The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Posts 26 to 50 of 282
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    The problem with learning theory is that it often gets confused with learning music. They are not the same thing. They can reinforce each other, though.

    "You can use the second mode of the D harmonic minor scale over the Em7b5 chord" is not music. Learning the melody of "Alone Together" is music. The latter can help you make musical sense of the former, and the former may help you make sense of why the latter is what it is.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    The idea of theory being counter productive in music is the most moronical thing I have EVER heard. IN GENERAL, if you want to get good at anything you have to study it. Saying to just do it or just play music would be like saying you'll become a pro writer if you never study vocab or grammar or writing. Or maybe Madison Bumgarner got the lowest ERA in world series history by just 'figuring out' his pitches. Uh no, there's extremely in depth study involved in everything that most of the greats do. Ok.. say you're one of the 5% of musicians who is talented enough to play advanced music without studying it theoretically.. If you're that smart, is picking up knowledge from a theoretical standpoint going to make you worse? Not 1 time in a million. Give me a break! Practical knowledge and theoretical knowledge are not mutually exclusive. You can learn 100 tunes and know theory as well. So stupid.

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    IMO, there is a lot of B.S. in the thread. Someone has to define what theory is for me. For me it is just a way of naming and cataloging sounds.

    Even knowing what a C note is theory. The same note can be played at different frequencies but we catalog them as the same note even though it isn't.

    Same for a G7. There are many different inversions and combinations of notes that can be called a G7 and it is useful to know that.

    Now, for me theory only becomes problematic when it becomes prescriptive, i.e. you should play this scale over this chord. But knowing the names of things and hearing them is definitely valuable.

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    I think what some of us are saying is... there are ton of youtubers out there who know a crap ton of theory, but are making very blah music. They may hit all the notes perfectly, their time may be perfect, but there's no emotion or fire in their performance. Would you rather listen to a player piano play Monk, or would you rather hear Monk play? In this way, "knowing theory" isn't helpful in making good music.

    Theory is the cookbook. 2 people can make the same soup from the same recipe, but they could taste very different, due to only minor variations in the recipe, based on experience, taste, whatever.

    In my post above, Tommy Emmanuel has admitted he knows very little theory - in fact, he KNOWS it, he just doesn't call it anything. He knows how to build the chord he wants to hear (or do whatever), he just doesn't label it as a 13th chord (or whatever). So in that situation, we are really all talking the same language- just in a different dialect. If a player calls out "play the 13th there" and I say "what's that?" it doesn't mean I don't know... because if he plays me a 13th and I say "oh THAT. No problem." I DO know. I just don't call it anything.

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    That makes total sense.

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Clint 55
    IN GENERAL, if you want to get good at anything you have to study it.

    Yes off course .. Take someone like Lionel Messi. He off course has a physics degree with a ph.d in Mechanics. To suggest that he became the greatest football player ever by actually playing the game from morning to night in the streets of Rosario, Argentina as a kid and never looking in to the theory of what makes a ball move like it does ... Well that is an utterly preposterous idea.

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    The Messi example isn't that great. He started playing club football at age 4 with Grandoli FC and received coaching at even younger ages. He is more like a guy who started playing classical piano at age 3.

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    A generic, philosophical debate about whether music theory is useful or not is pretty pointless. Everybody, even many none musicians know some theory (the major scale, note names etc). What is meaningfully considered a no-theory approach vs theory-friendly approach can only be determined when considering specific applications, musical roles, styles or even instruments (a classical composer, folk singer, big band arranger, orchestral violinist, jazz improviser, pianist, vocalist etc etc.)

    One thing I liked about Christaan's video is that he was very aware of that distinction and made it very clear that he is speaking only with respect to jazz improvisation specifically on guitar.

    A question like this make sense:
    Is an explicit mental conception of major, minor tonality and the functional harmony as postulated by the western music theory a useful asset for a straight-ahead jazz clarinet improviser?

    In a way this is much like the gravity. People intuitively knew about the gravity, they felt it and acted accordingly. But it took a brilliant mind to conceptualize it as a force and propose a mental model of the world as a mechanical system governed by various similar forces acting on each other.

    Musicians and nonmusicians alike intuitively understand and feel the similar gravitational system of tonal music. That's why tonal music works. But it's by no means obvious to see it as the way the western music theory lays it out without studying it, again much like people never thought of gravity as a force before Newton. In a way it's a beautiful construction like Newton's theories. But is it useful to a musician? Well again that discussion makes no sense without clarifying whether we are talking about an orchestral violinist or a singer-songwriter or ...
    Last edited by Tal_175; 11-21-2020 at 12:03 PM.

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    I'm not sure what we are even discussing here. Maybe, I should go watch Christiaan's video.

    But, I think the discussion here isn't really about traditional Western Tonal Music Theory. Most would agree that learning that won't have much applicability to jazz improv.

    But some people equate "learning theory" with learning scales and chords and associations between the two.

    Instead they advocate to just learn songs and licks, transcribe, and learn to play what you hear and that it isn't that productive to tell someone place these scales over a ii V.

    This is where I disagree. I think it can be valuable for someone to practice specific things like this to get familiar with these sounds. The Barry Harris method is essentially this, IMO, with the added emphasis on rhythm and placing chord tones on strong beats.

    For me the real question is how much time should be spent on X versus Y and the emphasis that "theoretical" exercises are not prescriptive exercises for how to play but rather tools to learn sounds.

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by charlieparker
    IMO, there is a lot of B.S. in the thread. Someone has to define what theory is for me. For me it is just a way of naming and cataloging sounds.

    Even knowing what a C note is theory. The same note can be played at different frequencies but we catalog them as the same note even though it isn't.

    Same for a G7. There are many different inversions and combinations of notes that can be called a G7 and it is useful to know that.

    Now, for me theory only becomes problematic when it becomes prescriptive, i.e. you should play this scale over this chord. But knowing the names of things and hearing them is definitely valuable.
    For me there’s a difference between naming and categorising things; which I think is a natural product of the way the human brain and ears work, and looking to explain why things work.

    So for example, Chord Scale Theory aims to explain why many note choices work on chords by systematising things into scales that go with the chords in a chart. It’s a very closed, complete system with neat answers that are good for exams.

    This is more what I regard Music Theory than simply recogising something is a II V I lick, or spotting repeated phrases or ideas in a solo or a song.

    I don’t think that chord scale ideas are wrong or bad - actually the danger I would say is getting too much into that sort of thing too early. When you are having discussions with people about whether this or that note is allowed because of music theory, and not instead relying on ones ears and musical judgment, it has got out of hand.

    Theory can suggest useful abstractions and concepts for the musician who can already hear.

    But the problem with Jazz Theory as I see it is that it stopped being simply resources to play with and started being regarded as the Laws of Musical Physics or something. Even where music theory is grounded in physics (and a little bit of CST is) I would argue this type of thinking (and teaching) discourages learners from making their own aesthetic and creative decisions by using their ears and encourages them to look for quasi scientific answers in a book.

    That I suspect is something Christiaan would agree with?
    Last edited by christianm77; 11-21-2020 at 12:17 PM.

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    Where Barry differs from a lot of theory guides out there is it actually has much more of an emphasis on creating music than seeking to understand it. His scales are used to make music, not explain it.

    In the improvisation class for instance we start pretty much with two or three straightforward scales and go through hundreds of ways we can use those notes to create bop language.

    There’s not much emphasis on understanding what is going on harmonically beyond straightforward suggestions about other scales and ways of using scales one could use for different sounds, such as the tritone, minor and so on.

    Barry doesn’t talk about upper extensions for example. The implication is that none of that stuff is terribly important to learn how to play the music. Well actually he pretty much straight said that.

    There is sort of a Barry musical cosmology about scales, DNA, mother and father, the brothers and sisters and so on, but that seems almost like a helpful mnemonic or humanising story to help describe the basic relationships.

    I’m not saying a musician couldn’t get something out of a more harmonic approach, more that it’s striking how little time is spent talking about why things work. Everything is focussed towards creating music.

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by charlieparker
    The Messi example isn't that great. He started playing club football at age 4 with Grandoli FC and received coaching at even younger ages. He is more like a guy who started playing classical piano at age 3.
    Ahh yes ... People that started classical piano at age 3 are not really musicians

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    For me there’s a difference between naming and categorising things; which I think is a natural product of the way the human brain and ears work, and looking to explain why things work.

    So for example, Chord Scale Theory aims to explain why many note choices work on chords by systematising things into scales that go with the chords in a chart. It’s a very closed, complete system with neat answers that are good for exams.

    This is more what I regard Music Theory than simply recogising something is a II V I lick, or spotting repeated phrases or ideas in a solo or a song.
    Christian, I always love your advice here and agree with everything you said here.

    But, I would disagree on the distinction here you made. To me chord scale theory is just another form of categorization, just of a sound of a chord and a scale together. I don't think the why part is super relevant.

    I agree that it isn't terribly useful for beginners, so maybe I agree with everyone here .

    It isn't useful because, for one jazz is much more than knowing pitch collections. It is about phrasing, melodic shape, and rhythm, etc. And it isn't the way music is made.

    I guess, I would just say things differently. To me, no theory is kind of an anti-intellectual statement.

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobomov
    Ahh yes ... People that started classical piano at age 3 are not really musicians
    ???

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    For me there’s a difference between naming and categorising things; which I think is a natural product of the way the human brain and ears work, and looking to explain why things work.

    So for example, Chord Scale Theory aims to explain why many note choices work on chords by systematising things into scales that go with the chords in a chart. It’s a very closed, complete system with neat answers that are good for exams.

    This is more what I regard Music Theory than simply recogising something is a II V I lick, or spotting repeated phrases or ideas in a solo or a song.

    I don’t think that chord scale ideas are wrong or bad - actually the danger I would say is getting too much into that sort of thing too early. When you are having discussions with people about whether this or that note is allowed because of music theory, and not instead relying on ones ears and musical judgment, it has got out of hand.

    Theory can suggest useful abstractions and concepts for the musician who can already hear.

    But the problem with Jazz Theory as I see it is that it stopped being simply resources to play with and started being regarded as the Laws of Musical Physics or something. Even where music theory is grounded in physics (and a little bit of CST is) I would argue this type of thinking (and teaching) discourages learners from making their own aesthetic and creative decisions by using their ears and encourages them to look for quasi scientific answers in a book.

    That I suspect is something Christiaan would agree with?
    Well, if you had the responsibility to educate thousands of music majors over multiple decades, which approach do you think would be more effective?:

    1. Use theories that guide them in composing, arranging, and performing - while they develop and mature their ears and capablities as composers, arrangers, and players,
    OR
    2. Tell them to let their ears be their guide, no theory, and of course turn in their composing and arranging assignments on time and with excellence, and perform at a solid level too.

    Remember, a GPA below "B" gets the students "counseled out" of the best schools.

    Philosophy is nice. Results count.

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    Well it’s all categorisation on some level? And CST is indeed another form of that. Have another look at what I wrote, I don’t contradict any of this.

    what I’m specifically concerned about is basically a form of mission creep towards trying to supply a general theory of how jazz works and away from just being a set of rules of thumb and resources that some players may find useful. Over time CST seems to have ended up at the top of the tree as the arbiter of what will and won’t sound ‘good’ and a general theory of ‘how jazz works.’

    At its best it’s a fabulous resource for creating beautiful sounds. At its worst it offers not ideas for music making, but strict prohibitions and advice on what not to play. Framing and language are key here. The way things are taught and presented.

    I have learned to be very skeptical of the value of the idea of a general theory with respect making music, but there are also obvious reasons why such an idea might gain traction in education though.

    TBF such unifying theories may have value as an intellectual pursuit for its own sake (although I think Cst is remarkably bad for this purpose ironically) but that’s something I have learned we need to keep separate from music pedagogy.

    (Musicians are not always intellectuals. They are always artisans and craftspeople.)

    (I did physics at uni so I’m always aware of my tendency to try to come up with general theories and so on.)

    I think you are right to say that all jazz theory is essentially geared towards providing resources to make music... have a look at the Ritchie Hart interview which I posted elsewhere.

    in classical music this is much better defined on the difference between conservatoire performance and composition courses and university
    music degrees, although it is arguable that much of the practical hands on knowledge that allowed 18th century composers to write and improvise music with such facility, as separate from the analytical theories of figures like Schenker, was largely lost and is only recently being rediscovered.

    In jazz I think the academy and publishing industry have gradually encouraged the teaching of theory to resemble more the general, analytical style theories. There’s many reasons for this. I could send you one of my essays if you really want more info lol.

    Practically, I’ve noticed many students who simply want a theoretical justification for everything; something I recognise from when I was getting started and I’m still by no means entirely over.

    this mindset is deeply unhelpful, even obstructive to ideas like melodic improvising, and a real problem in my experience. It’s like the ears are somehow at the bottom of the pecking order when it comes to improvisation. This seems like a tremendous failure of mass market jazz education. And a right pain in the bum.

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobomov
    Ahh yes ... People that started classical piano at age 3 are not really musicians
    Bit of a Strawman. I took your "learned soccer on the streets of Rosario" as an allusion to the idea that Messi just sort of learned to play soccer by just playing around with other kids. Instead he retrieved technical coaching from a young age.

    Classical pedagogy is a somewhat formalized training with a graded repertoire and scales and exercises that a student typically learns and masters along the way.

    Similarly, Barry Harris has an intriguing way of teaching that some have called a theoretical framework (Adam Neely).

    While I am sympathetic, to the "No Theory" narrative, I think we can take the sentiment too far depending on what we classify as "Theory".

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    ...

    Rick Beato ... the greatest salesmen in the guitar stratosphere of YouTube. Like all good salesmen, they never sound like they are selling you something.
    Do you need the discount code for the Beato book?

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by GTRMan
    Well, if you had the responsibility to educate thousands of music majors over multiple decades, which approach do you think would be more effective?:

    1. Use theories that guide them in composing, arranging, and performing - while they develop and mature their ears and capablities as composers, arrangers, and players,
    OR
    2. Tell them to let their ears be their guide, no theory, and of course turn in their composing and arranging assignments on time and with excellence, and perform at a solid level too.

    Remember, a GPA below "B" gets the students "counseled out" of the best schools.

    Philosophy is nice. Results count.
    If you need to hear this from someone with a bit more clout, go and listen to what Ritchie Hart has to say on the subject. I posted an interview elsewherez

    (He actually teaches at Berklee as I understand it.

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by charlieparker
    Christian, I always love your advice here and agree with everything you said here.

    But, I would disagree on the distinction here you made. To me chord scale theory is just another form of categorization, just of a sound of a chord and a scale together. I don't think the why part is super relevant.

    I agree that it isn't terribly useful for beginners, so maybe I agree with everyone here .

    It isn't useful because, for one jazz is much more than knowing pitch collections. It is about phrasing, melodic shape, and rhythm, etc. And it isn't the way music is made.

    I guess, I would just say things differently. To me, no theory is kind of an anti-intellectual statement.
    I don’t disagree with anything said here. I posted a lengthy response above but might not get seen as I didn’t quote you in the message...

    Or, check out this interview.



    says everything I need to on the subject. Exact argument I am (trying) to make

  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by charlieparker
    Bit of a Strawman. I took your "learned soccer on the streets of Rosario" as an allusion to the idea that Messi just sort of learned to play soccer by just playing around with other kids. Instead he retrieved technical coaching from a young age.

    Classical pedagogy is a somewhat formalized training with a graded repertoire and scales and exercises that a student typically learns and masters along the way.

    Similarly, Barry Harris has an intriguing way of teaching that some have called a theoretical framework (Adam Neely).

    While I am sympathetic, to the "No Theory" narrative, I think we can take the sentiment too far depending on what we classify as "Theory".

    Off course I'm strawman'ing, but my point stands. I don't know much about Messi, but I choose that name due to his current fame. But plenty of footballers just come from a background of street football and just rise to the top based on their skills.

    Zlatan is a prime example of this .. There was no formal training of his talent at an early age ... He just played and if his autobiography is to believed it wasn't until very late in his development it dawned on him that he was extraordinary. He was just a kid having fun.

    Same here you get a kid involved in a gigging and jamming every day and it will lead to something creative is he has the right personality.


    I'm not advocating against theory as a useful tool ... I'm advocating against the popular view that it is necessary to be a good musician. It is not. Ear and chops is and you don't get either of those by studying theory (beyond the bare minimum like chord and note names). I claim that many a wannabe player is harming himself by speeding too much time trying to understand and/or justify his playing thru the lens of theory.

  23. #47

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobomov
    Off course I'm strawman'ing, but my point stands. I don't know much about Messi, but I choose that name due to his current fame. But plenty of footballers just come from a background of street football and just rise to the top based on their skills.

    Zlatan is a prime example of this .. There was no formal training of his talent at an early age ... He just played and if his autobiography is to believed it wasn't until very late in his development it dawned on him that he was extraordinary. He was just a kid having fun.

    Same here you get a kid involved in a gigging and jamming every day and it will lead to something creative is he has the right personality.


    I'm not advocating against theory as a useful tool ... I'm advocating against the popular view that it is necessary to be a good musician. It is not. Ear and chops is and you don't get either of those by studying theory (beyond the bare minimum like chord and note names). I claim that many a wannabe player is harming himself by speeding too much time trying to understand and/or justify his playing thru the lens of theory.
    I think the choice of Messi is a good analogy. Not much opportunity to play ‘street jazz’ anymore perhaps; or street rock and roll for that matter.

    So for better or for worse jazz is now more learned in the academy.

  24. #48

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    If you need to hear this from someone with a bit more clout, go and listen to what Ritchie Hart has to say on the subject. I posted an interview elsewherez

    (He actually teaches at Berklee as I understand it.
    The way you talk about it is not my experience at US based jazz schools, including Berklee. For one thing, no one teaches "CST", as such. You seem to be making up a straw man to object to. I have found the opposite to be true. I am reminded of a student asking what scale to play over a chord, and the instructor becoming so impatient with the question and mindset that he burst out - "it's the chord!!!"

    The reality is that when it comes to composing and arranging classes, things are more rules based because there is so much for the developing student to deal with when first learning those arts. Instrumental playing critiques however, tend to be much more open minded, and that increases with level of study. I have found that to be consistent across instructors.

    Teaching people to play coherent consonant music is a start, then specific ways to get more chromatic, altered, and "out", are taught. The simple fact is, there are known, established patterns and practices in music. It would be one thing if there were 1200 tones in an octave instead of 12.

    So, there is repeatability in the art. Either one wishes to learn it or not. And if they do want to learn it, we can then ask - can it be learned in a single lesson, and effectively applied as well?

    The answer of course, is no.

  25. #49

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    So for better or for worse jazz is now more learned in the academy.
    And that's why we need theory. So jazz can be written about, talked about and lectured on. Otherwise the Academy is just a bunch of wankers faffing about. For one thing, how does anybody get paid for that? Maybe that's why there seems to be so much more jazz theory available than there was 50 years ago.

    My theory of theory aligns pretty well with this:

    ...Theory to me is the attempt to explain how music works...
    It's useful in that if I learn a bit of it I get a new set of notes to dick around with. But I sure don't see how you can make a meaningful improv while thinking about it while you're taking a solo. We all agree that actual music is a lot more than a set of rules.

  26. #50

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ccroft
    And that's why we need theory. So jazz can be written about, talked about and lectured on. Otherwise the Academy is just a bunch of wankers faffing about. For one thing, how does anybody get paid for that? Maybe that's why there seems to be so much more jazz theory available than there was 50 years ago.

    My theory of theory aligns pretty well with this:



    It's useful in that if I learn a bit of it I get a new set of notes to dick around with. But I sure don't see how you can make a meaningful improv while thinking about it while you're taking a solo. We all agree that actual music is a lot more than a set of rules.
    Well, traditionally "Theory" is targeted to part writing "voices", which can be applied to composition, orchestration, and arranging.

    And "Improvisation Theory" or "Jazz Improvisation" classes DON'T teach in the manner that you are mocking.

    What they DO teach is that we are to develop a substantial, coherent sounding, jazz vocabulary so well that it can be applied extemporaneously/impulsively.