The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 28 of 43 FirstFirst ... 18262728293038 ... LastLast
Posts 676 to 700 of 1072
  1. #676

    User Info Menu

    The thing I like most about music theory is that in the word theory are the letters o and r which spell "Or." Just open all the windows, let the fresh air in, and listen to nature.

    BTW, this shouldn't be interpreted as not supporting learning music theory. It was meant to point out that directions from it are limitless.
    Last edited by lammie200; 12-22-2022 at 05:44 PM.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #677

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by m_d
    Theory isn't what is hard in jazz. Acquiring the language is.
    That's true. So why would you want to go about acquiring the language arbitrarily, saying here transcribe a bunch of stuff and maybe you'll absorb it, or not. Or you could use theory and ear, figure out devices used and actually be able to reproduce the desired effect of the language.

    An analogy is transcribing a line is getting a fish. Learning how that line was constructed and being able to construct it on your own is learning how to fish. Seems like a no brainer.

  4. #678

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by m_d
    There are plenty of classical musicians who come to jazz with that attitude, as one example. There was a French guy with a YouTube channel that was pure comedy along that vein: "I will demonstrate and explain some jazz for you which is trivial for me because I teach at the conservatory"; the channel didn't last long. Jazz academia also seems to like explaining things a lot, as if the music was more "respectable" to them that way. They know a lot of theory but don't swing. Or they don't have blues in their jazz (see the Mulgrew Miller interview: "The folk element is intact"). Theory isn't what is hard in jazz. Acquiring the language is. Russell Malone said he'd rather listen to rock bands he enjoys, such as The Ramones, than some current jazz, asking, "why do some of the new players sound like they're afraid to swing"?. Just wondering if the issues mentioned by Mulgrew and Russell aren't at the crux of what we're trying to discuss here.
    I don't know, but I wouldn't regard them as seperate.

    I don't like the thing of lambasting modern players for not sounding like older players. Some of the most swinging players on my local scene are actually free players, and some of the least swinging, wooden players have a meticulous dedication to the jazz styles of the past. Tradition is not (to me) about recreating the past. But creativity is not about ignoring it - even rejection requires an understanding of what you are rejecting.

    There is a sort of 'prog' faction of jazz where the music has to be complicated. I don't think that's a bad thing per se; there's good in any sub-genre. But it may sometimes marginalise things like blues and straightforward groove, just as prog pushed those things to the side in rock. So those players might be the ones Russell is talking about. There's a hilarious Jason Marsalis rant about it as well; 'jazz nerds international.'

    But it is so easy to strawman players. Adam Rogers is one of the most modern and 'cool' out there and yet I adore his straight ahead playing and feel. I do think it is possible to hear when music is HEARD and not simply the result of cognition. I think the better I get at music, the more reliably I recognise it without prejudice, but who knows? It's all very subjective.

  5. #679

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    I do think it is possible to hear when music is HEARD and not simply the result of cognition. I think the better I get at music, the more reliably I recognise it without prejudice, but who knows? It's all very subjective.
    I agree with this. One thing I notice with my teacher is that he plays brilliantly spontaneously. OR he can slow it down, play square and mechanically, demonstrate exactly what he's doing theoretically, and still have it sound pretty good. So I don't think theory is counter to hearing. I think it supports it and that the hearing comes from internalizing the music.

  6. #680

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    That's true. So why would you want to go about acquiring the language arbitrarily, saying here transcribe a bunch of stuff and maybe you'll absorb it, or not. Or you could use theory and ear, figure out devices used and actually be able to reproduce the desired effect of the language.

    An analogy is transcribing a line is getting a fish. Learning how that line was constructed and being able to construct it on your own is learning how to fish. Seems like a no brainer.
    This is why I say it is objectively easier to learn with theory rather than not.

    Even when we learn lines and licks we still have to, whether we articulate it or not, figure out what makes that lick sound good/fit.This is because we never really just play what we learned. We have to adjust it for the tempo, key, dynamics, ect of the current situation because few things sound worse than a straight cut and paste attempt.

    Learning the theory of the norms simply shows you commonalities between a bunch of lines and licks so you get more out of less and it helps your ears pattern recognition when listening. It also relates/chunks them, which makes learning faster.

    Something like Bert Ligon's 3 Outlines are a good example:

    An ear player could learn every lick example he uses in his book, but learning the outlines and the various devices essentially gets you the same thing, but in a much shorter time than it would take to buy, listen to, and transcribe all of those individual lines and licks and then make them your own.

  7. #681

    User Info Menu

    Yeah, I don't know why people promote that you will somehow be more productive and more musical if you don't know what you're doing.
    Last edited by Jimmy Smith; 12-22-2022 at 04:49 PM.

  8. #682

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    Yeah, I don't know why people promote that you will somehow be more productive and more musical if you don't know what you're doing.
    I think some of it is that they run into so many people who are not that good, but know the theory, and also meet many people who are quite good, but don't. But you don't meet many people who don't, but who are not very good.


    That makes it look like it's the approach making the difference when I think it's the people who choose the particular approach.....or rather who the approach chooses, that makes the difference.


    You're not going to run into many bad ear only players because the people with bad ears are self selected out of being ear only player in the first place.


    Bad ear only players are so bad that they can't even get the gig for you to hear how bad they are.


    Whereas the range of theory players is going to be broader by virtue of it being a easier way for getting some abilities (enough to get the gig), even if you never get particularly good.


    Most people who decide to take improvisational music seriously are going to study some theoretical framework to do so whether they have good ears or not. So (all else being equal) we will come across more good players who know theoretical approaches than good ear only players in sheer numbers, but you'll also meet more mediocre players who know theoretical approaches.

    So out of the people you'll hear in a jazz or similar improv setting:
    -Most of the good players will know a theoretic approach, but a lower percentage of them will be quite good.
    -You'll see less good ear only players overall, but a higher percentage of them are going to be quite good.
    -The sheer number of players who know a theoretic approach, but are not that good will also be larger than the quite good ear players.

    I'd go so far as to say that not only does learning a theoretical method work better work better at getting most people to the level where you might even see them in a jazz or similar improv setting, but not be overly impressed, but that the ear only method cannot do it at all...except for those who are already extremely gifted.

    And this is actually what you see in communities where they have an ear only methodology: everyone but the best gets weeded out...or plays bass.

  9. #683

    User Info Menu

    This discussion is a waste of time.
    A musician should practice systematically, know the theory and practice his ears all his life.
    ...and, of course, to play concerts, which I wish everyone.

  10. #684

    User Info Menu

    If this were an architecture forum, someone would have said that practice is a form of theory, and theory a form of practice.

  11. #685

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Litterick
    If this were an architecture forum, someone would have said that practice is a form of theory, and theory a form of practice.
    … “What’s the difference between theory and practice? In theory, there is no difference; but in practice, there is.”

  12. #686

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by LankyTunes
    This is why I say it is objectively easier to learn with theory rather than not.
    I think you can intuit this, work by analogy, draw from your own experience and those of your fellow musicians but i don’t you can know that for sure. Maybe? Maybe not, unless you can cite a study of some kind, or could somehow live your life twice.

    I sure as hell don’t know. I’m open to it, but not convinced either way. I think theory is probably necessary for some approaches to playing, clearly communicated relevant theory helps me teach, and too much irrelevant theory can be a distraction from other things during the learning process. That’s as far as I’m willing to go on it.

    there’s an interesting and nuanced discussion to be had about this stuff, but tbh I think people here are still locked into their initial reactions, so it seems unlikely it’s going to move beyond these entrenched positions.

    Many or most here don’t seem to have had any real world contact with players who operate without a theory background and therefore feel that I must be making it up or something, a rare or mythical beast who is somehow the exception to every rule. Which is a bit frustrating, but I should let it go because those people are not going to be swayed by anything I say…

    I used to hold to this sort of view myself. And then I met lots of really good musicians of all kinds in the real world and I’ve changed my view. I probably wouldn’t have believed it either tbf.

    Probably lots of people have run into crap players who say ‘it’s all about the ears maaaaan’. These are not ear players, of course, they are idiots.

    So, as most of us bump into theory quite early the whole ‘debate’ is really academic - and as other have pointed out based on a false dichotomy because playing by ear is essential. from my personal experience I would not describe using theory as having made things any less hard work.

    Furthermore people are often intimidated and frustrated by ear learning.

    It’s not like knowing you can put the notes G Ab Bb B Db Eb F on a G7 helps you play compelling lines on a dominant chord. Most people sound like crap when they start with that scale, because it is hard to hear and they need to check out a lot of jazz lines before it starts to make sense. So the theory is a label or organising concept but doesn’t really lead immediately to music, and the ear work still needs to be done.

    So, maybe if anything you’ve done more work up front maybe with the idea that it will help in the long run. In my experience this is always the case.

    If theory has a defined application it’s offering a framework of options and possibilities for people who can already play and a way of systematising and applying knowledge. In the latter case, this may happen organically anyway as people construct their own private understanding; I think this was the case with Django (who often expressed what we would today call the altered scale incidentally)

    So you still have to do the work - get good ears, listen to a lot of music, work out tunes and solos by ear. Any serious jazz musician I know has very good ears and it is a prerequisite of the job, where it is often expected to learn tunes and so on from records as well as charts.

    That stuff is far more relevant to what we do day in day out than knowing what things are called. How you think about music is kind of your business.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 12-24-2022 at 06:57 AM.

  13. #687

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    Anyway, from my personal experience I would not describe theory as having made things any less hard work.

    It’s not like knowing you can put the notes G Ab Bb B Db Eb F on a G7 helps you play compelling lines on a dominant chord. So you still have to do the work - get good ears, listen to a lot of music, work out tunes and solos by ear. Any serious jazz musician I know has very good ears and it is a prerequisite of the job, where it is often expected to learn tunes and so on from records as well as charts.

    That stuff is far more relevant to what we do day in day out than knowing what things are called. How you think about music is your business.
    You seem to have this theme that theory and musicianship are somehow inversely proportional. They're not. The direct analogy is weight lifting and sports. If you play a sport other than weight lifting, the primary objective is the skills in that sport. Weight lifting only will not give you skills in your sport. However, it will not hurt you either! If your skills in your sport are developed in tandem with weight lifting, it only helps you. It's the exact same thing in music with theory and musicianship. There's no possible way you can argue that some people are so brilliantly creative that they can reach the final product of good music with minimal structural knowledge but if they get exposed to theory, it will corrupt their process somehow. Are these people incredibly smart or incredibly stupid? Which is it?

    From my personal experience, theory has made things a lot easier. With my lessons with Tony, he teaches every aspect of playing theoretically. There are a lot of aspects too. It isn't just using magic to make up single note lines. How to play optimal bass lines that support the rest of the music, comping melodically, different styles of chord melody such as squabbling, 2 handed, right hand with melody on the top and moving lower voices, different grooves. Everything I learn theoretically helps me. That doesn't mean I listen less! Theory and musicianship aren't inversely proportional remember? I apply myself as much as I can both with the concepts and ear wise to try to optimize the process.

  14. #688

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    You seem to have this theme that theory and musicianship are somehow inversely proportional. They're not. The direct analogy is weight lifting and sports. If you play a sport other than weight lifting, the primary objective is the skills in that sport. Weight lifting only will not give you skills in your sport. However, it will not hurt you either! If your skills in your sport are developed in tandem with weight lifting, it only helps you. It's the exact same thing in music with theory and musicianship. There's no possible way you can argue that some people are so brilliantly creative that they can reach the final product of good music with minimal structural knowledge but if they get exposed to theory, it will corrupt their process somehow. Are these people incredibly smart or incredibly stupid? Which is it?

    From my personal experience, theory has made things a lot easier. With my lessons with Tony, he teaches every aspect of playing theoretically. There are a lot of aspects too. It isn't just using magic to make up single note lines. How to play optimal bass lines that support the rest of the music, comping melodically, different styles of chord melody such as squabbling, 2 handed, right hand with melody on the top and moving lower voices, different grooves. Everything I learn theoretically helps me. That doesn't mean I listen less! I apply myself as much as I can both with the concepts and ear wise to try to optimize the process.
    Yeah I mean, I don’t think that was what I was saying. Because it would be patently wrong to suggest musicianship and theory knowledge are inversely proportional; I’m saying the two things are independent, with the former being a prerequisite for effective use of the latter. Theory can extend musicianship, but it can’t sub in for it.

    optimising the process is a reasonable desire; we all have limited time and don’t want to waste it. But as I say I’ve not found theory has reduced the amount of ear learning I’ve had to do. What it has given me is a framework to apply and use the stuff I learn. But everything takes as long as it takes to internalise so it comes out on gigs etc.

    Anyway, don’t think this is about you specifically.

    As I say even if you decided theory was bad or whatever it’s not like you could brain bleach ourselves and forget it. In terms of what YOU learn as a player this doesn’t actually really affect anything that much.

    So long as we use our ears and learn from the music and use the music itself as a primary source, there’s really no problem. Neither would we somehow be better players if we knew less theory. I would say however that I do wish I’d used my ears more early in the learning process. (But I never received bad advice from working players or teachers - this was down to me.)

    what I have a problem with the attitude that everyone has learned jazz one way (by knowing theory) and the contrary view is ‘fake news’ or based around the special abilities of super genius outliers and there’s nothing here for regular Joes to learn.

    I know from my own community that this false, or at least more of a complex issue that’s quite interesting to look at. What I suggest is that the common factor between all the great players I know is that they all have great ears. This is …. pretty obvious?

    Maybe people worry that this means they are doing it the wrong way by knowing any theory. (I used to worry about doing things wrong for a long time.) as far as I can see I’ve never made that argument and yet for pages various posters have responded to me as if I have been.

    The argument I’m making is - ‘it’s really about the ears.’ This does not run contrary to ‘theory can be useful.’
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 12-24-2022 at 07:16 AM.

  15. #689

    User Info Menu

    Apologies for some repetitions and for reporting the experiences of a kindergarten-level player.

    It's possible that this conversation is focused on the wrong opposition--I would say that the terms on each side of versus are theory and performance (the latter in the sense of "doing" rather than "presenting to the public"). That is, how much knowing-that is required for a given level of knowing-how or actually-doing?

    If theory is descriptive/prescriptive, it arises first from practice, and it can have a role in generating further practice by suggesting, say, harmonic possibilities. (Just as scientific theories are rooted in data but useful for making predictions.) And theory can suggest paths through the learning process--concentrate on this, don't worry about that right now--as well as providing a common set of naming and explanatory conventions. It's a push-pull process.

    In the beginning of my own mostly-unsystematic musical education at age ten, "theory" amounted to chord charts and some explanations of what a key is and which chords belonged to it. The chords themselves were just sets of grips that produced the desired sounds, even after I'd had chord spelling explained to me. Eventually I understood why some substitutions can work, but deployment (say, a C9 for a C7) remained ear-led and dependent on a brute-force-memorized repertory of shapes. (I was in my fifties before I had a glimmering of why given shapes could be used for nine, m6, and diminished chords. And I would still have to Google the explanations if asked to explain as distinct from demonstrate.)

    These primitive organizing ideas allowed me to follow a chart and fit chords to melodies I learned entirely by ear. Sixty years later, I still follow a more refined version of that process when a Real Book tune I've heard often but never played gets called. Though, to be fair, I now have so many patterns stored in my head that I can catch up quickly, unless it's in a key I'm not used to. I can hear I-vi-ii-V in D-flat, but I don't have the necessary repertory of grips on autopilot, as I do in the usual keys. (Yeah, I should be practicing at home rather than learning on the stand.)

    So at my level, at least, theory helps in the woodshed, and woodshedding helps with performing. But when I'm performing, I'm not thinking about what I'm doing in a theoretical sense, I'm grabbing stuff from my bag of behaviors, in which are stored sets of sounds I know how to produce and fit together. But then, I'm not soloing--I'm accompanying and fitting into an ensemble, which is not nearly as demanding as improvising out there in front of god and everybody.

  16. #690

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    Yeah I mean, I don’t think that was what I was saying. Because it would be patently wrong to suggest musicianship and theory knowledge are inversely proportional; I’m saying the two things are independent, with the former being a prerequisite for effective use of the latter. Theory can extend musicianship, but it can’t sub in for it.

    optimising the process is a reasonable desire; we all have limited time and don’t want to waste it. But as I say I’ve not found theory has reduced the amount of ear learning I’ve had to do. What it has given me is a framework to apply and use the stuff I learn. But everything takes as long as it takes to internalise so it comes out on gigs etc.

    Anyway, don’t think this is about you specifically.

    As I say even if you decided theory was bad or whatever it’s not like you could brain bleach ourselves and forget it. In terms of what YOU learn as a player this doesn’t actually really affect anything that much.

    So long as we use our ears and learn from the music and use the music itself as a primary source, there’s really no problem. Neither would we somehow be better players if we knew less theory. I would say however that I do wish I’d used my ears more early in the learning process. (But I never received bad advice from working players or teachers - this was down to me.)

    what I have a problem with the attitude that everyone has learned jazz one way (by knowing theory) and the contrary view is ‘fake news’ or based around the special abilities of super genius outliers and there’s nothing here for regular Joes to learn.

    Maybe people worry that this means they are doing it the wrong way by knowing any theory. (I used to worry about doing things wrong for a long time.) as far as I can see I’ve never made that argument and yet for pages various posters have responded to me as if I have been.
    Yes, I see what you're saying and I agree. It isn't fake news that there are many ways to achieve successful jazz playing. And probably some time honored, less academic, more rootsy ways too. Also that theory can extend musicianship but not sub for it.

    I know from my own community that this false, or at least more of a complex issue that’s quite interesting to look at. What I suggest is that the common factor between all the great players I know is that they all have great ears. This is …. pretty obvious?

    The argument I’m making is - ‘it’s really about the ears.’ This does not run contrary to ‘theory can be useful.’
    Still disagree with this. I think the common factor is absolutely 100% great ears, but also some technique and knowledge too - usually theoretical. I don't think it's accurate to say theory 'can' be useful. Because if you use your ears, it's clear that great players use theory.
    Last edited by Jimmy Smith; 12-24-2022 at 03:37 PM.

  17. #691

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    I think you can intuit this, work by analogy, draw from your own experience and those of your fellow musicians but i don’t you can know that for sure. Maybe? Maybe not, unless you can cite a study of some kind, or could somehow live your life twice.
    I don't want to get sidetracked into some debate about epistemological certainty, but I don't think it exists. You still have to take studies on faith...and most intimately don't justify it.

    An with all the possible variables you'd definitely have to live more than one extra life...and all that assumes that those variable don't change "you" enough to void the value you assume out of the "experiment", but again: I don't believe in that level of epistemological certainty...and neither does anyone else..or they'd never speak with any level of confidence about anything...if they were consistent with their skepticism.

    The fact that players with incredible ears STILL often choose to add theoretical frameworks to their arsenal demonstrate to me that they themselves see that it makes things easier.

    Could they be wrong and wasting their time? Possibly, but I seriously doubt it.

    Not to mention the numerous people who develop their ears to a decently high level simultaneously to studying theoretical approaches. Having a name and category for sounds and knowledge on their common pairings can only help you hear them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    I think theory is probably necessary for some approaches to playing, clearly communicated relevant theory helps me teach, and too much irrelevant theory can be a distraction from other things during the learning process.
    Nobody is talking about irrelevant theory or even badly taught theory being helpful, just like nobody is assuming ear players should waste their time learning slide or sweep picking to play bebop.

    I reality though, one might argue that nothing has zero ROI, but we certainly have limited time and learning capacity to be spreading ourselves too thin if we are indeed looking for high level playing abilities within a fairly specific genre.

    Maybe a lot of the disagreement is that, from watching your youtube videos, you clearly enjoy theory on a level that is nothing more than infotainment for anyone who isn't a musicologist or professor. I most certainly am not arguing that that level of interest or study is useful to a player.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    Many or most here don’t seem to have had any real world contact with players who operate without a theory background and therefore feel that I must be making it up or something, a rare or mythical beast who is somehow the exception to every rule.
    I don't think you're making it up.

    I do think you are being too strict in your definition of theory and not strict enough in your definition of ear only playing.

    I can imagine someone playing entirely from hearing X sound and reaching for Y sound in reply, that would be an ear only player. They know nothing but where sounds are on the fretboard.

    But that isn't what most people who even claim to be ear only players that I come across or have ever even heard of actually do.

    Saying X line works over Y shape is theory, not ear playing. It doesn't matter if they know the note or chord names. Even most, if not all, ear only players do this sort of thing on some level.

    I am no jazzer at this point, but I can improvize by ear, BUT I cannot think of a situation where I do so exclusively. At some point I figure out the key and am playing freely withing the bounds of that (which often includes outside stuff, but the key is still the map of generally consonant notes for me). That's a theoretical framework. It wouldn't cease to be one if I have no verbal method for articulating what key I am thinking in to others.

    But in the moment I rarely know or care to know what interval or note I am actually playing (although I my mind does seem to be more and more able to catch up to my ears and fingers as time goes on), but I am conscious of the "boubdaries".

    Even within a conversation with someone who can speak theoretically, the terms and thinking may be different.

    For example: I often see the fretboard in Major keys even if I am playing in the relative minor of that Major key. I'd describe it as the relative minor to another person asking though. I know lot's of guys do this the other way around with thinking in the relative Majors of minor pentatonics.

  18. #692

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by LankyTunes
    Nobody is talking about irrelevant theory or even badly taught theory being helpful, just like nobody is assuming ear players should waste their time learning slide or sweep picking to play bebop.
    You made me check at YT for any slide guitar bebop.
    Looks like he's using slightly "hybrid" slide technique;
    notice what his index finger is doing behind the slide.


  19. #693

    User Info Menu

    ^ I see guitarists do sweeps too on the smalls cam.

  20. #694

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    Yes, I see what you're saying and I agree. It isn't fake news that there are many ways to achieve successful jazz playing. And probably some time honored, less academic, more rootsy ways too. Also that theory can extend musicianship but not sub for it.

    Still disagree with this. I think the common factor is absolutely 100% great ears, but also some technique and knowledge too - usually theoretical. I don't think it's accurate to say theory 'can' be useful. Because if you use your ears, it's clear that great players use theory.
    I don’t think you think of theory the same way as I do in terms of what it is or how it’s defined. You are much more platonic about it (ie “people are drawing on theory whether they are aware of it or not”) for example, while i disagree with that position, so there’ll always be a basic difference in the way we are talking about this.

    Tbf a lot of musicians have the platonic view of music theory.

    That’s a philosophical point - in terms of how you learn I don’t see that it makes much difference.

  21. #695

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by LankyTunes
    I don't want to get sidetracked into some debate about epistemological certainty, but I don't think it exists.

    You still have to take studies on faith...and most intimately don't justify it.

    An with all the possible variables you'd definitely have to live more than one extra life...and all that assumes that those variable don't change "you" enough to void the value you assume out of the "experiment", but again: I don't believe in that level of epistemological certainty...and neither does anyone else..or they'd never speak with any level of confidence about anything...if they were consistent with their skepticism.
    Not so fast you cheeky sausage! :-)

    Unless you can explain how this argument is simply an excuse to say what ever you like unchallenged and in defiance of any evidence? I’m sure you aren’t saying that, at least I would hope not

    often conflicting and vehement opinions are given by very accomplished and high level musicians so that can be confusing. I try to look for commonalities rather than get too hung up on the disagreements. These opinions are usually based on personal experience and what’s worked for that musician rather than weighing up a bunch of different ideas, which is not to say they aren’t valuable, just that they shouldn’t necessarily be taken over another similar opinion by someone equally adept. I’m talking about surprisingly basic stuff here, such as whethe or not to use a metronome. Complete agreement is rare in music, but there are underlying themes

    I don’t really see confidence as stating something as black and white without qualification or supporting evidence. I know lots of people do this, but it tends to make me more skeptical of what they are saying, not less. Good rule of thumb I’d say.

    I feel own argument is made from the position more of uncertainty actually (look at the last post I made for example and consider the language), I used to be a lot more certain of all this stuff, and more in agreement with the ‘theory is essential’ argument.

    As far as I can see most of what I have done on the past zillion pages is challenge sweeping proclamations on how people think things should always be done. .

    I do think ear learning is essential, but I don’t think anyone disagrees with that, and I think it’s supportable.

    The fact that players with incredible ears STILL often choose to add theoretical frameworks to their arsenal demonstrate to me that they themselves see that it makes things easier.

    Could they be wrong and wasting their time? Possibly, but I seriously doubt it.
    the word ‘easier’ here I think is not very meaningful for the reasons I have above. Theory is not a shortcut or substitute for anything else. But it’s not useless. have another read of what I wrote earlier anyway, it’s not wildly in disagreement with what you’ve said here.

    Theory can open doors but it doesn’t act as a shortcut or make learning to be a musican easier in any way I can think of. I would also say jazz musicians are in my experience accepting of and even motivated by a level of challenge and difficulty in general. Making things easier doesn’t seem to something that interests them much lol

    Not to mention the numerous people who develop their ears to a decently high level simultaneously to studying theoretical approaches. Having a name and category for sounds and knowledge on their common pairings can only help you hear them.

    Nobody is talking about irrelevant theory or even badly taught theory being helpful,
    just like nobody is assuming ear players should waste their time learning slide or sweep picking to play bebop.
    Re the latter Jimmy Raney, Chuck Wayne, and Pasquale Grasso all sweep…

    I think I have a different standard of what is relevant and irrelevant. A lot of jazz education in the real world seems to be front loaded with a lot of technical information. I don’t think all of that info is immediately relevant or necessary.

    Part of the issue is the expectation that early level students should improvise right away from scratch. This means people learn the scales as a starting point; make up something from these seven notes that go with this chord. It also encourages that sort of piecemeal harmonic analysis thing people do when they name all the intervals of a line over a chord. (It’s notable that Barry harris didn’t really do this instance.)

    I am starting to think improvisation is best taught at the start through application and variation of pre existing idiomatic material such as transcribed lines or the song’s melody, not construction of material from the ground up - at least at first.

    that is the way the self identified non theory players seem to have done it.

    I reality though, one might argue that nothing has zero ROI, but we certainly have limited time and learning capacity to be spreading ourselves too thin if we are indeed looking for high level playing abilities within a fairly specific genre.

    Maybe a lot of the disagreement is that, from watching your youtube videos, you clearly enjoy theory on a level that is nothing more than infotainment for anyone who isn't a musicologist or professor. I most certainly am not arguing that that level of interest or study is useful to a player.
    The joke is, I don’t regard myself as teaching theory lol, only practice.

    I don’t actually enjoy theory for its own sake, but ok I am interested in it when it applies or making music. Fine.

    Anyway as I discussed in the above I’m not talking about myself. I learned one way. Other people learn other ways, and I find it interesting.

    I don't think you're making it up.

    I do think you are being too strict in your definition of theory and not strict enough in your definition of ear only playing.
    Definitions are very tricky, but I don’t think there’s much point in using a term unless you have a clear idea of what you mean by

    One aspect of this back and forth is the fact that people use one definition and then refuse to accept another definition can be constructed, let alone entertain a different definition for the sake of argument. This is something we can see in many debates. However successful I’ve been in it, I’ve tried to be clear about what I am talking about.

    I do understand one can get bogged down here which is why I’ve adopted other people’s usage by and large, but to communicate meaningfully I don’t think this usage can be so wide as to apply to ‘music that uses scales and chord tones’ for instance. Because that means basically all tonal and modal Western music and I’m not certain what argument dna be made on a definition thats that wide beyond ‘all musicians do music.’ Well who’d have thunk it?

    I can imagine someone playing entirely from hearing X sound and reaching for Y sound in reply, that would be an ear only player. They know nothing but where sounds are on the fretboard.
    this a theoretical argument made from your own experience. I don’t know. I feel all played have a working mental model of some kind, but it’s very hard to prove by its very nature.

    But that isn't what most people who even claim to be
    ear only players that I come across or have ever even heard of actually do.

    Saying X line works over Y shape is theory, not ear playing. It doesn't matter if they know the note or chord names. Even most, if not all, ear only players do this sort of thing on some level.

    I am no jazzer at this point, but I can improvize by ear, BUT I cannot think of a situation where I do so exclusively. At some point I figure out the key and am playing freely withing the bounds of that (which often includes outside stuff, but the key is still the map of generally consonant notes for me). That's a theoretical framework. It wouldn't cease to be one if I have no verbal method for articulating what key I am thinking in to others.

    But in the moment I rarely know or care to know what interval or note I am actually playing (although I my mind does seem to be more and more able to catch up to my ears and fingers as time goes on), but I am conscious of the "boubdaries".

    i have no idea how you play tbh. Anything’s good if it works.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 12-26-2022 at 11:16 AM.

  22. #696

    User Info Menu

    Some good musicians can hear a complex chord and tell you exactly what chord it is, this surely must be a combination of theory and a good ear.

  23. #697

    User Info Menu

    I have, on several occasions, asked an elite jazz player what he was thinking during a particular solo passage.

    I believe each one answered honestly. None of them knew. One said, "I was thinking darker".

    At least one of them is encyclopedic on theory.

    At least one of them has an impressive vocabularly of licks -- including licks that he has discarded over time (I asked him about one I had transcribed, to which he responded, "my old licks!".

    I think they all know a good deal of theory but it's fair to say that, on the bandstand, what they use is well-internalized. Meaning, it's in their ears or they don't use it.

    This is not to resolve the ear vs theory dispute. Rather, it's to point out yet another way in which the terms are poorly defined.

  24. #698

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by GuyBoden
    Some good musicians can hear a complex chord and tell you exactly what chord it is, this surely must be a combination of theory and a good ear.
    My late playing partner (and mentor) Dan could do stuff like that, and it was clear to me that hearing and naming were interconnected but that hearing came first. Confirmation for me is in the fact that once he pointed out the components ("Here's the minor-seven, here's the flat-five"), I could hear them and pick them out too, even though I still could not necessarily name the notes or the chord on my own. (Sixty-plus years of playing and I'm still lousy at naming the notes on the middle strings on the fingerboard.) But like John Cleese, I got better, at least to the point where I could hear the m7-flat-5 or diminished or whatever sound and name it and find the appropriate fingering. And as Dan pointed out, it all would have been a lot easier to show on a keyboard, where, as he would say, it was all laid out to see.
    Last edited by RLetson; 12-26-2022 at 03:23 PM.

  25. #699

    User Info Menu

    I don't know if it was brought up in this thread but I have heard Pat Metheny say that that he doesn't have to think when improvising. It comes from his inner consciousness similar to speaking. So how much of our speaking comes from that ultra short synapse timing of knowing that the words buried in our inner consciousness will convey what we mean? A lot of it. I can't see any reason why the same wouldn't apply to making music. If what can be produced on the fretboard and plucked or strummed is embedded in our inner consciousness with ultra short synapse timing for producing it I am not sure that we have to premeditate much when improvising. Seems contrary to do so by definition.

  26. #700

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by GuyBoden
    Some good musicians can hear a complex chord and tell you exactly what chord it is, this surely must be a combination of theory and a good ear.
    Yeah, for sure. The combination is powerful.

    And those people can notate or play things on the piano very easily. It’s an ‘arrangers ear.’ But the naming of it is kind of secondary in a way, something you may have to think about for an unusual voicing; that’s more the theory thing.

    if you didn’t have to communicate and could just play chords like this it would just be listen-play at a high level. I think Brian Wilson was like this IIRC from his autobiography. Could hear it all, but didn’t know the names.

    Sometimes people just sing harmonies and ideas to the band rather than explain them or write out a score. I believe Mingus was like this, though I believe he knew a ton of theory. It’s kind of better that way, because the music gets in right away.

    If you can hear a chord and play it on the guitar, that’s another related but slightly different skill; at least for me. I can hear a common jazz grip on guitar and repeat it almost before I can name it.

    I just know what it is because I played and head it a million times. That’s what I mean by ‘ear and grips’…

    it’s not quite the same thing as hearing a novel complex chord and resolving all the notes in your head, which some people can do.