Theory vs. playing by ear

[Christian Miller]

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.

I’m not sure you were expressing it, but I have to say I do reject the idea that is sometimes implied that jazz is different or special. It’s music like any other.

If you a rock player can pick out a 1-b6-b7-1 by ear, I can’t see any compelling reason why a 2 5 1 is in any way different. if you hear it enough obv. And, of course, back in the mid 20th century, that’s what people did by and large.

It’s also unnecessary to be taught what a 2 5 1 or a 1-b6-b7-1 is; humans are built to recognise patterns, whether intuitively or consciously. What you need is data.

Therefore, the main reason I as I see it is one of musical exposure. If the prevalent popular music is GASB material you will internalise those changes. These days, we tend to teach them from the real book of course. The reason is that this stuff is not in popular culture any more.

And yet somehow players still grow up with say, Sinatra, and learn these songs by ear. (Usually musical families I think.)

A professional jazz player can hear GASB standards harmony and learn tunes quickly with enough exposure. There’s an aural component and categorisation component to that ‘aha! I recognise that object/progression!’ - Jimmy I think would call the latter ‘theory.’

regarding more post bop through to contemporary jazz - that’s where I might lean more towards the necessity of theory. One excellent ear-based gypsy/swing player I know is taking theory lessons so they can learn contemporary jazz (great way round to do it if you ask me.) Also especially more recently contemporary jazz is heavily integrated into the music education world.

Those writers do not use a shared language of stock progressions in the same way. I don’t know how easy it would be learn this music purely by ear - but I do learn these tunes by ear myself because it’s good for me.

[Bobby Timmons]

^ If people learn something by ear and then file it away, I would concede that's just musicianship. Still you can't argue that people aren't usually going to go from knowing nothing about music to proficient or good at jazz with zero explanation, only sound and experimentation, that's absurd.

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.

Yep, I'm sure they never picked up any theory or explanations being around other church musicians for 25 years.

[kris]

There is also such a thing as talent.

[Christian Miller]

There is also such a thing as talent.

Yes. But understanding talent is quite interesting.

the word can also be used as an excuse, or a thought terminating cliche

[Christian Miller]

only sound and experimentation, that's absurd.

no, no one learns that way

[Bobby Timmons]

I know. Maybe you should be mad at musicianship too since people try to learn using musicianship exclusively and fail.

[Christian Miller]

I know.

so is that what you are disagreeing with then?

The idea that someone can learn jazz through random experimentation etc?

(I would say it’s not possible to learn anything that)

But that’s not what I thought I was discussing.

[pauln]

When I was a young teen, we all played guitars and taught ourselves by ear in this very way.

Zero explanation meant no lessons, books, methods
Only sound meant listening to records and the sound of one's guitar playing
Experimentation meant figuring out how to make the guitar sound like the record

[Bobby Timmons]

^ I take your word for it. That is a viable way for 1 or 2% of musicians to learn. Many musicians also fail that way, but strangely, you're not mad at that approach.

@ Christian. I'm saying musicianship and some kind or amount of theory is the most viable way to learn music for most people, as evidenced by most of the musicians I know, most of the musicians I listen to, most of the musicians my genius teacher works with. Read the thread. Stop being belligerently immature.

[Christian Miller]

JS's Theory definitions:


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...

...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?

Sorry I missed this post. Well put, and I’d say this is basically where I stand on it.

I’m not really advocating a position on how to teach, although people seem to think I am. I teach theory, and see no good reason not to. That said, on a purely practical level I often find questions like ‘why does this idea/line/sub/etc work?’ asked by students can really eat time in lessons and I’m quite keen to focus on the actual doing.

Rather than say ‘this is the way we should all learn’ (whatever that might be) I’m much more interested in understanding more about people who describe themselves as not knowing theory and yet are great players rather than dismissing them with term ‘savant’.

It seems to me there’s something to learn about the learning process here. So the quoted post and what I’ve put forward is more like a working model of what’s going on, and I try to be honest about the bits that are more like conjecture.

But clearly there’s also some who believe they’ve got it all figured out and that’s the end of the story and anyone outside of that framework is somehow an aberration. I don’t find this very satisfying.

Anyway, the proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating. If someone plays great, I think there’s always something to learn from them.

[Christian Miller]

^ I take your word for it. That is a viable way for 1 or 2% of musicians to learn.

@ Christian. I'm saying musicianship and some kind or amount of theory is the most viable way to learn music for most people, as evidenced by most of the musicians I know, most of the musicians I listen to, most of the musicians my genius teacher works with. Read the thread. Stop being belligerently immature.

So I’m still confused. Are you are saying that your definition of theory includes anything that isn’t random experimentation or are you not?

I’m not trying to prove you wrong, I’m trying to pin you down on what you mean by the word ‘theory’, because if I know this I can understand what you are saying better. I think I know, but I’m not 100% sure.

[Christian Miller]

When I was a young teen, we all played guitars and taught ourselves by ear in this very way.

Zero explanation meant no lessons, books, methods
Only sound meant listening to records and the sound of one's guitar playing
Experimentation meant figuring out how to make the guitar sound like the record

yes, because you have a very clear way to assess the result of your experimentation and refine and perfect what you were doing based on that. The experimentation is certainly not random, but informed.

It’s the Kolb cycle (apologies for the edu buzzwords it’s basically experience-reflect-think-do repeat but they do use the word ‘experimentation’ which is interesting.)


the thinking aspect here at the bottom of the cycle - is what we may associate with ‘theory’. Anyway I thought your post put it really well as to what can happen here.

I think this cycle is broadly similar for self taught and formally taught players, ear learners and theory guys alike. The main difference maybe in the amount of self teaching as opposed to outside input including suggestions and observations at all stages from a teacher.

I’ve said elsewhere that I regret not seeking out more outside help in my own learning, and I think that actually a teacher would have told me to do more ear learning. But that’s another story.

[Bobby Timmons]

So I’m still confused. Are you are saying that your definition of theory includes anything that isn’t random experimentation or are you not?

I’m not trying to prove you wrong, I’m trying to pin you down on what you mean by the word ‘theory’, because if I know this I can understand what you are saying better. I think I know, but I’m not 100% sure.

I'd say music guidelines you can learn away from the instrument or without listening.

[Christian Miller]

I know. Maybe you should be mad at musicianship too since people try to learn using musicianship exclusively and fail.

Do you disambiguate theory from musicianship?

I tend to see them as being separate.

of course musicianship can also include things like reading which are often associated with theory. but I would say Jimi Hendrix (or Glenn Campbell) by all accounts had terrific musicianship but couldn’t read a note. So again, it probably depends on who you ask.

[Bobby Timmons]

Yes I think musicianship is mostly separate from raw theory because it takes a lot of work to enforce musicianship on the theory. However theory still helps musicianship.

[kris]

Yes. But understanding talent is quite interesting.

the word can also be used as an excuse, or a thought terminating cliche

Musical talent = musical talent

[Christian Miller]

Yes I think musicianship is mostly separate from raw theory because it takes a lot of work to enforce musicianship on the theory. However theory still helps musicianship.

Is theory necessary for musicianship?

[Bobby Timmons]

I think it is for most people's brains. Some musicians are more creative but they have some base guidelines that they've accumulated. Some musicians have comprehensive theory data bases and it helps them be creative. While a minority just mostly gravitates to the fully aural side like pauln.

[Christian Miller]

Musical talent = musical talent

that kid who find it really easy for a year, progresses amazingly, hits a wall and gives up because they’ve not been challenged so far.

or it someone who has a good feel for music but also understands how to practice and work consistently?

[kris]

Is theory necessary for musicianship?

what do you mean for musicianship? on what level?

[kris]

that kid who find it really easy for a year, progresses amazingly, hits a wall and gives up because they’ve not been challenged so far.

or it someone who has a good feel for music but also understands how to practice and work consistently?

Musical talent requires proper care - I guess that's clear!

[Christian Miller]

I think it is for most people's brains. Some musicians are more creative but they have some base guidelines that they've accumulated. Some musicians have comprehensive theory data bases and it helps them be creative. While a minority just mostly gravitates to the fully aural side like pauln.

but as you alluded to a theoretical idea (say a line in fourths through a Dorian mode, I know you organists like those ;-) ) - has to be practiced and internalised to the point where it is not longer theory and is mastered. Where it is heard, and felt. So it becomes aural.

plus if I hear Larry Goldings do it on a record is it not just a musical phrase? And then learnable by ear? Cos that’s how I learned it. Of course I’m theory literate so I can say ‘oh it’s Dorian in fourths’ but…. also kind of, so what? I know what it sounds like and how to play it and that’s the main thing.

the general consensus seems to be that thinking of theory while playing is a recipe for disaster. To play music it needs to be embodied. You might come up with something hip from a scale or voicing in the practice room but you still have to get it into your playing.

tbh I find the aural path is much quicker which can be frustrating if you are trying to come out with something different or new. Ears dominate generally.

[Bobby Timmons]

I agree with everything except the last line. I get inspiration from theory ideas and try to check them with my ear if they came out musical. I understand though if people think the ear way is better.

[Christian Miller]

Musical talent requires proper care - I guess that's clear!

yeah it’s a multi faceted thing.

honest to god musical ability has nothin to do with theory of course. Some people just sound good. Otoh there are obvious predictors - is there music at home, do parents or siblings play instruments, do they play other instruments? - and so on and so forth.

some beginners just make a sound you want to listen to.

I’ve taught everyone from those with no background in music at all through to those with famous composers and rock stars in the family. It’s interesting where talent pops up and where it doesn’t, not always where you expect.

[Christian Miller]

I agree with everything except the last line. I get inspiration from theory ideas and try to check them with my ear if they came out musical. I understand though if people think the ear way is better.

Well I listen back to my playing a lot and I can always hear when my brain cogs are working.

generally it doesn’t swing even if I don’t manage to mess myself up.