-
Originally Posted by ccroft
Anyway, after a while the syllabus got mission creep and people started taking it FAR too seriously, especially when it was taken out of the context of the original setting and purpose. At least that seems to be the way those around at the time tell it. Big money gets involved too. Jazz is on its last legs outside of the NYC tourist circuit, so colleges and jazz form a tighter and tighter relationship.
No one is blame for this. These are big social forces. I'm not being down on jazz educators... I do think some could explore more varied conceptual approaches to teaching jazz (which is always a tall order) but I think so long as people like Ritchie etc remain in the system, there's going to be real info and advice passed on. And I think students increasingly see the value of this 'street' advice resulting in the explosion in popularity in Barry's approach over the past 10 years or so (no-one gave a shit about him when I started going to his classes. Now I have kids correcting me on his stuff on YouTube lol.) So that's all good, I think, although I think there is a little danger of the past getting fetishised and jazz turning into classical music...
But two things worry me (and they have nothing to do with boilerplate CST pedagogy, which is kind of seen as a bit of a trope with jazz edu anyway):
1) Students will dethrone the current idol and erect another one. Maybe Barry Harris. Who knows? Is there maybe something about the academy that encourages orthodox thinking?
2) The generation of real 'street' players who thrived in a strong live jazz environment are slowly retiring, to be replaced by those for whom jazz has always been school music. They will pass on that wisdom as well as they can, but the nature of the music will inevitably change into some sort of classical music.
For the second point, I think we are already there with today's generation of boppers. That music is like Bach now. It's been happening for a while though. I think it was Wynton's mission really.Last edited by christianm77; 11-21-2020 at 07:50 PM.
-
11-21-2020 07:18 PM
-
Originally Posted by GTRMan
-
Originally Posted by lammie200
Notice how similar his advice and perspective is to Christiaan's. And for once he's not selling ANYTHING here.
None of this stuff is controversial among players.
The theory is always far down the list after the ears, and what theory you use is what you find useful for understanding the music.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
Yes, I enjoyed the interview with one of their fine instructors. Thanks for the link.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
1. Talented students didn't quit Berklee because Berklee is/was bad, but because they were ready. That is, they had met their objectives of becoming pro level players. (Maybe it means that Berklee was fantastic). Anyway, why hang around jazz school or any schoool if a conventional education is not your goal?
2. Barry Harris is an old bebop guy. That's old and narrow by now - although - there seems to be a bit of a nostalgic bebop renaissance happening these days, which is just great. Regardless, I don't think he'll become "the kids hero" to any large or lasting extent.
3. Ironically, the very people who want to establish jazz as "America's classical music" are making a point that is largely centered on bop. So, this idea of making jazz a kind of classical music, is it a good thing or a bad thing?
4. It seems to me that ever since Miles created "jazz/rock" that jazz has been more and more influenced by popular styles, like funk, rock, pop, and hiphop, than it has by academia. Given that depressing reality, perhaps we do need to curate it.
Oh well. Bedlam time. Go Sooners!!!
-
I have studied voice leading. I'm not mocking anything. I have been to school. I did learn things. I think lessons and schooling are useful.
-
I doubt anyone on this forum or anyone known by anyone on this forum can play enjoyable music while knowing absolutely no theory. = Not even knowing what notes the guitar's strings are tuned to etc. So theory is not only good but absolutely necessary. I'm not buying the premise that enough theory to play and be soul = good, but studying more theory to become advanced = bad. Seems like a kind of stupid and oxy mornical point. Even players who were openly anti intellectual used theory. The solo to Kurt Cobain's 'Sappy' is written entirely in dorian. When I happened to hash it out I was like what the eff? Kurt used Dorian? That's like a mid level concept. I thought he only knew 2+2 but was just a 'genius.'
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
I didn't mean to suggest that theory is useless. You have to have that and a lot more. You have to play jazz with people for one thing. (kinda hard to do right now) And you need to have something inside that can only be released through playing.
-
Maybe the contradiction between "just listen" and theory can be partly resolve if we reframe theory to "system" or "order", and leave behind the "dogma" feel.
When I listen and observe, I try to store all the information. After a while it becomes overwheming, not only in music, but every area of the real life. So my unconcious move is the create a system, a framework to ease myself the remembering and processing. That is it, no more no less. A tool to allow remember, communicate, and discover. No way the condensation trail pull the airplane.
-
Originally Posted by GTRMan
Frame of relevance is important here. You've taken advice aimed at the average musician, who is trying to learn how to function in jazz and moved the discussion to the utmost elite musicians.
I'll claim that most non-pro musicians would profit from removing the time spent on theory to actually playing, if they goal is to play better that is (and not just having fun "understanding" stuff)
I mean people competing to be the best in the world is all fine and dandy .. making this thread about that .. meh
-
Originally Posted by GTRMan
-
Originally Posted by Lobomov
people to play music as that’s my job. I think it’s a challenging and interesting thing to do.
-
Originally Posted by Gabor
Syllabuses etc make things easier. On a Saturday morning it’s easier for me to teach to the test, or the book or the syllabus lol. And that’s by no means a bad thing per se; but it does make teaching more systematised and less imaginative. And dogma definitely creeps in.
This is by no means confined to jazz BTW. Music education is full of systems and methods which become entrenched; Kodaly, Estill Voicecraft, Suzuki, Edwin Gordon and so on...
When I listen and observe, I try to store all the information. After a while it becomes overwheming, not only in music, but every area of the real life. So my unconcious move is the create a system, a framework to ease myself the remembering and processing. That is it, no more no less. A tool to allow remember, communicate, and discover. No way the condensation trail pull the airplane.
I think developing your own framework organically in response to music is a vital part of being a musician. As you imply it is also a natural part of being a human being. The human brain is wired up to recognise patterns.
My theory is that all musicians do this, whether or not they know ‘theory’ or not. Django did it. Wes did it. The difference is they didn’t know the right way (Jimmy Bruno has some interesting anecdotes about this.)
But this is by the by. The focus is always on music first and foremost.
I think sometimes amateur musicians overestimate the extent to which musicians discuss the technicalities of their craft while rehearsing etc. Mostly music is used to communicate music (was it Jeff Berlin or someone else who said that about working with Holdsworth?)
When stuff like this mentioned it’s usually a suggestion. Which is what it should always be...
-
11-22-2020, 07:03 AM #64Dutchbopper GuestOriginally Posted by Clint 55
They learned by ear from being surrounded by other players, imitating them and playing hours a day from age 4, with few other distractions.
Bireli is no different. Zero theory.
They learn the musical language like in the real world, by imitating, just like native speakers.
When jazz is a native and organic thing, no theory is required. Just like in language.
Theory is only for guys like us who learn jazz as a second language. The toilers ...
And the fact that Kurt used Dorian does not mean that he knew what that is. He totally didn't. Theory is after the fact analysis by others. An artificial construct to describe what happened.
Music is sound. Not some dots on paper.
I might even add. Music is behaviour. NOT necessarily cognition.
DB
-
Well Cherokee is a lot easier if you don’t know any theory haha. It’s just a thing in a key and then it goes up 1 and then moves down 2 each time.
You get some nice things to play over each bit by listening to the greats do it.
-
Originally Posted by Dutchbopper
The thing that makes me laugh a bit is when Beato analyses a Cobain tune and goes ‘this is great because he uses 9ths, 7ths and so on on these chords’ and I think; that doesn’t explain anything about why it’s great. That’s just naming things.
Thats music theory btw - ‘why is this song great?’ And then trying to prove it with numbers. It’s profoundly silly even when Schenker did it.
But people come away thinking they have learned something Important lol. And it’s a lot easier to learn this stuff than actually learning to master a musical tradition which takes years and years.... You can sell that a lot easier.
-
11-22-2020, 07:24 AM #67Dutchbopper GuestOriginally Posted by christianm77
DB
-
He’s always doing it...
Beato is frustrating. But on some level he gets it, see the video above. He’s not wrong.
There was a YT comment that complained that Beato’s analyses where more and more about him singling out things and saying ‘this is great, listen to this’ and just playing air drums or whatever rather than talking about Theory haha
That’s as deep as aesthetic analysis needs to be honestly haha. Do I like it? And as a musician it’s helpful to know if there something I take from this that allows me to do the thing I like the sound of.
Everything else is just a scam; people wanting to codify a particular way of doing music and saying this is best, and selling it back to snobs. And it has to do with social class... musicians were always itinerant artisans, even the Mozarts and Bachs. Those Manouche jazz guitarists are some of the last of that tradition, and the Romani people were perhaps the first?
(Our very idea of what it is to be an artist, a ‘bohemian’, is bound up with romantic notions of travelling communities.)
Anti intellectual? Well, Kant knew trying to explain what makes something beautiful was a nonsense as far back as the eighteenth century. He said it was a German thing.
-
Originally Posted by Dutchbopper
Nah ... I'm not in the habit of defending Beato, but here he needs a bit of credit ... He has always painted himself as a huge fan of Cobain and has done quite a few videos on him. I can't discern one video from the other anymore, so can't really discuss that specific video, but over the course of the many videos he has done on Kurt to my ears his statement has always been:
I'm sure Kurt didn't think this ways and probably wasn't aware of it consciously, but the reason his songs are great are cause he uses a lot of 7s, 9s and sus sounds
So if you want to criticize him then do it for implying that music without 7s, 9s and sus sounds isn't or can't be great and not for his view on Kurt.
-
It's amazing how many people who denounce theory know all about theory.
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
That is because we've realized that despite knowing all about theory .. It hasn't helped us to play shit that sounds good
Lay theory on top of chops and ears and you might have something great, but too many of us have made theory a focus too early ... Basically it reminds me of my English teacher in high school, who had a great command of English grammar and literature, but had a very limited vocabulary and an absurdly strong accent that made her speech a parody of the English language.
-
11-22-2020, 08:07 AM #72Dutchbopper GuestOriginally Posted by ragman1
DB
-
Originally Posted by Lobomov
Anyway, for me there's a central question, right?
Do we aim to emulate the process of how the artist actually made the art OR are we more interested in studying it from an outside perceptive?
The former is what I call Craft, the latter is what I call Music Theory.
Getting those two things confused is where it gets sticky.
-
Originally Posted by Lobomov
But when I hear someone who apparently 'doesn't do theory' getting all those wrong notes in the right places then I think BS very loudly
-
Originally Posted by Dutchbopper
Transcriber wanted
Today, 04:35 PM in Improvisation