The official mad-at-theory thread

[ragman1]

Jimmy -

Can I ask you something? Because this is going on somewhat. This phrase 'mad at theory'... what does it actually mean? As far as I know it's American for 'angry at theory'. Is that right? Personally, because I've had friends in the States and there are all the films and shows, and I read a great deal of stuff by American writers, I think that even in American it's a strange sort of expression. I may be wrong but I don't think so.

So is it you who is angry at theory? Or are you talking about other people? Whether it's you or others, who is supposed to be angry at theory? What are they supposed to be angry about? Why be angry at something which is inert, impersonal, just a collection of information?

Are they, or you, angry because it's complicated and hard to grasp? Or are they, or you, angry at themselves because they find it difficult? Or are you, or they, angry because you/they want to nail it down but it's slippery, given to multi-interpretations, elusive?

After all, I think you've said many times that you think theory is essential and we can't play properly without it, and so on... is that right? So, if not you, then who is angry at theory? I don't see anyone here who is angry at theory. I think I've read most of the posts.

When I first saw it I read it as being crazy about it, obsessed with it, can't stop talking about it, but apparently not. Which is a shame because it is a bit like that!

So can we start again with it? What does it mean? Who does it refer to? I think it's fairly important because there are two threads on it now and, personally, I still don't really know what it's all about!

[Jimmy Smith]

This phrase 'mad at theory'... what does it actually mean? As far as I know it's American for 'angry at theory'. Is that right?

Yes

So is it you who is angry at theory?

No, I don't ever post that I am angry at theory.

Or are you talking about other people?

Yes

Why be angry at something which is inert?

That's the joke part of it.

What does it mean? Who does it refer to? I think it's fairly important because there are two threads on it now and, personally, I still don't really know what it's all about!

The true meaning is members vehemently spin the truth in reference to the topic. The only explanation for this is that they have some sort of personal goal by pushing non truths. I think the motivation is elitism, they achieve superiority by spinning the facts that the highest appraisal is to be fluent in aural music and nothing else. Because that's how the greats operated - which isn't true. The majority of the greats use(d) theory anyway. Only some good players are truly 'feral', don't rely on any theory and only their musicality. (Although, noone has ever proven this. But I still accept that some are/were out there.)

[pauln]

I suppose a brief history of being mad at theory was something like:

Attempts to begin application of theory to Jazz...
"This is Jazz, it is new special different and not like Classical music!"

Attempts to soften application of theory to Jazz...
"Chord Scale Theory isn't proper authentic legitimate improvisation!"

Attempts to firm up application of theory to Jazz...
"Teaching formal music school Jazz produces music that is not Jazz!"

[Jimmy Smith]

I suppose a brief history of being mad at theory was something like:

Attempts to begin application of theory to Jazz...
"This is Jazz, it is new special different and not like Classical music!"

Attempts to soften application of theory to Jazz...
"Chord Scale Theory isn't proper authentic legitimate improvisation!"

Attempts to firm up application of theory to Jazz...
"Teaching formal music school Jazz produces music that is not Jazz!"

Lol!

[ragman1]

The true meaning is members vehemently spin the truth in reference to the topic. The only explanation for this is that they have some sort of personal goal by pushing non truths. I think the motivation is elitism, they achieve superiority by spinning the facts that the highest appraisal is to be fluent in aural music and nothing else.

Well, it isn't true that the highest thing is to be fluent in aural music and nothing else! But it is true that there are many musicians who've achieved recognition without ever studying theory or even learning to read music. Apparently the Beatles are an example of that. Also Wes Montgomery too, although apparently he did teach himself music at some point. Here's a thing about him written by Joe Bonamassa.

Wes Montgomery – The Great Jazz Improviser! – Joe Bonamassa

It's quite possible for a person to play really well over chords by ear, imitating others, listening to records, etc, without knowing what they're doing in terms of theory. There's no doubt at all that's been done.

Mind you, I think it highly unlikely that a person could spend years in music without picking up some sense of understanding of what they were doing musically. They'd have to be pretty dumb for that to be true.

And I think it's generally acknowledged that knowing a certain amount of theory does help one to play better but, even then, without good ears and natural flair they wouldn't get very far.

Incidentally, by 'ears' I don't mean just hearing cerebrally, with the intellect, I mean hearing with the heart as well otherwise there's no depth.

So personally I'd put ears and natural ability first, it's more important than poring over books. In any case, there are lots of people who just aren't academically inclined, which has never meant they can't play.

It's also true that there are many players who found theory later on and wished they'd known it from the start. Martin Taylor is one of those.

[Jimmy Smith]

Here we go with the same fallacies that have been beaten to death hundreds of times.

Well, it isn't true that the highest thing is to be fluent in aural music and nothing else! But it is true that there are many musicians who've achieved recognition without ever studying theory or even learning to read music. Apparently the Beatles are an example of that. Also Wes Montgomery too, although apparently he did teach himself music at some point.

Not reading notation doesn't equate to not using theory.

It's quite possible for a person to play really well over chords by ear, imitating others, listening to records, etc, without knowing what they're doing in terms of theory. There's no doubt at all that's been done.

Most likely with some theory foundation.

Mind you, I think it highly unlikely that a person could spend years in music without picking up some sense of understanding of what they were doing musically. They'd have to be pretty dumb for that to be true.

Meaning picking up some theory? Yes.

And I think it's generally acknowledged that knowing a certain amount of theory does help one to play better but, even then, without good ears and natural flair they wouldn't get very far. So personally I'd put ears and natural ability first, it's more important than poring over books. In any case, there are lots of people who just aren't academically inclined, which has never meant they can't play.

Like they're mutually exclusive. They're not. Grasp of the music itself is essential. While varying degrees of theory understanding is essential to most also, like illustrated in the next phrase.

It's also true that there are many players who found theory later on and wished they'd known it from the start. Martin Taylor is one of those.

[Jimmy Smith]

No, it doesn't require much theory to play classical music. Bill Evans said in universal mind that as a child he played classical well but couldn't improvise a note until he learned more theory in his teens.

[grahambop]

I'm mad about the theory
I know it's stupid to be mad about the theory
I'm so ashamed of it but must admit
The sleepless nights I've had about the theory

Oh-oh-oh, on the silver screen
It melts my foolish heart in every single scene
Although I'm quite aware that here and there
Are traces of the care about the theory

Lord knows I'm not a fool, boy
I really shouldn't care
Lord knows I'm not a schoolboy
In the flurry of his first affair

Will it ever cloy?
This odd diversity of misery and joy
I'm feeling quite insane and young again
And all because I'm mad about the theory

So if I could employ
A little magic that will finally destroy
This dream that pains me and enchains me
But I can't because I'm mad...
I'm mad about the theory


(apologies to Noel Coward!)

[ragman1]

Jimmy -

Right, I've got it now!

It's all here:



You're not wrong in your definition of theory, what it is, and so on. Quite the contrary, you're spot on. But look at what you're saying:

'Not reading notation doesn't equate to not using theory.'

Of course it doesn't, but the question is whether the player KNOWS they're using it. Do you see? A person can imitate lines, play lovely stuff, especially if they've heard a lot of their favorite players, etc, but they couldn't describe it theoretically because they don't know the lingo.

Of course they're using theory and that's discernible to the theorist who can explain it in theoretical terms. But the person themselves doesn't know all that, they're just making music.

What you're angry about is others' insistence that it's possible to make good music without knowing theory. You say 'But they're still using theory!'. Yes, they are - they must be - but not in those players' minds because they're not aware of it. Or they have their own way of describing it.

[Christian Miller]

Jimmy -

Right, I've got it now!

It's all here:



You're not wrong in your definition of theory, what it is, and so on. Quite the contrary, you're spot on. But look at what you're saying:

'Not reading notation doesn't equate to not using theory.'

Of course it doesn't, but the question is whether the player KNOWS they're using it. Do you see? A person can imitate lines, play lovely stuff, especially if they've heard a lot of their favorite players, etc, but they couldn't describe it theoretically because they don't know the lingo.

Of course they're using theory and that's discernible to the theorist who can explain it in theoretical terms. But the person themselves doesn't know all that, they're just making music.

What you're angry about is others' insistence that it's possible to make good music without knowing theory. You say 'But they're still using theory!'. Yes, they are - they must be - but not in those players' minds because they're not aware of it. Or they have their own way of describing it.

That’s a remarkably cogent summing up

[ragman1]

And yet if you sit a graded Music theory exam in the UK you will be expected to be musically literate.

Obviously, but what's your point?

That’s a remarkably cogent summing up

It also took me far too long to get there.

[Christian Miller]

I suppose a brief history of being mad at theory was something like:

Attempts to begin application of theory to Jazz...
"This is Jazz, it is new special different and not like Classical music!"

Attempts to soften application of theory to Jazz...
"Chord Scale Theory isn't proper authentic legitimate improvisation!"

Attempts to firm up application of theory to Jazz...
"Teaching formal music school Jazz produces music that is not Jazz!"

I rather enjoy the term Keith Swanwick uses ‘pseudo music’ - a music that exist only within music schools and has no other social context. See also the dreaded ‘Berklee Funk’ referenced by Adam Neely.

Contemporary jazz is perilously close to becoming a ‘pseudo music’ and I think people are acutely aware of this danger.

[CliffR]

To be pedantic, people who don't know theory are not using theory. Theory is a system of ideas to describe stuff external to itself. In this case, musical devices. Somebody ignorant of theory may be using musical devices in a way that somebody else can describe with theory, but they themselves are not using theory.

When somebody throws you a ball, do you look at its initial velocity, solve the parabolic equation to figure out where and when it will land so you can intercept it? Do you account for air drag and turn it into a differential equation to be solved? Or do you just instinctively know where to put your hands to catch it? If it's the latter, you're not using theory to catch the ball, even though the ball's motion can be described with theory.

(FWIW, I'm crap at catching balls, and I use theory to help me compose jazz licks.)

[ragman1]

To be pedantic, people who don't know theory are not using theory.

They're not using it consciously, they just know it sounds good. If someone played a decent sounding jazz line over a G7 a theorist could tell them they'd played a G dominant b9 scale but they'd just look blank.

you're not using theory to catch the ball, even though the ball's motion can be described with theory.

Precisely.

[Christian Miller]

There is no such thing as unconscious theory. You either use theory consciously or you are not using theory.

[Christian Miller]

Side point - so this means that some things can start as theoretical ideas and become internalised to the point where they are no longer theory.

This is quite normal.

[James W]

I rather enjoy the term Keith Swanwick uses ‘pseudo music’ - a music that exist only within music schools and has no other social context. See also the dreaded ‘Berklee Funk’ referenced by Adam Neely.

Contemporary jazz is perilously close to becoming a ‘pseudo music’ and I think people are acutely aware of this danger.

Who decides what is a legitimate social context for music?

Also, surely jazz as performance, unlike classical music, is not based on playing exactly what people wrote a long time ago but rather seeing someone play something new. If you want to listen to some jazz from a bygone era the best means of doing so would be to find a CD of it. I guess there are jazz musicians who specialise in playing styles of jazz from e.g. 80 years ago, but I'd still say all jazz performed now is contemporary, by the nature of jazz itself. Thus, I can't see the danger - assuming it is such - that you describe.

Personally, I would say someone like Kenny G is far more of a pseudo-music rather than music that happens to be performed in music schools. Most the concerts I attended at uni were connected in some way to the school of music, and they were all open to the public, obviously.

[ragman1]

There is no such thing as unconscious theory. You either use theory consciously or you are not using theory.

When Jimmy (I'm sticking up for him!) says someone who can name chords is using theory he's absolutely right. Of course they are. Without the theory the chords and their names wouldn't exist. It doesn't mean that the person is thinking 'theory' when they do it. It's that simple.

[Jimmy Smith]

Agreed, ragman. I know there is a continuum of how much each musician uses theory. Whether consciously vs subconsciously, or academically vs colloquially.

There is no such thing as unconscious theory. You either use theory consciously or you are not using theory.

That isn't true. You can have a theory foundation that you don't have to consciously think of anymore. Like the Metheny interview where he said he doesn't have to think of theory anymore because he studied it, mastered it, and internalized it. But he said that it's still part of his process of making music behind the scenes.

[ragman1]

Christian has actually covered that in this post.

The official mad-at-theory thread

[Jimmy Smith]

But that's false. That's not the same thing as never using theory and arriving at musicality completely aurally. Even Metheny phrases it that theory is involved in his process but he doesn't have to consciously think of it anymore. He could still go and analyze something if he needed to. A feral person couldn't.

This is part of the mad-at-theory movement. Trying to say using theory isn't using theory and chalking it up to the 100% aural side.

[Christian Miller]

Agreed, ragman. I know there is a continuum of how much each musician uses theory. Whether consciously vs subconsciously, or academically vs colloquially.

That isn't true. You can have a theory foundation that you don't have to consciously think of anymore. Like the Metheny interview where he said he doesn't have to think of theory anymore because he studied it, mastered it, and internalized it. But he said that it's still part of his process of making music behind the scenes.

then it’s no longer theory.

[ModesSchmodes]

I may chime in, I'm sure I didn't get every opinion (*cough* rant) in every thread, so apologies if I'm only retreading common ground.

But one thing that I always have to think about in the "theory vs whatever" discussion is that (in my opinion) theory is (and should always be) descriptive, not prescriptive. Theory doesn't say what you should play. Theory explains and analyses, but it isn't demanding. Especially in what most people commonly understand as "music theory", that is "the music theory of 18th century Western Europe" (thanks Adam), but is also applies to jazz.

Jazz theory - for me - is explaining what other people who have come before we're doing. It isn't saying "You should voice lead from the seventh to the third from the ii to the V" but "Many people have done this, it works".

When I say "I use theory to improvise" I mean that I try to play in such a way that countless others have and how it has worked for them. That's why I'm not mad at theory, because I can't be mad at something that is only there to help me understand things. I can however be mad at people who claim that their theory is how it should be, because that bull...

[Christian Miller]

Who decides what is a legitimate social context for music?

I think the point the author was making is that this context cannot be the music school with the music school theory syllabus defining the aesthetic. I’ll dig out the quote later, it’s quite funny and apt and I don’t think musicians or educators would disagree (this was on the reading list for my Masters.)

Also, surely jazz as performance, unlike classical music, is not based on playing exactly what people wrote a long time ago but rather seeing someone play something new. If you want to listen to some jazz from a bygone era the best means of doing so would be to find a CD of it.

BTW - classical music used to be about people playing their own stuff. During the C18 there was no canon…. players wrote, improvised and performed new work. There was a constant demand (admittedly from the upper echelons of society, later the middle class) for new sonatas, symphonies etc.

I find this interesting comparing to jazz.

I think players playing historical styles for a similar music school audience would be a similar sort of thing. This isn’t an old/new dichotomy. I also said it’s close … I don’t think it’s there yet.

(Its widely acknowledged NYC jazz scene is largely kept afloat by the tourists who have no idea what they are hearing haha.)

What’s shaken things up a bit in the past few years has been a UK scene of musicians playing a type of contemporary groove jazz that seems popular with a wider non-jazz listenership… the Alfa Mists and Moses Boyds and so on. It’s notable that this music has also found a niche in the states. Of course a lot of older jazzers are quite dismissive of this manic.

I guess there are jazz musicians who specialise in playing styles of jazz from e.g. 80 years ago, but I'd still say all jazz performed now is contemporary, by the nature of jazz itself. Thus, I can't see the danger - assuming it is such - that you describe.

I think that’s what I meant.

Well tbf I did that for a while and played mostly for dancers. Tbh I’m not sure if it felt like a real music scene, but at least it had a purpose.

Personally, I would say someone like Kenny G is far more of a pseudo-music rather than music that happens to be performed in music schools. Most the concerts I attended at uni were connected in some way to the school of music, and they were all open to the public, obviously.

Thats a seperate conversation

[Christian Miller]

I may chime in, I'm sure I didn't get every opinion (*cough* rant) in every thread, so apologies if I'm only retreading common ground.

But one thing that I always have to think about in the "theory vs whatever" discussion is that (in my opinion) theory is (and should always be) descriptive, not prescriptive. Theory doesn't say what you should play. Theory explains and analyses, but it isn't demanding. Especially in what most people commonly understand as "music theory", that is "the music theory of 18th century Western Europe" (thanks Adam), but is also applies to jazz.

An irony (apparently lost on Adam) is the fact that the music theory taught today as ‘classical music theory’ wasn’t used by 18th century Western European musicians either. most of it was invented in the 19th and 20th centuries. But that’s literally another thread lol.

Jazz theory - for me - is explaining what other people who have come before we're doing. It isn't saying "You should voice lead from the seventh to the third from the ii to the V" but "Many people have done this, it works".

Yes.

Also this an example of a bit of theory that was also used by c18 theory in fact, and no explanation was given beyond ‘this is a nice, stylish way of dealing with a bass that ascends in fourths’. So what you said.

thats it. Anything more that is getting into different territory but I think there’s a strong human desire to rationalise and explain. I think great musicians and educators realise this is a rabbit hole and try and focus on the practicalities. At least that’s been my experience.

In terms of theory having some innate existence in music ‘out there’… this seems quite easy to argue against as a philosophical position. It doesn’t stop a lot of musicians saying this stuff, but it’s a bit of a cultural thing. Musos tend to be drawn towards platonism.

Which kind of reinforces the point really