Theory vs. playing by ear

[pamosmusic]

No magic - a lot of these folks arrived where they did VERY organically and definitely with the aid of talent. Many ways to skin a cat(feel like I’m hearding them at times) and again Wes is the perfect example of this. Big ears lead to great places. I’ve personally had a few young kids who (despite lacking instrumental proficiency) could hear through complicated changes. Lol. It’s real.

This I would sort of agree with. Though my understanding of Wes was that he was a bit more theory-savvy than he let on, even if it wasn’t how he arrived at sounds. Coltrane is obviously an extreme case but Russell and Slonimsky and all that stuff was big for him.

But there’s definitely a lot of people arriving at sounds pretty organically, and intense theory knowledge doesn’t preclude “organic” music either. And we also tend to overestimate the amount of theory we need for jazz in general. Mostly it’s simple tools applied with a healthy dose of creativity.

Also the theory stuff can be a bit loaded with earlier jazz guys. Hard to know what their actual process was because white audiences didn’t care to think of black musicians as being intellectual.

[Chris236]

It's exactly analogous. There are natural laws in nature the same way there are in music. You can work with them but you can't break them.

Taking this to the mad-at-theory thread.

you can break them. Going ‘out’ is breaking with that gravity…..some are more comfortable living out farther(and farther out!) than others, but the guys that are truly good at it are usually very sensitive to that har-melodic ‘nature’.

[pamosmusic]

when you jump, do you float into space or return to the ground?

Newtons laws are considered descriptive of our experience as large objects in the same small area, but they’re not … ahem … fundamental.

This is further down this particular rabbit hole than is helpful. Point is you’re describing immutable laws about how music works and most things we consider immutable are way more complicated and relativistic than that.

Not to mention sound is physics; music is art.

[emanresu]

If you know how a theoretical thingy sounds and feels like and choosing to "go for it", isn't it playing by ear also?
I mean, "by ear" doesn't have to mean "winging it" at all.

[Chris236]

This I would sort of agree with. Though my understanding of Wes was that he was a bit more theory-savvy than he let on, even if it wasn’t how he arrived at sounds. Coltrane is obviously an extreme case but Russell and Slonimsky and all that stuff was big for him.

But there’s definitely a lot of people arriving at sounds pretty organically, and intense theory knowledge doesn’t preclude “organic” music either. And we also tend to overestimate the amount of theory we need for jazz in general. Mostly it’s simple tools applied with a healthy dose of creativity.

Also the theory stuff can be a bit loaded with earlier jazz guys. Hard to know what their actual process was because white audiences didn’t care to think of black musicians as being intellectual.

No, that’s not what I’m eluding too regarding the greats as much as access to information……which to say would have been limited, would be and understatement.

Wes got a 4 string tenor guitar as a child and he and his brothers grew up imitating, exploring and making music every day…..

wasn’t until later in life that he even owned a 6 string guitar. That may have helped too!

[pamosmusic]

you can break them. Going ‘out’ is breaking with that gravity…..some are more comfortable living out farther(and farther out!) than others, but the guys that are truly good at it are usually very sensitive to that har-melodic ‘nature’.

Hmm. You don’t see the contradiction here?

If you jump you come back to ground … unless you decide you’d rather not?

If playing out is breaking with your fundamental nature of music, and some people are very comfortable with it and others aren’t, then it really can’t be all that fundamental can it?

[pamosmusic]

No, that’s not what I’m eluding too regarding the greats as much as access to information……which to say would have been limited, would be and understatement.

Yeah that was just a comment. Not really pointed at anyone. Not something establishment folks really wanted to hear about for a lot of complicated reasons.

[Chris236]

Newtons laws are considered descriptive of our experience as large objects in the same small area, but they’re not … ahem … fundamental.

This is further down this particular rabbit hole than is helpful. Point is you’re describing immutable laws about how music works and most things we consider immutable are way more complicated and relativistic than that.

Not to mention sound is physics; music is art.

you are the one talking about Newton’s laws.

I asked what happens when you jump?

Some are artists, some are linguists, some are neither but struggling to be…..there’s a lot of music out there. And opinions.

[Chris236]

Hmm. You don’t see the contradiction here?

If you jump you come back to ground … unless you decide you’d rather not?

If playing out is breaking with your fundamental nature of music, and some people are very comfortable with it and others aren’t, then it really can’t be all that fundamental can it?

You missed the final part of what I wrote with regards to playing ‘out’. The guys that are most adept at it are usually incredibly sensitive to the nature I’m referring to. Have to have a deep sense of where the bull’s-eye is to dodge it in a meaningful way.

[Bobby Timmons]

you can break them. Going ‘out’ is breaking with that gravity…..some are more comfortable living out farther(and farther out!) than others, but the guys that are truly good at it are usually very sensitive to that har-melodic ‘nature’.

Do I have type my stance for a 3rd time? You said there are zero rules. I said there are some rules and some guidelines that you can work with or disregard. You have to follow some rules in music for the music to be effective. Like following the form, keeping time, understanding the harmony etc. People who never develop following any of the music rules end up like this. There's no getting around it. (Guy on my other forum.)

[Chris236]

Lol

many very different conversations going on here. Some overlapping, some not so much.

[Bobby Timmons]

Take it to the mad at theory thread.

[Chris236]

Also - I’m not using language like ‘rules’ and ‘laws’. At least not intentionally. Did you fellas miss that gem comparing music theory to a still life painting a page or two back?

lol, all in good fun.

[ccroft]

It's exactly analogous. There are natural laws in nature the same way there are in music. You can work with them but you can't break them.

Taking this to the mad-at-theory thread. Everyone else can continue talking about food.

Ur just mad at onions, Jim.

[Chris236]

Take it to the mad at theory thread.

no thanks, I’m not mad (if that wasn’t obvious) and it’s incredibly pertinent to the thread title.

[pamosmusic]

You missed the final part of what I wrote with regards to playing ‘out’. The guys that are most adept at it are usually incredibly sensitive to the nature I’m referring to. Have to have a deep sense of where the bull’s-eye is to dodge it in a meaningful way.

Didn’t miss it. I even agree with it. I just don’t agree with the whole idea that some aspects of the thing are fundamental. Meaning that bullseye isn’t always in the same place.

Folks hear things in different ways and that’s pretty much fine.

[Bobby Timmons]

Ur just mad at onions, Jim.

I doubt that seeing as how they're my favorite vegetable.

[pamosmusic]

Also - I’m not using language like ‘rules’ and ‘laws’. At least not intentionally. Did you fellas miss that gem comparing music theory to a still life painting a page or two back?

lol, all in good fun.

I think the way you use words like “fundamental” “fact” and “natural” might be leading to the confusion on this point.

[pamosmusic]

Lol

many very different conversations going on here. Some overlapping, some not so much.

Somehow you’ve ended up in a place where one person thinks you’re saying music is the Wild West and another person thinks you’re saying music is governed by immutable fundamental principles.

[Chris236]

Didn’t miss it. I even agree with it. I just don’t agree with the whole idea that some aspects of the thing are fundamental. Meaning that bullseye isn’t always in the same place.

Folks hear things in different ways and that’s pretty much fine.

Yes, people do hear things (and not hear things) for different reasons to be sure! I’ll leave it at that since I’ve already sited plenty of examples of what I’m taking about.

[Chris236]

Somehow you’ve ended up in a place where one person thinks you’re saying music is the Wild West and another person thinks you’re saying music is governed by immutable fundamental principles.

hahaha

love it.

[Chris236]

I think the way you use words like “fundamental” “fact” and “natural” might be leading to the confusion on this point.

Right. Tough to verbalize a sensation, which is what music ‘theory’ was ultimately born from and why there’s a lot more uniformity in it than not. But at the end of the day, still just a ‘still life’.

[Bobby Timmons]

Good musicians arrive at their art, the still life artifact that you're describing, through musicality and following some theoretical rules.

[Christian Miller]

oh god, not physics analogy

plus the attribution of platonism to physics is, well, I think a lot of physicists would struggle to describe physical law as eternal and immutable, and if pressed might say they are no more than human models of possibly some abstract truth that may never be attainable. Most would rather duck the question as one for the philosophers.

I think musicians are still influenced by a sort of cultural tendency towards what I often call - probably incorrectly - platonism. They are music and music theory as some Eternal Truth. This is actually a Middle Ages/ancient viewpoint. Music used to be set alongside mathematics and astronomy. But this was a pre scientific view of the world.

music theory is obviously not immutable because it has changed vastly over time. Neither the stylistic norms nor the theory of the time have remained the same from antiquity, to the Middle Ages, to the early modern era, to the present…. All these eras had their own theory, and built on aspects of the past, but all are utterly different. Dowland was not thinking about melodic minor modes, just as a modern jazz composer isn’t thinking about the Guidonian hand or hexachord mutation through the Great Scale.

other cultures have their own music theory and don’t hear music the same way westerners do…. hell, classical musicians have trouble hearing jazz harmony (and I suspect vice versa - but in a subtle way.)

[Chris236]

Good musicians arrive at their art, the still life artifact that you're describing, through musicality and following some theoretical rules.

Still not sure we are having quite the same conversation but maybe go back and read my posts from the beginning if you’d like to join in. Nobody, least of all Me, wants to hear me repeating myself.