The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 25 of 43 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast
Posts 601 to 625 of 1072
  1. #601

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pauln
    There is no ear vs theory; "by ear" is a theory.
    But, with no tangible external manifestations,
    apart from happening in a real performance,
    it provides no apparent method or audit trail.
    This makes it seem a bit... mystical, which it is.
    Thus playing by ear is the true religion of jazz.
    I really like that ‘audit trail’ ;-)

    we are in the world of audit trails today.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #602

    User Info Menu

    If I'm playing a blues, I'm an ear player. Just imagining melody and playing it.

    But, if the song suddenly goes to some unexpected chord that I can't pre-hear, I will suddenly become a theory based player. I'll think of chord tones, or a scale or some other device to avoid clams. When the tune goes back to harmony I can "feel" I'm an ear player again.

    Someone might say that I'm a theory based player throughout, because I know some theory, but I can recall playing blues by ear before I ever knew a thing about theory.

    I prefer playing by ear, when the harmony allows me to do it. I think it comes out better.

  4. #603

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    If I'm playing a blues, I'm an ear player. Just imagining melody and playing it.

    But, if the song suddenly goes to some unexpected chord that I can't pre-hear, I will suddenly become a theory based player. I'll think of chord tones, or a scale or some other device to avoid clams. When the tune goes back to harmony I can "feel" I'm an ear player again.

    Someone might say that I'm a theory based player throughout, because I know some theory, but I can recall playing blues by ear before I ever knew a thing about theory.

    I prefer playing by ear, when the harmony allows me to do it. I think it comes out better.
    So you're in good company with most musicians
    playing from internalization as much as possible,
    drawing on some secondary strategy as needed
    (and oh thank goodness jazz comes from blues).

  5. #604

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    I don’t know why the idea that there isn’t simply one way to do things, just one route up the mountain, has appeared to put some peoples noses out of joint for some reason.
    I don't think it's a question of can someone learn to play and even be amazing (which raises the question if there are any people with good ears who tried, but never got good?), but it's kind of like the often made response to "Well [insert savant here] didn't need all that crap." which is obviously going to be: "Well you wouldn't be here in the first place if you were [insert savant here].".

    I see this whole discussion being about teaching, even if only ourselves. And I don't see how or why one would even begin to teach without teaching theory unless you were only teaching songs at the level of put "Now put your finger here for two beats.". But teaching improv/composing seems to require it.

    I mean, what does one "teach" an "ear" player if not something akin to theory? "Listen more.....and harder"?


    Quote Originally Posted by RLetson
    That Bireli video is priceless. His playing is pretty clearly not theory-led, and from some of his reactions to Denis Chang's off-camera prompting, theory* does not seem to be at the front of his mind when he's playing. But then, he is one of those remarkably gifted musicians for whom naming and analysis come after execution, if at all.
    I haven't watched the entire video, but the 2:08 section has him tying a lick to a chord, which to me IS theory.

    I guess we're back to definitions because to me playing by ear is hearing a sound and choosing another sound, entirely by ear, to play with it. In my mind, you're using theory once there is a framework of "these go with those".

    So I may often play by ear is the sense that I do not even know what note I just played (too fast to think except afterwards), but I do have a theoretical framework of key or chord that I am working from, which is setting theoretical boundaries/clues as to "right" note options. I'm actively only "thinking" pitch and groove, but that's because the other stuff is already internalized to the degree where I don't have to make that decision too.


    Quote Originally Posted by grahambop
    So you think you might be nearly as good as George Benson, Wes Montgomery and Joe Pass one day?

    When do you think you might get near their level?.
    This is a good general point.

    It is not only the end point of their abilities, it is the speed at which they broke from the pack too.

    The gaps show up pretty quick once someone is practicing regularly and well.

    Sure.

    There's a chance that someone has simply be focusing on the wrong things and such to such a large degree that something might click and a watershed is broken, but even if that is possible, the odds of encountering whatever would be the trigger for that happening are slim to none.

    It seems that some folks just want to keep living the dream that we're all capable of anything if we just put in the work. And the only things holding us back are desire and circumstances outside of our control which may prevent us from putting in the work.

    I'm sure that there are lots of genuine could have beens (Skill, not fame. That's another animal entirely.) who've never even got to the breaking from the pack level or who got hung up between there and great because of being lazy/disinterested or happenstance, but there's a lot more can't get there from here than most of us want to admit.

    Quote Originally Posted by KingKong
    So answer this question, why can Joe Pass think about getting milk during a lovely guitar solo?

    A) he's so amazing and such a savant genius that only he could have a brain to do such a thing.

    B) There actually isn't a great deal to think about.
    A) is certainly possible.

    Why is there obvious gaps in genetic/natural born abilities in things like athletics, but none from the neck up?

    Hint: there are more.

    B) could be possible simply because he is very very well rehearsed and there is not nearly as much mental output going on in the moment as we perceive, BUT he still has much more talent than us...giving him even the ability to have the material to rehearse in the first place.

    I'm no Joe Pass, but I often play better live with a bit of distraction. I'll sometimes even deliberately focus on something outside of the music.

    C) He's joking and/or avoiding the need to answer because articulating it is hard.

    D) He's lying/exaggerating to create/keep up a mystique.

    I have watched some of his instructional stuff where he does seem to have a "What's all the fuss, guys. This is easy stuff." attitude, but it is a rather common thing to where experts and teachers cannot really remember or relate any more to the questions/state of the less skilled/learned. This is why a fellow student is often a better help at filling in the blanks than the teacher.

    How much more so would this be the case if one were both and expert AND a savant?

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    What would Richie Havens have sounded like if he had formal guitar lessons?

    I mention him because he had a unique way of playing guitar. At least I've never encountered anybody who played remotely similarly.
    This is going to depend on who the teacher is and what their methodology is.

    Some are quite anal retentive about posture, how you hold the pick, ect., but a lot of guys do unorthodox things, but still take lessons for general, and sometimes niche, musical content even though they only intend to practice it in their own weird way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    I think what would help this thread is a real understanding of what is involved in being an ‘ear player’, some seeming to think it’s a cop out or something, which it certainly isn’t. If anything theory is the shortcut.
    I think the practical theory stuff is absolutely a sort of cheat code...or maybe a decoder ring.

    [/QUOTE]Complicating this are those that say they’re ear players as a pose while actually just being not very good.[/QUOTE]

    This is a good point.

    I also only really care about people who compose and improvise by ear's answers.

    There's an obvious level of skill required to transcribe, even just to one's own fretboard, by ear, but I would never say anyone needed any theoretical frame work to do it.

  6. #605

    User Info Menu

    "...(which raises the question if there are any people with good ears who tried, but never got good?)"

    I'm pretty sure there are many people with good ears and abundant talent who never got good simply due to lack of structure and discipline. That's where jazz (and classical) players shine, with obvious great results.

  7. #606

    User Info Menu

    Fascinating discussion, although I'm not a hundred percent sure what it's about...

    Thank god I'm not a musician :-)

  8. #607

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    I'm not a hundred percent sure what it's about...
    People are mad at theory. Even though it's essential for most to make music, it only helps when it's applied well and used with musicianship, and people's music who 'don't use' theory ends up following theory anyway.
    Last edited by Jimmy Smith; 12-04-2022 at 03:01 AM.

  9. #608

    User Info Menu

    'So answer this question, why can Joe Pass think about getting milk during a lovely guitar solo?

    Italian heritage.

  10. #609

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    People are mad at theory. Even though it's essential for most to make music, it only helps when it's applied well and used with musicianship, and people's music who 'don't use' theory ends up following theory anyway.
    ooh that theory!

    *shakes fist*

  11. #610

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by LankyTunes
    I don't think it's a question of can someone learn to play and even be amazing (which raises the question if there are any people with good ears who tried, but never got good?), but it's kind of like the often made response to "Well [insert savant here] didn't need all that crap." which is obviously going to be: "Well you wouldn't be here in the first place if you were [insert savant here].".

    I see this whole discussion being about teaching, even if only ourselves. And I don't see how or why one would even begin to teach without teaching theory unless you were only teaching songs at the level of put "Now put your finger here for two beats.". But teaching improv/composing seems to require it.
    I think that’s true.

    I mean, what does one "teach" an "ear" player if not something akin to theory? "Listen more.....and harder"?
    I don’t know, because like most I use theory to contextualise things, even if it’s just ‘here’s a II V I’. I would suspect most players have this level of theory even if they say they are ear players, but quite honestly I don’t really know for sure.

    Theirs a lot of ear work though. The bulk of the work is - ‘learn this head by ear. here’s a phrase, play it back. let’s sing this line through’ etc

    I think the practical theory stuff is absolutely a sort of cheat code...or maybe a decoder ring.
    not really because everyone sounds shit when they can’t hear what they’re playing and it’s always obvious. So you still have to hear it, which requires internalising.

    it’s not a cheat because you end up doing the work anyway. Theory can suggest alternative ideas and concepts that can then be aurally internalised. As I say, most ear players tend to be melody oriented or lick players.

    I also only really care about people who compose and improvise by ear's answers.

    There's an obvious level of skill required to transcribe, even just to one's own fretboard, by ear, but I would never say anyone needed any theoretical frame work to do it.
    More than two thirds of ‘transcription’ (terrible term) is done in the minds ear and the traditional way to work on that is via singing. Tristano adopted this practice from earlier informal methods.

    In general I find Guitarists noodle on the instrument before they have properly learned the phrase in their ears 9/10 times and confuse themselves. Once you can hear it, the playing side is not trivial but much easier.

    writing down music by ear is a separate skill for me. Maybe for more notationally grounded musicians (people who learned to read music at 6 or whatever) it may be different, but to me the fretboard is something very physical, while writing music down feels very different. Maybe as I become a better reader this may change.

    I just see the right notes light up and then I play them. It’s not a theoretical activity.

    Anyway, for more info, hang out with some non theory players, they are not rare in more traditional corners of jazz. Meet enough players and you will come across them, they are not freakish geniuses or anything.

    otoh those guys would often rather talk about anything other than music; music is something they do not something they talk about.

    don’t ask me, I’m an unutterable nerd.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 12-04-2022 at 06:23 AM.

  12. #611

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by strumcat
    "...(which raises the question if there are any people with good ears who tried, but never got good?)"

    I'm pretty sure there are many people with good ears and abundant talent who never got good simply due to lack of structure and discipline. That's where jazz (and classical) players shine, with obvious great results.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    Theory can suggest alternative ideas and concepts that can then be aurally internalised.
    Which is exactly how it's a cheat code.

    That and teaching common practice..which is all I think practical theory is anyway.

    Having a general rule cuts through how much experimenting and listening you have to do to come to the same conclusion you would have learned if someone just taught you the theory.

  13. #612

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by LankyTunes
    Which is exactly how it's a cheat code.
    well no? A cheat code is when you get like infinite lives or invulnerability and can beat the game with little or no effort or skill. Theory isn’t like that. You still have to really internalise what you are doing and hear it to sound good.

    That and teaching common practice..which is all I think practical theory is anyway.

    Having a general rule cuts through how much experimenting and listening you have to do to come to the same conclusion you would have learned if someone just taught you the theory.
    I think it’s much more important for some types of playing than others; for some I think some kind of theoretical framework might be essential, specifically contemporary approaches.

    It’s also possible to overstate how much experimentation goes on in ear based learning. As I say it can tend to be less experimental, because ear players tend to be lick guys or work from the melody. They aren’t throwing notes on a chord.

    but then this ties into the dubious idea that jazz solos are improvised fresh each time. Ethan Iverson made a typically provocative post about this the other day, suggesting that improvisation is much less important in jazz than learning music and repertoire. (Needless to say the main way people learn repertoire in jazz is by ear for various reasons.) Not sure if agree 100% (I’m not certain that Ethan does lol) but it’s an interesting thought to entertain.

    it is true idea that the jazz musician makes up music from whole cloth each time they solo is generally a bit of a myth. Many ‘systems’ of improvisation seem to have this as a tacit assumption

    With beginners the choice is often between sounding good/idiomatic or ‘properly improvising’. I would always choose the former. To understand if you are sounding good, you need to know what jazz sounds like, that’s the main thing.

  14. #613

    User Info Menu

    I just listened to a chunk of the "Mr. P.C." video over on "The Songs," partly because I'm curious about how a guitarist navigates uptempo bop outside of the pretend-you're-a-horn mode. The jazz group that tolerates my sitting in calls that tune with some regularity, along with other fast bop numbers (lots of Parker and Rollins and Monk), and I always have trouble finding a place for my swing-based playing in them. In fact, it's my impression (since my music library is downstairs and I can't check the album notes) that a bop ensemble doesn't really need a guitar, and that when there is a guitar, it takes on portions of horn and (sometimes) keyboard roles. (I know there are bop guitarists--and they sound like horn players to me.)

    So--when I hear "Mr. P.C.," I can pretty easily pick out the harmonic structure by ear, though I use a chart to get the correct chords. And when I listen to the rest of the band (usually sax, keys, guitar, bass, drums) play the head, I can hear who is doing what. And during solos, I can hear what the keys and guitar are doing. (They're long-time bandmates and manage to stay out of each other's way.) I suppose my real problem in that situation is that I'm surplus to requirements, but my impulse is to join the drummer, who is not inclined to get busy behind a soloist. But in this mode the band is not a swing ensemble.

    Since I never solo, I'm not sure whether "theoretical" knowledge would help me navigate this situation. My inclination would be to sit down with the Real Book chart and figure out some voicings that would not get in the way of what I recall my bandmates doing--or to just sit out the hardcore hard-bop tunes.

    I think I'm posting this here rather than over on "The Songs" because most of the work I do to fit into this band is ear-led. I use charts to make sure I have the basics and recordings to familiarize myself with stylistic/aesthetic options for tunes I'm not that familiar with, but in the end what I hear (and what I can execute) dictates what I do. (See earlier posts for the nature and limits of my grasp of "theory.")

  15. #614

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    A cheat code is when you get like infinite lives or invulnerability and can beat the game with little or no effort or skill.
    At this point it's hard not to think you're just being obtuse.

    Cheat codes make the game easier. They also let you skip levels and such. That doesn't equal easy, which I never said. It equal easier.

    Just like being told any number of things are connected vs having to figure it out by yourself does.

    I'll assume there's someone out there with some incredible chord vocabulary who figured it all out by ear, but there is no possible way that that was faster then if they had been told how chords are built. Same goes for any number of things like chord substitutions, key changes, ect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    You still have to really internalise what you are doing and hear it to sound good.
    Who is arguing that you don't?

    But knowing what is going on makes it easier and faster by even knowing what to focus one's practicing on in order to internalize it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    It’s also possible to overstate how much experimentation goes on in ear based learning. As I say it can tend to be less experimental, because ear players tend to be lick guys or work from the melody. They aren’t throwing notes on a chord.
    Yes, but they are essentially throwing licks on chords which is essentially the same thing....which I think we all inevitably wind up doing, even if they are our own licks we've played to death.


    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    but then this ties into the dubious idea that jazz solos are improvised fresh each time. Ethan Iverson made a typically provocative post about this the other day, suggesting that improvisation is much less important in jazz than learning music and repertoire. (Needless to say the main way people learn repertoire in jazz is by ear for various reasons.) Not sure if agree 100% (I’m not certain that Ethan does lol) but it’s an interesting thought to entertain.

    it is true idea that the jazz musician makes up music from whole cloth each time they solo is generally a bit of a myth. Many ‘systems’ of improvisation seem to have this as a tacit assumption
    Just the unnatural nature of playing guitar makes ingrained habits the default. I think of improv as most tweaking these on the spot. Then there's a bunch of happy accidents with cool recoveries. But true thinking the line then playing it is probably a quite small percentage of this...especially as the tempo increases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    With beginners the choice is often between sounding good/idiomatic or ‘properly improvising’. I would always choose the former. To understand if you are sounding good, you need to know what jazz sounds like, that’s the main thing.
    I see this as a totally false dichotomy. You're not improvising "properly" if it doesn't sound good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    To understand if you are sounding good, you need to know what jazz sounds like, that’s the main thing.
    I have heard numerous exhortations that folks need to listen to jazz if they want to play it, so I guess it's an issue. I simply don't see why in the world one would bother, let alone think you could get good at a genre you don't even listen to...especially jazz.

    That sounds like child abuse or the terms of parole or something.

  16. #615

    User Info Menu

    This thread has gone west, I've no idea what anyone is discussing anymore!

    How about this for a quote I just made up to sum it up:

    Only a deaf man can call himself a true theory player.
    Only a blind man can call himself a true ear player.

  17. #616

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by KingKong
    This thread has gone west, I've no idea what anyone is discussing anymore!

    How about this for a quote I just made up to sum it up:

    Only a deaf man can call himself a true theory player.
    Only a blind man can call himself a true ear player.
    Go for the trifecta...
    Only a man first time playing his first instrument can call himself a true improvising player.

  18. #617

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by KingKong
    This thread has gone west, I've no idea what anyone is discussing anymore!
    Same theme as always, they're mad at theory. :P

  19. #618

    User Info Menu

    I have perhaps a ridiculously broad view as to what music theory represents that stretches far beyond what the academic gatekeepers of jazz and classical theory commonly adhere to. Within my paradigm, this includes info as basic as a fret and string numbering system, what is a chord, a melody, rhythm and it can get as complex, abstract and philosophical as one chooses. From this vantage point it is hard for me to visualize a musician as completely devoid of info regardless how primary their music is driven by ear and intuition.

    Language is a profound and intricate collection of assigned sounds codifying human perception and experience. Music theory is generally understood as written or verbal representations of sonic events, relationships and structures. Spoken and written language permeates our existence so completely that sometimes we confuse it with the content and experiences that are being represented. Notated scores are not music but rather a sophisticated system of symbols that can be translated into music and it may or may not duplicate the author's original intent when rendered.

    I believe that human intelligence can retain sonic knowledge as surely as we can with info that is described in words and numbers and when combined with good guitar mechanics can yield high level playing. It is insulting and misleading to refer to such a developed musician as unschooled. The depth of their knowledge is reflected in what and how they are able to play and respond within different musical scenarios. This is a very direct approach and all would be well served in my opinion to integrate this approach as much as possible.

    Descriptive knowledge, aka music theory, is interesting given that understanding verbiage is not the same thing as musical realization.
    So what is it then? For some it might represent a set of rules or guidelines to follow. I like to consider it as experiments to try based on either someone's recommendation or some new permutation of an idea I come up with myself. Material deemed musically worthy, preferably verified by the results of ones own explorations, will need to be assimilated for practical application composing, arranging or improvising.

  20. #619

    User Info Menu

    Since this is a jazz forum, we should limit the scope of what we consider theory to the concepts that are applicable to composing and/or arranging music at a reasonably sophisticated level.

    There are performing musicians, teaching musicians and creating musicians (composers/arrangers). In general performing musicians do not need and often do not possess this type of theoretical knowledge unless they have personal interest and curiosity in the subject.

    We jazz players are oddballs in the sense that we actually apply this type of understanding in performance. Improvised solos that do justice to the jazz tradition employ voice leading through the chords as well as exploration of harmonic possibilities beyond what's on the sheet. Jazz guitar comping is essentially creating horn section or string quartet arrangements on the fly.

    Rock, pop, blues etc soloing and comping do not require this level of sophistication. These styles get their sophistication from expressive use of less tangible devices like dynamics, groove, and sense of musicality. For most performers in non-jazz styles (including classical), practicing means maintaining repertoire, working on technically challenging parts of difficult repertoire and learning new repertoire. Theory in the sense that we are talking here is not in anyway a necessity for them.

  21. #620

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    Same theme as always, they're mad at theory. :P
    Being mad at theory makes no more sense than being mad at plumbing. However, it is possible to be disappointed with individual theorists or plumbers, for example I would be disappointed with a plumber that seemed to not know the difference between a pipe and a fitting.

    I am disappointed with those who talk theory but seem not to adhere to theory's most fundamental definitions. Common examples are the assertion there are 12 chromatic notes or the naming of intervals based on semitone distance. These casual departures impair what is meant to be conveyed (especially for those new to theory and still close to the proper definitions of things like "note" and "interval").

  22. #621

    User Info Menu

    if this isn't the thing people think about most when it comes to jazz (and perhaps music more generally) - and the thing people are most likely to be confused about - i don't know what is. punters seem either to assume that they're witnessing the miracle of creation out of nothing or that everyone is reading (or playing stuff they've learned by heart) - musicians confidently proclaim themselves to play by ear and to know no 'theory' (or, less often, to have a terrible ear and to rely on 'scales' or 'licks') - and everyone is over confident that they have a tolerably clear idea of what they mean by 'playing by ear' - and what sort of contrast is implied between playing by ear and playing 'by' something else or in some other way.

    improvising a bass line - or a chordal accompaniment - or a melody is participating in a rule-governed social practice - like playing chess/football, or greeting someone, or asking a question, or telling someone about something...

    we tend not to learn the rules which define these practices explicitly and consciously through study - but through trying to join in with those around us who already know how to participate in the practice (play the 'game'). This is true of learning how to pass a football and of learning how to ask a question. Without the rules there is no practice - without the rules of chess there is no chess. To play chess is to follow and apply these rules - to greet or warn or thank, to ask or inform, describe or suggest is to follow grammatical rules which govern what one can legitimately do with words in the relevant sorts of situation. Just as we tend not to learn how to play football by learning to say what the rules are and then trying to put them into practice but by trying to join in with people engaged in the practice who can already do the relevant things (so by mimicry - and with the help of corrections etc - 'no you can't use your hands - its football remember' etc.) - we do not learn how to do things with words as we grow up by studying grammatical rules and learning vocabulary by rote. We don't learn lists of words and then learn rules for combining them and then try to put the rules into practice. We don't learn to say what verbs and nouns and adjectives are - and then trying to apply the rules. We learn how to say what we want or what we're going to do - to tell people things - to ask questions - to say what we think etc. by trying to join in with the linguistic practices the people around us are engaging in - and we do this without appreciating that we are doing it or what we are doing. There is in fact a distinctive sort of difficulty involved in making the rules which are implicit in familiar practices explicit - as well as a distinctive sort of difficulty involved in trying to put a rule into practice deliberately and consciously...

    There is a familiar sort of case in which we do try to learn how to do something complicated and involved by learning rules explicitly and then trying to put them into practice - the case of learning a second language at school.

    One important thing to appreciate here - in order to get clearer about the basic idea of improvisation - is that the native speaker who speaks fluently (without hesitation and with assurance, employing a wide range of expressions which work perfectly well in the situations which call for them) is just as much following and applying rules when they speak as the student of a second language who is trying to remember their vocabulary and how to decline their verbs. They didn't learn the language by learning the rules - and they don't speak the language by trying to follow rules - but their linguistic performances show a working grasp of the rules. (This perhaps makes it likely that they could learn to recognise or appreciate the rules they already know how to follow when they speak naturally.)

    Another case to reflect on which is central to many of our basic goals as people who want to play jazz is the case of the person who starts to learn a second language by learning lots of rules and lots of vocabulary, but who also puts themselves in situations in which they have to use this second language to e.g. greet, warn, request, inform, ask, insult, instruct, suggest, and who, over a period of time, learn to speak the language fluently (without having to follow rules consciously and deliberately.)

    Another point to stress is that the most fluent, creating and accomplished talker doesn't invent the words they're using, or the rules which govern their proper use, as they speak. Without the history of language-use behind them - without the human linguistic culture which makes warning, thanking, suggesting, demanding, describing, informing etc. etc. possible - they would be not just silent, but quite beyond the very possibility of speech.

    There is no way to play well which consists in carefully applying rules one can state explicitly - just as there is no way to speak well which consists in this sort of thing.

    But there is no way of playing well which is not a case of complex rules being applied - just as there is no way of speaking well which is not a case of this sort of thing: and both in music and in speech, following complex rules does not mean consciously applying them.

    obviously it is not possible to break a rule - or to find a new way to follow it - entirely independently of an established practice of following it....

    obviously too - though this is seldom understood - that one is following complex grammatical/harmonic rules does not entail that one is not improvising: when we speak to one another in everyday life, unless we are reading a script or repeating lines learned expressly for the occasion (etc. etc.) - we are improvising. We know the sort of thing we're saying - but we don't know quite how we'll say it, or what else we might say (or how we'll say that). When sonny stitt plays his first phrase on a blues after finishing the head - he's following complex musical rules, and he knows the sort of things he's playing - but he doesn't know just what he's going to play or how he's going to play it. That he has a fabulous working grasp of these rules in contrast to most amateur musical enthusiasts does not entail that he is not really improvising and they are - because they don't know the rules and are playing by ear....

  23. #622

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pauln
    I am disappointed with those who talk theory but seem not to adhere to theory's most fundamental definitions. Common examples are the assertion there are 12 chromatic notes or the naming of intervals based on semitone distance. These casual departures impair what is meant to be conveyed (especially for those new to theory and still close to the proper definitions of things like "note" and "interval").
    What would you prefer?

  24. #623

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Groyniad
    But there is no way of playing well which is not a case of complex rules being applied - just as there is no way of speaking well which is not a case of this sort of thing: and both in music and in speech, following complex rules does not mean consciously applying them.

    obviously it is not possible to break a rule - or to find a new way to follow it - entirely independently of an established practice of following it....

    obviously too - though this is seldom understood - that one is following complex grammatical/harmonic rules does not entail that one is not improvising: when we speak to one another in everyday life, unless we are reading a script or repeating lines learned expressly for the occasion (etc. etc.) - we are improvising. We know the sort of thing we're saying - but we don't know quite how we'll say it, or what else we might say (or how we'll say that). When sonny stitt plays his first phrase on a blues after finishing the head - he's following complex musical rules, and he knows the sort of things he's playing - but he doesn't know just what he's going to play or how he's going to play it. That he has a fabulous working grasp of these rules in contrast to most amateur musical enthusiasts does not entail that he is not really improvising and they are - because they don't know the rules and are playing by ear....
    But what rules? Where are they to be found? Jazz is not an academic form of music – one created by establishing a set of rules to be followed. It seems to me to be a loose set of conventions. When Stitt plays the head then a solo, he follows an accepted practice, that his fellow musicians and his audience will understand and expect.

    I do not think the comparison with language is effective, because the purpose of language is communication, while the purpose of jazz is expression.

  25. #624

    User Info Menu

    It is however an interesting comparison, even if flawed. Language can also be about expression, eg poetry. One thing that bothers me a little about the comparison with speaking in particular is that most speech is mundane, whereas we look for much more in improvisation.

  26. #625

    User Info Menu

    what rules?

    well the rules which, on the one hand, determine what counts as a well-formed sentence rather than a mere string of words

    and - on the other - the rules which determine what counts as a well-formed musical phrase rather than a mere string of notes

    an extraordinary question really

    you can't break rules unless there are rules!! so the whole thing about how hip and individual jazz is - just like poetry or drama etc. - makes no sense at all unless there is an established practice which makes it possible to identify mistakes

    if you can't make a mistake (because 'anything goes') you can't get anything right either....