Theory vs. playing by ear

[Christian Miller]

I don't know if it was brought up in this thread but I have heard Pat Metheny say that that he doesn't have to think when improvising. It comes from his inner consciousness similar to speaking. So how much of our speaking comes from that ultra short synapse timing of knowing that the words buried in our inner consciousness will convey what we mean? A lot of it. I can't see any reason why the same wouldn't apply to making music. If what can be produced on the fretboard and plucked or strummed is embedded in our inner consciousness with ultra short synapse timing for producing it I am not sure that we have to premeditate much when improvising. Seems contrary to do so by definition.

Yeah - bears repeating however obvious it may seem.

playing music, whether spontaneously improvised, composed or anywhere in between has to be intuitive. It doesn’t seem to work any other way. You can test this simply by recording yourself playing something to click. Anything that isn’t yet intuitive suffers rhythmically or you may not even be able to play it even if you think you have it down.

But a lot of things that are intuitive don’t start that way. Practice is usually about getting things into intuition. I feel that things that are learned by ear go into intuition quicker. Otoh good readers can hear what’s on the page. Theory based ideas have to be learned by ear too in my experience. I might have a cool Diminished pattern or something, but I have to play it and sing it enough times before I can use it.

[RLetson]

Christian's take matches my experience as a writer. There is a level of rhetorical-stylistic performance that goes beyond my basic linguistic competence, so I find myself, say, mimicking a Shakespeare line or deploying a turn of phrase based on Faulkner or Frost or E. E. Cummings or any of the other writers I've read, whether or not I've explicitly analyzed their work. The words just show up when I'm reaching for a phrase. It's the result of what I call "filling the hopper"--which is what my wife's writing students have not done, which is why so much of their writing comes across as middle-school rather than university-level.

I can explain the technical side of most of what I produce--I've been trained in linguistics, semantics, semiotics, rhetoric, and prosody--but when I'm generating copy, I'm not thinking about those technical matters--I'm getting down what I want to say as precisely and gracefully and wittily as I can.

A pedantic footnote: My understanding of what we would now call the writing pedagogy (then: rhetoric) in classical times and probably later is that it consisted of copying and imitating exemplars as well as learning the technical terms for the various devices and forms. An attenutated version was still in use when I started teaching freshman composition in 1966. And while my ear was very usefully sharpened by a graduate seminar on the linguistics-rhetoric nexus, my experience is that no amount of naming figures of speech or types of essay will make up for a poverty of reading experience. And my observation of my musical progress over the decades is that hopper-filling has been at least as important as learning the recipe for a m7-flat-5.

[Jimmy Smith]

I don't know if it was brought up in this thread but I have heard Pat Metheny say that that he doesn't have to think when improvising. It comes from his inner consciousness similar to speaking. So how much of our speaking comes from that ultra short synapse timing of knowing that the words buried in our inner consciousness will convey what we mean? A lot of it. I can't see any reason why the same wouldn't apply to making music. If what can be produced on the fretboard and plucked or strummed is embedded in our inner consciousness with ultra short synapse timing for producing it I am not sure that we have to premeditate much when improvising. Seems contrary to do so by definition.

You're misquoting him. He also said it requires years of study to get to the point where it's intuitive. And he said that the 'grammar' or theory is involved in the process but it has become intuitive for him.

[Jimmy Smith]

if you didn’t have to communicate and could just play chords like this it would just be listen-play at a high level. I think Brian Wilson was like this IIRC from his autobiography. Could hear it all, but didn’t know the names.

That isn't true. Knowing what you're doing theoretically doesn't prevent you from playing intuitively from yourself or following other music intuitively. Are you sure you're not mad at theory? :P

[Jimmy Smith]

I have, on several occasions, asked an elite jazz player what he was thinking during a particular solo passage.

I believe each one answered honestly. None of them knew. One said, "I was thinking darker".

At least one of them is encyclopedic on theory.

At least one of them has an impressive vocabularly of licks -- including licks that he has discarded over time (I asked him about one I had transcribed, to which he responded, "my old licks!".

I think they all know a good deal of theory but it's fair to say that, on the bandstand, what they use is well-internalized. Meaning, it's in their ears or they don't use it.

This is not to resolve the ear vs theory dispute. Rather, it's to point out yet another way in which the terms are poorly defined.

I'm taking lessons with the most prominent living jazz organist in the entire world. I'm sure he plays intuitively, but he can and does also play theoretically where he thinks or demonstrates theory parameters. And it sounds really good.

[Christian Miller]

That isn't true. Knowing what you're doing theoretically doesn't prevent you from playing intuitively from yourself or following other music intuitively. Are you sure you're not mad at theory? :P

Are you sure you are actually responding to what I wrote?

I don’t see how this thought relates to what I said.

[rpjazzguitar]

I'm taking lessons with the most prominent living jazz organist in the entire world. I'm sure he plays intuitively, but he can and does also play theoretically where he thinks or demonstrates theory parameters. And it sounds really good.

The guys I was talking about can do that too.

I can't play at that level, but I can play by ear or by theory. I prefer by ear, but, with complicated harmony, I'm prone to hitting some clams until I know the sound of the tune really well. But, otoh, I can't really tell them apart. Say I prehear a m7b5 coming up -- I tend to hear the b5 quite strongly and I know how to find it in voicings I regularly use (one of them in particular). So, I can grab that note and I can find others because I know the grip that includes that note and I know the chord tones. Theory or ear? I'd say they're melted together and you can't unmelt them.

[Jimmy Smith]

^ At my ability level, I sure can't tell theory and ear apart. I feel having music knowledge helps me in tandem with ear. That's the way many greats do it so there's no way I'd try to pursue an aural above or to the exclusion of all else approach.

About the harmony. It doesn't bother me to work on thought out approaches to hitting right notes. Because that's only one aspect of music. I can use prescribed notes devices and improvise the rhythm or phrasing. Or if I want to work on earing out a line or passage, then I can do that too.

Are you sure you are actually responding to what I wrote?

I don’t see how this thought relates to what I said.

I guess you'll have to clarify then, because I don't see another interpretation upon further readings. That classifying/labeling/theorizing impedes the true communication of music? I disagree with that and I'm pretty sure that's false if that's what you're saying. You can have pure communication of music among people or within an individual who know and use theory. That's most often the case.

[Lionelsax]

Hi !

I listened to podcasts last night about Joe Pass.
Joe Pass had had guitar lessons from the best guitar teacher. He learnt how to read and studied classical guitar.
His father used to make him play 8 hours per day.
So he knew everything that everyone should know but didn't talk a lot about it.
He didn't need it, instead of talking he played.
Les premieres influences guitaristiques : episode 1/8 du podcast Joe Pass, le Art Tatum de la guitare
I'm sorry if you can't understand French.

[Christian Miller]

I guess you'll have to clarify then, because I don't see another interpretation upon further readings. That classifying/labeling/theorizing impedes the true communication of music?

I don’t think that’s what I was saying, but it’s usually quicker to play or sing something to a musician than spell it out note by note and explain it. If someone plays me something and I don’t get it first time, I’d rather they play it again than explain it to me and I think most of my colleagues are the same. You want to get the sense of the phrase as well as the pitches that make it up. Also it’s much easier to play something you can hear.

in practice you obviously tend to have lead sheet and parts etc for original music and arrangements, but it sometimes comes up; try this line for the intro etc. and then playing/singing is the fastest way to communicate what you mean. You might spell things out if they really don’t get it, but for most good players this unecessary most of the time. Every working jazz player I know has banked a lot of time learning music by ear and is very good at it, many of them much better than me. They can break the phrase down theoretically themselves if they need to and notation, if needed then functions as an aide memoire.

I often break things down that way in teaching, naming the elements of the line as ‘arpeggio, scale, enclosure’ etc and Barry used to explain the construction of lines in a similar way. It can be useful as a didactic tool. I would tend to work by ear first, singing or playing the line to the student until they have, with any required theoretical explanation coming after. Barry tended to tell us what he was doing first (scale up and down, chord on 3 etc) and then sing it (and the everyone played the line back), so the other way around. So long as the ears are engaged I don’t think it matters too much; Barry’s approach is very modular anyway so naming the ‘Lego bricks’ is important, and your ears still ended up working very hard in these classes trust me lol.

if you can categorise a chord theoretically, that is obviously useful if you want to write it into a chart as a chord symbol (bearing in mind the limitations of the system.)

[Christian Miller]

Btw obviously if you have no theory your only way to communicate is by singing or playing your ideas.

(Of course being able to notate your ideas on the staff does not mean that you need to have a theoretical understanding either!)

otoh consider that this may not just be because the musican has no theory - it may mean that the musician has ideas that are not easily analysed or notated in, for example, chord symbols.

Sometimes the composer themselves might not be able to analyse the chord they have written, and may have chosen it because they just liked the sound.

I think this kind of ‘not theoretical’ writing is the case more often than one might think if one is looking to write non functional or non standard harmony; the ‘chords out of a hat’ thing that Kenny Werner teaches is great for coming up with ideas for tunes and reharms for instance. In this case you choose chords purely because you like them.

That’s not to say these chord relationships couldn’t be analysed; but rather that their analysis is not actually necessary for the composer or reharmonist, allowing the creative side of the ear and brain to have full reign.

which reminds me - Mick Goodrick had an exercise where the teacher played a loop of randomly chosen chords and without telling the student, the student was to solo purely by ear over them. Some of his students got really good at this apparently; Brecker used to work on something similar.

[kris]

Hi !

I listened to podcasts last night about Joe Pass.
Joe Pass had had guitar lessons from the best guitar teacher. He learnt how to read and studied classical guitar.
His father used to make him play 8 hours per day.
So he knew everything that everyone should know but didn't talk a lot about it.
He didn't need it, instead of talking he played.
Les premieres influences guitaristiques : episode 1/8 du podcast Joe Pass, le Art Tatum de la guitare
I'm sorry if you can't understand French.

+1

[SOLR]

here's an interesting bit from Martin Taylor and some revelation "sort of" at about 1 min into the YT ...https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=-FdQtR96MKE

S

[Irishmuso]

here's an interesting bit from Martin Taylor and some revelation "sort of" at about 1 min into the YT ...https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=-FdQtR96MKE

S

I hadn't realised that he couldn't read and play at the same time. As a young man, I believe he played on cruise ships, so I had presumed he would be able to read. The video shows him playing fabulously over a straight 4/4 orchestral arrangement of Nuages and really, how often would Martin Taylor have to worry about some arrangement that tends to leap about in different meters or keys? Those of us who like to play in pit bands as well as jazz groups, may need to have reasonable reading ability - but with or without it, Martin sits comfortably among the guitar greats. His playing clearly shows he knows quite a bit of practical theory.

[pauln]

The most important communication in
performance is not before but when it
is happening, real time. Playing by ear
allows the musicians to communicate
with another through the music itself -
it's like a telepathic message sent and
received that says, "Hear this?", "Yes".

[Christian Miller]

I hadn't realised that he couldn't read and play at the same time. As a young man, I believe he played on cruise ships, so I had presumed he would be able to read. The video shows him playing fabulously over a straight 4/4 orchestral arrangement of Nuages and really, how often would Martin Taylor have to worry about some arrangement that tends to leap about in different meters or keys? Those of us who like to play in pit bands as well as jazz groups, may need to have reasonable reading ability - but with or without it, Martin sits comfortably among the guitar greats. His playing clearly shows he knows quite a bit of practical theory.

Many straightahead jazz guitar players I know are not great readers. If you spend your career playing straightahead and swing music in small groups it’s much less important than having a big repetoire and good ears. It sounds like his gig on the ships was playing jazz.

the other thing is reading… it’s like use it or lose it? If you do reading gigs you maintain those chops. If you don’t they can get rusty.

[kris]

Many straightahead jazz guitar players I know are not great readers. If you spend your career playing straightahead and swing music in small groups it’s much less important than having a big repetoire and good ears. It sounds like his gig on the ships was playing jazz.

the other thing is reading… it’s like use it or lose it? If you do reading gigs you maintain those chops. If you don’t they can get rusty.

MT had a solo gig on the ship.He didn't need to read the notes.
The musicians who play the shows, on the other hand, read notes very well.

[grahambop]

Pretty sure I’ve read or heard an interview somewhere with Martin Taylor where he said he more or less lied about not being able to read in order to get the job on the cruise ship, it was a normal ‘cruise ship dance band orchestra’ type of gig, and once on the stand, he had to fake his way through it. Presumably it was playing chords and maybe the occasional solo, I’m sure he could do it with no trouble.

He wasn’t employed to play solo guitar, I think it was well before he started doing that.

[grahambop]

Martin talks about it in this interview. It wasn’t any old cruise liner, it was the QE2 (and he was only 17)!

Interview: Martin Taylor | Guitar.com | All Things Guitar

[Tal_175]

There are three types of good musicians IMO. There are musicians that are good artists, musicians that are good imitators and musicians that are good scientists.

Some "ear players" like Django, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Muddy Waters, Jimi Hendrix etc were actually artists in the true sense of the word. But a lot of "ear players" aren't artists, they are just visionless imitators. A rare few of them may even be exceptionally gifted at picking things up by ear and remembering millions of tunes but that's just it. They can't create their own arrangements or significantly build upon the artists they imitate. They justify their simplistic approach by saying things like, well BB King didn't have to play a lot of notes to make great music. Yes, but the difference is BB King friggin invented the musical ideas he played (or significantly built upon the artists that came before him).

Then there are the scientists. They may or may not have good ears but they understand that they are not the one in a million divinely creative types who can endlessly generate musical ideas out of thin air or invent a whole new way of playing the music they like (ear and creativity are not the same things). So they study music, concepts and their instruments to stimulate their creativity and expand on what they can hear.

These are not exclusive categories. Every musician is a blend of the three perhaps.

[Reg]

Nice Tal...great points.

I tend to keep it simple...LOL. We have internal and external skills, and we all have levels of both.

Rhythm, Tonal and Creativity being internal and,

Notation and executive skills being external.

This is where most educational directions seem to be going.... and there are plenty of push button sources for more details... LOL

Personally I still say as a jazz musician you need "Technical skills", chops on your instrument and you need to understand "Form"... how to organize the space or physical time you play.

The better your ears and understanding or awareness of theory get... the easier it becomes to play and verbally talk about it.

You can be an Artist, Imitator or Scientist, amateur or Professional... but without technical skills and understandings of Form... you won't get very far.

[SOLR]

Interview: Martin Taylor | Guitar.com | All Things Guitar

M.T. quote from this interview : My musicality was way beyond my ability!”

Thx for linking, a good read.....

S

[Irishmuso]

Interview: Martin Taylor | Guitar.com | All Things Guitar

Nice to hear such warm words about Ike Isaacs who was something of an institution albeit not that well known.

[Big Mac]

Teaching theory to someone who can't "sing" a well-known tune on their instrument, one that's firmly ingrained in their mind (Happy Birthday, for instance), and has no sense of pitch (clueless as to what key a song is in, or what chord is being played), is akin to handing a two-year-old a copy of Warriner's English Grammar and Composition in order to teach them to speak.

[rintincop]

Barry Harris used theory to teach outlining the form (chord changes) by scales.