-
It was more about hand positioning and interest.
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
A 4-year-old child and the theory is probably absurd.
I know a lot about it because my wife teaches small children to play the piano.
Besides, do you know what kind of musician or teacher his father was.
-
03-29-2023 12:56 AM
-
Howard Roberts Guitar Compendium-section IX 'Essential Theory For guitarists'.
Elements:
An essential musical tool
Scales
Intervals
Arpeggios
Chords
Visualisation
Ear training
Chord/scale/Interval/arpegio Interrelations
Voice leading
Vertical vs.horizontal considerations
Melodic economy
-
I appreciate the thoughtful reply. Originally Posted by pauln
I'm going to write kinda long and then give this thread a rest for a while; I've two exciting new musical projects getting started this April.
OK, it has nothing to do with equal temperament; I mentioned that the two versions of tuning and the two ways to write the chords were enharmonic - they are all using the same pitches (frequencies) of equal temperament. The difference is between how notes and intervals are defined in standard music theory and how they are thought of informally within the general guitar playing community.
Standard music theory defines notes as the letter names of the space and line positions in the staff. It does not define them by pitch because those notes are not pitches, but subject to representing up to five different pitches if you limit the key signature to double accidentals. Notes are not pitches, they are staff location position names. The note does not change when accidentals are applied. All of Gbb Gb G G# and G## are G notes, or just "G", because they all reside for instance on the second line up from the bottom of the G cleff staff.
Standard music theory defines intervals as the distance between notes, so intervals are the distance between position locations in the staff, not pitch distances, because the notes can represent different pitches without changing position in the staff, therefore the difference in pitch distance can vary, but the distance between notes (staff positions) does not. This why the interval of C to G is a fifth, but so is Cb to G# and so is C# to Gb... as long as the notes (letter names of the staff positions) are five lines/spaces apart, and despite accidentals that change the pitch distance, the note distance remains the same and the interval is still a fifth (which will include a quality term to account for the pitch distance variance).
A guitarist that has been playing a while will have formed a keen sense of the pitch perspective of what is going on (the distinct pitches of the chromatic scale and the distinct pitch differences counted as semitone distance between pitches of the chromatic scale), but when he looks at theory he's liable to feel dizzy because his definitions of the basic things (pitches and pitch differences) are now mismatches to the theory's definitions of notes and intervals (which are not based on pitch and pitch distance) so the standard theory constructs won't make sense. Standard theory will present a completely different connected dimensionality that appears incoherent, paradoxical, and irrational - things won't make sense applying the pitch based definitions).
Some will say so what? Guitarists for practical reasons will use pitch based methods anyway and say it is all semantics. I myself don't use the standard theory definitions of note and interval whatsoever to play, compose, practice, perform, or do studio sessions - I don't use any named things at all.
But like you suggested, "theory" as in a Jazz sub-forum named "Theory" must certainly mean standard music theory, but within which it looks like the people here don't seem to be discussing that theory, or even the same other theory among themselves. I've mentioned before, many who claim they use theory aren't referring to the standard theory with the peculiar definitions of note and interval...
Recall that chord tones are 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 based on stacked thirds of notes, not pitches. The quality of chords comes from changing their pitches by applying accidentals to the notes which themselves do not change because they aren't pitches, they're staff locations. This preserves the stacked thirds interval structure across various chord types.
Similarly for diatonic scales that mysteriously always have each of the seven note names, none missing, none duplicated, that is a product of the concept of interval that ensures linear scale degrees in order to make diatonic scales form straight lines without the two half-step kinks on the staff in all keys (enforcing this with the application of key signatures). That is based on the note system of sequential lines and spaces, adjusted in pitch by the key signature.
Hope this all makes sense. The standard music theory is really profoundly coherent, amazing, and intellectually beautiful.
Since I've read all of Jazz Theory by Levine and Nettles & Graf -- without ever thinking about this set of definitions, I'm guessing I can safely ignore them. When I see a written note in standard notation, I know where it is on the neck and what most people call it.
Apparently, I'm glossing over some things that went into the theory, but it strikes me like driving my car. I know how to drive a car. I don't need to know how to make a car to get where I want to go.
But, I appreciate the point you are making and I am a fan of your posts, even when my thinking goes in a different direction.
-
What compels you to say he 'didn't use it' when we know for a fact he studied it and knew it, and his playing follows it? That's ridiculous. It's not called the mad-at-theory thread for nothing! 24 pages in and you're still on the rampage trying to spin things that it isn't a dignified approach unless theory is downplayed to the maximum, irrespective of the truth. Originally Posted by kris
-
I think EVH was mad at theory for this song. The horror begins about the 1:00 mark... what comes in sounding like someone stepping on a bagpipe is his guitar - something terribly wrong with tuning, only gets worse as he tries to compensate; if you can bear listening long enough you will see the singer look over at him and tap his ear, later EVH goes over to the bass player and says something to him like, "Help! WTF!?" Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
What are you doing here on this guitarist forum? Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
Do you want to teach guitarists theory?
The fact that you keep reminding yourself how great your teacher is doesn't mean anything.
Then you ask jazz guitarists for suggestions in classical organ repertoire,.
I'm surprised because this is a forum for guitar players.
I'm not being mean, just curious.
What for?
-
no one was ever saying this as far as I can see. I can’t think of a single person on any of the threads who was actually taking this stance. I certainly wasn’t because it’s a stupid thing to say. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
if you go through Allan’s scales it’s quite interesting how many of them are similar to Barry Harris scales. Originally Posted by SandChannel
Anyway I think the idea that schooling and theory are the same is clearly disproven by examples like Allan. And Barry for that matter.
otoh I think the way Allan composed his music may have been quite intuitive.
-
I don't know why, you can look it up in a dictionary and find out in a few seconds. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
-
I think theory is god's gift to those who have nothing better to do. You can talk about it all day long and still find it intriguing. It's amazing!
-
+1 Originally Posted by ragman1
Just look at this thread.
-
I'm trying not to. It's difficult :-)Just look at this thread.
-
After 24 pages, I think we might need a “tired-of-posters mad-at theory” thread.
Music theory & analysis exist, and those who want to better understand what they’re doing will use them to the extent they see a benefit to it.
As my composition professor used to say: “The composers compose, and the theorists pick up the droppings!”
-
Yes! Make some money out of it! Good idea!
Are they all in Polish?
-
Joke :-) Originally Posted by kris
-
If these books were in Japanese, I wouldn't sell them.
-
They’re theory books so English might be stretching it
-
It might not make much difference whichever language they were in... we could come here and argue about it for another 24 pages. Yippee!
-
This is one of Paul's posts (he'll have to forgive me) in Icelandic. It's very instructive. I understood 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 so I'll be all all right for numbers in Iceland.
I don't like the look of kvarðagráður. That's definitely wrong.
Mundu að hljómatónar eru 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 byggðir á staflaðum þriðju nótum, ekki tónhæðum. Gæði hljóma koma frá því að breyta tónhæðum sínum með því að setja óvart á tónana sem sjálfir breytast ekki vegna þess að þeir eru ekki tónhæðir, þeir eru starfsmenn. Þetta varðveitir staflaða þriðjubilsuppbyggingu yfir ýmsar strengjagerðir.
Á sama hátt fyrir díatónískir tónstiga sem á dularfullan hátt hafa alltaf hvert nótuna sjönna sjö, ekkert vantar, ekkert tvítekið, sem er afurð hugtaksins bil sem tryggir línulegar kvarðagráður til að láta díatónískar kvarða mynda beinar línur án tveggja hálfþrepanna kinkar á starfsfólkinu í öllum lyklum (því framfylgja þessu með beitingu lyklaundirskrifta). Það er byggt á nótnakerfi raðlína og bila, stillt á tónhæð með tóntegundinni.
-
I was tempted to put one of Jimmy's posts into English. And I got a big surprise... it was exactly the same!
-
Yes kris, I want to teach guitarists theory. I also want to build myself up by talking about my teacher. You're ridiculous. You can't go 1 page without talking bs or using logical fallacies. I participate here because it's the only viable jazz forum. There's no jazz piano or organ forum. Besides, I played guitar and understand it and so can learn from guitarists just as easily. I bring up my teacher because it's relevant to the discussion. I'm not trying to self aggrandize like you. He's literally a great who came up right after the golden age in the 70s so I think his stance on theory kind of carries some weight. Originally Posted by kris
-
If everyone had complexes about that specific topic. :P Originally Posted by ragman1
-
I hope you're not suggesting everyone has complexes except you! Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
Can you express it more clearly? Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
You were faster than me. Originally Posted by ragman1
And I play fast, I think.
Reply With Quote
when 2 Chets meet ...
Today, 07:29 PM in The Songs