Since we seem to have a history of derailing many of our Music Theory threads with this subject, I thought it might be nice to have a dedicated thread for the topic. I'll start:

(From my website)



Is Music Theory essential if you want to be a good player?

This is a question I’ve been pondering my entire life. I even went to the trouble to get two degrees in the subject in an effort to answer this question, and I still go back and forth on the answer. There are times when it seems that I just couldn’t get along without theory, and times in which it only seems to get in the way. It’s kind of like a pendulum thing: On the one hand, I believe that the best music I’ve ever made has come from the heart as an intuitive reaction to the sound I’m hearing, and that while making this Music, nary a thought entered my head at all; on the other, I wonder how many sounds I’d be hearing at whatever level I hear them if I hadn’t studied each sound individually as an independent entity at some point. Which came first, the intuitive understanding of the sound, or the study of the sound? Chicken or egg?

For me, Music Theory is nothing more and nothing less than the study and scientific labelling of sounds that have already happened in the past rather than a means to create sounds which might happen in the future. I always learn something when I look at theory in the former way, and always get into trouble when I look at it in the latter. My solution to this problem is to only think about theory and/or technique issues when practicing, and to do my best to not think at all while playing and just react intuitively to the sound. When I’m able to do that, everything seems to go well. When I’m not able to do that, I notice I tend to play a lot of contrived crap that doesn’t really fit.

To me, music is about the sound, the whole sound, and nothing but the sound. I’ve known players who know a lot of great technical stuff (licks, patterns, etc.) to play and can plug it in all over the place, and yet still manage to sound as if they are “reciting” stuff they’ve rehearsed rather than reacting to what’s going on and creating something they’ve never played exactly quite that way before. While I can never truly know what’s in another person’s head (and that’s probably a good thing) at any given moment, I imagine that what people are thinking at times when I feel they are “reciting” is something along the lines of, “Well, let’s see...this lick will fit over this chord progression. If I play this lick here, it’ll look like I know what I’m doing, so I think I’ll play this lick here”. And if I’m honest, I can cite times in which I’ve done just that on numerous occasions. But if I’m really honest, I’ll admit that this strikes me as a really dumb way to play, even (especially?) when I’m the one doing it, because learning to recite platitudes and clichés - whether verbal or musical - is not what I believe life to be about...on the contrary, I believe it’s about living in the moment and reacting to it in a meaningful way. And “reciting” doesn’t exactly meet my definition of meaningful. In other words, if I hear one more player play that tired-*ssed “1-2-3-5 ,1-2-3-5” line over the opening chords of “Giant Steps”, I may well just lose my lunch from sticking my finger down my throat. And if anyone ever catches me playing that same line on a gig, they may as well just shoot me since I’ll already be brain dead at that point.

Okay, that might be a little extreme, but I hope the point has been made.

So how can theory be used effectively? I like to think of the human brain as being similar to a computer in that it has both RAM (Random Access Memory) and ROM (Read Only Memory). Your RAM is what processes what’s going on at any given moment, and your ROM is your storage bank for information you’ve retained from past experience. RAM can dip into ROM and access its contents in order to react to the moment, but it’s generally too slow (at least in my case) to learn and program the ROM while it’s doing something else. What does this have to do with playing music? For me, it means that if I want to have the energy and resources to create music on the fly, I need to have all of my RAM free (in other words, no thinking or running other programs/apps is allowed while playing) to deal with the sounds I’m hearing at that precise moment, and I also need need to have a lot of information and experience programmed similar sounds/progressions/harmonies into my “hard drive” that my RAM can use to react to the sound that my ears are hearing. In the case of my own somewhat addled brain, information takes a long time to download to the hard drive (I must have been born with a 14k phone modem upstairs), but once it’s there, it can be uploaded to RAM very quickly, a la broadband...so I feel it’s very important to spend the time “programming” your own hard drive in the practice room, so that you can use the information freely while playing without having to think about it. And it is in this “programming” that I feel that music theory can be useful - it’s just like a data code for sound.

I guess I could sum this all up by saying that I believe that music theory is useful in the moments you spend in the practice room, but not so much in the practice of making music in the moment.

Right. Like I said, I’m still working on this topic...



Thoughts on the subject? I hope this thread can take off, so that newbies and beginners don't need to feel like they can't start a straight-ahead theory thread without it warping into a heated discussion of this subject. If this thread DOES take shape and provide different viewpoints which might be useful to any future theory posters, I'll be the first to stick it to the top of this forum and link it in any future theory threads.

Music theory is of the utmost importance. I liken it to being illiterate. How can one discuss music fully wihthout understanding the meanings being talked about ?

Music theory fueled my interest in music back in the day which in turn made me seek music of a higher level than rock(not to bash rock.)

Music theory makes you think. It eggs you on to find answers. It makes you stay up half the night trying to figure out the difference between a half cadence and a phrygian half cadence.

Theory gives the framework from which we can draw if we choose. If we know theory and choose not to draw from it at least we can be safe
in our convictions of going "out" in order to execute our sonic experiments.

If it weren't for my theory questions asked early on in my quest I doubt i would have dedicated my life to music and the quest for things new and interesting.

I mean, i love cracking a composers thought process on a piece (especially a modern piece) though I gain just as much insight from a Bach analysis.

I think the thing for the beginning theorist is to be given a balanced view on theory along witht the application of the musics that we glean these theories from...

I oculd say more but...

I love theory and encourage all of my students to study it...Most do BTW...

Good thread Chris...I hope it sticks.

From Joe's article -
"...here too the word "theory" is often applied. But again, that term seems to lead us away from the real reason for including this area in daily practicing. It is, of course, true that a good improvisor must have an exhaustive, complete theoretical knowledge of music as deep and comprehensive as any composer. But in the end, what you know is not as important as how and to what level you have absorbed it. An improvisor’s knowledge of the musical language, in a sense, cannot be theoretical. It must be practical. That is, one’s theory must be in one’s fingers and ears, not in one’s head. There is no time to run up into the library when you are improvising, anymore than there is time to go open a dictionary in the middle of a passionate profession of love to your girlfriend or boyfriend. In such circumstances, the English language, or the musical language best be there at your disposal, running around in your bloodstream, ready to express spontaneously and passionately whatever it is you wish to express. Absorbing the language of music to this level cannot be done any other way but the slow way, from the bottom up, starting at the beginning, building each new structure on what is already solidly in place, doing this in every key, systematically, slowly, completely, with the metronome."

Highlighted emphasis, mine. As I keep saying, over and over again, it's not just one thing it's everything. Understanding, physical approach, concept - there is no one thing that you can leave out of the equation and there is no one thing that will make up for a lack of the others.

The part that doesn't get talked about a lot is this - even when I get to the point that I can express my deepest thoughts and feelings, it may not be in my nature to create moments of real, universal poetic beauty. There was a group of artists they put together a very highly regarded (from the public service standpoint) program for inner city/disadvantaged kids. The quote that hit me was " We found out (through our program) that EVERYBODY is creative. But not everybody is an artist."

All I can really do is try to get to the point that what I say (musically) is true and real and as close to ME as it can be.

Having just finished Sue Mingus's Tonight at Noon, the book points out the irony that the schooled Mingus used the most basic techniques to teach his music to his band (no dots) but that the visiting freind Joni Mitchel made a point of never learning music because she thought it would destroy her muse. I've played a lot of her tunes and they have some interesting quirks - and some amazing (but hey - look at McCartney - another one who won't read) convetionallity for an artist trying to be diferrent. (Go on - tell me she wasn't!)

This is a common inverse snobbery I find with the local folkies - its best if you never see a dot in your life. But it's about givning yourself choices and trusting your own judgement whether to use them or not - but at least you know what's out there.

If you don't, too much choice is not empowering - how many TV channels you got - ever played with a guitarist who's got himself (it's nearly always a he) a new effects pedddle and nothing ever gets played through coz he's running through all the options?

Accordingly, if you use judgement, you can't be false to yourself. But judgement means you have either conciously or not, an internal set of priorities/criteria against which you judge what you play. Its lack of, or just confussion of this that causes problems.

My way through, if confussed, is to find out more, test my old value judgements, my confused judgements and iterate until happy. It doesn't go on to overload because there is only so much I can play or do at any one time.

And what I play is usually with others, is it enhancing their experience or not? This of course is not necesarily the path of an artist, a Cecil Taylor perhaps who lets face it, didn't get many be-bop gigs nor want them. He sufferred for his art.

Art is not necesarily an aspiration either - creative, artisan-like, craftsman are all adjectives I would aspire to. Artistry is what I hope comes forth but I'm resolved to the fact that I wont be of stature - I will be myself, I insist on it, but within the bounds that give me the oportunity to play.

So to resolve this, and many other TB conumdrums, where are you at man - really at - and I want to play with others, make them sound good, play improvs that express my feelings to others. But for me to say this is to scatch the surface of where I'm at - but to be efective in playing or at work or in relationships - I needs to have a good idea - and this will dictate the time and priority I give to more theory (quite a lot in my case).

I'd like to add a short response to this...

Those that think that theory isn't useful in their situation (for ex. a punk band maybe?) should think again. Aren't they the least bit curious to know how their favorite song was created? There is theory behind everything. Even the simplest of songs. And to deny that is to deny something beautiful that is the language of music. If you fear theory hindering creativity, it'll only hinder you as far as you let it. There must be a balance.

To answer the question: Yes. Theory is more useful than most realize. It allows you to choose from a wide pallette of colors, so to speak. It opens a world of understanding.

Music theory is of the utmost importance. I liken it to being illiterate. How can one discuss music fully wihthout understanding the meanings being talked about ?


The most sophisticated theoretical concept I've discovered can't hold a candle to the music it describes when I hear it. I don't know how anyone's truly able to derive meaning from music theory.

I still remember pulling out the pans from the kitchen when I was still in my diapers, simply unable to turn my back on trying to mirroring the rhythms I heard...or running to the terribly out-of-tune piano to pick out a melody. I'm still trying to capture the way those sounds made me feel back then. That's why I'm into it.

I don't see music theory as offering an explanation of why I feel this way at all. It's just an extremely useful way of describing what's going on - as if a chemical engineer was describing a chemical reaction in an equation. It's super tough for me to get motivated over the equation itself when there's so much fun to be had actually making the reaction happen and seeing what gets produced in the real world, but I can't deny how useful those equations are, how smart a person needs to be to appreciate their value, and all the good things that come from them.

Interesting arguments, eloquently put. What else can I say? Well, I love the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. I could go on all day (and have on many occasions) about how pure, how utterly sublime, how JSB's music is the essence of abstract creativity, existing just for its own sake, needing no explanation, no excuse, no programmatic justification (although he dedicated all of his music to "the Greater Glory of God" (well, he was a devout Lutheran)). With an understanding of the theory behind what JSB did, the music still sounds as good, but the listener now has a far greater understanding of exactly what is going on, how it is being done, and so is able to appreciate the elegant simplicity of some of the devices which are being used, and which subsequent musicians have copied/used (even claimed as their own). However, one never stops learning - just when you think you know everything, you discover there's still something else…


Mike Crumpton mentioned Cecil Taylor - some of you might remember Branford Marsallis' curt dismissal of CT's music (in the Ken Burns' "Jazz" series) - where he said he didn't see why he had to spend time to try and understand CT's music - I would argue that an understanding of the music (especially avant garde) is essential to be able to appreciate it (not necessarily like it). In order to understand it, it is essential to know the rules (i.e. the theory). You can't simply dismiss it as garbage because you can't understand it - to do so is being somewhat unfair. So, you learn the rules - you hear what the composer/musician is doing with those rules, and you make your choices from the point of view of knowledge rather than ignorance…

So, I think that a knowledge of music theory is a very powerful tool.

Sorry it's so long winded… (well, not really, you can always scroll past it, or ignore it - why the hell should I care?)

- Wil

I think what Will and Mike are talking about relates very strongly to what Chris said about :

"For me, Music Theory is nothing more and nothing less than the study and scientific labelling of sounds that have already happened in the past ..."

I think it all depends what your aim is?

So for me, I always want to understand things and can remember first being fascinated by things my school music teacher played us as young kids and wanting to know what it was all about.

So - this has stayed with me - she played us Stockhuasen (Gesang der Junglinge) Shostakovich and Sibelius - amongst others. She got us to sing Bach and Britten....

I have always been fascinated by complex music and trying to work it out - so how did Messaen get that sound?

But I suppose the real crux of Chris's paradox is in Jazz. When I was younger I didn't get it and it often sounded like a load of random notes and bass lines that were just going up and down in semi-tones!!

But when I started trying to play it, then I started to appreciate it and now have hundreds of Jazz CDs and listen to little else!!

But there is this thing which I will call :

"Durrl's Paradox"

So - is the best Jazz player, somebody who is a total theory monster and who knows everything - can write tunes in all sorts of odd rhythms and embraces advanced harmonic concepts - can stun you with breadth of their learning and knowledge of the Jazz idiom - i.e. can include obscure quotes from little-known Jazz masters - but in a way that is totally their own ...etc. etc.

Or is it somebody who knows none of this whatsoever - but can play what they hear in their heart and respond immediately to any situation they find themself in, with beautiful music?

Talking as a listener - a Jazz fan, I think you need a mix of both, to keep things interesting and preferably in the same band!! ;)

The attraction of Jazz is that it can encompass both - the ascetic intellectual and the intuitive hedonist. OK - the former will be writing the charts, making arrangements, choosing the tunes, organising the gigs and the latter will be bumming around, drinking too much (euphamism for any such indulgence!) - but will then be rolling up to play the solos that will wow the crowd and endear them to the opposite sex!! ;)

Jazz is interesting precisely because it has the naturals and those who have to work very hard and they can talk to each other in this medium - whereas, most other musics, get one or the other!!

Bruce, because you asked:
I really don´t know about the "best Jazz player", but a working jazz musician who gets gigs is more or less:

a total theory monster who knows everything -
but can play what they hear in their heart and respond immediately to any situation they find themself in, with beautiful music.

That was easy, I just copy-pasted what you just said ;-)

R2

Well - that's what I meant - i.e. that Jazz requires a bit of both really, whereas I have met fairly competent classical players who couldn't improvise on a Blues to save their lives - "what notes am I supposed to be playing!! " :eek:


;)

I love this thread!
I believe theory is important because it expands the sounds you hear, understand, and can express from your heart. I spent the first 8 years I was playing EB in rock bands who were all about playing from the heart, that's a great thing, but these people were so limited in what they heard and could express musically. Eventually, the scene I was a part of spilt into two groups one that expanded their understanding of the theory and still play music they find exciting and fresh, and those who don't play anymore (although they would love to). I speak with someone from the latter, every conversation boils down to the "good old days" when we played together. I always hear a tone of regret in his voice.
I've also learned (the hard way) that theory alone isn't the key, it needs to be practiced in relation to improv to become something to aid your natural expression. Plus when your ears just aren't working, but you've got to play, you've always got a back up.
Thanks for the thread Chris.
Mike

Theory is a tool for describing music, not creating it. Knowing theory makes you a better player insofar as it helps you organize and communicate your knowledge.

There have been a lot of great players who knew nothing about theory- Chet Baker comes to mind- but I suspect most of greatest were people like Mingus and Ron Carter, who were well rooted in classical theory and technique, and that gave them a better and deeper understanding of their instrument.

Is music theory important?



Yes, theory is important to me. I like the intellectual challenge of figuring out why a piece works. Each piece is a puzzle and a window into the composer's process.

As a longtime software developer, I liken learning theory to learning a computer language. I get the same satisfaction from learning music theory than I do learning and expressing the grammar of a computer language. Often in my trade we are responsible for maintaining code authored by another programmer. Trying to find out why a piece of music works by applying music theory is like trying to understand someone else's computer code.

But like you, I not thinking about puzzles and process when I'm playing a twelve-bar blues. I'm trying to nail the line, move the crowd, and not bump into the sax player.

There have been a lot of great players who knew nothing about theory- Chet Baker comes to mind- .


Hmmm...in what sense did he not know theory? Surely, to play what he did, he must have known a lot of theory - even if it was in a completely intuitive sense?

Hmmm...in what sense did he not know theory? Surely, to play what he did, he must have known a lot of theory - even if it was in a completely intuitive sense?

I've got news for you. Chet Baker not only did not know theory, he literally did not even know what key he was in. He heard sound inside his head and played it. Period. I was told this by my teacher, who worked alot with Chet Baker. Chet was unlike normal people.

OK, I dont really any musical theory, not on the level you chaps are discussing, but here goes anyway...

I think of it as a means to a non-existant end.
You're always learning, that's a given. Music theory is a way of naming sounds (as said before) and structuring the combinations and patterns of those sounds so you can take in the information more easily.
Just as maths is the language in which physics is analysed, music theory is the language in which we analyse music (errr!). Both are, in essence, mathematical theories to describe something physical.

I think you can create your music perfectly for your entire life without knowing any theory at all.
And there are many examples of artists who do just that - some have a more natural affinity to do this, but that may well be learnt - back to the old nature/nurture debate.
But I also believe that unless you are one in a million you will get stuck in a rut and play 'your mateial' over and over, you'll bet trapped by your own habits.

I also think theory is a way of hearing new sounds. Isnt that what Coltrane did with Giant Steps? A musical concept that he put into practice, rather than the other way round? That's what I thought anyway?

There was a group of artists they put together a very highly regarded (from the public service standpoint) program for inner city/disadvantaged kids. The quote that hit me was " We found out (through our program) that EVERYBODY is creative. But not everybody is an artist."

This intersts me. I wonder if it is true - that not everybody is an artist? I'm not sure I can believe it?

I truly believe that the artists intent, i.e. what they put into their art - in terms of emotion, is the key factor.

If I find something contrived or false or just downright sh~te, I think that the reason is that I dont have what's required to appreciate the emotion the artist used in creating that art. Like an incompatability, I cant hear what they are saying, for whatever reason.

I think the topic is way too subjective to say someone is not an artist.

I'm positive that everyone has the potential to be an artist, hence, everyone is creative, but it might take one person their enture life to produce one piece of art, whereas another person churns it out like a sausage machine.
I very, very rarely misjudge people, but I'm regularly surprised and impressed by how creative and beautiful people are.


Off-topic-waffle over :)

Chet Baker not only did not know theory, he literally did not even know what key he was in. He heard sound inside his head and played it. Period.

Teenage Pat Martino: "Wes, what was that you just played?"
Mr. Montgomery: "I don't know, Pat, but I liked it."

I've got news for you. Chet Baker not only did not know theory, he literally did not even know what key he was in. He heard sound inside his head and played it. Period. I was told this by my teacher, who worked alot with Chet Baker. Chet was unlike normal people.


Wow - I'm amazed! I've heard loads of his recordings and saw a European documentary about his life which mostly concentrated on the sad end, along with a few late performance videos. I wouldn't have guessed at this - I'll have to read up on him a bit more. I thought that what I'd seen was just becaude of the state he was in at that time...

Thanks for the info Don! :)

Without musical theory how would instruments been created? How tunings?

tk

Without musical theory how would instruments been created? How tunings?

tk

An interesting point - since a balance of theory and practicality came up with even temprement. Tunings are usually unversally based on the harmonic series - and this is what we find natural to hear (but I supose listening to even temprement music from birth knocks it out of us to an extent) - it results in uneven temprement - having different tunings/instruments for different keys. This was only sorted out around baroque times, allowing greater co-operation, changes of key etc.

As players of folk instruments (no - not guitars) such as various flutes, reed 'shepherd' flutes which play by manipulating the harmonic series (norwegian I think), gamelan perhaps, there is a quality and soul that theory has cast asside [but is possible on the unfretted string if you can hear to play it and can be in sympathy with fellows (or solo)].

This is anti-theory, in that theory can explain why the sounds would be there, but without it they are still always there as a natural consequence of the environment.

It brings to mind that some of the first practitioners of free jazz were looking for total freedom of expression free from their deep knowledge of what and how they had played to date. Some of the later players copied the free stuff and learnt the straight stuff later. Now they are both in the moment when they are playing - you could argue that one player has more credibiltity than the other - but does it matter?

If they are playing what they intend, I guess not. Playing one of those reeds well isn't easy at first - but the notes are a natural consequence of the physics of a stopped tube - you can't do anything about that, it's not even-tempered and has a beauty and satisfaction of its own. You haven't got much feedom though except from encumberance, and that can be freedom in itself leaving you to concentrate on other qualities. Restricting yourself to a few notes in a solo can sometimes be relevatery to the audience as well as yourself.

So, natural laws created natural tunings (simmilar to the pentatonic scale if you will) which were bent to even temprement to staisfy musics of greater complexity begat by theory resulting in a situation where no-one sits down on a hillside with a reed pipe blowing merrily away to their frisky sheep - they're busy learning tritone substitutions.

Hmmm...in what sense did he not know theory? Surely, to play what he did, he must have known a lot of theory - even if it was in a completely intuitive sense?

Wes Montgomery was a player who next to nothing about theory. He had great ears, a great memory and worked his tail off to learn how to produce the sounds he was hearing.

Pat Metheny and Wynton Marsailis are extremely knowledgable with regards to theory and application of it. They also have great ears and like Wes, both worked hard to get to their level of improvising. But unlike Wes, Metheny and Wynton used theory extensively.

Different approaches to get the same result which is to make great music.

Not every player needs theory, but most do. I definitely use it and need it. When I hear something I really like, I don't care if the player making those sounds knows the name of whatever chord they are playing. I just care that the music sounds great.

I also think theory is a way of hearing new sounds. Isnt that what Coltrane did with Giant Steps? A musical concept that he put into practice, rather than the other way round? That's what I thought anyway?

Off-topic-waffle over :)

I love thinking about this stuff and I'm with Howard on this one...

Music is sound and the best sensory mechanism we have for making quality decisions on sound is our hearing- it's all about your ears. Unfortunately, for some including me our brains aren't naturally tuned to understanding what we hear (ie what note/chord did I just hear and what is likely to follow)

Theory provides a way to organize sounds in a way to devise other sounds without really knowing how it will sound before we play it. Once I try to play the new concept, my ears get a chance to learn how the concept sounds. After I practice the concept enough, my ears can short circuit my brain and my hands know what to do.

A good example is being able to hear a string of notes (a sound) built from an altered chord/scale. Most people raised in the western culture don't hear that sound as familiar, but its pretty fundamental to the jazz sound. A great teacher of mine showed me what an altered scale is and how to apply it in a few places, and then I began to hear it in other people's playing. Now I'm beginning to 'naturally' play the sound.

So the whole point is theory is a great guide, but unless you hear what you intend to play you are just implementing a nifty algorithm and not honestly creating something from your brain/soul/psyche/heart.

BTW, I really enjoy this forum! This is my first post here so don't slam me too hard... ;)

An interesting point - since a balance of theory and practicality came up with even temprement.

So, natural laws created natural tunings (simmilar to the pentatonic scale if you will) which were bent to even temprement to staisfy musics of greater complexity begat by theory.
I'm not entirely sure of what you're saying, but I'm inclined to think that musics of greater complexity (1) were begat by musicians (people) who were hearing it that way. Equal temperment was developed by musicians who understood theory (also people) as a system to accomodate those musics. Once the system was in place, it allowed for music to evolve into a still higher degree of complexity(2), but that music(2) didn't evolve from the system, it evolved from the music(1) which originally inspired the system.

So, I guess I am of the opinion that music came first, then theory.

Teenage Pat Martino: "Wes, what was that you just played?"
Mr. Montgomery: "I don't know, Pat, but I liked it."

"Well, I have no idea what kind of music I like, but I can definately tell the difference between good and bad." - ???

Music had to come first or there would be no need for theory. However to me there would be no musical instrument that could produce more than a single note of music without a theoretical progression of known sounds.

This is one very interesting discussion.

I might add for music to be passed on theory becomes necessary as well. If it can't be written then there is no way I could hear Bethovan to learn it.

I began making music by reading it. Have learned little of what I know by hearing it but since I started hearing music and recreating what I hear I have gotten more theory under my belt than I ever did just reading. I am not a great muscian and rightfully who should care what I think. But I am sure all the greats started some where and most likely experienced and overcame the dilemmas us lesser folks experience.

The word theory itself describes yet another dillema and even more discussion.

tk

…snip
I might add for music to be passed on theory becomes necessary as well. If it can't be written then there is no way I could hear Bethovan to learn it.
snip…


You make an interesting point, but it is not necessary to write things down, even though it does make it much easier for musicians to communicate with each other. Indian classical music is an oral tradition where everything is learned by rote, i.e. nothing is written down…

- Wil

Very good point. I hadn't considered a society that evolved without paper.


tk

I also think theory is a way of hearing new sounds. Isnt that what Coltrane did with Giant Steps? A musical concept that he put into practice, rather than the other way round? That's what I thought anyway?

Sorry to be bursting balloons here, but Giant Steps was lifted from the release of Have You Met Miss Jones, written in the early 1930's.

Sorry to be bursting balloons here, but Giant Steps was lifted from the release of Have You Met Miss Jones, written in the early 1930's.

Isn't the point that only the bridge to this tune was major 3rd key centre movement, but that Coltrane took this "theoretical" concept and applied it to whole tunes like Giant Steps.

So, of course - there is a whole chapter on this in "The Jazz Theory Book"

So maybe what Howard is alluding to, is that Coltrane took a "music theory" concept and created a more "challenging" style of music, by re-harmonising standards like Body and Soul, How high the Moon etc. using major 3rd key centre motion ?

You make an interesting point, but it is not necessary to write things down, even though it does make it much easier for musicians to communicate with each other. Indian classical music is an oral tradition where everything is learned by rote, i.e. nothing is written down…

- Wil

I think it's been mentioned before in discussions here that strictly speaking, it's not necessary to write things down but it makes the whole process hugely easier and quicker, the more people are involved.

Indian groups are often no more than 2 or 3 people - so learning by ear/orally isn't that hard.

But if you had to do that with a (c.) 120-piece orchestra, for complex works like "the Rite of Spring" or Messiaen's "Turangalila Symphonie" for example - these works would just never get perfromed.

Can you imagine a conductor/composer humming or describing 90 minutes of music to each individual...how long would that take and would it sound anything like it was intended to? ;)

Having said that - I have been involved in about 100 people - Jazz students, learning and performing and arrangement of Don Cherry's "Mopti" entirely by ear, with nothing written down - which was an interesting experience...and very enjoyable!! :)

Would it be more frustrating to learn music theory and never use it or to never have bothered and suddenly find you need it ?



.

I'm not entirely sure of what you're saying, but I'm inclined to think that musics of greater complexity (1) were begat by musicians (people) who were hearing it that way. Equal temperment was developed by musicians who understood theory (also people) as a system to accomodate those musics.

I would even buy the idea that whoever came up with equal temperament did so because he/she was a roadie who got tired of hauling so many instruments around and had a good ear.

Maybe then after all the fun to get that keyboard to sound decent in at least a few more keys, he/she worked backwards to some "rule" to talk about at an after party.

Originally posted by IainT:
Would it be more frustrating to learn music theory and never use it or to never have bothered and suddenly find you need it ?

I think it's more frustrating to not learn it then find you need it. If you find yourself learning all of this theory, it will only serve you as a musician no matter what kind of situation you play in. The important part is learning theory as a language, if you learn this stuff on your instrument it will make alot of sense and help you learn your instrument.

Isn't the point that only the bridge to this tune was major 3rd key centre movement, but that Coltrane took this "theoretical" concept and applied it to whole tunes like Giant Steps.

Nonsense. A device is a device is a device. Repeating its use is as old as music.

So maybe what Howard is alluding to, is that Coltrane took a "music theory" concept and created a more "challenging" style of music, by re-harmonising standards like Body and Soul, How high the Moon etc. using major 3rd key centre motion ?

I have no idea what you're talking about. But you're going to explain to me with specific chord citations and recording info how Trane reharmonized How High the Moon with major 3rd key centre motion, aren't you?

Sorry to be bursting balloons here, but Giant Steps was lifted from the release of Have You Met Miss Jones, written in the early 1930's.

Sure the idea probably came partly from this tune, but Coltrane took it to a whole new level. Maybe he wasn't the first to improvise on these changes, but how he did it was just amazing.
And funny thing is Giant Steps was just one of the "innovations" in his career. If his career had stopped after the release of that record he would still be considered a great musician today...

/lovebown

I'm just going to throw my 2wo cents in without reading any of the other posts...

Is music theory important? Well when you learn to read a book, is it important to know what the sounds you are saying mean?

I think this is a really good analogy. Music is a language that exists outside of any theory or notation. It's pure thought or energy as perceived by the brain, and it triggers all sorts of stuff.

The word love, or the word rain can trigger all differnt kinds of emotions, thoughts and smells.

A V chord can do the same, but it's true meaning comes in context.
Now you can speak without ever going to grammer school, and you can know intuitivly that a certain sentance will end with a certain set of words. Knowing grammer can allow you to know the structure of a sentance, and appreciate a "poorly constructed" sentance, and allow figure out what makes it sound the way it does.

You can learn to read and make sounds, but you can't say what you are reading with any conviction unless you know how to speak first.

Intution is everything, theory is learning why you felt what you did.

I would even buy the idea that whoever came up with equal temperament did so because he/she was a roadie who got tired of hauling so many instruments around and had a good ear.

Maybe then after all the fun to get that keyboard to sound decent in at least a few more keys, he/she worked backwards to some "rule" to talk about at an after party.
:D Humor is a Good Thing.

Teenage Pat Martino: "Wes, what was that you just played?"
Mr. Montgomery: "I don't know, Pat, but I liked it."
Point taken, Dr Sherry, though on that level, we'd have to take it to the judge, Mr Buddy Montgomery in LA (lost his ph #.) Buddy would most sincerely have a keen sense of awareness as to Wes' harmonic knowledge. Anyway, why is Wes going to give it up to this young freak, Pat? Heck no!

I can't hear Buddy Montgomery's name without making a comment about the whole Montgomery family. I don't know about brother Monk Montgomery, but Wes and Buddy were something else...I assume Buddy's still around, but these guys, like Errol Garner, Buddy Rich, Wes and Buddy had no idea what the hell they were doing!
The first time I worked with Buddy, it was a festival and we had to back a singer who had these charts that took up two music stands. I didn't know Buddy didn't read...Buddy cut the show cold just faking it and listening a little to me.
People like this just kill me....Talking theory to people like this is well, meaningless. Flip Nunez was another one!

Oh man...Flip! He came onto a cruise ship gig I had once. The average age of the passengers was "deceased". Some old dude came up and requested some forgotten moldy oldie. Flip turned it into the most raucous, over-the-top salsa workout I've ever heard. He had the band in stitches. The audience was mostly dumbfounded, but WE had a blast.

I have known a few of those who have little or no training and are amazing players that can do about anything.

I think they know plenty about theory. They just don't speak the same language as others.

Is theory the study of the nature of music or the study of the language used to define and discuss the nature of music? I would argue the former.

Those who are self-taught, ear-only phenoms are no less educated than the most brilliant PhD on the planet. Their knowledge is proven in their playing.

They just think the tonic is something that goes with the Gin.

Chas, i'm one of those guys....I can tell chordal players pretty much what i'm using in an area of a tune in simple terms and even up to b5's and stuff, but i'd be in deep trouble if i'd really have to explain it. I can always spell it out on the bass, so no problem. As far as reading, I just barely muddle through.
My ears have served me well.
Marcus,I was thinking you might have known Flip. Did you know Sinatra recorded one of his tunes? I loved Flip... what a sweetheart!

I have no idea what you're talking about. But you're going to explain to me with specific chord citations and recording info how Trane reharmonized How High the Moon with major 3rd key centre motion, aren't you?

Coltrane's "original" tune : 'Satellite' is a re-harmonisation using this approach, of "How High the Moon".

'Satellite' is on this album :

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000002I5I/002-3219297-2073645?v=glance

Which also has a re-harmonised "Body and Soul". The specific chords used in the original and Coltrane's re-working (as played by McCoy Tyner) are detailed on page 363 of "the Jazz Theory Book".

Chas, i'm one of those guys....I can tell chordal players pretty much what i'm using in an area of a tune in simple terms and even up to b5's and stuff, but i'd be in deep trouble if i'd really have to explain it. I can always spell it out on the bass, so no problem. As far as reading, I just barely muddle through.
My ears have served me well.



And who can argue with this, with the results being what they are? I've long believed that folks who have gotten as far as Mr. WARMBATON without much in the way of formal theoretical training still "know" theory, but have absorbed it intuitively rather than by conscious study. I firmly believe that this way is the deepest path to "the goal" of being able to hear and create music in the moment. Whether you study the music in a conscious theoretical (scientific way) or not, the goal is to get to the point where the information becomes an intuitive process that is triggered by musical sound. How that process of "programming the sounds into the intuition" is less important than the result. I believe it can be done both ways. For most mortals, a combination seems to work best. :)

I've long believed that folks who have gotten as far as Mr. WARMBATON without much in the way of formal theoretical training still "know" theory, but have absorbed it intuitively rather than by conscious study. I firmly believe that this way is the deepest path to "the goal" of being able to hear and create music in the moment. Whether you study the music in a conscious theoretical (scientific way) or not, the goal is to get to the point where the information becomes an intuitive process that is triggered by musical sound. How that process of "programming the sounds into the intuition" is less important than the result. I believe it can be done both ways. For most mortals, a combination seems to work best. :)

I would agree with this 100% Chris and it makes a lot of sense to me - I mentioned elsewhere how I was involved in Training and Personnel policy and one of the "scientific" approaches that I studied was about "learning styles".

So as an enlightened employer (!) you recognise that everybody has a preferred style of learning and you can't just apply one method to all and get similarly, satisfactory results.

I see this as very much applying to learning music - so some people are just not cut out for sitting in a classroom and absorbing facts and others don't get motivated by private solitary study....etc.

I know for myself that I'm never happy until I know why something works and have dissected it and pinned it down to my satisfaction - whereas other people I know, are happy that something works and don't care why and are just entirely practical.

I think the thing is to take an active part in designing your own preferred plan of study, based on honest self-awareness - I don't believe you can expect that somebody else can tell you what is the best way for you to study successfully.

So - some people will see music theory as an academic exercise and approach it that way and others will not be interested in this kind of thing at all and will just see it as part of "music", that they have learnt entirely through practical application.

As you say Chris - it would be reasonable to expect that most people will want or need, a bit of both.....?

As you say Chris - it would be reasonable to expect that most people will want or need, a bit of both.....?

I think I can agree with that statement as long as the word "most" is taken at face value - almost like saying, "The only absolute is that there are no absolutes!". Each person is different, and absorbs information differently.

I got my butt kicked royally on a gig this weekend by a light with a lot more wattage behind it than mine currently (no pun intended) has. My response to the situation has been and will continue to be to experience the experience in real time and then analyze later. Specifically, in this case there were some rhythmic things thrown my way that blinded me temporarily to the point where I lost my connection to the underlying shapes and forms. Over the next few weeks as I collect the various recordings of the two nights, I'll listen back to try to discover specifically what the things were that threw me, then work on those concepts. The next time I find myself in a similar situation, I'll have more experience to draw from by way of coping...but while I'm playing, I'll still try not to think at all and just be completely in that moment. In other words, I'll use my dissection of what happened this weekend to help program my intuition, but once the playing situation comes up again, I'll just simply rely on what is already there and programmed. To me, that's what the process is about. Others may spend more time on the analytical part, about the same, or skip it entirely - it just depends on the person.

Each person is different, and absorbs information differently.



That's exactly what I was saying - that no one method of studying music is going to be successful for every person and only you can decide what is best for you - somebody else saying, this worked for me is essentially irrelevant, although it can of course be a good pointer for ways that do work and you may well be able to take on board what you need, if you can apply it to your own experience(s).

But just because it worked for another person, doesn't mean it will necessarily work for you!

I had this happen to me semi-recently too Chris. One of the things my old group used to do to bring it back from a set break was our drummer would get his Groovebox thing going with a beat and a bassline. I never knew what it would be, but I would have to come in with it after a minute and kind of transition from Groovebox to live music, and he would slowly fade out the electronica. Well this night in particular he chose to do something polyrhythmic with the drums and bass, and I couldn't quite latch on to the rhythm, which in turn made me lose track of the chords. I finally just found something super simple that seemed to work ok and stuck with it, but needless to say, we moved on quickly. It's kind of a scary/humliating experience, although that's mostly internal to the band - the audience never quite knows unless you start grimacing and hitting really bad note choices.

I think at the time I felt pissed at our drummer for what I felt was an attempt to undermine me, but obviously in retrospect this is quite paranoid! It was one of a few things that encouraged me to really start working on my listening at home.

And we all know of course that Coltrane began writing "Giant Steps" by applying his concept to the bassline; actually the first part of the tune to be written...

Originally posted by Bruce Linfeild:
But just because it worked for another person, doesn't mean it will necessarily work for you!

I agree with this, but as long as one reaches the desired result of playing their music then hey it's all good.
But on the other hand I think saying at times "well this method just doesn't work for me so..." is just too easy. Someone needs to bite the bullet and just try to learn regardless of wether a particular method works for them or not.

. . but as long as one reaches the desired result of playing their music then hey it's all good . . .

I think this is the real key. What is your desired level of expectation for yourself and what are others expecting?

I play with different people and each has a different approach as to how the shape the musical idea. Some will just play through a tune a couple of times and go with the "jump in when you can and hang on" approach. Others will provide charts, and others will give me a disk and say "we're doing track 4 on Wednesday."

It is very common for me to perform a tune that I have only ran through once or twice at the most. Often I haven't even heard it before. You just can't survive in these cases without some knowledge of theory whether it be intuitive or formal.

In my case, it is blended. I spent many years as an ear-only player when playing only EBG and over time picked up the more formal language to understand and discuss theory. Since beginning DB study with a teacher, (and frankly spending too much time reading theory threads here at TB) the learning has been seriously accelerated.

I think people often associate the term "Music Theory" with the more complex aspects of the science and never consider that things like common chord progressions and forms, leading tones, etc., stuff that they use everyday playing even the simplest of tunes, is just as much a part of theory.

Saying theory is not useful should be alikened to saying math is not useful because you never have occasion to use calculus.

But other times, I'm given the sheets and expected to play EXACTLY what is written on them. In these cases, the player is simply an interface between the sheets and the instrument. As long as you are playing the notes that are on the page, you are fine. Theory isn't part of the equation.

Some stay here all the time and are fine with it. My wife, for example, plays piano absolutely beautifully. She can play the finest and/or most complex classical and contemporary works with ultimate control over every aspect of the piece and execute it flawlessly. But if you ask her to play a Cmaj7 chord, she honestly has no clue what you are talking about. She is literally a human extension to turn any piano into a player piano.

Her ability to sight read is amazing, but obviously she is quite limited in her usefulness as a pianist. I can't even use her to bang out notes for vocal harmonies without actually naming the notes in the chord. It is really kind of sad that 13 years lessons lead her to this.

But I do love to hear her play.

I know a violinist who is the same way, she has the ability to read anything the first time and make it sound great, she had good ears too she was able to cop most things she heard and play them. I've heard her playing jazz a few times, man was that painful. She had no concept of creating melodies that had anything to do with the changes being played. This is one of the reasons I believe in knowing theory, it informs your intuition when playing improvised music in the context of functional harmony.

Coltrane's "original" tune : 'Satellite' is a re-harmonisation using this approach, of "How High the Moon".

'Satellite' is on this album :

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000002I5I/002-3219297-2073645?v=glance

Which also has a re-harmonised "Body and Soul". The specific chords used in the original and Coltrane's re-working (as played by McCoy Tyner) are detailed on page 363 of "the Jazz Theory Book".

I misspoke; please spare me buying a book. Everybody knows the changes to How High and Body & Soul. How 'bout just telling me the bars and the where the major 3rd key center motion is. There's only 16 bars to worry about in Moon.

Personally, I believe theory is a lot more important than most players give it credit for. However, I also believe that theory encompasses everything we do. While the formal method is usually the best for true understanding, even a musically illiterate performer may know theory. He may not know that the interval between C and B forms a major seventh, but through his experiences he will understand how to use and resolve this interval. There's a certain amount of innate theory we all have in us; even a non musician knows that a tritone sounds :eek:.

Whenever someone says that they play with emotion and don't use theory, I always laugh. This type of person is usually the lead guitarist who's stuck in the magical land of minor pentatonics, which are in fact part of music theory. The problem with this sort of thinking is that it's a completely ridiculous notion. After all, if all one needed to write good music was *emotion*, then how come there aren't any stunning 12 year old lead guitarists/bassists/etc. writing incredible solos? Most of the good musicians who play with their heart are fairly old... not because it takes years to develop your soul and truly bond with your instrument, but because it took them years of trial and error before they realized what sounds good. Learning theory is a much more direct approach.

Nevertheless, there are plenty of great musicians out there who don't know theory, I know of quite a few myself. Most of these people learned what sounds right through lots of experience. They don't know what an inversion is, yet they still use them. However, you can only BS your way so far. In a rock context, you don't really need to know much theory at all. It helps quite a bit, but you can get away without it. In jazz, it's a little tougher. You may be able to resolve a powerchord just by knowing how it sounds, but try working with multiple instruments, stacked chords, inversions, etc. It gets to the point where it becomes impossible to keep track of things without actually understanding them. Writing a symphony is even harder. There are some who have written amazing classical music without any theoretical knowledge, but for each of them there are half a dozen Bachs, Beethovens, Schoenbergs, Rumplesteins, etc.

He may not know that the interval between C and B forms a minor seventh, but through his experiences he will understand how to use and resolve this interval. Euh.. I do not want to nitpick, but unless you are german, the interval between C and B is a MAJOR seventh. (In Germany the B flat equals B, and B natural equals H). Just had to point that out, sorry...

Vincent

One of the key elements of humanity's development is the ability to quantify, summarize, organize and create a universal means of communication for learned knowledge.

Caveman's son didn't have figure out that flint would flake to a sharp edge because his dad showed him.

The written alphabet didn't allow for the creation of anything (except itself) but simply provided a means of recording that already known and to be created.

I really see Theory as just that, a means of understanding musical creation. The language of music if you will.

It is possible for a group of people to gather and accomplish about anything, but it will be much tougher if they all speak different languages.

The image of the tower of Babel comes to mind . . .

The idea being that the less time spent trying to figure out what someone else has already, the more time you have to figure out something new.

Euh.. I do not want to nitpick, but unless you are german, the interval between C and B is a MAJOR seventh. (In Germany the B flat equals B, and B natural equals H). Just had to point that out, sorry...

Vincent

ummm... sure, I'm German! Hmmm... guess I must have missed that major/minor thing :hmm:

ummm... sure, I'm German! Hmmm... guess I must have missed that major/minor thing :hmm:
People, the interval between C and B is a minor 2nd.

Taste the Soup!

People, the interval between C and B is a minor 2nd.


Couldn't agree more. But what is it if you're German?

Couldn't agree more. But what is it if you're German?
A major second. And of course you all know that the major seventh and minor second interval are complementary, i.e. they have the same note names. So we are all correct, unless we know the absolute values of the tones (that is, if we know which of the two is the higher one).

Vincent

You'd have to be able to read my mind to know that.

You'd have to be able to read my mind to know that.
:ninja:

Couldn't agree more. But what is it if you're German?
moll 2nd ?

....I can tell chordal players pretty much what i'm using in an area of a tune in simple terms and even up to b5's and stuff, but i'd be in deep trouble if i'd really have to explain it. I can always spell it out on the bass, so no problem. As far as reading, I just barely muddle through. My ears have served me well.


That's one of the most encouraging things I read on here in ages.

I've long believed that folks who have gotten as far as Mr. WARMBATON without much in the way of formal theoretical training still "know" theory, but have absorbed it intuitively rather than by conscious study.

Kinda related... I bought my ex-housemate a cheap bass about a year ago for his birthday as he was always playing around with mine before he moved out. I went round his house last night and he'd taught himself perfect pitch. Honestly I tested him like 10 times and he say 7 right and the rest within a semi-tone! It cant have been luck, he even guessed the pitch of a random cup correctly!
He said "I thought that all musicians could tell one pitch from another, so I taught myself to recognise them"! Mad huh! :)

This is a great thread that should continue. Now that April 15th is behind me, I have time to add my own 1.5 cents.

First, I'm woefully deficient in theory. I started playing bass entirely by ear, then taught myself to sight read. Now I'm cramming to learn more theory. I LOVE jazz, and really enjoy listening to different bassist's approach to a song, but I find myself always wondering "why does this work, or that not sound just right?". It just feels that to have a thorough appreciation of jazz I need to have a better understanding of chordal structure, harmonics, etc. So, the inquisitive side of me is still very hungry. I liken it to someone learning a second language. (Yes, I agree. It IS a second language.) It is one thing to know the words. It is quite another to know how they should be put together to convey the meaning you wish to convey.

On the flip side, I know that when I play, it is from the heart and from what I hear in my head. I've been told I have a "good ear" and I seem to intuitively know where a song is going. I don't fear that I'll ever lose that, once I figure out the theory. (I enjoyed reading Chris make this point far better than I could)

In the end, it seems playing bass, being an "artist", musicianship, is a never-ending quest of challenge and discovery. Theory is but one more tool in this grander scheme, and one that I am willing to challenge myself to discover. Still looking for the right teacher.

The feedback on this thread has been extremely helpful.

This is a great thread that should continue.
First, I'm woefully deficient in theory. It just feels that to have a thorough appreciation of jazz I need to have a better understanding of chordal structure, harmonics, etc. So, the inquisitive side of me is still very hungry. I liken it to someone learning a second language. (Yes, I agree. It IS a second language.) It is one thing to know the words. It is quite another to know how they should be put together to convey the meaning you wish to convey.
On the flip side, I know that when I play, it is from the heart and from what I hear in my head. I've been told I have a "good ear" and I seem to intuitively know where a song is going. I don't fear that I'll ever lose that, once I figure out the theory. In the end, it seems playing bass, being an "artist", musicianship, is a never-ending quest of challenge and discovery. Theory is but one more tool in this grander scheme, and one that I am willing to challenge myself to discover. Still looking for the right teacher.
The feedback on this thread has been extremely helpful.

Michael, i'm involved in another thread right now about "Re-Harmonization" I just made a point over there about people re-harmonizing tunes to the point of not knowing the original changes to a tune.
I like what you said (above) but the one missing ingredient on this thread AS well AS the other about re-harmonization is TASTE. Once you have the tools to do all this stuff, Taste is the final ingredient. We've all known players whose knowledge and ability are unquestionable, but their taste is up their ***. These people tend to abuse their abilities and trash stuff out. This, of course, is akin to playing too many notes!

Once you have the tools to do all this stuff, Taste is the final ingredient. We've all known players whose knowledge and ability are unquestionable, but their taste is up their ***. These people tend to abuse their abilities and trash stuff out. This, of course, is akin to playing too many notes!

Word. The next time some "clever" ***hole decides to play Trane subs behind the bass solo, I'm going to simply stop playing and say, "Sorry - how rude of me to be cluttering up your solo. Carry on without me".

Paul and Chris - I agree whole-heartedly. I've heard some musicians overwhelm a song to the point of obnoxiousness. To me, the sign of a great bassist is someone who is comfortable/confident enought with their abilities that they can play just what they need to in order to "fit the tune" . . . with TASTE.
When ALL the members of a band can do this, the song becomes a truly majical experience.

magical

I kind of liked majical better... it was more creative :hiding:

He said "I thought that all musicians could tell one pitch from another, so I taught myself to recognise them"! Mad huh! :)


I wonder how he did that?

I'm sure that it can be done. I found that I've been able to recognize chords even, like when they are the first chord of a tune I've been playing alot.

Like my combo was playing "Light Blue" by monk alot, and it starts on Fmaj7... I was just bumming around the music hall, when sombody else was learning a tune on piano that starts on Fmaj7, and I just jumped and asked them, my heart all aflutter, "IS THAT AN F MAJOR SEVEN?!" and they said, "yeah..."

But I was pretty proud of me! I've been trying to train myself to recognize an A 440, which is coming along pretty okay...

Ha, I just got up and tested it, by singing the note and then using the a 440 on my metronome, and I was a little sharp, but within the boundary of a quarter tone.

Wait, I think I just answered my own question. I think if you just try and learn one note at a time from memory, you'll get it. You'll be wrong alot (It's taken me a year to get where I am on the A 440 thing.) and then it just becomes easier. It startles me too, when I recognize pitches. I can usually recognize when a tune is in C too. That tends to be more of a gut feeling thing than a jumping recognition thing, and it's kind of dodgy as to how accurate I am, but I'm still working on it.

Why do you want to have perfect pitch?

Why do you want to have perfect pitch?


The ability to recognize pitches can come in handy at times, especially when you play in a trio where the leader doesn't always clue you in on things like what tune you're about to play, or what key the tune is in. There's a thread on the subject lying around here someplace...

Why do you want to have perfect pitch?


Cool party trick.

NO really, it comes in hand when transcribing and stuff, or when realizing a lick on the spot, etc.

I was asking because I have found that most people that have perfect pitch don't want it and those that don't do. I think PP fits into the category of "be careful what you wish for, you might get it". Do you know anyone with PP that plays a transposing intrument besides DB (ie; tenor sax, alto sax, etc.)?
It is a great debate over which is more useful, developing PP or developing good relative pitch.
"Talk amongst yourselves."-Linda Richman

I think that perfect pitch will be more of a problem for people who just ended up with it naturally at a young age. It's so much a part of them that notes which are slightly off really get to them (or so I hear). A person who just went and learned it is more likely to be comfortable saying, "Okay, we're all about a quarter tone off the actual pitch, but that's fine." Of course, I'm just guessing, but I might be right.

Word. The next time some "clever" ***hole decides to play Trane subs behind the bass solo, I'm going to simply stop playing and say, "Sorry - how rude of me to be cluttering up your solo. Carry on without me".

I pulled something like that (very politely) with a piano player and he said "well, if you want me play simpler or even lay out... why did I bring by s***". Neddless to say, I don't play with him much anymore.

theory is the ladder I can climb when I'm playing any style of music. It makes it less boring, and it fits. Think of music as a pair of pants with legs a mile long. You can't fit your legs (playing) around them unless you have a proper tailor. Theory is the tailor that lets the music fit with you in any way possible

sry, that was random but i see what you guys mean. whenever I am given a solo with my group of friends it always is a short solo where they dont really pay attention to it

:D Humor is a Good Thing.

Yes, but… look! (http://www.killermovies.com/dvd/do.php/2862.html)

;)

- Wil

Probably the biggest obstacle in understanding this issue comes from the issue of self consciousness, which really is like going back to an Adam & Eveish kind of appraisal of the human condition which metaphorically associates this with the devil :cool: . You can’t create well when you think about it. You can’t meditate when you think about meditating and you can’t sleep if you try to think yourself to sleep. And you can’t play a good solo if every time you play something the little Warner Bros. figures of your own iconic jazz angels and devils appear on your shoulders. You also can’t judge yourself accurately if you are micromanaging and hyper vigilant of your own processing and progress. I’m sure Coltrane would just giggle if he heard all the students religiously practicing and playing his 1235 in sequences and descending bebop dominant scales. Both out of flattery and perhaps his inspired hope that the student would be able to create something personally meaningful and original by the absorption and repetition of this approach.

At some point trust in the process has to give way. Musical theory is like any other communicative medium -that is not about the act of creating a work of art for the purpose of its own appraisal as such-(jeez that was ugly) , it can be inspiring, thought provoking a means of inspiring excitement, dialogue, new actions, etc. But it should not be mistaken for the act of creation itself. That is up to the individual-who will hopefully be inspired, creative and uninhibited by his intellect. The knowledge is out there and the more inspiring the teacher, the better it is for everybody else. The fact that there are so many theories and approaches that can coexist just attests to the depth of the art and perhaps it’s reflection of the relativistic nature of reality.

Practicing what you preach is the hardest. I think many, including myself, can often get on the soapbox when I probably should’ve gone into the practice room. Like now. Oh well I’m at work..so I have an excuse.
:hmm: