The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 43 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Posts 26 to 50 of 1072
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    Well I know a few players who learned jazz by ear. None of them are Mozart. Just because we didn’t learn that way doesn’t mean it isn’t possible. It might be a lot more common if mass market jazz edu materials didn’t exist to offer their help to the aspiring player.
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller

    I’ll put it this way. Say I’m teaching functional jazz chord progressions and how standards operate. Do I for example, talk about the common progressions that may be found in the GASB, or I instead advise the student to learn as many GASB tunes as possible?

    The latter is I think, essential, and leads to the same knowledge as the former only more embodied as well a obviously a useful repertoire of tunes. It also takes a long time. The student may not in fact bloody do it.

    The former can be discussed in a lesson or two. It can lead to a stamp collector mindset which gives them the impression they know something Terribly Important when in fact they still don’t know any actual tunes to play on gigs, but may be useful in focussing the students attention to useful aspects while doing the second thing.

    But the former is obviously not a replacement for the latter.

    In the wider context… Everyone who can play learned by ear. Some also know theory. Ergo theory is unnecessary.

    OTOH I think theory may be somewhat emergent from the way the human brain works. Schemata theory in the wider sense that it is used psychology. may as well use the standard names everyone else does.

    it doesn’t take long to teach that stuff anyway.
    I agree that the big picture of the musicality, fluency, and aural competence is the end goal. However, almost all musicians need theory to get there. Ergo theory is essential.

    The language analogy works perfectly. Music is a 2nd language to most people so they have to learn it in the way that is effective for learning a 2nd language. Learn the mechanics and vocab, and get exposure and practice. Not 1 or the other. People who try to learn a 2nd language thru osmosis get nowhere. They have grand conversations of Hola, como estas? For the rest of their life because they need to actually study the mechanics and memorize words. It's the same with music in most cases. People who just go at it with their ear and trial an error will get nowhere while people who study all aspects of music make the most progress.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    I agree that the big picture of the musicality, fluency, and aural competence is the end goal. However, almost all musicians need theory to get there. Ergo theory is essential.
    It’s very hard to disambiguate causation and correlation here. Most musicians today are conservatoire trained and know a ton of theory. (Modern jazz players at least.)

    Logically one counter example would prove the opposite case though. And I’ve met quite a few in fact.

    if you are saying theory is essential for you, I would question how you could actually know. You do know theory so it’s a moot point really.

    The language analogy works perfectly. Music is a 2nd language to most people so they have to learn it in the way that is effective for learning a 2nd language. Learn the mechanics, and get exposure and practice. Not 1 or the other. People who try to learn a 2nd language thru osmosis get nowhere. They have grand conversations of Hola, como estas? For the rest of their life because they need to actually study the mechanics and memorize words. It's the same with music in most cases. People who just go at it with their ear and trial an error will get nowhere while people who study all aspect of music make the most progress.
    i always feel a bit pretentious talking about the language because I know the grand total of one haha.

    However as I understand it the best way to master a language is immersion. Go to the country and live there for a while. Some languages are also more logical, some are more idiomatic. Bebop is more the latter imo.

    Theory will tell you relatively little about what constitutes a compelling bop phrase. Some phrases based on the correct scales and arpeggios will sound hip, some won’t.

    Barry of course had a marvellous system for constructing valid bebop phrases, the ear has to be the deciding factor, always. I don’t count the Barry stuff as theory anyway. Theory aims to explain. Barry was too busy showing students how to turn scales and arpeggios into music to worry about that stuff.

  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    If I asked how an automobile works and were answered by pointing to a car driving past us, I would not be satisfied. However, if I were led into an auto shop for observation of cars' systems of parts being diagnosed, disassembled, cleaned, repaired, replaced, rebuilt, tested, etc. I think I could find some answers - especially if the shop mechanics "thought out loud" as they worked.

    Discussion of "theory vs playing by ear" from a performance perspective might be like pointing to the car going by where I might not even be able to tell if it were fueled by petrol or batteries. The shop is where the answers are when the thing is in parts, not so much when the thing is all buttoned up and out running about.

    Maybe "the shop" for this discussion could be more about revealing how we go about learning new music for performance, not so much in the performance of it?

    Theory vs. playing by ear-me-jpg

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    How is it that the audience listens to jazz, however, they have no idea about the theory...?
    Somehow the music reaches them because they get emotional reactions.
    Certainly for a large group of musicians the theory makes it easier for them to work on the jazz language.

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    I will be back for the attack later after work.

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by charlieparker
    Interesting to hear Parker playing outside of the bebop context.
    Parker was very multi-facetted. Pepper Adams remembers him going to Dixieland jam sessions on the one hand and discussing Arthur Honnegger scores with him on the other hand.
    Last edited by Bop Head; 09-10-2022 at 02:21 AM.

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pauln
    […] where I might not even be able to tell if it were fueled by petrol or batteries. […]
    You will hear if the car runs on fuel or batteries (or you will not hear the one running on batteries, hopefully the driver will see you.)

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    It’s very hard to disambiguate causation and correlation here. Most musicians today are conservatoire trained and know a ton of theory. (Modern jazz players at least.)Logically one counter example would prove the opposite case though. And I’ve met quite a few in fact. If you are saying theory is essential for you, I would question how you could actually know. You do know theory so it’s a moot point really.
    Theory is essential for almost everyone because almost everyone isn't going to play crap for good music without both theory and musicianship. Why would an exception be the rule if rare musicians can become competent without theory and extremely rare ones are geniuses? That doesn't make sense at all. Would it be possible for musical upbringing to be more ideal where we educate the language aspect more? I'm sure. It's still the rule that most musicians need both to do well. And one doesn't impede the other.

    However as I understand it the best way to master a language is immersion. Go to the country and live there for a while. Some languages are also more logical, some are more idiomatic. Bebop is more the latter imo.
    That isn't true. I work in a majority minority city of Hispanics. My coworker has been here 20 or so years and has no fluency in english. While I'm having conversations with her in spanish because I've been studying for 3 years. It's no different with music.

    Theory will tell you relatively little about what constitutes a compelling bop phrase. Some phrases based on the correct scales and arpeggios will sound hip, some won’t.
    Applied theory absolutely can tell you what makes bits of music good. Why couldn't it? You simply identify a few of the key characteristics. This doesn't substitute for the creativity aspect, but it helps you build a knowledge base to use to be creative.

    Barry of course had a marvellous system for constructing valid bebop phrases, the ear has to be the deciding factor, always. I don’t count the Barry stuff as theory anyway. Theory aims to explain. Barry was too busy showing students how to turn scales and arpeggios into music to worry about that stuff.
    Come on. If you want to differentiate between stamp collecting theory and BH applied theory, that's fine. But BH theory is still theory. That's my whole point. It helps you be more musical when you use it correctly.
    Last edited by Jimmy Smith; 09-10-2022 at 03:54 AM.

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    J
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    Theory is essential for almost everyone because almost everyone isn't going to play crap for good music without both theory and musicianship. Why would an exception be the rule if rare musicians can become competent without theory and extremely rare ones are geniuses? That doesn't make sense at all. Would it be possible for musical upbringing to be more ideal where we educate the language aspect more? I'm sure. It's still the rule that most musicians need both to do well. And one doesn't impede the other.
    At no point have I said that it does. I’m not making that argument, because it’s obviously incorrect.

    Maybe we are using different definitions of ‘necessary’, but as I know several very good jazz players who learned to play jazz without knowing much or any music theory, it is logical to conclude that theory is not necessary to learn jazz. It’s not a very complicated or intellectual argument.

    the no-theory jazz player is not as rare as one might think, especially in specific communities of players, such as old school bop musicians and Manouche players.

    At most you might say (as you have) that theory is necessary for some people, that’s very hard for me to rule out. However it’s also very hard to prove.

    So I become at this point more interested in the type of information that is taught, which brings me into the next point.

    (btw i cede the point about language learning, as I say it’s kind of pretentious of me to talk
    about it.)

    Come on. If you want to differentiate between stamp collecting theory and BH applied theory, that's fine. But BH theory is still theory. That's my whole point. It helps you be more musical when you use it correctly.
    i think it’s worth making the distinction as a teacher .

    If you think theory is knowing what a scale is for example (and some use that meaning, for instance the Associated Board in the UK) then it’s a different thing. In this case Barry is definitely dealing in theory. That’s just names though, and Barry uses a lot of non standard names. To me this is barely theory at all. Perhaps I’ll call it the theory of ‘what’ and in Barry’s case (or the Neapolitan masters) ‘how.’

    Someone can have their own private labels for scales and chords and it is equally theory. The only difference is other people don’t know what they mean. Sometimes these labels are used within a specific community of musicians. See the ‘Christophe’ example, or Barry’s very specific use of terms like ‘arpeggio’. Also there’s a very interesting Jimmy Bruno interview regarding this. Is it a ‘Honesuckle bridge’ or a ‘Montgomery Ward’? A Mixolydian mode or a dominant scale? And so on

    (As I say I do wonder if this type of labelling is something that the human mind does naturally anyway, or if completely ear based players like Bireli etc understand music in a profoundly different way? I think it’s a really interesting question and I just don’t know. Yeah Phd at least in that, no doubt.)

    Theory in the more specific sense for me means trying to understand. This is the theory of ‘why.’ Someone who says ‘this line sounds good because it has the altered tones b9 and #9 on the dominant chord’ is embarking on that for example. ‘X sounds good because y’. You hear statements like this a lot in mainstream jazz edu. In this case music theory is held to have some predictive or explanative aspect regarding the aesthetics of the music.

    What was striking about Barry is how little these sorts of statements were made. The decision making about what sounded good was in the ears.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 09-10-2022 at 05:37 AM.

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    I agree that what was so great about BH's teaching was he brought the theoretical aspect directly to his extremely authentic golden age experience. To me, that is what I would want theory to be able to do for me or students who don't have language hard wired into them. I don't think most students have or get the language of music hardwired into them and so have to learn it somewhat structurally. I sure don't. I try to always make sure I'm working on the language aspect. I see what you're saying about that being the most important skill, but I don't think it's practical to look at music or teaching from solely that viewpoint.

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    I agree that what was so great about BH's teaching was he brought the theoretical aspect directly to his extremely authentic golden age experience. To me, that is what I would want theory to be able to do for me or students who don't have language hard wired into them. I don't think most students have or get the language of music hardwired into them and so have to learn it somewhat structurally.
    I really don’t see theory as the solution to that. Listening is.

    take the Dorian for instance. Same scale could make a folk melody or jazz melody if used by different musicians. Of course the jazz aspect is largely in the swing and the rhythm… a folk melody can become a jazz melody of played a certain way

    So that comes from listening. If a player can’t play jazz rhythms on one note all the theory in the world isn’t going to help.

    To go back to the names thing for a second - of course plenty of musicians use the scale without ever learning its name, Paul McCartney and Charlie Christian for instance…Allan Holdsworth labelled it ‘X’.

    so there you are. I don’t think if you learn the name of the Dorian scale it’ll ruin you lol. In fact there’s a lot of value in using the standard name. But as Allan said the name simply functions as a label for identification and no other purpose. In basic terms it’s a set of notes you can use to make music if you can breathe life into them with your musicality.

    Is that really theory?

    Is it theory to say ‘on the G13#11 play the Lydian dominant’ when you could simply call the latter the G13#11 scale and eliminate the need for other name entirely? To me a lot of this stuff is just nomenclature.

    I sure don't. I try to always make sure I'm working on the language aspect. I see what you're saying about that being the most important skill, but I don't think it's practical to look at music or teaching from solely that viewpoint.
    I do know a lot of students look for validation on what sounds good from theory. I would aim to give them more confidence in their own perceptions.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 09-10-2022 at 07:08 AM.

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    Listening is good and so is studying structure. You can learn concepts in a few minutes that would take you years of listening or that you would never learn by listening. Again, I'm taking lessons with Tony Monaco who is one of the best jazz Hammond players in history. Never once has he told me learn this by rote. It's implied that I need to be realistic about applying it musically but we deal in theoretical concepts. You keep trying to make a false dichotomy out of the theory musicianship paradigm which has no explanation since you're obviously the player you are because of your theoretical and musical understanding.

    There's no pitfall to teaching someone that they have to blend tonalities when soloing and then having them listen and integrating it aurally. While there certainly is a pitfall to saying, now go listen and figure it out. Are you kidding me?

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    To go back to the names thing for a second - of course plenty of musicians use the scale without ever learning its name, Paul McCartney and Charlie Christian for instance…Allan Holdsworth labelled it ‘X’.
    That is theory. To me, theory means developing a conscious, reified, mental conception of elements of music. How they are named is really the trivial part.

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    I don’t think if you learn the name of the Dorian scale it’ll ruin you lol. In fact there’s a lot of value in using the standard name. But as Allan said the name simply functions as a label for identification and no other purpose. In basic terms it’s a set of notes you can use to make music if you can breathe life into them with your musicality.

    Is that really theory?

    Is it theory to say ‘on the G13#11 play the Lydian dominant’ when you could simply call the latter the G13#11 scale and eliminate the need for other name entirely? To me a lot of this stuff is just nomenclature.

    The name Dorian is more than a label. It indicates the mode's origin, which at least is of interest to some of us. It also might suggest the mode is one of a family: a student who knew Ionian and Lydian, but somehow had not learned of Dorian, could grasp a connexion between all three by their names. And if someone were to devise a mode and give it the name Ithacan, the student would have some idea of what is going on, without having to study the intervals.

    If we were to call the Lydian dominant, the G13#11 scale, would it retain that name when used elsewhere? It seems restrictive to tie a scale to a chord by its name, not theory but dogma.

    If I were to tell you Annie Gilchrist found no instances of the Lydian mode in traditional Scottish music, I think you would understand me immediately, whereas if I said 'major 7#11 scale', you might ask me which old Scottish songs use that chord, or presume that I believed the Scots invented jazz.

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Litterick

    The name Dorian is more than a label. It indicates the mode's origin, which at least is of interest to some of us. It also might suggest the mode is one of a family: a student who knew Ionian and Lydian, but somehow had not learned of Dorian, could grasp a connexion between all three by their names. And if someone were to devise a mode and give it the name Ithacan, the student would have some idea of what is going on, without having to study the intervals.

    If we were to call the Lydian dominant, the G13#11 scale, would it retain that name when used elsewhere? It seems restrictive to tie a scale to a chord by its name, not theory but dogma.

    If I were to tell you Annie Gilchrist found no instances of the Lydian mode in traditional Scottish music, I think you would understand me immediately, whereas if I said 'major 7#11 scale', you might ask me which old Scottish songs use that chord, or presume that I believed the Scots invented jazz.
    Well modes in folk music are used melodically so it may not be very much use to name them this way.

    otoh in jazz chord scale theory they are, so it does.

    in any case the names don’t really matter so much. Use those which are convenient and easily understood by others. I think it’s slightly beyond my influence to rename the resources of music lol.

    my point is that what seem like theoretical statements are often points of nomenclature. In jazz at least the Lydian dominant and 13#11 are the same pitch set; the only difference is ordering/octave dispersal (the latter is often ignored in cst anyway.) The statement of playing one on the other is not quite tautological but very close to it especially in more modern usages such as Allan’s

    So what often seems like theory is more like naming things. I don’t think naming things is all that important for making music.

    An example of a more theoretical statement might be the definition of an avoid note in Nettles and Graf for instance. In this case I argue that the theory doesn’t quite accord with what I hear, but that’s another story.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 09-10-2022 at 09:42 AM.

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    What is left of theory once the naming has gone? And how much of the remainder is after the fact – at best a codification of practice, at worst a guide to making music that sounds like jazz?

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Litterick
    What is left of theory once the naming has gone? And how much of the remainder is after the fact – at best a codification of practice, at worst a guide to making music that sounds like jazz?
    Depends what day of the week you ask me haha

    If the answer is ‘not a lot’ than it bears out the idea that theory isn’t important. Its only value that I can see is communicating the names of musical objects to other musicians and it’s surprising how little that comes up unless you are teaching, mostly you would play an idea (or write in notation). Chord charts might be an example, but I think a lot of players don’t really think of that as theory. Most ‘non theory’ Gypsy jazz players can read chord charts for instance, relating chord names to grips usually.

    However when I think the converse, the questions get a lot more interesting. A great example of something that is basically hardwired into modern practical music making and yet originally a highly theoretical concept is the idea of chord root. Before Rameau’s theory, chords were named from the bass. Rameau’s ideas unified a lot of diverse progressions as manifestations of the same root movement, as, for instance, cycle of fourths root movement.

    OTOH Rameau’s theory is a simplification of harmony because 2nd inversion chords for example are not exactly like root position chords. A good example is that G/D is used very differently to G. And all these different versions of a cycle 4 prog still sound different and unique. So I wonder how different the study of harmony is made by the idea of theoretical root; how much it streamlines or simplifies what we need to know. He still need to be alive to the specifics.

    Incidentally Modern cst seems to more or less dispense with the idea (D/C becomes a Lydian chord rather than an inversion of D7 for example.)

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pauln
    If I asked how an automobile works and were answered by pointing to a car driving past us, I would not be satisfied. However, if I were led into an auto shop for observation of cars' systems of parts being diagnosed, disassembled, cleaned, repaired, replaced, rebuilt, tested, etc. I think I could find some answers - especially if the shop mechanics "thought out loud" as they worked.

    Discussion of "theory vs playing by ear" from a performance perspective might be like pointing to the car going by where I might not even be able to tell if it were fueled by petrol or batteries. The shop is where the answers are when the thing is in parts, not so much when the thing is all buttoned up and out running about.

    Maybe "the shop" for this discussion could be more about revealing how we go about learning new music for performance, not so much in the performance of it?

    Theory vs. playing by ear-me-jpg
    The "theory" of a how a car works is the underlying physics, chemistry, and engineering, not a mechanic’s ability to disassemble and reassemble one. There are highly competent mechanics who don’t know that underlying science, but could still explain how a car works very clearly. (probably most). There are also mechanics with engineering degrees who could give you the relevant equations and precise scientific terminology for what each part does. They may or may not be better mechanics for that.

    The analogy between music and how a car works (to me, anyway) more than anything else reveals how we’re misusing the word "theory” in most of these conversations. Most of what we call “music theory" is really more like a mechanic's practical understanding of car parts and how they inter-operate.

    The musical equivalent to car theory would be something like a mix of acoustics, cognitive and perception sciences, anthropology/cultural studies, history, aesthetic theories, etc., with some sort of overarching description tying all of that to the practice of music making. That’s what academic doctoral-level music theory studies are like.

    So "music theory” as used by us idiots arguing about it online is really more like a collection of mechanic’s shop manuals or a library of Ikea instructions, or craft-guild lore transmitted by oral tradition and apprenticeship. An improvising jazz musician is someone who can take an Ikea box with a picture of a closet on the front and build a chair, or fix a broken Ford with parts from a Chevy.

    A musician can gain that ability via different paths of formal and informal study, with or without written materials, with or without knowing the underlying basic science. But capable improvising musicians have knowledge of their craft. Which path someone takes to gain that knowledge of craft depends on how they’re acculturated, where they live, their cast of mind, etc.

    Playing by ear vs theory is just non sequiter, like a fish without a bicycle. The relevant distinctions are between playing by ear and reading, or between and formal and less formal methods of acquiring knowledge.

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    Sometimes breaking the rules of theory in music can be very innovative and creative.
    my 1 cent

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    Theory vs ear is a false dichotomy. There is always theory (a conscious mental model of musical concepts as applied to a particular style), the difference is whether you learn it from books/courses, or you learn it by ear and from the repertoire (inductively).

    Let's take three of the very prominent "no theory" jazz guitarists. Ed Bickert, Joe Pass, Wes Montgomery. All three applied techniques from big band arrangers in their comping and chord melodies. Joe Pass even said he learned a lot from classical composers and string quartets.

    How can one possibly learn complex harmonic arrangement techniques and be able to apply their variations freely in different contexts without having some sort of concrete mental conception of harmonic structures? Just because they didn't learn these concepts in a jazz composition and arrangement class and they may have different ways of talking about them, can we say they know no theory?

  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    I always thought some of those amazing musicians were pretending they don't know many things to keep a kind of magic but I can be wrong.

  23. #47

    User Info Menu

    For me, theory involves thinking, discussing, and writing about music. Playing is a subconscious-like manifestation of that. Or at least improvisation is. However, I would ague that songs evolve from improvisation anyway whether or not parts of them are just built around spontaneous improvisation like a solo.

    I read something from Pat Metheny once that went something like this: He equated a musician's journey to a human learning to speak and later developing communication skills.

    First babies learn one word at a time and associate it with what it means. Like "daduh" for example. Then they learn that two words can be descriptive like "daduh apple" for example. Then they learn phrases like "want apple daduh." Then they learn full on structure like "give me apple daduh, please." Then they get into dialogue and full thoughts with multiple sentences strung together, and so on and so forth. Then they learn to write, etc. By that time, and even before that, they are communicating subconsciously because a good part of their verbal and written communication skills are ingrained.

    The question is how good would they be at verbal and written communication in their lifetimes if they never studied them? I think that answer is that some can be very good at it while others can be competent at parts like speaking, but are illiterate, if not functionally illiterate. Some can't even speak well at all. The same can be said to some degree about those that have studied verbal and written communication skills but there is a better chance that studying would have had positive results versus not studying.

    Metheny said that he doesn't think about much especially when he is improvising. It's just there inside of him and formed from what studied and practiced long ago.

  24. #48

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Tal_175
    Theory vs ear is a false dichotomy. There is always theory (a conscious mental model of musical concepts as applied to a particular style), the difference is whether you learn it from books/courses, or you learn it by ear and from the repertoire (inductively).

    Let's take three of the very prominent "no theory" jazz guitarists. Ed Bickert, Joe Pass, Wes Montgomery. All three applied techniques from big band arrangers in their comping and chord melodies. Joe Pass even said he learned a lot from classical composers and string quartets.

    How can one possibly learn complex harmonic arrangement techniques and be able to apply their variations freely in different contexts without having some sort of concrete mental conception of harmonic structures? Just because they didn't learn these concepts in a jazz composition and arrangement class and they may have different ways of talking about them, can we say they know no theory?
    it’s not a dichotomy. One is necessary, the other is optional.

    You can have ears but no theory.
    You can have both ears and theory
    But no one can operate as a musician with only theory.

  25. #49

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by itsmyname
    I always thought some of those amazing musicians were pretending they don't know many things to keep a kind of magic but I can be wrong.
    Ah yes, my friends could be gaslighting me I suppose!

    I hope you’re wrong haha :-)

  26. #50

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by lammie200
    For me, theory involves thinking, discussing, and writing about music. Playing is a subconscious-like manifestation of that. Or at least improvisation is. However, I would ague that songs evolve from improvisation anyway whether or not parts of them are just built around spontaneous improvisation like a solo.

    I read something from Pat Metheny once that went something like this: He equated a musician's journey to a human learning to speak and later developing communication skills.

    First babies learn one word at a time and associate it with what it means. Like "daduh" for example. Then they learn that two words can be descriptive like "daduh apple" for example. Then they learn phrases like "want apple daduh." Then they learn full on structure like "give me apple daduh, please." Then they get into dialogue and full thoughts with multiple sentences strung together, and so on and so forth. Then they learn to write, etc. By that time, and even before that, they are communicating subconsciously because a good part of their verbal and written communication skills are ingrained.

    The question is how good would they be at verbal and written communication in their lifetimes if they never studied them? I think that answer is that some can be very good at it while others can be competent at parts like speaking, but are illiterate, if not functionally illiterate. Some can't even speak well at all. The same can be said to some degree about those that have studied verbal and written communication skills but there is a better chance that studying would have had positive results versus not studying.

    Metheny said that he doesn't think about much especially when he is improvising. It's just there inside of him and formed from what studied and practiced long ago.
    most of the theory-less musicians I know are illiterate musically. Some are not however. They almost invariably seem to be very good, very musical players.

    Speaking of my own experience - if I think about a theoretical concept when playing it always comes out half-assed. I can usually only play stuff that I’ve internalised to a highly intuitive level with conviction and groove. On gigs, less thinking is better. Maybe some high level shaping of what’s gong on.

    sometimes students don’t quite realise exactly how much time and practice that internalisation process takes and get frustrated about how much their playing on gigs and recordings lags behind what they are practicing. But this is perfectly normal. We are all legends in our own practice room!