Theory vs. playing by ear

[Gabor]

This is a false dichotomy.

There is absolutely zero reason you cannot explain that [XYZ] is a common chord progression and also give them some tunes that utilize it and show them where and how it does so.

You're not even teaching them functional harmony otherwise. You're simply teaching them songs and hoping that they learn functional harmony accidentally.



It's also entirely possible to learn tunes and not have a clue as to what's really going on in them. That's actually the vast majority of musicians in every genre.

Sounds reasonable, but in the end of the day it turns out, that music, especially jazz is not about talking, instead doing, so less talk, less brainstorm, instead *listen* music, then play musc.

Without committed listening a players ear never will capable to process musical information (real time) A language is completly understandable and speakable without knowing the grammar rules. We all do that at age 3. Same time the opposite is ridicously untue: Knowing only language rules, how on earth anybody would capable to listen understand and speak? Ear is essential, theory may be good, but not essential.

I also agree with Christian, do not "spoil" (my wording) those students with theorethical explanations, who are uncapable and unsure to decide what sounds good and what does not, It is a natural filter for jazz players. If one so unsure, he desperately seeks for theoretical confirmation, that is a bad sign.

Of course curiosity and wish to understand is one of the most positive human attribute, and our basic drive, so I focus on try to *understand* what the musician are communicating with its music (and I less focus on *understand* "why it is good, according to the theory")

[Jimmy Smith]

Without committed listening a players ear never will capable to process musical information.

Straw man, again. Noone is arguing against using ear. Theory is to be used along with musicianship.

A language is completly understandable and speakable without knowing the grammar rules. We all do that at age 3.

Almost noone, proportionally, picks up jazz by rote like a child picking up their 1st language. Why would that be the rule for how to learn music when it is literally impossible for almost everyone to go from knowing nothing to playing jazz well without any theory.

I also agree with Christian, do not "spoil" (my wording) those students with theorethical explanations

Why would understanding how to do something spoil it? What if someone taught me that a haiku goes 5 syllables, then 7 syllables, then 5, would that ruin my creativity for poetry?

The end goal of mechanics is to get the user to be able to use them intuitively, but they allow the user to perform at a higher level than without them. You see this across all disciplines. A good analogy is sports. No pitchers just throw the ball and end up with a full pitch repertoire. They get taught how to grip and spin the ball. But they still have to use it intuitively. The formal knowledge didn't destroy their ability to be intuitive, it enhanced it.

[pingu]

Oh I’m totally obsessed with theory. I enjoy it as a thing in itself. But that has no bearing on anything in particular.

i also try not to let it affect my teaching or playing too much.

Thats funny , cos it’s true ....

(at some point in the learning
of music , the ear takes over)

[Christian Miller]

Thats funny , cos it’s true ....

(at some point in the learning
of music , the ear takes over)

Yeah i mean in practical terms it’s very for the lesson to get derailed into talking about theory stuff, when the student just needs practical things to get on with.

It’s something adults tend to do. you can easily waste an hour this way. I have to be very much on my guard, and find ways to shut this sort of thing down.

Kids don’t have this problem.

[Vihar]

You don't see why this perspective is deemed advantageous because you don't understand playing by ear; you are thinking learning "actual mechanics" is missing, but learning to play by ear (finding the pitches and harmonies through internal processes by oneself) IS the actual mechanics, and it is deemed advantageous because it is "more actual" than passive presentation of external second hand instruction, method books, lesson plans, etc.

That's how humans learned music (and pretty much everything else) for thousands and thousands of years, and still do. Step 1. perception of an event, step 2. reproduction attempts at what was perceived. In the case of music, that means listening and trying to play it on the instrument of choice. Eventually, it also means using the previously learned information blocks (chunking) to create new art (improvisation, composition).

[LankyTunes]

So, what about an absolute musical novice, scat singing?

And, what about the player who plays that way -- scat sings mentally and can play those notes on the instrument in real time.

Even the person scatting has to do some level of understanding and organisation the norms of the music they scat to.

I think it's safe to say that we all want to get to the goal of where we can simply think a sound and our fingers instantly find it on the fretboard, but even if someone is there, I don't think we could drop them into another genre from whichever one they learned to get in touch with their guitar with and just tell them to play what sounds good. It may not be in formal terms (just look how many varied ways are there to explain the same music theory/application), but they are going to have to work through some method of how the legos go together and by doing so they will have a working theory.

Sounds reasonable, but in the end of the day it turns out, that music, especially jazz is not about talking, instead doing, so less talk, less brainstorm, instead *listen* music, then play musc.

On the bandstand.

The brainstorming largely happens in the practice and rehearsal rooms.

The theory has to get internalized by being applied there so that you're not thinking about it much, if at all while you're jamming.

I also agree with Christian, do not "spoil" (my wording) those students with theorethical explanations, who are uncapable and unsure to decide what sounds good and what does not, It is a natural filter for jazz players. If one so unsure, he desperately seeks for theoretical confirmation, that is a bad sign.

Good practical theory is a cheat code to get them to sound good. It's upping the odds that they can sound good.

But reality is that NOTHING they play sounds good when they start. They SHOULD be a bit insecure.

Knowing what things work well isn't going to hurt a good ear, but it is going to give someone one if they start from that frame work.

Not to mention that nobody wants to play with them because they suck and so much jazz, particularly guitar, is often just hard to hear in the easier to play end of things because the recordings kinda suck. So developing and ear above the general sense of what jazz sounds like is kinda hard.

Yeah i mean in practical terms it’s very for the lesson to get derailed into talking about theory stuff, when the student just needs practical things to get on with.

It’s something adults tend to do. you can easily waste an hour this way. I have to be very much on my guard, and find ways to shut this sort of thing down.

Kids don’t have this problem.

This sounds like a methodology problem and not a theory problem.

I simply don't see why anyone would possible be better off being given a bunch of progressions with b5 subs to practice and NOT explaining to them that this is a very common practice in certain types of music and that it works because these two chords have a bunch of notes in common.

Nobody need to going into the whole theory behind tritones and debunking nonsense about devil's intervals and such, but it seems to me that anyone who wants to actually improvize or compose is going to be better of with more than just being taught to play good tunes and lines in hopes of them recognizing all the patterns and coming up with their own theories from scratch.

And FWIW I do get that people just don't practice enough or well and that a lot of theory is either wrong or fails to get tied to an immediate practical use, but I think of Carol Kaye talking about how see gets people up and running quite fast by teaching them more than just playing tunes. When I played bass regularly I knew a bunch of rather difficult songs outside of jazz and had a good enough ear to jam OK if we kept things real diatonic, but even just having chord tones, chromatics, and how to reduce and extend chords got me years of improvement in a couple of months. Sure, I had to practice, but it was the theory that got me practicing the right things.

[Gabor]

Straw man, again. Noone is arguing against using ear. Theory is to be used along with musicianship.

Almost noone, proportionally, picks up jazz by rote like a child picking up their 1st language. Why would that be the rule for how to learn music when it is literally impossible for almost everyone to go from knowing nothing to playing jazz well without any theory.

Why would understanding how to do something spoil it? What if someone taught me that a haiku goes 5 syllables, then 7 syllables, then 5, would that ruin my creativity for poetry?

The end goal of mechanics is to get the user to be able to use them intuitively, but they allow the user to perform at a higher level than without them. You see this across all disciplines. A good analogy is sports. No pitchers just throw the ball and end up with a full pitch repertoire. They get taught how to grip and spin the ball. But they still have to use it intuitively. The formal knowledge didn't destroy their ability to be intuitive, it enhanced it.

I can agree partly, but regarding the topic "justifying and reasoning what sounds good, and what does not, with theory in jazz" you are quoting my point completly out of context.

you just quoted the part of my sentence:

"I also agree with Christian, do not "spoil" (my wording) those students with theorethical explanations"

however it continues and applies to the context, when the player is uncapable to decide what sounds and what not.

", who are uncapable and unsure to decide what sounds good and what does not, It is a natural filter for jazz players"

so I meant, not against explain something, instead argued using theory in place of ear is not a good idea. Making people believe, theory can be a basement, reasoning and starting point for jazz is a false promise.

[Christian Miller]

Even the person scatting has to do some level of understanding and organisation the norms of the music they scat to.

I think it's safe to say that we all want to get to the goal of where we can simply think a sound and our fingers instantly find it on the fretboard, but even if someone is there, I don't think we could drop them into another genre from whichever one they learned to get in touch with their guitar with and just tell them to play what sounds good. It may not be in formal terms (just look how many varied ways are there to explain the same music theory/application), but they are going to have to work through some method of how the legos go together and by doing so they will have a working theory.



On the bandstand.

The brainstorming largely happens in the practice and rehearsal rooms.

The theory has to get internalized by being applied there so that you're not thinking about it much, if at all while you're jamming.



Good practical theory is a cheat code to get them to sound good. It's upping the odds that they can sound good.

But reality is that NOTHING they play sounds good when they start. They SHOULD be a bit insecure.

Knowing what things work well isn't going to hurt a good ear, but it is going to give someone one if they start from that frame work.

Not to mention that nobody wants to play with them because they suck and so much jazz, particularly guitar, is often just hard to hear in the easier to play end of things because the recordings kinda suck. So developing and ear above the general sense of what jazz sounds like is kinda hard.



This sounds like a methodology problem and not a theory problem.

I simply don't see why anyone would possible be better off being given a bunch of progressions with b5 subs to practice and NOT explaining to them that this is a very common practice in certain types of music and that it works because these two chords have a bunch of notes in common.

Nobody need to going into the whole theory behind tritones and debunking nonsense about devil's intervals and such, but it seems to me that anyone who wants to actually improvize or compose is going to be better of with more than just being taught to play good tunes and lines in hopes of them recognizing all the patterns and coming up with their own theories from scratch.

And FWIW I do get that people just don't practice enough or well and that a lot of theory is either wrong or fails to get tied to an immediate practical use, but I think of Carol Kaye talking about how see gets people up and running quite fast by teaching them more than just playing tunes. When I played bass regularly I knew a bunch of rather difficult songs outside of jazz and had a good enough ear to jam OK if we kept things real diatonic, but even just having chord tones, chromatics, and how to reduce and extend chords got me years of improvement in a couple of months. Sure, I had to practice, but it was the theory that got me practicing the right things.

to all practical intents and purposes I agree with this so closely as to make little difference.

my quibbles are generally philosophical. I think there is value in separating out the urge to seek out explanations or reasons ‘why it sounds good’ and simply focussing on applying. If you tell a student a theoretical reason why a concept works it isn’t obviously going to be a problem of itself, but it is something that I feel has become more common over the years. Barry Harris didn’t give many reasons for doing things - maybe sometimes - but mostly we just practiced what he told us to.

As a teacher I notice a tendency toward students wanting to know these sorts of things, and I as a massive spod being willing and able to give them. But this if nothing else eats time better spent elsewhere assuming the goal is to actually play.

A lot of this has to come from the nature of modern education where - quite rightly - students are encouraged to be critical and questioning. But music is a trade and musicians fundamentally artisans whatever else they might it also be. To be a musician is, obviously, to learn the trade.

(the other thing is I find theory is usually pretty poor at providing these sorts of answers, but that’s a separate issue .)

for instance I had a student that I was teaching melodic variation. On playing a very musical solo using this technique (much better then their usual attempts from chord scales), the student expressed concern that they didn’t know what what they were doing.

In the case of a tritone sub, students sometimes get hung up on the use of day, an F# on a G7 in a revolving phrase, and seem to use theory of ‘good sounding and bad sounding notes’ to decide whether things are ‘right’ or not, which is imo a fundamental abuse of theory as well as disempowering for the student.

This is pushing it into the ‘aesthetic theory’ corner which is doubly absurd because not only this innately a doomed project but one can find plenty of ‘theory breaking’ examples from the music itself.

I think of this as an inevitable and malignant mission creep of theory. This comes from attributing to jazz theory a predictive power and using it to make decisions. I would suggest no good teacher would encourage this, but it’s prevalent here on JGO and elsewhere.

There’s quite a few complicating factors, not least changes in jazz itself. Education has entrenched the centrality of a ‘prog’ jazz that arguably requires theoretical know how to play, and students of the music assume that this knowledge is necessary for all jazz and always has been (I know I did). It’s a feedback effect in this case - education and jazz performance styles being mutually reinforcing.

So what I’m saying is that it is easy to overvalue the predictive power and importance of theory as well as the value of asking ‘why things work’. For people from a stem background such as myself the latter question is natural, but maybe distracting.

This is further to my earlier, long lost point, that there’s a lot of be learned from players who are not theory focussed about what is important to musicianship, namely the ears and the value of intuitive learning. Lennie Tristano to his credit understood this…

(btw I also understand the ‘unquestioning apprenticeship’ approach is also problematic. Music education is full of cults. But for me the deification of theory is an example of this.)

[orri]

Coming late to this discussion.
...


I have noticed that some of the people I really enjoy playing with, do know very limited theory, and can have other quite significant holes in their skill set, for instance they have can have some technical limitation on their instrument, be bad at reading, struggle with some key signatures or something. But they rely first on foremost on their ear, and they've gotten quite good at it, and they listen a lot to everything that's going on. So it is a pleasure playing with them.
(communicating is usually not a major hurdle, but instead of using theory terminology to express an idea it can be more efficient to sing or play to demonstrate).

Other people might know a lot of theory, have great tone, phrasing and technique, and be really good at reading (some are from an orchestra or big band background), but they are less fun to play with, but don't seem to use their ears. If something isn't written down exactly, they get uncomfortable, and they might even be playing at the wrong place in the form without noticing for quite long, and they don't pick up on anything that anyone tries to initiate.

So I do definitely enjoy more playing with people that have a good ear but bad theory, than vice versa.

But these are not mutually exclusive traits. Both is better.

[Christian Miller]

I think this is also maybe a US/European split to some extent? In the US I think jazz is pretty much built around the colleges (except in a few places), and while this is somewhat true in Europe, as a guitarist you are aware that there are an endless stream of Sinti/Manouche players who do not know a drop of music theory and yet will roast absolutely anyone silly.

I've never been to Samois (Djangofest) but the level of the kids who come down from the camps to play at the jam sessions are somewhat legendary, and I've heard many stories of visiting US big names getting their asses handed to them by utterly obscure virtuosos. I repeat - there's a lot of these guys floating around places like Paris and Amsterdam. Bireli is just one guy the Americans have heard of.

The nearest US parallel might be the Bluegrass tradition? (Obviously bluegrass isn't usually thought of jazz.)

It would also be a mistake to think those guys play only in the style of Django. I experience enough of this tradition in London to remind me that there other ways to do things. There's a lot to learn here; this tradition has a track record of producing countless virtuoso jazz guitarists.

[KingKong]

So here's an example of why this debate is proving difficult to resolve...

There I am last night composing lines and licks for blue bossa, working stuff out. I hit by accident a wrong note not in the scale, which sounds dead cool over the V7th chord in the major 2-5-1. Sounds good so I keep the wrong note and make up quite a few lick variations with it in.
At the time I have no idea what I am doing, just that it sounds good.

So I must be some kind of musical genius savant right?! Not the case at all LOL.

I've only touched upon the altered scale pretty briefly but I'm pretty sure that I just discovered one of its notes by accident.
So for now its " that note that sounds cool over the V7th" but also when I get round to researching the altered scale a bit more it will be e.g.: "the whatever degree of the whatever mode of the whatever harmoinc minor". Sound and usage wont change.

Maybe theory is literally just semantics?

[Litterick]

'Barry Harris didn’t give many reasons for doing things - maybe sometimes - but mostly we just practiced what he told us to.'

Maybe jazz theory is just what Barry Harris wanted his students to practice. There are musical phenomena that are demonstrably true: scales and pitches and so on. And there are the preferences of teachers: this goes with that and so on. The demonstrably true stuff is musical fact, and the preferences are musical theory. Perhaps.

[RLetson]

Just a niggle, Christian: If "music is a trade and musicians fundamentally artisans," what about us amateurs? The history of music-making is full of people doing it for pleasure and social connection--many of those gypsy and bluegrass players, for example, or the Hawaiians for whom music is a fundamental part of their familial-social life. That activity does spill over into professional playing, but its roots are non-commercial. And their practice may or may not connect to a systematic understanding of what's going on in the music.

A sidenote: I came to music-making via the Great Folk Scare and only took up public performance at age 50, with the help and encouragement of actual working players. I've never seen myself as a pro (though I have accepted compensation, most often in edible form), since I've never attained the level of competence and reliability that my mentors had. (Though they were always satisfied with my support and cooperation on the gigs I did with them.)

I have never thought of myself as a jazz player, but my fondness for swing and standards gets me labeled that way among the folkie-country players I now hang out with. And, to be sure, it's hard not to wind up with a jazzy feel if you're doing swing right--whether or not you can identify a tritone sub or the harmonized major scale. (FWIW, I'm solid on the latter and fuzzy on the former. I can, however, kind of explain to my folkie pals why I use the same set of grips to produce 9 or m6 chords and why shell chords work.)

So--what kind of player am I?

[Maxxx]

Must be all theory players here.. as I can not find a section anywhere in the forum called: "Playing by ear".

Plainly unimportant.

[Christian Miller]

Just a niggle, Christian: If "music is a trade and musicians fundamentally artisans," what about us amateurs? The history of music-making is full of people doing it for pleasure and social connection--many of those gypsy and bluegrass players, for example, or the Hawaiians for whom music is a fundamental part of their familial-social life. That activity does spill over into professional playing, but its roots are non-commercial. And their practice may or may not connect to a systematic understanding of what's going on in the music.

Fair point, and it did occur to me.

I suppose in this case an amateur musician is somewhat like anyone who practices a craft for their own pleasure, be it music or making jewellery or something.

Traditionally professional musicians were associated with the artisan class. But I'm not a huge fan of dividing the pros from the amateurs, as these choices are not only made for reasons of musical ability. Speaking personally, status as a professional performer comes and goes. At the moment I mostly teach, so perhaps I am more amateur than I was 10 years ago when I played 200 paid shows a year or whatever. But presumably my actual playing has improved over the decade (hopefully :-))

I don't feel the methods and goals differ at all in any case. Looking around JGO, some of the players who encapsulate the sort of thing I've been talking about are amateurs - Grahambop, Dutchbopper for instance. Their process doesn't differ just because they don't work as players for a living, and they play to a high level.

IIRC DB said he hardly knows any theory at all, and he started jazz late in life (don't mean to speak for him, but I'm not sure if he's active here atm). An inspiration for all as he's a burning player, and worth listening to what he has to say IMO.

OTOH Jazz guitar IS kind of hard. I don't want to say folk is easier, but perhaps it's easier to participate in sessions at a beginner level? But there are never any shortcuts..

[Christian Miller]

'Barry Harris didn’t give many reasons for doing things - maybe sometimes - but mostly we just practiced what he told us to.'

Maybe jazz theory is just what Barry Harris wanted his students to practice. There are musical phenomena that are demonstrably true: scales and pitches and so on. And there are the preferences of teachers: this goes with that and so on. The demonstrably true stuff is musical fact, and the preferences are musical theory. Perhaps.

Yeah, I mean it kind of is semantics.

I prefer music practice in this context. Here's a nice thing - go and practice it. Barry was like a collector of beautiful things that he would show to us, there were certainly some Big Concepts and Systems (the major 6 - dim etc) but a lot of the time I felt like an apprentice learning to carve a nice table or something. There wasn't a need to wrap all of this stuff into a neat bow. Like the harmony and lines stuff was completely separate for example.

[Jimmy Smith]

Many of the points you make are false while some of them are true. I will start with the true parts. Ok, there was only 1 true and relevant point but I will expand on it.

In the case of a tritone sub, students sometimes get hung up on the use of day, an F# on a G7 in a revolving phrase, and seem to use theory of ‘good sounding and bad sounding notes’ to decide whether things are ‘right’ or not, which is imo a fundamental abuse of theory as well as disempowering for the student.

This is true. Writing certain things off because one has categorized them that way using theory isn't a good practice. Theory shouldn't be used so rigidly as to prevent experimentation and creativity. It is also true that the creative and hearing side of jazz should be cultivated in the student and that this should take precedence over information. However, these 2 aspects can and should be used together.


The rest of the false points all drive at your platform that in most cases theory is harmful to creativity, playing, and teaching, and that the few, if any legitimate, examples of good musicians playing without theory should be the defining examples of how to approach jazz. What the heck is that? If these are your personal viewpoints, that is fine, but I think it's disreputable to try to force incorrect information on other people.

I prefer music practice in this context. Here's a nice thing - go and practice it.

You can put music into practice while using theory. Theory doesn't prevent that.

Barry was like a collector of beautiful things that he would show to us, there were certainly some Big Concepts and Systems (the major 6 - dim etc) but a lot of the time I felt like an apprentice learning to carve a nice table or something.

So BH good, theory bad? But BH use theory..

There wasn't a need to wrap all of this stuff into a neat bow. Like the harmony and lines stuff was completely separate for example.

When you categorize things, you can recall them more easily. This is essential for musicians where time and rhythm are requirements. You can't sit around and wait for your creativity to pull through for you like in visual art.

Looking around JGO, some of the players who encapsulate the sort of thing I've been talking about are amateurs - Grahambop, Dutchbopper for instance. Their process doesn't differ just because they don't work as players for a living, and they play to a high level.

They have theory knowledge bases even if they say they prefer to play with a freer mindset. To my knowledge, there are many good players on the forum and not a single one uses zero theory. Yet not using theory should be the default?

IIRC DB said he hardly knows any theory at all, and he started jazz late in life (don't mean to speak for him, but I'm not sure if he's active here atm). An inspiration for all as he's a burning player, and worth listening to what he has to say IMO.

I suppose we would need DB to state what theory he knows. My guess is he knows key centers and chords but prefers to play with a free mindset. I doubt he 'hardly knows any theory at all.'

I think this is also maybe a US/European split to some extent? In the US I think jazz is pretty much built around the colleges (except in a few places), and while this is somewhat true in Europe, as a guitarist you are aware that there are an endless stream of Sinti/Manouche players who do not know a drop of music theory and yet will roast absolutely anyone silly.

It would be good if you could provide proof of at least 1 player who verifiably knows zero theory and plays well. Like how I show proof of my teacher who is one of the best jazz Hammond players of all time and uses a lot of theory. Why isn't this instance proof that theory and musicianship together should be the defining approach? Where are all these gypsies that play so epicly with zero theory? Do they not have internet access? And why do we have to establish this fringe music approach as the defining approach to making good jazz?

my quibbles are generally philosophical. I think there is value in separating out the urge to seek out explanations or reasons ‘why it sounds good’ and simply focusing on applying. If you tell a student a theoretical reason why a concept works it isn’t obviously going to be a problem of itself, but it is something that I feel has become more common over the years. Barry Harris didn’t give many reasons for doing things - maybe sometimes - but mostly we just practiced what he told us to.

Knowing why something works and how to categorize it improves your playing because you can recall it more quickly. If you don't do that you either categorize it a different way according to 'no'-theory workings or you don't integrate it at all and it's floating around probably unused.

As a teacher I notice a tendency toward students wanting to know these sorts of things, and I as a massive spod being willing and able to give them. But this if nothing else eats time better spent elsewhere assuming the goal is to actually play.

The goal is to play plus give them an understanding of music so they can further teach themselves throughout their life.

A lot of this has to come from the nature of modern education where - quite rightly - students are encouraged to be critical and questioning. But music is a trade and musicians fundamentally artisans whatever else they might it also be. To be a musician is, obviously, to learn the trade.

Tradespeople know fundamentals of how to perform their trade. What kind of circular reasoning is that? Music is a trade so tradespeople don't know fundamentals?

the other thing is I find theory is usually pretty poor at providing these sorts of answers, but that’s a separate issue.

Here is a key falsehood. Theory absolutely can explain any topic. The only issue is if the teacher or student doesn't understand the application deeply enough so it seems like base theory doesn't provide answers. You're supposed to apply the theory to get to musical answers. Theory isn't by definition for example, 'here are the chord scales now go play jazz.' Like how I wasn't satisfied with scales only or even scales and arps as the raw materials for melody so I figured out an approach of scales, arps, intervals.

I had a student that I was teaching melodic variation. On playing a very musical solo using this technique (much better then their usual attempts from chord scales), the student expressed concern that they didn’t know what what they were doing.

Was it musical? And what would be the harm in cultivating the melodic variation approach in tandem with explanations? How about show him melodic variation and scales, arps, intervals?

I think of this as an inevitable and malignant mission creep of theory. This comes from attributing to jazz theory a predictive power and using it to make decisions. I would suggest no good teacher would encourage this, but it’s prevalent here on JGO and elsewhere.

Here you're saying theory is bad. You even phrase it as if it is a cancer spreading. Theory allows you the predictive power so that you can play music in time and key, yet it's bad?

So what I’m saying is that it is easy to overvalue the predictive power and importance of theory as well as the value of asking ‘why things work’. For people from a stem background such as myself the latter question is natural, but maybe distracting.

I think it's much more of a problem to promote this anti intellectualism approach as if it should be the default mode for creativity when musicianship and theory is proven to be the most reliable mode for creating good music.

This is further to my earlier, long lost point, that there’s a lot of be learned from players who are not theory focussed about what is important to musicianship, namely the ears and the value of intuitive learning. Lennie Tristano to his credit understood this

Did he? Or is this another story like how Joe Pass didn't know any theory?

[RLetson]

If jazz is "hard," it is partly because audience expectations* are high. I've encountered plenty of folk and traditional music that also requires pretty advanced technique, but in my experience, entry-level and ordinary-pleasure playing can be pretty modest technically--otherwise I wouldn't have the reputation as the hot picker in my Sunday folk-country jam sessions. (Mostly because I can play in B-flat without a capo and know diminished chords. But Norman Blake I ain't.)

The social settings in which music gets made matter. In dance music, it's less important to produce elaborate decorations than it is to swing or keep strict tempo (as in some UK country-dance traditions) or to play an endless set for contradancing. Nevertheless, in Hawai`i and Northumberland I found players whose skills and expressiveness exceeded the requirements of their social settings--and their audiences all responded to that extra whateveritwas. It was all art, but sometimes there's extra frosting and a cherry on top. (And once music is separated from audience participation, e.g., dancing, and becomes a listening experience, expectations rise and the threshold of good-enough rises considerably. Thus bebop, driven by the performers' itch to go beyond the limits of the dance band and their audiences' willingness to follow them.)

*And "audience" includes the musician, who responds even during the production of the music.

[Christian Miller]

If jazz is "hard," it is partly because audience expectations* are high. I've encountered plenty of folk and traditional music that also requires pretty advanced technique, but in my experience, entry-level and ordinary-pleasure playing can be pretty modest technically--otherwise I wouldn't have the reputation as the hot picker in my Sunday folk-country jam sessions. (Mostly because I can play in B-flat without a capo and know diminished chords. But Norman Blake I ain't.)

please don’t infer for a second I’m saying that high level folk performers are in any way less than jazz players, or that there is somehow less difficulty involved in playing folk (or any musical tradition) to the highest level. I’m just in awe of musicians like Martin Simpson and Kathryn Tickell (the latter of whom I’ve been lucky to have classes with.)

All that said, as you say, folk probably suits the guitar a bit more naturally than, say, straightahead jazz. You could I suppose make the case that gypsy jazz is more guitaristic.

The social settings in which music gets made matter. In dance music, it's less important to produce elaborate decorations than it is to swing or keep strict tempo (as in some UK country-dance traditions) or to play an endless set for contradancing. Nevertheless, in Hawai`i and Northumberland I found players whose skills and expressiveness exceeded the requirements of their social settings--and their audiences all responded to that extra whateveritwas. It was all art, but sometimes there's extra frosting and a cherry on top. (And once music is separated from audience participation, e.g., dancing, and becomes a listening experience, expectations rise and the threshold of good-enough rises considerably. Thus bebop, driven by the performers' itch to go beyond the limits of the dance band and their audiences' willingness to follow them.)

*And "audience" includes the musician, who responds even during the production of the music.

I’ve played a lot of dances as a jazz guitarist. You know jazz has more in common with folk than it might first appear. The problem is its cut off from its roots in singing and dancing sometimes. It happens.

Barry Harris said the worse thing ever to happen to jazz was that it moved out of the dance halls, which is funny because Norma Miller said the same thing, and she hated bebop lol. Barry felt bebop was still dance music. He first heard Bird play at a dance for instance.

[pauln]

When you categorize things, you can recall them more easily. This is essential for musicians where time and rhythm are requirements. You can't sit around and wait for your creativity to pull through for you like in visual art... ...Knowing why something works and how to categorize it improves your playing because you can recall it more quickly. If you don't do that you either categorize it a different way according to 'no'-theory workings or you don't integrate it at all and it's floating around probably unused.

I play by ear exclusively on the guitar, and my experience is nothing like you describe it

- I do not "recall" things whatsoever, everything is present, available, and instantaneous
- I do not "categorize" things, I know how to play sounds I hear, and those I want to hear
- I do not "wait" for creativity, I actively select from a spontaneous & continuous flow of it

The more from you I read the more I am convinced you do not understand playing by ear

Theory absolutely can explain any topic. The only issue is if the teacher or student doesn't understand the application deeply enough so it seems like base theory doesn't provide answers. You're supposed to apply the theory to get to musical answers.

Oh come on... not even the field of mathematics is theoretically absolutely complete and consistent. In light of the phenomenological certainty that music theory does not even touch on explaining the most profound thing about music (what it sounds like when you hear it), it's a bit of a stretch to assert its application is the source of "musical answers" or that its domain for this capability extends to absolutely any topic within music.

[Jimmy Smith]

I play by ear exclusively on the guitar, and my experience is nothing like you describe it

- I do not "recall" things whatsoever, everything is present, available, and instantaneous
- I do not "categorize" things, I know how to play sounds I hear, and those I want to hear
- I do not "wait" for creativity, I actively select from a spontaneous & continuous flow of it

The more from you I read the more I am convinced you do not understand playing by ear

You are a very small minority of good? jazz players. I take you at your word for your explanation of your process. It's valuable to have the creativity be at the forefront of your process, but using mechanics doesn't hinder this as evidenced by all the greats who use theory.

Oh come on... not even the field of mathematics is theoretically absolutely complete and consistent. In light of the phenomenological certainty that music theory does not even touch on explaining the most profound thing about music (what it sounds like when you hear it), it's a bit of a stretch to assert its application is the source of "musical answers" or that its domain for this capability extends to absolutely any topic within music.

There are inexplainable abstracts in music but that doesn't mean all theory can't explain and help create a lot of it.

[RLetson]

Christian: Didn't at all see your remark as denigrating folk players--as it happens, Martin Simpson was one of the first players I did a workshop with, back in the 80s. (And I discovered Kathryn Tickell when we spent a term in Alnwick in '89--also the wonderful Joe Hutton. Love them smallpipes.) I only mean that what might be called entry level is much less technically challenging in the folk world--godknows I got along for 40 years with thoroughly modest chops and not much "theory" beyond CAGED and knowing that a minor chord has a flatted third. And theory-informed technical instruction (starting with shell chords) finally got me through the door into swing. (Also: finding a 1946 Epi Broadway that insisted, "Play me this way, dummy.") And as adequate as my swing-rhythm playing has gotten, I'm still pretty much out in the hallway with my sure-enough jazz-playing friends. Though my limitations have more to do with my lack of single-string-soloing chops than my inability to explain (or even recognize) the tri-tone sub. (Hell, I used to be able to read Beowulf without a trot and could program a 6502 chip, so it's not like I couldn't retain some of the material on offer in undergrad music courses, even at my advanced age. I'm just not that interested in soloing that way. I suspect that I'm as much a drummer as a guitarist.)

I don't know exactly how this fits into this conversation, but for years I thought that I needed to understand the sonata-allegro framework to really understand, say, classical quartets. I mean, I always enjoyed them, but I didn't know how to explain them to myself--my ear is not good enough (or maybe just not well-trained enough) to track the key changes and such. But after twenty years of playing out, and especially after playing with some for-sure jazz guys, I find that, say, a Haydn quartet or symphony seems transparent to me. I still can't necessarily do the naming-of-parts thing (is that a recapitulation?), but I feel I know where I am. And earlier music, especially from what might be called second- or third-tier composers, sometimes seems as predictable as a 1958 pop tune. (And even at his least surprising, Haydn remains a delight. I'm still trying to unpick that magic.)

Monk. Zoot. Ruby Braff. Django and Steff. Gary Burton. The magic is all over them, too.

[rpjazzguitar]

I won't assert that I know where this fits in to the conversation, but I recently had a couple of experiences that got me thinking.

On Saturday, I went to a show by the Django All-Stars, a European group on tour.

These musicians are absolute monsters. Samson Schmidt is the lead player and leader -- what a musician! The same could be said for the violinist and accordionist. The bassist and rhythm guitar player were both perfect, if less flashy.

Now, theory or ear? Apparently, anybody who can play or even scat sing is deemed by some to have internal musical organization which apparently means they know theory. It isn't what I think of when I try to define "knowledge of theory", but there's no standard definition of where theory ends, or, even, if it ever ends.

I digress. My point about this band isn't anything that we typically discuss in a conversation about theory or lack thereof.

Rather, it's about feel and groove. These guys have it, to the point of getting the audience on its feet and screaming with 75 minutes of instrumental music. Do they know any theory? I have no idea. But even if they do know music theory to the very bottom of it, they didn't get the important element from it -- great feel. They could only get that by ear.

For me, the difference between the top pros and the mere mortals is, invariably, feel.

[Jimmy Smith]

^ I bet they know some theory. But yeah, at some point in reference to the good playing you have to tell yourself 'now do that.'

Listen to Peter Martin (the pianist playing on the right) dominate using theory in the jam at the beginning. I'm pretty sure it doesn't hinder him. This was today.

[Christian Miller]

I won't assert that I know where this fits in to the conversation, but I recently had a couple of experiences that got me thinking.

On Saturday, I went to a show by the Django All-Stars, a European group on tour.

These musicians are absolute monsters. Samson Schmidt is the lead player and leader -- what a musician! The same could be said for the violinist and accordionist. The bassist and rhythm guitar player were both perfect, if less flashy.

Now, theory or ear? Apparently, anybody who can play or even scat sing is deemed by some to have internal musical organization which apparently means they know theory. It isn't what I think of when I try to define "knowledge of theory", but there's no standard definition of where theory ends, or, even, if it ever ends.

I digress. My point about this band isn't anything that we typically discuss in a conversation about theory or lack thereof.

Rather, it's about feel and groove. These guys have it, to the point of getting the audience on its feet and screaming with 75 minutes of instrumental music. Do they know any theory? I have no idea. But even if they do know music theory to the very bottom of it, they didn't get the important element from it -- great feel. They could only get that by ear.

For me, the difference between the top pros and the mere mortals is, invariably, feel.

You know it's not quite related to the OP, but what I noticed back when I started transcribing in earnest is how often musicians would choose simple chord tones and diatonic scale ideas and yet would make them sound incredibly hip.

Things like feel, tone, phrasing, taste, space and so on make the music more than the sum of its pitch choices. We spend so long talking about pitch choices because, well, its easier to talk about, especially if you are a bit techie. I speak for myself as much as anyone.

As always, if in doubt, go transcribe. And play with other musicians.