Playing by ear versus playing by theory

[SpawnofHastur]

Understand that this is a hypothetical question/discussion. I am not intending in any way to justify ignoring ear training OR theory- I simply asking what your perspective is on this 'issue', and to give you my own.

Say we've got two bass players- each being a platonic representation of a specific extreme. On one end, we've got a bassist who knows no theory whatsoever: he couldn't tell you the form of the C major scale, and nor could he play it for you, but he can play plenty of songs by ear and can compose and play along with other people due to his ear skill.

On the other end, we've got a bassist who is an absolute expert in music theory. He knows what to play over a certain chord, knows all the chords and arpeggios, knows more scales and how they fit together than you can shake a stick at. The only problem is that he's got a tin ear: he can't tell the difference between one note and another; he enjoys music, but he couldn't even play Happy Birthday by ear if he tried.

(As a side note: I know that the second example is almost completely impossible: most people, having picked up music theory, have at least some ability to play by ear.)

The question is: which player is in a better position? Is the player who is completely ignorant of theory, but able to play by ear in a better place musically than the guy who knows, through theory, exactly what notes to play to get interesting sounds?

My own personal perspective on this (just an opinion, of course) is that the first bassist, the fellow who knows no theory, is in a better place. I've been spending a lot of my time reading about ear training recently because, well, I don't like using tab and I'm not very good at reading. And some stuff that I've come across has just made really think that having a good ear is much more important than knowing theory. I'm currently working on my ear, and vocal improvisation and other such things, so that I can 'hear' a song or line in my head and then play it on the bass.

Something I've seen in more than a few interviews with jazz greats is that they all stress the need to 'hear' the notes before you play them- to know where a solo is going, by ear. A saxophonist, Greg Fishman, has said the following:

Some students learn to play a diminished whole-tone scale when they see an altered dominant chord, and so they are going to play it because it is the "correct" thing to do. The problem with that is that it's meaningless if they arrive at those note choices by theory alone, and not by ear. I call this phenomenon "empty note playing." These are notes without specific harmonic intent. The notes may be technically correct, but they won't be as convincingly played as the same notes arrived at by a gut-level, emotional feeling to play those particular sounds.

That really resonated with me, and made me really want to work on being able to improvise vocally and then translate it to the bass- hopefully to the degree that I can forgo the vocal aspect of it and just hear it in my head and play it.

What are your perspectives? (I'm going to admit that I predict a landslide preference for the ear player in the situation given, and I repeat: I think ear training and theory should both be learned, instead of just focussing on one or the other).

[fdeck]

This is simply an absurd dichotomy. And it depends on the musical situation that each player is placed in. The ear guy would be hosed if he were thrust into a jazz gig.

In reality, I think it would be prohibitively difficult for someone with a tin ear to learn theory, because they would simply have no motivation, and no way to experience the physical basis of theory, such as consonance and dissonance.

Now, for "empty note playing," my opinion is that this is a common symptom of someone who is just beginning to learn improvisation. It's always awkward at first. Give it time.

Chances are, you are in little danger of learning theory at the expense of being able to play musically, so don't let that stop you from learning theory if you are interested in it.

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by fdeck

This is simply an absurd dichotomy.

I would have stopped right there.

[mcm]

ear is the only way imo

[mrtorian]

You must know the rules in order to bend or break them. Theory helps. Period. No argument.

Conversely lots get by without theory, but you cannot be great without a good ear. Folks with good ears and no theory know theory. They just don't know it as theory.

[Bloodtoes]

I think it's two means to the same end. Learning theory helps you skip past a -lot- of trial and error by standing on the shoulders of those who have come before and who have done the hard work already. It's my feeling that someone with an amazing ear knows the theory better than he or she really realizes and just got there the hard way. As such, that person understands the music in their own terms which can be a hinderance in articulating musical ideas to other musicians.

Just my opinion. =)

[adamrobertt]

Originally Posted by fdeck

This is simply an absurd dichotomy. And it depends on the musical situation that each player is placed in. The ear guy would be hosed if he were thrust into a jazz gig.

It's interesting that you say this, since the quote in the original post is from a jazz musician.

Do you really think that every single jazz musician knows theory inside and out? I can tell you right now that they don't.

Originally Posted by Bloodtoes

I think it's two means to the same end. Learning theory helps you skip past a -lot- of trial and error by standing on the shoulders of those who have come before and who have done the hard work already. It's my feeling that someone with an amazing ear knows the theory better than he or she really realizes and just got there the hard way. As such, that person understands the music in their own terms which can be a hinderance in articulating musical ideas to other musicians.

Just my opinion. =)

I really agree with this.

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by adamrobertt

It's interesting that you say this, since the quote in the original post is from a jazz musician.

Do you really think that every single jazz musician knows theory inside and out? I can tell you right now that they don't.

The vast majority of them do.

[adamrobertt]

Originally Posted by JimmyM

The vast majority of them do.

Right. But it's not impossible to play jazz well without it.

Not that it matters anyway, because a lot of jazz is the same pointless wanking that shred gutarists do, just in a different format.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by adamrobertt

It's interesting that you say this, since the quote in the original post is from a jazz musician.

Me too. I think that since the OP mentioned reading as a roadblock, I lumped it together with theory. What I should have said was that the non-reader would have been hosed in a jazz gig. I would have a tough time learning jazz and building a reputation without knowing how to read.

Do you really think that every single jazz musician knows theory inside and out? I can tell you right now that they don't.

Actually, I am relatively weak on theory.

[Renaissance]

Thankfully we don't have to settle for one or the other - but if we did, I would take the ear. I think Einstein said it best - "Imagination is more important than knowledge".

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by fdeck

Actually, I am relatively weak on theory.

I seriously doubt that. Maybe you're not one of those guys who sees chord changes and knows what mode to play over it every time, but a guy who plays as well as you certainly has a grasp on it, even if you don't apply it on gigs.

[Ed Fuqua]

If you think folks like Yo Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlamn aren't hearing the music that they happen to be playing, you are laboring under a serious misconception.

The thing that Greg is talking about is something I harp on constantly, you can't plug and play. You have to be able to create meaning with the vocabulary you have buy actually HEARING how it functions in the 'aural landscape" you're a part of when you play music. It's not all THIS or all THAT, it's everything all at the same time - you have to hear it clearly enough that you know what you're hearing and how it functions and have the wherewithal to get it out into the air without your instrument being an impediment. If you leave out one or more legs of that tripod, you are not going to be able to fulfill your potential as a musician.

And sitting around trying to justify not shedding ANY part of this by coming with fanciful "what ifs" isn't going to get you there either.

[Jazz Ad]

Meh. I love meaningless questions.
What's the best, a driver who can only use the accelerator or one who can only use the clutch?

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by Jazz Ad

What's the best, a driver who can only use the accelerator or one who can only use the clutch?

A very eloquent way to put it.

[Datsgor]

Originally Posted by SpawnofHastur

The question is: which player is in a better position?

Answer: The guy who knows how to play by ear. He can always learn theory.

[tobie]

I think a well expierenced 'reader' eventually develops into a good 'player by ear'. Such a guy is streets ahead of a player who can do only one of the two. The 'player by ear' will have difficulty in knowing in advance whether a major / minor chord is being played during chord progressions, specially on a song he has never heard before (and new songs are fact of life). Another advantage of a 'reader' is that he'll most probably advance to a 2nd / 3rd instrument much easier than the player-by-ear. All he needs to know is where the notes are on the other instrument (for example on a keyboard) and away he goes.

By the way, I'm neither of the two. I play mostly from chord charts.

[MrGotBass]

Originally Posted by mrtorian

Folks with good ears and no theory know theory. They just don't know it as theory.

+1 for truth

While I certainly don't have great ears (yet) this certainly applies to me. Before I knew any theory other than the penatonic scale, I could still pick up on the shapes and patterns being played and knew that no matter what, they sounded pretty good together. I never thought of things as being thirds or fifths or anything like that, but I did know that if I played one note, the note that was two frets down and one string up sounded good if played together.

[JimmyM]

Originally Posted by tobie

I think a well expierenced 'reader' eventually develops into a good 'player by ear'.

Exactly. Eddie Farquar said the same thing basically.

[SpawnofHastur]

I acknowledged in my first post that this is an impossible situation, or, if not impossible, so incredibly improbable that the difference is moot. I have a penchant for philosophy; In observing a situation that's impossible, I like to think about which one is better.

As for my reading skills...I can't read on bass. I can read music no problem, but I can't translate it to bass- yet. I've been playing music since I was 8; that's more than half my rather short life. Which is why, I think, I prefer ear training- while I can't read and put it onto bass, my ear has been honed at least somewhat by those 10 years of playing music such that learning songs by ear is still challenging, but not frustrating.

I'm not trying to say that this situation is possible. It IS impossible; I acknowledge that. I just want to see what you think. Call the thread a result of boredom.