-
Originally Posted by dickbanks
John
-
07-01-2019 02:06 PM
-
Originally Posted by John A.
-
Barney Kessel was there playing with Bird in the 40's, so you don't get much earlier for bebop guitar. In giving jazz improvisation instruction, he does mention having a basic knowledge of theory as being very helpful in learning. As Kessel was an original bebopper and not an academic, I'm going to assume that many players from that era and forward had a working knowledge of theory that was practical and complimented their great ears.
-
Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
I try to work on both approaches. I too have an engineering background (studied electrical eng. before focusing on music), so I try to relate to the mathematical aspect of jazz, and to the "soul" of the music as well. My usual conclusion when faced with choices in music, just work on everything..!
-
If You Know Harmony (chords), and you know modes, scales, interrelationships between certain scales and certain chords and how you can combine chords into progressions and knowing how to read numeric progression charts and how to know inversions Etc... Is in fact Theory.
Whether you learn it on the streets or the you learn it in group sessions or in a formal classroom environment it is still Theory.
How you apply the theory to your instrument this is what should be overcome to a degree where you know your instrument well.
The old big bands that used to travel around the country and in the territories as they called it, a lot of times they had a musician on the payroll that knew Theory that knew Harmony that knew Rhythm and could read well, and what some of those bands did was employ this person to teach the rest of the band. So over time, the band became more knowledgeable in their craft.
I think some theory is very important and as I said earlier you probably know a lot more Theory than you think because if you're working with your instrument and you can get around on it and you understand what works and what doesn't work you know Theory you just don't know the designations and the descriptions of what you're doing in a theoretical context.
If you can pick up a rock and throw it, and hit a target with the rock you have just thrown you know the physical relationships of biomechanics but you might not understand the nomenclature behind those biomechanics. That doesn't mean you can't do something it just means that sometimes Theory helps to propagate your ideas to others in a language that is understood within the frame of reference that you were trying to convey.
-
Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
-
We don't need to be Edison to turn on a light switch. Or Graham Bell to use the telephone.
-
When composing, theory is essential. Frustrating too since there are so many block and sequence sorts of things on guitar that seem to not map well to the chord/scale theory you can pick up easily on youtube. Always seems everything is an advanced topic and I'm sure someone who actually knows their stuff would know why something sounds right when it doesn't match the rules. But the answers are somewhere beyond secondary dominants and it can be frustrating for hobbyists to learn quickly and effectively. Still, if you write, you must have a basic grasp of theory to know where you've been and where you're going.
Improvising, I put theory away as soon as I know the tune and understand the changes. I want my brain in neutral, not analyzing the progression in real time.
-
Rereading Duncan Lamont's book 'Streetfighter's Guide to Improvisation'.
Like 'Harmony with Lego Bricks', the title says it all....
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
-
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
But the stories and advice - worth their weight.
-
I know for certain that one of the greats didn't even know what a 'C' was, probably not helped by not being able to read or write.
..he managed to get by with just two fingers and an occasional couple of knuckles for chords.
If you told him a song was in F he would be fairly confident that wasn't a suburb of Paris. He'd then play fluently and possibly make my eyes fill up.
Whenever I get stumped I think of him.
-
This thread has been an interesting read as it's a conversation I've often had with students and colleagues both in and put of academia. First my background, I have both a Bachelors and a Masters in tuba performance and spent a majority of my advanced elective credits in theory. Ihave studied and taught everything from basic music theory to advanced counterpoint. With that, here's my take/opinion (I can't say that I think it's worth 2 cents, though):
As has been already mentioned, we confuse two different aspects when discussing theory: tonal/intervalic relationships (something I've heard referred to as "applied theory" or "aural skills") and structural/abstract relationships (often the lecture/didactic learning associated with music theory as well as the study of acoustical physics).
The first type, I find very useful and required to be successful in any form on an instrument, especially in jazz. I just think we learn/teach things out of order. Others have already mentioned this, but it's a reflective subject--a way to analyze what has been done. I know of no performer (regardless of classical, jazz, or otherwise) that thinks theory while they play or solo. It just doesn't work. And, it seems from my study and reading that a lot of the composers and players of yesteryear wouldn't understand our concept of theory. Bach new his theory and his intervals/scales but he probably wouldn't call a Neopolitan 6 chord (bII6) as such. He and others throughout history were taught music by imitating what they had heard and then developing their own ideas after that. Trying to teach structured and then have a student apply them is not only backwards but counterproductive as the listener doesn't care about if the music is theoretically sound (just take Schoenberg's music--without a strong understanding of his tonal/harmonic theory it is hard to appreciate it).
The second form is like the science of music. It let's those that want to know learn why music is the way it is. This is useful, but unneeded for most performers. Understanding the Schenkerian Analysis of a piece of music doesn't teach you anything about what the composer wrote because it removed 99% of what is there. Understanding Schoenberg's Theory of composing and harmony will help you understand why he wrote something that way, but not why it sounds the way it does. And, acoustical physics will help you understand why something sounds the way it does in a particular environment but won't help you with how music is written. These three examples are abstract, or what I call real, music theory. They are taught in music schools to students that are often unprepared to understand their purpose or really make any use of them. I doubt that many of the greats that mainly performed dealt with much or any of this.
It's a long, rambling post, I'm sure, but hopefully an interesting read. My experiences have greatly changed my impression and uses for these things over the years and, while I love real music theory, I find very little use for it in my daily life.
P.S. This is my first real post other than selling a guitar years ago here. I really enjoy the variety in topic on this forum compared to others that I frequent. I'm hoping to find ways to be more active here as jazz guitar becomes more of a focus of my musical time instead of just lurking around because there really does seem to be some good conversations.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
-
Well my favourite nerd fact atm is how you make a Neapolitan 6th
Back in 17th and early 18th century they didn’t have chord roots. Everything was from the bass and intervals above.
So, 5 3 was obviously root position, but 6 3 is first inversion. But this generations thought of it as a different chord with a different function.
Make a 6 3 on chord IV. Normally this would be - the jazzers favourite, IIm, in first inv - but that’s not how they though if it. They considered it a IV chord.
Now, flatten both the 6 and 3 and you get the Neapolitan 6th. Beautiful. They thought of it as a colourful IV chord, nothing to do with bII.
So if Bach thought in those terms, that’s how he would have viewed it.
Anyway, as you were :-)
-
Originally Posted by thevillagetuba
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
About theory in general, I know a reasonable amount and it has allowed me to build what I think of as my own theoretical extensions. My brother, who is a very fine keyboard player, knows a lot more than me and it has allowed him to build many more of his own extensions. When he and I talk music I have learned that I should listen to what he says more deeply because I will learn new things that will open new ideas. There has never been a single piece of theory that I have learned (or discovered) that has not eventually turned out to be useful in my pursuit of making music.
-
Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Good questions all. These theory questions always bring me back to so many jazz instrumentalists who also studied keyboard.
Dexter, Dizzy, Miles, Mingus, and countless others know jazz at the piano. It has always been my belief that ideas and theory is what sent jazz players to the keyboard. Miles is quoted to have replied to Trane's question of how he came up with that phrase..."study piano MF!"
Even the great actor Jeff Goldblum, and Clint Eastwood know some jazz keyboard. The theory's visible and accessible.
although, the musicianship of the great trumpeter Arturo Sandoval on piano is likely tough to top anyone can play piano.
Jeff Goldblum
-
there's HUGE a difference between playing concepts and working them out on the piano and theorizing everything first and playing by those strict rules.
I feel like I've said this too many times on the Jazz Guitar Forum:
"there's nothing wrong with learning some theory... there is something incredibly wrong about learning theory in the absence of the ear"
Too many people practice theory without sound. I say, any theory practice without sound is a waste of time...
I'm a firm believer in the power of the ear because I used to study theory "in the absence of the ear" and you know what... it got me nowhere fast!
Now I contextualize theory with my ears... learn a little piano and you'll do this automatically when you try out theory on the piano.
I'm Old Fashioned, solo guitar, Jake Reichbart
Today, 10:49 AM in Chord-Melody