The official mad-at-theory thread

[ragman1]

It also wants to attract talented musicians who it can stick on the prospectus whether or not they actually graduate :-)

I hope they do scholarships for the poor but gifted.

[ragman1]

Evidently he was very outspoken and would have found it extremely hard to keep his mouth shut. The Soviets wouldn't tolerate that for long.

Anyway, his contribution to Polish jazz was immense and that's probably what matters. I'm glad you knew him.

[Bobby Timmons]

I might have to change the thread's name to the kris-aggrandizing thread. :P

[Christian Miller]

I hope they do scholarships for the poor but gifted.

I believe so. It’s in their own best interests actually. If they had a student body comprised of trust fund babies - who for example all want to be the next John Mayer - the reputation of the school would take a nose dive pretty quickly.

Actually from what I hear, things went a bit this way a few years back and it seemed like the school was definitely losing cred among jazzers compared to the New York music schools…. they had to start being more selective with their intake again. Reputation v tuition dollar… it’s a balance. There’s probably a differential equation for it somewhere in the Berklee accounts dept lol. Anyway there’s others on JGO who would know a lot more about these wrangles.

Weirdly it sounds like it’s easier to get bursaries as an international student (wish I’d known that 20 years ago lol). That’s how my friend got in there. He actually said that when he was there every second person was Scottish for some reason haha. But often support is just for a year or so.

[Litterick]

Actually from what I hear, things went a bit this way a few years back and it seemed like the school was definitely losing cred among jazzers compared to the New York music schools…. they had to start being more selective with their intake again.

And everyone wants to be in New York. Many good schools in many disciplines are hampered by their unfashionable locations.

[ragman1]

every second person was Scottish for some reason haha. But often support is just for a year or so.

I suppose the common perception of the Scots is beefy, caber-tossing blokes in kilts but actually they're quite polite and well-mannered. Bar the exceptions, naturally. There's certainly a thriving music scene, local bands, and lots of buskers. There's a jazz jam where I am but I haven't been to it yet.

Log into Facebook | Facebook

As for only a year, I'd imagine a year at Berklee would be fairly enlightening :-)

[SandChannel]

"Now that we are 500+ posts deep, do I need to learn theory?" asked the beginner.

[Christian Miller]

Often, students without financial support work as waiters or help in the laundry.
Then, very tired, they go to classes, e.g. in theory..and they are "mad".

Hmmm. Have you seen the Berklee fees recently?

[rpjazzguitar]

I think it comes down to whether or not the player is aware he is learning theory.

If you don't think you know any theory and you play really well, the pro-theorists will insist you do know and utilize theory.

So, take them at their word. At that point, you do know theory, whether or not you knew you knew it.

If, on the other hand, you study a lot of theory but you don't sound good, some theorist will suggest you don't know enough theory.

At that point, if you learn to play better, you automatically are presumed to have learned the theory you needed, whether or not you were aware of learning any.

So, you might ask, do I need to learn theory to play well? Can it be assumed to help? My point is that there's no way to tell.

I think I'm kidding.

[Bobby Timmons]

So, you might ask, do I need to learn theory to play well? Can it be assumed to help? My point is that there's no way to tell.

I think I'm kidding.

I hope you're kidding.

The vast majority of the time, good players use some theory, and people who know zero theory end up not being able to really play. So yes, theory helps.

Unless we're in an opposite alternate universe where false is true and true is false.

[ragman1]

Define zero theory.

[SandChannel]

Define zero theory.

I don't know what note this is on the neck or what the band is playing, but intuitively, I think I will play it.

[ragman1]

Not you, the other guy!

[pauln]

I don't know what note this is on the neck or what the band is playing, but intuitively, I think I will play it.

The funny thing is even ones who think they do use theory aren't doing so if imagining "this on the neck" (pitch) is a particular note (actually represented by multiple notes). I've posted (and was snapped at) already that people are not all using the word "theory" to mean the canonical music theory, and even among themselves not even to mean the same thing. How someone describes a "note" reveals all.

So which is better, not knowing or caring about what a note is and playing by ear, or not even knowing you don't know what a note is, and advocating theory? It may be better to play by ear (with no reason to be mad at theory) rather than try to use "theory" without knowing the fundamental definitions (and so, get frustrated and end up being mad mistaking one's ersatz theory for real theory), being neither fair to the canonical music theory nor supporting the clarity of discussions about theory.

[Bobby Timmons]

The funny thing is even ones who think they do use theory aren't doing so if imagining "this on the neck" (pitch) is a particular note (actually represented by multiple notes).

That isn't a rational premise. If people don't follow your enharmonic semantics, then that cancels their entire theory knowledge system? That's pure nonsense.

[pauln]

That isn't a rational premise. If people don't follow your enharmonic semantics, then that cancels their entire theory knowledge system? That's pure nonsense.

It's not a premise, it is an observation that those who aren't using the music theory definitions (e.g. note and interval) aren't using that music theory. Those definitions are the construction foundation for structures like scales and chords. You must be "all in" when going the theory route - knowing the proper definitions from the start; otherwise you believe in subsequent structures and concepts developed from those definitions that you don't understand.

[Christian Miller]

What minimum knowledge of jazz theory will allow you to play jazz at the appropriate level?

the boring answer to that question is that it depends. But I’ll be a little specific

Melodic improviser - Lester Young, Stan Getz, art pepper - soloing is about varying and paraphrasing the melody. May require little or no theory - ‘don’t tell me the changes’ (Lester Young) otoh this seems more the domain of horn players. That said all the good players seem to be good at doing this. Peter Bernstein advocates this as a way to work on improv.

Licks player - most of the second gen boppers tbh - cops a large amount of vocab from other player’s solos by ear. Theory required - I think you have to know the context of the phrase at least a little bit. In bop this had traditionally been done through the use of ii V licks. So, if a lick happens over a Dm7 G7 you do it over other instances of that progression. Otoh transposing ideas is also important. On the guitar this might not require much theory, might go along with grip.

Soloing out of shapes - the Charlie christian/herb Ellis approach. There are lines that are clearly just broken or embellished chord shapes. In this case it can be down right out of the grips. The more grips the player knows for a given chord the more they have to play. Very guitaristic! Theory? Probs not a lot. You have to know chords.

CST/Pattern based - Post Trane, Kurt Rsoenwinkel etc etc - learning lots of fancy modal patterns and applying to chords. Theory? A fair bit. You either have to know a lot of scales or be very good at applying a small number of scales to a lot of situations. You’ll probably be au fait with chord scales etc.

sure there’s more I’ve missed.

no one has to swear allegiance to just one approach.

[pauln]

What is it about?
About theory in general or about theory needed to play jazz?
Everyone is spinning around...
Then there's also jazz theory for guitarists.
Look at excellent book by Howard Roberts" Guitar Compendium".
It might be better to consider this:
What minimum knowledge of jazz theory will allow you to play jazz at the appropriate level?
Is there an answer to this question at all?
After all, every person is different.

And this is a quote from another jazz book for beginner's written by Les Wise 'Inner Jazz'.
"There have been many books written on Jazz Improvisation, most containing an abundance of scales to be used when soloing.Conversely,we feel theemphasis should not be on how many scales you know,but on how much music you can make using a few common scales."
Les Wise

Have a nice day
Kris

There is the general music theory whose fundamental definitions are derived from standard music notation, from which come the definitions and concepts of notes, intervals, and keys. These definitions require a minimum understanding of music notation - a note based approach rather than a pitch based approach.

There are various special music theories whose fundamental definitions are derived from pitch, from which the terms note and interval are borrowed from the general theory but defined differently yet comprising what most guitarists think of mistakenly as the foundation for general music theory. Those who attempt to look at the note based approach of general theory from the pitch based approach of these special theories will either grasp the difference (incidentally beginning to read music) or hit the wall when the pitch based definitions don't work in the note based theory.

There is aural playing by ear whose objects are unnamed internal transcendent abstractions of phenomenological aural qualia up to isomorphism (ideas that sound like what is heard, or sound like what one wants to hear, approaching music as intrinsically self revealing), their manifestation as pitches ranging from serial to synchronous, self relative without notes or keys. The primary difference from referencing external methods of theory is that learning does not process and transfer external names, signs, and symbology into a newly created internal structure. Rather, what occurs is the new learning is composed of relationships among already existing internal structures to which you have always had creation, memory, access, manipulation, recognition, and execution, which makes playing seem to feel instant, effortless, familiar, and natural because what becomes learned is just a rearrangement of internal personal schema which you already contain (what you are already made of). This is the end goal in the mysterious recommendation to learn everything and then forget it.

[ragman1]

What minimum knowledge of jazz theory will allow you to play jazz at the appropriate level?

I'm not sure what the appropriate level means. I'd have thought that that the two go together, the level determines the knowledge needed to play it.

[Bobby Timmons]

Minimum theory required is the musician must have a grasp of tonal harmony and chromaticism on top of that regardless of the instrument. The vast majority of people aren't going to get this just dicking around. Jazz isn't modal dicking around, you have to outline the changes and be able to utilize tension and release and color through chromaticism. This requires getting base theory under your belt and jazz applications on top of that. Then there's the rhythmic side of things which can be understood intuitively but a theoretical understanding doesn't hurt.

Meanwhile pauln goes full retard. Says if you base stuff on a faulty assumption then it's all false. Proceeds to make a false premise then write several word salad paragraphs based on it.

[Christian Miller]

There is the general music theory whose fundamental definitions are derived from standard music notation, from which come the definitions and concepts of notes, intervals, and keys. These definitions require a minimum understanding of music notation - a note based approach rather than a pitch based approach.

There are various special music theories whose fundamental definitions are derived from pitch, from which the terms note and interval are borrowed from the general theory but defined differently yet comprising what most guitarists think of mistakenly as the foundation for general music theory. Those who attempt to look at the note based approach of general theory from the pitch based approach of these special theories will either grasp the difference (incidentally beginning to read music) or hit the wall when the pitch based definitions don't work in the note based theory.

There is aural playing by ear whose objects are unnamed internal transcendent abstractions of phenomenological aural qualia up to isomorphism (ideas that sound like what is heard, or sound like what one wants to hear, approaching music as intrinsically self revealing), their manifestation as pitches ranging from serial to synchronous, self relative without notes or keys. The primary difference from referencing external methods of theory is that learning does not process and transfer external names, signs, and symbology into a newly created internal structure. Rather, what occurs is the new learning is composed of relationships among already existing internal structures to which you have always had creation, memory, access, manipulation, recognition, and execution, which makes playing seem to feel instant, effortless, familiar, and natural because what becomes learned is just a rearrangement of internal personal schema which you already contain (what you are already made of). This is the end goal in the mysterious recommendation to learn everything and then forget it.

Well, I had to read and at least pretend to understand writing like this when I was doing a Masters. That said.. 'There is aural playing by ear...'? I daresay there is.

The last para appears to be saying "people who learn theory are learning to name and categorise musical objects that they already inherently know on some level' - is that right?
If so I sort of agree, and sort of don't.

If not, is it possible to rephrase the thought in words simple enough for me to understand? Preferably ones without too many Q's (or X's) in?

[pauln]

Says if you base stuff on a faulty assumption then it's all false.

... only since we came down out of the trees, Jimmy; where have you been?

[Bobby Timmons]

You're the one who's using logic that of a monkey. That's false that people aren't using theory if they don't call a single note by several names. Quit being retarded.

[pauln]

The last para appears to be saying "people who learn theory are learning to name and categorise musical objects that they already inherently know on some level' - is that right?
If so I sort of agree, and sort of don't.

If not, is it possible to rephrase the thought in words simple enough for me to understand? Preferably ones without too many Q's (or X's) in?

I was actually suggesting that for only the self taught by ear folks, and not that they already know it but that the application of a relationship among existing structures was all that is missing. I was trying to make the distinction between learning from external references (lessons, methods) and learning by ear (self teaching). Both ways result in the appearance of new ideas/structures within oneself. The difference is that learning theory produces novel structures (unfamiliar, unconnected, requiring translation) awaiting adopting their place within a relationship structure (which may not be developed yet). Self learning by ear produces relationships among native structures that already exit (familiar, connected, direct) in the relationship structure.

These structures are not "little particles of musical substance" a la phrenology, nor stored passages of verbal/logic text, but general abstractions capable of supporting audition, vision, accounting, cosmology, and conversation with someone - we have all been absolutely full of these abstractions our whole lives.

When we learn external material we build new ones without connections, so we hunt for them because their identity is vague, have trouble remembering them because their location/categorization is vague, and don't know how to apply them because their relationships are yet to be established. They are like a new kids in the neighborhood that haven't made any friends yet.

When we self learn by ear producing internal relationships among exiting structures, we enjoy the connections, identities, locations, categorizations, relationships, and applications that already exist. These learned things are like a new perspective on familiar scenes.

[pauln]

You're the one who's using logic that of a monkey. That's false that people aren't using theory if they don't call a single note by several names. Quit being retarded.

Single notes represent several pitches, so perhaps you meant
to write, "if they don't call a single pitch by several note names"