-
Preface, I have taught jazz theory, improvisation and jazz guitar at the university level. I'm the author of the Sheets of Sound for Guitar series books. I'm well versed in traditional and jazz theory.
---------------------------
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.
The common western theory taught in universities is based on the Baroque period of music (1600–1750).
And then, when jazz came along, we tried to analyze it in terms of Baroque rules and principles. Along came Bird, Trane, Herbie, Chick and up and up.
AND WE ARE STILL USING BAROQUE terminology to describe jazz. Of course, Barris Harris, Hal Galper, Dave Liebman updated these principles and helped usher in a period of what we now refer to as "Jazz Theory".
Of course, we are still taking after-the-fact analysis and attempting to generate rules and regulations about what is valid based on looking at things backwards.
Reality check -- You don't play by the rules. YOU MAKE THE RUlES. The rules will bend to follow what you played. If it sounds good, it *IS* good.
With all that being said, can you play a b9 against a Maj7 chord? Answer, YES OF COURSE YOU CAN. Try taking a tune like "You stepped out of a dream" and for ever tonic, Try using an altered dominant tonality. Does it work? Yes, does it fit the rule books? Who cares!!!
Let's stop trying to use western theory (baroque or otherwise) to govern what we can or cannot do in jazz.
Rules are like labels, jazz is not Mayonnaise.
I'll post some more articles like this in the future, perhaps taking these concepts further.
-
05-02-2026 05:43 PM
-
As you say, musical organisation is simply a common language based on certain principles that work. But it never stopped the atonal composers, avant-garde players or jazz innovators from trying other things.
Who is this 'we' who are governed by what they regard as rules?
-
This can be a very nice topic for musical considerations.
..."jazz theory"---I'm curious where the rhythm and the role of feeling are in all this?
Focusing only on good notes is not everything when it comes to jazz music.
-
I think it's important to query what theory is for and where it comes from. A lot of theory gets taught because it's convenient for the educator.
That's how modern classical theory came about. Bach didn't know it, it hadn't been invented yet. As you say it was an after the fact analysis that people could do exams in. Meanwhile real composers followed a more of an apprenticeship/trade school model.
Modern chord scale theory came about for similar reasons. To suit the need of the academy.
What I've come to appreciate is that jazz is naturally layered up by its very nature. I think there is an inbuilt tendency to analyse jazz as if it's the product of one person's mind when it is the product of many people playing together. That's a latent influence from the way classical music is made.Last edited by Christian Miller; 05-03-2026 at 06:14 AM.
-
It seems to me that 'jazz theory' has developed gradually over the last few decades.
The young musicians are impatient and want to have everything given to quickly explore the basics of jazz.
A lot of jazz schools were established and hundreds of books were published – what to play and in what way, justifying it theoretically. There is some kind of jazz business.
I think it's not bad because it encourages people to get to know music as such.
-
If we all had great ears or even worked more diligently on our ears, MAYBE we wouldn't need as much theory, but alas this is not the case.
Last edited by GuyBoden; 05-03-2026 at 05:57 AM.
-
Good hearing is the basis for any type of music. Someone who does not have absolute or very good hearing has to work on it all their lives.
Originally Posted by GuyBoden
If we all had great ears or even worked more diligently on our ears, we wouldn't need theory, but alas this is not the case.
Another thing is that excellent hearing is not everything. You also need to have manual skills and be an intelligent person.
In addition, theory can be helpful in reading written sheet music fluently.
I was surrounded by musicians with a brilliant ear and who played sensationally. Their knowledge of theory was poor-modest knowledge.
Many of them have not bought a single book on jazz theory...:-)
-
I think everyone has to work on it. Even people with perfect pitch. Just because you can tell an A from a G# by ear doesn't mean that you have then completed listening skills. Actually the people with perfect pitch I know get annoyed when people say stuff like that - source, they got annoyed with me lol. Originally Posted by kris
It does mean you perceive the musical world in a different way, absolute rather than relative. Which can complicate learning theory in fact.
Perfect pitch people make a big deal about transposing music to the 'null key centre' (C) for analysis, whereas for me, I'm like, everything sounds like it's in C anyway lol.
Is it just me or do fewer jazz musicians have perfect pitch than classical musicians? I think there's something deep there if that is in fact true.
Yeah I mean musicianship and the ability to hear music is non-negotiable. Theory is something of an add on. People seem to talk sometimes as if theory is replacement or short cut for using your ears. I don't know where people get this idea from?Another thing is that excellent hearing is not everything. You also need to have manual skills and be an intelligent person.
In addition, theory can be helpful in reading written sheet music fluently.
I was surrounded by musicians with a brilliant ear and who played sensationally. Their knowledge of theory was poor-modest knowledge.
Many of them have not bought a single book on jazz theory...:-)
I've always found 'theory' to be most relevant when I can hear people using it.
If you you don't hear what you are playing it will sound like crap. It doesn't matter how 'correct' your pitch choices are. It's definitely the case for me - when I listen back and I've tried to do something 'clever', it's always rubbish.
And people come in with the 'I am but an amateur' thing - I mean fine, do what you enjoy. But if you are learning a craft for pleasure, wouldn't you be interested in improving at the craft? It really is like pulling teeth sometimes to get people to work on ear and rhythm stuff. Anyway, we are all amateurs ('lovers') in the literal sense. Ain't none of us playing jazz for the material rewards even if we are lucky to make a living from it...
-
It seems to me that the ear education for many musicians ended when they obtained a diploma from a music school. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
I remember how musical dictations were written by students with excellent hearing. They didn't need hours to sing and practice "solfegio".
They heard harmoniously and diatonic without the need to tinker.The rest of the students sat at home for hours and practiced the assigned listening exercises.
The word talented seems to have a fundamental meaning.Good hearing, musical memory, creativity, manual workshop, sense of rhythm is probably what it's all about.
-
Question: can jazz theory be taught by a poorly playing musician....?
-
TBH I think "jazz theory" is a bit of an oxymoron.
There is jazz practice, there are raw materials for music making, there are a bunch of pretentious names for simple things - and there are salty internet guitarists who think you are a musicologist for knowing what notes are in a Bbmaj7 chord.
(There are occasional academic papers about jazz, but these are best ignored.)
-
This thread/discussion isn't about theory, it's about slavish attachment to established formulas and, presumably, the fear of departing from them.
That's a human psychological trait that doesn't just rear its head in the music field, it could be anything from how to boil an egg to religious doctrine.
It certainly doesn't apply to all people. There are plenty of questioners.
-
If someone is a philosopher of theory and someone else is not a philosopher of theory - this also applies to theory.
-
what do you mean? Originally Posted by kris
-
I don't mind the Greek names, personally. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
I was in Crete, Greece a few weeks ago, the language has changed dramatically, it's now written in cyrillic. But, the names Angelos and Yanni are very common. Great country to visit. Originally Posted by James W
-
Also, regarding academic papers about Jazz - not all of these will be to do with jazz theory. They might be historical or transcription and analysis. In which case they might hold some value, don't you think?
-
i guess, i'd rather listen to coltrane than read a technical explanation of what he was doing. I want the soul, not the math. Jazz theory is pretty simple but you have guys trying to describe it with 12 pointed stars and sonic shapes. Originally Posted by James W
I like this guy's way of explaining concepts. I think the demos "fix" the problem with the white paper's soullessness
-
I like Lewis Porter's book on Coltrane in general, and I like his transcription of the ineffable 'Venus', as well as his analysis of it. Originally Posted by jzucker
Fortunately it's not an either/or and I can both love the music and read and take an interest in analysis (which I don't think has much to do with maths).
-
Keep it Latin or Greek. Pick one and stick to it. Originally Posted by James W
As opposed to “the Mixolydian mode for the dominant chord.’ This statement is basically tautological within CST. The two things should have the SAME name.
A large part of learning CST seems to be learning two names for one thing. You aren’t actually teaching any theory at all here - just nomenclature. Really, in a sensible world, the name of the scale should be the name of the fully extended chord.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Not to split hairs or get pedantic (heaven forfend) but mixolydian refers to a mode while dominant chord refers to a... chord. Those aren't the same thing or synonymous are they? Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
was s/o dumping on lewis porter? wtf? Originally Posted by James W
-
It is tautological within CST. A fully extended dominant chord (13) is in the theory the same thing as a mixolydian mode. Originally Posted by James W
(ignoring pitch ordering, which CST tends to.)
Which is why we should call it a dominant scale.
The same for major and minor. Not Ionian or Aeolian. Then you can match the scale to the diatonic scale degrees on which they appear.
Of course then it wouldn’t sound nearly so fancy.
I mean it isn’t a huge deal, but it does illustrate how much of music “theory” is simply labelling things.
It’s similar with terms like harmonic and melodic minor, augmented sixths and so on. These were all invented in the 19th century. Someone looks at a jazz transcription and says ‘oh look it’s the Mixolydian b9 b13’ and they get 5 points.
-
No one was dumping on Lewis Porter. Originally Posted by djg
I was just using him as an example of good jazz scholarship.
-
Ok. Not a big deal really. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions