-
Haha, man that's crazy! There were only about 12 people in the room other than Tim and Roddy, too. PM me your name, if you have any gigs I'll come out and see you
I remember the quote you mentioned, as well. He's got a certain world-weariness about theory, it seemed like. Once you can execute whatever you want to with impunity, it probably seems a lot less significant
-
05-20-2009 12:02 AM
-
I confess to being a bit of a theory monger myself but at times I see it as a vice rather than virtue. I enjoy trying to create my own "theorems", where I try to apply a theoretical principle directly to the geometry and symmetry of the guitar neck, and experiment to see how robust the theorem can be.
Originally Posted by JohnW400
The point I'd like to make is this. alot of people look for shortcuts or reasons not to do something, like learn theory. I think it's more counter productive to give them reasons why they shoudn't rather than resons why they should.
I'm sure there are a lot of functioning musicians out there tht get by (lke this keyboardist) But how does she learn a new tune without having heard it before?
Without knowing chord names or progression or what have byou , you couldn't even spoon feed her the changes while yur playing the tune.
And in closing
I agree 100% about explaining the theory after the fact. It's good for analysis.
To try and clarify a bit - the CAGED system is an example of a theorem where the theoretical concept of a major scale is applied to the neck. The theoretical principle is replaced by the theorem which says "these shapes = this sound". Patterns, shapes and symmetry replace notes on a staff. There are many such theorems: Pat Martino's approach, Bucky Pizzarellis approach, Jimmy Bruno etc, etc. In all cases, the "theorems" bypass the mental gymnastics of scales, modes etc and focus the mind on the fingerboard itself. This direct approach can generate some amazing results with only a rudimentary understanding of musical theory.
So, to learn a instrument like the guitar, it seems to me that it is most definitely possible to learn directly from fingerboard approaches and listening. It can lead to some very personal sounds that may in fact be difficult to explain through traditional theory and notation.
However, (this is where I backtrack) to go beyond being just a guitarist towards becoming a "real" musician, composer, arranger etc...I agree that theory is indispensable. But to some, like myself, just playing guitar is sufficient.
OK my wine glass is empty. Must stop
Last edited by Jazzaluk; 05-20-2009 at 12:13 AM.
-
On a jazz forum you will receive the same answer from everybody: theory is useful.
-
Reading this whole thread was a wonderful intellectual trip because while I have a graduate school education after an undergrad major in Philosophy (Emory), I've been playing 55 years by ear, without being able to read. That came from first watching/listening to all the blues and R&B players in the late 50's and 60's in Atlanta, and then being exposed to cats like Red Rodney (trumpet) in the 70's who had traveled with Bird, who taught me some theory. My approach was always to see the fretboard mathematically, so that I could construct whatever I learned in one key elsewhere. Of course I had learned things like I-IV-V, major scales minor pentatonic scales and how they can interact, all chord variations (including 6ths, 7ths with 7th added tones, 9ths and 13ths with minor variations thereof), but otherwise the notes had to sound good to me, and my technique had to flow smoothly. Strangely, I could "hear" everyone from Monk to Coltrane, but the so called "outside" never was appealing to me to play, only for listening to to the new ideas. I think some theory is necessary to grow, but it's only what you can apply as JohnW400 says. I bought lots of fake books to find the names/positions of chords which I could already hear, and after awhile I could see the relationships of chords in progressions (theory), and after enough practice, it was almost as if I had attended school, as I then knew which notes would work even if I didn't know their names. I could hear most new tunes so I could pick them out, and if stumped on a chord I would get the root and then make a chord. Anyway, I respect all of your opinions, your obvious musical educations and experience, and this has been a fun read. It was like listening to Red. Very far out.
-
This sort of thing is almost always overstated or exaggerated, typically by players who resist learning theory (not saying you are one). The Gypsy guys I certainly buy that, as they begin as children, and sometimes have less formal education at all, compared to others. I don't buy the Bireli quote, as he has played with all kinds of people in all kinds of settings. Originally Posted by Flat5
He can play bop and swing very convincingly along with GJ. If he did say that, he was exaggerating I believe. The Wes thing is overstated also. He did have formal training on tenor guitar before he took up 6 strings, and you can hear him talking extended chords and changes to his band on a live vid of his. We do not know to what extent his theory knowledge contained, but it was some.
Benson has a series of instructional vids out thru workshoplive.com, facilitated by Jody Fisher. Jody is a university level educator, so he does help George articulate what he is doing, but it is very clear from what I have seen on those vids that he knows what he is doing theory wise to a large extent, he just doesn't always have the language for it.
Having said the above, theory has really been brought to the forefront as jazz has moved off of the bandstand and into the university. Academia (I have an M.Ed.) is compelled to crystallize a topic with theory and graduated steps that can be clearly measured and evaluated for grading purposes. When jazz quit being about apprenticing with the older guys and began being about education, theory became more important, and more of a focus.
It seems like a pendulum swing sort of thing, where I think we might emphasize it a bit too much these days, and maybe need to listen more.
-
I think the educated player will have the upper hand in the end when it comes to musicality, arrangement etc, but ultimately it all comes done to your own imagination and creativity. When you can tap into your own creative power and focus on the things that make you tick, you're on the right track, peace
-
The question is... Will knowing music theory make you a better guitar player.
My experience is as follows.....
I studied jazz theory for 6 years on paper, in music school, then picked up the guitar. I've been playing for about 4 years and I am really good. I cant pick as fast or shred like some other guys in town, but I get lots of gigs.
My best friend has been playing for like 15 years and has really only taken like one year of theory. Most everything, he learned by ear and still does. He can kill me technically, and has tons of licks that I could never play, he is consdiered by all of the jazz guys in town to be miles ahead of me as a guitarist. He gigs far less than I do.
I teach 40 a week, he does like 15-20.
I compose and arrange for bands, teach at NGW and other camps, and am working on a book.
Dude playes be-bop and rosenwinkle like a master.
Knowledge is power.Last edited by timscarey; 07-07-2009 at 04:25 PM.
-
Knowing theory is never a bad thing unless you let it affect you in someway that is unhealthy. IE restricting your musicality or making you listen less. The key thing is to always listen Originally Posted by timscarey
-
It seems to me that your friend is the better guitar player but you are a more successful musician / arranger. Is this correct? If so, it leads me to conclude that theory does indeed enhance musicianship but it is not a prerequisite to playing guitar well. Originally Posted by timscarey
Theory is theory, playing is playing, academia is academia. Where the "power" lies depends on how you view music and your personal center of gravity. As far as playing guitar well, the source of power and knowledge boils down to what you do on the fretboard, which is more about technique and ears that dots on a page.
When something new emerges from a clever approach to the guitar, there will always be someone in the wings analyzing and writing it down. But the playing comes first and theory follows.
-
At university, I needed elective credits, so I took some music courses: (classical) theory, analysis, composition... I'm no theory genius, but I found the courses easy -- certainly easier than the math courses I had to take. But the Music majors (except for the Composition majors) were sweating! And the Voice majors! I've never met such a hopeless group -- luckily for the girls, they were all pretty!
What could I conclude? Maybe they were too busy in the practice rooms to learn any theory...
-
I agree with you 100%, and yeah, my friend is way better than me, and plays chords all the time that I never would have found using theory. Originally Posted by Jazzaluk
And you're right, very little of the work I get is actual guitar playing where I can be creative.
but in the few hours a week I get, I get a lot done very quickly. I support music theory.Last edited by timscarey; 07-08-2009 at 12:37 AM.
-
I think its all about how much talent you have [for jazz] the more you have the less need for someone to show you where to place your fingers
it's that simple. I'm talking about improvised music here! There's no reason
why you cant learn theory-and find out what your doing,and why your doing it! The forest becomes more interesting when you know the names
of the trees
-
i really think that theory is important, and is doesen't matter that if it`s boring, jus 'coz when you know and stans the music, is really exciting nowing that you are playing and becomin ideas, in really expresive thing, or a phisic thing, like a piece of paper can be heared by lot of people when you play any kind of music
-
Theory is absolutely important. It just makes learning easier and composing tunes quicker. Even though some icons of music claim to not understand theory they do in their own way, by association of chord shapes or function. These players are often limited to just one style of music though, their greatness achieved from intensity and conviction.
-
Originally Posted by larry graves
I guess I am on the opposite side of this fence. I think it has nothing or very little to do with talent, and everything to do with hard work and perseverance. I was in a 2 hour master class with Pat Metheny last week, and he strongly reiterated this over and over during the class. He also recommened the following books on the topic:
Amazon.com: Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else (9781591842248): Geoff Colvin: Books
Amazon.com: The Talent Code: Greatness Isn't Born. It's Grown. Here's How. (9780553806847): Daniel Coyle: Books
I do completely agree that theory knowledge makes things more interesting, as it opens up more possibilities.
-
I have a strong feeling that this debate between natural instinct vs theory is not going away, so I think we may have to compromise - a bit of both..
You say the autodidact,albeit genius, is confined to playing just one type of music, in this case jazz, which is what this forum is all about, so why
should we be concerned about other styles.[It dont mean a thing if it aint
got that swing!] I agree that you can't be a composer or play in a orchestra without some theory. Anyway, what's the problem;music theory
-unless a person has never been to school- is no different to any other
learning process--and its fun..LG..
-
Observation: Usually these subjective academic type discussions, i.e. defining an intangible like theory as separate from application (theoretical physics v applied physics) wind up with the agreement that the theoretical enhances the application thereof. However, in music, many learning application (playing) alone subconciously learn some theory in that process, which becomes conscious over time through the process of refection and association. When learning a tune in C that requires learning Em, Dm, and G7 before resolving in some form of C again, the player has learned several usable chords within C, tones, resolution, and chord positions which may be closer and melodic. Picking out the notes within those chords to make the melody are remembered, and relate to the scales that those notes are within. After time the player discerns relationships between chords and notes, without any names for those relationships, which is theory of some sort. The ear also helps determines much of the technique, and a sense of time is usually inherent but is developed. Style is also developed. I would agree that if theory was learned simultaneously with playing it would result in less work and a more confident, knowledgeable player, but players who didn't have that luxury in the old days and learned by listening and trying, and consistent practice, at least had the rush and satisfaction of performing. I really think theory is learned through OTJ training, but without formal learning it is much more limited. Finally, theory won't give the player any feeling nor emotion when playing, nor any "style". I have heard it said that "art" is the world between the finite and spiritual, as an attempt to emulate the spiritual within the finite.
-
Interesting post. On a practical side, it is difficult to read this much information without any paragraph breaks. You essentially describe the difference between players a generation or two ago and players today. Originally Posted by Teobeck
Some of yesterday did have formal training, and knew theory. There is some debate as to how much guys like Wes knew, but based on some video performances where he is interacting with his band, at least some.
From some of the old guys I know, you got your chops up some on your own, got some local performance experience, and then apprenticed with older guys. George Benson apprenticed with Jack McDuff. Joey DeFrancesco has mentored more young guitarists than just about anyone.
Tough to find those opportunities today. Jazz has moved into the university, so theory abounds. Ensemble opportunities, but playing 200+ dates per year is tough to find today. I like the way you brought up how guys develop a style. It strikes me that most guys develop a style by combining the influence of two or more players and mix in whatever idiosyncratic technique flaws or quirks they might have.
For instance, Wes had the thumb, Martino has a very staccato, percussive attack, Metheny has a funky looking right hand with an odd way he holds his pick, Benson uses a more horizontal approach because he says he doesn't string skip well. These quirks contribute to making their style instantly recognizable.
-
Thanks for reply. I'd only add that when starting out learning blues back then, one learned to constantly hit the "root", learned bends, hammer ons, pull offs, interacting with the major and minor scales, etc. and to play with feeling, a la especially BB and Buddy Guy. The emphasis was on playing with feeling. Mike Bloomfield captured a lot of that style at that time.
Graduating to Jazz required a vastly expanded intellectual mindset, due to the vastly expanded form. However, a player never loses his base, as it is a part of him, so starting with Jimmy Smith, etc. was a step up, and then when ballads were learned the transition was almost complete. The transition from there to the "modern jazz" of that time was basically learning to improvise within whatever structure someone invented, whether melodic or not. I never wanted to go there, as I viewed it as "chamber jazz", a colloquialism that I used to characterize music understood only by the musicians, without melody or any identifiable harmonics. That is just a way to describe it for someone who wanted and learned to play because of the appeal of emotional expression rather than intellectual appeal only. (I realize there are varying degrees of emotional expression, and that modern jazz also has an emotional appeal, which I believe is related to rhythm and the joy of intellectual expression, for lack of a better way to explain it).
Some examples for me were the groups of Oscar Peterson, Blue Mitchell, and John Lewis, whose music inspired, and guitarists of course like Wes, Pat Martino, Byrd, Smith, and Benson. After Myles, Monk and Coltrane left ballads, I couldn't hear them anymore. When I hung out with Red Rodney, despite his knowledge and past explorations (Bird's trumpet man), he was older and loving ballads again.
All forms of music undergo a constant metamorphosis, and Jazz is no different. That doesn't make older styles of Jazz obsolete, they just have a narrower audience. I find today's music is in another "rudderless" transition period, as the majority haven't settled on anything they are in agreement on. Music is now compartmentalized into so many various forms with so many different audiences that Jazz audiences are more limited than ever, for all styles.
Being able to make a living at it is paramount for a musician, and I guess a combination of mostly teaching and some playing/recording is the only way left. I wish my sincere good luck to those well enough educated to do that.
On a final note, I would add that persons with "creative" mentalities have to "play the hand they are dealt". They are always seeking expression of some sort, and many are never fulfilled. However, any fulfillment at all for them is better than a life without expression.
-
To the OP
A guitar player's sound is a direct reflection of the way they conceptualize how the sounds associate with the fretboard. Since theory is just concepts and rules for organizing sound, whether it is on paper or directly on the fretboard, I would say that any guitarist who can play a tune from beginning to end has developed some workable understanding of music theory as it applies to the guitar. In fact, I would say without some kind of theoretical concept, no matter how rudimentary, the resulting sounds, would be unorganized and unintelligible. IMO, it is the many and varied concepts of the fretboard that have spawned the many styles in guitar and make it one of the most versitile and creative of instruments.
Unlike horns and piano, the fretboard has malleable logic and lends itself more to a craft than to traditional academic theory. It presents many possibilities and paths to play the same tune. I think the biggest problem with a pure academic approach to theory is that it tends subvert craftsmanship and undermine a personal exploration of the fretboard.
Now I will say that theory is not to be ignored but...., unless you want to become an academic and add to the mountain of theory books on the market, I would restrict yourself only to theoretical concepts that relate to your present understanding of the guitar and get busy crafting-out as many tunes as you can. Let the tunes teach you. Don't be afraid to develop and organize your own concepts on how the tune best lays on the fretboard. Let theoretical questions present themselves naturally and seek answer to specific questions. Don't go on a quest for the "unified theory of music"...its a waste of time....leave that to the academics.
Playing tunes is much more important than noodling on scales and modes. If you learn a hundred tunes, you will learn a ton of theory, technique and application. On the other hand, if you waste time on learning a ton of scales, modes, intervals and exotic names, you will be left with a pedantic view of music and an atrophied repertoire.Last edited by Jazzaluk; 08-10-2009 at 02:49 PM.
-
How the gypsy jazz guitarists learn such a sophisticated style without formal training is beyond me. Dregni, Django's biographer, tries to explain it, but the rest of us not born into a culture of jazz will have to find the right balance of learning theory and learning how to play, and the relationship between them, on our own.
-
Originally Posted by Jazzaluk
I agree. I tend to look at all of it as APPLIED theory. Nothing too fancy. All the textbook stuff is great after the fact, which is how it came to be
Anybody that had to write out chorales in theory class remembers the rules about parralell octaves, 4ths,5ths, cross voicing etc. It's easy to forget that these rules came about after the chorales were written and had to do more with musical tastes at the time. Learning theory is like climbing stairs to get to the top of a building. The stairs are useful to get to the top, but once you get there,.... there you are.
-
08-13-2009, 03:19 PM #48Jazzarian GuestIndeed, imagine telling Wes Montgomery not to play octaves. Originally Posted by JohnW400
To be a jazz player these days, you better know the fundamentals of theory, Circle of 5ths, Chord Substitution, basic harmony, "chord construction" as in being able to write out the notes of every chord. Ya better at least know your diatonic modes, harmonic major/minor etc etc.
Unless, of course, you were born the next Wes Montgomery or George Benson.
-
Prior to Wes I don't think octaves were that prevelent in guitar vocabulary. They certainly weren't used in 4 part chorales and were actually considered bad voice leading. Originally Posted by Jazzarian
You find though that most people that want to play jazz learn the basic things you mention above.
On the other side of the coin we still have the 'magic wand' group that expect to get by learning the absolute minimum. Kind of like the guy who asks the bodybuilder about what it takes to get six pack abs and then asks "how about if I just take these pills they sell on late night TV , will that work too?"
-
08-13-2009, 03:47 PM #50Jazzarian GuestYet on archtop guitar, octaves are a thing of beauty. Originally Posted by JohnW400
That kind of sums up our feel good quick society. Originally Posted by JohnW400
Not to belabor the point, perhaps that's why (c)rap-hop is so popular amoung youth. One need not practice an instrument 4 hours per day and learn music theory. I mean that's real work.
Even metal-heads practice for hours. I'll give them that much credit.
Reply With Quote
mclaughlin sound here
Today, 12:26 AM in The Players