Jeff Berlin Discussing Music Ed

[JeffBerlin]

.

I offer a challenge to anybody to submit a list of skilled musicians who never studied music at all.

Good point! It can't be done! Everybody studied with someone or from something. Frankly, the only let-down in music education has been teachers and the ridiculous methods that guys believe in today. Exampe. everyone in the 60's had time enough to get what many today are seeking, a career as a musician and the ability to play in time with other players, even if that time is moving. Live music ALWAYS moves, but this doesn't mean that these guys, or anybody else couldn't play if they learned how. Many today don't know how to play and interestingly, don't even know it.

 

[rosanne]

Paul had at his disposal a very trained musician in the persona of his producer, Sir George Martin, so he and the other Beatles had their own apprenticeship experience. Of course, they were Rock Stars when they did it

Also, Paul's father was a musician who taught him quite a bit.

 

[JeffBerlin]

Hey Jeff!
I'm woodshedding, and going over some things 'your style'.
I'm investigating the V chord in minor. I'd previously been taught either, diminished whole tone, Diminished, or Phrygian major over this chord. I started taking the various chords to the seventh degree (i.e. 7+5 7-5 and some of the substitute triads to get the altered 9ths in) and worked through the leading tones, upper approaches and enclosure of chord tone (upper scale tone to leading tone to chord tone) etc. Much like the chord studies for bass (I did the saxaphone version on guitar many years ago)

I understand your point! Lots of material without scales. Thank you so much for your insights.

Good luck! Chords and the chordtones, and the3n eventually the tensions over the chords will keep you busy for a long long time in the practice room. In Charlie Banacos' memory, when I get back from Italy, I am going to start studying hard again because this is hùwhat he stood for, good old fasioned roll-up-your-sleeves work.

 

[JeffBerlin]

It doesn't matter which famous bassists have studied 'formally' and which haven't. I want to improve as a musician, and that means constant work...I can make lists to justify my own personal moments of lazyness, but that isn't going to light a fire under me to be motivated to learn. There are alot of great musicians who've never opened a theory book. That doesn't make it ok for ME not to open one.

If we want to improve, we have to work hard, period. I'm happy if someone is where they want to be musically....but I'm not. So instead of dismissing learning theory because Paul McCartney never needed it, I will continue to work on my musicianship. I never understand why someone would criticize someone else for seeking knowledge.

Never compare yourself and your progress to that of another musician. There are lots of guys who studied and who aren't well known and there are lots of guys who didn't study and aren't well known either. The idea is for you to remember that YOU are studying to improve in music, forget the gigs, forget the studio, forget it all. If you aren't willing to learn just because you wish to improve as a player for its own sake, then you probably won't improve much at all. These aren't my rules! Everybody who improves in music works hard to do it, without exception.

 

[Roy Vogt]

First off, +1 to all the stuff that lead of to the phrase I am quoting.

As for criticizing someone for seeking knowledge - I don't think that's really the proper frame. To me it's when people seem to think that learning theory will make them more musical people will chime in and say things like "you don't NEED theory to be musical". While it will definitely put more tools in their kits as musicians, like a metronome, it won't make them more musical. So thinking they "need to learn theory" to become more musical is a little misguided. To become more musically aware?

Some people seem to feel that the reason they cannot write appealing songs is because they don't "understand modes" and if only they'd learn the modes, they'd suddenly become more musical in their writing.

While learning more about anything is never a bad thing, thinking it's what's going to turn you into a musician is also somewhat wrong-headed. As many have stated, there are plenty of examples of musicians who write incredible music and who don't "use theory" to do so. That's not to say they don't end up creating songs that can be reverse engineered to identify all the 'theoretically correct' content therein, but they didn't sit down and say, "I'm going to compose a song using the Dorian mode and the cycle of 4ths" - they may have just started playing something that was appealing while being rather oblivious to exactly what it was in relation to the academic side of music.



That doesn't stop them from being musical just like knowing the academic side of things isn't necessarily going to make them more musical.

I should hope no one just uses only theory to write a song, that strikes me as too much like getting a Thesaurus and a Dictionary and setting out to write a short story or novel or poem. That's not to say that those tools won't make the end result better, but you have to have an idea of where to take it to.
That being said, Leni Stern has several songs on her CDs where she was using one or another concepts from her lessons with the late Charlie Banacos (boy I HATE saying that! ) and they became the springboard for the creative process.
I've had a similar adventure where I used an idea from Nicholas Slominsky's Thesaurus of Scales and Melodic Patterns as a launching point for a composition. Of course, you have to turn off the Left Brain and let the Right Brain do what it does

 

[tZer]

I should hope no one just uses only theory to write a song, that strikes me as too much like getting a Thesaurus and a Dictionary and setting out to write a short story or novel or poem. That's not to say that those tools won't make the end result better, but you have to have an idea of where to take it to.
That being said, Leni Stern has several songs on her CDs where she was using one or another concepts from her lessons with the late Charlie Banacos (boy I HATE saying that! ) and they became the springboard for the creative process.
I've had a similar adventure where I used an idea from Nicholas Slominsky's Thesaurus of Scales and Melodic Patterns as a launching point for a composition. Of course, you have to turn off the Left Brain and let the Right Brain do what it does

Exactly. When people say things like "I want to learn about theory because I think that will make me write better songs" - I think it is putting way too much stock on what have specific knowledge will 'do' for you. It won't 'do' anything. It'll provide you with more tools that you may or may not use to create music, but simply knowing theory or studying music per se, while it will put many more tools in your kit, it won't make you do anything.

I certainly do agree that many great pieces of music have been spawned out of 'theoretical exercises' and ANYTHING, a thesaurus, dictionary, pitch pipe, CAN become a springboard for an incredible composition.

But it's not music theory that makes you more musical. It's translating the music that's in your head to the page and ultimately your performance that will. You may know lots of theory, you may not know any, you may not know what you know and/or don't know - but you can be musical independent of knowing/not knowing the academic aspects of music.

But people who 'criticize' people for 'wanting to learn more about music theory' is a bit of a mis-categorization of what many people who are saying 'theory isn't needed' are actually saying or when people say, 'You don't need to learn theory...' - I've found that is usually in response to people who seem to think that learning theory holds the secret key to them becoming a musician and by extension, more musical.

Knowledge can't make you do anything. Not knowing something is not necessarily going to prevent you from being able to do something just as knowing something is not going to automatically make you able to do something with it.

 

[Fergie Fulton]

Knowledge can't make you do anything. Not knowing something is not necessarily going to prevent you from being able to do something just as knowing something is not going to automatically make you able to do something with it.

+1 What we have is more choices, far more choices and with that the opportunity of making far more choices, bad and good choices included, about how we use what we have learned.
Just because we have learned something, we do not have to use it, it is our choice what we do with it... use it or not use it.
I don't see ignorance as an excuse in music, but another choice...a bad one.

 

[engedi1]

But people who 'criticize' people for 'wanting to learn more about music theory' is a bit of a mis-categorization of what many people who are saying 'theory isn't needed' are actually saying or when people say, 'You don't need to learn theory...' - I've found that is usually in response to people who seem to think that learning theory holds the secret key to them becoming a musician and by extension, more musical.
.

I think what I react against, is this trend towards anti-intellectualism. This is pretty much unique to Americans, and is why we have the "ugly American" reputation around the world. If this discussion board were happening in Europe, you wouldn't find as much of this anti-learning attitude.
Of course you don't need to know a dang thang about grammar or theory to write a great pop song. Even a blind squirrel find a nut from time to time!
These incredibly lucky people who manage to land an amazing gig or write a great song but don't know anything, probably won't have a long lasting career in music.
I think that this was especially true in the earlier days of rock music, where sex appeal and a decent voice and the ability to play three chords was enough. How many one-hit wonders can you name? Without a musical education, the creative juices don't have enough meat to feed on, to keep the engine going and they just dry up.
I think that if you want to make it in music now, you need to be more versatile, and versatility only comes through knowledge.

As a case in point, The Rolling Stones started their career with Bill Wyman, who spent his whole career just trying to keep up. Now, when they tour, do they go out with a young buck with lots of sex appeal, a crappy bass, and no chops. No, they hire Darryl Jones! They want a pro, who they know can get the job done, because the stakes are too high.

 

[Fergie Fulton]

I think that if you want to make it in music now, you need to be more versatile, and versatility only comes through knowledge.

If the definition of "make it" is fame and fortune, then that is luck with a commercial quality to sell, not talent.

As a case in point, The Rolling Stones started their career with Bill Wyman, who spent his whole career just trying to keep up. Now, when they tour, do they go out with a young buck with lots of sex appeal, a crappy bass, and no chops. No, they hire Darryl Jones! They want a pro, who they know can get the job done, because the stakes are too high.

To the best of my knowledge Bill was always on board and up to scratch.
When he left it was to pursue his love of blues, and since the Stones gave him financial security, he could do it. As for replacing him, when you have the where with all to get the best, you get the best. Darryl was a young buck with sex appeal, he was born as the band was forming in 61, when he took over from Bill. Darryl could easly handle the gig using half of his ability, as any good bassist could, but he's not what the draw is, or even part of it in the minds of the fans, it is the Stones and their music.

 

[tZer]

yep - 'make it' needs to be very specifically defined in order for any statement after to make sense.

I've got friends who I feel have 'made it' and you'll probably never hear of them on MTV or VH1 (not that they'd turn down any opportunities like that) - but they are steadily working doing what they love - playing, writing, arranging, composing, producing music for a living.

By some people's (mine included) definition, that's making it. I've got other friends who play regularly in Vegas flying from MO to NV regularly playing for big crowds on the strip - again, you'll probably never hear of them unless you hit a show in Vegas, but they're entire group is fully employed and they're all able to support their families doing what they love - playing funk, groove, rock, pop, covers for big $$.

Some would call that selling out - others (me included) would call that making it.

 

[engedi1]

If the definition of "make it" is fame and fortune, then that is luck with a commercial quality to sell, not talent.




To the best of my knowledge Bill was always on board and up to scratch.
When he left it was to pursue his love of blues, and since the Stones gave him financial security, he could do it. As for replacing him, when you have the where with all to get the best, you get the best. Darryl was a young buck with sex appeal, he was born as the band was forming in 61, when he took over from Bill. Darryl could easly handle the gig using half of his ability, as any good bassist could, but he's not what the draw is, or even part of it in the minds of the fans, it is the Stones and their music.

When did I say that making it meant rich and famous? I would define "making it" as being able to play music for a living. The countless jobbing session, orchestra, theatre, and touring bass players have "made it" Of course, the 19 year old punk player who doesn't do anything else for a living, but travels with his mates in a beat up Volkswagon and lives off of Cigarettes and beer is not what I mean either. He is not making it, he just has very low standards of living (how I miss those days!) I mean the professional musicians that most of those reading this post aspire to be.
For example, Cirque Du Soliel is looking for a bass player to do 100 dates in 2010. Do you think the guy who wins that audition can't read music, and doesn't know what a ii V I progression is?

You make my point by saying that Darryl could get the gig using only "half his ability" Why is that, because his ability is so huge through years of hardcore jazz. Here is a quote from wikipedia:

"He joined Miles Davis' band in 1983, was mentored as a young jazz musician protege by Davis, and played bass guitar on the Miles Davis albums Decoy (1984) and You're under Arrest (1985). Jones has worked with jazz recording artists Herbie Hancock's Headhunters, Mike Stern, John Scofield, and Steps Ahead, as well as touring pop and rock artists Sting, Peter Gabriel, Madonna, Eric Clapton and Joan Armatrading."

'nuff said. If you want the best paying gig in rock n roll, you better know your &%$*

Although I am not into Dudes in that way, I think he is sexier than Bill Wyman ever could have been.

 

[gai113]

Do you guys recommend i learn jazz by ear or just get a real book and look at the chord changes?

The latter sounds easier but it seems like an easy way out to me...

If i enjoy the challenge of learning how to solo and play by ear(especially jazz) is there something wrong with that?

It seems people laugh at me when i say learn and play jazz by ear.....


Also it takes tremendous patience to learn how to read music especially when you can already play well!!!!

Like jaco said hehe

 

[Fergie Fulton]

For example, Cirque Du Soliel is looking for a bass player to do 100 dates in 2010. Do you think the guy who wins that audition can't read music, and doesn't know what a ii V I progression is?

You make my point by saying that Darryl could get the gig using only "half his ability" Why is that, because his ability is so huge through years of hardcore jazz.

Two sides here, one where you get hired to play a tour because of your ability in the academic side, something you audition for, the other because you could be in the right place at the right time and got asked.
But we agree Darryl is a killer player and the Stones gig is his boat to float.

 

[John Wentzien]

Do you guys recommend i learn jazz by ear or just get a real book and look at the chord changes?

The latter sounds easier but it seems like an easy way out to me...

If i enjoy the challenge of learning how to solo and play by ear(especially jazz) is there something wrong with that?

It seems people laugh at me when i say learn and play jazz by ear.....


Also it takes tremendous patience to learn how to read music especially when you can already play well!!!!

Like jaco said hehe

Jaco did say it was a "drag" to learn to read after he could already play....but that is exactly what he did!
Then he could make the claim that "It aint braggin' if you can back it up"

{edit} He also said it would have been almost impossible to do the Weather Report gig if he didn't have his reading chops together.

 

[engedi1]

Do you guys recommend i learn jazz by ear or just get a real book and look at the chord changes?

The latter sounds easier but it seems like an easy way out to me...

If i enjoy the challenge of learning how to solo and play by ear(especially jazz) is there something wrong with that?

It seems people laugh at me when i say learn and play jazz by ear.....


Also it takes tremendous patience to learn how to read music especially when you can already play well!!!!

Like jaco said hehe

I'll let Jeff answer this, although I know what he'll say! To Fergie I might say that we can never leave out the roll of pure luck. However, luck favors the prepared. My nightmare is getting my lucky break, and not being ready for it, and blowing my chance.

 

[NickyBass]

tZer, I'm talking about the silly arguments that refining one's technique 'hampers their feel,' or learning theory makes someone think too much on the band stand. This is, of course, all false...It is an excuse that people make to justify their laziness, but it comes off as criticism of those who put time into seeking knowledge.

Jeff, what are you working on right now? What was the last big thing to really inspire you? Does your personal life influence your playing?

 

[fdeck]

Do you guys recommend i learn jazz by ear or just get a real book and look at the chord changes?

The latter sounds easier but it seems like an easy way out to me...

If i enjoy the challenge of learning how to solo and play by ear(especially jazz) is there something wrong with that?

It seems people laugh at me when i say learn and play jazz by ear.....

Also it takes tremendous patience to learn how to read music especially when you can already play well!!!!

Like jaco said hehe

I am just a weekend warrior with no formal training in jazz. But I took classical lessons from age six through college, and as a result, am a fluent reader. Reading is like having a "fast forward" button in any musical genre that has an extensive written literature. Being ahead of the curve in reading got me into gigs where I could do a workmanlike job despite not being the best jazz player on the bandstand. The challenge of working in a variety of bands and playing situations greatly hastened my development as a jazz musician. It also helped me build my reputation to the point where I am not at the top, but also not at the bottom, of the call list in my locale. Although I still have infinitely more to learn, and many weaknesses that I would like to overcome, I feel that I have done pretty well "for a day jobber." Today I show up for a lot of gigs with no books, but reading is what got me to this point.

To me, learning jazz by ear seems like it would be a painfully slow and lonesome process. It lends itself poorly to going out and playing with other people. It will make it hard for you to get into the playing situations that would really help you develop as a jazz player. Given the choice between a reader and a non-reader, bands will always choose to work with readers, in order to gain more flexibility on the bandstand and spend less rehearsal time.

Note that I would not recommend my "method" to someone who has the opportunity to receive real training from a teacher. But among those of us who must choose some other path towards learning jazz, I think that learning to read should be a top priority. The reason is not so much rooted in the fundamentals of jazz, but in how jazz seems to work in practical terms.

 

[engedi1]

tZer, I'm talking about the silly arguments that refining one's technique 'hampers their feel,' or learning theory makes someone think too much on the band stand. This is, of course, all false...It is an excuse that people make to justify their laziness, but it comes off as criticism of those who put time into seeking knowledge.

Jeff, what are you working on right now? What was the last big thing to really inspire you? Does your personal life influence your playing?

Great point Nicky! Such arguments are really silly. I have a degree in music, but when I am playing blues or rock, I don't think "here's a plagal cadence" I just play, have fun, and try to listen to everyone really good. Of course, learning how to listen, is probably the most important thing I learned at school, not theory

 

[Roy Vogt]

Do you guys recommend i learn jazz by ear or just get a real book and look at the chord changes?

The latter sounds easier but it seems like an easy way out to me...

If i enjoy the challenge of learning how to solo and play by ear(especially jazz) is there something wrong with that?

It seems people laugh at me when i say learn and play jazz by ear.....


Also it takes tremendous patience to learn how to read music especially when you can already play well!!!!

Like jaco said hehe

Louis Armstrong and Buddy Bolden learned how to improvise by ear, but they could also read music from the experiences in brass bands.
Playing totally by ear is not unlike driving from where I live (Tennessee) to Alaska with no road map. I can eventually get to Alaska, but it will probably take longer and I can get there quicker if I use the road map (or Garmin for you 21st Century types )

It is really frustrating to be a good "street" player and then have to back up and learn to read. Just take your time, start slow and simple. The Real Book is fine, there are also a ton of good methods out there for reading-send me a private message and I'll send you a book list.

If you perservere and become musically literate, you will be that most dangerous of players, musically literate with that "street" feel. Some of my favorite players, including Will Lee and Victor Wooten, are that mix. It's worth it!

 

[Eminentbass]

It really boggles my mind how someone can justify not learning the language of music because it might "hinder their feel". Dali and Picasso did some pretty weird stuff but when looking at their work, it is apparent that they had a grasp of how to work with a brush. Tolkien might not have consciously thought grammar when writing but his vocabulary enabled him to be an amazing storyteller. Learning theory can only help improve a persons ear so that they can play what they hear in their head and even with reading, a person needs "feel" to interpret what's on the paper and make it groove or expressive otherwise they're just joining the dots(pardon the pun).