Thinking theory

[Mark Kleinhaut]

Hi guys, just perusing this section of the forum and impressed with how much knowledge resides here. As a guy who doesn’t spend anytime whatsoever thinking this way, it’s all quite mentally challenging to follow. I mean, I understand what I’m reading and it’s all familiar and such, but then it’s also distant and removed from my own experience and practice. I spend hours a day playing guitar, but I just never think this way about it. So, feel like quite an outsider

[Jimmy blue note]

Knowing the reasons and underlying logic and form of anything is at once enormously empowering because it opens up doors where hidden options can inform elegant simplicity. It's also a huge responsibility to take that knowledge, make it personal, and then to impart a sense of intention and beauty.
I often think that a little knowledge and theory can either provide avenues of growth to what you play through feel, or it can just as easily be an ocean wherein you lose what you had in being drowned in a seductive sea of options.

Funny thing, Mark, the things that come naturally have their own logic. It's just finding the appropriate bit of knowledge you can marry yourself to, and taking the time to see how you can grow from it.
I love having a community of like minded players to grow with. It helps to hear things when they're reflected back through someone else's lens.
Too bad we're not neighbors.

[Mark Kleinhaut]

Knowing the reasons and underlying logic and form of anything is at once enormously empowering because it opens up doors where hidden options can inform elegant simplicity. It's also a huge responsibility to take that knowledge, make it personal, and then to impart a sense of intention and beauty.
I often think that a little knowledge and theory can either provide avenues of growth to what you play through feel, or it can just as easily be an ocean wherein you lose what you had in being drowned in a seductive sea of options.

Funny thing, Mark, the things that come naturally have their own logic. It's just finding the appropriate bit of knowledge you can marry yourself to, and taking the time to see how you can grow from it.
I love having a community of like minded players to grow with. It helps to hear things when they're reflected back through someone else's lens.
Too bad we're not neighbors.

I agree. Knowing and understanding immensely powerful fuel we rely on to create art af any kind. That said, in what language?

[Tal_175]

I think what people call "theory" is the aspect of music they haven't internalized yet or internalized differently. Once something becomes a natural part of how you see music, it doesn't feel like "theory" as it becomes obvious and simple.

Every musician (especially jazz musician) has their own process and organization that's obvious to them because they cultivated it over many years. But when they talk about it, it may sound complex and detached to someone who has a different organization.

[Jimmy blue note]

I agree. Knowing and understanding immensely powerful fuel we rely on to create art af any kind. That said, in what language?

When people connect, it's many languages simultaneously. Not to obfuscate your original thought, but when we play for people, a room full of people will have a room full of ways you're reaching them. How many are aware of what you're thinking? How many are touched by what you're feeling? How many are being moved by things you don't even intend when you're playing?
If you're playing a guitar in a way you own, you've gotten to the core magic, and I daresay miles ahead of the player who's seeing theory as an ill fitting track suit they're yet to break in.
It takes a lifetime to be yourself. At that point, theory and language were merely stepping stones.

Your videos have that quality: the elements of space, pacing and progression that can't be taught. One day you may decide there's something ephemeral in someone else's playing you'd like to explore. Theory can be a conduit at that point.
The more I know, the more it becomes apparent that there's SO much more I can learn.
It's feast and the healthy guest is the one who picks what they need and uses it to grow.

[Christian Miller]

Music theory is banal and prosaic, and makes limited (if often helpful) observations about music. It is sometimes sold as some sort of transcendent absolute truth. Especially on YouTube where videos about music do better than videos of music, or even videos on how to make music.

(I say this is a sometime practitioner of this dismal trade. I try to keep it anchored in practice.)

Some (we call them musicians) prefer to deal with music in its raw state and dive in. Others prefer to categorise aspects of music in order to systemetise their understanding. The latter is fine and even helpful, but the first aspect has to enter into the picture. Or you end up playing what Keith Swanwick called 'pseudomusic' which is to say music unanchored from human social context. Or maybe, no music at all.

Jazz, like classical music, is very vulnerable to these things.

Truth is I think it's reasonable to say music theory is a simplification of music that pretends to be a distillation.

So if I look at a bunch of Parker lines on a D7b9 and observe most of the notes belong to a thing called the G harmonic minor scale I am making a reduction of that music into music theory terms. Not all combinations of notes from G harmonic minor will make a cool bebop line - which is the problem of much conventional jazz theory - it makes the simplification and sells it as a neat little package, but expects the student musician to fill in the other bits. Without a good teacher the student may not realise the magnitude of 'the other bits' being, you know, basically 99% of music.

Another example are Raags in Indian music, where we can compare the scales we might write out of these in books, as opposed to how they are actually taught.

If someone asked me what a scale is, I say a melody that has been 'boringed up.'

Of course there's many ways we can look at a Parker line - we might observe that the rhythmic accents tie into something called a 2-3 clave, for instance. We might look at the relation of the notes to chord tones of D7, or see what melodic aspects they have in common, and so on and so forth.

All might teach us something, but none of it is the music in its totality, even if its a small fragment of 6 or 7 notes!

If I was to advocate for theory I would say it is useful when it encourages a different way to look at things. There is a bit of tendency for people to get wedded to one approach. I feel this about analysing things in terms of chord progressions always, for example, the most common approach to musical analysis today, and so common people often think of that simply as 'theory' when it is merely 'a theory' (therefore an incomplete picture.)

[Mark Kleinhaut]

The point is well taken, that we use theory to communicate and exchange musical ideas with each other, but it’s a curious thing that we make such academic rigor around something that is ultimately ephemeral. Also, music is a language in of itself and we use THAT language to communicate all the time. It’s what it’s actually for. If we were to discuss the nuances of the French language would we do so in English rather than French itself?

[voyage]

Knowing the reasons and underlying logic and form of anything is at once enormously empowering because it opens up doors where hidden options can inform elegant simplicity. It's also a huge responsibility to take that knowledge, make it personal, and then to impart a sense of intention and beauty.
I often think that a little knowledge and theory can either provide avenues of growth to what you play through feel, or it can just as easily be an ocean wherein you lose what you had in being drowned in a seductive sea of options.

Funny thing, Mark, the things that come naturally have their own logic. It's just finding the appropriate bit of knowledge you can marry yourself to, and taking the time to see how you can grow from it.
I love having a community of like minded players to grow with. It helps to hear things when they're reflected back through someone else's lens.
Too bad we're not neighbors.

That was one heck of a post. Taking the ocean of theory and turning it into your own thing.

[Tal_175]

The point is well taken, that we use theory to communicate and exchange musical ideas with each other, but it’s a curious thing that we make such academic rigor around something that is ultimately ephemeral. Also, music is a language in of itself and we use THAT language to communicate all the time. It’s what it’s actually for. If we were to discuss the nuances of the French language would we do so in English rather than French itself?

Can you please give an example of a music theory concept that represents what you refer to as academic rigor? I think the term theory is a very loose concept. To some, the chord symbol G7b9 is theory, for others it's 350 page Phd thesis on Schenkerian analysis. I think due to this difficulty of defining what constitutes theory, a lot of the theory threads on this forum end up with people talking over each other and strawmanning pedagogical organizations.

[dconeill]

I trained as a geophysicist, a sort of geologist, and my attitude toward theory derives from that.

To me, "theory" isn't a set of absolute rules that must be followed. Rather, it's a set of observations about what has worked in the past. It's useful if you want to understand what has worked, and it's handy to help you work your way through musical problems that have been solved previously. But it in no way limits what you can innovate.

"Theory" isn't necessary to make music; but it can save you time by allowing you not to re-do work that has been done already.

The problem with it, from my viewpoint, is that you have to be able to accept the description of a particular music problem and also to accept the "theoretical" solution, even if you don't understand how the previous musician figured out that particular solution. It's that acceptance of problem/solution pairs without the intervening work that bothers me.

[wolflen]

Hi guys, just perusing this section of the forum and impressed with how much knowledge resides here. As a guy who doesn’t spend anytime whatsoever thinking this way, it’s all quite mentally challenging to follow. I mean, I understand what I’m reading and it’s all familiar and such, but then it’s also distant and removed from my own experience and practice. I spend hours a day playing guitar, but I just never think this way about it. So, feel like quite an outsider

Mark you are hardly an outsider..if you had not told us your take on theory..one might assume by your playing, you have absorbed much of it.

Strange thing about how we might think a players knowledge of music theory is somehow related to their playing ability. Some what like..if you were blind how could you see the fretboard?

and of course..your playing inspires me to unlock some of your playing "tricks" by using theory..or just plain hard work!

[Mark Kleinhaut]

Mark you are hardly an outsider..if you had not told us your take on theory..one might assume by your playing, you have absorbed much of it.

Strange thing about how we might think a players knowledge of music theory is somehow related to their playing ability. Some what like..if you were blind how could you see the fretboard?

and of course..your playing inspires me to unlock some of your playing "tricks" by using theory..or just plain hard work!

thanks. I have absorbed a considerable depth of knowledge about playing jazz guitar, but not in any sort of theoretical way. I use the instrument as the laboratory for trying out zillions of different things, keeping what works, discarding other things. Endlessly combining and recombining, pulling things apart and starting all over. In other words, everything is practical and hands on. If i get a certain sound, texture, sequence or whatever that works in one spot of one tune, it’s going to work everywhere, every tune, any key etc. vocabulary and language coupled with a sense of flow, style and taste. But not one bit of it ever came out of a book- it’s completely aural, so there’s no translation outside of the langue of the music itself. I got a music degree many moons ago, but it’s all long forgotten.

[Bobby Timmons]

In general a sensible write up from your music first perspective, however 2 key fallacies.

Music theory is banal and prosaic, and makes limited (if often helpful) observations about music.

Music theory is absolutely not prosaic - lacking poetic beauty - by definition. Base music theory applied ignorantly has a prosaic effect, however applied theory applied correctly and expertly is not. It can achieve any type of authentic/musical/beautiful effect, just add intention and inspiration.

Some (we call them musicians) prefer to deal with music in its raw state and dive in. Others prefer to categorise aspects of music in order to systemetise their understanding. The latter is fine and even helpful, but the first aspect has to enter into the picture. Or you end up playing what Keith Swanwick called 'pseudomusic' which is to say music unanchored from human social context. Or maybe, no music at all.

The first aspect of dealing with music authentically is essential, yes. But another requirement that is overlooked is that for music to have a positive effect on the listener, it must be fundamentally sound. For musicians to learn how to achieve a level of play where they can deliver legitimate, listenable, fundamentally sound music, some amount of a theory fundamental knowledge base is usually required, except for the very talented. So authentic musicality is required, but usually so is theory.

----

I think you would benefit from studying with a master. I used to kind of think theory was banal by definition and I needed some sort of musical magic to make it happen. After studying with Tony Monaco, I realized how that wasn't true. He'd demonstrate little base theory topics and they'd sound incredibly musical because he'd execute them so well. He said top players sound the way they do because they've disciplined themselves to play the music correctly.

Hank Jones also said his pianist influences always played the correct chords. Not personally my favorite approach, but many greats do strictly adhere to theory.

15:45

PS: I kind of miss Kris calling me the theorist lol.

[Bop Head]

In general a sensible write up from your music first perspective, however 2 key fallacies.

Music theory is absolutely not prosaic - lacking poetic beauty - by definition. Base music theory applied ignorantly has a prosaic effect, however applied theory applied correctly and expertly is not. It can achieve any type of authentic/musical/beautiful effect, just add intention and inspiration.

The first aspect of dealing with music authentically is essential, yes. But another requirement that is overlooked is that for music to have a positive effect on the listener, it must be fundamentally sound. For musicians to learn how to achieve a level of play where they can deliver legitimate, listenable, fundamentally sound music, some amount of a theory fundamental knowledge base is usually required, except for the very talented. So authentic musicality is required, but usually so is theory.

----

I think you would benefit from studying with a master. I used to kind of think theory was banal by definition and I needed some sort of musical magic to make it happen. After studying with Tony Monaco, I realized how that wasn't true. He'd demonstrate little base theory topics and they'd sound incredibly musical because he'd execute them so well. He said top players sound the way they do because they've disciplined themselves to play the music correctly.

Hank Jones also said his pianist influences always played the correct chords. Not personally my favorite approach, but many greats do strictly adhere to theory.

15:45

PS: I kind of miss Kris calling me the theorist lol.

Could you please elaborate in your own words what you think Hank Jones is talking about at ca. 15:45? I do not get the connection to theory.

[Bobby Timmons]

He was going over some of his favorite pianists and influences: Art Tatum, Teddy Wilson, Fats Waller. He said he liked how they always played the correct chords and implied that he took that from them and adopted it into his own style. That doesn't absolutely necessarily mean he was talking about the changes in theoretical terms, but I think it practically does. And it shows that he liked the organization of the changes being played correctly. So it means he thinks theory is positive.

[pamosmusic]

He was going over some of his favorite pianists and influences: Art Tatum, Teddy Wilson, Fats Waller. He said he liked how they always played the correct chords and implied that he took that from them and adopted it into his own style. That doesn't absolutely necessarily mean he knew the theoretical terms for the changes, but I think it practically does. And it shows that he liked the organization of the changes being played correctly. So it means he thinks theory is positive.

Hmm. Not sure I really think that’s what that means.

Usually I think of theory as organizing music using terminology and conceptual frameworks.

You can not give a rats ass about any of that and still know the changes.

For me … Barry would be a bit less interested in theory … you can play #IVdim7 here because it is a beautiful movement back to I and sounds great and people do it.

Theory would be the explanation … it’s a leading tone to the V chord and usually leads back to the I chord in second inversion, which can be considered a V chord in 6-5 4-3 suspension (or whatever).

So I don’t really think knowing the common practice terms for major musical concepts necessarily means that someone has a theory-forward concept of practicing.

[Bobby Timmons]

I mean I guess you can say that. Do you really think that was his thinking though? He likes the harmonic structure neatly organized.. but theory absolutely doesn't accompany facilitating that at all? Lol. Kind of a stretch.

[pamosmusic]

I mean I guess you can say that. Do you really think that was his thinking though? He likes the harmonic structure neatly organized.. but theory absolutely doesn't accompany facilitating that at all? Lol. Kind of a stretch.

I mean BH knew the shit out of theory, it just seems obvious to me that he’s not terribly interested in it once he gets to a place where it’s practical.

Knowing theory and really organizing the music on that basis are two very different things to me.

Pat Martino: theory cat.
Wes Montgomery: ear cat.

But Pat obviously had a monster ear. And of course there’s plenty of evidence that Wes could and would speak the language when it helped him communicate, it just doesn’t really seem like he preferred to organize the sounds in his head that way.

[Bobby Timmons]

That's Hank Jones sir.

You got so excited to be mad at theory, you thought Hank Jones was BH lol!

[Bobby Timmons]

Wes Montgomery: ear cat.

Are you sure about that? :P

14:55

[pamosmusic]

Are you sure about that? :P

14:55

Okay ... I mean ... I'm not "sure about that," because I'm not in his head. Transcriptions and stuff show a lot of generalizing and a lot of side-slipping and really guitaristic stuff that makes me think he probably organized things around his ear, even though he understood what was happening in the music too.

Your standard for what constitutes being "a theory guy" though is quite different than mine, I think.

You're posting videos of people making like ... any reference at all to harmony. That to me would be more like literacy. Like, Faulkner was obviously not a grammar guy, even though he clearly knew well how to read and understood the rules. George Orwell on the other hand clearly valued grammar and construction quite a lot, though he also had an ear for cadence and poetry. (I need to ditch this analogy before I jump the shark).

Wes knew what he was playing. This is beyond doubt. There are also videos where you can hear him quite clearly refer to the harmonic positions of chords and stuff. It just seems like he didn't really organize the music based on theoretical constructs. If an ear player doesn't even talk about the names of chords or what key they're in, then you'd be hard pressed to find a jazz guy who is an ear player. Stan Getz, I believe was one of those. I'm sure there are others too, but not many, particularly post 1940.

Contrast that Wes video with this one:

No one is saying Pat didn't have an ear. But I'd wager he sat down with a pencil and paper fairly often when he was exploring new sounds.

[Bobby Timmons]

That's true, we don't know how they thought. They obviously used some combination of both because they're talking in theory and they can play. Can't play with no ear.

My original point was countering Christian's point that theory on its own isn't musical. Yet Hank Jones says he likes the tunes structured with all the right chords. Meaning he likes this chord here and this chord here and this chord here, and these are the names of the chords. I'm pretty sure that's theory, and I'm pretty sure that's a great talking about theory as a positive influence to his musicality. Unless you're postulating that he thought of the chords as this chord that sounds like this and this chord that sounds like that..

[pamosmusic]

Unless you're postulating that he thought of the chords as this chord that sounds like this and this chord that sounds like that..

I mean ... he might be.

I'd be pretty confident that Hank Jones knows what notes go in what chords and what chords tend to do which things etc etc etc. But ...

I don't think he's saying "I like tunes that have all the chords in the places where those chords tend to function given their diatonic purpose."

I think he's saying "I like pianists who play the goddam chords that are supposed to be in the tune." Which honestly to mean seems like a dig at guys who sub and expand the harmony too much. Which would actually sort of read as being not super into an overly theoretical way of thinking about harmony.

But I don't know.

This I think kind of reinforces Christian's point about this not really being a super useful dichotomy. Everyone uses their ear. Theory is a way of accessing the ear, and some people use it more than others.

[Bobby Timmons]

I think he's saying "I like pianists who play the goddam chords that are supposed to be in the tune." Which honestly to mean seems like a dig at guys who sub and expand the harmony too much. Which would actually sort of read as being not super into an overly theoretical way of thinking about harmony.

Yeah no, I absolutely think he's saying that. That's still a theoretical approach though. I doubt he was feral about that organization.

This I think kind of reinforces Christian's point about this not really being a super useful dichotomy. Everyone uses their ear. Theory is a way of accessing the ear, and some people use it more than others.

Theory is also a way of accessing the music. Ear doesn't have a monopoly on music, since most good musicians are fluent because of some sort of theory knowledge base.

[pamosmusic]

That's Hank Jones sir.

You got so excited to be mad at theory, you thought Hank Jones was BH lol!

Nope. Sure didn't. I mentioned Barry in my earlier post. He was an example of someone I could think of who obviously knew tons of theory but also didn't really seem too hung up on organizing things or explaining things that way.

And I'm not "mad at theory" (sweet lord, this whole thing again).

Honestly ... I super organize things using theory. I love that shit. I don't think I have a naturally strong ear, so I always have to work on training it, so theory is the first stop on that train. I also find it a good way to get inside someone else's head. I can't understand the way someone hears, but I can understand the way someone thinks.

I think I'm just not sure what you consider to be a theoretical approach to music (I guess I should've just let someone answer Tal before going for it myself). Maybe it would be useful to know of an example or three of people who aren't theory guys in your conception.

I think by my understanding of Stan Getz, he would qualify. But who else? I mean ... does it have to be someone who is literally like "f*** chords" or something?