Theory & Impro Do we really need theory?

[trimmy]

View: http://youtu.be/gg-LADSnkFw

 

[Jez Watson]

@Bernie , i totally get what you are saying ( i think?), its difficult for most people who have used "theory" to help their understanding of music and how to inprovise is a great example of this, to get their head round that you dont need "theory" and maybe to some degree its because thats the most accepted/used path in an age of information and the internet. There may be another side to this point i am making as well and thats about the way that Jazz in particular has become a part of the syllabus of the educational establishments, its very "theory" orientated and this has now become passed down as for want of a better word, an indoctrinated way of teaching/learning?
We only learn the inflections of the language and its use in context by copying /mimicking the great players, which is by listening for the greater part, we then understand the music whether we know the "theory" or not.

 

[Jez Watson]

Please, help me undersanding too.

Undersanding is good, it meens you havent taken too much off🙂

 

[Veggie Dave]

I am saying that you can understand and play music without understanding the theory.

Okay, I know what your argument is.

First off, let's see what the word 'understanding' means.

Collins English Dictionary:
understanding (ˌʌndəˈstændɪŋ )

Definitions

noun

1. the ability to learn, judge, make decisions, etc; intelligence or sense
2. personal opinion or interpretation of a subject ⇒ my understanding of your predicament
3. a mutual agreement or compact, esp an informal or private one
4. (mainly British) an unofficial engagement to be married
5. (philosophy, archaic) the mind, esp the faculty of reason

Now that we know precisely what the word means, we can say with some authority that understanding music and playing music are, while related, vastly different subjects.

My theoretical knowledge isn't too bad, although it's difficult to make any real claim in this respect as it's impossible to know what you don't know. Whatever my level, I could never claim to understand music as that would require levels of theoretical and practical musical knowledge far beyond anything I'm capable of.

As for playing music without theory, to 'not understand' would require the player to have learnt nothing and therefore be unable to make an informed decision. This is what I already explored in my post above and argued was an almost impossible position to have.

So, in short, given the available information the only logical conclusion is that you're wrong and you haven't provided any evidence to prove otherwise, and what little you have posted contradicts your own argument.

Not that it really matters as long as you enjoy playing and learning the way you're doing it but it makes for an interesting discussion.

 

[aldevis]

Undersanding is good, it meens you havent taken too much off🙂

Typo fixed... 🙂

 

[Bernie]

So, in short, given the available information the only logical conclusion is that you're wrong and you haven't provided any evidence to prove otherwise, and what little you have posted contradicts your own argument.

If you would like to practice and perhaps improve in the area of philosophical argumentation, I'd recommend this site.

Philosophy Discussion Forums

 

[Nick Wyver]

If you would like to practice and perhaps improve in the area of philosophical argumentation, I'd recommend this site.

Philosophy Discussion Forums

I think we have a winner in the "How Patronising Can I Be" competition! 🙂

 

[Nick Wyver]

I'd never comform to a group including @Nick Wyver
He thinks that ligatures make no difference

Likewise.

 

[Bernie]

I'll try.
It probably hinges on one's definition of "understand".
I can enjoy listening to a Messiaen symphony but I'm fairly sure I don't understand everything that's going on. It's fair to say that I don't really care that I don't understand - it doesn't spoil my enjoyment.

He got away with an awful lot didn't he, Messiaen! I quite like his Catalogue d'Osieaux Oesiauex Oiseiux his piano pieces which he claims are based on birdsong. I think he got his wife to play them, I reckon he just told her to look serious and bang on the piano keys at random.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qWhpSCHCxg

 

[Veggie Dave]

I think I'm going to bow out of this thread.

Bernie, you're right, everyone else is too stupid to read or understand what you wrote and we're all suffering from groupthink.

 

[Bernie]

I think I'm going to bow out of this thread.

Bernie, you're right, everyone else is too stupid to read or understand what you wrote and we're all suffering from groupthink.

Don't put words in my mouth Dave. Speak for yourself.

 

[Jez Watson]

I think this one is a case of "agreeing to disagree" by the way its going, dont think there is anything i can add, except maybe words in print can come accross as not the way thet are intended! ? take it easy , Jez

 

[Dibbs]

I reckon he just told her to look serious and bang on the piano keys at random.

Here's some theory that might help you understand. https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/6445/2/Kraft-Birdsong_in_the_music_of_Messiaen_VOL2.pdf

 

[Tenor Viol]

He got away with an awful lot didn't he, Messiaen! I quite like his Catalogue d'Osieaux Oesiauex Oiseiux his piano pieces which he claims are based on birdsong. I think he got his wife to play them, I reckon he just told her to look serious and bang on the piano keys at random.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qWhpSCHCxg

Messiaen was well know for bird song being the basis behind much of his organ music. No he didn't bang the keys at random he had a very developed set of theories that he used.

Generally I am not a fan of modernist music as I dislike atonality, but some Messaien is at least interesting. And I've heard quite a lot performed live.

 

[BigMartin]

I encourage my listeners to drink lots of wine.

I think Matthew Stone is combining wine and sax quite successfully here

Indeed. But

1. I'll bet did didn't do much of it while he was learning to play like that.
2. I don't expect he does it every time he plays now. I hope for his sake he doesn't, because as far as I can gather, he plays a lot.

 

[BigMartin]

Yes I agree. I am in general a relaxed person when I play but my lessons were early in the morning and I was hyped up on coffee.

Mmm... caffeine...

(I even had to give up drinking as much coffee as I used to. Started getting headaches whin I missed a cup or two.)

 

[jbtsax]

You still haven't got it jbtsax. You can only understand music through listening. All the information is in the sound.

I'm sorry that you feel that way Bernie. From my vantage point, it is unfortunate that you don't know what you are missing. Music is a wonderfully complex organization of sounds and rhythms. The study of music goes back centuries. The ability to parrot a simple tune one has heard on an instrument is commendable, but does not even scratch the surface of understanding music as a whole.

 

[nigeld]

I looked up the word "Theory"
theory - definition of theory in English from the Oxford dictionary

and it has two different relevant meanings:

1. "A system of ideas intended to explain something" (Formal Theory, e.g. Newtonian Mechanics.)
2. "A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based" (Practical Theory, e.g. How to catch a ball.)

So a dog catching a ball is not using Formal Theory (solving written-down differential equations), but it is using Practical Theory (a falling ball increases in vertical velocity and decreases in horizontal velocity).

I think jbtsax and Bernie are using the word "Theory" in this thread to mean Formal Theory. But others (including myself) would include Practical Theory when we talk about "Music Theory", and indeed the dictionary quotes "Music Theory" as an example of meaning 2.

As far as I can see, jbtsax is saying that Formal Theory is useful and adds to the enjoyment of playing, whereas Bernie is saying that Formal Theory is not necessary in order for him to play music. Both statements are correct. So in this context the answer to the question "Do we really need (Formal) Theory?" is "No, but it helps".

But I think some of the other posters are using "Music Theory" to include both formal and practical theory. In this context, I would say the answer to the question "Do we really need (Practical) Theory?" is "Yes", and the argument in this thread is due to a disagreement about what the word "Theory" means.

 

[Bernie]

So a dog catching a ball is not using Formal Theory (solving written-down differential equations), but it is using Practical Theory (a falling ball increases in vertical velocity and decreases in horizontal velocity).

Interesting point, but I don't think it is.

Perhaps it's easier to see why if we consider humans catching balls rather than dogs. You may have seen the explanation I gave of how we know where to stand to catch a ball: we move to the place where the apparent speed of ascent of the ball is constant. Well I for one certainly didn't know this until I read it. It seems pretty odd then to say I am making use of a principle, when I don't know what the principle is.

 

[Targa]

Yes I agree. I am in general a relaxed person when I play but my lessons were early in the morning and I was hyped up on coffee.

You're supposed to be serving that to the customers.