-
11-22-2020, 09:11 AM #76Dutchbopper GuestOriginally Posted by djg
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
-
11-22-2020 09:11 AM
-
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."
-
Originally Posted by Dutchbopper
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"
-
11-22-2020, 09:53 AM #79Dutchbopper GuestOriginally Posted by djg
DB
-
Originally Posted by Clint 55
-
Originally Posted by djg
-
Originally Posted by djg
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.
-
Originally Posted by 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.
-
11-22-2020, 11:19 AM #85Dutchbopper GuestOriginally Posted by charlieparker
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
-
Originally Posted by ruger9
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.
-
Originally Posted by charlieparker
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.
-
Originally Posted by Dutchbopper
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.
-
Originally Posted by Dutchbopper
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
-
Originally Posted by Dutchbopper
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.
-
11-22-2020, 11:47 AM #91Dutchbopper GuestOriginally Posted by djg
DB
-
Originally Posted by charlieparker
-
Originally Posted by Dutchbopper
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/
-
Originally Posted by 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.
Originally Posted by Clint 55
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)
-
11-22-2020, 12:05 PM #95Dutchbopper GuestOk, great. There is a portion of musicians who can play using mostly intuition, as music is an art.
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.'
Imitate
Assimilate
Innovate (make it personal)
I actually wrote a Blog on this.For those interested click here.
DB
-
Originally Posted by Dutchbopper
-
Originally Posted by Lobomov
-
Or Bill Evans? 17:45. Pretty sure that's theory.
-
Originally Posted by Clint 55
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?
-
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.
KA PAF info please
Today, 11:52 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos