-
Originally Posted by jzucker
theory is simple. About as difficult as a multiplication table. Some folks need to make it complex with 12 pointed stars and geometric shapes and ... err ... terms like dodecaphonics
(guilty as charged).
I confess that I tried to read some music theory from a wonderful unnamed world class player from Philadelphia whom I and many others here love and quickly became very very confused.
-
04-14-2011 12:50 PM
-
Particularly because he got it together by playing with organ trios on the chitlin circuit but I guess 12 point Chitlins doesn't have the same ring to it... Originally Posted by NSJ
I confess that I tried to read some music theory from a wonderful unnamed world class player from Philadelphia whom I and many others here love and quickly became very very confused.
-
Originally Posted by jzucker
ahhhh...Ain't ignore lists great!
hey jack, good to see you here as well !
there's a TAG on every board...
but he's actually here i've noticed...
best , paul
-
Sometimes when I compose or even write out a simple tune... I'll use theory to help me organize the tune. Even when I think I've decided on some style or harmonic, melodic or rhythmic material... I use theory to help realize what I'm hearing or trying to hear... I totally trust my instincts... my ears etc... I can usually explain what I'm playing or hearing... My point or observation... the only problem, if it even is a problem... some people are unable to hear unless their ears have been trained to be able to hear/understand what they're hearing. There seems to be those who hear before they understand...the few, and those who can only hear after they understand or are told by someone else how to hear... the majority. So my point is that theory may come after the fact with a few... but for most... theory comes first. This is not a theory, just some observations of students, teachers and musicians over the years. Reg
-
i have poor reading comprehensive skills, but i'm still learning to play, might take longer but hey, life is the occupation of time. i have found myself researching theory more now, but it just makes me crazy. if a note sounds off i move on to the next and continue until something flows. i enjoy learning from my mistakes and from this i create my own theory
-
While my mum told me not to trust men without an enter key on their keyboard, Reg is very right here Originally Posted by Reg
I have had a few students with perfect pitch and even they will not by themselves hear the right note on the changes without training, probably because the "taste" of good and bad dissonance in jazz is just that a taste. We consider some notes beautiful extensions and some notes avoid notes and that is context and style dependent.
Even if you know most theory you still get to play something that sounds good and you're left scratching your head as to why (at least for some time). F.ex I have a new piece where the progression E7alt Am does not sound V I because Am in the context sounds like a sort of altered dominant.
So I'd also say: Learn all the theory you can, but don't forget to also use and trust your ears.
Jens
-
I know in my experience the theory came first. I actually came to jazz through a love of theory - I loved the logic of it, and I found that learning a new concept allowed me to discover new sounds and ways of thinking about what I'm doing/could do. And if you love theory, chances are you'll find your way to jazz... Originally Posted by Reg
Years later, I find I can understand this beautiful music but not play it with even a fraction of the facility I would like. I understand A LOT more than what you can hear in my playing.
Sometimes I kick myself for having spent all that time learning theory and not just playing the instrument instead. I think for now I know enough and it's time to just play the thing.
So it's been theory first... music hopefully soon...
-
I agree with most of the OP. However, as far as western music is concerned, I cannot agree that the music always comes first.... a few points.
Without a theory of harmony, the piano and the 12 tone system would not have been invented. Many people theorized about harmony far before Bach ever made use of the fruits of their labor. While books on counterpoint and harmonic theory did come later, the 12 tone system was a theory long before the piano could make use of it.
Also, there are many composers and amazingly influential compositions that where crafted through the brain before the ear ever got involved. Stravinski, Schoenberg (sp), Wayne Shorter, George Russel and his followers, the list goes on and on.
While I do agree with the old saying "if it sounds good, its right" I would also argue that an absence of theory in one's musical process puts too much emphasis on a persons memory and generally leads them to a narrow sound with not much room for progression. I mean, how the hell are you supposed to do anything but play your instrument if you can't read, write, transpose, etc.....?
This is an old argument that has been going on for decades, but as they say "the proof is in the pudding" and the pudding is chocked full of piano playing, big band arranging, theory book writing, and generally masterfull musicians who would all say the same thing....."learn as many different theories as you possibly can, it can only help"
This is a direct quote from George Cables, immediatley backed up by Keith Jarret, then re affirmed by all other educators in the room. I'm going to listen to them, they do pretty well.
-
Just because I have too much time on my hands I am going to attempt to prove a point, I'm typing on a cell phone outside in the sun.
The tune is 12 bars and its in 3/4 time. The harmonic rhythm is one chord per bar always changing on cound 1. The melodic rhythm is half note, quarter note in each measure.
Harmony : Emin b5 - A7b9 - Bmaj7 - D7alt.
F7alt - Bb7alt - Ebmin7 - Ebmin7
Gmin7 - C9 - Fdim7 - Fmaj7
Melody : (decending) A G - G F - F (up to) A# - A# (down to) F#
(decending) Gb F - E D - (up to) Bb Ab - Ab (down to) Gb
(Acending) F G - A Bb - C# E - F (down to) E (down to).
Repeat end on count one of bar 12 after solos.
I will play this when I get home, or someone else might play it first. Either way, the thoery came first, the music, when it happens will be a result.Last edited by timscarey; 04-17-2011 at 03:24 PM. Reason: wanted a C sharp on the F dim. cause that chord type was in another thread.
-
that's a strawman argument and doesn't prove anything. Theory is like the grammar and music is like the spoken or written word. Originally Posted by timscarey
Is it possible to compose theoretically? Of course. I never said it wasn't. I don't know why folks take things so black & white. Maybe because of the medium of the internet.
-
This is no argument at all.
You asserted that a persons playing trumps what they can write in words. You also stated that a persons playing manifests their understanding of music.
I am simply showing you that there is more to being a musician than just playing an instrument and for many of these things we use theory. Don't forget, chord symbols, time signatures, letter names, these are all parts of music theory. You can't say "some theory is good and other theory gets in the way."
Actually, you could say that, but I think that would be a personal choice where to draw the line.
Assume that I can't play any instrument well enough to play what I wrote above, does that mean that I have not created music? Maybe it does.... but does that therefore mean that what I have done is not valid or musical? Is my musical understanding still dependant on what I can manifest aurally?Last edited by timscarey; 04-18-2011 at 12:50 PM.
-
Tim,
I think that's a little off the main thrust of the point. Everything you put in your post was named after the event. You're able to write the stuff away from the instrument, but the stuff itself came before the name of it, no?
3/4 was called 3/4 lifetimes after folks had been playing in 3/4.
-
I never said any such thing. As a teacher and author of sheets of sound for guitar, I certainly would never say theory is not good. Sheesh... Originally Posted by timscarey
-
I guess I must have missed the point on this one.
If the point is, "everything sound has ever been played was first played before it was theorized about" there would be no way to proove that.
And I think we might also have different definitions of music theory. It's cool. Ill read from a distance for a while.
-
...just a quick note. I personally cannot play without theory guiding my intuition. Serious. I have a good ear too. Theory enables me to go where I want in a solo or composition. 'nuff said!
-
Just a quick note. I have taught theory at the university level and have a 300 page technique book out but when I'm playing my best, I am not thinking of anything but the melodies I am playing. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
-
Love it. +1 Originally Posted by timscarey
-
The theory is ingrained in you form experience. I watched you on you youtube. Only at a high level (such as yourself) can you achieve the freedom you are hinting at in your posts. There are several guys here (oneworld, reg, to name two) that go there. I'm still young and learning. Originally Posted by jzucker
-
Well, I think it's an interesting point for debate. Originally Posted by timscarey
Obviously when i'm composing i dip into my understanding of theory. Sometimes that understanding inspires my ear to go into interesting places which I analyse and so it goes on.
The ear is an incredible thing. Stravinsky causing riots becomes a music to drive to. The satanic tri-tone becomes passe. The 4th on a final maj chord becomes quite commonplace.
Theory has a certain malleability that the ear takes advantage of from time to time.
What awaits us I wonder.
-
I'm too much off a newbie to make any kind of definitive statement on this topic but it is interesting to think about how guys like Wes and Benson learned to play jazz as opposed to how most of us go about it now.
With all the universities and books and videos and forums, it seems most people are still striving to play like guys who set the standards without the aid of any of those things! Not saying they were oblivious to theory but I doubt they focused on text book learning the way most of us do now.
I've watched Benson's instructional DVD and I bet he'd get a good thrashing if he entered most of the classical theory debates here on this forum lol. Of course once he picked up his guitar and demonstrated what he was talking about, nobody would say a word!
I envy those of you who can approach the instrument with both sides of the brain equally. I think you probably get the best of both worlds.Last edited by Jazzpunk; 04-18-2011 at 06:40 PM.
-
agreed jazzpunk. I think you get it. The jazz players we love learned to play jazz as folk music, not from a book. Having both at your command is helpful but guys like Dan Wilson who learned to play totally by ear just have that "thang" going on.
Dan Wilson
it's something that can't be learned from a book. That much I know.
-
Wow I'd never heard Dan before .... wow
he's clean man .... gonna search out some more of that
-
Jazz has too many notes...
-
Music has too damned many theories.
Main Entry: music theory Part of Speech: n Definition: the study of the theoretical elements of music including sound and pitch, rhythm, melody, harmony, and notation
Definition of THEORETICAL
1
a : relating to or having the character of theory : abstract b : confined to theory or speculation often in contrast to practical applications : speculative <theoretical physics>
Definition of SPECULATION
: an act or instance of speculating: as a : assumption of unusual business risk in hopes of obtaining commensurate gain b : a transaction involving such speculation
Examples of SPECULATION- He dismissed their theories as mere speculation.
- The book is just a lot of idle speculation about the future.
- Her speculations leave many questions unanswered.
- He lost everything in foolish land speculation.
I'll drop out now because while I agree with Jack (the OP for those who have gotten lost in the rhetorical miasma of the thread) I find the depth to which these threads sink a waste of time. I'd rather pick up my guitar and make music.
Edit: I showed some of this to my lovely wife, whose only connection to music is listening. Her comment? "I see you listening to music that you love and I see your body move, your head go to a wonderful place, your smile and your entire being respond. With some of these analysts I see a person standing in his tweed jacket, patches on the elbows, pinching the bridge of his nose between his thumb and forefinger and commenting on the nuts and bolts of the music. My God they must be absolutely horrible in bed."Last edited by Flyin' Brian; 04-18-2011 at 09:35 PM.
-
Theory generally follows practice. I reckon music was around long before mankind. It's part of the universe. The dinosaurs probably had big open air concerts, which set the wolves off howling. It's funny how some animals get with it.
Back to the present: new theories can be used to create new of musical forms, or types of composition. However using standard theory will generally reproduce musical ideas that sound similar to music that already exists.
Reply With Quote
dearmond 1100 reissue vs original which one is...
Today, 03:30 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos