The official mad-at-theory thread

[Christian Miller]

I am not mad at theory, I am just very disappointed.

It’s not only let me down, it’s let itself down.

I‘m not even joking lol.

[ragman1]

I think one stumbling block is that we've made far too great a separation between practical and theory, as though the two were thoroughly unrelated, like two different worlds.

They're not. The practical is applied theory, that's all.

[ragman1]

'Daddy, where do babies come from?'

'Well, theoretically...'

[Christian Miller]

[Bobby Timmons]

Come on, it's a comedy.

what are you writing about ? about music?
You go to music school to learn how to play and hear.
There are listening exercises, music dictations and the one who hears best gets the best mark.
There are people who have the so-called absolute hearing or hearing close to it and it's easier for them. The rest work hard.
If one hears melodically and harmonically- more time to practice the instrument.
Added to this is musical memory and quick memorization. There are also exercises for this.
what is more important for a musician good hearing or good theory?
Anyone can learn theory.These are really the basics.
What is the whole "mad at theory" discussion for?

The topics are still not mutually exclusive, you don't need to pit them against each other. Work or aptitude in 1 area will never impede the other. A sign you're mad at theory. Another sign you're mad at theory is you name call at me simply because I'm shutting down your nonsense. I've been playing jazz for 20 years and can probably do some things better than you.

[Bobby Timmons]

I am not mad at theory, I am just very disappointed.

It’s not only let me down, it’s let itself down.

Theory never did anything to anyone. It's inert info that the musician can use to their advantage. The only explanation for theory 'not working' is the individual didn't have the awareness to apply it right.

This is the whole mad-at-theory phenomenon. As if info that can only benefit a musician can harm their music somehow. On the other hand, if it doesn't benefit you, then don't use it. How hard was that?

Also for most musicians, having some kind of base theory framework is essential to being able to play at all. And then people act like theory is destructive somehow. Or that it's inversely proportional to ear - the more your theory goes up the more your ear goes down. Lol! Doesn't make any sense.

[Bobby Timmons]

The operative verb for me

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.

I understand and agree with your write up. I'm 20 years in and I still don't know what the heck is going on in some tunes. So I just get on with playing the thing. I can definitely see how trying to explain everything to students would derail things to all hell.

[humphreysguitar]

You should be absolutely mad at the following kinds of theory as elaborated by Robert O. Gjerdingen:

- Roman Numeral Analysis
- Harmonic Function Theory
- Rameau's Fundamental Bass Theory
- Chord Scale Theory

As it's all garbage and a waste of your time and will make you a confused, non-composing musician.

All the musicians I know who claim to use the above, tend to compose or improvise using something else and then say they use the above systems to organize their thoughts.

Much better is Figured bass (just counting up from the bass, no chord inversions) and counterpoint.

[Bobby Timmons]

^ You'd probably want to include explanations for those silly statements lol. Do you not transpose? What could possibly be wrong with roman numerals as a basic tool?

[humphreysguitar]

^ You'd probably want to include explanations for those silly statements lol. Do you not transpose? What could possibly be wrong with roman numerals as a basic tool?

You hit the nail on the head, they are basic tools for amateurs, not real composers. They were invented for amateur university students in the 19th century German universities who were given a watered down analysis of the incredibly complex work that composers did, that could only be explained horizontally through schema, counterpoint and figured bass. As Gjerdingen pointed out, impossible to learn what real composers (who studied counterpoint for hours everyday for 10 years) actually did, but they needed something.

Now you can use basic tools and get something out of it, I guess.

But try putting roman numerals on Ravel or Rachmaninoff. If advanced PhD music theory scholars can't agree on the placement of roman numerals on Rachmaninoff, what does that tell you about the system?

[JimmyDunlop]

Theory is anything that explains music in language that is not music.

That definition is so wide. Well following it I would say that is absolutely mandatory to know theory. Know if we understand theory as theory books do, then I dont think its too necessary to improvise or create (till certain level). I have one book Jazz Theory Darius Terefenko. I dont know this player, but he wrote an extensive book.It covers basically harmonization and harmony theory/scales/chord progression. I find this kind of books if not completely useless, close to that. Maybe you know him cause he is a pianist... Any other guy here has this book?

[grahambop]

Health is the most important.
Next year I will be 70 years old.

Very nice playing kris!

I agree it’s not worth getting drawn into some of the more tedious discussions that go on here. I tend not to these days - life’s too short for us oldies!

[JimmyDunlop]

You hit the nail on the head, they are basic tools for amateurs, not real composers. They were invented for amateur university students in the 19th century German universities who were given a watered down analysis of the incredibly complex work that composers did, that could only be explained horizontally through schema, counterpoint and figured bass. As Gjerdingen pointed out, impossible to learn what real composers (who studied counterpoint for hours everyday for 10 years) actually did, but they needed something.

Now you can use basic tools and get something out of it, I guess.

But try putting roman numerals on Ravel or Rachmaninoff. If advanced PhD music theory scholars can't agree on the placement of roman numerals on Rachmaninoff, what does that tell you about the system?

This is other level of music of course. But for composing standards and improvising over them I would say theory isnt necessary. People here normally dont talk about this kind of music you mention

[Bobby Timmons]

That definition is so wide. Well following it I would say that is absolutely mandatory to know theory. Know if we understand theory as theory books do, then I dont think its too necessary to improvise or create (till certain level). I have one book Jazz Theory Darius Terefenko. I dont know this player, but he wrote an extensive book.It covers basically harmonization and harmony theory/scales/chord progression. I find this kind of books if not completely useless, close to that. Maybe you know him cause he is a pianist... Any other guy here has this book?

Well yeah, I don't know why anyone would interpret pedagogy as being set in stone about what the man says they should learn and then counter that by being mad. Just study whatever is the most effective in improving your abilities, be it ear, theory, or tech.

You hit the nail on the head, they are basic tools for amateurs, not real composers. They were invented for amateur university students in the 19th century German universities who were given a watered down analysis of the incredibly complex work that composers did, that could only be explained horizontally through schema, counterpoint and figured bass. As Gjerdingen pointed out, impossible to learn what real composers (who studied counterpoint for hours everyday for 10 years) actually did, but they needed something.

Now you can use basic tools and get something out of it, I guess.

But try putting roman numerals on Ravel or Rachmaninoff. If advanced PhD music theory scholars can't agree on the placement of roman numerals on Rachmaninoff, what does that tell you about the system?

I don't focus on classical or composition but I do analyze classical pieces with jazz chord symbols. I play in every key so I do roman numerals in my head to help.

[humphreysguitar]

So let me mention a few things to connect the importance of something like figured bass with a so-called "contemporary" style like jazz.

Figured bass is simply reading intervals above a bass, it doesn't have any prejudice to style or era. Intervals are intervals, and no matter how you look at it, consonances will always be consonances and the same for dissonances. Treatment of these intervals and diminutions (passing notes etc), plus of course rhythm, will dictate the style but as far as the harmonic framework, there is nothing that figured bass cannot explain in tonal music.

Also the idea that figured bass is only accompaniment for the Baroque is utterly false. Schumann studied it, Ravel studied it, Debussy. Heck, even Luciano Berio.

Claus Ogerman (1930 – 2016), who many today cite as a major influence on jazz arranging, such as Rick Beato and his ilk, was a straight classically trained contrapuntist from Germany.

I know for a fact that Barry Harris liked figured bass and quite literally said in his workshop DVD "We should be learning figured bass."

Don't forget, Charlie Parker knew what was what and wanted to further his education with Edgar Varese before his untimely passing. Varese was Paris Conservatory (read: figured bass) trained.

So the idea that "we are jazz players" and only the 19th-century form of ineffective, slow, useless, incorrect classical analysis of RNA works instead of tried and true figured bass/counterpoint, makes absolutely no sense. With respect.

[humphreysguitar]

I don't focus on classical or composition but I do analyze classical pieces with jazz chord symbols. I play in every key so I do roman numerals in my head to help.

I've done that before, you miss ALOT of information when you use chord symbols.

[JimmyDunlop]

So let me mention a few things to connect the importance of something like figured bass with a so-called "contemporary" style like jazz.

Figured bass is simply reading intervals above a bass, it doesn't have any prejudice to style or era. Intervals are intervals, and no matter how you look at it, consonances will always be consonances and the same for dissonances. Treatment of these intervals and diminutions (passing notes etc), plus of course rhythm, will dictate the style but as far as the harmonic framework, there is nothing that figured bass cannot explain in tonal music.

Also the idea that figured bass is only accompaniment for the Baroque is utterly false. Schumann studied it, Ravel studied it, Debussy. Heck, even Luciano Berio.

Claus Ogerman (1930 – 2016), who many today cite as a major influence on jazz arranging, such as Rick Beato and his ilk, was a straight classically trained contrapuntist from Germany.

I know for a fact that Barry Harris liked figured bass and quite literally said in his workshop DVD "We should be learning figured bass."


Don't forget, Charlie Parker knew what was what and wanted to further his education with Edgar Varese before his untimely passing. Varese was Paris Conservatory (read: figured bass) trained.

So the idea that "we are jazz players" and only the 19th-century form of ineffective, slow, useless, incorrect classical analysis of RNA works instead of tried and true figured bass/counterpoint, makes absolutely no sense. With respect.

So what do you think of books like Theory of Jazz by Dariusz Terefenko or the Jazz Theory by Mark Levine? Is this approach a waste fo time?

[pauln]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
Theory is anything that explains music in language that is not music.

The operative verb for me

in fact you can get rid of the last few words because music obviously does not explain itself.

I like Jimmy's definition - it needs those last few words there.
I've always thought of music as intrinsically self explanatory.

[AllanAllen]

Every chord has four names and I can't keep track of them and so I'm angry at theory. I should have stuck with country blues, I don't need to know all this crap to pay Freight Train.

[Christian Miller]

You should be absolutely mad at the following kinds of theory as elaborated by Robert O. Gjerdingen:

- Roman Numeral Analysis
- Harmonic Function Theory
- Rameau's Fundamental Bass Theory
- Chord Scale Theory

Did he express an opinion on cst? I’d be interested if you have a reference.

As it's all garbage and a waste of your time and will make you a confused, non-composing musician.

All the musicians I know who claim to use the above, tend to compose or improvise using something else and then say they use the above systems to organize their thoughts.

Much better is Figured bass (just counting up from the bass, no chord inversions) and counterpoint.

yeah I think Gjerdingen overstates it a bit. Many musicians active in classical improv and partimento scholarship (Mortensen, Sanguinetti, canzano, Koch etc) are a bit more open to modern concepts if they help. Otoh professional jazz and popular musicians rely on Roman numerals as a practical tool. See the Nashville system etc.

I like Gjerdingen and have read his books. But he self identified on a recent podcast as ‘an American salesman sort of guy’ (roughly) and I think I agree.

[JimmyDunlop]

The most mindblowing thing I discovered in this thread is that the author has 1000+ posts in 1 year ... never seen before

[Christian Miller]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
Theory is anything that explains music in language that is not music.





I like Jimmy's definition - it needs those last few words there.
I've always thought of music as intrinsically self explanatory.

Taking a very literal view of this statement, I have to disagree.

For example there’s references in Bach that just go over our heads because we are not early 18th century Germans. Same with mid century jazz. In so much as instrumental music has any meaning content at all, it disappears over time (unless there are lyrics and even then… )

We don’t hear Bach the way Bach expected to be heard.

Every new generation hears music in a slightly different way. we reinvent music through our own sensibility and culture in our listening as much as our music making.

[Christian Miller]

So what do you think of books like Theory of Jazz by Dariusz Terefenko or the Jazz Theory by Mark Levine? Is this approach a waste fo time?

Personally I think it’s not a waste of time if you want to sell books! Theory sells!

If you want to learn to improvise? Depends.

I think the tone of ambivalence, even self-deprecation in Levine’s foreword is very telling. He doesn’t want to be writing ‘the theory book’. I appreciate this. I understand Sher had some influence in the matter. He may have suspected that this was going to be a textbook that was going to be read by a lot of people. That’s a big responsibility.

there are things I like about it. There’s some some sweeping statements and so on in it that I have come to think don’t have much basis in the music (it’s quite clear where his knowledge is strongest). I think the best thing is to turn to the records and see what you think. I think that’s what Levine himself would have wanted. That’s what he says off the bat!

the highest praise I’d say about Levine’s book is that it is - very sensibly - not a actually theory book. It is a source book, like the piano book, full of interesting things to try. As this, it’s valuable and strongest on post 60s music which was Mark’s stated focus. I think the less successful aspects of it may be due to publisher interference. As a ‘how to jazz’ book it’s not very effective. That’s not what it’s meant to be anyway.

the other book I don’t know.

[grahambop]

The most mindblowing thing I discovered in this thread is that the author has 1000+ posts in 1 year ... never seen before

Keyboard players always use too many notes.

[JimmyDunlop]

Personally I think it’s not a waste of time if you want to sell books! Theory sells!

If you want to learn to improvise? Depends.

I think the tone of ambivalence, even self-deprecation in Levine’s foreword is very telling. He doesn’t want to be writing ‘the theory book’. I appreciate this. I understand Sher had some influence in the matter. He may have suspected that this was going to be a textbook that was going to be read by a lot of people. That’s a big responsibility.

there are things I like about it. There’s some some sweeping statements and so on in it that I have come to think don’t have much basis in the music (it’s quite clear where his knowledge is strongest). I think the best thing is to turn to the records and see what you think. I think that’s what Levine himself would have wanted. That’s what he says off the bat!

the highest praise I’d say about Levine’s book is that it is - very sensibly - not a actually theory book. It is a source book, like the piano book, full of interesting things to try. As this, it’s valuable and strongest on post 60s music which was Mark’s stated focus. I think the less successful aspects of it may be due to publisher interference. As a ‘how to jazz’ book it’s not very effective. That’s not what it’s meant to be anyway.

the other book I don’t know.

I find these books very useless. How many people really have learned how to improvise jazz with these?

Seems you also dont like them too much, WHat theory book or what method do you suggest to improvise?