-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Damn you theory!
*Shakes fist* Originally Posted by John A.
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
I'm changing the definitions to suit my own anti-theory agenda.Maybe we can consolidate the debates here and spare the rest of the forum. :P Originally Posted by kris
-
03-06-2023 05:46 AM
-
Gravity - pffft.
-
Gravity - did it even exist before that apple fell on Newton's head?
-
-
Originally Posted by CliffR
Gravitational acceleration ceased to exit from 1915 (General Relativity*) through today, so far...
*Were we to only be mad at music theory here?
-
Theory r bad
Gravity always wins
-
I think anger is the Grand Unified Theory.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
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. Originally Posted by ragman1
Last edited by Bobby Timmons; 03-08-2023 at 12:37 AM.
-
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?
-
I think that's what he means.
-
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.
-
Yep. On a side note I woke up mad today.
-
C'est la vie. Tomorrow is another day
-
I try to practice getting un-mad.
-
Mad trying to be un-mad is still mad.
-
-
Originally Posted by kris
Replying to you in the mad-at-theory thread because this post is most certainly mad-at-theory. Originally Posted by kris
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: Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
(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?
-
Jim Hall's business card told the recipient, "Won't play loud, can't play fast."
-
^ Ha
Great post. This is how I view it. Originally Posted by pauln
ProbablyNow 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?
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.Would each of us have a "profile" like "TPE" or "ETP"?
-
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
-
Which is a falsehood. Hence the upheaval. Originally Posted by rlrhett
-
Round and round we go.
-
I got it at "dim to sus". Originally Posted by rlrhett
-
The key is that this sort of sharp commentary seems natural to most, although it leaves some flat. Originally Posted by rlrhett
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions