Theory vs. playing by ear

[Christian Miller]

Sounds legit!

[rsclosson]

As a boomer and a guitarist who plays sax, or a sax player who plays guitar, I have to agree. I know a bunch of alto sax players who would sacrifice lots to sound and play like Desmond. And Brubek is one of the greatest composers and innovators ever! Feel free to argue if you want.

i do sometimes wonder at your judgement I must say :-)

utterly unique player and yea this was a extraordinary era for saxers and Desmond stood out by not sounding like anyone else. Lot more to him than the Brubeck quartet too

[Bobby Timmons]

If you want to be a good teacher; it’s worth figuring out how people learn.

They learn with musicianship and theory, not 1 or the other. Do you play them a tune and say now do that? No. Do you have them run a scale and then say now make good melodies out of that? No. It's the application of both.

[Bobby Timmons]

If you sound bad, somebody is likely to suggest you learn more theory. I'm thinking of another jazz guitar forum where that happened regularly.

If you sound good, somebody will suggest you already know a goodly amount of theory, even if you have learned to play by ear, can't play any scales, arps or whatever "theory" encompasses.

The term "theory" turns out to be flexible past any reasonable breaking point.

For the conversation to be meaningful, we have to be specific about what bit of knowledge or skill we're trying to discuss.

If someone sounds bad, I would suggest for them to learn more about music - which includes theory and musicianship. If someone is good, people suggest they know theory because it is probably true lol.

Read the thread. Theory is any intellectual organization of music other than a purely aural understanding. Like AA says:

So looks guys, this is dumb. Unless the "ear player" calls the strings the fat one, the one under it and the skinny ones, they know theory. Unless they magically will triads/chords out of nothing every single time they play the guitar they use theory.

They're mad at theory and won't stop until they can indoctrinate the entire forum with falsehoods.

[Bobby Timmons]

Don't mind my conversation with one of the best jazz organists of all time where I specifically asked him about his approach and about the approaches of his pro colleagues:

I asked my teacher, Tony Monaco, about this question. Here are his answers to the points brought up in the thread.

1. He likes theory because he thinks it's important to know to use as a pallet to be creative. He thinks you need both the listening/musical/aural competence and the theory structure. He said yes, the listening is some of the picture, but not all of it.

2. He says pretty much all his colleagues have some sort of theory base that they use to be creative off of. While some learned that base more aurally and some more theoretically.

3. He thinks people who know theory can be more creative because of their knowledge resources than people who don't. He referred to them as gut bucket players. He used the example of how Coltrane could be extremely creative because of his theory knowledge.

4. He thinks some of the concepts really have to be learned academically. He made the example of 2-5s of how Jobim liked to use sub 2-5s of backdoor or tritone. He said yeah I guess you could learn that by ear.. if you know what you're listening for.

5. He says everyone wants to be able to play more musically and artistically than just playing the theory.

For those who aren't familiar with Tony, he's one of the best if not the best living jazz organist. He didn't come up in the golden age, but that's good because he came up right after the golden age in the 70s and he's still with us. He was born in 1958.

[Marinero]

i do sometimes wonder at your judgement I must say :-)

utterly unique player and yea this was a extraordinary era for saxers and Desmond stood out by not sounding like anyone else. Lot more to him than the Brubeck quartet too

Hi, C,
We all have different tastes in music. However, as a young Saxer, the evolutionary Coltrane ruined my world for about two years. The only benefit was that I maniacally learned scales, chords, inversions, etc. inside/out and, I beat up my horn with aural violence every time I took a solo. I really wasn't saying anything just tearing up my horn(of course, figuratively). Then, one day I realized it wasn't working for ME. I always loved lyricism in music and it was my meat and potatoes since I began playing so horn players like Dexter Gordon, James Moody, Illinois Jacquet, Gene Ammons, Johnny Griffin, Sonny Stitt, Harold Land, Zoot Sims, Getz, etc., etc. returned to my life and I was reborn in a sense. So, Desmond was a dud. Brubeck was a dud. I don't care how they're lionized, their music never worked for me. It was studied, lacked passion, academic, and well, just plain boring. And, Desmond always reminded me of solos Jazz majors in my generation played during college concerts. However, others seem to like it. I'm o.k. with that since we all bring different tastes to the table. Isn't it great we all don't think the same?
Marinero

[pauln]

So,Desmond... Brubeck...

At last, Marinero and I share a musical agreement.

[Sean65]

By the age of four, I could not read, I could not write, I knew nothing about grammar but I spoke perfect English. Go figure!

[rpjazzguitar]

I had an album called Glad To Be Unhappy. I think it came out under Desmond's name, but Jim Hall seemed to be an equal contributor. No piano.
It was subtitled "Torch songs sung by sax".

I still love it. I can feel something in Desmond's playing. To my ear he's incredibly melodic, plays with soul and has the best tone on alto, bar none.

I liked the Brubeck Quartet better than I liked Brubeck as a pianist. I think some of his talent was as a band leader and as a kind of visionary. Time Out was unprecendented as far as I know.

When I first heard it, in the mid 60s, it was beautiful and accessible. I learned some of Jim's parts and transcribed a bit of Paul. As I recall, he used simple melodic and harmonic devices in his solos, but they all worked great.

At that time, I didn't understand what I recall were called the "angry young tenors". I have more appreciation for that now. But, I still like Desmond and I think of Jim's playing on that album as a major influence. Not the licks, but the mood.

[AllanAllen]

By the age of four, I could not read, I could not write, I knew nothing about grammar but I spoke perfect English. Go figure!

You absolutely did not speak perfect English. You could ask for milk, but you were far from perfect.

[Bobby Timmons]

By the age of four, I could not read, I could not write, I knew nothing about grammar but I spoke perfect English. Go figure!

And you can't learn in that fashion as an adult. Go figure!

[ccroft]

This is quite a bizarre discussion. It's strange to see folks defending 'theory' against someone like Christian. He knows more than most. Maybe it's because a lot of what he's saying is around his experience as a teacher and a student. Which he apparently has done a lot of. From what I've seen he seems like a very good teacher. Seems to me all he's saying is there's more to it than book learnin'.

If this is theory:

...any intellectual organization of music other than a purely aural understanding...

then everyone who plays guitar uses theory. Even my 6 year old great grand niece!

This says it nicely:

So looks guys, this is dumb. Unless the "ear player" calls the strings the fat one, the one under it and the skinny ones, they know theory. Unless they magically will triads/chords out of nothing every single time they play the guitar they use theory.

Birelli has been called an 'ear player'. So do we believe that if he breaks a string he doesn't know how to ask his buddy if he's got an extra D string? "Hey Hono, you have an extra string that's the third thinnest wound one? No... not that one. The next one over. Thanks!"

Who are the anti-theory guys that are spreading falsehoods? Who are these 'ear players' that are anti theory? How can they be against knowing the string names?

Even this:

I often see advertisements like this one on Facebook. The thing to do instead of learning theory is usually memorising a pattern...

Is an intellectual organization of music, therefore theory.

Again Birelli: he may not know how to describe a major scale by intervals, but he damn sure knows how to play one. So...he's not an ear player after all?

I'm gonna go play some. I'll use a bit of theory, some ear and a whole lot of heart....hopefully.

[ccroft]

And I won't be thinking about any of this:

Major seventh, dominant seventh, minor seventh, and both diminished and half diminished form stacks of what interval?
A ditone is what major interval?
Major enharmonic equivalent of diminished fourth?
Series of augmented intervals produces the circle of what?
The interval between a major scales' tonic and mediant?
The major interval between the fourth and fifth harmonics?
What is the interval between the pair of nonharmonic tones called Cambiata?
Which seventh chord inversion is indicated by 4/2?
The alto clef places middle C on which line?

So I am an ear player after all! :-)

[Bobby Timmons]

I'm sure you won't be using any theory that you've internalized either.

[Bobby Timmons]

then everyone who plays guitar uses theory. Even my 6 year old great grand niece!

That's correct. It's a spectrum. It's almost impossible to not use any theory unless one is a savant.

[pauln]

JS's Theory definitions:

It's any guideline that helps in the conscious aid of constructing your music apart than just hearing what you want to play and executing it.
If the musician uses an intellectual structure besides just putting what they hear to their instrument then it's theory!
Theory is any intellectual organization of music other than a purely aural understanding.

Maybe it it is fair to summarize those three quotes like this:
Theory
- any guideline, intellectual structure/organization of music that helps in the conscious aid of constructing your music
Playing by ear
- a purely aural understanding, putting what one hears (what one wants to play) to their instrument, executing it
But just when I'm thinking those three quotes are closing in on a good sense of theory vs playing by ear...

It's almost impossible to not use any theory unless one is a savant.

...I see this, which apparently existentially denies playing by ear to a whole world's worth of musicians that thought they did so (except for a historical handful of savants).

This - a purely aural understanding, putting what one hears (what one wants to play) to their instrument, executing it - is how I play, and my modesty is imperiled imagining I am one of the historical handful. I do have guidelines, intellectual structures/organizations of music but they are internal abstractions, mental phenomenological representations experienced as music in my mind's ear, not named objects. If we allow the definition of theory to include these, then the play by ear end of the spectrum isn't virtually empty. Maybe the ends of the spectrum of theory and playing by ear could be more defined this way:

Theory - guidelines, intellectual structures/organizations of music comprising verbal logical named elements and relationships acquired and sourced externally (lesson plans, method books, music schools, professional formal training)
Playing by ear - guidelines, intellectual structures/organizations of music comprising abstractions, mental phenomenological representations experienced as music in my mind's ear as unnamed objects acquired and sourced internally (self teaching, exploration, trial and error, aural transcription, experience and exposure)

This external (named) vs internal (unnamed) sourcing works if everyone believes that named things of theory may be recognized by ear players without having to be named. Guidelines and intellectual structures/organizations of music do not have to be verbal, do not have to be named things; they may be unnamed, nonverbal, non-visual... aural understanding has this kind of guidelines, intellectual structures/organizations... Those who actually took my aptitude test (guitar) for playing by ear will have gained some insight of this.

There are arguments warning or suggesting that playing by ear might be difficult for some who rather prefer learning by a more formal structured path, or need to meet a schedule deadline (music school), but note that the sound of formal training has also been mentioned along the lines of Olet lucernam, Latin for "It smells of the lamp", a criticism indicating too much late night toil over something (musicians showing up "sounding like music school"). When formally trained musicians play Jazz, don't they consciously and enthusiastically draw from the "playing by ear end of the spectrum" to make their music sound more authentic, or more beautiful, or more appropriate?

[Bobby Timmons]

I take your word for it if you say you truly play by ear and came to your realizations and structures aurally. It just isn't very common so there's no point in making a rule about it. The most effective way for most musicians to play well is to apply themselves in musicianship and some amount of theory.

Read the thread. I'm taking lessons with Tony Monaco who is one of the best jazz organists of all time. He said yes, obviously everyone wants to be artistic and not just rely on theory but that he uses theory as a base to be creative off of and so do all his colleagues. Some learned their base more aurally some more theoretically but it's necessary from the viewpoint of a seasoned professional.

Let me know if this is up to your standard of musicianship. He uses a lot of theory.

[pauln]

I take your word for it if you say you truly play by ear and came to your realizations and structures aurally. It just isn't very common so there's no point in making a rule about it. The most effective way for most musicians to play well is to apply themselves in musicianship and some amount of theory.

Read the thread. I'm taking lessons with Tony Monaco who is one of the best jazz organists of all time. He said yes, obviously everyone wants to be artistic and not just rely on theory but that he uses theory as a base to be creative off of and so do all his colleagues. Some learned their base more aurally some more theoretically but it's necessary from the viewpoint of a seasoned professional.

Let me know if this is up to your standard of musicianship. He uses a lot of theory.

Oh that's awesome. That "lot of theory" is dressed up nice, the only sense of it I pick up is watching how he moves his hands. I played with two guys a while back who were church musicians, both had been playing piano/organ, four services a week for over twenty-five years... they were brilliant, similar to the video, sense of complete mastery and control of execution, freedom to express anything. But they were both self taught ear players and an informed observing of their hands revealed it.

[kris]

I was playing with a blind pianist.
He played everything by ear and learned from the recordings of the masters, he didn't even think about any theory.
Hearing is the most important .I have a lot of theoretical knowledge, but I will never play it beautifully like a fellow pianist.

[emanresu]

You absolutely did not speak perfect English. You could ask for milk, but you were far from perfect.

Way back, people spoke perfectly all the time without knowing any theory behind it.

[Christian Miller]

That's correct. It's a spectrum. It's almost impossible to not use any theory unless one is a savant.

Yeah I mean given you included theory as stuff which people work out for themselves, I’m not sure if any (adult) could learn music without theory. So if that’s your definition then yes I agree and in fact I’ve said as much above about 200 posts ago lol.

The human brain is great at recognising patterns and categorising things, correctly or incorrectly. And if you disagree you are probably a Sagittarius.

It’s not my definition of the word ‘theory’ (which I separate from know-how or craft for my own reasons, again see above) and I don’t think it is of many on the thread who associate it more with formal education, but it is a definition and I like it as an idea (although I lack the psychology knowledge to go beyond saying ‘it seems to me’.)

So the thread is talking a little bit at cross purposes.

The other tacit point you are making elsewhere is interesting. Is language acquired in childhood acquired in a way which is fundamentally different to adulthood? Most of us who deal with kids and have kids of our own are amazed by the rapid way they pick up language and information about the world and regard it as qualitatively different to the way adults learn.

Is it?

Honestly I have no idea. I don’t know much about developmental psychology but it would probably useful for teaching the 5 year olds.

this has a bearing on the likes of Bireli who learned music as a ‘mother tongue.’

OTOH the main difference with teaching adults and kids is adults like to talk, kids like to do (well most of them lol). So, that has a bearing on the discussion.

[pauln]

I was playing with a blind pianist.
He played everything by ear and learned from the recordings of the masters, he didn't even think about any theory.
Hearing is the most important .I have a lot of theoretical knowledge, but I will never play it beautifully like a fellow pianist.

One of the guys had purposely learned and practiced in absolute darkness, never looked at his hands, always in eye contact with everyone.

[Litterick]

This is quite a bizarre discussion.

If participants reduce theory to any 'intellectual organization of music', however trivial, then the discussion will be bizarre, and very long. If knowing the string names is knowledge of theory, the argument will never progress beyond the most general notions, and we will be here forever. Welcome back my friends, to the thread that never ends.

I would say theory, in any credible discipline, happens where naming of parts ends and comparisons begin. The theory discussions on this forum, for example, are commonly of the 'what goes with that' kind. What chord goes with that scale? What tone builds on that chord? What comes next? This is useful theoretical discussion. Practical objections to theory could be of the kind that says, 'This is not in the books, but it works', or 'This is against the rules, but it sounds good.' Historical objections to theory could be, 'That is not how it was done', or 'Nobody played like that.' Jazz in its golden age had little formal theory, but it did have avoid notes. It had practical bounds (until they were broken by the next generation).

Whether it is possible to be an ear player in jazz is another matter. I know of rock players who do not know scales, strange though it seems. They learn by imitation, but find it impossible to progress from what they have copied, unsurprisingly. But in jazz, the musician would need to know what his bandmates are playing and how to improvise. Acquiring those skills must require some theoretical knowledge.

[Boss Man Zwiebelsohn]

[…] Birelli has been called an 'ear player'. So do we believe that if he breaks a string he doesn't know how to ask his buddy if he's got an extra D string? "Hey Hono, you have an extra string that's the third thinnest wound one? No... not that one. The next one over. Thanks!" […]

He would ask him for a “Re” string. The gypsies internally use absolute Do Re Mi Fa Sol La Si Do. (The German Sinti as well. In France, Spain and Italy it is used anyway.) A gypsy piano player I know (and I think this applies to all of them who play with “Gadjos” — non-Gipsies) can also communicate the chords / notes with the letters used in German and English speaking countries, Poland etc. But he would rather use the enharmonic sharp version BTW — maybe that’s because there are normally no horns in gypsy jazz. So he would say F# (“Fis” like we Germans say) instead of Gb (“Ges”). And he would say “H” instead of “B” like in German classical music (like that usually also in German rock and jazz circles; pronounced “Huh”).

BTW he was taken at Munich’s famous conservatory after playing three classical pieces at the audition he had learned by ear. He left it soon again because he did not get along with all the reading and chord scale theory.

[I have nothing against reading personally. I am not reading very fluently but it is good to be able to hear something in your head after looking at some lines with some fly shit on them. And meanwhile I can also imagine chords in my inner hearing but only after years of aural training.]

That guy says he knows 1000 tunes by rote. And I believe that.

[Christian Miller]

The other thing - and I don’t know that this supports either ‘side’ tbh - is that information used to be a lot more thin on the ground. Players did not always used to be keen about sharing concepts or ideas, for instance

stolen knowledge was very important. Barry used to watch keys players hands at gigs to learn.

so now we live in a very information rich environment.

the reason is straightforward- back in the 60s players used to make a living selling their playing to an audience of music fans.

Now, at least as often, they are selling ideas and concepts to make a living. The contemporary jazz player most typically plays to a room of people who wants to do their job.