How was Joe Pass able to play so good without knowing much theory?

[lawson-stone]

I wonder if he was booted out of Marines?

It was apparently immediately after his separation from the Marines that he was arrested on drug charges, so perhaps there was an unhappy parting.

[wolflen]

I had the good fortune to see joe live..solo..the theory argument fails for many musicians that play beyond most players ability..I studied theory in school and with a master teacher who knew ALOT of chords and how to use them..when I asked the question.."how did you learn how to use all those strange chords" he said...experiment!

the two other things he taught me-indirectly ..the "give a man a fish.." line and when thinking that you HAVE to know theory in order to play music..he wrote "you don't need to know how a clock works in order to tell time"..

so now after years of study and playing..these days I am studying triads and all the different ways you can approach them..Im sure someone hearing me play this stuff might think I don't know theory or that I just started playing a year or so ago..so what..who cares..

here is something that I do know..to many theory is a "religion" and if you don't know it your going to hell..in a manner of speaking..thus when people say "ohh jimi Hendrix didn't know theory.." they imply he wasn't THAT good..I keep quiet..but what I want to say.."really..ok..you know theory..play "the wind cries mary" in two different keys..

[destinytot]

I just have to give my thumbs up to the new avatar's of Lawson-Stone and DestinyTot!

Back to the thread.

Cheers! Mine's a photo from the first outing of a (then) new toy.

I wanted it to get my 'Benson picking' together, but I've got more out of it than expected (things other than I could have known).

And I'd sold a seven-string to pay for it - because I wasn't willing to do what it takes to play it. Not so with learning my way around the fretboard of my trusty Godin 5th Avenue, tuned à la Marty Grosz.

('Descriptive vs prescriptive' - yes, indeed. Applied to the title of this thread, 'play so good' is right - although I wouldn't word it that way myself. Perhaps Huey Lewis was right when he said, "It's hip to be square!")

Instrument, my eye.

Joe Pass. 'Classical'/nylon-strung guitar. Fingers/flesh, not nails. Pretty tune. Nuff said.

[lawson-stone]

I just have to give my thumbs up to the new avatar's of Lawson-Stone and DestinyTot!

Back to the thread.

Hey thanks. I was trying to take some fun pictures of my Aria Pro II PE180. This one was a little out of focus, but by cranking up the contrast, it gave it a kind of vintage vibe that I liked.

[bobsguitars09]

Before colleges and universities began offering jazz programs, aspiring jazz musicians learned to play by going to jam sessions to watch and listen to older players. They learned solos from recordings. Older musicians would mentor younger musicians. Sometimes they had a teacher.

The most frequently asked question was "What was that lick you played in.....?" not "Why did you play that lick....?"

When universities began offering jazz programs they had to have something to sell, so they sold the idea that that learning theory was the key to becoming a great musician. From the 1970s until today, this idea has dominated all others.

Music theory has always been an ex post facto attempt to try to explain or understand was has happened before.

Every great musician that I've ever met has always put playing first. Some of them studied theory formally at some point in their lives, others learned on the bandstand from older musicians. What they all had in common was that they learned to play first.

For every great name in jazz or classical or any other music that we remember and revere, Charlie Christian, Django Reinhardt, Wes Montgomery, Joe Pass, Andres Segovia, Lester Young, Charlie Parker, Itzhak Perlman, Dizzy Gillespie, Jimmy Raney, Jim Hall, the primary goal was to be able to play. Again, the primary goal was to Play The Music.

Yes. And This makes a lot of sense

The most frequently asked question was "What was that lick you played in.....?" not "Why did you play that lick....?"

[mr. beaumont]

Yes. And This makes a lot of sense

The most frequently asked question was "What was that lick you played in.....?" not "Why did you play that lick....?"

I don't see anything wrong with wanting to know the "why." But if I speak from my own experience, finding the "why" on my own (and defining it in my own terms) has been much more valuable that the times the "why" has been handed to me.

[lawson-stone]

I don't see anything wrong with wanting to know the "why." But if I speak from my own experience, finding the "why" on my own (and defining it in my own terms) has been much more valuable that the times the "why" has been handed to me.

I agree-except that in some cases, like in the early days of bebop, the "why did you play that?" question would have been not a question of "justification" but rather, "How on earth did you ever think to play that?"

We know Bird was experimenting very intentionally with upper extensions of chords and such, and so the question "Why did you play that" might be re-phrased as "How are you imagining this music such that you'd think to even try that?"

Plus, learning the "Why" did you play that gives a tool and expands our awareness of what can be done and makes it possible to extend the "what did you play" into other environments.

Says me, the guy struggling to play cleanly at 150 b.p.m...

[mr. beaumont]

I think we're on the same page.

Here, I'll give an example.

Years ago, I was reading (here) about triad pairs, and it wasn't clicking for me...seemed like a lot of thinking and a lot to remember. So I shelved it.

Later, I was playing, and I noticed the shape of a lick I played over a "Cmaj7#11" (I was thinking about a lydian scale but trying to play "non-linear") was really a C major arpeggio followed by a D major. Well, sonofagun. I just needed to see it for myself.

[lawson-stone]

I think we're on the same page.

Here, I'll give an example.

Years ago, I was reading (here) about triad pairs, and it wasn't clicking for me...seemed like a lot of thinking and a lot to remember. So I shelved it.

Later, I was playing, and I noticed the shape of a lick I played over a "Cmaj7#11" (I was thinking about a lydian scale but trying to play "non-linear") was really a C major arpeggio followed by a D major. Well, sonofagun. I just needed to see it for myself.

Boom!

I'm needing that kind of breakthrough on melodic minor. It seems like a lot of cognition for a guy who thinks as slowly as I do! "Play the 5th mode of the melodic minor of the chord you're resolving to but skip the 4th..." I just zone out when I hear that kind of explanation. I don't disdain or disrespect it, but I just can't absorb it.

I think on MM I need to find 2-3 solos that make exemplary use of MM and get some the key sounds of it in my head.

I burned out on trying to think of playing scales and almost quit on jazz guitar. Now basically I play things based on major scale fingerings and make changes relative to that. It's not the best plan, but I have a really hard time keeping scales and modes and degrees of modes and such straight.

If it involves counting, unfortunately, my fingers are already busy!

[John A.]

Michael Brecker was quite well known among his peers for not being able to name his chords and scales by conventional nomenclature. But he had it all. And more.

David

Yeah, but he didn't have to name his scales -- he used all 12 notes in every measure he played, usually seven or eight times :-)


John

[John A.]

I think the whole question of how much "theory" one needs or should or should not study and apply comes down to one's cast of mind. Two people can come up with the exact same line or comp with the exact same subs via entirely different thought processes. One might have a fairly well developed formal explanation for what he's doing and have arrived at the "solution" via thinking it through with explicit "music theory" ideas and vocabulary. The other might have a less worked out system and/or be working almost completely by intuition and ear. Both approaches (and others in between) can work, and that's all that matters. I know players who really enjoy the thinking and studying, and it's fruitful for them. It's also interesting and informative to talk to them. I know others who have no interest in going beyond the minimum they need to be up and running as players.

John

[lammie200]

One common thing that I have seen is that players that probably have a decent knowledge of music theory seem to say that they really don't get entrenched into it while improvising. I like the comments about experimenting.

[KirkP]

Thinking of the word "theory" in the scientific sense, I'd say Joe Pass was more like Thomas Edison than Albert Einstein. He knew enough theory to apply his art.

[NoReply]

Thinking of the word "theory" in the scientific sense, I'd say Joe Pass was more like Thomas Edison than Albert Einstein. He knew enough theory to apply his art.

From older musicians I've been around I would say many learned the terminology more than the theory. They had slang and terms for working with other musicians, and would learn the terminology to open up teaching opportunities.

[matt.guitarteacher]

Boom!

I'm needing that kind of breakthrough on melodic minor. It seems like a lot of cognition for a guy who thinks as slowly as I do! "Play the 5th mode of the melodic minor of the chord you're resolving to but skip the 4th..." I just zone out when I hear that kind of explanation. I don't disdain or disrespect it, but I just can't absorb it.

I think on MM I need to find 2-3 solos that make exemplary use of MM and get some the key sounds of it in my head.

I'm in the same place with MM. I've been playing the "connecting game" with ii V I "arps" (arps on the ii and I, altered on the V). No avoid notes in altered means the whole thing is technically an arpeggio, but it doesn't really work that way in practice. Anyway, I start on a different scale degree each time and work on just resolving those altered chords. Takes some getting used to.

His next step is to do real MM arpeggios instead of just the scale. MinMaj7's and Maj7#5's. That's probably the better place to start though, actually. The phrases from those arpeggios are just a lot more natural than making something work with the scale by itself. You'd more quickly get to the kind of "moment" jeff is relating above with the arpeggios. Also, learn to play the crap out of any scale in 3rds and in 3 note sequences etc. You get more "targetting" type phrases when you're playing things in thirds. They sound more "arpsih".

Maybe we can share notes.

I burned out on trying to think of playing scales and almost quit on jazz guitar. Now basically I play things based on major scale fingerings and make changes relative to that. It's not the best plan, but I have a really hard time keeping scales and modes and degrees of modes and such straight.

If it involves counting, unfortunately, my fingers are already busy!

Yep. Melodic minor is a mind-numbing/destroying/, think-fest, the way it's presented by so many players/teachers. I've never really seen anyone explain it in a way which made sense, until I finally got what Reg is doing. It really simplifies the thought process, and honestly, don't we need it, as guitarists? I mean, it's difficult enough. Let me know what positions you're trying to get together with it if you want another way to think about it. Any amount of simplification is a beautiful thing on a difficult process like this.

[NoReply]

Yep. Melodic minor is a mind-numbing/destroying/, think-fest, the way it's presented by so many players/teachers. I've never really seen anyone explain it in a way which made sense, until I finally got what Reg is doing. It really simplifies the thought process, and honestly, don't we need it, as guitarists? I mean, it's difficult enough. Let me know what positions you're trying to get together with it if you want another way to think about it. Any amount of simplification is a beautiful thing on a difficult process like this.

I'll make it even simpler from the stuff I've been working on. Just think a minor triad a half-step above the dominant. You get an essential note of the dominant and two color tones, and easy to finger a minor triad about anywhere. My world view is simple is good and very flexible.

[dingusmingus]

I think I don't really know what people consider "theory" in these discussions. Are these things theory, or just basic practical knowledge of how music works:
* the names of all 12 chromatic notes
* the names of all places on the fretboard (applies to guitar only, obviously)
* the names of the notes in each major scale.
* the sharps and flats in each key signature
* the names of the notes in each natural, harmonic, and melodic minor scale
* the effective substitution of some chords for others to reharmonize a tune in comping, or in single-note improv
* Rhythmic concepts, such as the subdivision of a beat into 3 or 4 parts
* Superimposition of one meter or rhythmic concept over another
* how to read music

Some folks, especially in a more rock or pop context, would consider that "theory," but many jazz players wouldn't. Jazz players might reserve the theory label for concepts like:
* Barry Harris's major 6/diminished harmonic system
* Chord Scale Theory
etc.

[matt.guitarteacher]

What do I know? But I'd consider all of that theory. Always found it funny that there are folks who don't like to "talk theory", but they have certain prejudiced things that they think of as being "theory".

"Why talk about that complicated scale over that chord? It's simple. I just think of the tritone sub of the tritone sub of the relative minor ", as if that's NOT theory . :-)

[John A.]

What do I know? But I'd consider all of that theory. Always found it funny that there are folks who don't like to "talk theory", but they have certain prejudiced things that they think of as being "theory".

"Why talk about that complicated scale over that chord? It's simple. I just think of the tritone sub of the tritone sub of the relative minor ", as if that's NOT theory . :-)

Different people draw the line between "theory" and "practical musicianship tips" in different places. Overall, I think nearly everything we call "theory" in the context of talking about jazz harmony is really practical tips. For something to qualify as theory as an academic would use the term it has to actually move to a more "meta" level of explanation (e.g., by referencing history, structural analysis of the piece, a theory of aesthetics, psyco-acoustics, etc., and of course Pythagoras. If it doesn't talk about Pythagoras it's definitely not theory. And George Russell, yeah, Pythagoras and George Russell. That's theory. And Nietzsche. Almost forgot Nietzsche).

John

[matt.guitarteacher]

Different people draw the line between "theory" and "practical musicianship tips" in different places. Overall, I think nearly everything we call "theory" in the context of talking about jazz harmony is really practical tips. For something to qualify as theory as an academic would use the term it has to actually move to a more "meta" level of explanation (e.g., by referencing history, structural analysis of the piece, a theory of aesthetics, psyco-acoustics, etc., and of course Pythagoras. If it doesn't talk about Pythagoras it's definitely not theory. And George Russell, yeah, Pythagoras and George Russell. That's theory. And Nietzsche. Almost forgot Nietzsche).

John

You can talk about levels and what is REAL theory I guess. But that doesn't change the fact that theory is ALL of it. All of the BS that you would learn in a beginner theory class , plus everything else.

My real point was that there are plenty of anti-theory SNOBS out there who talk about not needing theory , who themselves, talk ALL the TIME in terms of things like tritone substitutions....., key signatures.... etc. etc. If you have to decide how MUCH theory is too much based on each player's personal, subjective opinion, I'm just calling BS on that. At the end of the day, it's got to be about what you can play.

There are plenty of players who aren't really into theory who play great, but at the same time, you can't pretend like there aren't just as many who completely are. It's a stupid argument, and it needs to go away forever.

I just can't imagine that REAL players sit around and argue about crap like this all of the time. I WOULD imagine that they can get together and basically play music, with possibly COMPLETELY different ways of thinking about what they're playing.

KNOWING theory is no more of a hindrance than NOT knowing theory, and it just seems silly to say so.

Edit: not all aimed at you, John, by the way.

[John A.]

You can talk about levels and what is REAL theory I guess. But that doesn't change the fact that theory is ALL of it. All of the BS that you would learn in a beginner theory class , plus everything else.

My real point was that there are plenty of anti-theory SNOBS out there who talk about not needing theory , who themselves, talk ALL the TIME in terms of things like tritone substitutions....., key signatures.... etc. etc. If you have to decide how MUCH theory is too much based on each player's personal, subjective opinion, I'm just calling BS on that. At the end of the day, it's got to be about what you can play.

There are plenty of players who aren't really into theory who play great, but at the same time, you can't pretend like there aren't just as many who completely are. It's a stupid argument, and it needs to go away forever.

I just can't imagine that REAL players sit around and argue about crap like this all of the time. I WOULD imagine that they can get together and basically play music, with possibly COMPLETELY different ways of thinking about what they're playing.

KNOWING theory is no more of a hindrance than NOT knowing theory, and it just seems silly to say so.

The people I meet playing jazz in the real world are pretty interested in "theory" as we're using the term here (i.e., as a mix of practical and "meta" terminology to describe the what's and why's of improv, musicianship, and composition). I mean if you're trying to compose music spontaneously, I think it's pretty hard to avoid getting engaged with the explanation for what works and why. How deeply you get into varies, but I don't know people who completely disengage from theory and/or dump on others' engagement. I think maybe this is more a topic of internet arguing than it is of real-world music making, but that could just be my narrow experience. I agree that it's silly to reject knowledge.

John

[lawson-stone]

I'll make it even simpler from the stuff I've been working on. Just think a minor triad a half-step above the dominant. You get an essential note of the dominant and two color tones, and easy to finger a minor triad about anywhere. My world view is simple is good and very flexible.

Thats the kind of number-counting thing I have trouble keeping up with. Now, I've done this for 25 years, played (with) guitar all my 61 years. I have trouble with the numbers. "Minor triad a half step above the dominant" to me sounds like Hebrew grammar would sound to you.

I'm trying to get access to this stuff without having to spin the number wheel.

Maybe it's a pipe dream.

[NoReply]

Thats the kind of number-counting thing I have trouble keeping up with. Now, I've done this for 25 years, played (with) guitar all my 61 years. I have trouble with the numbers. "Minor triad a half step above the dominant" to me sounds like Hebrew grammar would sound to you.

I'm trying to get access to this stuff without having to spin the number wheel.

Maybe it's a pipe dream.

I don't see how that's numbers it up a half step. The advantage and disadvantage to guitar is is a visual instrument so you just play a pattern up a fret. At one point I would of thought altered scale and a altered fingering, but found that took down a path of a zillion scales and fingerings. Then got back to keeping things simple, a few scale and a few simple ways to shift them to get a lot of results with a little. Since at one point I did learn some of these like Lydian Dominant as it's own scale I will think that way, but at this point that's a subconscious decisions on a conscious one. Both ways I still know where my chord and color tones are. I'm thinking more in triads these days and in general I find the smaller piece study the more of the big picture it reveals.

As for Hebrew I worked for a church/spiritual center for a few years and used to hang with reverends that knew Arameric so your Hebrew won't sound odd to me.

[John A.]

Thats the kind of number-counting thing I have trouble keeping up with. Now, I've done this for 25 years, played (with) guitar all my 61 years. I have trouble with the numbers. "Minor triad a half step above the dominant" to me sounds like Hebrew grammar would sound to you.

I'm trying to get access to this stuff without having to spin the number wheel.

Maybe it's a pipe dream.

I think of the MM thing as kind of a mnemonic device for identifying the tones that work over altered 7th chords. Not every mnemonic device works for all people, though, and it's not the only way to orient yourself on a chord. I learned those tones/sounds and got them under my fingers before I ever actually heard of the MM trick, and when I first did encounter it, it took me quite a while to realize that this was something I already knew (i.e., where the altered chord tones were vis a vis the purely diatonic chord tones). Given that you've been playing altered chords for 61 years (or playing altered for 25 years, or something like that), I suspect you're in the same boat.

Wikipedia tells me that "The jazz minor scale contains all of the altered notes of the dominant seventh chord whose root is a semitone below the scale's tonic. 'In other words to find the correct jazz minor scale for any dominant 7th chord simply use the scale whose tonic note is a half step higher than the root of the chord.' For example, the G7 chord and A♭ jazz minor scale: the A♭ scale contains the root, third, seventh, and the four most common alterations of G7. This scale may be used to resolve to C in the progression G7-C (over G7, which need not be notated G7♭5♯5♭9♯9)." OK, that's nice, but I don't find it particularly helpful for keeping track of the altered 5th's and 9ths, and I don't usually play entire scales over V-I's, so I've fooled around a bit with that MM trick, but never incorporated it into my thought process. I have the sounds down, though because I get chromaticism and tension, but I just use a different pathway to get to them.

Other pages say things like "Playing from the fourth note of a melodic minor scale you can create a V7 #11 or lydian dominant sound. This is a really unique sound using the melodic minor scale and because V7 chords are everywhere, there are endless opportunities to use this sound." Ok, or you can stepwise over a V7 and remember to alter raise your 5th and flat your 7th when you get there, without artificially thinking of this as part of a scale that is not the scale of they key you're currently playing in. Or you can play a mixolydian mode (i.e., the intro to 'Breezin'), and try to remember to do something chromatic somewhere on or about the 5th. Or you can go "Hey everybody -- Tritone time!" In the end, it winds up being the same notes.


John

[pkirk]

Thats the kind of number-counting thing I have trouble keeping up with. Now, I've done this for 25 years, played (with) guitar all my 61 years. I have trouble with the numbers. "Minor triad a half step above the dominant" to me sounds like Hebrew grammar would sound to you.

I'm trying to get access to this stuff without having to spin the number wheel.

Maybe it's a pipe dream.

Lawson

what usually sticks with me is to take one of these "number counting" things, and in the practice room, find a particular tune and a particular spot where you can use the idea. I think I learned the MM sound on "take the A train" where on the D7, a #11 is part of the melody, so if you use A melodic minor there, it works, and then the subsequent II-V-I back to C, use an Ab MM on the II-V. So its an effective and simple thing to get the *sound* in your ear over those two changes. Once it's there, you never need to think about it by a formula again, but rather "that sound that worked on that tune."

There's also the use of MM on a minor chord, of course.