Christiaan Van Hemert once again championing "No Theory"

[djg]

You must be joking.. That one's easy. CHARLIE PARKER. All he does is outline the chords in his musical way and it sounds beautiful. He said he'd practice all day and run his blues and rhythm changes in every key. Pretty sure that's theory.

pretty sure it is not

[Clint 55]

It's both.

[christianm77]

Yeah ... This point has been made several times in this thread, but is worth repeating at least once more.

The framework for this thread is "99% of people would get more mileage out of replacing their theory studies with practical playing"


That quickly dissolves into discussion and worries about the 1% elite. They are irrelevant.




The claim here is that they can't get anywhere thru theory but need to pay their dues playing. Sure you can supplement by theory or study theory simply cause you're the type that loves theory and finds it fun and satisfying.

But your claim that anyone has become and functioning and advanced improviser thru theory .. Do you have any examples to support that claim, cause I honestly don't buy it

(and yeah, I'm aware of stuff like the famous Metheny interview where he is very harsh on Joni for not knowing theory, but man .. that guy .. He paid his dues by basically playing 24/7 long before getting into theory. He almost failed elementary school due to pouring all his energy into playing and was more or less an an-alphabet until his 20s)

Yeah. This is it. Look I bloody love music theory, I’m a massive nerd.

but I’ve been blessed to play with some outstanding musicians and while some have no theory knowledge to speak of the one thing they all have in common is extensive listening,ear learning and playing experience. So.... do with that info what you will.

[Clint 55]

99% of people would get more mileage out of replacing their theory studies with practical playing

They're not mutually exclusive LOL

[charlieparker]

BTW, I just wanted to say that Christiaan is a bad mofo on the guitar, so maybe I should be listening to him.

[Dutchbopper]

dutchbopper has accomplished what you dream of, learning jazz at an adult age and getting his playing up to professional level. he has the answers you're looking for.

Thanks djg. I was 37 when I started out on my jazz journey. I remember playing with you at the jazz guitar night at the Crowand being so in awe. I just looked it up and it was in 2004. I do not often give compliments here but playing wise you are easily one of the best players here. I have the impression many here do not realise that.

DB

[christianm77]

Well tbf I’ve never heard the man (djg) play, so some links would be great, if possible.

Also starting at 37? An inspiration yourself I would say.

[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

Nah, just music majors.

I studied theory in high school as a hobby, and also as an elective in 12th grade. It didn't interfere with my practicing time any more than any other thing I did on a typical day.


The guitar has an informal culture. There seems to be some kind of pride in remaining ignorant. Maybe it's just plain old fashioned laziness, or maybe it's the gypsy or delta blues man persona. Hmmm. I'm goin' with lazy.

[Dutchbopper]

[QUOTE=christianm77;1077256]Well tbf I’ve never heard the man (djg) play, so some links would be great, if possible.

He's a modest guy. I only found one clip on the tube with snippets of a recent CD. I hope he does not mind.

Here's his website. Hope he does not mind. He is one of the few players here that I have actually talked to in person and even played with.

DB

Also starting at 37? An inspiration yourself I would say.

Thanks. I am a converted pop, rock and blues player, like so many here. Never looked back though.

DB

[GTRMan]

That's why I clearly stated: "Theory is only for guys like us who learn jazz as a second language. The toilers ...
By the way, many if not all of the classic jazz guitarists (Tal, Wes, Herb, Berney etc. etc.) learned it by ear, just like the gypsies. They never went to Berklee. The whole Berklee theory thing was only invented in the 70s. The whole CS thing (chord scale) did not exist when the early boppers were already playing the stars from heaven (Dutch saying) in the 50s.

These are facts. NOT disinformation.

DB

Do you mean Herb Ellis? I seem to recall that he went to UNT. And Barney taught.

So what's the (supposed) ethic here? "Teaching music is bad", or is it only bad when done on campus soil?

Just a note (pun intended), but when a gypsy shows another gypsy "hey do it like this, not like that" they are teaching a theory. It's limited, but its still a theory.

[christianm77]

[QUOTE=Dutchbopper;1077261]

Well tbf I’ve never heard the man (djg) play, so some links would be great, if possible.

He's a modest guy. I only found one clip on the tube with snippets of a recent CD. I hope he does not mind.

Here's his website. Hope he does not mind. He is one of the few players here that I have actually talked to in person and even played with.

DB

That made me do the stank face.

Look forward to hearing more hopefully.

[GTRMan]

And Keith Jarrett was a child prodigy. Who knows how he learned to do what he did at such a young age.

I'm looking for answers for the average guy like myself who is already an adult looking to learn and get better. Maybe, just learning everything by ear is the right way for guys like me. I just don't think because some of the greats did this it is necessarily the path for all of us.

Nah. Don't get discouraged by a bunch of geetar pickers blabbing about "theory is for suckers" with their constant references to talented historical figures who thrived without knowing much theory. They're all wrong.

The key to learning theory is application. Don't stop theory studies when you put the book down. And don't stop when you have composed something.

Rather, apply what you study on your instrument - right away. The same day, in other words.

[GTRMan]

You must be joking.. That one's easy. CHARLIE PARKER. All he does is outline the chords in his musical way and it sounds beautiful. He said he'd practice all day and run his blues and rhythm changes in every key. Pretty sure that's theory.

Yes it is, and it's analyzed and taught. Even at Berklee. Gasp!

[GTRMan]

OK, so I can learn to play like Charlie Parker by just practicing chord notes and scales in different keys?

None of that transcribing and learning from others stuff?

The foundation of his playing is him shedding chords and scales? Really?

No. If you want to play like Parker you practice those things but not just those things:

1. You copy him.
2. You also copy Joe Pass, who devoted a great deal of his life to intepreting that style of playing on the guitar.
3. You can also gain some insight into constructing coherent sounding chord outlines through Jazz Ed. There are many sources but to be direct, here are three:

• Target Tones, by Don Mock (GIT),
• Jazz Improvisation For Guitar, A Melodic Approach, by Garrison Fewell, chapters 8 and 9 (Berklee)
  
• Bert Ligon's books (UNT grad)

[GTRMan]

You REALLY did not read any of the posts you reacted to, right? Geeez ...

DB

My point with this post was that all the "improv is a big mystery" line of BS, is just that - BS. It used to be mysterious, but it's not any more. Yes, imitation and repitition of same is huge. If we had to pick only one thing to do perhaps it would be that, but there's no need.

Analyzing and documenting the construction of the jazz language has been worked on very hard over the last few decades. And most of that hard work at research and writing has been completed by educators at US colleges. We have evolved significantly from the John Mehegan days. That is also a fact.

[Lobomov]

1. You copy him.
2. You also copy Joe Pass, who devoted a great deal of his life to intepreting that style of playing on the guitar.

Sorry did you change your mind?


That is exacly what Christiaans videos is about and what this entire thread is recommending

[GTRMan]

Sorry did you change your mind?


That is exacly what Christiaans videos is about and what this entire thread is recommending

No, no, no, no, no. You chopped off my last points.

I don't believe in imitation only.

[Dutchbopper]

My point with this post was that all the "improv is a big mystery" line of BS, is just that - BS. It used to be mysterious, but it's not any more. Yes, imitation and repitition of same is huge. If we had to pick only one thing to do perhaps it would be that, but there's no need.

The jazz language has been worked on very hard over the last few decades. And most of that hard work at research and writing has been completed by educators at US colleges. That is also a fact.

I was saying the exact same thing about copying real playing. The mystery thing nobody wrote about AFAIK. Hence my remark.

DB

[GTRMan]

And once again we have a thread about Improv in the Theory section.

Not to complain, but it's the non-music major or informal player who constantly runs all the music instruction topics together into a big bowl of soup. I get it, but it's so easy to straighten out. Just go to school. And I also understand that you can play a guitar before learning theory. I did.

But for a larger view of music I recommend taking the arranging courses at Berklee Online - all you have to do is put your cash down and sign up. If you know your theory you should be fine. If not, you'll be done by lesson 4.

[Lobomov]

No, no, no, no, no. You chopped off my last points.

I don't believe in imitation only.

No one here is talking about pure imitation ...


The statement is:
If you want to get better at playing then play instead of reading books.


It's a video is:
Targeted at intermediate players and not Berklee students.


The method is:
Transcribe/learn as much as you can .. Then apply those licks and phrases different setting and tunes.

Christiaan's teaching style:
This month is Donna Lee month
Here is the theme.
Here is a Charlie Parker sole
Here is a Django Solo
Here is a Birelli Solo
And let us round off with a recap of the in my opinion best lick from those solos applied to different settings

Btw .. to round off .. Here is a Rhythm workout if you ever need to comp on Donna Lee



You'd rather have me read Mark Levin?

[Lobomov]

And once again we have a thread about Improv in the Theory section.

You're slightly autistic? A bit of rain man?

If so, my apologies that my lack of utmost care where I post my threads offended you. In my head this is a thread about what aspects of music theory is important in. Next time I'll start one in improvisation for the ones that wish to discuss theory seen as a necesity to improvise. I'll start another for theory as a composing tool in a relevant non-theory section .. Then I'll start one in Gear about the proper amount of theory needed before you can buy a Gibson Super 400


After all it's not like this is a low traffic forum, where everyone can just press "new posts" and can see all threads discussed the last couple of days without much effort.

[GTRMan]

You'd rather have me read Mark Levin?

Why, yes. And for jazz theory you could read Mark Levine.

[GTRMan]

No one here is talking about pure imitation ...

DB's gypsy example is pretty close.

The statement is:
If you want to get better at playing then play instead of reading books.

Oh really? OK. Now, should jazzers give up all reading or just reading about jazz? Are they advised against talking about jazz too? Are they likewise advised to stop watching TV, and stop spending time on Facebook and Twitter?

Bottom line - it's a false equivalence. Do both. There are 16 waking hours in a day. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

It's a video is:
Targeted at intermediate players and not Berklee students.

Whats the difference? (just kidding).

The method is:
Transcribe/learn as much as you can .. Then apply those licks and phrases different setting and tunes.

Transcriptions are good, and there are many of them already published, so one needn't get too energized about that anymore. Applying reusable material from great solos is spot on.

Christiaan's teaching style:
This month is Donna Lee month
Here is the theme.
Here is a Charlie Parker sole
Here is a Django Solo
Here is a Birelli Solo
And let us round off with a recap of the in my opinion best lick from those solos applied to different settings

Btw .. to round off .. Here is a Rhythm workout if you ever need to comp on Donna Lee

What about the master solos? Do what with them? Play them? Analyze them? Both? That's good but Donna Lee is probably a bit too elevated for most intermediate players, unless they want to play it really slowly.

You'd rather have me read Mark Levin?

I'd rather have you read Berklee's Jazz Harmony book, or perhaps Jazzology.

[ruger9]

Except isn't the Martial Arts community riddled with criticism and discussion like these?

Well... just like this thread. Only AMERICA hold the "dogma attitude"- you do it LIKE I TAUGHT you... in reality, the East does not feel this way about it at all; the martial arts are a constantly growing/changing thing... always have been... just like jazz. Putting YOU into the art is essential in keeping it alive. Only when "kung fu" and "karate" came to America did the rigid "follow my rules" attitude take hold. NOW- like I said in my last post- the East IS stringent about following RULES- but only until you KNOW them. Then, you are not only free do non on your own, but encouraged to. "First learn it, so you can then forget it all and JUST DO."

There is a great Taoist story/parable that illustrates this, but at the moment my oven timer is going off, so I gotta run!

[ccroft]

So I finally had the time to watch the whole OP video. I liked it a lot. I don't see what all the fuss is about really. The title perhaps?

One thing that hit me is that C. seems to be mostly coming from a pretty narrow guitar practice in this vid: Gypsy. I think his approach makes the utmost sense there. It's practical. Learn to do what Django did. My guitar life has been about trying to be ready to play anything. Possibly even something I've never thought of before. I think it makes a difference. Just studying licks and chord shapes won't get there.

I cracked up when Chris reacted to Rhett's thing about learning all your triads. Plays a simple triad and shows a bit of a sour face... like: "how lame is that? why would I want to know that? why would I ever play it?"

But he also talks about what an amazing player Lage is and how much fun it was to jam with him. Julian's a Berklee grad and much more.

Anyways, I think there's been some great discussion which I've enjoyed, for the most part.

[bako]

Theory codifies similarities, differences, point of focus, relationships, form and shape, possible evolutionary paths, possible destinations,etc.
Each new idea is an experiment waiting to happen and when that engagement leads to musical growth, that's a beautiful thing. Organizational systems can help consolidate that which we already know and or introduce new content
but until it is directly linked to sound and mechanics it is simply just talk.
Talk is not music and there lies a potential trap.

Often when people talk of knowing "no theory" they are often referring to being unschooled in the knowledge base prevalent in present day academic circles, be it that of a classical or jazz lineage.These are not the only games in town. For some a personally crafted descriptive language is more effective.

[lammie200]

Beato is frustrating. But on some level he gets it, see the video above. He’s not wrong...

I can see that. I think that he is really good about demonstrating what he knows and he has some really keen insights. But I am not so sure about his teaching and communicating abilities. (Maybe if I downloaded the Beato Book I would change my opinion of that - I don’t know.). I tend for view his videos for the overall meaning and that is where he “gets it” for me.

I actually like to hear people demonstrate and talk music theory, but I can’t participate to any great degree. Partly because I don’t have the formal training to have the confidence and partly because, unless it is very focused and demonstrated clearly, it seems somewhat tangential and tedious.

[GTRMan]

Music theory is four semesters, guys. Four, sixteen-week semesters. It's a 3-hour course. You meet for one hour on M-W-F and have assignments that you work on for 1-2 hours, 3-4 days per week.

We can be thankful that in today's world we can use notation software that plays back every note that we enter - as we enter it. In other words, yes we can hear it - and right away. We don't need a keyboard, or a personal choir.

So, that's theory.

Now - private instrumental lessons, improv, ensembles, arranging, composition, conducting? Those are separate classes. Take 'em as they come, and enjoy the ride.

[Clint 55]

but until (theory) is directly linked to sound and mechanics it is simply just talk.
Talk is not music and there lies a potential trap.

What trap? How dumb do you have to be to not know that do re mi sol fa ti do isn't music?

[Lobomov]

So I finally had the time to watch the whole OP video. I liked it a lot. I don't see what all the fuss is about really. The title perhaps?

It really is a fine little vid ... and the fuss? ... Like 99% of fuss'es here I assume it's mostly rooted in people being stuck at home and looking for a bit of validation .. nothing like a good internet brawl to make you feel alive

[GTRMan]

Maybe it is the title (which is stupid).

And - we have to wade through 6 minutes of bullshitalk to hear some "interesting" banter and rapartee? lol. Perhaps these internet geniuses don't understand the internet generation as well as they think they do.


UPDATE: The guy in the white t-shirt is full of shit. Who would listen to this crap? Is he a night manager at GC?

I think that THIS is the real "Guitar Wank". Just don't watch. It will rot your brain.

[christianm77]

It occurred to me today that quite a few of the best bop/straightahead and gypsy style players on the national (UK) scene didn’t come from a conventional music college background. Not all, but a significant fraction like 20-30%

Most (or all) of the contemporary style players did to some extent.

I think that sort of lines up with how these language oriented traditional approaches are best learned. I also know bop players who did study music formally but are very dismissive of what they learned at college, so as they say on the webz YMMV.

The contemporary approach is more conceptual. To take it away from chord scales for a minute; the approach to rhythm is more formally complex concerned with odd meter and complex polyrhythms and taught through mathematical approaches like Konakol (which is popular among jazzers since John McLaughlin used it), as opposed to more experiential subjective ‘groove’ approaches.

That’s the kind of thing that works really well in a formal edu environment (I’m studying it myself this way) and provides a useful toolbox for dealing with formally complex music.

That’s where the strengths of this kind of teaching lie; and that is the sort of thing you can teach in three or four years as opposed to how to play jazz which of course takes much longer.

Theres a whole sort of discussion you could have about how these complex elements of music are self sustaining though edu, as opposed to the older more ‘street’ oriented styles, but I think that need not be a strict dichotomy even if it sometimes seems that way (I don’t think it is in NYC for instance). However I know a lot of boppers who really don’t like contemporary jazz.

[christianm77]

So I finally had the time to watch the whole OP video. I liked it a lot. I don't see what all the fuss is about really. The title perhaps?

One thing that hit me is that C. seems to be mostly coming from a pretty narrow guitar practice in this vid: Gypsy. I think his approach makes the utmost sense there. It's practical. Learn to do what Django did. My guitar life has been about trying to be ready to play anything. Possibly even something I've never thought of before. I think it makes a difference. Just studying licks and chord shapes won't get there.

I cracked up when Chris reacted to Rhett's thing about learning all your triads. Plays a simple triad and shows a bit of a sour face... like: "how lame is that? why would I want to know that? why would I ever play it?"

But he also talks about what an amazing player Lage is and how much fun it was to jam with him. Julian's a Berklee grad and much more.

Anyways, I think there's been some great discussion which I've enjoyed, for the most part.

Well Julian’s been playing since he was a foetus, so there you go. Music is his mother tongue.

But if you can speak the language, learning some scales isn’t going to hurt you.

It’s that ‘if’ that’s my area of concern.

[Lobomov]

Well Julian’s been playing since he was a foetus, so there you go. Music is his mother tongue.

But if you can speak the language, learning some scales isn’t going to hurt you.

An recent experience of mine

In the his "Django in Rome" solo on Minor Swing, Django plays the notes E to C# just ending on that C# over the Dm chord. My ears hated that sound and at first I was convinced it was a notation error and that it should be E to D instead. Turns out it wasn't a notation error, but what he actually played.


First time I played it the sound of the lick actually provoked a physical reaction of me pulling back ... But after playing that lick a lot of times, I've grown fond of that sound ...

But for one thing I haven't seen that there is no way in hell I'd play it on my own even if some theory book typed out that a Dm-maj7 sound is a possibility there.


.. and off course since I'm a lot better at theory than actually playing, my brain retrospectively explained that the reason I like it is that ugly sounding C# resolves to the D or 7th of the upcoming E chord ... and that is cool, but what made it alive for me was learning/hearing Django.


At 0:27

[christianm77]

An recent experience of mine

In the his "Django in Rome" solo on Minor Swing, Django plays the notes E to C# just ending on that C# over the Dm chord. My ears hated that sound and at first I was convinced it was a notation error and that it should be E to D instead. Turns out it wasn't a notation error, but what he actually played.


First time I played it the sound of the lick actually provoked a physical reaction of me pulling back ... But after playing that lick a lot of times, I've grown fond of that sound ...

But for one thing I haven't seen that there is no way in hell I'd play it on my own even if some theory book typed out that a Dm-maj7 sound is a possibility there.


.. and off course since I'm a lot better at theory than actually playing, my brain retrospectively explained that the reason I like it is that ugly sounding C# resolves to the D or 7th of the upcoming E chord ... and that is cool, but what made it alive for me was learning/hearing Django.


At 0:27

I don’t know that recording! Thanks. That’s a classic bop era thing, maybe popularised by Billy Strayhorn? I’d be interested to know if Django ever played that pre war, although the melodic minor sound is alluded to in his pre war lines that blatant use of those James Bond notes is not something or come across until Strayhorn with Ellington.

So today we’d think melodic minor or Dmmaj9.

However - is it instead an unresolved dominant triad superimposed on the Dm?

All these explanations work and yet we’ll probably never actually know how Django heard it or thought of it. Maybe it doesn’t matter.

Theory is presented as objective, but it is in fact subjective.

Calling them ‘James Bond’ notes might be the best way of naming that sound early on - everyone knows the sound of THAT chord. And then you can say James Bond = min(maj)9 later.

(BTW I only realised today that ‘all day long’ in the ‘wheels on the bus’ is a II V I. Doh.)

[Dutchbopper]

It occurred to me today that quite a few of the best bop/straightahead and gypsy style players on the national (UK) scene didn’t come from a conventional music college background. Not all, but a significant fraction like 20-30%

Most (or all) of the contemporary style players did to some extent.

I think that sort of lines up with how these language oriented traditional approaches are best learned. I also know bop players who did study music formally but are very dismissive of what they learned at college, so as they say on the webz YMMV.

The contemporary approach is more conceptual. To take it away from chord scales for a minute; the approach to rhythm is more formally complex concerned with odd meter and complex polyrhythms and taught through mathematical approaches like Konakol (which is popular among jazzers since John McLaughlin used it), as opposed to more experiential subjective ‘groove’ approaches.

That’s the kind of thing that works really well in a formal edu environment (I’m studying it myself this way) and provides a useful toolbox for dealing with formally complex music.

That’s where the strengths of this kind of teaching lie; and that is the sort of thing you can teach in three or four years as opposed to how to play jazz which of course takes much longer.

Theres a whole sort of discussion you could have about how these complex elements of music are self sustaining though edu, as opposed to the older more ‘street’ oriented styles, but I think that need not be a strict dichotomy even if it sometimes seems that way (I don’t think it is in NYC for instance). However I know a lot of boppers who really don’t like contemporary jazz.

I talked to Christiaan just this morning briefly. He is actually teaching at the Rotterdam University of Arts. He is mostly working with students doing a master in jazz and pop. LOL!!!!!!

As usual the proof is in the clips, not in the talk. Music is behaviour, not some pixel rant on a screen.

I am working on Dolphin Dance and came across Christiaan's video on that tune.

Here's Christiaan on "Dolphin Dance." The dude can play and knows his theory. But, like he told me, there are many roads that lead to Rome.

Whatever a guy like that has to say I am interested in.

DB

[christianm77]

I think your have to follow you own star? And listen to the people who play the way you want to.

From my experience too, don't believe people who say they are not teachers - they are sometimes better teachers than the ones who say they are.

Lend me the ears of any great musician for an hour or two and let them tell me what they hear... it's always an education.

Christiaan can certainly play anyway. If you like the way he plays, listen to what he says.

[grahambop]

Interesting that Jimmy Raney had a go at Dolphin Dance once, not the sort of tune you would associate with him.

[Dutchbopper]

Interesting that Jimmy Raney had a go at Dolphin Dance once, not the sort of tune you would associate with him.

Yeah. I know what you mean. He probably preferred functional harmonies? I know I do. I hardly have problems with improvising over functional changes but modal tunes is often a different story. I am so much better at playing over functional harmonies (fast or not) than the more complex modal tunes.

In Trio Chet I was so struggling with a few Tom Harrell tunes that I started to dislike them, haha.

DB

[KirkP]

The annual Wintergrass festival near Seattle is mostly bluegrass, but if you wander the halls you can usually find a swing jam or round up a few folks to start one. I ran across one a couple of years ago that had an exceptionally good violin player. I remembered he was Van-something, but I only learned from this thread who he is and that he also plays guitar. I left my guitar in the case for that jam as there were already several great guitar players, including Tim Lerch (if my memory serves). Unfortunately, Wintergrass was cancelled this year along with everything else.

[Dutchbopper]

The annual Wintergrass festival near Seattle is mostly bluegrass, but if you wander the halls you can usually find a swing jam or round up a few folks to start one. I ran across one a couple of years ago that had an exceptionally good violin player. I remembered he was Van-something, but I only learned from this thread who he is and that he also plays guitar. I left my guitar in the case for that jam as there were already several great guitar players, including Tim Lerch (if my memory serves). Unfortunately, Wintergrass was cancelled this year along with everything else.

He's an exceptional talent. Both great on jazz violin and guitar. The Rotterdam University hired him for teaching jazz violin and when there were no students anymore he simply switched to guitar. By the way, watch that guitarist on his left detuning his guitar during his solo!

DB

[lawson-stone]

[QUOTE=Dutchbopper;1077261]

Well tbf I’ve never heard the man (djg) play, so some links would be great, if possible.

He's a modest guy. I only found one clip on the tube with snippets of a recent CD. I hope he does not mind.

Here's his website. Hope he does not mind. He is one of the few players here that I have actually talked to in person and even played with.

DB

Thanks. I am a converted pop, rock and blues player, like so many here. Never looked back though.

DB

ES175 with P90s! That was fun!

[djg]

ES175 with P90s! That was fun!

thanks guys, you're far too kind.

it's an ES-125 with the dreaded pencil-neck.

[PMB]

here you are:


Attachment 77005

Could I order a T-hers as well for my wife?

[Lobomov]

Btw .. if anyone is bored, Christiaan is reacting to Beato in 15 minutes:

[rpjazzguitar]

I think the term "theory" is vague.

To wit, which of these is covered, or meant, by the term?

1. Knowing enough to look at a chart for the first time, see some unfamiliar harmony and know which notes will work so that you can get through a solo without clams.

2. Pairing every possible triad with every other possible triad and then taking the resulting hexatonics and playing each against every possible bass note -- and working on that until it's done.

I find #1 helpful because I play in situations like that. To accomplish the goal I don't really have to know that much theory -- but, what I do need has to be instantly available to me. So, I drill that.

Regarding #2, I know that some people find sounds from theoretical constructs and are able to get them into their playing. That has worked so poorly for me I regret the time I spent trying to do it. I'd have been much better off working on ear training by transcribing or with exercises.

So, when we talk about theory, what, exactly, are we talking about?

[ruger9]

I think the term "theory" is vague.

To wit, which of these is covered, or meant, by the term?

1. Knowing enough to look at a chart for the first time, see some unfamiliar harmony and know which notes will work so that you can get through a solo without clams.

2. Pairing every possible triad with every other possible triad and then taking the resulting hexatonics and playing each against every possible bass note -- and working on that until it's done.

I find #1 helpful because I play in situations like that. To accomplish the goal I don't really have to know that much theory -- but, what I do need has to be instantly available to me. So, I drill that.

Regarding #2, I know that some people find sounds from theoretical constructs and are able to get them into their playing. That has worked so poorly for me I regret the time I spent trying to do it. I'd have been much better off working on ear training by transcribing or with exercises.

So, when we talk about theory, what, exactly, are we talking about?

To me, theory basically means math. Data.

For example, like in the Steve Vai video I posted... knowing that a 9 chord has the 9th degree of the major scale in it, and also implies the dominant 7th of that scale (as opposed to a maj9 chord), etc.... that's theory. But putting your fingers on the fretboard and building that same chord by ear because you want to hear a certain sound, is not. That's execution. And it's not execution of theory- it's execution of music. I'm betting the execution of music came WAY before the development of theory, which would prove one does not need theory in order to play music.

[GTRMan]

On any guitar forum, except perhaps a classical one, there will be more opinions on that question than expertise.

Amazon.com

[Tal_175]

Btw .. if anyone is bored, Christiaan is reacting to Beato in 15 minutes:

I got a better insight into Christiaan's point of view in this video than the first one. I enjoyed it.

On a separate note, talking about Messi, Maradona died today. Sad.

[Lobomov]

On a separate note, talking about Messi, Maradona died today. Sad.

Indeed ... Time and his scandals has made many forget just how good he was