The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 1 of 24 12311 ... LastLast
Posts 1 to 25 of 600
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    ARRRRRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!! C to D# is an augmented second!!!! C to Eb is a minor third.
    Damn you theory!

    *Shakes fist*
    Quote Originally Posted by John A.
    “Play this." “Why?” “Because I said so. Now STFU and play!”
    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    That's because theory is stupid, and I'm mad at it.
    I'm changing the definitions to suit my own anti-theory agenda.
    Quote Originally Posted by kris
    It's starting to bother me.
    Maybe we can consolidate the debates here and spare the rest of the forum. :P

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    Gravity - pffft.

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    Gravity - did it even exist before that apple fell on Newton's head?

  5. #4

    User Info Menu


  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by CliffR
    Gravity - did it even exist before that apple fell on Newton's head?

    Gravitational acceleration ceased to exit from 1915 (General Relativity*) through today, so far...

    *Were we to only be mad at music theory here?

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    Theory r bad

    Gravity always wins

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    I think anger is the Grand Unified Theory.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1
    Taken out of context. That's more or less a joke. Also Joe giving a master class using theory. And please don't anyone say how naming a bunch of chords, explaining notes in the chords, laying out the functional harmony of his approach, telling you how to theoretically think of substitutions, and to voice lead isn't theory.

    Last edited by Bobby Timmons; 03-08-2023 at 12:37 AM.

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    Easy, Jimmy, don't lose your humor. It was me who took it out of context in the sense I cut the clip from the whole video. Incidentally, I have the actual video and book at home plus the other instructional one he did too.

    I agree with you. Joe's attitude to theory is a bit confusing. As you say, there he is playing and naming all that complex stuff and then says he doesn't bother with theory.

    I'm afraid I have to go back to what we were saying originally. Knowing what the terms are, what chords you're playing, what a 251 is and all that, could be construed as theory because of all the technical terminology involved.

    But that's not quite all the theorists do. They use the terms and then get into long, convoluted abstract ideas, suggestions, concepts, etc, till it begins to look like a higher mathematics or philosophy symposium while the rest of us glaze over...

    Some people like that kind of thing, that's all I can say. It hasn't got a lot to do with playing although it could be argued that very interesting things are discovered that way and then they can be played.

    I think there is a fine line between playing something and understanding what it is and the world of abstractions that some like to play with. Both have their place although probably many people find the abstract theoretical stuff tiresome, nerdy, geeky, and all that, even though the rest of us actually and ultimately benefit from it. After all, all the music we play today was originally put together by scholarly geeks!

    How's that?

  11. #10
    I think that's what he means.

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    Yes, I think so. He knows his stuff but doesn't want to get embroiled in verbal, abstract, theoretical disputations.

    It's a fact that where there are theories there are always counter-theories. Because theories aren't actual facts they can be argued about, disputed, and breed counter arguments. I think that's what puts most people off because you don't get anywhere. Someone said if you start with theory you end up with theory.

    But settling on certain things is good. A CM7 chord is a CM7 chord, we don't need to argue about it. But then along comes a theoretician who'll tell you why a CM7 chord isn't always a CM7 chord and then we're stuck. They've actually done that on your other thread!

    So that's why a lot of people don't want to get involved with stupid theory... and why some people love it.

  13. #12
    Yep. On a side note I woke up mad today.

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    C'est la vie. Tomorrow is another day

  15. #14
    I try to practice getting un-mad.

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    Mad trying to be un-mad is still mad.

  17. #16

    User Info Menu


  18. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by kris
    Sometimes I wonder why some people avoid playing in fast tempos. Maybe they have a head full of theory and they don't have time to choose the right note.
    Quote Originally Posted by kris

    ...or maybe there are theoretic musicians and practical musicians - and that's it.

    I'm just theorizing that.
    Replying to you in the mad-at-theory thread because this post is most certainly mad-at-theory.

    Not being able to play fast means someone hasn't developed the technical skills, not because they don't have practical skills because their theory focus 'canceled it out'.

    Maybe I should start accusing musicians of not being able to play because they don't use theory, like you accuse musicians of not understanding actual music because they 'don't have a practical approach'. That would be more accurate.

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    Replying to you in the mad-at-theory thread because this post is most certainly mad-at-theory.

    Not being able to play fast means someone hasn't developed the technical skills, not because they don't have practical skills because their theory focus 'canceled it out'.

    Maybe I should start accusing musicians of not being able to play because they don't use theory, like you accuse musicians of not understanding actual music because they 'don't have a practical approach'. That would be more accurate.
    Let's say that playing music requires quality control which may take different forms:

    (T) using theory concepts
    (P) using practical approaches
    (E) playing by ear

    Now think about the way those three forms of quality control might differ with respect to an increase in tempo.

    Do they each have perhaps a different speed beyond which they fail and quality loses control?
    When one of them gives out beyond a certain tempo, can another take its place into faster tempos?
    If so, does the order of which they fail with successively faster tempos vary for individuals?
    Would each of us have a "profile" like "TPE" or "ETP" indicating order of quality control failure with tempo?

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    Jim Hall's business card told the recipient, "Won't play loud, can't play fast."

  21. #20
    ^ Ha

    Quote Originally Posted by pauln
    Let's say that playing music requires quality control which may take different forms:

    (T) using theory concepts
    (P) using practical approaches
    (E) playing by ear
    Great post. This is how I view it.

    Now think about the way those three forms of quality control might differ with respect to an increase in tempo.

    Do they each have perhaps a different speed beyond which they fail and quality loses control?
    When one of them gives out beyond a certain tempo, can another take its place into faster tempos?
    If so, does the order of which they fail with successively faster tempos vary for individuals?
    Probably

    Would each of us have a "profile" like "TPE" or "ETP"?
    Overall I realized that I do. I started on bass, so all I had to do to accompany a group well was hit the right notes using theory. Then when I took up melody instruments I realized I had to improve my ear. Recently, I didn't even consider technical skills until Reg brought it up, so that's what I'm working on. I feel I get the concepts and can hear them fine in the pros' music, I just need to work them out technically.

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    I dunno. I think I’m too dim to sus the meaning of most theory. All this arguing, though, leaves me altered. Can’t we find agreement and return to some harmony on this forum? The dominant view seems to be that you don’t need theory, but it has been a major help to me. When I started playing as a minor, I would get confused. Now, step by step, I’ve augmented my understanding…

    Ok. I’m done. No, wait… obstinato! I couldn’t work that in, but I love that word.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  23. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by rlrhett
    The dominant view seems to be that you don’t need theory.
    Which is a falsehood. Hence the upheaval.

  24. #23

    User Info Menu

    Round and round we go.

  25. #24

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rlrhett
    I dunno. I think I’m too dim to sus the meaning of most theory. All this arguing, though, leaves me altered. Can’t we find agreement and return to some harmony on this forum? The dominant view seems to be that you don’t need theory, but it has been a major help to me. When I started playing as a minor, I would get confused. Now, step by step, I’ve augmented my understanding…

    Ok. I’m done. No, wait… obstinato! I couldn’t work that in, but I love that word.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    I got it at "dim to sus".

  26. #25

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rlrhett
    I dunno. I think I’m too dim to sus the meaning of most theory. All this arguing, though, leaves me altered. Can’t we find agreement and return to some harmony on this forum? The dominant view seems to be that you don’t need theory, but it has been a major help to me. When I started playing as a minor, I would get confused. Now, step by step, I’ve augmented my understanding…

    Ok. I’m done. No, wait… obstinato! I couldn’t work that in, but I love that word.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    The key is that this sort of sharp commentary seems natural to most, although it leaves some flat.