-
Originally Posted by AllanAllen
I've told this story before, but some years back I'm walking around downtown Chicago between set with bassist Kelly Sill. He points to a window and says "That used to be a hotel. The first time I played with Chet Baker he invited me by to talk over the tunes, when I got there he was naked in bed with two hookers..." Many folks assume that the 'meat' of that story was the hookers, but it was really that the reputedly "no theory, everything by ear " Chet Baker could talk about wanting 2 bars of B7 in "How Deep Is The Ocean"...
In my experience with a lot of the old beboppers, "I don't know any theory" really meant "I don't feel like teaching you right now" and "I can't read" meant "I have no interest in playing that chart you have there..." There's a video of Wes, minus the pair of hookers, talking a European rhythm section through half-step ii-V's on a tune that should dispel these misguided beliefs.
That said, different folks have different goals that require different levels of engagement with theory, nothing is one size fits all
PK
-
06-29-2026 06:35 PM
-
Oh, I think I get the point. A bar of B7 for each hooker, right?
-
Breh, if one isn't satisfied with their level of play, it doesn't mean they should have learned to play with less theory - it means they need to correct the other things that are lacking, usually technique and ear.
That's like if you got a Bachelors, Masters, and Doc, but had no work experience and have a problem fighting people, so you aren't at your desired level of pay. It's not the education's fault, it still serves you, you just need to correct what is lacking.
Ear
Theory
Technique
Creativity
-
Originally Posted by Strat-itis
Theory is great, and at the very least doesn't hurt anything. I'm glad I know a lot of theory. And I'm working on what I'm lacking. And your list of necessities is right.
All I've been saying is someone could learn to jam on standards with a bare minimum of theory. Namely, by learning vocab and just enough theory to know where to apply it. They can focus on timing, technique, ear (not by anything separate than soaking up the vocab), and then creatively putting that to use in songs.
Yeah, you need some theory to do that, but waaayyy less than what is usually suggested.
In this shift of prioritizing, this hypothetical student learns to play at faster rate(even if superficial). Then, he continues to learn, but can at least play licks through tunes as he continues to learn
another hypothetical student focuses on scales, arps, and theory first. He still continues to learn, but the first guy already sounds like jazz
-
My take on theory is, you can't play what you don't know.
Only in music is there a fascination with untrained "savant" types. Hendrix is a prime example. But he knew a lot more about theory than we think. Same with Wes.
Most of us come to jazz by becoming fascinated by someone's playing, and diving in to learn as much as we can through imitation. Or we just start by playing licks.
Pretty soon you come up against a wall, because you don't know the theory behind it. And so you learn it, or you don't.
How could more knowledge about a subject be a bad thing? I was fortunate that I started on piano and had rudimentary theory in my ear and head before I even started guitar. That allowed me to proceed very rapidly in the beginning. When I studied with a top flight teacher, there was a ton of theory, mostly as it applied to chord progressions, chord scales, in a jazz idiom. Later I took courses in more classical theory, and was able to apply things like counterpoint and voice leading to my playing.
I did many gigs where I didn't know the tunes, but since I had some theory, I could play them after one go around, which saved my bacon- and got me more gigs.
Eventually I realized that I wasn't going to be the next Pat Metheny etc, so I segued into composing, producing arranging etc. And made a career of that. None of that would have been possible without a theoretical background.
So I would say, learn everything about music that you can. You can play pretty well without it, but you will eventually hit a wall. Plus, you never know what turn your musical life will take. More knowledge, in any subject, opens door that otherwise would be closed.
-
Right, this seems to be the point everyone is making. It's correct. It's just that no one here has said theory is a bad thing...I know I didn't...was it someone else? Originally Posted by bluejaybill
-
I agree. Authentic sounds are often postponed years or decades or never? lol when that's extremely detrimental. You only need enough theory to be able to fluently understand, create, and absorb ideas, you don't need a giant mass of it as a prerequisite. Basically all intermediates already have plenty. Originally Posted by joe2758
-
yes, this. exactly. It seems obvious, but I don't think it IS obvious to a lot of people. It wasn't to me Originally Posted by Strat-itis
-
Like I don't need to be able to write 4 part counterpoint to know this is bitchin
-
-
i no rite Originally Posted by Strat-itis
-
Can't touch this guy.... a one man horn section. Originally Posted by joe2758
-
agree to disagree
-
Rahsaan was known to improvise counterpoint lines on two or three instruments played with his nose and mouth at the same time. Don't know if there are any good videos of that, but there are many recorded examples. Also by utilizing circular breathing, he could blow nonstop for very long periods of time. The piece the Japanese guy played is a piece of cake compared to that. Originally Posted by joe2758
-
Was it someone else? Is that a trick question? Originally Posted by joe2758
The third minute @2:57 into the video CVH says so:
"I don't like music theory for guitar"
"More to the negative side in the sense that actually would recommend not studying music theory"
"I'm not even saying like, OK you could also study music here but it's not needed; I'm going the other way and saying don't study music theory because it is a time sink and a waste of time..."
"If you want to play jazz on the guitar, stay away from music theory as much as you can... the only thing you should learn are the chord names... maybe the notes of the chord"
-
Do you need theory?
Wrong question. Does theory help? Yes.
-
Look, I'm not going sit through 90 minutes or whatever, but is there a possibility that what CVH means by 'theory' is not in fact simply being able to read chord symbols?
I think most of the Manouche players can do at least that, from my experience - or things like chord scale theory, which are pretty much irrelevant to that style of music (and arguably bebop too.)
The usual reason why these discussion get a bit circular and fruitless is because everyone has their own idea of what music theory is.
If music theory means the practical skills that you need to function as a jazz musician - for example reading chord charts - then it becomes a straw man position, because almost everyone knows that.
If you are talking about the type of chord-scale jazz theory that has become popular with jazz education in the past 50 years or so, it's a different discussion. I know many swing, Manouche and bop players who don't operate that way, or really know that kind of theory at all.
If CVH isn't defining those terms, that's on him. I find his content a bit rambling.
FWIW we had a disagreement about 8 years ago on this very forum about what we should call the chord 6 x 5 6 7 x - which is found in Coquette, Django's Castle and many others. His argument for what it's worth was normative - in the Manouche community this is called an A13b9. He said Stochelo Rosenberg called it an A13b9, and TBF to him I think he was right for that type of music.
At the time I saw it more as a variant of Bbo7 - I don't think I liked having the "b9" in the bass. I think that I was correct for other contexts - but 13b9 is what you will see in the GJ charts, when it is used as a stylistic sub for the V chord.
If you think that's a theoretical discussion you might think him a hypocrite... Whereas I don't think arguing from the position of 'this is what you will find in the Real World' is theoretical. It's deeply practical.
-
Oh well, there you go. Missed that one. Originally Posted by pauln
FWIW (and I suspect CVH would agree) I think one thing students should look out for is patterns of chords (and their characteristic voice leading/melodies) that are repeated from one tune to the next. Obvious things like Rhythm Changes bridges, II V I's, turnarounds and so on.
Manouche jazz has a vernacular language for this as well - there's "Christophe" for instance - the I I7 IV IVm thing
But tbh once your ears get halfway decent, this nomenclature is less useful than you might think. The main thing is learning the repertoire of basic modules and being able to hear them. Mostly musicians play and listen to music. They don't talk about it nearly as much.
-
Jesus, Christian, this thing has been repeated ad infinitum here. It's quite obviously a Bbm6#5. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
He does specifically say that learning the notes in the chords and the notes in the scales is useful. And he says it in the first five minutes.
He also says that it is music theory.
So I think the reason this particular discussion is circular and fruitless is because the premise is click bait and he says, pretty immediately after saying that he’d recommend not learning theory, that those things (which I think are indisputably theory) are fine and good to know.
So it’s just kind of arguing about YouTube conventions.
Some theory is useful, but probably much less than we tend to think. Seems like most people are agreeing on that one.
-
well, my situation here is awkward: Originally Posted by pauln
I posted this to discuss the video, but there was some outrage at the length of the video and protests from The People standing up for their rights to not be forced into watching it. Possibly pitchforks.
So, then it became that if this is my thread, it needs to be my points.
So from there I assume that is the direction of the discussion because no one watched the video except you and me.
But then, I also have to consider many just read the title of the thread as an open question and post an answer to that.
So, no one on the thread said that, CVH who is the subject of this post said that, but no one knows what he said, so I was asking "who is this a response to?"
-
Cool chord, cool voicing. It happens to be the same voicing I use to begin my composition 'Reverie' - in my lead sheet I call it B7/C (it's a whole step up from the chord you mention) I didn't deem it necessary to mention the highest note because that is the melody note. Anyway, it resolves (sort of) onto a C sharp minor 11 chord. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
sorry didn't watch the video but I know a few gipsy guys that can't name most of what they play cause they learn by ears the vocabulary, they don't refere to any written structural agreement that we named rules to determine what we called harmony.
But those guys can play for real so.....
-
I always just call it the Corcovado chord. Turns up in some disguise in Alone Together and I Should Care also.
-
c’mon joe, it’s a bit much to expect everyone to watch a 90 minute video just to find out what some rambling youtuber said about some other waffling youtuber, or about theory, or whatever (I gave up after a couple of minutes). Originally Posted by joe2758
At my age 90 minutes is a significant chunk of remaining time!
Would’ve been better if you’d summarised the main points he made, then you would have got a more focused discussion perhaps.
Reply With Quote
JJ music sales Ontario canada
Today, 04:01 PM in For Sale