-
Was a guitarist's joke, really.
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Speaking of humor, did nobody look closely at the picture of the soldering girl?
-
12-10-2022 12:11 PM
-
"I got blisters on mah fingers!"
-
The soldering woman is a stock photograph; it was made in all seriousness by people who know nothing.
-
There's a lot of that going around... Originally Posted by Litterick
-
Fascinating thread! The whole eary theory thing is a maze for me, and the fun kind of maze where you’re not in a hurry to get out but enjoy poking around amid the bushes along the way.
I went to college on a guitar scholarship in the 80s when I was a work-a-day musician. And then walked out of music in the 90s to travel and study history, eventually becoming a professor.
Relying on theory and ears in both professions seemed to me natural, and not as a dichotomy.
Got back into music 10 years ago and been playing regularly in jam sessions for the past 5.
My timing has always been odd or off, depending how you look at it, so I stray when exploring a tune in a session. My ear is off, too, can’t really identify sounds accurately. Some theory keeps me grounded but also gets me lost, and it’s the same with ear, like a game of lost and found.
The joy at this point in life is the in the journey. I enjoy the ride, as bumpy and dicey as the roads might be. Nothing beats getting into an elusive live groove with others. I suppose theory and ear are the tickets to keep on trying.
-
I came from a functional language background where we theorize (and experiment, and tend to come to fairly convincing conclusions) that language is a function of general human cognition. Meaning, language is not something special in the human brain, as Noam Chomsky has proposed. Rather language is simply an extension the human brain's ability to detect and recreate patterns in an incredibly complex way. Language is patterns, we tend to say what we have already said and repeat what we have heard (not just words but entire phrases, sentences, and clusters of words)...we are far less creative and experimental with how language is used than we would think. Originally Posted by RLetson
In linguistics we study a lot of other patterns in human brains (math, symbols, and music are some of the most common). To me it seems obvious that music and language are both extensions of general cognition and pattern recognition. So musical patterns are intentional (theory) and part of ingrained patterns (ear). Very few native English speakers would every say "pass the pepper and salt" or "eat your carrots and peas"...we have accepted structures that sound odd if we break them "salt and pepper" always in that order. Same in music. ii V I sounds great. V ii I is odd and doesn't fit the expected conventions. In fact, the brain does the same stutter step when it hears word order switched as it does when it hears unexpected musical phrases as it does when we see 2+2 = 5. The brain, based on my limited research, is a massive and very good pattern detector.
So, if our brains are picking up nuance in language, breaks in patterns, and if it has the same reaction to these unexpected breaks in patterns regardless of input (linguistic or musical) it would sure seem our ears have to be guiding the process to some major extent even if theory is what got us to the pattern our ears are analyzing.
Sorry, way to take the magic and fun out of making music...but to me this is fascinating as well that a purely physiological and cognitive process can hit me in the heart the way it does!
-
Interesting post. I was with you until you defined intentional patterns as theory. Originally Posted by AaronMColeman
I don't experience it that way. I imagine a line and play it. Some will say that I must have used theory. I don't see it that way. Can't be resolved without an agreed definition of "theory" which we don't have.
Sometimes I imagine a line that I've played or heard before. Sometimes I imagine a new one. Sometimes I think "tritone sub arpeggio". Other times my fingers find notes without me thinking of anything. Which of these is theory, which is ear?
And, for familiar patterns -- somebody played them first. Theory? Ear?
-
Absolutely! It is so hard to have a discussion without agreed upon definitions. So you are right, my definition is too strict and doesn't capture what I really believe theory to be. At the end of the day, I forget who said it (we'll call him Charlie Parker maybe), "learn as much theory as you can, then forget it all and start playing"...not that theory becomes worthless, rather it becomes so ingrained it's not at the front of the mind when playing. For most of us theory is the vehicle that gets us to playing so at the end of the day theory and ears kinda become one in the same...I guess it's more the process of getting to the playing part that is being discussed. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
Which is theory, which is ear? I don't know it should all become music at some point though
-
Seems like kind of a red herring? Who is too stupid that they can't figure out or accept that theory is info about music, ear goes directly to music?
So you know theory but like playing by ear? Ok??? Sounds like a perfectly acceptable description. You know theory but you play by ear. Sometimes you use both theory and ear. How isn't that an accurate description??
-
That is rough but pretty close, however sometimes we get a reminder that it is also about context, dreams, doubts, and the occasional surprise. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
Ancestry dot com reports the most common employment of my paternal line going way back was "musician", 43% as late as the last data available (1931). This prompted me to check my maternal side where I found long strings of church composers, music directors, and choir masters.
I was delighted to perhaps discover some insight into why I have always cared so much about music, but was left wondering a little bit if I were a "black sheep" because I "know theory but like playing by ear"? ... or what if something like jazz had emerged a few hundred years earlier in Europe? ...or would I sound different and like it if I were more of a theory player?
-
"know theory but like playing by ear"
The best of all possible worlds. The sad thing is when someone obsesses so much about theory and perfect playing technique that they burn themselves out and desensitize themselves to the pleasure of music itself. At the same time, I'm in awe of musicians who can sit down in front of a new chart and play it straight through the first time without a wobble.
-
^ Also possible that people are mad at theory and don't get that a lot of music is theoretical devices used musically and that having command of these can really boost playing. :P
That's cool that you have a lineage of musicians. There are musicians on both sides of my family as well. My gramma on my dad's side played piano and organ then that's what I ended up playing even though I wasn't involved with it when she was alive. My aunt on my Ma's side plays piano. Originally Posted by pauln
You probably would sound different if you used more theory. I dunno if you would like it. I love using both ear and theory. What is funny is that to reach where I am now about being enthusiastic about using theoretical devices musically, I had to try really hard with my ear. I thought, I have to figure out what principles these players use that makes the music sound good that I'm not doing.. I realized that raw theory wouldn't teach me, school wouldn't teach me, teachers do help, but I needed to gain the ability to learn about the musical devices on my own. The result was I gained the ability to learn how to use theory devices to aid in my playing and learning, but I had to use my ear to do it. Now I try to use both - try to hear up stuff and execute it. Or think up a theory idea and then see if it sounded good.Last edited by Jimmy Smith; 12-13-2022 at 03:17 AM.
-
A key question in this subject is what percentage of your improvisation are lines you heard in your head before playing? How much of the time it's just your fingers that do the playing?
What's the ideal ratio?
-
I too enjoyed reading the All About Jazz forum posts too.
Music Theory and Analysis - Jazz Bulletin Board
Obviously, the All About Jazz Forum will be available on the Wayback machine:
Wayback Machine
-
To me, I want to be able to execute more technical music than can really realistically be sung by someone, and especially not spontaneously. I also improvise chords and bass, so a lot has to be performed technically. My goal isn't to only play some nice sing song-y single note line of 8th notes. However, my goal is to conceive everything purposefully. I try to always take stock of the overall end effect of all my efforts and to get it to sound musical and the way I want. I also isolate the different aspects to better link them to my ear and to optimize them when combined. Like say what rhythms do I want to try to use. What quality of chord or tonality for the section should I use. What groove and interlocking feel should I use. I think that's probably necessary for my instrument and it wouldn't be desirable to sing up everything. So for me the ideal ratio is I want all my devices to be linked to my ear and to be checked by my ear, but I want to use a mix of ear and theory to conceive them. Originally Posted by Tal_175
Last edited by Jimmy Smith; 12-13-2022 at 02:16 PM.
-
It's a matter of finding the right balance. A musician who only plays what that hear will eventually bore themselves to death unless they are divinely creative and come up with endless new ideas by ear. Otherwise you'll have to find a way to expand what you can hear by practicing concepts. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
On the other hand, a musician who never hears what they play before they play it and only lets their fingers apply concepts based on practiced patterns, then they can never feel their music in a way that would be engaging for listeners.
-
Yes, more generally perhaps the concept of "agency" has Originally Posted by Tal_175
been what's missing in the thread. It seems to clear things
up to imagine a primary agency with an intuitive recovery:
- a player whose agency is focused on playing by ear, with
lapses filled intuitively through passively acquired "theory"
- a player whose agency focuses on playing by theory with
lapses intuitively filled through the passively acquired "ear"
-
Whether someone is playing "real" jazz or not is pretty subjective. I've heard Barry Harris say what Miles and Coltrane were doing wasn't jazz. But I doubt you and these people you constantly meet could manage even "pseudo jazz" without the theory you knew. It would have been harder to even play that. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
But my point isn't really jazz specific and it isn't even a claim that knowing theory will make you a good player per se. But it definitely does make it easier to get as good as your talent, experience, work ethic ect allow. You still have to get things under you fingers somehow and be able to hear what you were just taught the theory of.
And to reclarify: I have only ever talked about practical theory in this thread. That being the analysis of the musical norms being used. That doesn't happen in some void that doesn't include actual linking you fingers and ears to the concepts. I'd never teach someone what ii-V-I's are without giving them examples and having them play them. The possibly exception being if someone already came to me with examples where they just didn't know what was going on, but that's pretty much the same thing.
-
Well, this is awkward. Originally Posted by LankyTunes
-
Well yes I’m not really talking about high level musicians like Trane, Miles or Barry for that matter. Originally Posted by LankyTunes
(Btw Barry’s relationship with Trane and Miles is a bit more nuanced and complex than that. Trane visited Barry back in his Detroit days for example. Barry certainly didn’t care for the post modal music generally.)
I’m talking about people who just can’t really play, don’t know tunes, don’t hear or feel what they are playing, etc while also having read a million books and knowing all the theory. There’s a lot of them out there.
There’s also a higher level of pseudo jazz when you can make the machine work - most typically play the approved note choices on the chords and the application of ‘concepts’ - but do so without any connection to the shaping traditions of the music, deep rhythmic feel, language, blues etc, which of course are best learned via listening.
These players can be superficially impressive, but their playing feels empty with something ‘missing.’ Jazz in this sense just becomes musical technology. I’ve certainly been in this camp at points in my life.
This isn’t a dig at modern players btwLast edited by Christian Miller; 12-22-2022 at 03:50 AM.
-
There are many musicians who can't play at all because they try to play by ear but have no knowledge. That doesn't mean ear doesn't help.
Last edited by Jimmy Smith; 12-22-2022 at 05:57 AM.
-
And does this talking for hours about theory translate into playing an instrument ...?
Some have excellent theoretical knowledge and that's all... they can't hear.
-
Which brings us full circle Originally Posted by kris
I don’t actually have much skin in this game, I don’t care that much. It’s interesting to me some players in my local music community (even on JGO) as well as historically are able to play really flipping well without much or any theoretical background, while I and most other players out there know a lot of theory.
That’s about all I think about it, and perhaps there’s something to learn from the former category of players (for instance what is really important.) Otoh it’s not like I can brain bleach all knowledge of theory from my mind even if I wanted to lol.
Furthermore if you talk to them, you realise two categories of players actually have more in common than it might seem, as they have invariably learned a lot of music by ear, and take transcription, repertoire, playing with others and *hearing what you play* very seriously. You would not find any blue water between say, Jonathan Kreisberg and Bireli Lagrene in this important regard. The theory stuff all comes in as an optional extra.
However, it strikes me that the people clinging onto the idea that theory is absolutely essential to playing jazz and that’s the end of it, are heavily emotionally invested in the whole thing and seem to regard the merest suggestion otherwise as threatening in some way. They do seem to have a lot of skin in the game, for whatever reason.
Meanwhile irl, no one cares about theory if you can play. No one cares about it if you can’t. In the end our job is play music, not type essays.
(Some of us may like to type essays as well but hopefully we are enlightened enough to know that arguing with people on the internet is unlike to make us better players, lol.)Last edited by Christian Miller; 12-22-2022 at 11:03 AM.
-
yea... Seems like we've reached that point where we realize or already know...... If one can't play, ears and theory don't really matter except for talking points.
And maybe we realize that technique is required before ears and theory come into play, with playing points.
And then the value of teachers like Christian and many of the others on this forum might come into play.
That thin line between baby sitting and learning to Play... or however that works. I don't know or even really understand how that works besides the $ line and the power of.
It does seem that for most... the amateur or casual jazz player, that just learning tunes, which is really learning TUNE "FORMS".... the physical space that we play within, is enough. That teaches CHORD PATTERNS, MELODIC PATTERNS and RHYTHMIC PATTERS which will work with practice in the trial and error approach and allow one to perform in a limited jazz style and be happy... LOL.
-
There are plenty of classical musicians who come to jazz with that attitude, as one example. There was a French guy with a YouTube channel that was pure comedy along that vein: "I will demonstrate and explain some jazz for you which is trivial for me because I teach at the conservatory"; the channel didn't last long. Jazz academia also seems to like explaining things a lot, as if the music was more "respectable" to them that way. They know a lot of theory but don't swing. Or they don't have blues in their jazz (see the Mulgrew Miller interview: "The folk element is intact"). Theory isn't what is hard in jazz. Acquiring the language is. Russell Malone said he'd rather listen to rock bands he enjoys, such as The Ramones, than some current jazz, asking, "why do some of the new players sound like they're afraid to swing"?. Just wondering if the issues mentioned by Mulgrew and Russell aren't at the crux of what we're trying to discuss here. Originally Posted by LankyTunes
Reply With Quote
Dusty Baker
Today, 08:50 PM in Everything Else