-
Yeah I mean what we think of as music theory - which a lot of people often think of as set in stone - is a) culturally contingent and b) temporally contingent, that is it evolves.
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
How any self-respecting jazz musician can be so adamant in saying (their) theory is everything and beyond questioning is baffling to me, given that Jazz in its earliest stages was exactly a clash with the existing musical knowledge and theory.
-
03-10-2023 01:58 PM
-
I read Nettles and Graf.
If I scat sing something, am I using theory?
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
It was not theory then. It was how music was made by those composers. It was a common understanding among them and with their audiences. Jazz also had no theory when it was young. The purpose of theory in both genres is to recreate the music we cannot experience as a living thing, to support a musical form that can no longer sustain itself.
I'll get my coat.
-
Yes, compulsive neurotic posts are a sign of being mad at theory. :P Originally Posted by grahambop
-
It's both internalized theory and musicality. So it's still partially theory. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
No. Tell me I'm mad at aural skills and see what I say. :P Originally Posted by kris
My personal opinion is that you can theory everything. However, I wouldn't push that on others. I think you need a blend of musicality, theory, and technical skills. Good musicians will naturally be stronger in some areas than others.Someone who is serious about being a professional musician knows exactly what theory is and how to use it.
...but....
You are not trying to understand the problem:
suppose, for example, that I am a genius in theory, but that is no guarantee of being a good musician.
If you understood it, I'm very happy.
-
My question for you would be: Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
1)Do you need a lot of theory knowledge for what purpose? Because music is very wide, and there are different levels of playing/composing/creating?
2)WHat do you understand by being mad at theory? To know a lot of formal rules and understanding them from a formal point of view or could it be "intuitive knowledge"
-
I happen to agree, with first point… but I’m using theory in the wide sense that people often use it. Originally Posted by Litterick
I disagree with the second point in the specifics . It can be that, but it is not always that.
-
^ My opinion is that there was still theory back then and in early jazz. I used to play Jopin on piano. It's quite theoretical to my understanding.
Originally Posted by JimmyDunlop
1. My experience with applied theory has been great. I feel it really helps with playing music authentically because you can key in on devices used. And the greats did use devices, they weren't just winging it. I'm studying with Tony Monaco who is a top pro and he tells me everything in theory. I think that's revealing. I'd be more inclined to listen to him than some foos on the forum. Well of course I have to pick up the fine detail by ear from what he plays. Originally Posted by JimmyDunlop
My experience with trying to use raw theory as music didn't work well, like you would expect, and how everyone says. I started on bass so could just play chord tones to accompany a group well. Then when I switched instruments I had to actually get more musicality together through ear.
2. Mad-at-theory is my joke of accusing people who are kind of anti about theory. I'm not mad at theory.
-
So you mean if iits needed to know a lot of theory to playing what exactly? Jazz songs ? Well if so I think, for that purpose it is not needed to know a lot of theory. There has been cases like Django who plaid without any formal knowledge, and so on and so on. I think that for this purpose a good ear and taste and udnerstanding of how this music works will work way better than theory knowledge. For more complex tasks like composing advanced academic pieces then it will help for sure. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
I would like to hear you improvising on the piano btw, can you share your videos?
-
Yes the amount of theory required varies by musician. Originally Posted by JimmyDunlop
Here are some of my clips.
Stream S'Wonderful by Clint Jones | Listen online for free on SoundCloud
-
Creating music, (composing or improvising any style including jazz) it is about being creative, and theory books or theory knowlege doesnt help you with this, for many respected musicians this is something that you have or just don't have, and I tend to agree with this, it is difficult to teach. So what is the point of knowing a lot of theory if you are not creative, to teach it in a music school or conservatory? To be a conductor? Yes it can help for these tasks, but not for creating unless you are a creative person. This is why we know very few people taking into consideration all the people that plays an instrument
-
oh god like that that @£&7ing Bob Stoloff book Originally Posted by kris
Friends don’t let friends make those noises. I’m convinced it’s all an elaborate troll.
Doo-dot!
-
w Originally Posted by kris
well creativity is way more important than formal theory knowledge for improvisation. And for that purpose 2 things has a big influence
1)taste for music
Since you will tend to try to play as your references, that you appreciate as a music guidance or example of something well done
It is not than I am anti theory, but I think it is not that necessary as many people thing, better to have a good ear, I mean a creative ear that listens good melodies to anticipate the chord changes in improvisation, at the end you are playing what you hear in your head...
So for improvisation I think a lot of theory is not needed, Ear is way more important, and taste too. actually there are examples that prove that theory is not needed.
-
Ear and theory are not mutually exclusive.
-
I'm a linguist and we talk a lot about descriptive vs prescriptive grammar. People don't talk the way grammar books teach grammar, our spoken language is very much like Jazz...we improve based on known rules (definitely not on the top of our minds when we create new sentences) with known rules about turn taking, linguistic styling, the setting for the language usage, who we are talking to, the formality of the situation and on and on. There are absolutely grammatical rules but they're all based on describing usage not prescribing it. Originally Posted by ModesSchmodes
Music theory is a lot like that right? Most of the time those of us who are fluent in a language never think about the rules, even though we use them fairly flawlessly. We are all the Pat Metheny's of spoken language...we've learned it, internalized it, and often cannot even describe the "theory" we are using our spoken grammar. Other times we need to pull out the rule book and try crafting novel sentences from there. Native English speakers rarely put the object first in a sentence because we have internalized the subject-verb-object ordering of our language.
How is a cowboy playing G-C-D not using theory? It's the same idea when Joe Pass describes leading lines etc. just he's further down the theory road than the cowboy. Personally I want to know as much as possible about theory so I can use even more of it as I progress in my playing, I also want to be able to hear things and play them. So this is all a silly discussion to me.
-
Good point. The difference is that for most, music is not learned in the manner of a native language where the individual gets constant practice as the brain is developing in childhood and can make the most progress. Most people learn music in the manner of a 2nd language as an adult. This is where it's essential to know the structure of everything and learn vocab outside of only osmosis or it's a huge obstacle to get it. However, you notice the musicians who made progress with music early in their childhood have music more hardwired in them as a native language and have more fluency.
-
Man, the last time I read about descriptive vs. descriptive in linguistics was in that David Foster Wallace essay where he reviewed a dictionary. Fun stuff! Originally Posted by AaronMColeman
But I absolutely agree with your points. How often do jazz musicians and educators employ the analogy of a child learning to speak vs learning the alphabet first with regards to scales and such. But being mad at theory is like being mad at the alphabet. It exists, and it may not encompass all the sounds we can make with our mouths, but the theory is still there.
-
haha, I just wondered if there was a song that could be made to fit the occasion and suddenly remembered the old Noel Coward one. Originally Posted by kris
Graham's post - testifying to the author's great sense of humor.
By the way, whenever I google ‘mad at theory’, the first thing that comes up is ‘Mutual Assured Destruction’.
I’m not sure what to make of that - maybe it’s where this thread is heading...
-
can you tell me what exactly what you mean by theory? because there is some theory I believe it is absolutely necessary, but I am not sure if this is what you mean. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
You mean an harmony book?
-
Being mad at theory apparently bumps people down to 1st or 2nd grade and they can't comprehend a simple definition. :P
Theory is anything that explains music in language that is not music.Last edited by Jimmy Smith; 03-11-2023 at 06:20 AM.
-
This thread is really blowing and I haven't caught up yet. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
About this idea that theory might or might not need to be conscious for using theory to play...
If unconscious theory is using theory, is unconscious ear then playing by ear?
For both theory and ear, is there a solid indicator when it is in unconscious use?
Extra credit leading question for anyone:
The solo violinist performs totally from memory (and his is the most difficult and challenging role in the violin concerto), yet all the rest of the orchestra has sheet music. Even the conductor has a full score of sheet music. Why does only the soloist memorize their part while the conductor and rest of orchestra read their parts rather than memorizing the whole concert?
-
Well, let's forget about being angry at theory because, frankly, that's stupid and immature.
The fact is that most hands-on subjects are taught with a mixture of theory and practical, not just music. I don't know why music seems to attract more interest and dispute than many other subjects. In fact, it probably doesn't, it's just that this is a music site.
Whether you're training to be a doctor, carpenter, electrician, cook or soldier, some part of it is theory (i.e. knowledge) and some practical. It's also interesting that if a person passes the theory questions but fails the practical they will fail the whole course.
Most practical subjects are taught in a college or school of some kind and are structured. With music that's not always the case. Unless we go off to Berklee or some other place we have to somehow assimilate it all ourselves. It's an education we have to seek for ourselves through our own efforts, interest and drive.
For some reason this certainly applies to guitar playing. The guitar is not seen as respectable an instrument as, say, the piano or violin. The idea of a blues player going off to sit in a classroom to learn his stuff doesn't really work. The same, probably, with folk and country music.
Personally, part of me baulks at the idea of structured lessons. I want to go out there and absorb the whole thing as part of life and living, rough with the smooth, live a little! On the other hand, being taught properly by really good communicators has its appeal. It would be quicker, clearer, there'd be more space to learn what I should know; then I can go out and live it.
I don't know what you think about all that. A lot of people here have been to college but there are also a lot who haven't.
-
The operative verb for me Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
in fact you can get rid of the last few words because music obviously does not explain itself.
I don’t know if you pulled that definition out of a source somewhere or came up with it yourself, but I think it works for me. (when you start drilling down definitions get really slippery. Any definitions can end in endless quibbling.)
Explanation is the key thing for theory, that’s what gives it intellectual value beyond merely knowing the names for things.
So what I’d like to do here is park the whole use of the word ‘theory’ which I think means different things to different people (and sometimes appears to mean different things to the same person) and discuss instead on how important explanations are and what sort of explanations can be helpful to a musican. This relates to what Jimmy Dunlop was saying.
The nature of an explanation is an interesting one. Often ‘explanations’ are offered which are not really satisfying explanations or invite further questions.
Sometimes ‘explanations’ are, in fact, a convenient narrative to shut down further questions. It seems to me a lot of the explanations offered in music education seem of this type - a neat, but superficial explanation that can be fired off in a teaching setting. Often educators do this consciously.
This is not necessarily a bad thing; sometimes it’s simply necessary to get on with stuff. As a dad I am aware of this on a daily basis lol. Cf “where do babies come from?”)
One thing the definition doesn’t cover is what I think of possibly being more important - which is recognising connections and patterns in music.
I tend to side with ‘minimal explanation, maximum doing, look for connections’ but this is not a night and day, black and white thing. Some explanation might well be necessary, although as with young kids it can tend to derail things lol.
I think a lot of jazz guitar at least at the early stages is in the doing, but there are aspects of explanation or connections that are pretty much invaluable, and I think players could come up with them through pattern recognition, such as recognising frequently used chord sequences in jazz standards.
Is it better to be taught this or to organically learn to recognise these structures through exposure to repertoire? I think most of us would say the latter, but I do sometimes wonder if it’s just better to throw music at students and ask the odd leading question.
anyway, specifics are more interesting to me than quibbling over definitions.Last edited by Christian Miller; 03-11-2023 at 05:38 AM.
-
I am not mad at theory, I am just very disappointed.
Reply With Quote
Giving the Loar some love
Today, 05:05 PM in The Builder's Bench