-
Thanks for responding; I've posted about a dozen questions along this line over the last couple of weeks and I think you are my only reply. I would prefer that when I read music theory terms (e.g., "note" and "interval") in posts within a music site's "Theory" forum that they be correctly used as defined by music theory. The correct definitions provide the foundation to the rest of theory's structures, and not using correct definitions of the elements confounds the understanding of these structures, but there does not seem to be much of any concern about this.
Originally Posted by Litterick
-
12-08-2022 12:30 PM
-
we look for more in intense uses of language - lectures - speeches - poems - plays - books (many different kinds).... Originally Posted by CliffR
i can play blues choruses which are recogniseable as blues choruses - but they are very mundane if compared to Parker's blues choruses
the comparison is not just with language - the point is that music is a rule-governed social practice like chess, football, cooking, building - and the mother of social practices are linguistic social practices (all the others - including football and cooking - are linguistic too....)
there couldn't be rule-governed activities like football (and asking someone to do something - or telling someone about something....) unless it was possible to SAY what the rules are. But you don't have to be able to say what the rules are in order to be able to participate skilfully in the practice. This was the point that so undermines the contrast between theory and intuition which is bandied about endlessly and pointlessly in these discussions.
-
as I mentioned elsewhere I find it hard to respond in film to multi quote responses like this on my phone. Originally Posted by LankyTunes
So main point, no I don’t think theory makes playing jazz easier because there’s an endless supply of people who know all the theory and who can’t play jazz (maybe at best a sort of pseudo jazz that doesn’t feel or sound like the real deal etc). I was one of them and I meet them all the time, and what they invariably need is ear learning which is usually the thing they’ve been avoiding.
I know this is true because I see it every day.
So, yeah, a little bit of theory is maybe necessary depending how you define it, you know ‘this lick goes over this chord’ that type of thing. But theory is far from a shortcut or cheat. It is at best something that can be useful in combination with actual musicianship.
If you think of it as a cheat code the only person being cheated is you. I speak from bitter experience. you’ll find you get to the higher levels and you won’t have the power ups and weapons you need to make it to the next check point.
What the manuals do at best is teach you to fake jazz a bit. That’s not even a bad thing per se, because it’s a gateway for some, but to really get to grips with the music things have to get real sooner or later. the music itself as the saying goes, is the real textbook. (And you refine your own aesthetic sense, which is essential.)
I think most players go through this realisation sooner or later?
If there’s a cheat code, it’s developing your ear. That’s what makes music easier. Although that’s not a cheat code either as it takes work for most of us.
If you actually want to be a musician, as opposed to the person who knows a million chords or can type a good solo on the internet. Some of the best compers I know use only basic grips for instance… But these lessons are best learned on the bandstand rather than JGO plonkers like me and that’s harder every year.
anyway not certain how much contention there is here, but I wouldn’t choose ‘theory is a way to cheat at jazz’ as a hill to die on myself haha.Last edited by Christian Miller; 12-08-2022 at 02:22 PM.
-
Thank you. I confess I have not seen the misuse, but perhaps I was paying more attention to other parts of the forum, and perhaps I do not have the knowledge of theory to spot the errors. What definitions would be better than "12 chromatic notes" and "the naming of intervals based on semitone distance"? Originally Posted by pauln
-
Originally Posted by Groyniad
I do not know much about linguistic theory, but I believe there is a lot more to language than well-formed sentences. But in any case, the comparison does not hold because language conveys meaning. You and I can argue these points because we have the language to do so, and because these points are themselves in language. Music does not make arguments, commands, pleas or any of the other uses of language.
I do not think jazz is breaking rules. Jazz makes alterations to the conventions of Western music. It introduces the blues and swing. It makes improvisation the purpose of performance. It forms its own conventions, just as other musical genres do.
-
I'm sorry I've missed 25 pages of comments prior (maybe just 23 since I've spot read a few).
I'm a Linguist. We talk a lot about grammar, essentially as the rules that make communication in a given language possible. Did we get these rules passed down to us by generations of scribes? No, the rules are simply a description of how language is used. The language exists first, then we analyze and create a list of "rules" that everyone is free to break, modify, and even make their own. The rules exist regardless of whether or not we write them down. And the rules change constantly and are bent and modified by generations or various sociological groups to make the language work for their needs.
Music Theory to me is a lot like this. It's not prescribed so much as described. Knowing the rules helps to create intelligent conversation and music. But the language and music came first (or simultaneously as people were playing around with theory). At some point, even as a second language learner you stop consciously thinking about the grammar ("does the adjective go before or after the noun?") and just start talking. As a musician you stop thinking about the theory and just play a lot of the times. So I think it's kinda an artificial distinction between theory and ear. At some point everyone who is any good is playing by ear, because the theory is so embedded in their minds and fingers. And this embedded theory can come from listening and playing (back to the language analogy, like a baby learning its native language) or through academic style learning (more like a second language learner).
However we got there, we need to know the rules. If I want to jam on an F blues, but the band is playing a Bb ballad, our communication will not be clear or interesting since we are starting with a major break in the rules, and our musical goals will not be understood. Just like if an English speaker chose to ignore word order.
-
^ I agree with most of what you wrote but disagree that theory is mostly descriptive and that the language - music - existed first and then we use theory to describe it. Although you did say that theory and music could have occurred at the same time which is most likely true. That isn't true that the musicians just created the music we listen to and then we use theory to describe and understand it. They also use theory to create it. Take the clip on the other thread. You think he just did that and then we use theory after to understand it? No. He theoried up those ideas.
-
If people aren't mad at theory, why are there 26 pages on end of false info? And what the heck are you on about with some strange red herring about misusing terms? Originally Posted by pauln
-
I probably didn't write as clearly as I was thinking. There are tons of examples of using theory to directly make new concepts. I agree with you that a lot of music comes from very intentional theoretical choices. I guess my thought is, the first guy to play a ii V I probably wasn't using theory per se, but rather heard something he liked. I think that's what I mean by descriptive...absolutely theory is used all the time to create music, just like how an author would use intentional grammatical structures to build a story. So it sorta has to be both. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
Notes and pitches are not equivalent Originally Posted by Litterick
Notes are defined twice removed from their frequencies (the physical manifestation of sound) because they are defined as the letter names of the lines and spaces in the staff of music notation. Notes are locations for marks in the staff that represent multiple pitches, pending the application of either key signature enforced globally or accidentals marked locally (and those pitches may represent various frequencies pending assignment of particular concert pitch).
Chromatic is applicable to pitch, not notes
In the G clef (common treble clef) the second line up in the staff is the note G. All duration marks scored to sound on that line are called G. That note may sound different pitches. A note sounds multiple pitches and a pitch is sounded by multiple notes; the chromatic domain is pitch domain, not the note domain of staff locations.
Intervals indicate the ordinal distance between notes, not pitches
The importance of distinguishing notes from pitches is clear when introducing intervals, which are defined in terms of notes, not pitches. Prior to application of "quality", intervals remain independent of key, accidentals, and enharmonic pitch names, based solely on the distance between note letter names on the lines and spaces of the staff. The interval from pitch E to Ab is a fourth (note E to A, a fourth, with quality here of diminished fourth), but the enharmonic interval from pitch E to G# is a third (note E to G, a third, with quality here of major third). The pitch distance in semitones is the same (five) whether the third is major or the fourth is diminished, but those are two different intervals of different notes.
Learn the names of the notes on the guitar and practice songs in all keys
I have already asked specific questions elsewhere around here, but to be brief, all this bears on this example of common casual advise above. It is peculiarly not clear what that means. Does it mean knowing all 35 of the note letter+accidental pitch names per octave (for just up to the twelfth fret holds 210 names for 72 string:fret coordinates)? Does this mean when constructing or naming scale degree pitch names or chord tones /extensions /alterations pitch names using the tune's key signature to apply the correct pitch names and accidentals, or departure from that by adjusting as needed to a "local key center", or the local key of a current scale's or chord's tonic or root, or the "local" lingo of construction that may call for a "flat five" or "sharp nine" regardless of key, or a "sharp up / flat down" motion strategy for accidental application? Does this mean not only transposing of names when playing a tune in different keys, but additional transpositions relative to the tune's key for names within its own parts (local key centers, two-fives, chords, scales) as well?
Is it important to grasp the fundamentals?
-
Thank you. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing: that peculiarity of the pitch distance in semitones being the same for two different intervals confused me for a long time, until I decided to ignore it and just play.
-
This unacceptance of theory sure causes some strange neurosis.
-
Nothing of the kind; simply pragmatism. There is no point in following the rules of twelve-tone serialism if you do not like the resulting sounds. Besides, where is all this theory hiding?
-
Maybe your ears don't work when that's all you preach. There's theory in every tune.
-
me: starts to write some post about the origins of the ii V I in contrapuntal cadences from the 16th Century, thinks better of it thank god Originally Posted by AaronMColeman
yeah, Bach wrote a ton of ii V Is but Roman numeral analysis did not exist in the 18th century. He more likely thought it a combination of a specific bass line with a typical suspended double cadence in the upper parts. Anyway, point is theory is also in flux and responds to changes in musical fashion, thought and even politics.
-
I think the diatonic scale gets a raw deal haha Originally Posted by Litterick
-
yea... what makes a good guitar player. (jazz player)
There are different levels of just what that is...
personally ... you need to be able to play.... whats called or thrown in front of you.
The sight reading thing is easy, if you sight read, It becomes even easier when you actually understand theory.
Again... i hate to need to notate or verbally cue everything.... even the simple stuff....like what II V's are implied by the chart etc... The more theory you understand, the easier it is. I can go on and show many examples of how theory helps make one a good jazz player.
It's just kind of excepted that if your playing jazz, live at any kind of performance level. you already have ears...
That is not like a question or something one would need to check, it's just a given...LOL
And then there is the technical skills.... again it becomes obvious within a min. etc... But you can still work with that, You just need to adjust what you expect...both with ears and theory, because without the technical skills, it really doesn't really matter what you know or can hear, the music will just be at certain levels etc...
I'm not talking about recording or rehearsed music, worked out performance... that would be a different type of player. Nothing wrong or bad etc... But is that what we're really talking about.... what is useful in the process of becoming able to play Jazz or in Jazz styles. (more in the classical approach etc...)
-
On edit: I was drafting this before I saw Aaron Coleman's posts above. Nevertheless, it might cast more light than shadow on the language/music comparison, so I'll leave it as-is.
While there are probably serious neurological differences between producing speech and producing music*, it's not entirely useless to compare the "theoretical"** machineries that get applied to both of them, especially once we get into the ways music and language get turned into art.
I was using a range of rhetorical devices in my speech and writing before I encountered their names in formal courses in rhetoric (and one particularly powerful seminar on the intersection of rhetoric and linguistics). I was reminded of this when paging through Mark Forsyth's very accessible (and funny) Elements of Eloquence, which is filled with examples of the figures of rhetoric, including many that are part of everyday conversation, along with the usual examples from Shakespeare and Co. The Greek names given to most of these devices signals how old this set of descriptors is--and they were derived from practice, not developed in some abstract theoretical environment.
What I noticed in Forsyth's examples was how many of them I had used long before I had any formal training. Similarly, I was framing grammatical sentences long before I was taught how to diagram them (sixth grade, if I recall correctly). I acquired both grammatical and rhetorical competence by imitation--by ear (and, once I could read, by eye). Formal training did two things for me: it gave me more conscious control of what I wrote, and it allowed me to teach writing by providing a framework on which to hang practical advice and coaching. (BTW, I still write by the seat of my pants rather than with a rhetoric manual next to my keyboard. But rhetorical-linguistic understanding has sharpened my ear.***)
* Suggested by, say, the fact that stutterers can sing without stuttering--Mel Tillis is a famous example.
** With the understanding that "theory" in this sense is descriptive and not primarily generative of practice/behavior. Speech and music both develop in individuals and cultures before abstract descriptive systems are devised.
*** But not as much as absorbing lots and lots of Shakespeare, which I take to be the literary equivalent of listening to lots and lots of Parker, Monk, Ellington, Ella, Braff, Miles, Zoot. . . .Last edited by RLetson; 12-09-2022 at 02:46 PM.
-
The one with the missing semitones; it has questions to answer. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Maybe you are here just to be unpleasant. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
Diatonic scales are why music notation uses notes rather than pitches to construct the staff. If the staff were designed so each line and space were a chromatic pitch (no need for key signature!), the appearance of the diatonic scales would look like diagonal lines with two "kinks" or discontinuities where the half steps appeared among the whole steps (and the staff would be huge, imagine a chromatic staff for the piano!). Originally Posted by Litterick
By defining the lines and spaces as notes which can sound different pitches based on key signature, which enforces each diatonic scale to include all seven letter name notes (one of each), the visual result is all the diatonic scales then appear as straight diagonal lines without discontinuities because the staff progresses by note instead of pitch. It also allows for printing a much smaller staff - a clever form of data compression. Since almost all (Western) music is diatonic, this makes reading music (and reading ahead) much easier; conceptual music theory a little harder.
-
There's too much writing here and too little playing
Ok, back to transcribing
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
I thought that was a pretty good one. People are all about ear but apparently can't hear the theoretic devices in all playing. Once again, the neurosis are triggered, like I said earlier.
-
sounds like guitarist talk to me Originally Posted by pauln
Diatonic scales are why music notation uses notes rather than pitches to construct the staff. If the staff were designed so each line and space were a chromatic pitch (no need for key signature!), the appearance of the diatonic scales would look like diagonal lines with two "kinks" or discontinuities where the half steps appeared among the whole steps (and the staff would be huge, imagine a chromatic staff for the piano!).
By defining the lines and spaces as notes which can sound different pitches based on key signature, which enforces each diatonic scale to include all seven letter name notes (one of each), the visual result is all the diatonic scales then appear as straight diagonal lines without discontinuities because the staff progresses by note instead of pitch. It also allows for printing a much smaller staff - a clever form of data compression. Since almost all (Western) music is diatonic, this makes reading music (and reading ahead) much easier; conceptual music theory a little harder.
Reply With Quote
Dusty Baker
Today, 08:50 PM in Everything Else