The official mad-at-theory thread

[ragman1]

some theory in addition to ear is essential for most musicians.

You don't need to tell Kris that!

Before, you were saying that any playing at all was theory otherwise a person can't play at all. You DID say it, Jimmy.


And you said it to Kris too. Now it's 'most musicians'... you've changed it.

I know, we're all against you! It's a personal attack! We're all ganging up on you! Maybe a little clarity and consistency would sort that out.

[Bobby Timmons]

^ Zero theory most of the time means that the result will be the musician can't play at all. Why can't I clarify now? You can see how you're purposely misinterpreting what I said to be argumentative, can't you?

Again, why can't I clarify now?

Usually yes. I'd say even 99% of the time, if someone can effectively play, they probably utilize some theory. Literally everyone on the forum relies on some theory.

I never said coming to understand music through one's own means is by definition theoretical if it ends up effective.

Did you listen to the saxophonist?

Autumn Leaves:
I recorded version in e-minor key in 1975 in radio- studio...It was a prize/recording in profesional stugio// in a jazz competition.
I've been playing this standard in g-minor key since 1980.
I played a concert with a singer 4 months ago and played it in f-minor.
This is not something unusual for me.
Good Luck
ps.
I've never played this standard from sheet music.That's why I was surprised because you said you've been playing jazz for over 20 years.

So you can't read (or hear) now? Autumn Leaves in G minor which I was playing isn't in the book. I was playing from memory. My goal isn't to be a semi-pro musician. I'm happy being a hobbyist and having a separate career. What was your premise about playing level again? You're mad at theory and have to look for ways to attack?

I did listen to the clips. It sounds good no doubt. He outlines the changes with scales and arps. That's great if he re-invented the wheel and came to that knowledge completely on his own but I doubt it. Playing tunes from memory and employing one's ear while playing doesn't mean they know zero theory or that zero theory is used in their development and process.

[ragman1]

So you can't read now? Autumn Leaves in G minor which I was playing isn't in the book. I was playing from memory.

Is that for me? I read what you said, I believe you. No prob there at all.

You're mad at theory and have to look for ways to attack?

We're not really attacking you. That's paranoia. We're disagreeing with what you're saying. Different as chalk and cheese.

[Bobby Timmons]

kris is scrutinizing my playing level to discredit my TRUE statements lol.

And you're straw manning me.

Where is the rationality?

PS: my previous comment is edited to the final version on who I was addressing.

[Bobby Timmons]

What an incredible point you've made, kris. 1% of musicians can play by ear only. Even then it's still possible that they know some theory. Him 'not looking at his theory book' doesn't mean he knows zero theory. So you have to continue being argumentative about the point that most musicians require some theory in addition to ear to be able to play effectively.

[Bobby Timmons]

I don't need advice from some childish 70 year old lmao. I'm taking lessons with one of the greatest organists on the planet. You refuse basic rationality of even responding based on what I wrote, ex saying I don't play out when I have for years on different instruments. I dunno, maybe you're demented or something. Alternating between irrational attacks then bonding posts with little smiley faces.

[ragman1]

Look, we've been through this before, mostly on your original thread which got deleted. Pity, because all that stuff was thrashed out there.

Kris' sax player couldn't play in tune unless he got his notes right. So it must be true he knows something about music, obviously. Your pitch was that means he MUST know some theory, right?

It depends what you mean by knowing theory. We said all this before. Knowing a piece is in C, say, is arguably 'theory' but it's not really what we're talking about. By theory we mean knowing and understanding the mechanics of playing lines that suit the changes, what they are, why they work, and all that. It's somewhat academic and intellectual, a subject unto itself.

Kris's friend says he hasn't studied. If you believe that he's not lying or deceiving about it then it means he's learnt by ear, by imitation, by experimentation and practice. In other words, not from a book or college course.

It's that simple. And, to be honest, either you get it or you don't!

[Bobby Timmons]

^ I'm willing to accept personal testimony that players don't know theory. I'm just saying his lines are scale and arp based so it's possible that he does have some theory background. All kris said was that he 'doesn't look at his theory book'. I don't look at my theory book either, because I know it.

[ragman1]

^ I'm willing to accept personal testimony that players don't know theory. I'm just saying his lines are scale and arp based so it's possible that he does have some theory background. All kris said was that he 'doesn't look at his theory book'.

I agree, it seems that way. But the man himself, according to Kris, says no. It's a shame he's not here himself!

[Christian Miller]

here’s a bit of logic for you then

yes, pretty much any non-free jazz players lines can be broken done in terms of scales and arpeggios so by this definition of ‘theory’ all (non free) jazz is played with theory, and indeed a huge amount of non-jazz

This is a tautological definition and therefore has no real meaning. It doesn’t tell us anything.

OTOH it does not follow that just because a musician uses recognisable theoretically describable musical elements like this, that they are consciously aware of using them. I could sing ‘baa baa black sheep’ before I knew what a perfect fifth or a descending scale was, for example.

You might say, they I was unconsciously using theory as a five year old. I would say this may or may not be true, but it doesn’t say much about how I learned the song.

I would personally prefer to use a meaning for the word that is more specific and different from ‘music with scales and arpeggios in’. We can call it something else if it makes it easier for some reason. I don’t mind.

[Bobby Timmons]

I'm just saying players' music following theoretical guidelines is evidence that they have some theory base. I'm not saying effective music is by definition theory. It's possible musicians can do all that single note stuff completely aurally.

[ragman1]

Yes. I'm not sure it's a wonderful comparison but, if we consider music as a language, we all speak our native language pretty well. We don't think in terms of verbs, pronouns, subjects and objects, and all that. I did it at school and I couldn't tell you what tenses I'm using or what a gerund is. But I can speak fluently and without thought or analysis. And so can most of us here.

So it's perfectly possible to express something one wants to say without technical knowledge simply by dint of familiarity. We do it all the time.

[Christian Miller]

I'm just saying players' music following theoretical guidelines is evidence that they have some theory base.

This does not necessarily follow.

Counterexample: Baroque composers did not use functional harmonic theory (because it had not yet been formulated) but functional harmonic analysis can be used to analyse baroque music.

You may say, baroque composers somehow intuited functional harmony and I would say why this may or may not be true (I don’t think saying that means much tbh) it doesn’t tell us how they learned their trade, which is presumably the main thing that’s interesting to someone wanting to do the same.

I'm not saying functional music is by definition theory. It's possible musicians can do all that single note stuff completely aurally.

Guitarists also tend to play harmony via grips

[mr. beaumont]

You guys are still here? Ima head out, can you put the leftovers in the fridge and turn on the porch light?

[ragman1]

^ Very good example (Christian's post).

[ragman1]

Ah, yes, the leftovers...

[Bobby Timmons]

This does not follow.

Yes it does. Because 99% of musicians are dependent on some theory to gain command of the language. Therefore it's the rule on how people learn, not the exception.

Also, please don't go all irrational saying extremely regimented music of classical didn't use theory because the present day analysis of it is different than they probably thought about it.

[Bobby Timmons]

You guys are still here? Ima head out, can you put the leftovers in the fridge and turn on the porch light?

They obviously have complexes. That's the definition of a complex lol! When people embody false premises it creates internal conflict and irrational behavior.

[Christian Miller]

Yes it does. Because 99% of musicians are dependent on some theory to gain command of the language, therefore it's the rule on how people learn, not the exception.

Also, please don't go all irrational saying extremely regimented music of classical didn't use theory because the present day analysis of it is different than they probably thought about it.

These are the historical facts:

Baroque composers did not have a theory of functional harmony. From 17th and early 18th century sources we know they learned counterpoint and thorough bass.

Roman numeral notation was introduced in the early 19th century. Reimann’s ideas of functionality (Tonic, Subdominant, Dominant) etc late 19th.

Both of these theoretical concepts are frequently used for understanding baroque music and neither of them were used by baroque composers themselves for obvious reasons.

Logical conclusion:
the methods used to create music and the methods and ideas used to analyse music do not have a simple one to one relationship (even in classical music.)

[Bobby Timmons]

Agreed. It still was most likely regimented based on their theory knowledge at the time.

[Christian Miller]

Agreed. It still was most likely regimented based on their theory knowledge at the time.

We don’t need to use the word ‘likely’ because unlike jazz players of the 40s or whatever, we have a very well documented representation of what the music students of the era learned. In fact, we have Handel’s lessons on harmony, for example.

we also know when music theory concepts were introduced.

The knowledge base of the time was focussed around making music in the current style, not analysing the music of the past.

The general point is more relevant. Just because you can analyse music a certain way doesn’t mean the analysis relates to that musician’s process of coming up with the music.

this is also reflected in the fact different musicians and theorists can analyse the same music differently.

[Christian Miller]

This raises an interesting question re analysing jazz lines.

So say I’m using standard jazz analysis and I see a lydian dominant line in a solo.

if this is Kurt Rosenwinkel or Chris Potter it’s safe to say that this is the way the player was thinking. We could say the same about Allan Holdsworth, because we have the words of the master himself on how he thought about scales (he would have used application of melodic minor.)

If we go back to Coltrane say, it’s a little harder because when Trane was learning CST wasn’t really a thing. He probably knew the Lydian Chromatic Concept. We have a fairly good idea of the books Trane use in his own practice. But did he use it in this context. Hard to say?

Go back to Parker. Very difficult. What kind of theory did Bird use? Much harder to track stuff down.

Django? Now Django it is understood had no formal music theory. And yet his music often can be analysed in terms of quite interesting theory. For instance he plays a harmonic major over a 13b9 chord in Manoir de Mes Reves. He didn’t know what a harmonic major scale was, or a 13b9 chord. I’ve had a forum member (Reg) say that this scale wasn’t taught in jazz edu until the late 70s (IIRC). The term is alien to classical theory afaik.

so it becomes an interesting philosophical question. What does it mean to say so and so used such and such? Can Django be said to have used the harmonic major when he had no idea what it was?

In the end the question can be sidestepped if we focus on practical terms. What sort of things did people like Django (or Bird) do in order to develop their skills as players and what can we learn? Well we actually have some info about that, as well as from living players such as Kris’s friend or those in my own circle who learned outside the mainstream theory/college route.

This is tbf also understood within formal education. In practical terms, bebop for instance is an idiomatic music. A bop line may use the lydian dominant but not all lydian dominant ideas sound like bop. So we don’t teach bop just in terms of chord scales - we spend time on idiom, language and transcription. This is a corner stone of student being able to make the scales etc sound convincingly like jazz later on down the line.

However theory does shape music. In jazz terms we can see the influence of chord scale thinking on the way players of the last 50 years construct lines. For instance, soloists may use US triads, intervallic ideas, cluster harmony and so on.

So to me there should be some sort of relationship between the musician’s process and the analysis of the music, but it’s not always possible to completely place yourself in their shoes. Perhaps this is not altogether a bad thing and promotes evolution and change in music.

[pauln]

It's possible musicians can do all that single note stuff completely aurally.

What are you saying here? The way you've written it looks like:
"I've never observed it, never heard of it, and think it is unlikely
but leave open the possibility that some may play lines aurally,
however, playing chords aurally of course remains impossible."

[ragman1]

Jimmy - You should read Christian's #461. He can give me a headache but on this occasion thank god he knows his stuff. I hope he won't mind if I extract a bit from his post:

'Django? Now Django it is understood had no formal music theory. And yet his music often can be analysed in terms of quite interesting theory. For instance he plays a harmonic major over a 13b9 chord in Manoir de Mes Reves. He didn’t know what a harmonic major scale was, or a 13b9 chord. I’ve had a forum member (Reg) say that this scale wasn’t taught in jazz edu until the late 70s (IIRC). The term is alien to classical theory afaik.

so it becomes an interesting philosophical question. What does it mean to say so and so used such and such? Can Django be said to have used the harmonic major when he had no idea what it was? '

I'm sure you'll have an answer to it but it's not so easily explained. Like ghosts :-)

[rpjazzguitar]

If you have a G13 moving toward Cmajor and you decide to make it a G13b9, you play an Ab instead of an A. It's an adjustment of one note from the Cmajor scale or, if you prefer, G mixolydian. So, playing from this pool of 7 notes (white keys except A becomes Ab) seems like no big deal.

And yet, it has it's own name, "fifth mode C harmonic major" or something. And history.

One of my teachers would just say "play a G13b9 scale".