Theory vs. playing by ear

[Litterick]

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.

Practice works, both as a verb and as a noun. Contemporary artists will talk of 'my practice', referring to the how and why of their work. A musician or a music teacher could have a practice; collecting and showing beautiful things is a very appealing practice.

[Reg]

Playing by ear is great, I love it. It fun and usually very entertaining for audiences. I dig having fun, taking chances and even crashing and burning... I mean it's pretty hard to crash and burn after one has played long enough.

But that's where this kind of thing comes into play, like in real time. How well can one play by ear? When one doesn't hear something, how long does it take.... to be able to hear. And in real time... like now.

Same with theory....how long does it take one to understand whatever musical theoretical concept or understanding.

Personally it's the same thing, they're the same thing when playing. How quickly can I hear or figure out what I'm hearing in real time.

I know when playing gigs... it helps to be able to understand, be able to hear and also play something. Generally the point isn't to not be able to hear or theoretically understand what one is playing... LOL. Generally the point is the music.

When practicing... personally the point was to have all those skills. And the teaching or development of those skills. If you can't play... the technical skills thing, it really doesn't matter... if your playing by ear or theory. We... the other musicians will never know.

I also know it's much easier and faster when playing gigs to verbally make style and head arrangements of tunes
using theory as well as referencing existing performances, which I guess would be using your ears.

I guess where I'm at is .... it should be Theory and playing by ear. And how to make both work together to the point where they're the same.

[LankyTunes]

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

BH literally uses biblical metaphors for note relationships. I'm not sure you can get more theoretical than that kind of stuff.

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.

I see it kind of like base in a game of tag. You have things that you can fall back on if you get lost or are uninspired. Nobody wants to be that annoying kid who never strays more than two steps from base, but it helps when you get tired of running.

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.

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

Understanding some of the connections between what are the norms or even just what you like yourself also can focus your own practicing.

It also helps you turn what you are already playing into useful variations for other applications as well as finding sounds in the first place. You simply cannot try or even listen to everything and independently evaluate it. We have the very finite resource of time limiting us.

And why do we have to establish this fringe music approach as the defining approach to making good jazz?

I think a lot of the anti-theory attitudes stem from the failure of certain methods to produce results and some people's perception that jazz kinda sucks right now, thus what is being taught is causing the suckage.

Some of this comes from the possible undervaluing of what freaks the greats are. Which is only encouraged by how some of them, by their nonsense "Anyone can get here. You just have to work as hard as me." talk. Every field I am familiar with suffers from this nonsense where people are simply delusional about the gaps in potential that are so obvious to me that it is absurd.

You can't get there from here is the fact for the vast majority of people. We accept that you need a huge bias towards fast twitch muscle fibers to be a great sprinter, but somehow tend to think, in spite of the trend and push towards materialistic explanations for everything, that those sort of things only affect us from the neck down.

I do think that there is a legitimate gripe in that a lot of music education caters to the teacher rather than the student. This goes both ways though. Teaching CST is kinda easy and giving kids 7 forms of a bunch of scales to practice until they die keeps kids busy, but so does "just learn these songs and listen to these albums".

[LankyTunes]

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.

Dance music vs listening music is a good rubric for narrowing what people mean when they say they like or play jazz.

Becomes really obvious when people say the hat jazz and you did deeper.

I wind up hating a lot of that jazz too.

[djg]

BH literally uses biblical metaphors for note relationships. I'm not sure you can get more theoretical than that kind of stuff.



I see it kind of like base in a game of tag. You have things that you can fall back on if you get lost or are uninspired. Nobody wants to be that annoying kid who never strays more than two steps from base, but it helps when you get tired of running.



Understanding some of the connections between what are the norms or even just what you like yourself also can focus your own practicing.

It also helps you turn what you are already playing into useful variations for other applications as well as finding sounds in the first place. You simply cannot try or even listen to everything and independently evaluate it. We have the very finite resource of time limiting us.



I think a lot of the anti-theory attitudes stem from the failure of certain methods to produce results and some people's perception that jazz kinda sucks right now, thus what is being taught is causing the suckage.

Some of this comes from the possible undervaluing of what freaks the greats are. Which is only encouraged by how some of them, by their nonsense "Anyone can get here. You just have to work as hard as me." talk. Every field I am familiar with suffers from this nonsense where people are simply delusional about the gaps in potential that are so obvious to me that it is absurd.

You can't get there from here is the fact for the vast majority of people. We accept that you need a huge bias towards fast twitch muscle fibers to be a great sprinter, but somehow tend to think, in spite of the trend and push towards materialistic explanations for everything, that those sort of things only affect us from the neck down.

I do think that there is a legitimate gripe in that a lot of music education caters to the teacher rather than the student. This goes both ways though. Teaching CST is kinda easy and giving kids 7 forms of a bunch of scales to practice until they die keeps kids busy, but so does "just learn these songs and listen to these albums".

how do you know all this stuff?

[Bobby Timmons]

I see it kind of like base in a game of tag. You have things that you can fall back on if you get lost or are uninspired. Nobody wants to be that annoying kid who never strays more than two steps from base, but it helps when you get tired of running.

That's a good analogy but that seems like a bare minimum to me. Just because you use one theoretical parameter doesn't mean you can't be extremely creative and inspiring with the rest of what you do with it. Take the clip I posted earlier. Pretty sure Peter's 3 choruses on the bluez were conceived using theory but what he did with it sounded awesome.

Understanding some of the connections between what are the norms or even just what you like yourself also can focus your own practicing.

It also helps you turn what you are already playing into useful variations for other applications as well as finding sounds in the first place. You simply cannot try or even listen to everything and independently evaluate it. We have the very finite resource of time limiting us.

Yeah agree. There's the idea that people will be more creative with less structure but I don't agree with that. That's why jazz isn't 12 tones now go and instead has the structure of tunes.

Another fallacy is that if someone uses theory then they don't use ear. Uh yeah no. Theory helps my ear a lot. Upon 1 listen to Peter's solo, I map out what he does using theory. On the 1st chorus he does that pedal to interval idea. He doesn't follow the changes, just stays on the 1. 2nd chorus he takes advantage of the 2-5 before the 4 chord to expand on the tonality and launches from there. On the 3rd chorus he does that cool blues scale shred in the right hand and plays melodies in the left hand.

I think a lot of the anti-theory attitudes stem from the failure of certain methods to produce results and some people's perception that jazz kinda sucks right now, thus what is being taught is causing the suckage.

Jazz doesn't suck right now, there are a lot of good musicians. I think the anti-theory propaganda is from people who are misinformed and idealistic, want to appear elite, or just nuts.

Some of this comes from the possible undervaluing of what freaks the greats are. Which is only encouraged by how some of them, by their nonsense "Anyone can get here. You just have to work as hard as me." talk. Every field I am familiar with suffers from this nonsense where people are simply delusional about the gaps in potential that are so obvious to me that it is absurd.

Yeah the greats are pretty freakish. Still want to work at what they do. Some of it is achievable, some isn't.

[LankyTunes]

how do you know all this stuff?

Gonna have to be more specific.

And recognize the difference between "know" and "think" and "seems like" if you actually want an answer.

[djg]

Gonna have to be more specific.

And recognize the difference between "know" and "think" and "seems like" if you actually want an answer.

sorry, my bad. why does it seem like you think that you know all this stuff?

[ccroft]

I think the anti-theory propaganda is from people who are misinformed and idealistic, want to appear elite, or just nuts.

Hoping for a bit of clarity here: are you talking about people on this forum, or about the countless anti-theory yootoobers?

I ask this because sometimes your remarks seem like they're targeted at some of us, but I can't remember anyone on this forum clearly stating you should avoid theory entirely and just 'ear it up'.

I could be wrong, but this thread is so dang long I'm not going to go back and check.

"Misinformed, idealistic, wanting to be elite or just nuts" seems like pretty strong language for anyone I know around here. But then, there's like 75K of us and a half million posts, so maybe you know something I don't.

[LankyTunes]

sorry, my bad. why does it seem like you think that you know all this stuff?

There's a page of things there.

Be specific.

But I don't think that I know anything I say "I think" or "I believe" or "It seems".

That's the whole point of using those qualifiers.

[Gabor]

Gonna have to be more specific.

And recognize the difference between "know" and "think" and "seems like" if you actually want an answer.

Maybe this is unnecessary lecturing and harsh answer for djg,

Btw I re-read your post what djg was referring, and it is full of imperative statements, and many things were presented as facts.

Especially because you used the "I do think" form :-)

[Bobby Timmons]

Hoping for a bit of clarity here: are you talking about people on this forum, or about the countless anti-theory yootoobers?

I ask this because sometimes your remarks seem like they're targeted at some of us, but I can't remember anyone on this forum clearly stating you should avoid theory entirely and just 'ear it up'.

I could be wrong, but this thread is so dang long I'm not going to go back and check.

"Misinformed, idealistic, wanting to be elite or just nuts" seems like pretty strong language for anyone I know around here. But then, there's like 75K of us and a half million posts, so maybe you know something I don't.

No, noone on this forum is mad at theory. :P Yeah no, I'll direct the criticism elsewhere. Take that clip I posted. The 2 pianists at open studio. Adam the guy playing on the left is kind of mad at theory. He says stuff like you can't information your way to playing better. He always emphasizes hearing and transcribing kind of to the exclusion of technical stuff. Peter, the guy on the right thinks both are important. To my ear, Peter absolutely smokes because he takes advantage of both sides of things - ear and tech stuff. I like how his ideas sound like they're little cells of theoretical ideas whether it's a tonality, a rhythm, or some other device. Adam kind of just blows through things, and does sound good, but he doesn't seem like he has as good of a command to really excite with the music like Peter does.

[Christian Miller]

Maybe this is unnecessary lecturing and harsh answer for djg,

Btw I re-read your post what djg was referring, and it is full of imperative statements, and many things were presented as facts.

Especially because you used the "I do think" form :-)

tbf it is a pitfall of the ‘rant on JGO’ form

[Litterick]

Close it down. Make it stop.

[LankyTunes]

Maybe this is unnecessary lecturing and harsh answer for djg,

Right back at ya.

I re-read your post what djg was referring, and it is full of imperative statements, and many things were presented as facts.

Especially because you used the "I do think" form :-)

Thanks for making a distinction without a difference.

"I do think" literally qualifies something as one's opinion.

But at least you made one specific enough claim for me to address...unlike djg.

[LankyTunes]

tbf it is a pitfall of the ‘rant on JGO’ form

It doesn't help to live in generation butthurt.

Where the stereotypical woman who cannot "hear" content because of her perception of the attitude behind it is the ruling spirit of the age. And her perception of her significant other's attitude, of course, need no justification other than woman's intuition...it's dismal track record be damned.

But hey, folks don't need to learn any reading online forum comment theory from me.

They should just type what they think, right?

[Christian Miller]

Where the stereotypical woman who cannot "hear" content because of her perception of the attitude behind it is the ruling spirit of the age. And her perception of her significant other's attitude, of course, need no justification other than woman's intuition...it's dismal track record be damned.

Lulwut?

[LankyTunes]

Lulwut?

You mean to tell me you have never had your mind and motive read by a woman who just knew what you "really" meant in spite of there being nothing to her claims?

And yet there was nothing that could possibly convince her that you might have a better grasp on the inner workings of your own heart and mind than her women's intuition does.

It is so common it is a universal cliche across every culture and continent.

And it is all too typical in forums...especially with Boomers and Millennials who cannot grasp how generalizations work.

[Christian Miller]

You don’t half meet some characters here

[Gabor]

You mean to tell me you have never had your mind and motive read by a woman who just knew what you "really" meant in spite of there being nothing to her claims?

And yet there was nothing that could possibly convince her that you might have a better grasp on the inner workings of your own heart and mind than her women's intuition does.

It is so common it is a universal cliche across every culture and continent.

And it is all too typical in forums...especially with Boomers and Millennials who cannot grasp how generalizations work.

... when talking about generalizations, in a few sentences you succeded to make the two of the most common and probably the most useless, one about women, and one about younger generations. Probably both were unnecessary to make your point.

Without the two generalizations you used, it is understandable you feel misunderstood. This happens when people are communicating and natural.

However in case you notice it happens with you too often, I recommend the following joke :-)

A driver is driving on the motorway, listening the radio and he hears it is announcing that a car is going against traffic. He shouts: One? Everybody!

[djg]

Lulwut?

it's another incarnation of fumblefingers.

[Litterick]

But hey, folks don't need to learn any reading online forum comment theory from me.

This is it.

[lammie200]

[Litterick]

Is Giant Steps really the most feared song in jazz? Does it need explanation?

[LankyTunes]

... when talking about generalizations, in a few sentences you succeded to make the two of the most common and probably the most useless, one about women, and one about younger generations. Probably both were unnecessary to make your point.

I find them both very useful and apt.

I wasn't aware that Boomers were a younger generation.

Without the two generalizations you used, it is understandable you feel misunderstood. This happens when people are communicating and natural.

Of course there is difficulty in communicating in general. And particularly so in forums like these where the combination of certain types of personalities being over represented and the limitations of text make it so.

However in case you notice it happens with you too often, I recommend the following joke :-)

A driver is driving on the motorway, listening the radio and he hears it is announcing that a car is going against traffic. He shouts: One? Everybody!

Yes. I have mentioned the other three fingers in this thread.

I'm quite aware that my own poor communication could be the source of someone else's misunderstanding. There obviously are normal and natural misunderstandings in this thread as to even what theory and playing by ear are. I am not particularly misunderstood in that regard.

My qualm was with accusations of my attitude that required mind reading abilities that were clearly not available to the person using them.

When someone insists on imputing emotions or attitudes, that they have zero evidence for, not only is it clear that any misunderstanding is coming from their end, but it also makes the comparison to the the stereotypical woman I used both apt and useful. Even more so when they will not accept having their perception corrected.

The comment about the Boomer/Millennial's inability to grasp generalizations is perfectly apt as well based upon both groups using exceptions to base their rules upon and reading generalizations as if they applied to every single musician everywhere across all time.