who are some great jazz guitarists that didn't know theory and just relied on their

[Little Jay]

I won't disagree with what makes sense to others, but I play by ear and assigning names to sounds is a redundant step that takes me away from the part of my mind that enjoys, understands, and performs music - the part of my mind that knows nothing of things with names..
The best I can explain it is that I recognize chord types and their functions etc by the way they sound just like I recognize a familiar face - I don't have to know the person's name to recognize their face.

That's realy cool! I 'm not able to do that...

But it does make me wonder how you communicate about music with other musicians?

[monk]

................Keepnews says that Wes's (supposed) lack of knowledge was a benefit, because it meant he played chords "that you were not supposed to be able to do on the guitar and which he did because he didn't know you weren't supposed to do them."

Wes played standard grips and voicings. Nothing different from any other guitarist of the time except for Johnny Smith, who really did play chord voicings that weren't meant to be played on guitar.

[JakeAcci]

Wes played standard grips and voicings. Nothing different from any other guitarist of the time except for Johnny Smith, who really did play chord voicings that weren't meant to be played on guitar.

Definitely true, but I wonder where Wes's use of implying sus sounds over dominant chords came from. I think most players, still now, don't utilize the natural 4 on a dominant chord the way he did, probably because of it's stigma as an "avoid note" - a sentiment that I'd wager he might not have been heavily exposed to.

[monk]

Good point Jake.

I probably should have said that while Wes' grips were common, his concept of reharmonization was anything but. Perhaps that was what Keepnews was referring to.

[pauln]

That's realy cool! I 'm not able to do that...

But it does make me wonder how you communicate about music with other musicians?

I would imagine it is pretty much the same way as you do; keys, progressions, chords, scales, intervals, notes... I read music and studied theory as a child (clarinet and piano); with the guitar I can communicate about music using theory concepts, I just don't think of those concepts when playing.

I don't think this is so unusual. I think playing by ear just means knowing what something will sound like phenomenologically before you hear it or before you play it. Recognizing the sounds in advance does not take away from knowing the names of things and the relationships among them - even heavy theory folks must be playing by ear in this sense most of the time.

[Little Jay]

I would imagine it is pretty much the same way as you do; keys, progressions, chords, scales, intervals, notes... I read music and studied theory as a child (clarinet and piano); with the guitar I can communicate about music using theory concepts, I just don't think of those concepts when playing.

I don't think this is so unusual. I think playing by ear just means knowing what something will sound like phenomenologically before you hear it or before you play it. Recognizing the sounds in advance does not take away from knowing the names of things and the relationships among them - even heavy theory folks must be playing by ear in this sense most of the time.

Ah, ok, so you do know theory. Well, I guess we all play by ear to some extend then. I recognize a major and minor chord easily by the way they sound of course, but I have no absolute hearing, so by just listening to it I couldn't tell if it's a C or a Bb. And I do recognize altered chords and diminished and 7th chords for example and then 'hear' what should follow next, or 'see' it on the fretboard and see a pattern around it from notes that I could play. Nowadays I am also able to tell just by listening to a chord if it contains a 6 or a 9 or a 13 for example, because all those additions have their own colour or sound. But my mind is not saying to me "6" or "9" but rather "7-chord with that extra sound, so need to put my finger one fret further". Is that what you mean by playing by ear?

[marcwhy]

None of these examples should be used to justify not bothering to learn music fundamentals.

+100! This kind of question lends itself to bad conclusions, "Well, if Wes or ___ could do it, then I could do it."

But recall what was said in a (US) Presidential debate several years go: "Senator, I knew Wes Montgomery, and you are no Wes Montgomery!"

Marc

[monk]

+100! This kind of question lends itself to bad conclusions, "Well, if Wes or ___ could do it, then I could do it."

But recall what was said in a (US) Presidential debate several years go: "Senator, I knew Wes Montgomery, and you are no Wes Montgomery!"

Marc

The words ""great" and "genius" have been bandied about by music magazines and the general public over the last 40 or so years as well as on internet forums for the last 15 or so, that they have lost all value. My 8th grade English teacher used to say that "cute" was the most overused word in the language. I'll submit that "great" and "genius" have far supassed "cute" as overused.

The late comedians Lenny Bruce and George Carlin maintained that "dirty words" if repeated enough would lose their ability to shock. The words "great" and "genius" having lost value by being applied indiscriminately has contributed greatly to the widespread acceptance of mediocrity as the new great.

Genius is a rare commodity and any century only produces a few in any discipline. Joe Pass was of the opinion that the 20th Century only produced three world-view altering jazz guitar geniuses: Django Reinhardt, Charlie Christian and Wes Montgomery.

There is a good deal of proof that the above mentioned three were incessant practicers. It should also be mentioned that none of them developed in a vacuum; all three grew up in musical families.

Given that genius is rare, any excuse to not learn more about music and the instrument is ultimately self defeating.

I know I'm no Wes Montgomery and the probability is extremely high that no one else on this forum is either.

[pauln]

Ah, ok, so you do know theory. Well, I guess we all play by ear to some extend then. I recognize a major and minor chord easily by the way they sound of course, but I have no absolute hearing, so by just listening to it I couldn't tell if it's a C or a Bb. And I do recognize altered chords and diminished and 7th chords for example and then 'hear' what should follow next, or 'see' it on the fretboard and see a pattern around it from notes that I could play. Nowadays I am also able to tell just by listening to a chord if it contains a 6 or a 9 or a 13 for example, because all those additions have their own colour or sound. But my mind is not saying to me "6" or "9" but rather "7-chord with that extra sound, so need to put my finger one fret further". Is that what you mean by playing by ear?

Yes, very much like that. It comes from listening and playing experience, which is why it is so important to hear and play as much as possible. The chord types have to be heard before they can be recognized, and their placement within the progression needs to be heard so that their function is recognized... same with the relationships among the other musical elements - the more you hear of them, the more of them you come to be able to anticipate, recognize, and hear in advance how they sound.

Even for ear players, the formal theory allows one to "look back" at something and provide a structured means to analyze "why it works" as well as provide a basis to "extend forward" and create something new "that works". With a systematic theory approach it may also provide a fairly comprehensive presentation of things to hear and play, some of which might be obscure and unlikely to be encountered often in the standards and popular works; so it presents additional things to hear, play, and learn to recognize.

I imagine it takes a lot of ear training and considerable courage for a hard theory player to let go and really play by ear perhaps because maybe it feels like playing "blind"; the discomfort level could be a substantial barrier until the ear catches up with the concepts. Likewise, it may take a lot of theory for an ear player to feel comfortable deliberately incorporate theory concepts into his playing because the different nature of the effort really feels more like "work", especially if his theory basis is still not yet sophisticated enough for him to sound as good as playing by ear... I think the comments about laziness may actually have a grain of truth, here.

[pingu]

People always try to look for an easy way out. Reading music, and understanding theory are fundamental pillars of musicianship. Saying that you will play jazz guitar well without understanding theory and reading music, etc is like saying you will be able to learn trigonometry without learning how to add and subtract.

You don't need to read ......
otherwise blind people couldn't play

[pingu]

It helps tho !

I use it and theory too , the stonger your ears the less theory you need probably

[Flyin' Brian]

You don't need to read ......
otherwise blind people couldn't play

Music notation does exist in braille.

[Synchro]

This is a question close to my heart. I do read, fairly well, but i'm no Tommy Tedesco. Theory, as it relates to chord progressions, evaded me for quite a while. I sensed a pattern to it all but couldn't lay my finger on it. The key, at least for me, was understanding that songs could change tone centers. Once I learned about that, the pieces just fell into place. Over the course of a few months it was like watching a puzzle assemble itself before my eyes. Ever since I've been able to make sense of changes, chord scale relationships, etc, as it applies to standards.

Now, even though I was a reader the knowledge of these things required something else, I had to be able to visualize scales and tone centers. While reading helped it was hardly necessary.

There was a time that I looked down upon non-reading musicians but I no longer feel that way. Some of the best musicians ever did not read music but that is not to say that they didn't understand how music worked. Perhaps in some cases, Django comes to mind, they did not use the same terminology as is accepted in academic circles but they may well have a complete, coherent understanding of how music works.

Psychologists used to believe that animals couldn't think because they lacked symbolic language. Time has revealed that visual-thought not only exists but is not unusual with gifted and creative people. IMHO, music theory serves the cause of music as a way to describe music. The phenomena of harmony and how music is perceived exists whether or not it is described. Neither Wes nor Django were I'd iot savants, they were just people that came to understand how music works without being able to read music.

[jzucker]

There aren't any. Any great improviser knows theory even if it's their own internal theory and systems. Folks forget that theory is an after-the-fact analysis of what the music is. It's just an explanation. It's not the end-all-be-all.

p.s.

jazz theory is very simple.

[Sailor]

Aaaaahhh!!! Just learn the notes

Sailor

[JonnyPac]

Jazz has too many notes!

[JonR]

Jazz has too many notes!

Nah. There's 7 right ones and 5 wrong ones. And even the wrong ones are cool, a lot of the time...

[jmstritt]

If people spent as much time practicing as they did looking for cop outs there would be a lot better music out there.

[Double 07]

As Metheny put it Wes had one of the most "detailed harmonic conceptions" ever on the instrument. IMO that should be obvious to the musically sophisticated listener. You can't play jazz guitar on the level Wes did without having a very keen, well developed, sense of what's going on musically period.

[merritt stone]

There aren't any. Any great improviser knows theory even if it's their own internal theory and systems. Folks forget that theory is an after-the-fact analysis of what the music is. It's just an explanation. It's not the end-all-be-all.

p.s.

jazz theory is very simple.

J has it right. Even if it's a guitarists own jargon, it's still theory.

Nah. There's 7 right ones and 5 wrong ones. And even the wrong ones are cool, a lot of the time...

It's all about what right or wrong notes you play before and after you play a certain right or wrong note. haha

[Double 07]

but seriously though... when all of the myriad extensions, alterations, intervals, and subs are considered in the harmonic and melodic frameworks it really can get very involved after awhile. In the context of jazz improvisation then there really are a bazillion (did I spell bazillion right? lol) different things that could be played at any given instant. Once all things are considered, with the exception of say a minor third over a major chord, all twelve notes are really in play at any time. So where did that major scale or that chord disappear to all of a sudden? They've really just become one subset of all of the myriad relevant possibilities. It's somewhat of a quandary in a way. So really after all that deep thought, considering all the myriad possibilities, it really boils down to the artists conception of what notes strung together will sound good at any particular moment.

Assimilation of the theoretical knowledge then opens up alot of possibilities to play ideas one may not have immediately considered. Then taking all of that theory and making something come out of your guitar with it that can capture the imagination of listeners is a whole other trick. Taking science and making great art with it.

[JonR]

but seriously though... when all of the myriad extensions, alterations, intervals, and subs are considered in the harmonic and melodic frameworks it really can get very involved after awhile.

True, but there's only really a small handful of types of alteration/extension, etc.
It becomes easier to handle if you think of basic chord types (just six essential kinds of 7th chord) - along with their functions - then the possible extensions on each one (2 or 3 at most), then the possible alterations (and only dom7s are subject to much alteration).
And of course, for guitarists, the various different shapes for each chord type (no more than 5 for each one).

As for scales, again there are very few different types of scale - maybe five or six.

Compared with the notion of "1000s" of chords and "100s" of scales, this is a relatively small body of knowledge. Of course, it's the potential of the combinations that's massive, but there's no need to think about all that all the time! (The fact there are 1000s of words in a dictionary doesn't inhibit us from speaking...we only need to consider the handful of words relevant to what we're talking about.)

In the context of jazz improvisation then there really are a bazillion (did I spell bazillion right? lol) different things that could be played at any given instant.

No, not really. That is, in one sense you're right, you could play any number of things, but there's only a very small number of things that would be appropriate to play, that would sound good.
This is the point about learning the vocabulary of jazz, by constant listening. The more jazz you listen to, the simpler the task of playing it becomes: because you absorb the language, and you get to know what's "right" at any time. You're no longer swimming in a sea of infinite possibility: the direction is clear.
When you think in groups of notes - in phrases, licks or motifs - that's a lot easier than thinking of all the individual notes and their potential permutations. It's not that one steals and recycles old licks (although that can be done!) but that you get a feel for the type and sound of certain jazz phrases. Instead of building a lick note by note (a very complicated and daunting task), you take an existing lick and alter a note or two; much easier and quicker.
And even when you are constructing your own licks from scratch, your mind is full of so many old licks and melodies that they cross-fertilize, almost without you thinking about it. So you just have to fill your brain with all that stuff to start with. ("Just"...hehe... that still takes years.)

BTW, "bazillion" reminds me of my favourite George Bush joke (sorry I can't resist):
"Bad news from Iraq, sir, three Brazilian soldiers have been killed."
"Oh my God..." Bush buries head in hands; then, after a pause: "Um, remind me again: how many is a brazillion?"

[Double 07]

True, but there's only really a small handful of types of alteration/extension, etc.
It becomes easier to handle if you think of basic chord types (just six essential kinds of 7th chord) - along with their functions - then the possible extensions on each one (2 or 3 at most), then the possible alterations (and only dom7s are subject to much alteration).
And of course, for guitarists, the various different shapes for each chord type (no more than 5 for each one).

As for scales, again there are very few different types of scale - maybe five or six.

Compared with the notion of "1000s" of chords and "100s" of scales, this is a relatively small body of knowledge. Of course, it's the potential of the combinations that's massive, but there's no need to think about all that all the time! (The fact there are 1000s of words in a dictionary doesn't inhibit us from speaking...we only need to consider the handful of words relevant to what we're talking about.)
No, not really. That is, in one sense you're right, you could play any number of things, but there's only a very small number of things that would be appropriate to play, that would sound good.
This is the point about learning the vocabulary of jazz, by constant listening. The more jazz you listen to, the simpler the task of playing it becomes: because you absorb the language, and you get to know what's "right" at any time. You're no longer swimming in a sea of infinite possibility: the direction is clear.
When you think in groups of notes - in phrases, licks or motifs - that's a lot easier than thinking of all the individual notes and their potential permutations. It's not that one steals and recycles old licks (although that can be done!) but that you get a feel for the type and sound of certain jazz phrases. Instead of building a lick note by note (a very complicated and daunting task), you take an existing lick and alter a note or two; much easier and quicker.
And even when you are constructing your own licks from scratch, your mind is full of so many old licks and melodies that they cross-fertilize, almost without you thinking about it. So you just have to fill your brain with all that stuff to start with. ("Just"...hehe... that still takes years.)

BTW, "bazillion" reminds me of my favourite George Bush joke (sorry I can't resist):
"Bad news from Iraq, sir, three Brazilian soldiers have been killed."
"Oh my God..." Bush buries head in hands; then, after a pause: "Um, remind me again: how many is a brazillion?"

NOPE

Sorry I didn't read your entire post because it wasn't really necessary. Fact is the options one has really are almost limitless when one creatively considers all of the tools one has available to him or herself in music. I could go into a long thesis on this point but instead I'll just say the following: The music industry keeps pumping out new music everyday all over the world, much of it will be utter garbage you won't get any argument from me on that point. Musicians all over the world are pumping out new music every day. They're all using the same 12 notes and 12 keys. You gotta think multiplication rather than addition. Using those fixed number of tools I still don't hear anybody saying that someone needs to invent some new notes or new keys or we'll run out of new music to write. Think about it.

Sure everyone develops a certain "harmonic center" that they like to pull from as an individual player. However that does not preclude the fact there are a plethora of other possibilities one could have used in that same harmonic situation, possibilities that also sound good. So no need to worry we're not going to run out of new fresh music or things to play anytime soon.

[jmstritt]

I agree with the analogy of multiplication rather than addition. Everytime I pick up the guitar, I feel like I learn something new.

We start with basic concepts, but the way we combine them, substitute them, and alter them is where the magic lies. I think that you actually agree with each other, you just have different ways of getting the same idea across.

[fep]

NOPE

Sorry I didn't read your entire post because it wasn't really necessary. Fact is