-
ears?
-
09-19-2011 10:06 PM
-
It's said that Wes couldn't read music. Does that mean then that he didn't know theory? By that I mean, for example, did he understand how chords are built and harmony moves? When I listen to him I just can't believe that he wouldn't have had a brain like Beethoven.
-
Here's what Metheny said about Wes in the Jazz Icons DVD liner notes:
Originally Posted by whatswisdom
These few minutes in discussion with pianist Jacobs lay to rest one of the mythologies surrounding Wes and the nature of his musicianship. How often in liner notes and articles have we been dutifully reminded of Wes' supposed inability to read music, the fact that he was "self-taught" and all of the other points of lore trotted out to somehow mystify the genius that is utterly self-evident in the legacy that is his music?
In a particularly illuminating exchange, we see Wes discussing the harmony with pianist Jacobs. In requesting one of his favorite variations on the tune's descending harmonies we hear a musician not only fluent in the traditional nomenclature of harmony, but one who is thoroughly enlightened, eloquent and direct. (Instead of Bb-7/Eb7/AbMaj7 direct to the following Ab-7/Db7/GbMaj7, Wes requests that an additional II-V anticipating the next change a half step higher be added to set up the next sequence, resulting in Bb-7/Eb7/AbMaj7/A-7/D7/ then onto Ab-7/Db7/GbMaj7 etc.)
It is somewhat of a relief to hear him lay it out in such clear musical vocabulary. It was always apparent in Wes' music that he had devised one of the most detailed harmonic conceptions ever on the instrument, and as a beginner, when I read album notes and magazine pieces that harped on some kind of almost savant-like description of Wes' insight into musical invention, I often struggled with trying to imagine how exactly he might have arrived at some of the amazingly ingenious results that infuse his playing without at least occasionally thinking in these kinds of terms (tritone relationships, substitutions, etc.).
-
Great one, FB! That's really vindicating.
To the OP, you have to know some music theory to play jazz, even if you think in personal ("incorrect") terms. I am no sight-reader by any means, but I have trained ear and know jazz theory pretty darn well.
By working in a music store where people take lessons, jam, and demo gear, I have noticed three general kinds of musicians: those who sight-read well,a those who play by ear and refuse all reading/theory, and those who understand/apply theory with highly trained ears but do not care to sight-read (though they can if needed). Generally speaking, classical and band students/teachers are the first group, rock guitarists and singer/songwriters are the second, and jazz/studio improvisors are the last. These are not true categories, and of course, there are blends in between and masters of them all. Just food for thought.
I suggest being able to read lead sheets and understanding jazz improvisation theories and apply them to the guitar. Nothing to lose, only gain.
Best wishes!
"Intuition has to lead knowledge, but it can't be on it's own otherwise you'll flounder."-Bill Evans
Last edited by JonnyPac; 09-20-2011 at 02:51 AM.
-
I think the myth with Wes arose because he taught himself at the beginning by learning Charlie Christian licks fom records. AFAIK that's true. But that seems to have got expanded into this almost "idiot savant" legend. Of course - even if he did teach himself totally, without tuition from professionals - he would have (and clearly did) pick it all up from a mix of sources as he went: listening, trial and error, discussion with other musicians. And maybe even the odd lesson along the way, who knows?
A more interesting case, perhaps, is Django Reinhardt. A gypsy who could (apparently) barely write his own name, but whom Stephane Grappelly described as incapable of playing a wrong note. One of the - if not the - greatest jazz guitarists of the 20thC.
Obviously he learned practically everything by ear. But does that mean he "knew no theory"? Clearly not.
Theory is only the grammar of the language. One can learn to speak a language perfectly - grammar and all - just by picking it up by ear, by listening to (and conversing with) the natives.
It's not easy, of course. Books and teachers would help. But - especially if you start young (as he did) - it can be done. Naturally it helps if you're a genius too
.
Ie, while these stories (at least whatever truth there is in them) are intriguing - and perhaps even instructive - it's a false conclusion to go on to say "[player x] never studied theory, so why should I?"
"Because you're not him" would be one answer, but there are others too.
If players like Django and Wes teach us anything, it's that "theory" is not some peripheral add-on, an optional extra to technical prowess and a fast ear. It's a fundamental part of music. You simply can't play anything musical - anything that sounds good - without some theoretical understanding. It's not possible. Just as you can't speak English intelligibly if you don't know the grammar, what order the words are supposed to go in, etc.
Where you get that understanding from (or what terminology you use to talk about it) is another matter.
-
For me its got to be Wes.For those interested log on to Orrin Keepnews site(he was Wes's producer) and look at "The Incredbile Wes Montgomery" and listen to Nat Adderleys comments about Wes.You'll be surprised!
-
Could you post the link? I've searched around but can't find it. Thanks! Originally Posted by jazzuki
-
I have that DVD with Wes explaining to Dutch pianist Pim Jacobs what he wants differently in that song, and you can indeed hear a musician speak who has at least a profound knowledge of chords and there additions and subsitutions. And he indeed does so in the vocabulary commonly used in music theory. So for me, Wes might have thought himself to play guitar, but he certainly came from a musical background already, where theoretical concepts of harmony were well known and probably explained to him, if not in a different form or way. And of course he came from a very musically gifted family, playing a lot with Buddy and Monk, so I suppose they exchanged ideas and theoretical concepts as well, perhaps inherited those from their parents and/or other relatives? All of this does not substract one little bit off his genius by the way...
But I heared that Chet Baker could not read nor play a scale and played by ear/feeling. I don't know if it's true though.Last edited by Little Jay; 10-15-2011 at 03:56 PM.
-
Just put Orrin Keepnews youtube and it is the first one to appear at top of page.Enjoy
-
Harold Mabern said that Wes practiced all day in his room and Wes's wife also said that he practiced all of the time, so along with his great ears and ability I'm sure he worked out all the theory related questions fairly quickly.
-
There are none. Originally Posted by nat hale
This question gets asked frequently, I think the answers I've heard I like the best are basically that we're probably all using at least a little bit of theory and a little bit of ears to get by, at bare minimum. Is knowing the names of your strings "theory?" Isn't it using your "ears" to figure out when you're supposed to come in?
If the goal of the question is to find some excuse to avoid working on mentally challenging material, it's reflective of a poor work ethic.
The music is hard to play - I'll get whatever help I can get. Sometimes that's ear training, sometimes that's a better understanding of something theoretical.
-
None of these examples should be used to justify not bothering to learn music fundamentals.
-
Wes didnt have to bother about fundamentals in music he already had them-thats why we learn from him.I'm sure he practised hard but I cant see him and other musicians of the day sitting round and discussing"what modes shall we play today".They learnt lines from each other.
-
This speculation is about as useful as anybody saying the exact opposite. Originally Posted by jazzuki
Additionally, there's more (and less) to "theory" than mode/chord relationships. This is even illustrated in Metheny's comments about Wes above...in this thread.
-
Nat Adderley's initial comments only support the myth - just his reactions on first seeing him, as he appeared to be, contrasting the amazing stuff Wes was doing, and Nat feeling that his own college education was no help in understanding what he was doing. Ie, making it seem like Wes's playing was not only totally self-taught, but superior because of that.
There are also implications in what 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."
Again (probably unintentionally) implying that lack of knowledge allows greater creative freedom, promotes originality. (Ie, it's easy to interpret those comments in that way, if that suits one's bias, although there are other interpretations.)
Nothing in the video to support what Metheny was saying. (Which is not to deny it of course. Just that this video - while interesting in many ways - is of no help in the debate.)
-
Don't look for excuses to not get your musical shit together... You'll regret it now and later... The Trial and error method takes more time and talent that all of us have .... Reg
-
Great reply posts for a guy who left one word... "Ears". Glad that we generally agree on what it takes to play "jazz guitar".
-
This may be of interest. Bill Evans on Monk:
"Thelonious Monk is an example of an exceptionally uncorrupted creative talent. He has accepted the challenges that one must accept to forge a music utilizing the jazz process. Because he lacks, perhaps fortunately, exposure to the Western classical music tradition or, for that matter, comprehensive exposure to any music other than jazz and American popular music, his reflections of formal superficialities and their replacement with fundamental structure has resulted in a unique and astoundingly pure music.
Make no mistake. This man knows exactly what he is doing in a theoretical way - organized, more than likely, in a personal terminology, but strongly organized nevertheless. We can be further grateful to him for combining aptitude, insight, drive, compassion, fantasy, and whatever else makes the "total" artist, and we should also be grateful for such direct speech in an age of insurmountable conformist pressures.
In a recent 'Down Beat' Blindfold Test, I was played a Thelonious Monk track. I might repeat here part of my reaction: Monk approaches the piano and, I should add right now, music as well, from an "angle" that, although unprecedented, is just the right "angle" for him. Perhaps this is the major reason for my feeling the same respect and admiration for his work that I do for Erroll Garner's, though they might seem poles apart to the casual listener. Each seems to me as great as any man can be great if he works true to his talents, neither over nor underestimating them and, most important, functions within his limitations.
You will experience an absolutely inimitable performance when you listen to this recording and bless the beauty of the fact that there just ain't no other like it. To exemplify this is a noble accomplishment and testimony to an exceptional, worthwhile life."
-
Maybe the word "theory" is just a shorthand description of how musicians understand music.
Formal systems based on public descriptions of the relations among the elements of music may be internalized through verbal strategies (very typical), visual strategies, or others.
Those that play by ear certainly have theory, but it may comprise internalized abstract representations and relations among things without names or images; things which don't really relate to verbal and visual modes of thinking.
"Here is the ii, I know that the V is coming."
"I see the root and see my next root as one string over."
"I recognize this type chord and know the sound of the next one."
All three are theories?
-
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.
-
I read in a biography that when Monk was quite a capable classical pianist, having taken classical piano lessons as a kid. This does not mean. of course, that he was at a conservatory level in the classical world.
-
Imho fwiw
It's easier to develop a good ear if you know theory. It's easier to understand theory if you have a good ear.
I believe this is because theory helps you organize and categorize sounds in your brain.
I.e. if I hear a sound of two notes, wouldn't it be easier to remember that sound if I put a label on it?... That's what a major 6th sounds like. Next time I hear one... hey there's that major 6th again. For me without attaching a label to it, it is much harder for my ear to 'remember' it because my brain doesn't even know what to call it.
-
I agree wholeheartedly. It makes complete sense. Originally Posted by fep
-
I Agree! Originally Posted by fep
-
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.
Reply With Quote
“The Amp Shop” (Schuske) 5F1 Tweed Champ
Today, 01:21 PM in For Sale