Theory vs. playing by ear

[Bobby Timmons]

Well I listen back to my playing a lot and I can always hear when my brain cogs are working.

generally it doesn’t swing even if I don’t manage to mess myself up.

I have that experience too. I have moments where it sounds musical though and not contrived. I hear the devices in my teacher's playing and think if I could just do that! And I hear the devices in other musicians I listen to.

[Christian Miller]

I have that experience too. I have moments where it sounds musical though and not contrived. I hear the devices in my teacher's playing and think if I could just do that! And I hear the devices in other musicians I listen to.

well there you go, then

That’s what ear learning is to me. You learn musical words and sentences and recognise their use in musical discourse.

[Bobby Timmons]

Yep

[Litterick]

I’m not sure you were expressing it, but I have to say I do reject the idea that is sometimes implied that jazz is different or special. It’s music like any other.

If you a rock player can pick out a 1-b6-b7-1 by ear, I can’t see any compelling reason why a 2 5 1 is in any way different. if you hear it enough obv. And, of course, back in the mid 20th century, that’s what people did by and large.

Picking out the changes was the trivial part of the process. What mattered was how the musician used them. That was where jazz differed from other forms of contemporary music. And contemporaries noticed the difference. Jas Obrecht in his essay Golden Age of L.A. Studio Guitar recalls Bob Bain telling him in 1980, "If you were a jazz player before the war, you really didn’t work except when they wanted jazz guitar. That was a bad reputation to have!”

[Marinero]

" Birelli has been called an 'ear player" ccroft

Hi, C,
Using an undeniable musical savant as an example for your views of theory in re: a world of varying degrees of guitar bangers is disingenuous . . . if not, patently, naive.
Marinero

[Christian Miller]

" Birelli has been called an 'ear player" ccroft

Hi, C,
Using an undeniable musical savant as an example for your views of theory in re: a world of varying degrees of guitar bangers is disingenuous . . . if not, patently, naive.
Marinero

Bireli is one representative of a very ear based tradition of players and a seemingly endless legion of terrifyingly adept guitar players in France and the Low Countries.

[Christian Miller]

Picking out the changes was the trivial part of the process. What mattered was how the musician used them. That was where jazz differed from other forms of contemporary music. And contemporaries noticed the difference. Jas Obrecht in his essay Golden Age of L.A. Studio Guitar recalls Bob Bain telling him in 1980, "If you were a jazz player before the war, you really didn’t work except when they wanted jazz guitar. That was a bad reputation to have!”

I quite don’t understand how this is relevant to what I said. Could you expand a bit?

[Litterick]

I will try. Being able to hear chord changes is a universal musical skill. Where jazz differs from other forms of music is in how the player improvises over those changes. That seems to me a good example of using the ear and responding to what is heard with a theoretical approach. A player in another genre would apply a different kind of theory in responding to changes.

But jazz guitarists were not wanted in the studio, according to Bob Bain, except when jazz was required. This suggests a limitation in their theoretical approach, a lack of versatility. Or perhaps they were boorish and unreliable. Maybe the drugs were an issue.

[Reg]

Disclaimer.... I love theory. And I love performing, playing etc...

I remember when I joined this forum and posting... Get your technical skills together on your instrument FIRST.

It's really pretty simple.... at gigs, performing, almost anytime we play.... you can play or you can't.

You can still take a lousy solo or screw up backing up soloist etc... But it will still be acceptable ...it will work well enough. (just don't let that moment be the last song of set etc...)

I guess because we have extra time we have these discussions.... Theory helps, helps even more when you have the skills to use it. By that I mean... you have the technical skills, (chops) and the mental understandings of theory,
(musical understanding and awareness of the context of what you and who your performing with... are playing) ....the walk and chew gum at the same time thing without either getting in the way.

A easy test... can you play and have a conversation at the same time? Or something like that. (or are you in some type of mental trance staring at your instrument).

An example, at my gig last night a friend, sax player showed up in middle of 1st set. Can't remember what tune... but invited him up and told him to grab my stand and open the book if wanted.... he did and while I finished my solo, LOL he took a few choruses. Was great... audience loved it.

But theory doesn't work unless you have technical skill to let it work. I can talk while playing, at least most of the time.

There is a difference between having good ears and just knowing most tunes or the memorizing approach. Lots of players... have great ears, but just can't hear everything with musical organization. And many players don't have great ears... but have exposed their ears or taught their ears to be able to hear what they're playing with understanding.... Both approaches seem to work ... but there seems to be a difference. Some players have bigger picture hearing, LOL ... it's more of a context thing. It's like how many levels or layers of functional or musically referenced organization can one have going on and still.... have that "feel" thing going on. I personally rarely get the non feel comment... I can lock in.

I'm a good player, not great, but can cover in real time. But some pros... well it's different. But you can't seem to do either without chops, technical skills. Don't limit your options.

[Christian Miller]

I will try. Being able to hear chord changes is a universal musical skill. Where jazz differs from other forms of music is in how the player improvises over those changes. That seems to me a good example of using the ear and responding to what is heard with a theoretical approach. A player in another genre would apply a different kind of theory in responding to changes.

Yes.. although again, theory? Is theory the right word here? It’s kind of frustrating because I don’t know what people mean when they say theory. i feel like there’s a whole bunch of assumptions that’s different for every poster.

One good way of playing jazz guitar is making melodies out of the shapes the way Herb Ellis, Charlie C and Django did. Is that theory?

So, to be a conventional jazz guitarist, you need to know the GASB songs and how to improvise compellingly on them. You need to be able to swing. Bebop put the emphasis on playing the changes as a basis of lines more than the previous generation. Not that Django didn’t play changes.

the idea of using a theoretical approach while playing just seems weird to me. Theory is for the practice room. But the time you can hear it and play it on the band stand it’s no longer theory… it’s practice.

what it seems like to me is aesthetic, style. Knowing how it is meant to sound and knowing how to get the sound. Theory, generally understood to mean the organisation of pitch choices in this context, is only one part of that at most.

But jazz guitarists were not wanted in the studio, according to Bob Bain, except when jazz was required. This suggests a limitation in their theoretical approach, a lack of versatility. Or perhaps they were boorish and unreliable. Maybe the drugs were an issue.

Obviously Jazz players can be a bit arrogant and set in their ways to say the least. During the 60s a lot of the top jazz players were incredibly dismissive of players like Hendrix because they didn’t fit into their conception of good guitar playing. (Lack of theory was one area where he failed in their eyes.)

In retrospect mostly they look a bit silly and unimaginative, but it’s easy to also see where they were coming from. Jimi didn’t fit into their world of music. He couldn’t play their gigs. He couldn’t read, or or play blazing bop lines.

they could probably sense he was the future too, and resented that.

Of course, everyone from then on wanted a rock guitarist sonically at least. Even Miles. (A rock guitarist who could read had a niche for sure, and they’d probably have learned commercial chart reading from a jazzer)

Often what they wanted was a sound - and if a jazz player had an L5 with flatwounds and a sparkly clean Fender they couldn’t be relied to come up with convincing contemporary guitar tones even if they acquired appropriate gear. They didn’t know the aesthetic. I can only think this got more the case in the 70s and 80s although that’s when you get Carlton, Graydon and Lukather etc who found that ideal niche.

(I mean it seems Nile still thinks of himself as a jazz guitarist haha, George Van Eps school. But he’s not squirting bebop all over dance records.)

In this era of course session work started to be more about coming up with parts as the old way of working with arrangers and reading charts gave way to a more collaborative model with studio producers. one criticism of jazz musicians on these kinds of session gigs is that they overplay, don’t find a good simple part that works for the song.

You do also get typecast. People get kind of surprised that I can play more than one style sometimes. I’d love to get more diverse calls but people have me down as an old school jazz cat - in so much as they think of me at all. I suppose it’s what I’ve done the most. The professional music world tends to be pretty risk averse.

[pauln]

...but strangely, you're not mad at that approach.

"That approach" was learning chops and musical judgement from the
beginning and throughout (musicianship), developing music memory,
and the discerning ear, and actively figuring out how to play from how
songs sound. How should I be mad at what enables that I wish to do?

- grasp and internalize new music en mass for performance very fast
- perform music I haven't heard before with musicians I have just met

I can not imagine doing it any other way, really wonder how others do.

[Bobby Timmons]

^ Because many people fail that way. Also people who know theory do what you're describing. You do know this, don't you?

[Bobby Timmons]

I don’t know what people mean when they say theory.

Theory is music guidelines communicated in language. Musicianship is communicated in music language. Can you communicate a music guideline to someone away from the instrument using language? Then it's theory.

[pauln]

^ Because many people fail that way. Also people who know theory do what you're describing. You do know this, don't you?

Now you are saying people who know theory do what I described, that same thing you say is the way that fails many people, that approach it is strange I'm not mad at?

No, I don't know this, I don't even know what you are trying to say.

[ccroft]

Theory is music guidelines communicated in language. Musicianship is communicated in music language. Can you communicate a music guideline to someone away from the instrument using language? Then it's theory.

10 pages and we're finally getting somewhere! We do it all the time. In it's most basic form it might be "Lets play a blues in F" for EG.

I felt the air starting to clear a bit a few pages ago with the ideas of craft and musicianship. And Reg's post.

BTW, and against my better judgement, I want to say that I'm neither disingenuous nor naive. Both of my posts were only trying to tease out what we're talking about when we say "Theory vs. playing by ear". I haven't put forward a view of one VS the other.

Here's my actual view on "Theory vs. playing by ear": too much emphasis on one or the other is bad for the soup. You need both and more: chops, musicianship, craft, a good attitude, an open mind, and some heart.

To me, knowing that fretting either E string at the fifth fret produces A is not theory. It's fact. Or maybe it's musicianship. But you need to know it if someone says "Let's play a blues in A".

In any case and above all, we're trying to play music. Different folks get there by different mixes of ingredients and a lot of hard work!

[Peter C]

I'm listening to you Reg. I agree, you either play, or ...the other thing. Jazz impro is a challenge but we're getting there in the time available. You say you're a good rather than great player, well you're welcome to your opinion

[Bobby Timmons]

Yes, the air is starting to clear. But you guys still have the disinformation going with you trying to classify theory as musicianship, and pauln saying he doesn't know why anyone would approach music any other way than he does when many musicians fail that way. Probably more people fail than succeed that way.

To me, knowing that fretting either E string at the fifth fret produces A is not theory. It's fact. Or maybe it's musicianship. But you need to know it if someone says "Let's play a blues in A".

[Christian Miller]

Theory is music guidelines communicated in language. Musicianship is communicated in music language. Can you communicate a music guideline to someone away from the instrument using language? Then it's theory.

Ok I like that as a definition. It’s simple and concise.

It’s not the same as the definition I opened with (which I tried to state clearly) but it works as what you’ve been saying follows from it I would say.

By this definition those who self describe as not knowing theory actually knowing theory which matches up with what you are saying.

What it doesn’t do is give a distinction between the kind of informal street theory you might find with, for instance Manouche style guitar played and formal theory like
Chord Scale Analysis or Schenkerian analysis which I think has a different function.

[Bobby Timmons]

What it doesn’t do is give a distinction between the kind of informal street theory you might find with, for instance Manouche style guitar played and formal theory like Chord Scale Analysis or Schenkerian analysis which I think has a different function.

I'd say that's a key distinction. There is obviously a lot of value in that street/scene/experience knowledge.

[Litterick]

One good way of playing jazz guitar is making melodies out of the shapes the way Herb Ellis, Charlie C and Django did. Is that theory?

That is how I play. I have good reason to play that way, which amounts to a theory. I assume they also had good reason – their choices were not arbitrary. But who knows what goes on in somebody's mind?

the idea of using a theoretical approach while playing just seems weird to me. Theory is for the practice room. But the time you can hear it and play it on the band stand it’s no longer theory… it’s practice.

It is applied theory.

what it seems like to me is aesthetic, style. Knowing how it is meant to sound and knowing how to get the sound. Theory, generally understood to mean the organisation of pitch choices in this context, is only one part of that at most.

If theory is no more than pitch choices, then I wonder why we spend to much time talking about it.

[Christian Miller]

That is how I play. I have good reason to play that way, which amounts to a theory. I assume they also had good reason – their choices were not arbitrary. But who knows what goes on in somebody's mind?

That is a problem with quite a lot of this discussion. However from their own words it seems most accomplished musician enter something we can call a flow state when they improvise.

It is applied theory.

Well if it’s an applied theory doesn’t it become practice?

If theory is no more than pitch choices, then I wonder why we spend to much time talking about it.

Simple - there’s a lot of nerds. I think a lot of that is down to the sort of people such as myself who are drawn to jazz guitar. I love to theorise. It’s taken me a long time to realise this impulse is not always helpful for becoming a better musician.

Theory has always been the easy bit for me anyway. It’s very tempting to focus on the things that feel familiar and natural. People with an academic background (esp but not only STEM) look for systems and intellectual ideas, and the idea of explanation of observed phenomena is of course hard wired into both the natural sciences and the humanities. This is no bad thing of itself but can go too far.

(at the same time music is increasingly taught as a liberal art instead of what it used to be, a trade. Even in conservatoires - they have to do this at least to some extent receive academic accreditation.)

As I say adult students like to ask ‘why?’ Why does this work? Why does this sub work on this chord?

‘Why’ is more a question for the academic than the practitioner generally speaking. (And I’ve always found the answers given to these questions frustratingly incomplete anyway.) If you want to play, you need to focus on playing. Obvious really, but sometimes it seems people would like to do anything than just play.

Simple theoretical ideas take a long time to internalise anyway to the point we know them well enough to have them ‘battle ready.’ How long does it take to completely master the three diatonic scales and all the triads and drops contained within them? (And remember the joke is you can do all of this and still not be able to play jazz lol.)

[Litterick]

I have an academic background, and a PhD for my troubles, but I like to play to escape systems and ideas, to enter that flow state. I trust the theoretical learning will make my subconscious a better musician.

I find it interesting that my new Hiwatt makes me play in different ways to my old Fender. I alternate between them. It seems the physical experience of playing influences my improvisation.

[Christian Miller]

I have an academic background, and a PhD for my troubles, but I like to play to escape systems and ideas, to enter that flow state. I trust the theoretical learning will make my subconscious a better musician.

I find it interesting that my new Hiwatt makes me play in different ways to my old Fender. I alternate between them. It seems the physical experience of playing influences my improvisation.

Well working on your ears will make you a better musican. Theory may be useful for categorising phenomena. If you can hear a Lydian dominant chord (like a D9#11) in your head, for instance, and know it when you hear it that’s great. It doesn’t matter what you call it. You can call it ‘A train’ for instance.

the instrument affects the music for sure.

This was a cool video on the subject.

[charlieparker]

At last, Marinero and I share a musical agreement.

Yeah. This is off-topic for the thread but I have never gotten Desmond's playing. He is way down my list of sax players I want to listen to behind greats like Dexter Gordon, Sonny Rollins, Lester Young, etc.

Chet Baker is a much more soulful player in that vein.

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

Yeah. This is off-topic for the thread but I have never gotten Desmond's playing. He is way down my list of sax players I want to listen to behind greats like Dexter Gordon, Sonny Rollins, Lester Young, etc.

Chet Baker is a much more soulful player in that vein.

Why does no one ever mention Lee Konitz in that context? In the early bop years he was the only one who did not (want to) sound like Bird.

RIP Lee, I hope I still can play at 92.

[BTW I like Paul Desmond as well]