as well as a frequently consulted bar tender. His "rules for engagement" were well known as early progenetors of modern dating "Cosmo" tips. These he kept over his tavern bar counter and came to be known as Professor Zero's Counter Points for meeting women.

JS Bach was such an apt student of Zero Theory that he credited Zero Counter Point Theory in the legacy he left in his family of 20 children. This, and the fact that his organ had no stops.

I got two thirds of the way through this before I realized what was happening and for that I will never forgive you

[Christian Miller]

Bach was very well studied. Bach knew loads of theory. Bach’s theory bears little to no resemblance to the theory we use now. The theory we use now was derived after the fact from Bach’s work, and the work of others. Bach didn't concern himself with the constraints of the theory he knew or the theory that would be derived from his work when he wrote.

As far as specifics to how he worked and learned, I’d wager Christian knows more about his than the rest of us combined (except probably Rob, but I doubt Rob would be caught dead on this thread.)

Yeah good point. A lot of theory applied to Bach is apparently post-hoc.

I wouldn’t say I know that much about it, but I know a bit about Baroque music theory. Here’s Remes on the subject:

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

I wouldn’t say I know that much about it, but I know a bit about Baroque music theory.

Like I said … more than the rest of us put together

[Christian Miller]

I also know of a music professor who would say, no, Bach did not use music theory.

Guess what/why?

His definition of music theory is different to Jimmy’s

So… after many posts of BS I would sat, Meh. I don’t care.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bobby Timmons]

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?

You. Trying to say that Bach may or may not be theory when he was the embodiment of theory.

What do you mean by this word theory you keep using?

I've told you 3 times already. You can't read?

Bach knew counterpoint.

Counterpoint is theory lol.

Did he know chord scale theory? Of course not.

He knew how to put harmony in melodic form..

[Bobby Timmons]

BACH IS THEORY

That's what I'm saying bro.

But seriously … for the love of all that is holy who on this godforsaken rock has said that Bach used zero theory?

Dude, Christian is over here habitually saying Bach may or may not be theory. That's fucking absurd.

[Litterick]

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.

Yes, I think that is right. Theory being different in their time is an interesting thought. Jazz musicians undoubtedly would have learned from teachers who did not know jazz or had no sympathy for it. Making jazz was an extracurricular activity.

[Bobby Timmons]

^ I agree. It is interesting. I think it's possible that the jazzers learned their deep harmony from classical. Gospel had kind of rich harmony too though at the turn of the century.

[Christian Miller]

You. Trying to say that Bach may or may not be theory when he was the embodiment of theory.

I've told you 3 times already. You can't read?

Counterpoint is theory lol.

He knew how to put harmony in melodic form..

Bach is the embodiment of music. Did he know his counterpoint? You betcha.

As for being the embodiment of theory?
You are going to have to define your terms,
I still have no clear idea of what you are talking about when you say ‘theory.’


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

That's what I'm saying bro.

Dude, Christian is over here habitually saying Bach may or may not be theory. That's fucking absurd.

What is ‘being theory’?

Maybe it’s when you go to music college and some professor says look at Bach doing x clever thing and you write it down and it’s on the test. Bach is theory. He’s the model used for pedagogy.

OK

The same can be said of Charlie Parker solos.

It gets murkier when some interpretation- for instance - applying Roman numeral analysis to a Bach chorale, or chord scale theory to a Charlie Parker dominant line. Then so-and-so is no longer theory but the subject of theoretical interpretation.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bobby Timmons]

So you can't read now? Theory is explanation or conceptualization or methodology for making music in dialect that is not music. So if Bach's music was ridiculously regimented, he did not achieve that 100% aurally, therefore he used theory to achieve all that structure.

[pamosmusic]

That's what I'm saying bro.

Dude, Christian is over here habitually saying Bach may or may not be theory. That's fucking absurd.

Do you realize how weird it is that you're saying Bach "is" theory?

Bach is theory. Theory is Bach.

I'm imagining him on his deathbed, closing his eyes and then dissolving into thin air so that he may reside in all of us.

[pamosmusic]

^ So you can't read now? Theory is explanation or conceptualization or methodology for making music in dialect that is not music. So if Bach's music was ridiculously regimented, he did not achieve that 100% aurally, therefore he used theory to achieve all that structure.

Wait a second ... who said Bach's music is ridiculously regimented?

[Bobby Timmons]

^ Oh I dunno. Maybe if he decides to write a piece that is completely 16th notes and is nothing but outlining a chord progression with mostly arpeggios and some scale tones. Pretty sure that's a regiment..

[Christian Miller]

Do you realize how weird it is that you're saying Bach "is" theory?

Bach is theory. Theory is Bach.

I'm imagining him on his deathbed, closing his eyes and then dissolving into thin air so that he may reside in all of us.

My thoughts exactly. Poor guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

Tell me you hate Bach’s music without telling me you hate Bach’s music…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bobby Timmons]

My thoughts exactly. Poor guy.

I feel worse about you and your complexes, going around purporting Bach wasn't theoretical lol. You're quite pathological. I know the origin of your pathology too, but I'll save that for later.

[Christian Miller]

Wait a second ... who said Bach's music is ridiculously regimented?

Someone who’s never listened to Corelli?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

^ Oh I dunno. Maybe if he decides to write a piece that is completely 16th notes and is nothing but outlining a chord progression with mostly arpeggios and some scale tones. Pretty sure that's a regiment..

Oh buddy you're stepping into my wheelhouse now.

I don't know much about Bach as a person, but I did sit down on a stage once by myself with no music, start playing a cello suite, and not stop or stand up for 26 minutes.

So I have this student who is working on the second cello suite right now, and he gets a passage and is like "heck yeah I'm awesome." And I've been trying to tell him for a while that the thing that makes Bach hard to perform is not the density of the counterpoint or sophistication of the harmony or whatever, but that it's so through-composed. Even in one of the dance forms, once you start playing a phrase, you might not be able to find a stopping place until you hit the repeat. On a prelude? Forget about it. Before one phrase ends, the next one has already started. It's very very very difficult to know where you are and keep your place as you work through the piece. The whole thing might be superficially very put-together, but they can be really unusual and take strange twists and turns.

Truth be told, Bach is a little bit feral.

And honestly ... someone calling the Prelude to the first Cello Suite "regimented" and "nothing but outlining a chord progression with mostly arpeggios and some scale tones" is one of the saddest things I've ever heard.

It's one of a half dozen of the most beautiful pieces of music ever written for instruments and is wildly unpredictable. That ending build up with the pedal point and the dissonance? Come on.