Kid don't know a lick of theory but can groove like a...

[fountain boy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPwPuS7ZXFo

There's a comment that Jaco made in his instructional video about cats that are born with natural talent that causes me to be depessed every time i pull out his tape (which is maybe once or twice a year) and view it.

However, truer words haven't been spoke. Learning how to play the instrument first, is seemingly superior, or appears to be a superior undertaking, as opposed to setting out & cramming your head with theortical rules & patterns.

Although this young man sounds like every other 'healing handed gospel bass player' out there, his note choices and phrasing appear to be something that is beyond him in years.

I wonder if he could expound on some of those pockets he went into, or has he just learned to 'parrot' what he's been inudated with hearing every sunday?

What's your analysis on this great video? Acquaint him with theory, or not stifle him with rigorous & overbearing rules?

I mean jr. seems to be playing quite well and is really musical.

[MrBorisSpider]

The trouble with theory is that it's like a house. You're safe in that house, but you are stuck within four walls. Spend less time with scales and more transcribing song as well as stuff in one's 'mental ear' and doodling. That's how you get better and sound like yourself. As far as groove is concerned http://wwwxx.bassplayer.com/article/...e/jul-06/21984 (take out the xx part for the link).

The kid probably has perfect pitch or has grown up around a lot of music.

[Radek]

I have known a guitarist with seemingly perfect timing. He has never been training with metronome and I couldn't understand how?
(has some other deficiencies thought)

Some people get such things naturally. Some other have to train hard to get them. The latter case may be depressing but usually gives more flexible skills in the end.

[Visirale]

His blood line doesn't hurt either. I think having any kind of regular lessons with Gouche would help anyone, haha.

[mutedeity]

Originally Posted by MrBorisSpider

The trouble with theory is that it's like a house. You're safe in that house, but you are stuck within four walls. Spend less time with scales and more transcribing song as well as stuff in one's 'mental ear' and doodling. That's how you get better and sound like yourself. As far as groove is concerned http://wwwxx.bassplayer.com/article/...e/jul-06/21984 (take out the xx part for the link).

The kid probably has perfect pitch or has grown up around a lot of music.

This is nonsense. I have been playing for about 20 years and I spent half of that time with no theoretical knowledge and I can tell you beyond any doubt that I have more options now that I have developed my theory.

[EDIT] By the way theory is not a set of rules, it is an analytical tool to understanding and communicating musical ideas. If you treat theory as a set of rules then you will be confined by the rules you impose upon yourself. You will also be confined to the aural rules of what sounds "right" when you don't have any real theoretical reference. There are very few exceptions to this and those exceptions are people that have developed a personal "library" of musical ideas that in itself is a type of theory anyway.

As far a Jaco Pastorius goes, I think a lot of people take what he said out of context. Pastorius himself had a well developed theoretical knowledge, albeit self taught. Self taught on the other hand doesn't mean theoretically ignorant, as I have said many times before, it means self directed in learning.

[Valerus]

It can go both ways. You can know your theory and have no groove or vice versa.

But if it were up to me, theory would never hurt, but help a player.

[fourstringdrums]

I'm going to go lay down now...

I will never understand musicians like this, and I ACHE to be one. Those who just know and feel the instrument. I don't know if I just need to spend more time shedding and get a feel for the instrument or if I'm one of those who is lost without even basic theory. I think that it should be so simple to just be able to have a basic understanding of the instrument and play it well even if you don't know jack about theory, but I'm finding it ever increasingly difficult.

[D.Don]

This will forever be a dead end discussion. Some people just have the ear, some people don't, this is the way it is and that makes theory vs. ear something that is completely depending on the player, ie. there is no "golden way" ...

Kid's got cool style!


D.Don

[Martin Bormann]

Originally Posted by mutedeity

This is nonsense. I have been playing for about 20 years and I spent half of that time with no theoretical knowledge and I can tell you beyond any doubt that I have more options now that I have developed my theory.

[EDIT] By the way theory is not a set of rules, it is an analytical tool to understanding and communicating musical ideas. If you treat theory as a set of rules then you will be confined by the rules you impose upon yourself. You will also be confined to the aural rules of what sounds "right" when you don't have any real theoretical reference. There are very few exceptions to this and those exceptions are people that have developed a personal "library" of musical ideas that in itself is a type of theory anyway.

As far a Jaco Pastorius goes, I think a lot of people take what he said out of context. Pastorius himself had a well developed theoretical knowledge, albeit self taught. Self taught on the other hand doesn't mean theoretically ignorant, as I have said many times before, it means self directed in learning.

Well, don't you find it ironic the people who claim you have fewer options studying theory, are the same people who follow the "tracing paper" approach to music?

I believe people who try to argue against theory studies never studied it beyond the fundamentals. So all they ever received were the "rules" rather than understanding it is more a way of learning how to interpret and analyze thus creating more awareness. But those are the same ****ers who believe in natural talent.

[Dr. Cheese]

That kid is clearly gifted and has been exposed to a bunch of music by his bass playing Dad. THe mere fact he is playing a Warrior lets me know that this is not the average kid bassist (who would probably have one of those Ibanez bass and amp packs they sell at GC.) BTW, where did it say that the youngster knows no theory?

[D.Don]

Originally Posted by Martin Bormann

Well, don't you find it ironic the people who claim you have fewer options studying theory, are the same people who follow the "tracing paper" approach to music?

I believe people who try to argue against theory studies never studied it beyond the fundamentals. So all they ever received were the "rules" rather than understanding it is more a way of learning how to interpret and analyze thus creating more awareness. But those are the same ****ers who believe in natural talent.

Ok?

"those are the same ****ers who believe in natural talent"..

I dont know what the **** stands for, and I also don't believe one can ignore the fact that there are truly talented people who go way beyond without using scientific tools. As with any kind of expressive occupation may it be arts, acting, music, literature or whatever, some people just don't need the framework since their inner expressions cross any obstacles automatically to get to the top, or even over it.

(And as far as I have been able to read out about Jaco, he didnt know theory from the start, that was something he had to fight with during his career to be able to share his music with other musicians and so forth, he said it himself , 'I learned playing the bass by looking at what other people play, and by listening to what they did' .. ").


;P

D.Don

[Elemetal]

What kinda bass is he using.

[Dr Illing]

Originally Posted by Elemetal

What kinda bass is he using.

It looks like a conklin

[MrBorisSpider]

Originally Posted by Martin Bormann

Well, don't you find it ironic the people who claim you have fewer options studying theory, are the same people who follow the "tracing paper" approach to music?

I believe people who try to argue against theory studies never studied it beyond the fundamentals. So all they ever received were the "rules" rather than understanding it is more a way of learning how to interpret and analyze thus creating more awareness. But those are the same ****ers who believe in natural talent.

Rather than bite on your attempt to troll me, I'll simply say my thoughts on theory:

You should know enough to play what you hear in your hear or what you hear on a recording if you want to cover it. Then you should be able to communicate these ideas to other musicians and non-musicians alike.

Copying favourite bassists is a common thing for a newer player. You learn a lot about different interpretations of rythmn, time and feel. More importantly, you learn what works and what doesn't.

With some theory you will also know why and thus, be able to apply it into your own playing. Even if you don't like a player, you can figure out why you don't like their style.

Besides, I find it ironic that some of the most acclaimed bassists of today spend pretty much their entire career playing standards/like someone else. They have the generic fretless tone and sound like they're running scales instead of playing a song.

[MarkMyWordsXx]

maybe if he knew theory some of those riffs would relate to eachother.

dont get me wrong, it was cool but it was random parts played back to back

[HaVIC5]

Originally Posted by MrBorisSpider

The trouble with theory is that it's like a house. You're safe in that house, but you are stuck within four walls. Spend less time with scales and more transcribing song as well as stuff in one's 'mental ear' and doodling. That's how you get better and sound like yourself. As far as groove is concerned http://wwwxx.bassplayer.com/article/...e/jul-06/21984 (take out the xx part for the link).

The kid probably has perfect pitch or has grown up around a lot of music.

That's utterly ridiculous, the notion that theory keeps you stuck. That's like saying "well, since you know what a noun is, you're ability to speak convincingly has been hindered."

[MrBorisSpider]

Originally Posted by HaVIC5

That's utterly ridiculous, the notion that theory keeps you stuck. That's like saying "well, since you know what a noun is, you're ability to speak convincingly has been hindered."

Au contraire. Music is different from speaking English in the context you're using. Nouns are a part of fuctional English. Poetry, a form of art in language, doesn't nessecarily follow convention and rules. Jaberwocky comes to mind as a famous example. It makes no sense and breaks so many rules and yet is a classic.

[MrBorisSpider]

Originally Posted by HaVIC5

That's utterly ridiculous, the notion that theory keeps you stuck. That's like saying "well, since you know what a noun is, you're ability to speak convincingly has been hindered."

I'd also like to point out that you should have used 'your' (the possesive) as opposed to 'you're' the contraction of you are (not a possesive). Try to have a better grasp of the example you're trying to disprove me with next time .

[MrBorisSpider]

One last thought:

Music is often called a language. I believe that's wrong because it makes music seem like it's purely functional. For example, I am using language to convey this point. Music is more like poetry. You have several guides; Haiku etc. However, it's up to you to find it in you to fill in the gaps and express yourself. Perhaps that's why many bassist sound like technicians, not musicians. It's all technique and no soul.

[onlyclave]

Just in case you were wondering, "music theory" is nothing more than giving names to sounds that repeat in the musical idiom. That's all. There is no magic or secrets in it. It's just names of things.

Secondly, as far as this kid in the video goes his concept of music theory is strictly pentatonic. Kind of boring actually.