Re: [jazz_guitar] To Study Theory or not

12 views
Skip to first unread message

Joe Gentile

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 12:13:55 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com


Ernest....
 
Most of us can speak our native tongue, be it English or another language.  We can write out our thoughts in complete sentences.  How did this come about?  We studied at first with our parents at home as babies then later at school.  Now we can read and right and it is for the most part second nature.  Why?  Because we studied the basics, the fundamentals.  It is because of our efforts, that this amazing feat has become second nature.
 
The same holds true for music theory.  It is the basics, the learning blocks of this language.  Music takes us down a road that never ends.  Theory can provide the answers to many, many questions.  Theory will not necessarily make you a better musician, it can overwhelm the creative process if one becomes consumed.
 
Given the choice between ignorance and knowledge, I choose knowledge. 
 
Joe


__._,_.___


<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/

<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/



Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

John Amato

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 1:21:49 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com


Now you need to forgive yourself for all that foolishness and wasted effort. You are now above the fray. You need to save (or impress) all the aspiring ones from your folly so you say, "In order to play, you have to forget all that theory stuff You don't need it."

Amazing!
Ernest

Ernest,

You've capsulized quite well and succinctly the "Learn Theory or Not" syndrome that is not only prevalent here with new visitors but it is a far more common question among students and aspiring musicians. I make it clear with all my students that I will teach them theory -- if they want, like you say, just samples and 'short-cuts' to musicality, I let them go (to search out their 'dream' on their own). 

You hit the nail on the 'theoretic' head, and to reiterate the consensus here, used correctly, music theory allows you to be literate, and to expand your musical horizon, and to give you a vocabulary and method for doing so.

And not to add any more to the myriad of what has already been said, my conclusion is Music Theory will not cause you to lose touch with your creative side - that simply will not happen! It cannot happen! Did learning to read English stifle your ability to be creative with words? Such a claim would be ludicrous! It did not stifle your abilities - it increased them! Music theory will do the same for you. Don't be stuck on Step one -- which is learning by ear.

Let music theory increase your musicianship and your ability to communicate those ideas that are in your head.



__._,_.___

JVeg...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 1:11:13 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com


Hi Joe,
 
I'm going to respectfully disagree with you.  I was born in Cuba, and came to the States when I was 6, I didn't speak or understand a lick of English.  I was put in school with other kids who'd been born here, and for the first few months, I was lost, I didn't know what the f**k was going on.  Fast-forward 6 months, and I was speaking and understanding English.  Why?  Because I was immersed in it, nothing more.  I didn't study grammar, etc, until I was much older, and then it helped marginally.  If you can talk and you learn you're using nouns/verbs/adverbs, etc, that's cool, but not that big of a deal.  Same thing with diagramming sentences, eg, kinda interesting, but doesn't make you speak or write any better, I don't think.
 
Music is the same way.  Many of the greats were "immersed" in it, and not all were schooled, especially in jazz; that stuff was learned on the stand.  Knowing music theory might make you a better player in some instances, but not necessarily.  Things like theory come after the fact, and they're after all, words.  Music is about sound.  I'd rather sound good than talk good as a musician, personally.  Don't get me wrong, I know my share of theory, but in jazz, it's only useful for analytic purposes most of the time.  I know lots of cats who know all the scales, modes, and theory up the yin-yang, but can't swing or improvise to save their lives.  My opinion...
 
Cheers,
JV
 
Juan Vega

__._,_.___

John Amato

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 1:57:28 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com

crackerjacklee1

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 2:18:41 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com

There's never a dull moment in the Jazz Guitar Group...

I envision a successful exchange of ideas if we:

1. Define "music theory" at the start, to the satisfaction of all the interested parties, because how can we communicate intelligently until we have "measured" what we are speaking of?

2. Retire the crutch of analogy of "Music as Language" because although "pitch" is essential to music - it is not essential to language. We don't sing for our supper... we ask for it.

3. Discuss the value of "Musical Theory". Does it allow musicians to communicate with each other for the purposes of what is to be done... who is to do it... when and where it is to be done... how and why it can and should be done...?

4. Determine whether "Music Theory" provides the musician with useful terms to use in the thinking process of creation or to organize the subject of music so that the learning process is eased and quickened?

5. Focus only on the main question "Should a musician study the theory of music?"

------------------------------------

<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/

<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jazz_guitar/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jazz_guitar/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
jazz_guit...@yahoogroups.com
jazz_guitar-...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
jazz_guitar...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Dave Woods

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 2:13:16 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com


 

Ernest Wrote,

 

You suffer through all those years of studying theory and finally you have arrived. You made it! You know it backward and forward. You have answered all those questions that used to bug the heck out of you. You can communicate with the learned folk.


Now you need to forgive yourself for all that foolishness and wasted effort. You are now above the fray. You need to save (or impress) all the aspiring ones from your folly so you say, "In order to play, you have to forget all that theory stuff You don't need it."

Amazing!
Ernest

 

Theory is nothing more than a blueprint for a house.  When you've GLANCED over the plans, and found the bathroom, gone there, done a shit shower and shave, and brushed your teeth, you don't need the blueprint anymore.  You remember it by the smell.  Sniff and the image of the toilet bowl pops right into your head, the shower hitting your head. 

 

You can read and re read a book on the theory of love and sex, but until you've dipped your wick, you'll never know.  Without ever having done the push and pull, you can lecture about it, but your theory book back at the house will be useless by then because all the pages will be stuck together.

 

Dave woods

 



__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional

__,_._,___

Bob Hansmann

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 2:15:45 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
John & Ernest are obviously correct,
And John is right - the issue comes up far more often than it should.

There are lots of reasons for creativity or lack thereof. Yes, if all
one does is study theory (of music or of anything else, for that
matter), they will become a musicologist or theoretician. But, frankly,
if that's all they do, then they are approaching music as a moron. Phil
Woods said it very well on a show I saw the other night. He said, of
course you have to learn your chords, modes, scales, counterpoint,
composition, &., &., and then you have to APPLY it in the making of
music. This means hours & hours of practicing repertoire (tunes, improv,
the whole ball of wax) for years. If I go for brain surgery, MY doctor
had better have read ALL the books, AND had plenty of practice, or I'm
outta there.

Can it be argued that Wes didn't know theory? Can it be argued that Bill
Evans did? It's moot - there are just too many variables. And anyway,
the training ground that that fertile time in the growth of jazz
provided lots of theory training for guys like Wes and Charlie Parker -
they were all learning and stealing from eachother. Also, not to
mention, Wes was one of the most naturally talented musicians perhaps in
the history of music.

Of course, someone is going to chime in that Joe Pass hated scales and
theory (although his "Style" is chock full of it). If what one wants to
do is merely copy all of Joe Pass's recorded material and sound like an
after-the-fact Joe Pass clone, then he is certainly free to do so. If
all one wants to learn is Gypsy Jazz, then he is free to do that as
well. So what?

I believe it was Shoenberg who said that if hearing great music alone
were enough, it would make all further training superfluous, but it's not.


Dave, I love you and your work. But I gotta tell you - you are one who
advocates less and less theory ("words", as you call it), and yet you
recommend your harmonic series article on your site all the time. I mean
you no offense, but that seems contradictory to me. Frankly, you do
compensate partially by telling those you go to your site that they have
to learn to hear this stuff, but you still put out that theory in the
first place.

Anyway, people come to me because they want to truly learn how to be a
guitarist, and what makes music tick. Where I live, there is no shortage
of "teachers" who merely show their misguided students where to place
their fingers to play the tunes that they themselves learned from
records. They use this argument which has surfaced yet again here to
justify the fact that they never learned theory themselves.

This argument comes from a time in American music which was over decades
ago. Yet musicians, primarily guitarists, hang on to it as if it were
gospel. The fact is that if one wants to learn music, and the guitar,
he's better get all he can from whatever source he can, and he'd better
have respect for those who know more than he does, and he'd better be
prepared to practice and work his ever-luvvin' ass off.

best,
Bobby


------------------------------------

<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/

<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jazz_guitar/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

crackerjacklee1

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 2:54:03 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, Bob Hansmann <bobbybmusic@... wrote:
"If I go for brain surgery, MY doctor had better have read ALL the books, AND had plenty of practice, or I'm outta there."

To the point...! That says it all! As musicians, we should be all that we can be. Any beginning musician should read and think on your comment.

As for Wes Montgomery, people love to claim that he was "talented" and "gifted" and "blessed"... anything but to credit him with his intellect to understand and use musical theory. I call it "The Romantic Tale of The Idiot Savant"... "Oh, he was the finest chef in Europe - BUT... he couldn't even spell his name!"

I'm sure that Wes Montgomery or Jimmy Smith or Miles Davis could talk theoretical circles around most musicians. They also dedicated their lives to the complete mastery of their instrument. And is not genius the talent of intelligence?

keithfre

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 3:09:34 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
> I know lots of cats who know all the scales, modes, and theory up the yin-yang, but can't swing or improvise to save their lives.

That doesn't mean that the _reason_ they can't swing or improvise is because they've studied theory! There are plenty of cats who haven't studied theory and can't swing or improvise either...

-Keith

------------------------------------

<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/

<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jazz_guitar/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

Chris Smart

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 3:21:39 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
At 03:09 PM 12/30/2010, you wrote:


>That doesn't mean that the _reason_ they can't swing or improvise
>is because they've studied theory! There are plenty of cats who
>haven't studied theory and can't swing or improvise either...

Yep, can't we just agree that the ideal situation is having both,
chops plus the ability to communicate those ideas either verbally,
or written down, if necessary?

Bob Hansmann

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 3:07:04 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
On 12/30/2010 2:18 PM, crackerjacklee1 wrote:
> I envision a successful exchange of ideas if we:
>
> 1. Define "music theory" at the start, to the satisfaction of all the
> interested parties, because how can we communicate intelligently until
> we have "measured" what we are speaking of?
>
> 2. Retire the crutch of analogy of "Music as Language" because
> although "pitch" is essential to music - it is not essential to
> language. We don't sing for our supper... we ask for it.
>
> 3. Discuss the value of "Musical Theory". Does it allow musicians to
> communicate with each other for the purposes of what is to be done...
> who is to do it... when and where it is to be done... how and why it
> can and should be done...?
>
> 4. Determine whether "Music Theory" provides the musician with useful
> terms to use in the thinking process of creation or to organize the
> subject of music so that the learning process is eased and quickened?
>
> 5. Focus only on the main question "Should a musician study the theory
> of music?"

I agree. Without this (or something along these lines) the discussion
will be as circular and meaningless as it always turns out to be.

best,
Bobby

Bob Hansmann

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 3:22:35 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
On 12/30/2010 3:21 PM, Chris Smart wrote:
> Yep, can't we just agree that the ideal situation is having both,
> chops plus the ability to communicate those ideas either verbally,
> or written down, if necessary?

Right on point. Without a basic knowledge of what a Dominant sound is,
we couldn't have a discussion on a lowly G7 chord on this list or
anywhere else that would be worth anything. ("Hey guys, I jest played a
G7 to a C, and guess what pick I used?")

Best,
Bobby

Bob Hansmann

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 3:08:29 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
On 12/30/2010 2:54 PM, crackerjacklee1 wrote:
> I'm sure that Wes Montgomery or Jimmy Smith or Miles Davis could talk
> theoretical circles around most musicians. They also dedicated their
> lives to the complete mastery of their instrument. And is not genius
> the talent of intelligence?

Also agreed. I tried to say something to that effect, but I like your
words better.

best,
Bobby

Bob Hansmann

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 3:20:15 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
On 12/30/2010 3:09 PM, keithfre wrote:
> That doesn't mean that the _reason_ they can't swing or improvise is
> because they've studied theory! There are plenty of cats who haven't
> studied theory and can't swing or improvise either...

Exactly. And there are plenty of players who either have or haven't
studied theory who can "swing" and improvise. So what?

Bobby

Ron Becker

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 4:31:34 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
Everyone downplays theory once they have it. I think most would
agree, It's good to get some or as much as you can but it's only
something to build on. The performance aspects of jazz aren't in
books much. Time and as much practice, [guided is better] as you can
manage are as important as theory.

Music in mostly numbers till you internalize it and spit it back out
thru your acquired skills all under pinned by a good understanding of
the nuts and bolts.... or theory.

Ron
Living and playing outside the box.

http://www.myspace.com/ron45becker

near...@juno.com

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 4:23:33 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
Just an observation: pitch is an essential part of understanding
speech/language. Inflection can turn a statement around to mean it's
opposite.

> 2. Retire the crutch of analogy of "Music as Language" because
> although "pitch" is essential to music - it is not essential to
> language. We don't sing for our supper... we ask for it.

____________________________________________________________
Mortgage Rates Hit 2.99%
If you owe under $729k you probably qualify for Gov't Refi Programs
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4d1cf8b6cae8b980b37st04vuc

Bob Hansmann

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 3:04:41 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com


On 12/30/2010 2:13 PM, Dave Woods wrote:
Theory is nothing more than a blueprint for a house. 

Yes it is. But it gives a lot more information about the structure than just where to put up the sheet rock. Anyway, I'd never hire an architect who didn't understand them. Would you?

best,
Bobby


__._,_.___

John Amato

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 5:38:20 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com

> I know lots of cats who know all the scales, modes, and theory up the yin-yang, but can't swing or improvise to save their lives.

That doesn't mean that the _reason_ they can't swing or improvise is because they've studied theory! There are plenty of cats who haven't studied theory and can't swing or improvise either...

-Keith


... was there, did that, know these same cats .... which doesn't automatically mean that "one day" they will depart from their "learned" ways and discover their EARS --- which is what is supposed to be "all about" ....

 ... Nuff said -- from moi ....




__._,_.___


<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/

<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/



Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional

__,_._,___

John Amato

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 5:30:00 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com

There's never a dull moment in the Jazz Guitar Group...

I envision a successful exchange of ideas if we:

1. Define "music theory" at the start, to the satisfaction of all the interested parties, because how can we communicate intelligently until we have "measured" what we are speaking of?

2. Retire the crutch of analogy of "Music as Language" because although "pitch" is essential to music - it is not essential to language. We don't sing for our supper... we ask for it.

3. Discuss the value of "Musical Theory". Does it allow musicians to communicate with each other for the purposes of what is to be done... who is to do it... when and where it is to be done... how and why it can and should be done...?

4. Determine whether "Music Theory" provides the musician with useful terms to use in the thinking process of creation or to organize the subject of music so that the learning process is eased and quickened?

5. Focus only on the main question "Should a musician study the theory of music?"


AGAIN on "Theory"  ... this discussion is in the archives about a zillion times ... for any new visitor we should create a path to the past discussions on this topic ... unless anyone wants to exercise the repetition of same ....




__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional

__,_._,___

funkifized34

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 7:02:21 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
I understand where you are coming from, but who's job is it to make the final cut here? Are you suggesting that you should be the chopping block for what can/can't be discussed here? I ask because I can't disagree more about your "retire the crutch of analogy of 'Music as Language'". The only reasoning behind this idea is that pitch is not necessary in language? Really? I do believe that if my voice falls in pitch when pronouncing the subject of a sentence, it takes on quite a bit of new meaning than when my voice raises in pitch for that some subject word. I would argue and constantly teach that we learn to speak and pronounce words early in life, and then in kindergarten, we start working on the alphabet, getting it ingrained in our being so that we can use it to create words, which we ingrain in order to use the words in sentences, etc. Yes, one can get along in life without learning to read, but then we have to work harder at creativity within a society that has agreed upon language. In music, we have the exact same thing. You can be as creative as you like, but if you can't be creative within the framework of our agreed-upon music theory guidelines, ya ain't gonna be able to play with many people.

Good luck in defining all of music theory to the satisfaction of two separate parties, never mind an ever-changing mailing list. It's not like there haven't been hundreds of thousands of books that have tried to do this in the past. Would you suggest that we all just assume that Levine wrote the final word on this subject? I ask because I know there are a lot of people that would disagree, many of whom are probably reading this list.

IMHO, this is what makes music beautiful. You can't contain it in neat package.

Dave Woods

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 5:44:28 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com


 

 

Bobby Wrote,


Can it be argued that Wes didn't know theory? Can it be argued that Bill
Evans did? It's moot - there are just too many variables. And anyway,
the training ground that that fertile time in the growth of jazz
provided lots of theory training for guys like Wes and Charlie Parker -
they were all learning and stealing from eachother. Also, not to
mention, Wes was one of the most naturally talented musicians perhaps in
the history of music.

Dave Woods

I'd say from listening that Wes new everything that everybody else did.  He probably didn't care what labels were used to "pigeon hole" things.  Having had the experience of living with Black Musicians who could really play, I saw their focus was listening to learn, and getting "free" with what they were trying to learn.

 

Dave, I love you and your work. But I gotta tell you - you are one who
advocates less and less theory ("words", as you call it), and yet you
recommend your harmonic series article on your site all the time. I mean
you no offense, but that seems contradictory to me. Frankly, you do
compensate partially by telling those you go to your site that they have
to learn to hear this stuff, but you still put out that theory in the
first place.

Dave Woods

In my blogs at the beginning of my site, Life and Music, Thoughts on playing and Practicing, and Right Hand, Left Hand, are all attempts at trying to portray the intuitive side of learning to play.  To me, understanding the Overtone Series as the origin of organizing tonal sound is ultimately important.  I also offer suggestions of ear training to experience the Root Definitive Intervals generated by the series, and how they establish Tonality.   But hey bobby......... I understand exactly what you mean, and let me also say that I admire your ability sail on in and keep re establishing the practical.




This argument comes from a time in American music which was over decades
ago. Yet musicians, primarily guitarists, hang on to it as if it were
gospel. The fact is that if one wants to learn music, and the guitar,
he's better get all he can from whatever source he can, and he'd better
have respect for those who know more than he does, and he'd better be
prepared to practice and work his ever-luvvin' ass off.

Agreed, Dave

and he'd better be prepared to practice and work his ever-luvvin' ass off, and in the process, also find their own personal way to so thoroughly enjoy it, that they can't stay away from it. 

Dave



best, (which you always give)
Bobby



__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional

__,_._,___

John Amato

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 7:56:23 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com



__._,_.___


<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/

<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/



Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional

__,_._,___

Bob Hansmann

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 8:12:02 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
On 12/30/2010 5:44 PM, Dave Woods wrote:
> and he'd better be prepared to practice and work his ever-luvvin' ass
> off, and in the process, also find their own personal way to so
> thoroughly enjoy it, that they can't stay away from it.

Rare!

best,
Bobby


------------------------------------

<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/

<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jazz_guitar/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

Greg Macmillan

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 5:58:37 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
I've met scores of musicians who say they don't know theory, but still
no the structure of a triad or no the name of an a minor chord. It's all
a matter of degrees and emphasis on what's important. Sound and aural
skills come first. The small number of musicians I've met that are
totally ignorant of any theoretical constructs (actually I wonder if
there are any) but still able to play often have big limitations in
versatility and ability to communicate ideas verbally with other musicians.

cheers Greg

John Amato

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 8:19:27 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com


 > 2. Retire the crutch of analogy of "Music as Language" because
> although "pitch" is essential to music - it is not essential to
> language. We don't sing for our supper... we ask for it. 


Linguistics would cringe at the thought ... our spoken language is tempered with pitch, tone, inflection, and whole variety of dynamics ... case in point, listen to someone asking question -- the voice pitch automatically rises at the end of the interrogative ... linguists have this whole "Dynamics" list charted .....




__________________________________________________________
Mortgage Rates Hit 2.99%
If you owe under $729k you probably qualify for Gov't Refi Programs
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4d1cf8b6cae8b980b37st04vuc




__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional

__,_._,___

George Hess

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 9:30:19 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
As someone with three theory degrees, I think I'm qualified to add something to this discussion. Most of the problems with "music theory" come from misunderstanding what theory really is. For the most part, all theory does is provide labels for things that musicians do. It makes discussion easier and helps provide insights into the processes that make good music.
You can transcribe and learn to play any solo, but if you can understand it, then you can adapt what you learn to become part of your voice, rather than just mimicking. Some people like Wes get this intuitively and others, including most of us on this list, need a little help.

Theory is a good way to get this help. I use theory in the practice room all of the time. With theory you can get ideas from many sources, transcribing, books, articles, even from this list. For example, triadic and pentatonic patterns (1-2-3-5) on the b5 and #5 work great over an altered dominant chord. Practice these in different ways until they're under your fingers AND in your ears and you will have expanded your playing. But, if you don't understand theory, what I just offered is meaningless.

What theory is NOT is a good way to play. As BIrd said, "first you learn your axe, then you learn your music, then you forget all that shit and just blow." If you are thinking about scales and arpeggios instead of motives, melodies and lines, it will usually sound somewhat mechanical as phrasing tends to suffer, ideas don't develop and the melody is rarely referenced. There are times, when I am in a situation where I have to play over an unusual chord progression for the first time, that I'll use my theory chops to get through it, but it is rarely very satisfying.


George

------------------------------------

<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/

<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jazz_guitar/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

Chris Smart

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 8:17:45 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
At 07:02 PM 12/30/2010, you wrote:
>reasoning behind this idea is that pitch is not necessary in
>language? Really? I do believe that if my voice falls in pitch
>when pronouncing the subject of a sentence, it takes on quite a
>bit of new meaning


*snip*

I agree. Tell it to Suzuki, as in the Suzuki music instruction method.

As for language and pitch, it is scientifically proven that many
more people in some Asian societies have perfect or absolute pitch,
thanks to their native languages having pitch play a much larger
role than it does in English, Greek, italian French etc.

Chris

John Amato

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 8:48:21 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com


Bobby,

What I have to tell the youngers, "learning 'Theory' is not that hard -- but, you want to know what's really hard?

That's changing the strings on a BIgsby guitar .... Whew, man, talk about needing a 3rd hand ... the Bigsby site shows a  video where in step 4 you need a foam wedge .... Yikes!

From: Bob Hansmann <bobby...@optimum.net>
To: jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 8:12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [jazz_guitar] To Study Theory or not

 

On 12/30/2010 5:44 PM, Dave Woods wrote:
> and he'd better be prepared to practice and work his ever-luvvin' ass
> off, and in the process, also find their own personal way to so
> thoroughly enjoy it, that they can't stay away from it.

Rare!

best,
Bobby




__._,_.___


<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/

<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/



Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional

__,_._,___

Bob Hansmann

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 10:03:30 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
On 12/30/2010 9:29 PM, Brian Kelly wrote:
> Wes along with Tal Farlow may not have been able to read music or was
> formally trained but you don’t have to have a doctors degree in
> harmony to hear that he clearly knows what he is doing.

Of course.
As I see the problem here is in what is being defined as theory. For
example, a keyboard harmony class such as I think Juan is discussing, or
(my pet peeve) a course in "4-part writing" is pretty much useless
except in trying to get a degree. The harmonic series which Dave
discusses is very valuable, as is a thorough knowledge of keys, scales,
and harmony within those contexts (which Dave also offers in his
analysis of "All the Things You Are").

Emily Remler's theoretical treatises are great, and they are indeed
music theory. To want to study with Pat Martino, but to disregard his
use of substitutions is contrary to logic, and this is theory. For those
wanting to score, studying scoring and counterpoint is invaluable. For
those wanting to write a fugue, Jazz or otherwise, studying what a fugue
is all about is essential if the piece is going to have any meaning.

For those desirous of improv, straight and simple, just how to go about
it without a working knowledge of how chords work. How anyone can go
through a treatise such as Slominsky's Thesaurus of Scales and Melodic
Patterns" thoroughly and not see the endless creative possibilities is
just impossible to conceive.

This polarization - all theory/no theory is just not worth the time
we're spending on it here, (in my opinion). Can someone play well
without it? - Of course. Can that same person play better with it in
lesser time? - No doubt. If someone studies under me, are they going to
get their fill of it? - count on it.

Can theory alone make a good musician? - of course it can't.

best,
Bobby


------------------------------------

<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/

<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jazz_guitar/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

JVeg...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 8:31:16 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com


In Chinese, for example, the word "ma" can have different meanings, depending on its inflection, ie, how the sound is made.  Even in English, intonation can very much influence a word's meaning; perhaps not as subtle as Chinese, but it matters just the same.  When we heard our parents call our name as kids, eg, most of us had a pretty good idea whether it was "good news" or "bad news" by the intonation used.
 
Knowing music theory is fine, and it can be useful, but the real knowledge comes from practicing, listening, and hearing; music is about sound.  After that, an awareness of musical form is useful too.  I wasn't saying "no" to studying theory necessarily, only that it's secondary, and may not help too much when it comes to actually playing the music.  Personally, I think it's more effective to develop facility on one's instrument and ear training, and then segue into codifying sounds through the use of words.  Your results may vary...  In fact, I believe being familiar with a genre's historical context is more important than theory, because it'll help get things like tempo, swing, etc, "right".  Again, just my experience, I was primarily a self-taught player until I got to college, & then I had to work extra-hard to keep up with the students who'd taken lessons.  That's why I advocate lessons so much, they'll save time, and help get you there faster.
 
Just to set things straight, Wes Montgomery did not read music, and I suspect he didn't know much music theory, if any, either.  In one of his recording sessions, he actually asked that the lights be turned down, because he was intimidated by the other players, who were all reading music.  On the other hand, both Miles Davis and Thelonious Monk attended Juilliard, so it's all good!
 
Cheers,
JV

Juan Vega
 
In a message dated 12/30/2010 5:12:56 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, chr...@sympatico.ca writes:
 
it is scientifically proven that many more people in some Asian societies have perfect or absolute pitch

__._,_.___


<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/

<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/



Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional

__,_._,___

Bob Hansmann

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 9:23:17 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
On 12/30/2010 8:48 PM, John Amato wrote:
>
> That's changing the strings on a BIgsby guitar

Hi John,
Did you mean a guitar fitted with a Bigsby, or do you actually have a
Bigsby Guitar? Hint: If you actually own a Bigsby Guitar, answer me in
private!

best,
Bobby


------------------------------------

<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/

<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jazz_guitar/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

Thesl...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 9:28:30 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
All of them....geez

Mike Detlefsen

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 9:11:22 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com



On 30 Dec 2010, at 19:48 , John Amato wrote:



Bobby,


That's changing the strings on a BIgsby guitar .... Whew, man, talk about needing a 3rd hand ... the Bigsby site shows a  video where in step 4 you need a foam wedge .... Yikes!


I've been changing strings on a Bigsby for almost 40 years. I keep a small pair of needle-nosed pliers handy and just take a second or two to put a bend in the end of the string and it goes right on the pin of the Bigsby shaft, wraps around and then threads through the tuning key and then I take up the tension. Maybe I've done it so much I've gotten used to it, but I really don't see what the fuss is about. It's trivial.

Mike


__._,_.___

John Amato

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 9:52:12 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com


Guitar with a Bigsby!
Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 9:23:17 PM

Subject: Re: [jazz_guitar] To Study Theory or not

 

On 12/30/2010 8:48 PM, John Amato wrote:


>
> That's changing the strings on a BIgsby guitar

Hi John,
Did you mean a guitar fitted with a Bigsby, or do you actually have a
Bigsby Guitar? Hint: If you actually own a Bigsby Guitar, answer me in
private!

best,
Bobby




__._,_.___


<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/

<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/



Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional

__,_._,___

JVeg...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 11:35:54 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com


George,
 
Nicely put!  That's what I was trying to get at.  All the "book knowledge" in the world won't help when a person actually gets "in the saddle", so to speak. 
 
Just curious, you have 3 "theory degrees", do tell!

Cheers,
JV
 
Juan Vega
 
-----Original Message-----
From: George Hess <ghes...@gmail.com>
To: jazz_guitar <jazz_...@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Dec 30, 2010 8:02 pm
Subject: [jazz_guitar] Re: To Study Theory or not

 

What theory is NOT is a good way to play.


__._,_.___


<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/

<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/



Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional

__,_._,___

near...@juno.com

unread,
Dec 30, 2010, 11:13:04 PM12/30/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com

 


__._,_.___


<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/

<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/



Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

____________________________________________________________
Refinance Rates at 2.8%
$160,000 Mortgage $434/mo. No Hidden Fees- 3.1% APR! Get a Free Quote
Mortgage.LendGo.com
stime=1293756999

akmbirch

unread,
Dec 31, 2010, 1:16:42 PM12/31/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
Guys,

You make things so complicated it's real easy ...

"Theory" is just a set of labels which has grown into a body of knowledge over the centuries to describe what we hear. This body
of knowledge enable us to communicate in spoken and written
language musical sounds.

The problem is that unfortunately, "theory" is often taught in the abstract as a set of rules and terms.

I have many post-college students who come with a an over flowing
abundance of music terms, they passed lots of theory exams, but their
ear development lags so far behind, it's in kindergarten!

For example, you can learn mathematically the difference between an major and minor 3rd, but really knowing it involves hearing it,
and being able to sing and identify it consistently, in EACH and EVERY context!

The problem is that for many people their ear lags behind their
theory knowledge.

You could create your own labels and it could work. But to my
mind it's easier to learn from the great musicians who have gone
before us, and use the labels that collectively mankind has
through consensus come up with. They you can communicate too
in a common spoken and written language.

For me, "theory" should be learned as you go along. For example,
a student has a favorite tune (they know it really well, they play
it a lot etc). Harmonically, it has a secondary dominant chord. As teacher you can point it out, show how and why it works. Show other
contexts. The student will remember it, because it is auditorily
tied to a tune they know well. Using that spring board, get them
to find other tunes with it - auditorily etc...

Rather than learn music theory labels in the abstract use them
to build you ear. Learn to hear each label.

IMO, most peoples "issues" with playing music, comes from their
lack of ear development. Imagine, if everything you heard you knew
what it was and could play it. Your aim as a musician is to
work towards that goal. (And, as I have written about before
it is becomming harder, because of the rise of flickering
visual/video learning - rather than learning by sound alone
without video distraction).

Finally, yet again, I have to remark, because the myth keeps
coming up and is used to justify more BS. Wes and Tal COULD
read music. I written about extensively about this. Suffice
to say Wes would say he did not read, because his ear was very
good, and he did not have good sight reading chops. He compared
himself to the great studio readers of the day, and in comparison he did not read, he preferred to use his ears. In the video on Tal, you can see in Tal's practice room, sheet music where he has
written down his chord melody arrangements.

- Alisdair


------------------------------------

<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/

<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jazz_guitar/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

Bob Hansmann

unread,
Dec 31, 2010, 1:33:42 PM12/31/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
Hi Lawrence,
> Yes, John, I am a "new visitor". And I have no intentions for
> incursion of anyone's stomping grounds or to unsettle those who, over
> time, have established a sense of mentorship within a Yahoo Group....&c.

I can't imagine that John meant as you imply, and honestly did not get
that from his post (though after reading your post, I see how that
interpretation could happen).

My hope is that you continue to post regarding any damned thing you want
to, add any thoughts you have, and in that way add your persona to this
list. John is a good guy. Of course I'll let him answer for himself, but
I have no doubt he feels the same as me.

welcome, and best wishes for the New Year,
Bobby

rguitarjj

unread,
Dec 31, 2010, 1:53:56 AM12/31/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
Being on-line has focused my attention more than before on matters of theory.

I participate in another board where questions of theory inevitably result in a very heated discussion. Some advocate extensive knowledge of theory as a necessity. Others emphasize the importance of other aspects of development. Some are in between.

Speaking for myself, I know about as much theory as is contained in Mark Levine's book, but it hasn't affected my playing much. One poster (not here) seems to suggest that this is a personal and/or musical deficit, to be remedied by more practice and more study of theory.

The choice would be easier if all the players I like were strong in theory - or the opposite. But, that isn't the case. Some are, some are not.

But, what they do have in common is big ears, great time, great ability to play rhythmically and melodic gifts.

A lot of the theory I read online is about chord/scale/mode relationships. It's an endless subject and a seductive one. I have certainly spent more time with it than it was probably worth - for me. Perhaps I'm not alone in that experience.

What I have learned from transcribing is that a great player can make just about any note sound good at any time -- by virtue of including it in a strong melodic and rhythmic line.

The chord/scale/mode stuff is most valuable for a style of playing that takes a motif and cycles it in different ways to create harmonic tension and resolution in a sophisticated way. But, that's not exactly my goal. I'm trying to play melodic lines with good rhythm that express a certain range of emotion -- I can never do it well if I'm thinking of theory. Too, I have rarely incorporated a new sound into my playing by starting with a theoretical construct. Rather, all the new things are based on sounds I heard on recordings or imagined somehow.

If I were advising a young player, I'd suggest learning a good deal of theory, but remembering that there are more important ways to spend one's time.

------------------------------------

<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/

<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jazz_guitar/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

Chris Smart

unread,
Dec 31, 2010, 3:10:32 PM12/31/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
if pitch is not important in language let me write this without
punctuation and with no capitalization and also get my computer's
screen reading software voice to read it with pitch and inflection
turned off it really does sound odd that way

still think pitch isn't important even as a reader

does this need a question mark to become a question in your mind
even if you're not reading it out loud

funkifized34

unread,
Dec 31, 2010, 2:56:43 PM12/31/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
And, BTW, "essential" and "necessary" are synonyms, in all books that I reference: http://thesaurus.com/browse/essential?__utma=1.2064690385.1293825275.1293825275.1293825275.1&__utmb=1.3.9.1293825284812&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1293825275.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=-&__utmk=91750426

Will

unread,
Dec 31, 2010, 3:32:04 AM12/31/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
This is a bit like the vintage wine that is sold and
re-sold but the bottle is never opened and the wine
never drunk. Inside the bottle the wine may have become
undrinkable but nobody will ever find out.

Will

------------------------------------

<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/

<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jazz_guitar/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

Bob Hansmann

unread,
Dec 31, 2010, 1:42:18 PM12/31/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
Hi Alisdair,

As usual, a great post.

> ...For example, you can learn mathematically the difference between an
> major and minor 3rd...

I remember years ago, Popular Science (or Popular Mechanics, or one of
the others...) published an article called "There's Math Behind That
Note". Somewhere along the line, Bach was pictured as composing his
music with slide rule in hand.

The theory does exist, as you say, to put our communication on common
ground, to make it easier to teach and learn, to give a historical
perspective, and to try to compare that with why or why not we perceive
this as "natural", among other things. Although at one time it may have
been construed as immutable law, this is no longer the case. I try to
show my students how the theory acts as a tool box, there to help them
explore their own sense of creativity.

However, a rose is a rose by any other name. A major 3rd is a major 3rd,
even if one decides to deny that fact.

best,
Bobby

Will

unread,
Dec 31, 2010, 5:14:29 AM12/31/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
I try to persuade my students to purchase a classical guitar and
do their grades – along the way we do the required theory.
This firstly gives people a target to aim for and then it is interesting
just how the extra knowledge seems to "Fill the gaps" and make people
into better players – on whatever type of guitar.

I quite like giving young players a score for a Tamla Motown number and
get them to mark the accents by listening at home. Sometimes the whole
family have got involved – sitting around the CD player with the music spread out on a table.

"So that's why it makes you want to dance!" is the usual comment.

Beats watching TV.

Will

Bob Hansmann

unread,
Dec 31, 2010, 1:55:32 PM12/31/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
On 12/31/2010 1:32 PM, crackerjacklee1 wrote:
> If we relied upon inflection as the lingua franca of North American
> communication, our judicial courts and towers of business would become
> operatic nightmares of baritone business men and soprano lawyers
> howling and jowelling throughout the canyons of our great cities.

They have...

musicmaker1245

unread,
Dec 31, 2010, 6:31:58 PM12/31/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, "akmbirch" <akmbirch@...> wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> You make things so complicated it's real easy ...
>
> "Theory" is just a set of labels which has grown into a body of knowledge over the centuries to describe what we hear. This body
> of knowledge enable us to communicate in spoken and written
> language musical sounds.
>

Great post, Alisdair. Thanks.

Mark

Hurrricane Ramon

unread,
Dec 31, 2010, 7:58:09 PM12/31/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com

Gang Of Restless Rangers ( and rangerettes )of Rhythm :

I read notation and know quite a lot on this and well - - -

It is with out a doubt that there are a lot of really great musician who are self taught and no nothing or little about theory and do fantastic ,

Many of the stellar one's end up with a unique " signature " unique to them and immediately easily identifiable due in part to this approach to musical style of learning and more power to these iconic individuals .

My professional career was not first established with guitar but with the lowly and humble

- but powerful in the hands and lungs of a monster self taught -

harmonica ( both diatonic and chromatic ) .

This was my first instrument that I [ picked up ] and started on at age 4 in 1954 , with it in a few years I learned many genres of music before starting my formal music education , I was 7 years old , at 7 began my formal music ed. in one elementary school marching band .

Learning the diatonic harp ( all diatonic harmonicas hence referenced are known and called [ HARP(s) ] ) was and is one mysterious thing to learn - no visual guide at all - no grid like a piano or fretboard - no valves like a trumpet or finger placement lay out like flutes - sax or the like . And the breath patterns reverse too compared to the woodwinds !

The harp is truly a self taught and the chromatic is the same and then again if one knows some theory it is a faster study and can be teacher assisted too with music books , only in the past 10 year was a diatonic harp privileged to have numerous books available .

Guitar : started in 1999

Wow without knowing some theory this would have been a much slower self taught thing .

So after the tedium of practicing all the boring mundane long @$$ hours - weeks - months - years later what happens when I get into a session where I have to learn fast on the fly - -

Throw the theory out the window man ! !

Gotta move fast -

no time to ask when a major dude lays out and arrangement on the fly and says only this :

Dig ......

So after the session .......

Grab your musical mind's theory and then go to the arranger and say :

" lets break it down for me on this or that part of the arrangement "

You better by this time have most of it down already or your going to give the arranger some doubts about ya !

When sitting is - when doing a jam session you just better be deep with tons of songs in your head to begin with and be also super proficient of your instrument , then you can really tear it up big time . Really no need to know music theory at all ,

But

When play gigs for $'s you are more likely to get more $'s gigs if in your musical quiver you have the language of music theory in it deep and thick .

Being able to speak the language of music theory makes for a superior and faster exchange of music data ( ideas ) from one musician to another . When you can do this :

Hours of practice can be eliminated in seconds on stage and WOW a crowd

and ............. GET YOU MORE GIG$ .

Sincerely :

Hurricane Ramon

rle...@calstatela.edu

unread,
Dec 31, 2010, 5:26:22 PM12/31/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
Hi Everybody,

Congratulations (!) to Juan for being featured in the latest issue of
Guitar Player in the "Quick Licks" section. Nice lead line over cool
turnaround progression.

Way to go Juan!

Ron

Greg Macmillan

unread,
Dec 31, 2010, 8:42:06 PM12/31/10
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
... Gang Of Restless Rangers ( and rangerettes )of Rhythm :
...
... I read notation and know quite a lot on this and well - - -
...
... It is with out a doubt that there are a lot of really great musician
... who are self taught and no nothing or little about theory and do
... fantastic ,...
...
...
... ...Being able to speak the language of music theory makes for a superior
... and faster exchange of music data ( ideas ) from one musician to
... another . When you can do this :
...
... Hours of practice can be eliminated in seconds on stage and WOW a crowd
...
... and ............. GET YOU MORE GIG$ .
...
... Hurricane Ramon
...

....................................


The difference with a lot of self taught players especially older
generation that learned by listening to recordings and playing is the
ear comes first. That's the only difference. Any one who learns theory,
as long as the ear comes first, will be just as capable or more so.
Many younger players that are self taught from TABS on the net are worse
off, because they don't use there ear so much just learn where to put
their fingers and don't get the ear finger connection

cheers Greg

Will

unread,
Jan 1, 2011, 7:29:54 AM1/1/11
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
Of all the musicians I have known over the years it is only
guitarists who can`t read/understand music.

To me it seems like a box full of treasures and understanding
but many guitar players won`t look inside.

Will

funkifized34

unread,
Jan 1, 2011, 10:20:55 AM1/1/11
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com

--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, "Will" <will@...> wrote:
>
> Of all the musicians I have known over the years it is only
> guitarists who can`t read/understand music.
>
> To me it seems like a box full of treasures and understanding
> but many guitar players won`t look inside.
>
> Will
>

While I'm a big "learn theory" and definitely a "learn to read music" guy, I don't have the same experiences. I've run into some really good bassplayers and at least decent keyboard players who don't read very well, and certainly horn players who don't understand theory. The hornplayers in particular tend to have really good ears and can play over mostly anything, but may not know what they're playing over. In their defense, the horn players can mostly read anything.

Of course, they can't write charts unless they're just transcribing an already existing arrangement. This befuddles me why they would want to rely on someone else to tell them what notes to play rather than write their own charts. It never ceases to amaze me that a guitar player (me) is telling a sax player what notes to play.

Will

unread,
Jan 1, 2011, 10:58:39 AM1/1/11
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
Last night the BBC showed a terrific documentary on the history
of swing.

I was struck by the intensely melodious nature of the impros
and solos by guys like Sidney Bechet and Armstrong. This contrasts
with many guitar players who tend to play in pentatonic patterns.

Similarly with Ella who - I understand - started off without
training but went back and did some study.

John Amato

unread,
Jan 1, 2011, 2:18:15 PM1/1/11
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com


If you have become inured of this topic, which has indeed become a well explored discussion since the 1960's, there are a "zillion" other threads out there more worthy of your guidance. But, please, never forget that one of the main features and joys of bulletin board internet discussion groups is that they are currently active, fresh with current ideas and "live" in the communicative sense - similar to improvised music. Recommending that I pack up my keyboard and retreat to review a series of dead and dusty, two year old discussions is a bit dominant and unwelcoming to a "new visitor", don't you think?

I don't mean to ruffle your feathers, John, and I'll forgive it this time, but this "new visitor", for one, is currently interested in this topic. Although, I could understand the need to read the FAQ file if i were posing a question, in this case, i am, as a musician, partaking in a healthy discussion about the relevance of music theory to performing musicians, as started by eallen37.

So, please, let's keep the Yahoo Jazz Guitar Group democratic, free and fraternal in the true sense of focused discussion on the given topic of the thread and have a jolly good time doing so!


Lawrence,

Thank you for your response -- but I really think you've misread my intentions ... at my age "feathers" are way beyond 'ruffling' ... there's practically no 'feathers' left ... and what is there now demands more warmth than any other part of anatomy or incursion into finding fault ... I am a peacemaker and solely dedicated to education and the art of jazz guitar ... so, before I get into a debate over this, please excuse how I expressed my opinion on the post -- sometimes these posts get bent out of shape simply because of the nature of 'words' and misconstrued intentions ...

Happy New Year!




__._,_.___



Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional

__,_._,___

Mike Perlowin

unread,
Jan 1, 2011, 2:52:42 PM1/1/11
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
Look, I really don't like it when people come these groups in order to try to sell their products, and there re probably other who feel the same way. So I apologize if anybody is offended by my mentioning this. I thought about posting this for a long time, but finally decided that it might be worthwhile for some of you guys to buy and read the book. 

It's called "Music Theory in the real world: A Practical Guide for Today's Musicians." It's published by Mel Bay Publications and can be purchased or ordered wherever Mel Bay books are sold. (I don't have a store and sell them myself.)  It costs 10 bucks (of which I get one.)  Here is a link.

http://www.melbay.com/product.asp?ProductID=98207&Heading=Theory,%2BCompositio

This book is basic elementary theory and harmony, and does not cover extended chords beyond the major 7th. But it does over scale structures, how the structure of the scale affects key signatures and explains the circle of 5ths, intervals and how triads and 7 chords are formed.

It does not contain any information that isn't found in other books, but mot other books are written for classical music students, and have examples from music of that genre. I wrote it for people who are not familiar with the classics, and used familiar melodies we're all heard from childhood as examples of whatever it was I was writing about.

Maybe it can be of some use to some of you guys. MP


 



------------------------------------

<*> Group FAQ: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/

<*> File Archive: http://www.jazzguitarfaq.com/filearchive/

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jazz_guitar/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

crackerjacklee1

unread,
Jan 3, 2011, 12:00:51 AM1/3/11
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com

The question of "Musical Theory or Not" is a wide open question.

The subject of Music Theory is vast. One musician may see "scale practice" as music theory while another views it as "music practice". Once we define what we mean when we say Music Theory, we can discuss it in earnest. Does theory refer to voice leading? Chord substitution? Relative minor key? Secondary Dominants? Modes? Harmonized minor scales? Some musicians do these things by ear without formal or informal study. Others learn them from books or instruction. Some musicians only refer to the musical rudiments or musical notation as "theory".

Some like to learn from their instrument. The instrument teaches us what we need to know to play it. Some want a process whereby they study theory in a programmed step-by-step method that somehow fits with their practical hands-on development.

Does the musician, as an artist, view music differently than the musician who sees it as a science? Do some musicians use theoretical terms to describe their art? Do others explore without a map because discovery is more enjoyable to them?

Music Theory seems essential to professional musical leaders such as composers, conductors and directors. I've never heard of one not educated in music theory. I suppose there may be one or two. Music Theory is not essential in order to play a musical instrument, but it is the underlying logic behind what we do. And it's fun.

I elect to avoid the "Music is Language" parallel, because analogy is often a creative refuge for those who would like to avoid the current situation and segue onto friendlier grounds with terms more conducive to their version of the truth. To be absolute, one should focus on the subject at hand. But then, not everyone wants to lawyer up or be philosophically disciplined.

I'm not anti-inflector, but I rarely do it. Just because I believe pitch is not essential to the English language, does not mean that I bear any ill will to those who require it.

Musical theory certainly becomes useful when we do not have the instrument at hand. Especially in communicating with other musicians. I only have a limited time here on earth and I don't wish to end up on my death-bed wishing that I had studed music theory.

You see, I want to understand what I do as completely as I can. So I study music theory to understand what I am doing on the bass and the guitar. I strongly advise any beginning musician to include music theory in their schedule, a bit at a time. My first three guitar lessons (with Frank Quinn of Montreal) were not exciting, but what he showed me about notation and constructing scales would have probably taken years to get on my own. Had I gone to a teacher who only taught guitar licks, I would have missed the theory train. What I understand about music today is based on those early lessons.

Ernest, I don't know exactly why you asked this, but the dominant (and romantic) notion that many musicians have is that music theory gets in the way of true artistry. And that true artists like a Miles Davis, don't rely on music theory, but that their playing is simply inspired improvisation expressed from the soul without the need of theory. Of course, this is a fallacy, as Miles Davis was a Juilliard student.

funkifized34

unread,
Jan 4, 2011, 12:30:30 PM1/4/11
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com

--- In jazz_...@yahoogroups.com, "crackerjacklee1" <lawrence_levac@...> wrote:
>
(snip)


>
> Some like to learn from their instrument. The instrument teaches us >what we need to know to play it. Some want a process whereby they >study theory in a programmed step-by-step method that somehow fits >with their practical hands-on development.
>

(snip)

This is where the language analogy fits. Some can learn from speaking with people and not taking language classes. You don't need to be taught what a verb is, or a sentence. You can certainly learn how certain words are used and how they're organized in sentences and phrases. However, to master the language and be able to use if most proficiently, once should learn the terminology and the "rules" on how to communicate correctly with language. Hmmm, sounds like I could also
be talking about music.


> Music Theory seems essential to professional musical leaders such >as composers, conductors and directors. I've never heard of one not >educated in music theory. I suppose there may be one or two. Music >Theory is not essential in order to play a musical instrument, but >it is the underlying logic behind what we do. And it's fun.

It's also essential to anyone who wants to bring the music to a level beyond casual humming melodies and listening to the radio, or plinking out simple melodies. Learning music theory helps us avoid reinventing the wheel.

> I elect to avoid the "Music is Language" parallel, because analogy >is often a creative refuge for those who would like to avoid the >current situation and segue onto friendlier grounds with terms more >conducive to their version of the truth. To be absolute, one should >focus on the subject at hand. But then, not everyone wants to lawyer >up or be philosophically disciplined.

Here we go again. "Avoid the current situation", "segue onto friendlier grounds", etc. Where do you think we're going with this? This is further from the original question than defining music as language. Music *is* language, not analogy required. I play a C chord and you respond by playing notes from the C Major scale. It's a method of communication, pure and simple.

> I'm not anti-inflector, but I rarely do it. Just because I believe >pitch is not essential to the English language, does not mean that I >bear any ill will to those who require it.

You require it, too. You just won't admit it. And let's not forget that music doesn't require pitch modulation. Are drum rhythms not music?

> Musical theory certainly becomes useful when we do not have the >instrument at hand. Especially in communicating with other >musicians. I only have a limited time here on earth and I don't wish >to end up on my death-bed wishing that I had studed music theory.

Music theory is useful at all times while performing music. Knowing when to use the C Major scale as opposed a scale in a different key is always useful when playing an instrument. Understanding which words are verbs as opposed to being nouns is helpful at all times when trying to communicate to others. If one is not taught this in academic terms, he/she is going to figure it out eventually in his/her own terms. It just takes longer, maybe too much longer to effectively learn to communicate with others in the average lifetime.

I knew a girl who was deep within her "I write original music" phase of life. She had been playing guitar for 6 months and had already formed her attitude that she didn't want to take lessons, so that she didn't lose her songwriting creativity. She could write lyrics and put them to simple chords, many of which didn't make sense to the rest of us, and I could tell her quickly and succinctly the reason why her music was not making sense. She, of course, didn't want to hear this and felt that she liked what she was "creating" and that this was music in it's purest form.

What she didn't understand is that she was reinventing the wheel, and in our western music standards, her "music" is going to become trite and meaningless. She will likely get tired of it or learn that it's not working for her. Considering that she wants to make music that conforms to our western culture norms, it only makes the most sense to study what techniques and traits make our music what it is. To wallow in ignorance is to waste the short time we have on this earth. I'm not going to try to master the English language nor even try to pretend that I'm a decent orator by never cracking a book and walking around listening to people and their dialogue. I potentially could figure out the English language by myself, but the academic study of it is going to come up at some point, assuming I'm eventually going to actually communicate with someone, and it behooves me to be able to read in order to understand these academic terms.

No analogies needed. Music *is* a language, whether you like it or not.

crackerjacklee1

unread,
Jan 6, 2011, 7:49:08 PM1/6/11
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com

thanks, Bob!
an interesting thread... music engages both sides of the brain... whether one pursues a mathematical, scientific approach to music... or simply close our eyes and explore where the music takes us.... artistically or theoretically we can enjoy both sides of the same coin.
Cheers!

el237a@comcast.net [jazz_guitar]

unread,
Oct 7, 2014, 8:19:20 AM10/7/14
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
 

crackerjacklee1,


"Ernest, I don't know exactly why you asked this, but the dominant (and romantic) notion that many musicians have is that music theory gets in the way of true artistry. And that true artists like a Miles Davis, don't rely on music theory, but that their playing is simply inspired improvisation expressed from the soul without the need of theory. Of course, this is a fallacy, as Miles Davis was a Juilliard student."


I wasn't asking a question, just making an observation about the  number of comments I remembered from differing sources telling us to "forget the theory and just play".


I liked learning the theory, whenever and however I could.  If Dave Woods were to respond, he would likely say, "yeah, Ernest, you love it to a fault".

Ernest

__._,_.___
Posted by: el2...@comcast.net
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (65)

Chris Smart csmart8@cogeco.ca [jazz_guitar]

unread,
Oct 7, 2014, 9:55:20 AM10/7/14
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
 

Ernest, those quotes are often misused or
misinterpreted. the goal is to learn all the
theory so it becomes second nature, then to just
improvise and not think about the theory while in
the heat of the moment. That's a long ways away
from "just don't bother with theory, the greats didn't", which is BS.



At 10:46 PM 10/5/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>crackerjacklee1,
>
>
>"Ernest, I don't know exactly why you asked
>this, but the dominant (and romantic) notion
>that many musicians have is that music theory
>gets in the way of true artistry. And that true
>artists like a Miles Davis, don't rely on music
>theory, but that their playing is simply
>inspired improvisation expressed from the soul
>without the need of theory. Of course, this is a
>fallacy, as Miles Davis was a Juilliard student."
>
>
>I wasn't asking a question, just making an
>observation about the number of comments I
>remembered from differing sources telling us to
>"forget the theory and just play".
>
>
>I liked learning the theory, whenever and
>however I could. If Dave Woods were to respond,
>he would likely say, "yeah, Ernest, you love it to a fault".
>
>Ernest
>

__._,_.___
Posted by: Chris Smart <csm...@cogeco.ca>
.

__,_._,___

Bob Hansmann bobbybmusic@optimum.net [jazz_guitar]

unread,
Oct 7, 2014, 11:06:28 AM10/7/14
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
 

That question really comes down to, "Why study at all?". Some do, some
don't. Some succeed, some don't.

If one is going to study at all, why forgo theory? But what theory?
Figured bass and 4-part harmony studies are useless. Add to that that
many guitar instructors aren't really all that qualified to teach theory
in the first place, having only a superficial knowledge themselves.

The question is really much too broad then, and I'm supposing that if
people respond, arguments will ensue, as they do with standard notation
discussions.

Bobby

__._,_.___
Posted by: Bob Hansmann <bobby...@optimum.net>
.

__,_._,___

akmbirch@yahoo.com [jazz_guitar]

unread,
Oct 7, 2014, 1:37:37 PM10/7/14
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
.

__,_._,___

Tom Samarati samarati@yahoo.com [jazz_guitar]

unread,
Oct 7, 2014, 6:36:32 PM10/7/14
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
 



Bob wrote:
Ernest, those quotes are often misused or misinterpreted. The goal is to learn all the theory so it becomes second nature, then to just improvise and not think about the theory while in the heat of the moment. That's a long ways away from "just don't bother with theory, the greats


didn't", which is BS.

____________________________________________

Me: I endorse music theory education. The more a musician knows & understand about what they play, it's easier to add & evolve changes in a song. And in the long term more knowledge helps a musician grow as an artist.

True personal story: On a recent vacation on Maui. The resort holds free group ukulele lessons. The instructor can rip off rapid fire chords while singing in that sweet melodious Hawaiian style. The group of 10 students are mostly pathetic, they have little experience, no skills. Though each is a "guitar player" of some sort. So I'm trying to be low key, avoiding to be a show-off. But while the group is slowly playing thru much simplified chords for the requisite Wonderful World & Over the Rainbow, I'm inserting the actual chords & playing some jazz fills. The teacher smiles and his eyes are locked on my left hand.

After class dismissal he asks me about the chords & some leading voices I played. We go over the songs. Reading from the chord sheets he provided, I point out some of the real chords are shown on paper. He says "What's a D6? I just play a D here" So I explain 1st day music theory class how to count up from the root to a flat 5th, major 6th, 7th, etc.... A light bulb turns on over his head, like an old cartoon.

So my impression is that many of the local musicians can really play music, it sounds and feels good to hear, it's relaxing & pretty. But I hear a lot of "western tunes" (ie; old broadway show & jazz) reduced to 3 chord ditties with nursery rhyme simplicity.

Maybe it's a good marketing ploy. Tourists flock to the bars to happily hear locals play in their pared down style. Perhaps the musicians know that complicating the music might drive away some paying listeners.

Is that what happened to jazz? That it got "too smart" for its own good?

__._,_.___
Posted by: Tom Samarati <sama...@yahoo.com>
.

__,_._,___

rpjazzguitar@gmail.com [jazz_guitar]

unread,
Oct 8, 2014, 2:47:11 PM10/8/14
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
 

I know great players who are encyclopedic on theory and great players who know no theory at all.


Most of the non-theoretical players I know are not generally good improvisers -- they're great at other things. But, I know one clarinetist who plays entirely by ear and is great. I asked him -- he cannot name the notes in a Cmajor triad. But, no matter what chord you play, he can hear it and improvise on it.  If he doesn't know the tune he phrases behind the chord change -- he then hears it for an instant and he's on it a sixteenth later.


I know two great players for harmony who reject reading and theory. One points out that music is all about sound and that reading gets in the way.  The other, I'm not sure - he doesn't speak much English. Obviously, others have different experiences and opinions, but, I'll say this -- these two  ear guys are the most sophisticated players harmonically that I've ever heard.  That said, my runner-up is a theory encyclopedia.









__._,_.___
Posted by: rpjazz...@gmail.com
.

__,_._,___

Bob Hansmann bobbybmusic@optimum.net [jazz_guitar]

unread,
Oct 8, 2014, 7:22:49 PM10/8/14
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com

On 10/8/2014 2:47 PM, rpjazz...@gmail.com [jazz_guitar] wrote:
> I know great players who are encyclopedic on theory and great players

> who know no theory at all....&c

That everybody is different was my point. This List gets so hung up on
finding the 'one size fits all' answer for everybody, and it's just foolish.

Misquotes of Charlie Parker, arguments about TAB, what made Wes, Wes...
&c ridiculousness.

Some players have an insatiable curiosity, and study all they can. I
happen to be one of them, and it's served me well. I've been able to
take work that one-trick ponies just can't, and so was able to raise a
family without having to get a job at the Post Office.

Carol Kaye can read like a monster, and put it together in 3-D on the
fly for the session work she has taken and takes. She's not a 'free jazz
player', but she filled a niche that no one else could at the time, and
very few could even now.

Carmen Leggio told me (and even published a book about it) that he
improvised by the tunes lyrics. Go figya.

Pat Metheny, Herbie Handcock, and Chic Corea are incredibly schooled
musicians.

So many musicians in the '50s and '60s studied Slominsky, Russell, and
Murphy (among others) that they could hardly be called 'non-studied'.

If someone studies with me, he/she usually knows what I do before they
even sign up from other students. If that's what they want, I'm here. If
it's not, we will not be a good fit, for sure.

My conclusion of the matter to the question? - So what?

Bobby

__._,_.___
Posted by: Bob Hansmann <bobby...@optimum.net>
.

__,_._,___

Greg Shilakis gregs2868@yahoo.com [jazz_guitar]

unread,
Oct 9, 2014, 12:54:13 PM10/9/14
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
 

Chet was asked if he could read music. His reply: "not enough to hurt my playin'."


Greg

__._,_.___
Posted by: Greg Shilakis <greg...@yahoo.com>
.

__,_._,___

Chris Smart csmart8@cogeco.ca [jazz_guitar]

unread,
Oct 9, 2014, 1:14:23 PM10/9/14
to jazz_...@yahoogroups.com
 

point being what?



At 09:13 AM 10/9/2014, you wrote:
>
>
>Chet was asked if he could read music. His
>reply: "not enough to hurt my playin'."
>
>
>Greg
>

__._,_.___
Posted by: Chris Smart <csm...@cogeco.ca>
.

__,_._,___
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages