-
Lol. All too true. Of course, you're not saying that all guitar players are posers, but if there is some guy that really doesn't know what he's doing but has everyone fooled - odds are he's a guitar player.
Originally Posted by paynow
Peace,
Kevin
-
04-06-2011 11:31 PM
-
No; I don't get jealous as it's a waste of time. And I play Beatles tunes at parties all the time. And I love having fun. I just don't like dismissing knowledge of music's fundamentals as if they are unnecessary, which is something that guitarists are the most guilty of. Originally Posted by Baltar Hornbeek
You are misunderstanding me but it's because I'm not being clear enough and the analogy isn't the greatest. The "C#" comment is taken from something Mr. B said earlier in the thread:
I couldn't agree with this more. It's like a guy I know who every time you play a chord with an extension refers to it as "that jazz s--t" or those "jazz chords". He also plays by feel; you feel as if he must be deaf when you hear him play. What he actually means is "I suck, don't have any discipline, don't want to learn anything that might be moderately difficult so I'll just say it's s--t." Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
I wish I was a "tool" actually. Craftsman specifically; they never break and if they do, Sears will replace them for free. I wonder if Craftsman makes a guitar?
No, certainly not. And the folks on this board are all passionate about the instrument, which I respect. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Last edited by paynow; 04-07-2011 at 12:28 AM. Reason: re-wording. I'm tired and starting to fade!
-
1) Did you notice the sign (") in the word "know"? Originally Posted by JonR
2) I would consider the matter just on the other side, the opposite way: Django made music, his music, and was innovative enough, creative, original, and so on, to establish a new kind of language called later "hot jazz", "gypsy jazz", "jazz manouche" or whatever...
He did that using solely intuition, in an instinctive manner. (Oh yes, and "KNOWING", once again, with ("), what he was doing).
And THEN, came theory, about HOW he did that, for those people (I'm of course one of them) who don't benefit his same instinct for music, in order to be able to learn SOME of his mental intricacies.Last edited by Pierrot; 04-07-2011 at 02:53 AM.
-
I love these conversations where "theory" is discussed like it is a chunk of knowledge that you learn and then you know it. My experience has been that I learn a concept (theory) and apply that until it's comfortable for me. Then I take a different approach and apply a different concept to my playing until it's comfortable.
Think of theory as a jigsaw puzzle where each piece is a concept and the puzzle is never finished. With every piece you get a better idea of the big picture but the "big picture" can always get bigger.
-
I've never studied theory formally although I've read lots of bits and pieces and pasted it all together. I know enough to explain what I play, but I play it because it sounds good.
-
I gig on a regular basis in a band and the piano player is a phenomenal jazz pianist. One night we played NIGHT AND DAY and I didn't think we were both using the same changes. At the break I went over to the piano and asked him what changes he was using. He placed his fingers on the keys and said, "Well, I play this, and then I play this...." He tried to name the chords but he couldn't.
This absolutely blew my mind. It just doesn't compute that a guy this good didn't know what chords he was playing. He NEVER uses charts for anything and can play really really great jazz. He gigs all over town with many many bands.
Just goes to show that there are no formulas for becoming a great player.
-
agree 100%. Originally Posted by reventlov
someone who disagrees strongly is Laurie Anderson, who apparently "plays" violin and once said, "I can't be bothered to practice because practicing stunts my creativity".
seriously one of the most asinine things I have ever read from an alleged "musician".
She is not a jazz musician, that's for sure. and not much of any other type of musician, IMHO.
-
Apologies for misreading the tone of your post. It sounded as if you were setting intuition against theory, as if they were two different ways of playing, or understanding. Originally Posted by Pierrot
I agree fully with the above - except (to split hairs
) on Django "using solely intuition, in an instinctive manner". I'm sure you don't intend it, but this risks mystification. Django learned the music of his culture (European gypsies) as a boy, and then (in his teens) discovered jazz. Naturally, as he learned to play jazz, he inevitably retained that gypsy "accent" that he'd grown up with. It was a new kind of music, but it was a mix of two pre-existing styles. Django didn't intend (I'm sure) to be an innovator, he just loved hot jazz and wanted to play it. He admired Eddie Lang - but in copying him he inevitably just sounded like Django.
IOW, his "intuition" derived from being steeped in gypsy music, and then listening (hard) to jazz recordings. And practising of course (with a passion demonstrated by his re-learning how to play after the accident). No magic.
-
Django was a gypsie.
And today, as yesterday and tomorrow, all the gypsies kids are learning to play the Django's tunes with their fathers , uncles, cousins, ...
It was the same for birelli lagrene, and it will be the same for his children.
It is just a part of culture.
All these kids are practising more than hard and for hours every day, until they are ready to play with the others, amd transmit what they have learned.
They don't know the "Theory", but they play all with a lot of theory. Just the learning method is different.
It can have different names, but all guitar masters master perfectly the theory during playing . This is my opinion.
-
Yup, that's it. Originally Posted by manu68
When I was an English teacher (to foreigners), this was a big debate. (If you know I've said this before, just stop reading). Should you teach grammar or not? The fact is that if an English teacher is any good, he always, always teaches grammar, i.e., to use the right verb tense, word order, agreement, and so on, according to the context. All that is grammar. The difference is not in the grammar (or theory), it's in the extra vocabulary that allows you to talk about grammar: tenses, parts of speech and so forth. In ESL teaching, this is called metalanguage, and for some students, this metalanguage is helpful, it allows shortcuts like 'regular adverbs are formed from adjectives in this way.' But for others, it's a hindrance, it's an added learning load when they are already finding things quite difficult enough. The same with music, all those meta-concepts like cadences and note durations and modes can help or hinder. What really matters is that the student gets the grammar or theory under his belt, how isn't important.
-
I totally agree with you JonR, (as with many others in this thread). Originally Posted by JonR
Apologies for misreading the tone of your post. It sounded as if you were setting intuition against theory, as if they were two different ways of playing, or understanding.
I agree fully with the above - except (to split hairs ) on Django "using solely intuition, in an instinctive manner". I'm sure you don't intend it, but this risks mystification. Django learned the music of his culture (European gypsies) as a boy, and then (in his teens) discovered jazz. Naturally, as he learned to play jazz, he inevitably retained that gypsy "accent" that he'd grown up with. It was a new kind of music, but it was a mix of two pre-existing styles. Django didn't intend (I'm sure) to be an innovator, he just loved hot jazz and wanted to play it. He admired Eddie Lang - but in copying him he inevitably just sounded like Django.
IOW, his "intuition" derived from being steeped in gypsy music, and then listening (hard) to jazz recordings. And practising of course (with a passion demonstrated by his re-learning how to play after the accident). No magic.
You said it: No magic. I'm totally OK with this assertion.
I suppose we all express, at this time, the same idea, more or less, (more more than less
) just in different manners. Constrains, restriction of the media, once again, a discussion in a thread of an Internet's forum can be very interesting, but definitively not perfect for comunicating "complex" (I apologize for the pedantry
) concepts...
-
As a beginner, I'm a little leery of posting in a thread where I'm comparatively ignorant, but I find a little theory indispensable. I read some Mark Levine or Burt Ligon everyday and, admittedly, my theoretical knowledge of jazz far outstrips my ability to actually play it. But I find that knowing the basic theory behind what I'm trying to learn to play makes it far easier to play it - I understand why I'm doing what I'm doing and why the fundamental framework of jazz sounds 'good'.
I'm not Django. I will never have the time nor the ability to develop 'intuitively' as a player to that degree. Why not cultivate the vocabulary to enable yourself to stand on the shoulders of your betters and use 'theory' to attempt to get a handle on what it took them years to develop organically?
I honestly don't understand this debate. What every musician does can be explained by 'theory' whether they express it, or even think about it, in orthodox terms or not. Why not use the formal structure in place to communicate with the greatest number of people possible? Everybody learns differently and I don't see any problem with using a relatively universal construct to explain things to people if that's the best way for them to learn.There are many roads leading to the same inn. The fire will be just as warm when (and if) you arrive, no matter what your route.
I think the important thing - for me, at least - is to realize that this communication and understanding is only a tool. It shouldn't be the basis for how you approach playing the instrument, but rather a vehicle for understanding what is about the music you like that makes it likable. If you can quantify it, you can translate into something useful for other musical situations. I think Django did this, but I'm perfectly willing to settle for using the lingua franca of music so I can reap the most benefit from the most sources.
The whole idea, seems to me, is getting to a place with the instrument where you're not thinking about it in theoretical terms, but at the point of pure application, where you're doing something someone else will use theory to try to explain to themselves. I don't think it matters how you get there, but for me, so far, a little theory goes a long way.
-
Exactly right. That's the point of it. Originally Posted by 23skidoo
I'd dispute the word "explain" (that's just the pedant in me), but the idea is to have a language to enable us to share knowledge about music without having to play stuff at each other all the time. (The ear is an essential tool, but there's no harm in giving it a bit of assistance.)
Again, I agree. Originally Posted by 23skidoo
As well as communicating with other musicians (verbally rather than via instruments), it helps one organise the music in one's own head.
+1! Originally Posted by 23skidoo
"Learn all your scales. Then forget 'em all and just play." -as Charlie Parker (is supposed to have) said.
IOW, the debate is not (or shouldn't be) about "theory or not" - but about exactly what role theory plays, how we define terms (a source of many of the most long-winded and bad tempered theory debates!), and how and when (and why) we might refer to it. Eg, is it ever good to think consciously about theory as one plays (or composes)? Or is it better to go by intuition (ie the theory one already knows subconsciously)?
I think of it as like grammar. We all speak our mother tongues with perfect grammar, without having to think about what order the words go in, or what kind of endings they ought to have. So we "know" the grammar, even if we might not know the terminology or be able to explain it to anyone.
When learning a foreign language (and music is partially foreign), we can just do it by ear. But that's hard, and takes a long time. A little grammar helps a lot. (And it doesn't stop us talking in "slang" if we want.)
-
anderson is not known as a "musician" (never was) ... but as a performance artist..and i like her work (most of it) very much..im not going to stop liking her work because she doesn't apply "music theory" in her thinking...her playing applies it Originally Posted by NSJ
i really don't care if musicians "know theory" or not...if they play with passion and create innovative styles why would they need to know theory..
when i play with "theory challenged" players .. i work around it... im not going to teach them theory on the spot so they will be informed players and elevated in the eyes and ears of the listeners (who could care less if musicians know theory)..in fact it usually works the other way around...i pick up on some of what they are playing and try and translate it into a "theory format" so i can use it in my playing...
play well
wolf
-
Actually, most people that train to play classically on an instrument get very little theory for years. They are brought to proficiency by focusing on proper technique and fluent sight reading skills. I've played with more than a few folks that were trained and very talented, but knew nothing of theory. Piano, sax, trumpet, whatever. When I'm playing tuba in the orchestra, how much theory do I need or use?
When this topic of theory comes up, sometimes I get confused about what theory we are discussing. Is it some special jazz theory, or is it standard harmonic theory?
Can someone give an example of Jazz theory that needs to be added beyond your knowledge of standard theory?Last edited by cosmic gumbo; 04-07-2011 at 01:59 PM.
-
I don't get the often used term "jazz chords"--the harmony is the same as learned by all musicians-it's the European harmonic system that has developed for hundreds of years. Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
now, what makes jazz jazz is the rhythmic pulse, the polyrythms, the 3 against 2 feel of the beat, the swing, the "irresistible forward momentum".
-
Yes, you're right, but... This is Kevin's terrain more than mine, but these chords are used in jazz in a different way so they take on an additional importance. Specifically, in what you call the European harmonic system and Kevin would call the classical tradition or something, dissonances are supposed to resolve. That means that classical theorists are as likely to talk about moving lines and dissonances and resolutions as about the names of the chords. But in jazz (and much twentieth-century pop), these dissonances don't have to resolve - a G13#9 is just as likely to be used for its own sake as a way of getting from A to B, there's no reason it has to go to, e.g., a Cmaj7 or C6. It might well do just that, but it doesn't have to. My classical harmony teacher was enamored of dominant 7#9's, but he called them major/minor chords instead, and discussed them at every opportunity, but with a different perspective to the jazz take and a slightly different language, like British and American English. Originally Posted by NSJ
-
I have a friend who says to me "you're always playing those jazz chords", every time I play something other than a standard major or minor triad. Originally Posted by NSJ
What he's actually saying is "I don't understand what you're doing and feel insecure about the fact that I can't do it, so I'll discount it as bulls--t."
I wouldn't have this attitude about it were he were willing to expand his horizons a bit, but the bolding and italics of jazz chords represents the sarcasm in his voice so I can't be bothered. Though I do tell him he is FOS every time he does it.
There are only chords, though they are certainly applied differently and with more frequency depending on the musical genre.Last edited by paynow; 04-07-2011 at 04:28 PM. Reason: my horrid spelling
-
Paynow,
There are styles of music where chords that are more complex than triads (americana, roots, folk, polka, some rock genres....) won't be appreciated. A major 7 might not be a 'jazz chord' to you but it won't be appropriate for other styles of music. But I agree that harmony is harmony you just have to use the appropriate harmony for the occasion.
-
I used to tell my students this was the Jimi Hendrix chord so that they would always remember what it sounded like Originally Posted by JohnRoss
I think the term jazz chords came into play when players started subbing ma7 and 6ths for plain majors and of course, whatever on the dominant 7ths.
I used to do this ages ago while playing in a pop band just to irk the piano player. However her father taught theory at the local university so It wasn't a case like pay now mentions. I'm sure she knew plenty about harmony.
As far as theory, You don't really need it until you get to a point when you want to figure out what you're really doing on the instrument. And then I would say you need more of a 'practical theory' than you do the type of theory that say Kevin always talks about.
for example you can learn the harmonic minor by simply raising the 7th. It's not necessary to know things about tetrachords or that this gives you a step and a 1/2 between 6 and 7.
Likewise you could think of an 11th chord as the book definition (1 3 5 7 9 11) or just as '3 moves a 1/2 step to 4'
The part where theory will come into play is when you try to figure out what to call some new chord you just 'discovered by accidentely putting barring instead of deadening a string.
I will say this. If you are into music on any serious level you really should take the time out and learn theory on if just to help you grow as a musician and learn more about your instrument.
-
You make a good point Gramps; but the folks in those other genres you refer to, many of whom are fine musicians, know what the chord is. I'm talking about not knowing what it is at all, a particular disease of guitarists, since you can learn two chords and have an entire career. Originally Posted by Gramps
-
One of my students calls them "adult chords". Originally Posted by NSJ
-
this thread has gotten interesting
my philosophical self has just answered what i was asking for in the beginning,
thanks to all,
pierrot we should hang, paynow...
-
When I'm feeling particularly elitist I like to classify 'guitarists' in three progressive categories: Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Guitar owners.
Guitarists.
Musicians whose main instrument is guitar.
In regards to the op, I'd say just play the thing - chances are you'll end up learning everything you need to know as you need to know it.
In regards to the artistic geniuses who don't want to stifle their creativity, I'd draw their attention to the quote from composer Donald Erb that Kenny Werner uses in Effortless Mastery:
"...If your talent can't stand a little training, it must have been pretty fragile to begin with..."
Reply With Quote
John McLaughlin and Joe Zawinul duet Zawinul’s...
Today, 10:50 AM in The Players