Christiaan Van Hemert once again championing "No Theory"

[Dutchbopper]

this.

Holger,

I was told that Wim Overgaauw had to do a crash course on theory before being accepted as a teacher at the conservatory in Hilversum. Of course he had been a great and fully mature jazz player for decades already at the time.

So did Wim teach chord scale theory? Apparently that was not the way he learned the craft himself ...

DB

[ruger9]

What an interesting thread this has been. Alot of what has been said here reminds me of a martial arts mindset:

You learn it all. You learn the moves, the katas, you learn HOW to do them properly, you learn WHEN to execute them... you do this for many years, until it becomes non-thinking: it simply becomes second nature, it just flows out of you because it's now part of how you move. You no longer THINK about it, you just DO it. You also take what works for you, and discard that which does not... in that way, martial arts is very jazz-like (or what I think jazz should me): no strict rules, no "dogma"- it's constantly evolving for the person doing it, and they move through it over many years and continue adding to/subtracting from their vast experience base (note I did not say knowledge base).

I've heard some musicians say "you learn it all SO YOU CAN forget it."

[djg]

Holger,

I was told that Wim Overgaauw had to do a crash course on theory before being accepted as a teacher at the conservatory in Hilversum. Of course he had been a great and fully mature jazz player for decades already at the time.

So did Wim teach chord scale theory? Apparently that was not the way he learned the craft himself ...

DB

i think you can put this under "urban legend". i also think he was actually asked rather than "accepted" to teach in hilversum.

wim liked scales, he had hand-outs with tons of octotonic licks,12-tone licks, the enigmatic scale, etc. but he did not talk much so you had to ask or figure it out yourself. which did lead to complaints, lol.

but i think he was aware that everyone needs to find their own personal system and did not want to impose anything on you. in his book he quotes einstein: "imagination is more powerful than knowledge"

[Dutchbopper]

i think you can put this under "urban legend". i also think he was actually asked rather than "accepted" to teach in hilversum.

Broodje Aap verhaal?

DB

[Gabor]

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.'

I would like to belive, knowing theory is an unevitable side effect. If one into jazz music, and have talent, sooner or later she/he will get some. This does not imply that the theory "drives" the process, neither it "leads" somewhere meaningful

[christianm77]

this.

I might actually have to get a t shirt with that on.

[christianm77]

i think you can put this under "urban legend". i also think he was actually asked rather than "accepted" to teach in hilversum.

wim liked scales, he had hand-outs with tons of octotonic licks,12-tone licks, the enigmatic scale, etc. but he did not talk much so you had to ask or figure it out yourself. which did lead to complaints, lol.

but i think he was aware that everyone needs to find their own personal system and did not want to impose anything on you. in his book he quotes einstein: "imagination is more powerful than knowledge"

Complaints lol.

Some people expect a nice neat system and everything spelled out for their money. Who’s to blame them, or the colleges that feel they should provide what many students want? (but not necessarily what they need.)

just a thought.

[djg]

I might actually have to get a t shirt with that on.

here you are:

[charlieparker]

I think there is a ton of misinformation on this thread. I would go to Berkelee in a New York minute if I had the time and opportunity to study there.

Almost, every player I've met from there is a pretty damn good player. Not to mention players from other places like The New School. Many of the instructors at these places are awesome musicians, too.

Also, you don't go to these places to learn just from your teachers. It is a way to make connections with other musicians to jam with.

I don't see how talking about Gypsy Jazz guitarists is relevant to any of us here. I didn't grow up with any other guitarists to emulate. I never heard a jazz song until my late teens.

Sure if you can get personal lessons from Stochelo from age 4 you probably are going to learn a thing or two just watching. But most of us have to find other paths.

[Dutchbopper]

I think there is a ton of misinformation on this thread. I would go to Berkelee in a New York minute if I had the time and opportunity to study there.

Almost, every player I've met from there is a pretty damn good player. Not to mention players from other places like The New School. Many of the instructors at these places are awesome musicians, too.

Also, you don't go to these places to learn just from your teachers. It is a way to make connections with other musicians to jam with.

I don't see how talking about Gypsy Jazz guitarists is relevant to any of us here. I didn't grow up with any other guitarists to emulate. I never heard a jazz song until my late teens.

Sure if you can get personal lessons from Stochelo from age 4 you probably are going to learn a thing or two just watching. But most of us have to find other paths.

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

[Lobomov]

What an interesting thread this has been. Alot of what has been said here reminds me of a martial arts mindset:

You learn it all. You learn the moves, the katas, you learn HOW to do them properly, you learn WHEN to execute them... you do this for many years, until it becomes non-thinking: it simply becomes second nature, it just flows out of you because it's now part of how you move. You no longer THINK about it, you just DO it. You also take what works for you, and discard that which does not... in that way, martial arts is very jazz-like (or what I think jazz should me): no strict rules, no "dogma"- it's constantly evolving for the person doing it, and they move through it over many years and continue adding to/subtracting from their vast experience base (note I did not say knowledge base).

I've heard some musicians say "you learn it all SO YOU CAN forget it."

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


With the emergence of the MMA a whole discussion has sprung up with regards to styles being useless cause they never test their teachings under pressure (No sparring vs. resisting opponents).

As far as I can tell you have whole styles of fighting being dismissed for being BS like Aikido or Bullshido as some call it.
Then you have variations within a style (Shotokan vs. kyokushin Karate, where kyokushin does a lot more kontact sparring)
Finally even within certain styles you have "proper" Dojo's where you spar and progress based on your fighting ability and McDojo's where you learn techniques, kata's etc. which is never tested vs. resisting opponents and thus you can end with black belts that actually never have fought.

I'm not a practitioner (trained Karate for 4 years back in my teens tho), but as far as I can tell usually four styles are praised over the rest. Boxing, Kickboxing/Muay Thai, Wrestling and BJJ



Actually martial arts are a fine metaphor for what we are discussing here.

[christianm77]

I think there is a ton of misinformation on this thread. I would go to Berkelee in a New York minute if I had the time and opportunity to study there.

Almost, every player I've met from there is a pretty damn good player. Not to mention players from other places like The New School. Many of the instructors at these places are awesome musicians, too.

Also, you don't go to these places to learn just from your teachers. It is a way to make connections with other musicians to jam with.

I don't see how talking about Gypsy Jazz guitarists is relevant to any of us here. I didn't grow up with any other guitarists to emulate. I never heard a jazz song until my late teens.

Sure if you can get personal lessons from Stochelo from age 4 you probably are going to learn a thing or two just watching. But most of us have to find other paths.

Of course you would and so would I.

I think you are missing the point a bit. what I have to say is best said in the interview I posted above. By two alumni one of which is a teacher there.

Don’t get the excellent individual teaching available at elite institutions confused with the wider problem of mass market jazz education materials, which I know is a problem because I teach people who are confused by it. It’s not the systems that make Berklee, or the New School or anywhere a good school. It’s the people.

but people get the wrong end of the stick and think the systems and syllabus are important. They are not.

[charlieparker]

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

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.

[Clint 55]

Wrong. I live in an area where many gypsy players live. You go into a music store and you hear a 12 year old blowing over Cherokee like it's nothing. Stochelo, Jimmy and scores of young gypsy kids live here in camps. I know for a fact that these guys do not even know the names of the chords they are playing. They have no idea. They think in sounds, not in terms of anything written. They know zero theory and do not read music. The tradition is completely aural.

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

Ok, great. There is a portion of musicians who can play using mostly intuition, as music is an art. Nothing wrong with that. Actually I wish I had more of that talent.

Now explain to me how they would get worse if they learned advanced concepts but used theory to get there, or theory in addition to their ear...

You can't. Theory and intuition/ear aren't mutually exclusive. That would be like someone saying. 'Oh I read how blue and red make purple and my painting got worse.' Or, 'I read about the functions of all the components in my car's engine and then became a worse auto mechanic.' Or, 'Help, I finished high school and now can't use english any more because I studied it formally and now I have a mental block about it.' Lol

[djg]

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

there is more to studying music formally than the unfortunate CST teachings that are often associated with gary burton and berklee.

are you familiar with walter dyett or the dusable high school? dyett was a music educator and many later famous musicians studied with him at young age. and i mean famous: griffin, ammons, nat cole, bo diddley(!), eddie harris, dinah washington, wilbur ware, etc.

[Dutchbopper]

there is more to studying music formally than the unfortunate CST teachings that are often associated with gary burton and berklee.

are you familiar with walter dyett or the dusable high school? dyett was a music educator and many later famous musicians studied with him at young age. and i mean famous: griffin, ammons, nat cole, bo diddley(!), eddie harris, dinah washington, wilbur ware, etc.

No tell me. I have never heard of Dyett.

DB

[djg]

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.

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.

[djg]

No tell me. I have never heard of Dyett.

DB

"Long before Jazz was an accepted study within the music education curriculum, a black South-Side band director was busy preparing his students for professional careers in this music called Jazz. Beginning in 1931 with his appointment as the band director at Wendell Phillips High School, Captain Walter Henri Dyett trained more than 20,000 musicians until his retirement from DuSable High School thirty years later in 1961.


He was a commanding leader and a demanding taskmaster, a teacher who would accept nothing less than the best his students were able to produce. His personal and professional creed “He can who thinks he can” sustained his students through the difficulties which lie ahead of them in a highly competitive profession—a profession made more difficult by a society not free of racism.

The list of famous Jazz musicians who passed through his program is legion: saxophonists Gene “Jug” Ammons, Johnny Board, Von Freeman, Joseph Jarman, John Gilmore, and Clifford Jordan; trumpeters Sonny Cohn and Paul Serrano; trombonist Julian Priester; bassists Wilbur Ware, Richard Davis, and Fred Hopkins; pianists Dorothy Donegan and John Young; drummers Wilbur Campbell, Walter Perkins, and Jerome Cooper; violinist Leroy Jenkins; singers Dinah Washington and Johnny Hartman—the list could go on and on...."

https://jazzinchicago.org/captain-wa...t-1901-1969-2/

[Lobomov]

Of course you would and so would I.

I think you are missing the point a bit. what I have to say is best said in the interview I posted above. By two alumni one of which is a teacher there.

Don’t get the excellent individual teaching available at elite institutions confused with the wider problem of mass market jazz education materials, which I know is a problem because I teach people who are confused by it. It’s not the systems that make Berklee, or the New School or anywhere a good school. It’s the people.

but people get the wrong end of the stick and think the systems and syllabus are important. They are not.

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.

Now explain to me how they would get worse if they learned advanced concepts but used theory to get there, or theory in addition to their ear...

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)

[Dutchbopper]

Ok, great. There is a portion of musicians who can play using mostly intuition, as music is an art.

It's not playing by intuition but rather by ear or by imitation.

Now explain to me how they would get worse if they learned advanced concepts but used theory to get there, or theory in addition to their ear... You can't. Theory and intuition/ear aren't mutually exclusive. That would be like someone saying. 'Oh I read how blue and red make purple and my painting got worse.' Or, 'I read about the functions of all the components in my car's engine and then became a worse auto mechanic.' Or, 'Help, I finished high school and now can't use english any more because I studied it formally and now I have a mental block about it.'

I am not against theory per se. I have a rudimentary knowledge of the CST thing. So do not put the OP 's words in my mouth. My point is that scales and theory are NOT the music. They are NOT the sounds you actually hear in jazz. Nobody plays scales, only poor players do. The real language has to be experienced from imitation IMHO. Playing licks, transcribed solos. And then turn these concepts into your own individual thing. So concepts have to be heard and played rather than caught in scales or theory. Music is sound, not some bloke typing. Without you ears, nothing goes.

Imitate
Assimilate
Innovate (make it personal)

I actually wrote a Blog on this.For those interested click here.

DB

[Clint 55]

I am not against theory per se. I have a rudimentary knowledge of the CST thing. So do not put the OP 's words in my mouth. My point is that scales and theory are NOT the music. They are NOT the sounds you actually hear in jazz. Nobody plays scales, only poor players do. The real language has to be experienced from imitation IMHO. Playing licks, transcribed solos. And then turn these concepts into your own individual thing. So concepts have to be heard and played rather than caught in scales or theory. Music is sound, not some bloke typing. Without you ears, nothing goes.

Agreed. That's something that isn't very widely taught. How to integrate all the useful info into actual music. For example that you can't just run scales and end up with a good solo. Need maybe some scales, arpeggios, licks, some study on favorite players' approaches etc. I had to arrive at this stuff mostly on my own and I'm finally getting ok. I started jazz in general in college in 04. I think I would be better now if I had a mentor or teacher who gave me the inside info like what you're talking about. That's ok tho cuz I was never gonna be pro. But yeah I agree with you. My point is, however, that if you know a bunch of theory or scales or whatever that don't necessarily make music, they still don't hurt you. They're just sitting there in your data base until you become more experienced and learn how to integrate them musically.

[Clint 55]

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

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.

[Clint 55]

Or Bill Evans? 17:45. Pretty sure that's theory.

[Lobomov]

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.

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?

[Clint 55]

Nice straw man there. I didn't say theory study was done to the exclusion of music.

About Parker's playing. Yeah. Do you think he outlined the chords in almost every measure of his solos because he didn't study theory at all? Pick any measure from the Omnibook. More often than not it will have either an arpeggio or scalar idea related to the written chord.