Do you need theory?

[joe2758]

I get it Graham, it's just that I wasn't expecting it from anyone. I was OFFERING it up for discussion. That's a phrase, "offering for discussion"

[joe2758]

That voicing is called "extra note diminished"...by me

[Skip Ellis]

I know enough theory to understand and do what I do, anything beyond that, I don't have any interest in.

[Christian Miller]

Jesus, Christian, this thing has been repeated ad infinitum here. It's quite obviously a Bbm6#5.

Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

That voicing is called "extra note diminished"...by me

CVH would disagree lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joe2758]

CVH would disagree lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

meh he's just a youtuber

[djg]

meh he's just a youtuber

that's the spirit

[John A.]

I don't see "theory" "learning jazz" and "learning guitar" as different subjects. Theory (or at least note names, chords and the concept of building chords out of intervals, major and minor scales, basics of chord function) was built into even the earliest Mel Bay book lessons I took as a kid, my brief period of classical study, later jazz guitar lessons, conversations about music with players in all the genres I've played, etc. It's just part of the landscape of how to understand music. These discussions of "theory versus ear" "do you really need theory", etc., strike me as entirely artificial internet creations.

In the real world, all musicians use and need some degree of some kind of music theory, unless they're doing something truly outsider, independent, and unique. Otherwise, music can't be repeated or conveyed to other musicians without some sort of organization and communication system. Some people have idiosyncratic terminology, or don't use a written system, or maybe don't think of how they talk about music as theory, but if you can tell somebody what you're doing and/or teach them how to do it, you have theory. Beyond that relatively basic level, if you want to play music that sounds like jazz created from ca. late 1950s to the present it certainly helps to explore harmonic and scale concepts that the creators of modern jazz use.

Where I think people get into trouble is in thinking of theory as something to learn before you actually start playing jazz (or any other music). It's not, and if you just focus on theory and don't play much, you're not playing much, which strike me as a bass ackward way to go about playing music.

[joe2758]

"Where I think people get into trouble is in thinking of theory as something to learn before you actually start playing jazz (or any other music). It's not, and if you just focus on theory and don't play much, you're not playing much, which strike me as a bass ackward way to go about playing music."

I think this sums up my points pretty much, with the addition that it isn't a rare occurance

[mr. beaumont]

Im going to throw out a possible...i dunno...thing. Its gonna sound like I'm really being down on guitar players, but I am myself just a dirty guitar player, so im talking about myself as well...

If you look at instruments in general...guitar is the top of the list when it comes to "people just having one to fuck around on." If you play a horn, in this day and age, you're starting it in a grade school band situation most likely. Piano? Sure, your parents might have one and you've sat down and hit a few keys, but likely the only reason there's a piano in the house is someone else plays, and as soon as they see your interest-- lesson time!

But guitar? Not necessarily. Tabs...videos on YouTube (this generation, Guitar World magazine for mine) a lot of people "learn" the guitar with no music fundamentals.

The kid playing trumpet? Probably the first thing they learn is how to make a sound on the mouthpiece, and once that mouthpiece is in, they learn that blowing that horn open makes a C...they loosen that embrocure and get a low C...they tighten it and get a G.

The piano student learns the posture and hand position and finds middle C.

Right from the get go-- musical fundamentals. Whereas a guitar player can play shapes and numbers for literally years and not know the "name" of anything.

CVH is i think trying to say this isn't necessarily bad. But it does need to be accounted for. That trumpet kid is going to learn his notes and play a C major scale. But the guitar kid? Maybe a pentatonic box shape in which the only note they know is the note they start on the 6th string...

All of this is important, because when it becomes "jazz time" these players of other instruments are already thinking in a different way than the guitar player. And that's ok-- but suddenly the guitar player feels behind the ball and this whole big world of "theory" presents itself. And it looks like a mountain that needs to be scaled before going any further musically.

So i think CVH is basically saying "why fight what was working?" Is it possible to gain a better understanding of the instrument using the visual process you're already comfortable with? Absolutely.

At some point, a guitar player needs to know more, quite a bit more, to play jazz. And that "more" becomes truly helpful, not just knowledge without application. But how many times have you seen guitar players discover something like--say-- "modes"--and suddenly they're trying to force fit them to everything without any real understanding.

Anyway, this is getting long...but the point im trying to make is...you can streamline the "theory" part and still be making music while you're in process.

Ill shut up now.

[AllanAllen]

"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..."

I've pulled out "I don't know theory" when someone starts using greek scale names in conversation.

[joe2758]

I've pulled out "I don't know theory" when someone starts using greek scale names in conversation.

I tried that at a Greek restaurant when they asked what side I wanted with negative success

[bluejaybill]

Was it someone else? Is that a trick question?
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"

Yes, the posting of this video and then the innocent claim that no one is opposing theory- I didn't buy that.

And the notion that you need only "a little " theory....

Or the idea that you postpone authentic playing because you wasted time learning theory...

How about learning tunes, soloes etc AT THE SAME TIME as learning theory? Becoming a very good musician/player is time consuming, and there are no short cuts. If all you want is to become adequate at your local jam session, that's another thang. There are no short cuts. Just as there aren't any for learning any trade or skill.

[bluejaybill]

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.

Agreed, it depends on the context- meaning what precedes and follows it.

If that chord is preceded, say, with a Emin9/B, and maybe followed be Dmaj7/A, as it often would on the guitar, than it is a variant of a a dominant chord, so A13b9.

We are talking about functional harmony, counterpoint and voice leading here, so totally about theory. I guess I can't figure out how anyone could understand that without some form of music theory.

[pauln]

...So i think CVH is basically saying "why fight what was working?" Is it possible to gain a better understanding of the instrument using the visual process you're already comfortable with? Absolutely...

I would say yes and no. Yes about continuing with what's working, but no about the process.

I watched the whole video through and it is painfully obvious that CVH is trying to express something in a rather clumsy faction; his biggest determent was using someone's video from which to react.

Music itself is invisible, nonverbal, non numeric, and non-geometric. Where he is going is music is only sound, so true music theory deals with the sound, without visualization, without definitions of words, without names or shapes, patterns, or numbers... those are aids that some conceptually use for physically executing on the instrument but do not reflect the internal abstractions that comprise our phenomenological grasp of the sound of music.

Perhaps the hard case he wanted to make would have been that only those who grasp music as self revealing sound are really using a theory of music; everyone else conceiving of named things, named relationships, visual images of patterns and shapes, imposed numeric systems, etc. have theories of those things which help them play, but not theory of the sound of music itself.

That would be more like, "Stay away from non-music theory of the mechanical, verbal, numeric aids".

[bluejaybill]

(snip)

The piano student learns the posture and hand position and finds middle C.

Right from the get go-- musical fundamentals. Whereas a guitar player can play shapes and numbers for literally years and not know the "name" of anything.

CVH is i think trying to say this isn't necessarily bad. But it does need to be accounted for. That trumpet kid is going to learn his notes and play a C major scale. But the guitar kid? Maybe a pentatonic box shape in which the only note they know is the note they start on the 6th string...

All of this is important, because when it becomes "jazz time" these players of other instruments are already thinking in a different way than the guitar player. And that's ok-- but suddenly the guitar player feels behind the ball and this whole big world of "theory" presents itself. And it looks like a mountain that needs to be scaled before going any further musically.

(snip)

At some point, a guitar player needs to know more, quite a bit more, to play jazz. And that "more" becomes truly helpful, not just knowledge without application. But how many times have you seen guitar players discover something like--say-- "modes"--and suddenly they're trying to force fit them to everything without any real understanding.

(snip)

Ill shut up now.

All great points.When you play piano, music theory is right there. You can see chords as they are built 1 3 5 7 out of a scale. And much other theory.

On guitar, we learn shapes, licks, pentatonic scales, often via Tab (I still can't read that!). You can be a convincing player with just that amount of knowledge. But you can't really be an advanced jazz player that way. And your professional opportunities will be limited. Almost all of the players I knew coming up with that level if knowledge fell by the wayside and went into other ways of making a living. Because styles change, and eventually your licks will be outdated. If you have some theoretical knowledge, you have a better chance of advancing, and adapting.

I know so many who proudly say "I can't read music". So their professional prospects will end right there- you will not get gigs that require that- of which there are many, and tend to be the highest paying. And I will add, most of the greats could read music, at least to some extent, because they were playing in TV orchestras, in pit bands, on commercial dates, etc. Jazz alone couldn't pay their bills, unless they became superstars, like Wes.

So I guess I am coming at this theory discussion from the standpoint of someone who wants to be a professional. A doctor would not say that he didn't need to learn organic chemistry or biology, it's part of the training. Or an electrician not knowing the basics of electricity. Only in music to we have a debate about the merits of lack of knowledge.

[pamosmusic]

I've pulled out "I don't know theory" when someone starts using greek scale names in conversation.

I usually do the opposite and try to poke at them to see if they actually have any idea what they're talking about

[mr. beaumont]

Just also want to make clear my points are based on speculation-- I didn't watch the video. My adult ADD brain cannot do an hour of talking.

[Strat-itis]

I didn't watch the video. My adult ADD brain cannot do an hour of talking.

I think half the thread has already ganged up on Joe and explained that they've refused watching the video.

[rpjazzguitar]

Based on prior threads, not only don't I know what "theory" encompasses, I don't know what "knowing" theory means.

If a player claims to "know no theory" whatsoever, someone is likely to dispute that judgement and say something to the effect that he actually does "know" theory (in some way), and, somehow, isn't owning up to it, or something.

And, then, is "theory" the contents of a book called "Complete Music Theory" or is it just knowing the notes in the chords you play?

These are terms that may not seem so vague in the first post of a long thread, but they're murky by the end.

[Strat-itis]

Theory is any structural information you use to describe music. From the notes on the fretboard and box 1, to a BH C-6/dim scale harmonized in contrary motion over a B7 chord.

I don't understand people saying they don't understand what theory is. If that's true then one's IQ must be extremely low. Like below 70. If that's not true, then it's a red herring.

[joe2758]

I think half the thread has already ganged up on Joe and explained that they've refused watching the video.

Hell, even I wish I didn't watch it now

[Christian Miller]

Agreed, it depends on the context- meaning what precedes and follows it.

If that chord is preceded, say, with a Emin9/B, and maybe followed be Dmaj7/A, as it often would on the guitar, than it is a variant of a a dominant chord, so A13b9.

We are talking about functional harmony, counterpoint and voice leading here, so totally about theory. I guess I can't figure out how anyone could understand that without some form of music theory.

That would be the sort of thing, pretty much exactly so for Coquette

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Christian Miller]

Theory is any structural information you use to describe music. From the notes on the fretboard and box 1, to a BH C-6/dim scale harmonized in contrary motion over a B7 chord.

I don't understand people saying they don't understand what theory is. If that's true then one's IQ must be extremely low. Like below 70. If that's not true, then it's a red herring.

My IQ is super low. It’s frankly a miracle I can remember to breathe


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joe2758]

My IQ is super low. It’s frankly a miracle I can remember to breathe


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Phewwwww!!!!!! THANKS FOR THE REMINDER!