First comes the music, then comes the theory

[jzucker]

There have been a number of chest pounding postings by folks on this and other jazz forums.

A couple points.

• The music rules. The theory is an after-the-fact representation of the music. At best it can lag slightly behind but at worst it trails the music by such a degree that the written explanation only hints at what the improviser is doing.
• Music is sound. If it sounds good, it *is* good. It doesn't matter whether the "proper" theory can explain it.
• A player's understanding of music is manifested in their music. No amount of text in written pontifications can trump the musical output. Therefore, if you can't create it in your music, you don't understand it.
• Closely related is that what you play *IS* your theory. Again, it trumps what you can write in words.

[ksjazzguitar]

At the risk of inflaming things more... but this is obviously aimed at me, and your "don't comment on my posts" is just a thinly veiled attempt to hide. But I'll comment hoping you will realize that I am entering into this in good faith.

There have been a number of chest pounding postings by folks on this and other jazz forums.

So I guess that I am not the only one who disagrees with your theories? You're a little hot under the collar, so I guess this happens a lot.

The music rules. The theory is an after-the-fact representation of the music.

I agree with that. I've written long screeds to that effect. (With the exception of medieval music, where theory often trumped practice.)

At best it can lag slightly behind but at worst it trails the music by such a degree that the written explanation only hints at what the improviser is doing.

I would have said that "at best it be a companion" but OK. But the second half of that statement is a little overkill. Can you provide an example? And often the theory can reveal deeper levels of creativity that the composer was not even aware of. One of my teachers studied with Joe Pass. He analized one of his solos and showed how certain melodic fragments were related to others, etc. Joe was stunned. He said he was just playing what he heard.

Music is sound. If it sounds good, it *is* good. It doesn't matter whether the "proper" theory can explain it.

I agree 100%. But once again (unless this is in response to someone else over whom you're having a hissy fit) you seem to think that I am critiquing your chord choice. No, just the notation.

A player's understanding of music is manifested in their music. No amount of text in written pontifications can trump the musical output. Therefore, if you can't create it in your music, you don't understand it.

I think that there are plenty of musical scholars that would disagree with you. But then, you sound like you're coming down on the anti-academia side of things, so I won't bother. But of course the converse wouldn't necessarily be true - just because someone is good player does not mean that they know what they are doing, or understand it on a deep level. Usually some form of study is required for that. I've known more than a few great players that couldn't really explain what they do.

Closely related is that what you play *IS* your theory. Again, it trumps what you can write in words.

Of course this discounts the number of players who claim to know nothing about theory.

And yet, words were just fine when you thought you were making your point. It wasn't until people started to disagree with you and you found yourself apoplectic in trying to defend your ideas that you started with this, "words don't matter, but they do matter if I think that your playing is good" vibe (a battle cry of the anti-academic crowd.) Sadly, that would probably discount anything being said by many of the people on this forum. You seem to think that the only people who are entitled to opinions are the ones that audition for you and play what you like. (And people call me and elitist?)

Instead of trying to find reasons of why you shouldn't have to defend your ideas, why don't you just try and put your ideas into words better? If your ideas are truly meritorious, it should be easy to defend them. But instead, you keep trying to run away, throw insults, and change the subject. It seem that you don't respect your ideas very much, why should anyone else?

Peace,
Kevin

[pingu]

I don't see any hiding here (maybe its just well hidden he he)
anyway the music comes first , music analysis later .... we agree on that

It doesn't work like scientic theory in that aspect
perhaps it shouldn't be called music 'theory' at all

music analysis would be more correct I think

[jzucker]

ahhhh...Ain't ignore lists great!

[ksjazzguitar]

I don't see any hiding here

I just mean that it seems that every time I've disagreed with something he's said or tried to get him to clarify something, he's either changed the subject, put words into my mouth and responded to that, or gone into insult/martyr mode. Now it appears that he's using "ignore" to hide, perhaps it's for the best.

...It doesn't work like scientic theory in that aspect
perhaps it shouldn't be called music 'theory' at all ... music analysis would be more correct I think

That's a good point. I would say that it can work like a scientific theory - you can infer an idea from the theory and then empirically test it to see if you like it. We might say that modal jazz was invented that way, Miles and Evans wondered "What would happen if we applied the modalism of Impressionist composers to jazz?" Then they "tested" the theory. In that case, to some extent at least, theory was leading (or at least suggesting) practice. But of course it's all meaningless if the practice doesn't yield results.

But I would agree that (since the Enlightenment) the a priori theory usually takes a back seat. Ironically, it was Rameau's rationalism (alla Descartes) and empiricism (alla Newton) that made music "scientific" in the sense that he freed it from the pseudo-mysticism and scholasticism of the past. He was praised as the "Newton of music" because he was trying to approach music as a real science and the modern understanding of music and harmony descends from him and the radical changes he outlined. I guess that was needed at one point, but we've moved beyond that.

I don't mind the term theory. The problem with analysis is that (to me) it implies analyzing specific examples. The point of a theory is to induce a general rule from that. The difference between a musical and a scientific theory is that the scientific theory is trying to define something that is an objective phenomenon, where as the musical theory is trying to define something that is almost entirely subjective and differs from culture to culture and from time to time. I think that as long as we keep that in mind, we'll be OK.

Peace,
Kevin

[MarkRhodes]

William Butler Yeats wrote a nifty poem called "The Scholars." He was thinking of literary scholars, but I still find this worth repeating here.

Bald heads forgetful of their sins,
Old, learned, respectable bald heads
Edit and annotate the lines
That young men, tossing on their beds,
Rhymed out in love's despair
To flatter beauty's ignorant ear.
All shuffle there; all cough in ink;
All wear the carpet with their shoes;
All think what other people think;
All know the man their neighbour knows.
Lord, what would they say
Did their Catullus walk that way?

Let me add that I am NOT NOT NOT anti-theory. I've learned a bit and profited from the study. My primary interest in theory is utilitarian: how can I turn *this* idea into a song? (I have no interest in understanding music theory for its own sake, the way I might pursue philosophy or theology. To me, music theory is A Book of Things That Usually Work, which I can tinker around with until I make sounds that delight me.)

[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).

But really, nobody should be afraid of it. If you can read a novel you can read music and understand theory.

[Ron Stern]

Wes Montgomery used theory, his own. He couldn't explain it in the customary terms but it does not follow that he wasn't using it. People who could write it down found no conflict with the customary terms, that I'm aware of.

It was an old Pythagorean maxim, that every thing was not to be told to every body. Thus the Pythagoreans were divided into an inner circle called the mathematikoi ("learners") and an outer circle called the akousmatikoi ("listeners").

Hm.

Anyway, the hammers and anvils came before the music, and then it went straight to theory.

" It was said that he was the first man to call himself a philosopher, or lover of wisdom . . . According to legend, the way Pythagoras discovered that musical notes could be translated into mathematical equations was when one day he passed blacksmiths at work, and thought that the sounds emanating from their anvils being hit were beautiful and harmonious and decided that whatever scientific law caused this to happen must be mathematical and could be applied to music. He went to the blacksmiths to learn how this had happened by looking at their tools, he discovered that it was because the hammers were "simple ratios of each other, one was half the size of the first, another was 2/3 the size, and so on. This legend has since proven to be false by virtue of the fact that these ratios are only relevant to string length (such as the string of a monochord), and not to hammer weight. However, it may be that Pythagoras was indeed responsible for discovering these properties of string length.

-- -- Pythagoras - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You might as well say that the circulation of the blood came first, and the theory of the circulation of the blood later. It's true but irrelevant.

If it were true that " all that matters is what sounds good", two thousand years later you'd still be banging away on two strings stretched over a turtle shell trying to figure out how much to tighten the strings so it didn't sound like shit.

And thinking, it must be because I didn't sacrifice a pigeon, because every other time it sounded good to me, I got drunk and sacrificed a pigeon. To Orpheus, Black Orpheus, Dionysus, Apollo . . . I can't remember. Anyways, damn, it sounded good; hell, it felt good. I'm going with that. Get drunk, sacrifice pigeon, feel good, doesn't matter how much you tighten the strings.

That's a theory, and if you practice it, you're a theorist. Only problem is, your theory is wrong. Like Pythagoras; but at least he admitted to being a theorist. He was proud of it.

Two thousand years of slowly and painfully accumulated evidence (i.e. a shipload, an entire convoy) says so. Two thousand years you're banging away on two randomly tightened strings stretched over a turtle shell while Vivaldi and Bach are writing concertos (Bach is tuning his piano; and not randomly, but well), Beethoven is writing Beethoven symphonies, Miles Davis is making Kind of Blue, The Harmonious Blacksmith, Elvin Jones, Charlie Parker, Jimi Hendrix, Cole Porter, guitars made of wood with nylon and steel strings, electric guitars, six strings, seven strings, eight strings, nine strings, four string bass, five, six string bass, ukelele, wah wah, chorus flanger, G tuning, Spanish tuning, modes, scales, chords, key signatures, time signatures . . . shall I go on? While you're a happy but vaguely dissatisfied dilettante with two strings and a turtle shell -- goldang it, seems like they sound like shit no matter how I twist 'em -- for two thousand years, trying to make yourself feel good like you did that other time. "Who invented this mess anyway? I mean, a turtle shell and two strings? WTF? Where's the instruction book?"

You wanna get right, you ought to kiss Pythagoras' ass and apologize and pray to the gods that he accepts it. The past bears down upon you like a big fast freight train and the only way out is a theory that synthesizes it.

[ksjazzguitar]

William Butler Yeats wrote a nifty poem called "The Scholars." ...

Cute, nice poem. But just to be clear, I was referring to scholasticism - an intellectual/philosophical movement that attempted (among other things) to reconcile all knowledge with Christian dogma. Things that didn't fit were eyed with suspicion. Because the concept of music was thought to be a product of the cosmos, music theory had to answer to theology. I was pointing out that Rameau broke away from that and had the "radical" notion that music theory should answer to the ear.

Anyway, the hammers and anvils came before the music, and then it went straight to theory.

Not to be a troll, just to be clear, there was music before Pythagoras and the anvils. That (probably apocryphal, what are the odds of perfectly tuned hammers?) story describes the beginning of the attempt to explain music as a physical phenomenon. Just to be clear.

Peace,
Kevin

[Ron Stern]

To me, music theory is A Book of Things That Usually Work, which I can tinker around with until I make sounds that delight me.)

No, that's the physics book. Just kidding.

The Yeats poem is good.

[JonnyPac]

I like playin' till the theory sounds right to my ears. Then I think, "that theory's ok".

[MarkRhodes]

Cute, nice poem. But just to be clear, I was referring to scholasticism - an intellectual/philosophical movement that attempted (among other things) to reconcile all knowledge with Christian dogma. Things that didn't fit were eyed with suspicion.

Kevin, I spent years in a Catholic seminary and Thomas Aquinas is my patron saint---I know a lot about scholasticism. There's no need to dance on the head of that pin. But I will say this much: scholasticism petered out in the 16th century (-if one wants to argue it lasted even that long) and is not germane to contemporary discussions of music theory. (Even if one wanted to discuss the music theory of scholastics, one's concern would be historical, and not "music theory" in the accepted sense of outlining common musical practice at the time one's theory goes into print.)

[ksjazzguitar]

... scholasticism petered out in the 16th century (-if one wants to argue it lasted even that long) and is not germane to contemporary discussions of music theory. ...

But I was discussing the music history and changes in the epistemologies of music. I was responding to someone commenting on the difference between scientific theory and music theory. I had commented on Rameau, who (among other things) turned music into a science as he shifted away from the old epistemological of (among others) the Scholastics. While the Scholastics may not have been as significant force at that point the epistemology that they (and others) represented still had a tremendous residual effect on intellectual thought. That is, until the Enlightenment. Rameau was the guy that brought music into the Enlightenment.

I think that it was very germane to my response to Ron's comment. I'm sorry if you feel that I dissed your patron saint. I like Tom.

Peace,
Kevin

[CGKnight]

"Music is sound. If it sounds good, it *is* good. It doesn't matter whether the "proper" theory can explain it."
Pardon my inexperience, but has anyone seen any 'good' music* being put down because it didn't go according to the 'proper' theory*?

*whatever that's supposed to be.

Thank you.

[jzucker]

"Music is sound. If it sounds good, it *is* good. It doesn't matter whether the "proper" theory can explain it."
Pardon my inexperience, but has anyone seen any 'good' music* being put down because it didn't go according to the 'proper' theory*?

*whatever that's supposed to be.

Thank you.

plenty of times.

[JonR]

theory is simple. About as difficult as a multiplication table. Some folks need to make it complex with 12 pointed stars and geometric shapes

I suspect that's their attempt to make it simple according to systems they would understand.

and ... err ... terms like dodecaphonics (guilty as charged).

No comment .
(It does make it one sound more erudite than "12-tone music" - let's give it a Greek name to impress everyone else, and make it sound like we know something they don't... )

But really, nobody should be afraid of it. If you can read a novel you can read music and understand theory.

Well, I don't much like novels (why make up stories when reality is so fascinating?) - but let's not debate that.
I agree it's simple. And if it isn't, you don't need it. I see the whole point of music theory as making music simpler - easier to understand.
If music is a language, theory is the grammar. We don't have to know the jargon of tenses etc; but there's something about the grammar that's intuitive, that can be picked up by listening (by listening enough, anyway).
Otherwise untrained musicians would never be able to get so good.
That doesn't mean theory is not necessary - as some like to argue. It means there's various ways to approach it: find it out for yourself by trial and error (if it sounds right it has to be theoretically correct), or read some books. Or ideally (IMO) a bit of both.

[CGKnight]

plenty of times.

I always used to think that...
...theory is just there to make things consistent. A common language for something that's intangible.
...yeah, music comes first, and if it sounds good...then theory tries to work out why it sounds good (or why it sounds a certain way, or invokes a certain emotion, etc), and then gives it a name.

I can't even see the problem.

[jzucker]

There's no problem. This is a discussion group, eh? The discussion is that sometimes folks get hung up on the theoretical and the limitations of theory cannot always explain why something sounds good or what somebody was playing over a certain passage in a tune.

[pingu]

To clarify the structural difference I see between the terms
Scientific theory and Music 'theory'

In science people think of an idea or 'theory' first
then test is empirically see if the evidence bears up the theory .....

Actually I suppose this is done in music
12 tone rows , serialism , Jonnypac ?

Oh well bang goes my theory !

[JonR]

There's no problem. This is a discussion group, eh? The discussion is that sometimes folks get hung up on the theoretical and the limitations of theory cannot always explain why something sounds good or what somebody was playing over a certain passage in a tune.

Right. And of course it's theory that enables us to discuss music in the first place. It's just that sometimes the discussion develops a life of its own...

[ksjazzguitar]

Actually I suppose this [theory before practice] is done in music 12 tone rows , serialism , ...

Yeah, I avoided mentioning classical. (It seems to freak some people out here.) But one of the charecterisics of 20th century art was the examination of process and making the creation technique part of the art. Of course, this led to a lot of art that began with a lot of theoretical musings. Some of it came out well. Some of it was unlistenable. That is the danger of starting with the theory.

...The discussion is that sometimes folks get hung up on the theoretical ...

No. No one was telling you to eat an apple. No one was telling you to eat an orange. We were just complaining that you were saying they were the same thing. That is not a question of theory, but of labeling. I have said many times that theory should never be proscriptive.

Peace,
Kevin

[MarkRhodes]

Of course, this led to a lot of art that began with a lot of theoretical musings. Some of it came out well. Some of it was unlistenable. That is the danger of starting with the theory.

Tom Wolfe wrote a funny book about this called "The Painted Word." It was about painting rather than music, but it's the same thrust: the problem of starting with theory. His book on architecture, "From Bauhaus to Our House" plows a similar field.

But music theory---at least so far as jazz is concerned---doesn't have the same cachet. Music theory is about how music works, not about how it "means." What jazz musicians need from theory is not that much. It's of great value, but also very straightforward: how to build chords, how chords progress, how to modulate to different keys, how melodies work. In short: how to get and hold a listener's attention, and how to end. The lifelong pursuit is to make music that keeps one engaged making music.

[jzucker]

In short: how to get and hold a listener's attention,

I agree but it goes beyond that. Jazz can't be defined by whether it can hold the listeners attention. It's bigger than that. Coltrane constantly had to battle that. Folks would walk out of his shows. It took years of the music soaking in before it was commonly understood just what a genius he truly was.

I remember guys saying that Wes wasn't that good either and that he was a pop musician. You still hear guys saying that about Benson. OTOH, Benson is known more for his singing than his guitar playing.

I guess all I'm trying to say in this posting is that it's about making great music. Whether someone's attention is held or not is a secondary issue.

[JohnW400]

I remember guys saying that Wes wasn't that good either and that he was a pop musician. You still hear guys saying that about Benson. OTOH, Benson is known more for his singing than his guitar playing.

Yeah, until one of those same people are standing in front of GB at a guitar show watching George check out a new guitar. After they pick their jaw up off the floor , I doubt they ever make that kind of comment again

[zigzag]

Great discussion, but as with any art form, we must ask ourselves what are the relevant interests in a piece of music that define its "goodness." Some would say that aesthetics are only a part of that picture. Others would say that it is good if you like it.