The official mad-at-theory thread

[Christian Miller]

Praxis is the process of using a theory. It is quite a useful word. Arts administrators and academics do use it as a substitute for 'practice', because they are wiseacres.

because words with a X in = cool

[Jimmy Smith]

1.Are you able to assess the level of theoretical knowledge of the musician you listen to?

Yes

2.Do musicians playing in Big Band need theoretical or more practical knowledge?
I mean, musicians who are not soloists-improvisers and play wind instruments.

Again with the either or? They can have whatever knowledge suits them. We know it's possible for musicians who only read to be otherwise inept if they can't manipulate music fundamentals using base theory or otherwise. Bill said he was that way until he learned more theory.

[Jimmy Smith]

Bill knew a crapload of theory since he was able to do all that complex stuff with inner voices almost like a full blown classical piece. Not possible winging it.

Cobain knew some base theory but likely didn't come up with his creative parts of root movement, chord quality, and melody by thinking it all up theory wise, he probably used base theory and then just his raw talent or music experience to be creative.

[Jimmy Smith]

Yes it is an explanation. No, you can't always pinpoint the exact amount.

[supersoul]

When I'm listening to someone I don't want to hear any theory. It gets interesting when I hear something I like and then, when I figure it out, I realize that it's more complicated than I thought. But that original experience of receiving the music through my ears, I'm not analyzing it for theory. I don't think that more complicated means better.
Now if I'm playing with someone I am also analyzing what they're doing and how I fit in, but that's a different thing than just listening as an audience member.

[Jimmy Smith]

Complicated isn't always better, but complicated and good usually (always) means they used some theory to construct it. No, you don't want the music to sound like raw theory (duh).

[ragman1]

Jimmy -

This from Kris today:

It gets interesting
Show this on the example of recordings, e.g. Ragman.
Explain to me your assessment method.

I did this for myself just the other day (so not prepared specially). It's modal over 10 bars, a bit faster than it's normally played.

Here are the changes:

BbM7#11 - A7#9 - Dm9/Db7 - Cm7/F7b9
BbM7 - A7b13 - Dm69 - E7#9
Am9 - Dm9

Go ahead, take it apart. You have my permission. Strut your stuff :-)

[ragman1]

?
This is not an explanation.
Musician 'X' plays and you judge his theoretical knowledge based on the recording.
Explain it to me because I don't understand.
From what I read in the posts, Ragman has a lot of theoretical knowledge.

It's rather naughty of you but we shall see :-)

[Jimmy Smith]

Jimmy -

This from Kris today:



I did this for myself just the other day (so not prepared specially). It's modal over 10 bars, a bit faster than it's normally played.

Here are the changes:

BbM7#11 - A7#9 - Dm9/Db7 - Cm7/F7b9
BbM7 - A7b13 - Dm69 - E7#9
Am9 - Dm9

Go ahead, take it apart. You have my permission. Strut your stuff :-)

I already know how much theory you know from your discussions. But listening, I would be able to tell that you arrived at being able to play heads through reading. You know how to build chords using theory. You solo using cst because there is a grasp of what tonal center you're on, but you won't work out better ideas either with your ear or theory or both. :P

[ragman1]

I already know how much theory you know from your discussions. But listening, I would be able to tell that you arrived at being able to play heads through reading. You know how to build chords using theory. You solo using cst because there is a grasp of what tonal center you're on, but you won't work out better ideas either with your ear or theory or both. :P

Oh, far too quick. Dig into it a bit!

(no CST involved, it's just a question of whether the notes fit the changes)

[Jimmy Smith]

no CST involved, it's just a question of whether the notes fit the changes

That's what I mean. I'd be able to tell that you play using theory.

[ragman1]

Why naughty?
After all, I didn't write anything bad and I even praised you for your great theoretical knowledge.
I think we're talking about theory...?
Not about how someone plays the guitar or improvises...pure theory.

I didn't mind at all, Kris, it was said humorously, tongue in cheek. I'm like that. You've got to imagine me smiling when I say it :-)

[ragman1]

the saxophonist plays everything by ear, having no idea about theory.

But how do you know that?

[ragman1]

That's what I mean. I'd be able to tell that you play using theory.

Fair enough. Mind you, I have no idea what I did now, I'd have to go back and figure it out.

[ragman1]

Okay. I think if he had a good ear and knew his jazz sounds it could be done. Why not?

But you know what will happen, that same old question will return again. If what he's playing is theoretically good but he doesn't know it, is he playing with theory?

... ping-pong...

[Jimmy Smith]

And what does playing without using theory look like...?

Not being able to play at all.

[Jimmy Smith]

99% of the time, musicians who know zero theory will suck ballz and not be able to play anything useful. Some musicians learn mostly by ear but then end up playing along basic theoretical lines anyway. Some musicians are more talented ear wise and then get good and probably pick up some theory along the way. Very few musicians are truly feral, know zero theory, and sound great.

There's a guy on my other forum who went on a tantrum trying to take over the forum that he's the best metal guitarist ever and he doesn't need theory. He sux ballz. He twiddles his fingers around somewhat with respect to the tonal center - he ended up playing by theory even though he says he's so against it, and does a poor job of it.

People are lazy and greedy (and corrupt). If not learning anything and becoming a good musician were such a viable pathway, everyone would do it. But almost noone is like that. The numbers speak for themselves.

[ragman1]

Not being able to play at all.

No, you're missing it. This is your famous sticking point, Jimmy! People can play without knowing theory, we know that. And you would say they're still using theory because the music itself is theory. As soon as they play they're using theory.

But what if they've never studied theory, only listened to what others play? And those others maybe have studied theory. So, in imitating those others, theory is being implemented without their knowing it.

Are they then not using theory? Obviously not, and I'll tell you why. A parrot can copy human speech, whole phrases of it. Are you saying the parrot can speak language and knows the grammar, syntax, and all that? Of course not.

Likewise the person who imitates by ear. No?

[ragman1]

That's the whole problem.
Someone plays only by ear without knowing the notes - he does not play well because he does not know the theory.
Someone plays only by ear without knowing the notes - he plays well because he learned from the recordings of musicians who knew the theory.
is that the point?
Help Me!

Yes. See the above post to Jimmy.

(See, I told you this would come up)

[Jimmy Smith]

No, you're missing it. This is your famous sticking point, Jimmy! People can play without knowing theory, we know that. And you would say they're still using theory because the music itself is theory. As soon as they play they're using theory.

But what if they've never studied theory, only listened to what others play? And those others maybe have studied theory. So, in imitating those others, theory is being implemented without their knowing it.

Are they then not using theory? Obviously not, and I'll tell you why. A parrot can copy human speech, whole phrases of it. Are you saying the parrot can speak language and knows the grammar, syntax, and all that? Of course not.

Likewise the person who imitates by ear. No?

That's not what I've ever said. I never said playing music is by definition theory. Read my post #391. Almost noone gets good by imitation alone, zero theory. There are none on the forum. Noone can prove one exists on the internet. I'm sure it exists, but it's very rare.

pauln says he learned by ear and he prefers to focus on the aural approach now. But then he also knows everything about theory too. So where are all these great feral musicians? We should be able to find one if being feral is such a superior method.

[ragman1]

That's not what I've ever said. I never said playing music is by definition theory. Read my post #391. Almost noone gets good by imitation alone, zero theory. There are none on the forum. Noone can prove one exists on the internet. I'm sure it exists, but it's very rare.

From 391:

Very few musicians are truly feral, know zero theory, and sound great.

It depends how well they're copying what they've heard. They can sound just like Parker or Coltrane, etc, and you might say 'See, they're using theory!'. Not at all, they're using their ear and talent for musical expression to produce authentic sounds. But it certainly doesn't mean they know the theory behind it.

[Christian Miller]

Any thread where a participant can say ‘read post #391’ is probably beyond saving tbh.

[ragman1]

There's the good old story of the visitor to a foreign land armed with a phrase book. He stops a local and asks, with perfect pronunciation, 'Where is the Post Office?'

The local smiles broadly and begins to tell him how to get to the Post Office... and the poor visitor can't understand a word of it :-)

[SandChannel]

[Jimmy Smith]

It depends how well they're copying what they've heard. They can sound just like Parker or Coltrane, etc, and you might say 'See, they're using theory!'. Not at all, they're using their ear and talent for musical expression to produce authentic sounds. But it certainly doesn't mean they know the theory behind it.

Ok. They hypothetically exist. Where are they? And quit strawmanning me. For the 2nd time I never said coming to play music through one's own means is by definition theoretical if it ends up effective.