My thoughts on jazz theory

[wolflen]

I agree..that the "music teaching industry" has inflated "theory" into deity status.

It has almost become a "secret society" of adepts who can unwrap mystical formulas with arcane names and numbers

and like magic..A C Major scale and chord appear and are heard.

to me it became much like the Wizard of Oz..I looked behind he curtain..only to find the C major scale held hostage,renamed and distorted..covered
over with layers of blankets called modes which are meant to cause confusion unless a 9the degree adept unlocks the secret code on how to use them
in such a way that they become "MUSIC"

Of course when I asked the advanced revered teachers to explain how all this wonderful theoretical knowledge applies to the musical form
called the Blues..suddenly classed were suspended for summer break.

Yes Dorothy..G7 blues is NOT in the key of C..and theory cant explain it..now take the dame dog and Alice and go to Hypnotic lessons in music class.

[Tal_175]

It's important to note for the casual reader that while it may be logical to assume that throughout the course of such lengthy and at times heated discussions about theory, there is a cogent definition of the term that is understood and agreed upon by every poster, let me warn you that the term generally stands for a subjective set of concepts and pedagogical practices in music that a given poster is getting poopy vibes off of. What one person might consider to be an essential tool for the working musician may appear like a pretentious, rocket-science stuff to another. Everyone seems to think they know what the right amount of theory is. A lot of the debate is really just people saying "thus far, no further".

[garybaldy]

Do you realize that theory, in particular -- western theory, is an after-the-fact analysis of composed music?

Yes

[Cunamara]

It is tautological within CST. A fully extended dominant chord (13) is in the theory the same thing as a mixolydian mode.

Vertical versus horizontal. We often tend to teach them like they are separate musical topics, as if scales and chords have some sort of mysterious relationship to each other. They're the same damn things!

Piano players tend to understand this because they can directly see the correlation between a chord and a scale in- pardon the pun- black and white. I find when I talk to horn players about music theory, they often don't seem to get that as clearly; they can't play chords so they tend to focus on scales and treat chords as something that just sort of happens underneath a scale (this is not universal, of course).

And then there's the poor guitar player. We tend to learn chords as a set of more or less static grips and scales as a set of patterns and somehow try to make music out of that. It often seems as if guitarists play two different instruments depending on whether they're playing chords or playing lines.

[kris]

Jazz is complicated music and in my opinion it is best to learn on your own... and play a lot.
Of course, you can use the knowledge of other musicians if they are willing to pass on their knowledge.
Being an original jazz musician is a constant work on yourself.
Theory doesn't bother me, but I'm not passionate about theory.

[Bob_Ross]

Do you realize that theory, in particular -- western theory, is an after-the-fact analysis of composed music?

Yes, but for inexplicable reasons, I find I have to remind people of that fact fairly regularly. It's not a recipe, it's a dissection!
So the salient question should really be: Why do people think "music theory" is a set of rules on how to write (or improvise over) new music? Who's teaching them that? Where are they getting that misguided idea?

Let's stop trying to use western theory (baroque or otherwise) to govern what we can or cannot do in jazz.

Hell, let's stop trying to use "jazz theory" to govern what we can or cannot do in jazz!

[pauln]

In the world of information systems, the problems with names of things resolve with the use of a primary key. The object is uniquely represented internally by something abstract you don't normally ever see that typically looks like the concatenation of some license plates. All else about the object are considered attributes (the named things) which are attached to the deliberately nameless but unique primary key. This allows attributes (information about the object) to change or evolve as needed without confounding the object's existential representation, preserving the consistency and integrity of the information.

[kris]

Yes, but for inexplicable reasons, I find I have to remind people of that fact fairly regularly. It's not a recipe, it's a dissection!
So the salient question should really be: Why do people think "music theory" is a set of rules on how to write (or improvise over) new music? Who's teaching them that? Where are they getting that misguided idea?





Hell, let's stop trying to use "jazz theory" to govern what we can or cannot do in jazz!

I don't think we understand each other here.
Does anyone here on the forum have a classical music education - not jazz?
In classical music schools, there are classes on the basics of music theory.
I attended these schools – in the classical guitar and double bass class.
I believe that these classes are necessary for a classical musician - if I go to them, I become a fuller musician.
The so-called "Jazz theory"... This is something completely different.
I've been interested in it for 50 years as I became a jazz musician.
Someone who wants to be a conscious jazz musician should be interested in theory.
It certainly helps in finding your own so-called "jazz language".

Jamey Aebersold Jazz: Category Display

[ragman1]

'If you talk to a jazz theorist long enough you will truly believe that the word 'tin-opener' will actually open a can'.

Heinz Tinkelbaum, 'The Way I Live Now'

[Litterick]

The phrase 'dancing about architecture' springs to mind.

[kris]

'If you talk to a jazz theorist long enough you will truly believe that the word 'tin-opener' will actually open a can'.

Heinz Tinkelbaum, 'The Way I Live Now'

[Hep To The Jive]

I don't think we understand each other here.
Does anyone here on the forum have a classical music education - not jazz?
In classical music schools, there are classes on the basics of music theory.
I attended these schools – in the classical guitar and double bass class.
I believe that these classes are necessary for a classical musician - if I go to them, I become a fuller musician.
The so-called "Jazz theory"... This is something completely different.
I've been interested in it for 50 years as I became a jazz musician.
Someone who wants to be a conscious jazz musician should be interested in theory.
It certainly helps in finding your own so-called "jazz language".

Jamey Aebersold Jazz: Category Display

I have, I was A grade student in Classical theory, but I don't think I remember any of it now, I'm not sure. It seems most of it had no practical application for me in jazz learnings. Most of the jazz theory I got was not even from the teachers but from fellow students/musicians who were more experienced. It was not systematic, but bits and pieces here and there. Until it was starting to make sense and I could apply it to playing directly. The problem with this is if I want to teach it to my students I don't have a system, it's confusing.

[Christian Miller]

Vertical versus horizontal. We often tend to teach them like they are separate musical topics, as if scales and chords have some sort of mysterious relationship to each other. They're the same damn things!

Piano players tend to understand this because they can directly see the correlation between a chord and a scale in- pardon the pun- black and white. I find when I talk to horn players about music theory, they often don't seem to get that as clearly; they can't play chords so they tend to focus on scales and treat chords as something that just sort of happens underneath a scale (this is not universal, of course).

And then there's the poor guitar player. We tend to learn chords as a set of more or less static grips and scales as a set of patterns and somehow try to make music out of that. It often seems as if guitarists play two different instruments depending on whether they're playing chords or playing lines.

That last thing I think is a Big Deal. That’s a fundamental split in the guitarist brain that messes a lot of things up.

According to Ritchie Hart chord scale there was developed to teach harmony to horn players who didn’t play piano.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ragman1]

See, the point is:

Was I thinking theory when I was playing this? No-o-o

Could I have played it without theory? No-o-o

That's the point.

[kris]

It doesn't matter. Whether you play with or without theory... I get the impression that you don't listen to what you're playing.
I would advise you to listen to Dave Liebman's lecture from beginning to end.

[ragman1]

I have. He's a very good talker and a good teacher. But I don't like his playing (I've listened to quite a bit of it), I find it a bit noisy for me.

[kris]

I have. He's a very good talker and a good teacher. But I don't like his playing (I've listened to quite a bit of it), I find it a bit noisy for me.

He is one of the greatest living saxophonists..,."Noisy"-I don't know what that means to you-he's not a punk rock guitarist.
He plays very expressively and I really like playing him with soul.I have his album where he plays only famous ballads in a trio with a guitar & bass – a revelation.
And this is a recording with Pat Metheny...;

[kris]

[kris]

I have this album:

[cmajor9]

Do you realize that theory, in particular -- western theory, is an after-the-fact analysis of composed music? We tend to think of theory as rules and formulas when it's simply a common language used to describe what someone else has done.

As my composition professor at university would say:

”The composers compose, and the theorists pick up the droppings.”

[ragman1]

He is one of the greatest living saxophonists

Yes, I know. I think you've chosen some 'softer' examples. He's a decent player. Maybe the albums I listened too were just a little more raucous than those :-)

[kris]

Yes, I know. I think you've chosen some 'softer' examples. He's a decent player. Maybe the albums I listened too were just a little more raucous than those :-)

J. Aebersold released excellent material with Liebman.I bought it in the 80's. A book version was also published/ALL TRANSCRIBED SOLOS BY FRENCH GUITARTST-PERFECT WORK/.
"David Liebman's Scale Syllabus (Jamey Aebersold Volume 26) is a comprehensive jazz educational tool featuring soprano saxophonist Dave Liebman improvising over dozens of scales and chords, accompanied by Jamey Aebersold on piano. It includes slow/simple and fast/complex solos for each scale, designed for ear training and improvisation practice"....

[kris]

As my composition professor at university would say:

”The composers compose, and the theorists pick up the droppings.”

There are also critics who do the same with composers and theoreticians.

[RLetson]

In any of the arts, there's a push-pull between practice and "theory" (which I take to mean abstract description-and-naming), and from my point of view (which is "historical"), theory derives from practice, but then theory often becomes generative or predictive: "If this is the structural machinery that produced X, we can use it to produce X+n." And classrooms and workshops and curricula tend to be rooted in "theory."

Which is not to say that the theory-practice interface is trivial--at the very least, terminlogy and taxonomy make it possible to introduce a new tune by saying, "It's in B-flat but starts on the four."

As I've posted before, you can see this in literary art and craft: prosody and rhetoric are derived from existing exemplars and easily become rule-sets for constructing new items. And then some smartypants comes along and (deliberately or not) breaks or alters some element of the rule-set and gets away with it, which encourages extensions or alterations to the theoretical system to accommodate the new items. My experience with this was formed by a brilliant seminar in which the teacher drilled down through the "oughts" of traditional rhetoric and prosody to examine the linguistic machinery underneath--that is, the natural-language roots of any utterance. (And none of this helps much with the question of what exactly qualifies as "poetry.")

[ragman1]

J. Aebersold released excellent material with Liebman.I bought it in the 80's. A book version was also published/ALL TRANSCRIBED SOLOS BY FRENCH GUITARTST-PERFECT WORK/.
"David Liebman's Scale Syllabus (Jamey Aebersold Volume 26) is a comprehensive jazz educational tool featuring soprano saxophonist Dave Liebman improvising over dozens of scales and chords, accompanied by Jamey Aebersold on piano. It includes slow/simple and fast/complex solos for each scale, designed for ear training and improvisation practice"....

It's interesting that Liebman gravitated to teaching much more than most well-known horn players, if they did at all. Both his parents were teachers, of course, and I'm sure that helped mould his views.