Theory vs. playing by ear

[Bobby Timmons]

Escucha muchacho, estás hablando con alguien que sudó tinta para llegar a dominar tanto el español como la lengua catalana, y sé de qué va esto. La gente inmigrante de que hablas igual acusa, entre otras factores, falta de integración social.

Falta de integracion social? Mi companera de trabajo, Maria, tiene hijos que hablan ingles.

Lo de Joe Pass es una anécdota que leí hace tiempo y carece de importancia. Tú has querido interpretar otra cosa distinta. Fue un genio, y punto, sin discusión.

Estas intentando mentir. :P

Ahora, ¡escribe una respuesta en español y dime cómo dirías "nonsense" sin consultar el diccionario para demostrar tus conocimientos de la lengua de Cervantes!

Porque no puedo usar el diccionario? Cuanto tiempo necesitaria para aprender esta palabra con inmersion?

[Bobby Timmons]

yeah, like i'm ever sarcastic...

Jazz Organ Stories: Jimmy Smith article @ All About Jazz

The article says he didn't read music notation and that he didn't need a teacher to convert from piano to organ. It doesn't say he knew/used no theory and would wing it by ear when playing. You're making up bs like the rest of the people in this thread.

[rpjazzguitar]

This is a familiar argument.

I'll add this.

I studied with a Berklee grad, a name you'd know, who was encyclopedic on theory. He also had a lot of theoretical stuff under his fingers and available. He could analyze anything.

But, after he finished a solo, or even a small improvised passage, if you asked him what he was thinking, he couldn't answer the question, apparently because he wasn't thinking. At least not in terms of verbal language, eg "I'll play melodic minor a step below the root of the next chord".

He probably could explain a lot of his practice time in theoretical terms, but not his solos.

So, the better question was what have you practiced, not what were you thinking at that moment in a solo.

Just another way to look at the need to internalize the sounds.

[djg]

The article says he didn't read music notation and that he didn't need a teacher to convert from piano to organ. It doesn't say he knew/used no theory and would wing it by ear when playing. You're making up bs like the rest of the people in this thread.

„A beaver don't have to go to engineering school to know how to build a dam.“ (erroll garner)

[Bobby Timmons]

^ Another case of a player who didn't read notation but who obviously knew a bunch of theory.

[djg]

^ Another case of a player who didn't read notation but who obviously knew a bunch of theory.

man, that's a lonely hill to die on

[Bobby Timmons]

I'm good. You're the one who's doing the mental gymnastics. It's not possible to play like that without a bit of an understanding of the theoretical framework. He probably knew a lot though, and could probably explain his thinking like Joe Pass.

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

Yeah, that's Latin American Spanish. I don't recommend translating that expression literally!!

You have to really know a language before trying to speak it. A personal anecdote I have in German is when I was there with a girlfriend and I was alone in a bar (in Bremen) getting a coffee and two local guys asked me what I was doing there. My German wasn't up to saying GF, so I said I was there with a young (jung) woman (frau). You will know why they couldn't contain their laughter.

LCDTPMC now I have to get rid of a Madonna hookline that suddenly came up LOL

BTW in German there is a colloquial expression “mit Karacho” or “mit vollem Karacho” (“at high speed” or “at full speed”). I just looked it up in the Duden and it has that origin but no one is aware of that.

I always say the LCDTPM expression when I meet Spanish speaking people and they crack up and ask me: “Are you from Argentina?” LOL (I was doing the bar for a long time at milongas in Munich so that’s where I got that accent from)

[Peter C]

So Jimmy, your studies of the great Spanish language have thus far not revealed to you rather basic notions such as gender agreement (Maria, compañera) and don't you know how to type an ñ on your keyboard?

I feel you're deliberately misreading my words as we're talking here about adult integration, where they may find themselves in (discriminatory) social contexts which are not propitious for second language acquisition. Anyway, that's enough highfalutin BS, as I don't come to this forum for that. Kids at school spend the whole day interacting in the lingo, whereas their folks at home very likely communicate in their mother tongue. The best place to learn a language (for adults, of course) is in bed, as they say. I generally subscribe to this view.

I did not suggest that Joe didn't have profound musical knowledge, which is what you chose to interpret. I believe he saw a 7 chord grip "with extensions", rather than a 13 and had his own way of expressing it. I will stand corrected if wrong.

I don't know, but when I was learning, I insisted that friends correct me (that's the English subjunctive - don't blink or you'll miss it) and they did, then you read up at night to try to understand your mistakes. But you have to make them first. All this assumimg that we are not discussing absolute beginners in the language - do they even exist anymore?

My friends and acquaintances maybe cared enough to correct me, and therein may lie the problem with your immigrants.

[Peter C]

LCDTPMC now I have to get rid of a Madonna hookline that suddenly came up LOL

BTW in German there is a colloquial expression “mit Karacho” or “mit vollem Karacho” (“at high speed” or “at full speed”). I just looked it up in the Duden and it has that origin but no one is aware of that.

I always say the LCDTPM expression when I meet Spanish speaking people and they crack up and ask me: “Are you from Argentina?” LOL (I was doing the bar for a long time at milongas in Munich so that’s where I got that accent from)

Some of the differences between European and Latin Spanish can be hilarious: you do NOT "coger un autobús" in Argentina LOL.

[Bobby Timmons]

So Jimmy, your studies of the great Spanish language have thus far not revealed to you rather basic notions such as gender agreement (Maria, compañera) and don't you know how to type an ñ on your keyboard?

I'm not sure that's a logical point. I'm midway through my fluency journey and don't speak like a native yet, sooo.. you're right about the exposure vs study debate? Because I made a typo? Keen logic.

I feel you're deliberately misreading my words as we're talking here about adult integration, where they may find themselves in (discriminatory) social contexts which are not propitious for second language acquisition.

Hispanics are the majority in Santa Fe. It isn't discrimination why none of my Mexican immigrant coworkers who have been working there for years on end don't have fluency. It's because they don't engage in any theoretical study where they memorize vocab and learn verb conjugations.

Kids at school spend the whole day interacting in the lingo, whereas their folks at home very likely communicate in their mother tongue. The best place to learn a language (for adults, of course) is in bed, as they say. I generally subscribe to this view.

Again, music isn't learned in the fashion of a primary language for the vast majority of people; where they assimilate it by rote. It's learned in the fashion of a 2nd language where they require both the rote exposure and theoretical explanation. That's why adults who don't theoretically study a language in general will not pick it up. Same with music.

I did not suggest that Joe didn't have profound musical knowledge, which is what you chose to interpret. I believe he saw a 7 chord grip "with extensions", rather than a 13 and had his own way of expressing it. I will stand corrected if wrong.

Where did I try to misquote you about Joe Pass not being knowledgeable? Lol. You posted a misleading quote of his that theory confuses him and tried to imply that he didn't use theory. When he obviously used a bunch of theory if you watch his video for 10 seconds.

[Bobby Timmons]

I think most if not all players can read chord charts; that is a bit of a prerequisite for being a working player certainly as a guitarist. (Although from Ritchie Hart’s account it did sound like his mentor George Benson didn’t actually know the names of the chords he was using - and who cares if you can play like that, right?)

The thing is you don’t have to know formal theory to read chords on guitar either. You just need to know a few grips for each chord symbol. Guitar fretboard harmony can function as a grips thing and some players get amazing at grips. It’s not my way of doing it, but I can’t say it’s wrong because for some it works really well.

Anyway I’m just putting it out there as something I have basically learned to be the case based on both research and personal experience playing with and chatting to a lot of musicians over the years.

So true, most players now come from a music school background so a strong theory background is certainly common, but it’s certainly not universal. Any reading of jazz history and conversations with older players will reveal that it used to be less universal, and so on.

As a theory oriented aspiring player, its a shocker the first time you get completely roasted by someone who can piss rings around you and yet knows little or no theory, and it happened to me quite a few times, too. there’s something to learn from the experience believe me.

There’s a lot to learn from your fellow players ways of doing things, if your mind is open to it. Not everyone does things in the same way, and I think that’s a beautiful thing.

I agree with what you're saying about some people being talented and developing these great aural pathways without much theory, and this can be an advantage because they're going directly to the music without unmusical guidelines. I hesitate to discount your assessment based on your experience of what proportion of good musicians use theory because I value your contributions, but I have to state that your broad premise of 'theory is unnecessary' is false. I'd wager that the people you say play (single note) by ear still have a theory base of chords, keys, and key centers. I'm going to ask Tony what his experience has been with the musicians he's worked with and what proportion he thinks use theory vs don't at all. He's been through it and played with the greats since the 70s. I'm pretty certain what the answer will be.

I would say constantly studying theory in an effort to improve is unnecessary. It will usually be helpful and never harmful as long as it is balanced with the practice of applying it musically. However, for the vast majority of musicians, at least some theory is essential to succeed.

[Peter C]

I will be back for the attack later after work.

Oh, I see.

Do you have any clips of you playing the guitar?

[Bobby Timmons]

I was ok at guitar. I'm focusing on Hammond now because guitar hurt my finger and I think I have more aptitude for keys. I'm also ok at Hammond, but I think I'll get better since I've only been at it a little while!

[charlieparker]

The "theory" of a how a car works is the underlying physics, chemistry, and engineering, not a mechanic’s ability to disassemble and reassemble one. There are highly competent mechanics who don’t know that underlying science, but could still explain how a car works very clearly. (probably most). There are also mechanics with engineering degrees who could give you the relevant equations and precise scientific terminology for what each part does. They may or may not be better mechanics for that.

The analogy between music and how a car works (to me, anyway) more than anything else reveals how we’re misusing the word "theory” in most of these conversations. Most of what we call “music theory" is really more like a mechanic's practical understanding of car parts and how they inter-operate.

The musical equivalent to car theory would be something like a mix of acoustics, cognitive and perception sciences, anthropology/cultural studies, history, aesthetic theories, etc., with some sort of overarching description tying all of that to the practice of music making. That’s what academic doctoral-level music theory studies are like.

So "music theory” as used by us idiots arguing about it online is really more like a collection of mechanic’s shop manuals or a library of Ikea instructions, or craft-guild lore transmitted by oral tradition and apprenticeship. An improvising jazz musician is someone who can take an Ikea box with a picture of a closet on the front and build a chair, or fix a broken Ford with parts from a Chevy.

A musician can gain that ability via different paths of formal and informal study, with or without written materials, with or without knowing the underlying basic science. But capable improvising musicians have knowledge of their craft. Which path someone takes to gain that knowledge of craft depends on how they’re acculturated, where they live, their cast of mind, etc.

Playing by ear vs theory is just non sequiter, like a fish without a bicycle. The relevant distinctions are between playing by ear and reading, or between and formal and less formal methods of acquiring knowledge.

Brilliantly stated, IMHO. We are all playing by ear when we are playing Jazz for the most part. Some of us may do that by trying to combine a few riffs. Some of us might use some theory to give us a collection of notes to use. Some may just spontaneously imagine a melody. However, no matter the approach the player is using his ears to shape the solo and make decisions about note choices.

Honestly, I don't see any of these being that different. They are all paths to try make good music. Maybe some are less efficient than others but that's the only distinction I would make here.

[Christian Miller]

Its highly philosophically questionable to compare music theory to the laws of physics.

People obviously do it a lot and it has a long intellectual history dating back to at least Pythagoras. The man we can see as the father of modern music theory, JP Rameau was hailed in his own day as the Newton of Music. And we do it today, on jazz guitar forums.

However, I don’t think we should flatter music theorists like that, it only encourages them. Before you know it they’ll be writing papers about tonal matrices projected onto n-toroids. :-)

More importantly this ancient idea distorts the relevance of music theory with a sort of tacit platonism. I think most musicians are naturally predisposed towards this way of thinking, often without realising it.

So musicians say things like ‘Bach (who predates much modern theory on so called tonality) must have understood functional harmony on an intuitive level’ rather than ‘Riemann developed his ideas to help understand what is going on in tonal music such as Bach’s’ implying the laws of music exist ‘out there’ somewhere and are discovered rather than invented by theorists. This mirrors the language we use about physical laws and mathematics.

This a massive philosophical assumption about the nature of music theory, but I think it may be one held by a lot of musicians, maybe even the majority. (As I say it has a long history - the medievals for example viewed these subjects as akin.)

However, I don’t think this view is supportable given the nature of what music theory actually is. The truth is, music theory doesn’t have same intellectual robustness and rigour as science; one can find counter examples and exceptions for just about every ‘rule’ in a way which would invalidate a physical theory. Music theory is also profoundly rooted in musical culture; otherwise we would expect the evolution of Western and Indian music theory (for example) to be convergent.

This has a dark side. Given that music theory and the study of musical aesthetics are very often intertwined the presentation of music theory as physically or cosmically rooted seems less benign. If you believe, for instance, that the laws of functional tonality descend from the wider universe (or God for the theists) than you are more inclined to argue that music that doesn’t fit the theory - such as blues or jazz, or non-western traditions - as in some way primitive or abberant; certainly lesser.

As Edgard Varese pointed out music theory is more comparable to grammar. Like grammar it can be at variance with the spoken vernacular even within a given language.

[Christian Miller]

I agree with what you're saying about some people being talented and developing these great aural pathways without much theory, and this can be an advantage because they're going directly to the music without unmusical guidelines. I hesitate to discount your assessment based on your experience of what proportion of good musicians use theory because I value your contributions, but I have to state that your broad premise of 'theory is unnecessary' is false. I'd wager that the people you say play (single note) by ear still have a theory base of chords, keys, and key centers. I'm going to ask Tony what his experience has been with the musicians he's worked with and what proportion he thinks use theory vs don't at all. He's been through it and played with the greats since the 70s. I'm pretty certain what the answer will be.

I would say constantly studying theory in an effort to improve is unnecessary. It will usually be helpful and never harmful as long as it is balanced with the practice of applying it musically. However, for the vast majority of musicians, at least some theory is essential to succeed.

so what I’m proposing is that there’s might not be that much difference in the learning process for those who know theory and those who don’t.

The main difference is whether or not they know the common practice labels for the things they’ve learned, and I think both the theoretically schooled and unschooled players get a bit hung up on this. The latter in particular can get quite insecure about it and dismissive about their own often very extensive tacit knowledge which is sad. (Culturally we tend to value academic knowledge over practical know-how.)

But in practice there might not be a lot of difference in the way I, as a theory nerd, might do actual playing compared to someone who’s gone down the ‘ears and grips’ route, like a lot of Manouche style players for instance.

Take chords. I know how to construct chords from theory, but when I comp, I’ll reach for those internalised, familiar (to me) grips first and moves (the same as anyone else I suspect) because there simply isn’t time in music to do things that aren’t intuitive and fully embodied. I know how to finger them without thinking and perhaps more importantly I know exactly how they will sound.

The more I learn the more options I might have, but it’s not like I’m ever computing intervals through a scale or whatever.

Over time we may all broaden our vocabulary and internalise less familiar grips and movements. Perhaps I might use theory to derive them, but they might equally come from hanging out with another guitarist and asking ‘hey what’s that?’, or by listening carefully to recordings. In all cases the learning/internalising process is the same. And by the time I can use them on gigs, they are familiar to me.

Everyone’s bodies and brains work in a broadly similar way.

[emanresu]

Hm. How many players complain "oh, I spent so much time on learning theory... total waste!" ?

[Christian Miller]

Hm. How many players complain "oh, I spent so much time on learning theory... total waste!" ?

I regret it a bit!

I wish I’d focussed on ears earlier and books and theory a bit less. Given the progress I made later on, I’d definitely be a better player and musician now. I don’t think it was a ‘total waste’ because theory is useful, but I do feel not focussing enough on the aural side early on did waste that window of opportunity to get my playing to a decent level in my early twenties, which would have been helpful career wise … there was definitely a trade off in terms of time spent.

A good teacher would have fixed that. They fix this for young players all the time… that’s my fault for not seeking help.

EDIT: actually aside from ears one of the other things was holding me back was underestimating the sheer amount of internalisation practice you need to do on a single scale or voicing, pattern, line etc

[emanresu]

I regret it a bit!

I wish I’d focussed on ears earlier and books and theory a bit less. Given the progress I made later on, I’d definitely be a better player and musician now. I don’t think it was a ‘total waste’ because theory is useful, but I do feel not focussing enough on the aural side early on did waste that window of opportunity to get my playing to a decent level in my early twenties, which would have been helpful career wise … there was definitely a trade off in terms of time spent.

A good teacher would have fixed that. They fix this for young players all the time… that’s my fault for not seeking help.

The ratio of different types of practice can be completely off for sure.

I believe that its possible to get all the ear skills at later age too. But the mind gets in a way. When younger, it was easy to put 100% attention to something for hours.
It doesn't work like that when older - thats the only problem. I'm about 97% sure of that.


edit: mom sent money. grandma made dinner. firewood was cheap.

[Tal_175]

Again theory vs ear is a false dichotomy. Theory is not an excuse for not putting in the time for developing ears. There is nothing about theory that prevents one from developing their ears.

In fact, theory should make it easier to develop ears by providing an organization for music. For example, it makes it easier to learn harmony by ear if you can first identify chord categories (Dominant, major, minor, diminished or Tonic, subdominant etc).

[Gabor]

Hm. How many players complain "oh, I spent so much time on learning theory... total waste!" ?

...exactly as much who were complainig "oh, I spent so much time on trying to train my ear... total waste!" :-).

zero, so what?

[kris]

...exactly as much who were complainig "oh, I spent so much time on trying to train my ear... total waste!" :-).

zero, so what?

did the forum guitarists go to music schools?

[emanresu]

This thread made me pick up my spanish pocket dictionary and finish my utterly useless ambition to learn the language.
Thats a better idea than to play sudoku when in toilet. Not much better. But a little.

[John A.]

This thread made me pick up my spanish pocket dictionary and finish my utterly useless ambition to learn the language.
Thats a better idea than to play sudoku when in toilet. Not much better. But a little.

Depends on your most recent meal …