-
I'm growing fonder and fonder of Christiaan's educational style of just no BS transcriptions of jazz solo's.
He has long championed the viewpoint that studying theory (for guitar) is a waste of time that could be better used making stuff swing, learning more sounds and so on ..
Here he is commenting on a Rhett Shull video on the importance of theory ... I enjoyed it!
The actual commenting start at 6:15
Edit: He comments on playing with Rosenberg, Birelli and Julian LageLast edited by Lobomov; 11-17-2020 at 07:06 PM.
-
11-17-2020 06:38 PM
-
Is'nt there a Joe Pass quote about learning 100 tunes before starting to learn theory
-
Theory's great...if you actually understand it.
Better to really know 5 things than to "know of" 50.
Jazz really isn't a music where I'd say writing off any knowledge is the right idea, but Christiaan has a good point.. most of what you need is right there in the music.
-
Originally Posted by Scorch
-
Rhett Schull annoys me.
Are Christiaan’s videos still about 45 minutes long?
-
Oh god it’s 1h30. Probably won’t watch it tbh. More to do with my own personal tastes; I don’t watch much music instructional type content these days and if I do I like it short and snappy.
But a lot of people here I think like to have stuff like this on when they are working or driving... I tend to listen more to non-music or non-instructional music related podcasts etc for that purpose. (I should poll my subscribers and see what type of content they prefer actually...)
but in general I agree with a lot of what he says.
I’m against learning theory too early on as a musician, but my definition of what music theory is a bit different from most people here, and they seem to have trouble with the way I use the term sometimes.
Theory to me is the attempt to explain how music works; most jazz ‘theory’ (excepting maybe CST) is aimed at naming common structures.
Anyone who learns enough tunes is going to notice patterns, and this is what a lot of ‘theory’ in jazz is; recognising common patterns and situations such as II V I’s etc. Django undoubtedly had a concept of this even if he didn’t know what the ‘correct’ names were. (In Gypsy Jazz circles for instance, Christophe is the name of a common chord sequence.)
So I think this kind of ‘theory’ is best learned through practical experience. Putting things in a book like ‘Hearing the Changes’ is not that helpful unless the student learns lots of tunes and uses the book as a reference text.Last edited by christianm77; 11-18-2020 at 06:11 AM.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
Originally Posted by christianm77
Anyways .. This is just a livestream, where Christiaan just had a bit of fun for an hour and a half. I think that having people watching him made him elaborate in more detail than first intended.
If you consider putting time into the vid then start at 19:00. I mean he is engaged and it's fun, a few stories about Julian Lage, Birelli and Stochelo, but I doubt that is anything that will rock your world
If you just want the the essence of his narrative it is from 49:20 to around 55:00 where Christian tells his story as a person with a degree in music and an accomplished arranger picked up the guitar and discovered that he couldn't play a single guitar solo that sounded good unlike say Stochelo that knows zero theory yet can play amazing stuff 24/7.
Good hearted fun is at 1:04:30
Rhett says: My ear is hearing things and wants to play things that I can't quite pull off on my intrument. That for me means I'm hiring a guitar teacher and signing up for lessons again. Christiaan answers: I don't understand the need for a teacher. Why don't you just transcribe the music that is causing you trouble?
and 1:09:00 where Rhett says theory is a way to communicate and Christiaan adds that that is only in two places. Internet forums and classrooms.
-
I've always thought the "best" way to learn the instrument was to simply play it- fiddle around with it, figuring out all the theory yourself, the stuff we call theory is really just that- shortened/shortcutted to make it easier and faster.
But there's something to be said for developing your ear, and being able to pick out a 13th chord (or whatever) just by ear alone. I've seen interviews where Tommy Emmanuel says he knows very little theory, couldn't tell you how to build a 13th chord, but he knows what a 13th chord SOUNDS LIKE, and how to play one ALL OVER the neck. It's more of a practical approach than a learned one, I guess.
Short Steve Vai video on the subject:
start at 5:25
-
Originally Posted by Lobomov
If you just want the the essence of his narrative it is from 49:20 to around 55:00 where Christian tells his story as a person with a degree in music and an accomplished arranger picked up the guitar and discovered that he couldn't play a single guitar solo that sounded good unlike say Stochelo that knows zero theory yet can play amazing stuff 24/7.
learning scales and so on is helpful for learning to improvise beyond licks. There’s a reason why every significant figure in the history of jazz education seems to have been obsessed with scales and their applications. But to go in at the beginning with scales is the biggest mistake of jazz educators.... because if you haven’t learned loads of licks by ear you won’t know how to make these things into music.
rather scales unlock the neck and make it easier to understand what you are hearing if that makes any sense and perhaps easier to vary and develop material you hear.
But flexibility in changing licks and working with material beyond just firing them off is a big part of that. I find the locked in aspect of gypsy jazz unsatisfying from a jazz perspective. Don’t think that’s true of all players, but certainly many of them. It’s like rock guitar. Instagram etc have taken this to the nth degree across the board.
The idea of Peter Bernstein licks for example, sort of misses the point of what Pete is about... he used to play licks in the 90s... but then Peter’s approach is often about turning chord shapes into melodies, varying the melody and working motives into lines, and that’s not really very theoretical lol. But is more process oriented.
Working with small modules of material allows freer improvisation in fast tempos. This is the power of Barry’s approach btw. Took me a while to get that, but you end up playing bop without licks. Marsh/Tristano were into this too.
Good hearted fun is at 1:04:30
Rhett says: My ear is hearing things and wants to play things that I can't quite pull off on my intrument. That for me means I'm hiring a guitar teacher and signing up for lessons again. Christiaan answers: I don't understand the need for a teacher. Why don't you just transcribe the music that is causing you trouble?
and 1:09:00 where Rhett says theory is a way to communicate and Christiaan adds that that is only in two places. Internet forums and classrooms.Last edited by christianm77; 11-18-2020 at 09:40 AM.
-
Yeah, more either/or "philosophy" for the mentally lazy guitarist out there. Are there any "hacks" or "one weird tricks"? lol.
1. Theory - can be learned fairly quickly by human beings, especially educated ones. Applying it is where the work comes in. In western music it's really "theory and harmony" that we study. Why? Because in popular and folk music styles (like jazz); (1) compositional form is simple and small (i.e. song form), (2) most of the music is in 4/4, (3) Melodies are short and simple, especially if they are vocal melodies. But harmony can be quite involved.
2. So-called "Guitar theory" is just applied theory, same as for every other instrument. For jazz, one needs to know the instrument very well because; (1) it's a chordal instrument (see above comment regarding harmony), and (2) improvisation is core to the style. In other words, improvisation is a type of "extemporaneous composition". It would be different if we were only required to compose our solos. Then we could take forever, like they do in other styles.
3. Transcriptions - well, you can learn jazz improv language "theory" that way to be certain, but you can learn that from extracted "jazz patterns" too, and more efficiently. So, the other huge benefit is that the developing player comes to understand exactly what it feels and sounds like to acccurately reproduce a good/great jazz solo - instead of just listening to it and taking it for granted. The more of that we do, the more we gain an insight as to what we must do if we desire to be a good/great jazz player.
-
Humans learn language by listening and speaking and repetition plays a big part. I was a student of
the classical music of Northern India a few decades ago and learned to play my instrument and
learned the repertoire by repeating phrases played by my teacher. If you don't know, the classical
music of this culture is improvised.
Having said that, I am a total nerd for many things... one of which is music theory. Most exciting to
me is theory that follows the form and that results in meaningful, visceral audible artifacts when put
into practice. Barry Harris is an excellent example of that. The opposite of would be a case where
theory precedes form: 12 tone music, for example, which leaves me cold. And... for me anyway,
the chord-scale concept.
Too much of a good thing, I get that. But if you use words like "root", "third" and "fifth", as Christiaan
does, then you are speaking the language of music theory.
My ear is hearing things and wants to play things that I can't quite pull off on my intrument. That for me means I'm hiring a guitar teacher and signing up for lessons again. Christiaan answers: I don't understand the need for a teacher. Why don't you just transcribe the music that is causing you trouble?
-
OK I'll probably delete this post but I can't stop myself right now.
Rick Beato and Rhett Schull are the greatest salesmen in the guitar stratosphere of YouTube. Like all good salemen, they never sound like they are selling you something.
There are people who are much more qualified than them from the musicianship and experience standpoint on youtube who will never be the heroes of thousands of guitar beginners and intermediate noodlers. Because they just don't have that smooth screen magic.Last edited by Tal_175; 11-18-2020 at 04:55 PM.
-
Originally Posted by Michael Neverisky
Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
I think Christaan Van Hemert is strawman-ing theory a bit here. The point of learning the notes is not that you think about notes when you improvise, it's because you're a musician and your instrument is your tool. It's a simple investment towards knowing your tool better that pays off in a variety of ways. It's not necessary but it's not a waste of time either.
Sorry but I think he is wrong at 47:29 when he says Rhett Shull could not have come up with that shape by "moving around notes", "someone has to show him the shape first". Really?
Yes, you can come up with voicings by moving individual voices if you have a conception of tonality and key as a framework for harmony. But of course this would look like magic out of nowhere to you if you look at the fretboard in the simplistic way Christaan seems to be advocating, "Have people show you chord shapes and memorize them as fingerings"
He first shows a lick that has a G triad in it, then says he sees no point of learning triads on the guitar. How about extracting ideas from licks (say the triad from a particular chord tone in the second inversion) and experimenting with it in different harmonic situations. Yes, you won't do that when you're improvising but it's something you'd do in the wood shed to come up with new language.
I get that his method seems to be based on memorizing licks and changing them by ear. I'm not saying that wouldn't work or there haven't been great players who did just that. But just because that's that approach he took, it doesn't mean there aren't other valid approaches to jazz guitar.
He also didn't convince me that he has a good grasp of how Julian Lage approaches guitar just by sitting with him in one session.
Last edited by Tal_175; 11-18-2020 at 05:24 PM.
-
Hi folks, my YouTube statistics app led me here.
All criticisms about my video seem fair. It was a live stream and I simply forgot to start the video saying that all opinions in the video are just mine, one guy's opinion. I might be totally wrong on everything. I usually state that clearly in videos like this.
Anyway, thanks for watching and tune in next week
-
Well it’s all in good fun, no?
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
Originally Posted by Christiaan van Hemert
There is still some hope for me, maybe some day I'll be able to call myself a "jazz player", not someone who owns an archtop
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
Originally Posted by Tal_175
Sure if Rhett shoved like the standard fifth fret barre with the ringfinger Am7 to that fingering then it is perhaps more believable but still a stretch, but going from the Cowboy Am to that fingering cause he experimented with moving notes around ... I don't buy it either. With the open Am as your starting point hten you would end with an entirely different fingering to produce that kind of sound.
You know, like John Stowell fingerings .. Cool stuff and sure it originates from knowing what notes are in the chord, knowing that you want a closed chord sound (and what that means) and then constructing interesting guitar fingerings ... But that is an entirely different narrative than: Hey I took this open Am and then I just moved a bit of notes around to get this (insert John Stowell fingering)
I get what Christiaan is getting at and tend to agree.
If it in fact was true what Rhett is saying then there would be some sort of mechanical consistency in his fingerings, but there is none, so there is no way I believe that he went from the first fingering to the second thru some natural process. There would be a narrative of sort that is believable. Either the starting Am shape was not the open Am or it was a prolonged process of several shapes morphing into one another .. and I'd say that if it was the latter then he'd be inclined to show that off, which he didn't.
Guitar usually forces you into coherent mechanical logic and that is actually not addressed often enough imho.
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
Oh ... C'mon Christian .. Are you proposing something hidden we've not noticed .. Like I don't know ... A Beato book???? :-O
-
“you can move stuff around and get new sounds .. especially easy on piano .. “
I play piano very well, guitar not so well. There are way more hurdles and limitations in guitar physically and visually. The piano has so many advantages it makes me wonder sometimes why folks chose to play guitar.
-
Originally Posted by Lobomov
It's possible I misunderstood Christiaan's criticism there, maybe he was expressing his doubt about the specific examples rather than the general approach.
-
Originally Posted by rintincop
-
About the E- to the exotic E- voicing, I can clarify.
Lobomov was right, I don't buy that someone would find that stretchy voicing from a E- open chord.
The problem I have with that narrative is that beginners might fall for it and think that learning all triads in all inversions will lead to those pretty voicings.
That's just not how that stuff happens. I can't recall the amount of times I was sitting with high level guitar players and we were showing each other cool voicings that the others had never seen before. That's how you learn those kinds of voicings, someone shows you or you get them from videos/transcriptions.
A good example of this is that Peter Bernstein G7 chord I show in the video. I have shown that chord to many guitar players and until now not one of them had ever played that chord before and I don't see a path from an open G to that chord by "moving some notes" even though it is completely based on it.
Sonny S. -- Les Paul Player
Today, 04:18 AM in The Players