-
The problem with learning theory is that it often gets confused with learning music. They are not the same thing. They can reinforce each other, though.
"You can use the second mode of the D harmonic minor scale over the Em7b5 chord" is not music. Learning the melody of "Alone Together" is music. The latter can help you make musical sense of the former, and the former may help you make sense of why the latter is what it is.
-
11-18-2020 04:45 PM
-
The idea of theory being counter productive in music is the most moronical thing I have EVER heard. IN GENERAL, if you want to get good at anything you have to study it. Saying to just do it or just play music would be like saying you'll become a pro writer if you never study vocab or grammar or writing. Or maybe Madison Bumgarner got the lowest ERA in world series history by just 'figuring out' his pitches. Uh no, there's extremely in depth study involved in everything that most of the greats do. Ok.. say you're one of the 5% of musicians who is talented enough to play advanced music without studying it theoretically.. If you're that smart, is picking up knowledge from a theoretical standpoint going to make you worse? Not 1 time in a million. Give me a break! Practical knowledge and theoretical knowledge are not mutually exclusive. You can learn 100 tunes and know theory as well. So stupid.
-
IMO, there is a lot of B.S. in the thread. Someone has to define what theory is for me. For me it is just a way of naming and cataloging sounds.
Even knowing what a C note is theory. The same note can be played at different frequencies but we catalog them as the same note even though it isn't.
Same for a G7. There are many different inversions and combinations of notes that can be called a G7 and it is useful to know that.
Now, for me theory only becomes problematic when it becomes prescriptive, i.e. you should play this scale over this chord. But knowing the names of things and hearing them is definitely valuable.
-
I think what some of us are saying is... there are ton of youtubers out there who know a crap ton of theory, but are making very blah music. They may hit all the notes perfectly, their time may be perfect, but there's no emotion or fire in their performance. Would you rather listen to a player piano play Monk, or would you rather hear Monk play? In this way, "knowing theory" isn't helpful in making good music.
Theory is the cookbook. 2 people can make the same soup from the same recipe, but they could taste very different, due to only minor variations in the recipe, based on experience, taste, whatever.
In my post above, Tommy Emmanuel has admitted he knows very little theory - in fact, he KNOWS it, he just doesn't call it anything. He knows how to build the chord he wants to hear (or do whatever), he just doesn't label it as a 13th chord (or whatever). So in that situation, we are really all talking the same language- just in a different dialect. If a player calls out "play the 13th there" and I say "what's that?" it doesn't mean I don't know... because if he plays me a 13th and I say "oh THAT. No problem." I DO know. I just don't call it anything.
-
That makes total sense.
-
Originally Posted by Clint 55
Yes off course .. Take someone like Lionel Messi. He off course has a physics degree with a ph.d in Mechanics. To suggest that he became the greatest football player ever by actually playing the game from morning to night in the streets of Rosario, Argentina as a kid and never looking in to the theory of what makes a ball move like it does ... Well that is an utterly preposterous idea.
-
The Messi example isn't that great. He started playing club football at age 4 with Grandoli FC and received coaching at even younger ages. He is more like a guy who started playing classical piano at age 3.
-
A generic, philosophical debate about whether music theory is useful or not is pretty pointless. Everybody, even many none musicians know some theory (the major scale, note names etc). What is meaningfully considered a no-theory approach vs theory-friendly approach can only be determined when considering specific applications, musical roles, styles or even instruments (a classical composer, folk singer, big band arranger, orchestral violinist, jazz improviser, pianist, vocalist etc etc.)
One thing I liked about Christaan's video is that he was very aware of that distinction and made it very clear that he is speaking only with respect to jazz improvisation specifically on guitar.
A question like this make sense:
Is an explicit mental conception of major, minor tonality and the functional harmony as postulated by the western music theory a useful asset for a straight-ahead jazz clarinet improviser?
In a way this is much like the gravity. People intuitively knew about the gravity, they felt it and acted accordingly. But it took a brilliant mind to conceptualize it as a force and propose a mental model of the world as a mechanical system governed by various similar forces acting on each other.
Musicians and nonmusicians alike intuitively understand and feel the similar gravitational system of tonal music. That's why tonal music works. But it's by no means obvious to see it as the way the western music theory lays it out without studying it, again much like people never thought of gravity as a force before Newton. In a way it's a beautiful construction like Newton's theories. But is it useful to a musician? Well again that discussion makes no sense without clarifying whether we are talking about an orchestral violinist or a singer-songwriter or ...Last edited by Tal_175; 11-21-2020 at 12:03 PM.
-
I'm not sure what we are even discussing here. Maybe, I should go watch Christiaan's video.
But, I think the discussion here isn't really about traditional Western Tonal Music Theory. Most would agree that learning that won't have much applicability to jazz improv.
But some people equate "learning theory" with learning scales and chords and associations between the two.
Instead they advocate to just learn songs and licks, transcribe, and learn to play what you hear and that it isn't that productive to tell someone place these scales over a ii V.
This is where I disagree. I think it can be valuable for someone to practice specific things like this to get familiar with these sounds. The Barry Harris method is essentially this, IMO, with the added emphasis on rhythm and placing chord tones on strong beats.
For me the real question is how much time should be spent on X versus Y and the emphasis that "theoretical" exercises are not prescriptive exercises for how to play but rather tools to learn sounds.
-
Originally Posted by charlieparker
So for example, Chord Scale Theory aims to explain why many note choices work on chords by systematising things into scales that go with the chords in a chart. It’s a very closed, complete system with neat answers that are good for exams.
This is more what I regard Music Theory than simply recogising something is a II V I lick, or spotting repeated phrases or ideas in a solo or a song.
I don’t think that chord scale ideas are wrong or bad - actually the danger I would say is getting too much into that sort of thing too early. When you are having discussions with people about whether this or that note is allowed because of music theory, and not instead relying on ones ears and musical judgment, it has got out of hand.
Theory can suggest useful abstractions and concepts for the musician who can already hear.
But the problem with Jazz Theory as I see it is that it stopped being simply resources to play with and started being regarded as the Laws of Musical Physics or something. Even where music theory is grounded in physics (and a little bit of CST is) I would argue this type of thinking (and teaching) discourages learners from making their own aesthetic and creative decisions by using their ears and encourages them to look for quasi scientific answers in a book.
That I suspect is something Christiaan would agree with?Last edited by christianm77; 11-21-2020 at 12:17 PM.
-
Where Barry differs from a lot of theory guides out there is it actually has much more of an emphasis on creating music than seeking to understand it. His scales are used to make music, not explain it.
In the improvisation class for instance we start pretty much with two or three straightforward scales and go through hundreds of ways we can use those notes to create bop language.
There’s not much emphasis on understanding what is going on harmonically beyond straightforward suggestions about other scales and ways of using scales one could use for different sounds, such as the tritone, minor and so on.
Barry doesn’t talk about upper extensions for example. The implication is that none of that stuff is terribly important to learn how to play the music. Well actually he pretty much straight said that.
There is sort of a Barry musical cosmology about scales, DNA, mother and father, the brothers and sisters and so on, but that seems almost like a helpful mnemonic or humanising story to help describe the basic relationships.
I’m not saying a musician couldn’t get something out of a more harmonic approach, more that it’s striking how little time is spent talking about why things work. Everything is focussed towards creating music.
-
Originally Posted by charlieparker
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
But, I would disagree on the distinction here you made. To me chord scale theory is just another form of categorization, just of a sound of a chord and a scale together. I don't think the why part is super relevant.
I agree that it isn't terribly useful for beginners, so maybe I agree with everyone here .
It isn't useful because, for one jazz is much more than knowing pitch collections. It is about phrasing, melodic shape, and rhythm, etc. And it isn't the way music is made.
I guess, I would just say things differently. To me, no theory is kind of an anti-intellectual statement.
-
Originally Posted by Lobomov
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
1. Use theories that guide them in composing, arranging, and performing - while they develop and mature their ears and capablities as composers, arrangers, and players,
OR
2. Tell them to let their ears be their guide, no theory, and of course turn in their composing and arranging assignments on time and with excellence, and perform at a solid level too.
Remember, a GPA below "B" gets the students "counseled out" of the best schools.
Philosophy is nice. Results count.
-
Well it’s all categorisation on some level? And CST is indeed another form of that. Have another look at what I wrote, I don’t contradict any of this.
what I’m specifically concerned about is basically a form of mission creep towards trying to supply a general theory of how jazz works and away from just being a set of rules of thumb and resources that some players may find useful. Over time CST seems to have ended up at the top of the tree as the arbiter of what will and won’t sound ‘good’ and a general theory of ‘how jazz works.’
At its best it’s a fabulous resource for creating beautiful sounds. At its worst it offers not ideas for music making, but strict prohibitions and advice on what not to play. Framing and language are key here. The way things are taught and presented.
I have learned to be very skeptical of the value of the idea of a general theory with respect making music, but there are also obvious reasons why such an idea might gain traction in education though.
TBF such unifying theories may have value as an intellectual pursuit for its own sake (although I think Cst is remarkably bad for this purpose ironically) but that’s something I have learned we need to keep separate from music pedagogy.
(Musicians are not always intellectuals. They are always artisans and craftspeople.)
(I did physics at uni so I’m always aware of my tendency to try to come up with general theories and so on.)
I think you are right to say that all jazz theory is essentially geared towards providing resources to make music... have a look at the Ritchie Hart interview which I posted elsewhere.
in classical music this is much better defined on the difference between conservatoire performance and composition courses and university
music degrees, although it is arguable that much of the practical hands on knowledge that allowed 18th century composers to write and improvise music with such facility, as separate from the analytical theories of figures like Schenker, was largely lost and is only recently being rediscovered.
In jazz I think the academy and publishing industry have gradually encouraged the teaching of theory to resemble more the general, analytical style theories. There’s many reasons for this. I could send you one of my essays if you really want more info lol.
Practically, I’ve noticed many students who simply want a theoretical justification for everything; something I recognise from when I was getting started and I’m still by no means entirely over.
this mindset is deeply unhelpful, even obstructive to ideas like melodic improvising, and a real problem in my experience. It’s like the ears are somehow at the bottom of the pecking order when it comes to improvisation. This seems like a tremendous failure of mass market jazz education. And a right pain in the bum.
-
Originally Posted by Lobomov
Classical pedagogy is a somewhat formalized training with a graded repertoire and scales and exercises that a student typically learns and masters along the way.
Similarly, Barry Harris has an intriguing way of teaching that some have called a theoretical framework (Adam Neely).
While I am sympathetic, to the "No Theory" narrative, I think we can take the sentiment too far depending on what we classify as "Theory".
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
Originally Posted by GTRMan
(He actually teaches at Berklee as I understand it.
-
Originally Posted by charlieparker
Or, check out this interview.
says everything I need to on the subject. Exact argument I am (trying) to make
-
Originally Posted by charlieparker
Off course I'm strawman'ing, but my point stands. I don't know much about Messi, but I choose that name due to his current fame. But plenty of footballers just come from a background of street football and just rise to the top based on their skills.
Zlatan is a prime example of this .. There was no formal training of his talent at an early age ... He just played and if his autobiography is to believed it wasn't until very late in his development it dawned on him that he was extraordinary. He was just a kid having fun.
Same here you get a kid involved in a gigging and jamming every day and it will lead to something creative is he has the right personality.
I'm not advocating against theory as a useful tool ... I'm advocating against the popular view that it is necessary to be a good musician. It is not. Ear and chops is and you don't get either of those by studying theory (beyond the bare minimum like chord and note names). I claim that many a wannabe player is harming himself by speeding too much time trying to understand and/or justify his playing thru the lens of theory.
-
Originally Posted by Lobomov
So for better or for worse jazz is now more learned in the academy.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
The reality is that when it comes to composing and arranging classes, things are more rules based because there is so much for the developing student to deal with when first learning those arts. Instrumental playing critiques however, tend to be much more open minded, and that increases with level of study. I have found that to be consistent across instructors.
Teaching people to play coherent consonant music is a start, then specific ways to get more chromatic, altered, and "out", are taught. The simple fact is, there are known, established patterns and practices in music. It would be one thing if there were 1200 tones in an octave instead of 12.
So, there is repeatability in the art. Either one wishes to learn it or not. And if they do want to learn it, we can then ask - can it be learned in a single lesson, and effectively applied as well?
The answer of course, is no.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
My theory of theory aligns pretty well with this:
...Theory to me is the attempt to explain how music works...
-
Originally Posted by ccroft
And "Improvisation Theory" or "Jazz Improvisation" classes DON'T teach in the manner that you are mocking.
What they DO teach is that we are to develop a substantial, coherent sounding, jazz vocabulary so well that it can be applied extemporaneously/impulsively.
RIP Nick Gravenites
Today, 05:48 PM in The Players