-
Excellent posts Pauln.
Whenever someone points out that Joe Pass or Wes were not able to communicate music very well using the language accepted by academia, it seems to be accompanied by the notion that their acquired understanding of music was a exceptional case and that music theory should always trump ears.
The fact of the matter is that sounds can be categorized, organized and understood through different means. Joe and Wes were guitarists and basically used the instrument itself as a vehicle to organize sounds. It was direct and very effective. In order to relate their acquired musical knowledge to conventional theory was like translating from one language to another. It was sometimes clumsy in presentation but in no way lacked sophistication in content.
When theorists try to reverse engineer their playing using conventional theoretical language and notation, it can obscure the underlying simple concepts that they applied, which were in many cases born out of the tasteful manipulation of fretboard geometry governed by great ears.
-
11-09-2011 11:29 PM
-
^ Another excellent post!
-
Great thread...well thought out...intelligent and insightful.
My only question that still remains is why are guitarists afraid to read notes??
The idea that reading and studying theory will kill your creativity would be impossible to prove.
There is also another side to music beyond playing or listening...studying history, examining manuscripts, transposing, transcribing, psychology and philosophy of music, Music ed from the Steps of Parnassum to Gordons learning theory.
It helps in the gestalt study of music to understand the basic theory and read the notes...NO, it probably won't help you improvise though
Sailor
-
I can tell you why I personally don't like reading the notes and using theory in general for playing.
Each pitch has multiple names, depending on the key signature. This causes a separation and confusion between what things are called and what they sound like. In formal systems, having multiple names for things is a violation of referential integrity.
Diatonic scales are defined in such a way that each pitch is forced to have a unique letter note name. To do this consistently requires that some pitches be named using flats, sharps, double flats, or double sharps to prevent the same letter name from occurring more than one time. This furthers the separation from what things are called from what they sound like. I understand that it makes staff reading easier, but it makes relating the sounds to the names for more complicated.
The whole naming of musical intervals is confounded by early music theorists not understanding the difference between cardinal and ordinal numbers. When you assign numbers to things, it makes a difference what kind they are. What happens if you examine the step from the open E to the A on the first string?
In terms of intervals, the distance between these two is a fourth, so E is the first and A is the fourth. These are ordinal numbers.
But in cardinal numbers (ordinary math), the diatonic distance between E and A is 4-1=3, because you make three steps to get to the "fourth".
In terms of frets, the A is the fifth and the E is the zeroth, not the first (the first fret is F). So the distance is five frets. These are also cardinal numbers.
So now I have the step from E to A described by 3, 4, and 5... multiple number names depending on how I'm looking at it.
So a single note on the guitar might have six names/numbers... but I hear just one pitch.
Personally, I just don't care for a system that supports multiple names and numberings for such simple things. I'm not "afraid to read notes", it's just that the names, numbers, and notation seem poorly designed, and even if these were designed perfectly they still could never relate to the phenomenological reality of music - how it actually sounds. Only the ear can do that, and it is instantaneous, direct, and real.Last edited by pauln; 11-12-2011 at 03:15 PM.
-
I don't call two "multiple"
Originally Posted by pauln
. It's just possible for a pitch to have a 3rd name, but rare.
I understand the problem, but you're exaggerating a little Originally Posted by pauln
.
No key scale contains double flats or double sharps. Double sharps are occasionally required for the more remote harmonic minor scales (G#m, D#m, A#m). I don't know of any scale that requires double flats - they might occur as occasional accidentals, but again that woud be very rare.
I disagree. Maybe a little more complicated (in order for the theory to be simpler). But I think you're making it more complicated. Originally Posted by pauln
I doubt they were confused at all. The naming system is perfectly logical, and the difference between cardinal and ordinal is useful and important. Originally Posted by pauln
Yes, but no one measures it that way. (If they do, they shouldn't.) Originally Posted by pauln
Right. That matters because a "4th" can come in different sizes. That's the reason for the two kinds of measurement. Originally Posted by pauln
Yes, but the "3" is superfluous. You've added that one yourself. Originally Posted by pauln
It's true the difference between "4th" and "5 frets" (semitones or half-steps) can be confusing - until you get the point of it.
Ordinal numbers are the natural way to describe intervals and scale degrees, because we want to consider them in relation to the "1st" (the root).
Cardinal numbers, OTOH, make sense when we want to measure the actual size of an interval, and differentiate between two intervals of the same type (the same note count).
Six? Originally Posted by pauln
Can you list them?
The one pitch you hear will actually sound different in different contexts. So "A#/Bb" will sound like the 4th in the key of F major: the 4th note up from F, to it makes sense to call it Bb (there's already an A before it).
But in the key of F# major, that pitch will sound like the 3rd of the key (or of the tonic chord): we'll only hear one note in between when we run up the scale. So it makes sense for it to be some kind of A (F-G-A); therefore A#.
The different names acknowledge that difference.
IOW, a single pitch (frequency) is not always the same sound.
But that's precisely how it does relate, at least historically, for tonal music (which still comprises most of the music we hear). When we hear music, we hear it in relation to a key or keynote. We hear intervals usually between the 7 notes of a diatonic scale. So it makes sense for each of those to have a different name. Originally Posted by pauln
And it also makes sense (IMO) for the other 5 tones to be considered not as separate notes (with different names) but as alterations of the 7 diatonic ones.
Music would be much harder to understand (IMO) if we named notes A B C D E F G H I J K L. That would make sense if music was mostly atonal, using all 12 notes fairly equally. (And atonal composers have tried inventing various new systems of naming or notating their music - precisely because traditional staff notation is biased towards tonality.)
As long as music is tonal (or based on 7-note modes), then the traditional system works well. I think you're looking for complication where none need exist.
However, it is true that standard notation is biased - not only towards tonality, but to the keys of C major/A minor. (So is the piano. And horns are biased towards their home keys .) It does make it harder for non-tonal (or 12-tone) music - let alone music which uses more or less than 12 divisions of the octave - to gain much ground.
But - imperfect as it is - it's all we've got. Too much is invested in it for any new system to replace it. (Rather like the way horns are in Bb, Eb or F instead of C. It's an archaic anomaly, but is too entrenched to be rationalized.) But it will evolve, as it always has.
Guitars are somewhat free of the tonal bias of SN and the piano - they make it look as if the octave genuinely does have 12 equal steps (only the fret markers imply some kind of hierarchy, but it's ambiguous). That's no doubt partly why guitarists resist reading notation and find it difficult. And that leads on to problems with understanding theory, and how to apply scale patterns.
-
Great post Jon...couldn't have said it better. The current system of notation has served quite well for hundreds of years....quite simple and consistent.
I have to think that the Leonins, Perotins, Fux, Rameau, Bachs, knew a little about what they were doing
Sailor
-
Wes started on the guitar at age 12 years of age. 40 plus years ago I was in Indianapolis and went to the pawn shop where his brother Monk bought Wes his first guitar. The owner told me to my face the same story about Monk coming in and buying Wes his guitar. Seems like Wes had a very early start.
-
Anyone who is any good plays by ear, whether or not they know their theory.
-
BTW - I'm reading about the original Guidonian solfege system. Pretty complicated. The 18th century solfege system is also quite unlike out own modern 7 sylllable system.
Harmonic theory of the 17-18th century was quite unlike today's, even though we retroactively analyse that music using the modern system. You could say the same about modern jazz theory and earlier jazz musicians before 'jazz theory' was a thing.
Basically everything is in flux.
EDIT: flippin' 'eck zombie thread.
-
Simply because an English-speaker doesn't know what a gerund or adverb is doesn't mean they don't use them properly in speech or writing. We imbibe the rules of the language we speak implicitly, and we usually apply them properly.
As a language, music is no different. Formal lessons help both spoken and musical language, but they are not what is important. I don't care if a musician can name this or that note, interval, or chord -- I only care if he can deploy those forms in a musical and emotional manner.
-
Eddie Diehl. Can't read or write a note and knows zero theory, but plays his ass off...
-
One thing that comes to mind about studying music theory is a little bit of knowledge goes a long way.
Just a few minutes conversation with a semi/pro musician explaining how to harmonise scales makes for that lightbulb moment.
Another factor is time and plenty of it, one will definately improve.
If you throw enough fish at a wall some of them will stick!
-
You sing and play things to people? Originally Posted by Little Jay
TBH, beyond reading charts, very little discussion of theory goes on in any bands I am in.
Mostly rehearsal is concerned with tightening up arrangements, sorting out feels, endings and so on. In some groups, everything is done by ear and you learn the music from recordings.
Sometimes people tell you the chords, often right before you play the tune. So to do that obviously you need to know some names for things. But I'm pretty sure if someone played me a standard substitute I would be able to pick up by ear - a sideslip ii-V for example. I think everyone could do that, and if they can't at the start, they will after a few years of gigging.... I've picked up loads of short hand names for things on the stand, LEGO bricks for learning tunes really fast:
The Horse - the IV #ivo7 I VI II V progression
Round the Houses - a Cycle fourth progression. Chord qualities not specified. Use your ears for that.
Honeysuckle bridge
Rhythm bridge
Rhythm A section
So on and so forth.
You might discuss ideas for improvisation, but in general what you do in solos is your own concern. Talking about 'hey, can I play the melodic minor here' or something would be considered a bit .. well not unprofessional... but something you would think about in your practice room or talk about with your teacher, know what I'm saying?
I've worked with plenty of musicians and have no idea how they think about improvising come to think of it. Some guys like to discuss it, other people find it utterly boring and would rather discuss the football.Last edited by christianm77; 09-10-2016 at 07:24 AM.
-
Haha, I posted my response in 2011. Since then I've done a lot of eartraining, finished my formal jazz education and did plenty of gigs and jamsessions. I am pretty much able to recognise a song and it's chords on the spot now and play along with just about anything, even if I never heared it before! (As long as it's not something like Giant Steps at 320 bpm Originally Posted by christianm77
.)
I also mostly stopped thinking when improvising. It just comes now as if I am singing it. That develloped gruadually and one day I just noticed I didn't think of the changes anymore and I sounded good!
-
Nice one Originally Posted by Little Jay
Haha, I posted my response in 2011. Since then I've done a lot of eartraining, finished my formal jazz education and did plenty of gigs and jamsessions. I am pretty much able to recognise a song and it's chords on the spot now and play along with just about anything, even if I never heared it before! (As long as it's not something like Giant Steps at 320 bpm .)
I also mostly stopped thinking when improvising. It just comes now as if I am singing it. That develloped gruadually and one day I just noticed I didn't think of the changes anymore and I sounded good!
-
Guilty as charged here, but if pressed I could go into it in-depth probably. It just sort of bores me to talk about my own playing b/c I know it too well. Much rather be pushed somewhere new by other interesting players, and talk about them... Originally Posted by christianm77
-
... especially if you let 'em sit a day or two ... Originally Posted by jazzbow
-
You can't play jazz without knowededge of theory. But you don't have to get your theory from music school, and it doesn't have to be articulated - it can just exist as fretboard and ear knowledge. There are so many competing theories of reharmonisation now anyway.
Yes Wes had incredible ears, feel, empathy .... but he must have learnt a lot from jamming with his older brothers and his local music scene too. I feel that his harmonic sense was really enhanced by his time on the tenor guitar.
Uber theorist Pat Martino started with no theory and coudn't read initially. Even now his theory is hugely idiosyncratic. And good for him. Who needs another 5,000 clones of xyz school.
But as far as I know it was Tal that was truly self taught. I could be wrong about that. Even Herb Ellis had some formal training I think. But as he says, most of what he learnt came from being on the job
I think I read a story about Howard Roberts, one of the prime movers of guitar schools, making his first guitar out of planks of wood and chicken fence wire. Or was that Bo Diddley.
It's completely unnecessary to read music to be a jazz artist. But to be a workaday pro it obviously helps a lot.
-
Usual problem with defining terms. I think of "knowing theory" as having language to describe the music and make predictions about what will work. Or something like that. If you do it without language, you certainly know the material, but to me, I wouldn't call that a knowledge of theory. But, trying to define it is difficult and others will have different views. Originally Posted by sunnysideup
Andres Varady made the cover of GP as a youngster. IMO he earned with his playing, not his youth. He sounds great. In the interview he reported that he does not know a single scale or, apparently, anything else that would fit my definition of theory. He certainly knows how to make sounds that others can use theory to explain.
To me, he's a shining example of what can be done without a formal education in the language used to explain jazz - by a gifted individual.
-
A good point RP.
It does depend a lot on definitions.
Wes knew about keys and scales and obvioulsy could name them. But would he understand the jargon of Berklee? I think probably not.
Parker reputedly invented the bebop scale. But did he ever call it a bebop scale. Not sure, but possibly not.
Did either of them use terms like Lydian flat 4 (or is it sharp 4?). Definitely not.
-
Herb spent some time at North Texas State's music program. Curiously, they didn't teach guitar, so he had to study bass. But he left and, as you say, went on the road. His teaching was very light on theory and focused on shapes. He also stressed "singing what you play (or playing what you sing, whichever way you want to put it.)" He thought that was the key to making good music. He also said all the good guitarists he knew did that. He said horn players do it too but you can't tell because they have a horn in their mouths. Originally Posted by sunnysideup
If you can link your ear and hands on the instrument without lessons, great. Most of us can't. Even some who can do it to some extent naturally develop their "musical sense" through some study.
Most study comes down to practice, though.
-
This is a difficult question to answer, how unschooled players think about music - because we are not mind readers.
My assumption is that unschooled musicians would develop a personal system of theory because the human brain is wired to recognise patterns. I mean, no one is going to learn a few hundred tin pan alley tunes without recognising the pattern II V I on some level for instance.
In terms of practicing scales etc - well that is always just preparation for music. It is additionally possible that someone like Django might never have practiced a scale as a scale, but one can find many examples of musical lines that happen to be scales in his music. It's just such an essential part of music, you would pick it up.
But of course I might be totally wrong and it’s hard to know.
Lastly, from my own experiences in playing jazz, especially standards based jazz, with professional and experienced musicians is discussion of improvisation theory is non-existent. You tend to talk about anything other than music...Last edited by christianm77; 02-18-2018 at 02:27 PM.
-
To go back to the original question! One of my favourite players Jim Mullen wasn't that great with conventional theory and his technique is completely unorthodox too (e.g. doesn't use left hand pinky and picks everything with his thumb). Love his sound and solos. I think everyone has to come up with some sort of theory for how they approach improvising in Jazz though - even if it isn't expressed in conventional written music.
-
Yeah, as Jim said to me
‘Fuck scales, you know?’
-
I'm often troubled with discussions like this. It seems to me that there are just as many different ways to comprehend music as there are styles of music. Each of us have our own approach. Who's to say one way is right or wrong? But that's precisely what I've seen on this thread. I have little use for elitist attitudes. If an academic, mathematical, approach helps you to achieve your goals, great. I'd like to gain a better understanding of that myself and do lots of homework to get there. And if you just like a good melody and rhythm and can only pick it up by ear, that's great too. But please don't berate someone by calling them lazy simply because they feel differently about music.
Reply With Quote
Playing live and getting the best sound from the...
Yesterday, 02:08 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos