-
In any case I would urge anyone coming into this to focus on the advice of those who have demonstrated their ability to play jazz to their satisfaction.
Everything else can be safely ignored.
And while educators often apparently contradict, there are some things everyone agrees on, annoying click bait being by the by. The primacy of the ear is one. Theory then becomes whatever you need to make sense of the music to play it.
As I say I’m not detecting any actual debate here on this. I can of course nitpick till the cows come home, but substantively this is what everyone thinks.
-
12-01-2020 05:06 AM
-
Originally Posted by Clint 55
You're absolutely missing my point. Autumn leaves was my first jazz tune and I've spent years doing this
Originally Posted by Clint 55
and not like this
The problem isn't that I didn't put in work or didn't practice. It's that I feel into the trap of thinking that learning arpeggios, knowing scales (Major, minor, dorian, phrygian, etc, melodic minor in different applications, whole tone, byzantian, etc) would unlock my inner improvisor. It doesn't and has been a waste of time.
What it has done is to help me easier memorize stuff as I have something to relate it too, but that is basically it.
The last 6 months with Christiaan's channel has made more for my playing than any theory ... What it does is do wonders for my ear and facilitate motor skill and memory.
The good thing about his format is that he plays the solos a measure at a time, so you can see the fingerings and phrases and just copy them. Unlike if you get a book with transcriptions where you have that disconnect of looking at a piece of paper and listening to an original recording. These days you can slow everything down without changing pitch, so it's not as bad as say 10 years ago, but that disconnect can be a deal breaker if you're not on top of your game (which nobody is once you start working and not to mention having kids)
Another good thing about Christian is that he plays the phrases slower, but doesn't make it unbearably slow. Most youtubers tend to draw out a two bar ii-V-I lick to take 10 minutes making it impossible to watch. Just play the damn thing and trust your audience aren't absolute beginners.
If I was 13-18 again then I'd spend more time listening to records .. But 13-18 was before I got into jazz. As I said before in this thread I can do a pretty good impression of Knopfler and whatever my heroes back then where without much effort. I don't have to think in order to do that .. Not the slightest bit, if just flows from sitting in front of my record player for months with my guitar in my lap.
But unfortunately I feel in theory trap with regards to jazz instead of just putting on Charlie Christian and taking it from there. I started looking into jazz in my late 20s where the sit at your record player all day (or in my case night) where a thing of the past and I thought theory would lead me to the good life. It really doesn't.
I'm willing to wager money you'd get a lot more out spending 10 hours learning a [insert favorite player] solo than 10 hours of doing that exercise you've posted.
-
I absolutely hear what you're saying. Autumn Leaves is a difficult tune because of the kind of lame sounding circle of fifths progression and the kind of formal mood. You absolutely have to shed some sort of good recording to integrate material for that song that won't sound lame. But if all you have are some melodies or parts that you like, and you can't fall back on your own playing that agrees with the harmony, then it's still going to sound bad. I don't get why you persistently argue or imply that the 2 approaches have to be mutually exclusive. They're not mutually exclusive. If you open up the neck with theory, that doesn't mean you can't go and pick apart the Cannonball and Miles recording and integrate their ideas. What gives man? Actually, if you have a theory base. You're going to understand the real world material better. So wtf.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
The danger is off course getting too emotionally invested and start lamenting not being heard, which might wreck you, but as long as you can keep yourself in check then there can be value to be had.
One of the things that this tread really highlights is that many like to assume that theory is hard for most and that they struggle with it .. My point of view is that theory isn't hard, but playing is where the struggle is
-
Originally Posted by Clint 55
That is not what I argue .. and has never been what I argued.
My argument is that language or rather ear is a prerequisite for sounding good and that can't be learned from theory. So if you want to sound good you have to put in your dues copying good sounding players.
Once you've done that then you'll sound good and if theory can add to that then great. Some players have benefited immensely from theory, while others (even world class ones) have more or less ignored it apart from the absolute basics.
My next argument is that if you don't do the above and just spend time with theory and exercises like the ones you've posted then you're likely to sound shitty forever and ever. I put myself forward as an example of that.
I mean, it's not that I sound bad .. I just don't sound good. It swings, the notes aren't wrong .. but unless it's a bluesy tune (where I can draw on my previous experience of playing the blues) then it's usually just bland and boring.
My argument isn't that those two approaches are mutually exclusive .. It is that theory is optional, while the other stuff isn't.
-
I agree with everything you wrote except for your thesis in bold. I think it's all necessary for your average not ultra gifted musician.
-
This debate just seems to go round in circles. Surely the bottom line is that everyone needs to learn some theory but also needs to transcribe/listen/learn jazz language. The question then is simply how much of each do you do?
In my case I probably spent at least 80% of the time (maybe more) on transcribing/learning from records. It was more by accident than design, it was just that was the only way I knew how to do it (there was no internet when I started out, and I hardly had any books). Looking back, I’m glad I took that approach, it worked for me.
-
Originally Posted by Lobomov
The danger is off course getting too emotionally invested and start lamenting not being heard, which might wreck you, but as long as you can keep yourself in check then there can be value to be had.
One of the things that this tread really highlights is that many like to assume that theory is hard for most and that they struggle with it .. My point of view is that theory isn't hard, but playing is where the struggle is
It takes a lot of time to a melody right. It's really hard to play quarter notes well lol.
(Embodied, as opposed to intellectual knowledge, takes a lot of time to learn and tends to be undervalued in our education system. Musicians are artisans, not thinkers, necessarily.)
-
Originally Posted by Clint 55
Cheers Clint!
-
Cheers. I need to work more real stuff as well.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
Yeah, you've always been the level headed here
But don't you dare stop posting again .. You're far too valuable and appreciated here
-
Originally Posted by Clint 55
It's all academic to me. I know theory.
But I know what really helped me was to listen closely to the music and sing the phrases, play them back and only then try and work out what was going on. And that happened really quite late for me. (Teachers aren't to blame - I knew I should be doing it haha.)
If you want a pure example, learn from Dutchbopper's story.
It's not about talent - it's more like, do you seriously have enough time to spend on anything other than going direct to the source - the music? You probably know more than enough theory already. It's the sort of stuff like when you transcribe that super cool lick and realise it's all triads - or the stepwise minor scale - that puts the theory thing into perspective :-) (Then you have rethink your ideas of what makes things sound GOOD.)
A lot of apparently very talented musicians are those who have had a clean, effective process and understand how to practice and learn music. I'm not saying that's the only thing that separates Jonathon Kreisberg or Bruce Forman from your average noodler, but it's quite a lot of the difference.
It's just hard work and being honest about one's abilities, and open to sucking at first. The latter two are the most important things, and the hardest things for me to learn. I'm learning it all the time.
(If I had to identify the most important talent for being a musician it would be that. Great jazz guitarists who achieve a very high level at a young age are old heads on young shoulders in this respect.)
Theory is optional for most of the more diatonic forms of jazz. When it comes to Coltrane tunes, I wouldn't want to die on that hill. But you can totally play Rhythm Changes by ear.Last edited by christianm77; 12-01-2020 at 06:53 AM.
-
I'm confident enough in my voice as a jazz musician that it's important enough for me to have as one of my goals to open up the neck with my inversions and arpeggios so I can be free flow with my ideas. Even if they aren't super original. I want to be able to stick my hand anywhere on the neck and be able to start playing one of several tunes, in the changes, either melody paraphrasing, or single line solo, or chord melody. That ain't gonna happen without working theory. Of course I have to make time to study things that aren't directly the music. Wtf.
Also want to be able to have good style, with good licks, parts, and quotes. That ain't gonna happen without real world study. I do a lot of listening and defining what styles I want to work. I do some transcription and could probably do more.
-
Originally Posted by Clint 55
Learning scales and grips all over the neck is exactly part of that embodied knowledge. Theoretically, a melodic minor scale is simple and its applications can be understood in an afternoon. How long does it take to drill learn that all over the fretboard? Bloody ages for me haha.
That’s not theory. That’s practice. That’s the hard bit. The time sink. The grind as the gamer kiddies call it.
But it’s also not learning jazz. It’s simply learning to play one’s instrument.
Scales are simply tidied up melodies. They are useful to us because they are simpler than real music, and allow us to work on things like tone and technique. Scales come from music not vice versa.
That’s why it’s possible to say this melody has the notes of Bb major, but of course that doesn’t mean every permutation of Bb major results in a great melody. Of course. (Of course jazz theory often analyses things in a way that totally ignore the melodic characteristics of a line in favour of its harmonic context, but that’s another rant.)
But anyway, that’s a fairly logical argument as to why you can’t make music from theory. Information is necessarily lost.
That’s what theory is - a simplification in order to try and get to the essence of something. Go too far with it and you end up something too abstract to be useful. It is also possible to miss other aspects that you haven’t thought about (often rhythm and timbre.)
Don’t use it at all and you are just left with special cases (although I think we underestimate the power of intuition here. I think the brain does a lot of work ‘under the hood.’)
Anyway, style is a good word. style comes as much from the way things are played as what they are and that can only be picked up by ear.
-
Originally Posted by Lobomov
-
Originally Posted by Lobomov
Playing scales and arpeggios in at least five areas of the fretboard is good advice but it doesn't end there, to your point. It's like a blueprint of foundational structure. In other words you will need to do at least that, and not just by rote - but in context of common formulae (Blues, II-V-Is, Rhythm Changes, Turnarounds, Coltrane changes if you want, etc.)
SO - You need to practice the jazz language in five areas too. That's more work than the scales and arpeggios. You mentioned "licks". Yes. But one also needs to develop the skill of easily weaving longer jazz lines using smooth voice leading, using direct and indirect approaches. (There has been some increased chatter about that here as of late. Enclosure demos for guitar and Chad LB's hyper-enclosure practice routines, etc.)
Louis Armstrong talked about his "routine". A developing player needs a routine practicing the jazz language in context of common forms and harmonic progressions like those mentioned above - and also in the context of tunes. (see Chad LB's studies)
-
Originally Posted by Lobomov
-
(double post)
-
Another thing about learning theory. It's supportive of playing, arranging and composing. And for that matter conducting.
God forbid that a good musician might want to write something someday. Look how many jazz artists write their own tunes today. Their albums are full of originals, NOT standards and the Great American Songbook.
I remember an interview with Dave Douglas some years ago. Not unlike Sonny Rollins, he was having some success but he felt something missing and decided to take some steps back, in his case for his writing. He went back to studying counterpoint. That's in the realm of "theory and composition".
Knowledge is power.
-
Originally Posted by GTRMan
Yes that is what I need. After seeing his vid (thanks for posting btw Clint) I had a read on him and we quickly found agreement (and where we disagreed too, but it was minor stuff).
Christian was kind to go ind and elaborate on some of the stuff we where discussing, which was great too and Christians advice here is greatly appreciated. There are a zillion videos with him playing for us to enjoy
The same with many of the other regulars that have chimed in here. Plenty of examples of them playing and they're all great players.
Now you .. Well .. You're pretty full of yourself and telling me what I need to do or do not. But tbh, I haven't seen you play and apart of you being loud there is absolutely nothing for me to back up your authority. Why should I listen to you? Can you give me a single reason?
So links to your playing?
-
Originally Posted by Lobomov
To be clear, you're getting caught in your shorts with this "show me your video stuff". The "good/great player demonstrating their greatness/goodness is the reason to take their advice" works, but only to a point. Look at how many learned by trial and error and herculean repetitive effort. They can't explain very well what they do, and even take pride in that fact, yet they play like nobody's business. How many jazzers produce some educational material these days? More and more of them, for sure. But then people say, "but I don't want to play like him, I don't like his jazz conception" and then cast off the player's advice. Case in point, I am not drawn to the Gypsy jazz style in any way. It's an interesting historical style but is frozen in the 1930s as far as I'm concerned. We can all name players who have published educational material and yet we might say about such material - "eh, no thanks".
So anyway, if you like this guy's playing then what you are doing by learning his solos is just great. Imitate-Assimilate-Innovate. You are doing the first - and should.
So, do you have a clearly defined strategy and plan for getting to the third? Is it clear to you how it will be accomplished? Will it be an efficient plan, or will it take five times the effort and duration than it otherwise could?
-
Originally Posted by GTRMan
OK. so you refuse to share your playing with us ... Ok, no problem ... Just give me your name and teaching credentials. If you're a well respected teacher then that is fine too.
-
Personally, I think the biggest thing overlooked in a lot of people's approaches is the listening. Whether it's theory or transcription or both, I meet so many people who want to play jazz, but they don't actually listen to much of it. I mean, to improvise, you have to hear jazz lines in your head, right? And how else is the music in your head going to be jazz if you don't completely immerse your listening in it?
Then again, I'll never sell any copies of my pamphlet, "How to be ok at jazz in one short decade of hard work."
-
Originally Posted by Lobomov
You have your study path and I have mine. "Imitation" is common to both. Just a friendly note though - "Imitation plus trial and error" is a long and laborius path. Given that neither of us will be able to go back to childhood, nor will quit our jobs to do our version of "The Bridge", we might benefit from some additional tactics. But that's TBD.
As long as we're enjoying ourselves it's all good.
Later.
-
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
Hey, I get that so I advised him to listen to Jimmy Raney and other that I feel "sing" when they solo, but he never took the time to do so.
Well all these years later we still jam about twice a month (well except since March!), and in the last few years he has notice my solos are more melodic and interesting. I told him I had spent the time transcribing some Raney solos and what is found on those Aebersold records featuring Raney) and that is what I'm channeling. I.e. I heard something I really liked and wanted to do and used the technique of transcribing to get that into my own playing.
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale