Do away with dogmatism

[Chris K]

In another thread - and not for the first time - there was a lot of argueing about chords and scales to be used in a particular (jazz) tune. In various other posts the relevance of theory is seriously doubted. I am in neither camp and I would like to give both sides the opportunity to shoot me if I'm wrong.

In many fields of life, theory is invented through practical experience. We find creative solutions for sudden problems. Afterwards we reflect on them, preserving the acquired knowledge. In music also. We play together, we create, experience, reflect, produce theoretical knowledge.

Throughout the centuries, all musical theory was built up this way. We analysed what we thought sounded good, trying to find out why it sounded so good. Unfortunately, throughout the ages, all kinds of authorities - the church, teachers, critics - tried to nail down musicians on the existing theory.

Some of those musicians - the outstanding geniuses - wouldn't let that happen. That doesn't mean they didn't use the knowledge built up before them. They studied, but at the same time they kept their minds open.

Apart from authorities, these creative musicians also had to struggle with audiences, to learn them to like their new music. Thus, over the centuries, our ears have become more and more tolerant. Over the last century or so, the power of musical authorities has declined strongly, the musical scenery becoming more and more democratic.

What does this mean for us? We should study theory, to enable us to stand on the shoulders of the musical giants of the past. But we should also do away with dogmatism, playing music as freely and creatively as we can, and create new theory afterwards, resisting the temptation to impose it on generations coming.

 

[Stempelloos]

Hi,
Some aspects of your writing reminded me of our music teacher in art-school.
He had worked with Brazilian slum-kids in a previous life. One of them was a so called 'outstanding genius', as he described it. He said that true genius rarely occurs and that the meaning of that word is often projected on people that don't really deserve the classification. The differences between a real and a so-called one were obvious to him.
A real one can improve without having had lessons or theory, a so called one can only change what's already there. A true one is like that for life, a fake at times shimmers and may come up with a nice ditty or theory every once so often.
Dogmatism is there for people that can't do without.
It doesn't mean that one can't do without dogma...

 

[BassChuck]

......Dogmatism is there for people that can't do without.
It doesn't mean that one can't do without dogma...

If by 'Dogma' you mean rules (or modes of opperation) then I would have to mildly agree. Rules are fine for learning something and pointing us in generally accepted ways. But as you use them it must be remembered there may be different ways of doing business.

If by 'Dogma' you mean a system of rules that has become a belief or way of working without considering any concepts outside the boundary of that dogma, then I would have to very strongly disagree. Everytime one accepts a dogmatic system, one automatically rules out options that may be important.

We have to be careful that the rules (or dogma) never become more important than the object they observe.

 

[Toronto Bassist]

It's true. I was recently transcribing a walking bass line from Ron Carter on "Rhythm-a-ning" with Freddie Hubbard, and he was hitting all kinds of notes that you shouldn't be able to play over rhythm changes, but he made it work. Also, there's a lesson from Victor Wooten on bassplayer.tv where he solos over a vamp in Gm, playing everything but the notes in the Gm scale - but he played it cleanly and solidly and it sounded better than the sloppy diatonic solo that he also played. So the key, I think, is having good ideas and executing them with confidence.

 

[Stempelloos]

If by 'Dogma' you mean rules (or modes of opperation) then I would have to mildly agree. Rules are fine for learning something and pointing us in generally accepted ways. But as you use them it must be remembered there may be different ways of doing business.

If by 'Dogma' you mean a system of rules that has become a belief or way of working without considering any concepts outside the boundary of that dogma, then I would have to very strongly disagree. Everytime one accepts a dogmatic system, one automatically rules out options that may be important.

We have to be careful that the rules (or dogma) never become more important than the object they observe.

'Exceptions confirm the rule' is what people here generally say about stepping outside a system of rules.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

Chris, I think you're working from a flawed hypothesis. In order to respond with any specificity I'd need to know which thread you're talking about, but reducing the (jazz) world to people who argue about "chords and scales" and others who doubt "the relevance of theory" is a serious mis statement. There's that great Will Lee line "There's three kinds of people in the world, those that can count and those that can't."

If anybody wants to know where I stand on the whole chord/scale approach, just take a quick look through my posts. Suffice it to say the only things that I am dogmatic about are the skill sets necessary to play this music at a somewhat competent level - you HAVE TO be able to hear with enough clarity that you know what you are hearing, whether that's what the other musicians are playing or that line you have going on in your head. If you can't HEAR that clearly (which includes hearing function) you have no hope of getting it out of your head and into the air in real time. You HAVE TO have some understanding of what you are hearing; if someone brings in a lead sheet, you have to be able to internally generate some kind of concept based on what those symbols will sound like to begin playing together (which can free you from the box of only being able to interpret what others have already played).
And you HAVE TO be able to get to these things that you hear clearly and understand and get them out into the air without your instrument being an impediment.
All of which means work on ear training, functional theory and physical approach. Given that, what's the most efficient approach? Well, in pretty much every other field of endeavor (arts included) you start with a pretty codified pedagogical approach. You build a good foundation, you work progressively towards achieving specific skill sets, which in turn give you the foundation for even deeper skill sets.

An interesting parable on this point is a lovely little book called THE DOT AND THE LINE, check that out and let me know what you think.

But to your point, the guys that are deepest into the above mentioned skill sets are also the guys whose playing has the freeist approach to the music...

 

[buddyro57]

I find myself in very unfamiliar territory, agreeing with everything Ed said. I would only add that for any style of music, there is a basis of "common practice", or heritage.... lineage. If you play with a traditional bluegrass group and use a strat with a wah wah, then you are imposing something out of the common practice (Whether that is good or not - well who is to say?).
With jazz, there is a heritage of melodic language (s), and I think one needs to be aware of that history. All the greatest players have some grounding or relationship with that tradition in their playing....it comes from something.
Of course, the players who push that evolution forward are the ones who bring something new to the art form. So it seems that there has to be some balance between innovation and the observance and acknowledgement of what has preceded.
I echo Ed's closing comment

the guys that are deepest into the above-mentioned skill sets are also the guys whose playing has the freest approach to the music...

To me, the most interesting classical composers have been the ones who did approach the craft in a freer and less-pedantic manner. I think of Delius, Roy Harris, Schoenberg, Takemitsu, and others who were largely autodidactic, but who still understood the traditions that they pushed against.
Jon Schwabe

 

[Ed Fuqua]

You can agree with me and still find me an annoying git, if that makes it more familiar...

 

[Chris K]

Dear Ed, I avoided mentioning threads, let alone posts because I do not want to offend anyone. I don't remember reading anything you wrote, let alone that I referred to it. I like your contribution to this discussion, though I HAVE TO partly disagree with you on the HAVE TO part of your post.

I was in a band once with a Hammond organ player. He couldn't read music, chords, tabulature, nothing. He knew nothing about chords. He couldn't even even remember song titles. I often had to sing him four bars of the melody to get him started. But he was awesome. He played spontaneous changes, like substituting Fm with Ab or Abm or Ddim or all of them in one bar. The crazy thing is, after three months I could follow him blindfolded. I wouldn't have traded this experience for a free shipment of all versions of the Real Book.

Of course all of us non-geniuses are smart enough to learn theory to build a good foundation - to stand on giants' shoulders, like I wrote. But too often teachers (as well as some posts on this forum) are getting pretty dogmatic. Use this or that scale, only play root notes there, half notes for the head, walk on solos. So I agree with
Toronto. The ear comes first.

 

[BassChuck]

'Exceptions confirm the rule' is what people here generally say about stepping outside a system of rules.

You know, I've heard that line all my life and I really don't understand what it means.

If an exception to a rule turns out to be a mistake in judgement, then I can see it maybe confirming the rule.....but the thing that would make it a mistake would be an interpretation by someone who already was in favor of the rule, and at that point it really doesn't prove anything.

If an exception to a rule turns out to be a good idea... then it would negate the rule..... at least for the people who thought it was a good idea.

What does it mean to you? (and please, if you think this hijacks the thread don't bother to answer)

 

[Asher S]

In many fields of life, theory is invented through practical experience. We find creative solutions for sudden problems. Afterwards we reflect on them, preserving the acquired knowledge.

I think you're confusing "theory" with "hypothesis". Many theories are strongly rooted in factual, physical evidence. Using music as an example, harmonic theory derived from the major scale is quantitative to the point that we can always make certain claims with absolute certainty, such as "E is the major third of C". There's no debate about this. It's a fact.

Where you might be on to something is those elements of theory that come across more as subjective "rules" which could and should be broken, such as "avoiding" the 4th note in some scales. These are situations that call for more qualitative/subjective consideration rather than quantitative/objective claims. What sounds "wrong" to one musician may sound beautiful to another. There is no way, no should there be a way, to decide who is "right".

 

[Chris K]

I think you're confusing "theory" with "hypothesis". Many theories are strongly rooted in factual, physical evidence. Using music as an example, harmonic theory derived from the major scale is quantitative to the point that we can always make certain claims with absolute certainty, such as "E is the major third of C". There's no debate about this. It's a fact.".

(You're absolutely right for the part that I didn't quote..)

There's nothing quantatative about E being the third to C. It's just a practical agreement made in the early 18th century, called tempered tuning, made popular by Bach through the Well Tempered Clavier.
So until better arguments come up, I keep holding that all musical theory resulted from practical experience in the first place, and that we should keep experimenting outside theory, and not frustrate each other trying to do just that.

 

[Stempelloos]

You know, I've heard that line all my life and I really don't understand what it means.

If an exception to a rule turns out to be a mistake in judgement, then I can see it maybe confirming the rule.....but the thing that would make it a mistake would be an interpretation by someone who already was in favor of the rule, and at that point it really doesn't prove anything.

If an exception to a rule turns out to be a good idea... then it would negate the rule..... at least for the people who thought it was a good idea.

What does it mean to you? (and please, if you think this hijacks the thread don't bother to answer)

It is a confusing line. To me it means that an exception to a rule will show you why there's a rule about certain things in general.
Once you've understood that rule you can make an exception.
The exception is often someone or something that can perform an act that others won't or can't copy.
They're the exception, and what they do confirms the rule for the ones that won't follow. Therefore, exceptions confirm what is the rule.
I hope I'm making myself clear.

 

[Asher S]

(You're absolutely right for the part that I didn't quote..)

There's nothing quantatative about E being the third to C. It's just a practical agreement made in the early 18th century, called tempered tuning, made popular by Bach through the Well Tempered Clavier.
So until better arguments come up, I keep holding that all musical theory resulted from practical experience in the first place, and that we should keep experimenting outside theory, and not frustrate each other trying to do just that.

A major third of a root note is totally quantitative. Pitches are measured values. What I think you're questioning is the convention of calling that exact interval a "major third". Sure, if the major scale had historically been divided into twice as many intervals, the major third might have been called a "major 6th" or something like that, but the convention would still be there, just different.

Questioning convention (or "dogma") is certainly eye-opening and I believe promotes creativity, but convention in itself is not a bad thing: it facilitates communication. So when my band leader calls out certain changes or a specific progression I know what he wants. BUT I am always free to challenge dogma/convention and play outside of the conventional chords/scales... Then the subjectivity comes in and determines whether I'll be asked back!

 

[Chris K]

A major third of a root note is totally quantitative. Pitches are measured values. What I think you're questioning is the convention of calling that exact interval a "major third". Sure, if the major scale had historically been divided into twice as many intervals, the major third might have been called a "major 6th" or something like that, but the convention would still be there, just different.

You're right on the dot calling it a convention, but it's less simple than you might think. I realise I'm running the risk of getting too metaphysical here, but IMHO the structure of music differs greatly from something like Newton's laws. Newton described what (he thought) was physically there.

There is of course the very physical chain of harmonics already discovered by Pythagoras, but the question IF WE LIKE THEM is a totally different matter. In the Gregorian era, music was unison. Later on we started to like (and accept!) polyphonic music. Fifths coming up first, thirds were realively late to get accepted Doing this we were breaking papal laws, mind you! Because at first every novelty was called unconventional, if not diabolic.

My point is: this process is ongoing. It's very good to know something about music history and the theories it generated (you'll notice I'm not totally ignorant of the subject) , but we should avoid to allow it to compromise us.

 

[Asher S]

IMHO the structure of music differs greatly from something like Newton's laws. Newton described what (he thought) was physically there.

"IMHO"... your opinion is subjective relative to physical fact: pitches are described by quantifiable frequencies, i.e. notes, intervals, scales, and chords are all quantifiable, all describable by numbers.

But you mention music in your immediate post quoted here, whereas your original post on this thread targets chords, scales, and theory. This is the crux of my point: theory of chords, scales, harmony etc is quantifiable, and yes, grounded in convention that facilitates communication (so you wouldn't have to sing the tune to your keyboard player!).

BUT, translating that theory into music is where the art is, where the subjectivity lies, and where challenging the dogma not only makes sense but makes all the difference.

 

[Ed Fuqua]

Well, again your making an erroneous division between people who "only know theory, real book reading, non ear players" and " hearfelt folks who only play by ear", that's a false dichotomy. That's not what happens on the stands up here.

But whatever, have fun, I'm out....

 

[mstott25]

It's true. I was recently transcribing a walking bass line from Ron Carter on "Rhythm-a-ning" with Freddie Hubbard, and he was hitting all kinds of notes that you shouldn't be able to play over rhythm changes, but he made it work. Also, there's a lesson from Victor Wooten on bassplayer.tv where he solos over a vamp in Gm, playing everything but the notes in the Gm scale - but he played it cleanly and solidly and it sounded better than the sloppy diatonic solo that he also played. So the key, I think, is having good ideas and executing them with confidence.

That's interesting. I'll have to check that Victor Wooten vid out. I had one of my first jazz teachers do the same thing to me. He only played the notes of a B major scale over an F Blues just to show me how important rhythm, timing, phrasing and feel were. He was playing it on the piano, it kind of rocked my world and I think it goes along with the topic here.

 

[Chris K]

Well, again your making an erroneous division between people who "only know theory, real book reading, non ear players" and " hearfelt folks who only play by ear", that's a false dichotomy. That's not what happens on the stands up here.

But whatever, have fun, I'm out....

I surely didn't mean any dichotomy, maybe just the outside corners of a spectrum. I question the importance of neither theory nor hearing. I only speak against conservatism, sustained by theoretical authority and the frustrations it might cause.

 

[edgewise]

Perhaps you ought to consider a trip down memory lane back to a time when you didn't already know the stuff you wish to forget.

My jazz teacher was telling me about something Dave Holland said. Dave said that he learned by listening and playing along with a "Leroy Vinnegar" album until he knew and could play all of Leroy's notes. He didn't have written anything.

Imagine what kind of a "weeder" that type of learning is?

All of us who don't already have "it" are glad we have "white bread" theory. Training wheels or not.