Theory & Impro Do we really need theory?

[Bernie]

By the standards of what is regarded as normal in jazz, presumably.

"Jazz! The Sound of Conformity!!!"

 

[Nick Wyver]

"Jazz! The Sound of Conformity!!!"

Indeed.

 

[Clivey]

I think I`m in the finger wiggling camp on this question, whether a more musical finger wiggling is facilitated by theory is a question I`m not able to answer. tee hee. I suppose I`m really saying the more you play the better you`ll sound,

Clue/hint all the playes I really enjoy on this forum and in jazz in general wiggle their fingers and blow

 

[jbtsax]

Let me try to clear up a misunderstanding in this thread. Listening to great players and trying to learn from them in the areas of style, phrasing, articulation, and harmonic/melodic ideas etc. does not necessarily mean one is trying to become a professional player. It can just mean that one aspires to become a better musician/improviser by studying those who are among the best players in that style.

Listening is a great way to study a player one admires but it is certainly not the only way. There is also transcribing, both writing the music down and just memorizing it as you go along which requires "deep" and repeated listening. Another way to study is to write down or get a transcribed solo with the chord changes and analyze the player's choice of and patterns of notes as well as the rhythmic ideas. This analysis of course requires an understanding of chords and scales that is typically called theory.

To answer the question posed in this thread: "Do we really need theory?" The answer is, "It depends upon how far you want to go in your search to better understand the music you are attempting to play". Theory is just one more tool in a kit of tools that can help one to become a more thoughtful listener and better skilled performer. Without knowing scales and arpeggios, how can one master the technical demands of his/her instrument? Without knowing chord spellings, how can one improvise using a lead sheet with just chord changes.

 

[Tenor Viol]

I agree with @jbtsax's comments around analysis. Yes, you can appreciate a work of art, whether it is architecture, sculpture, painting, or music, without having a formal understanding of its construction or meaning, but you get more out of the experience if you do. When I was working towards doing a degree in Music and Humanities with the OU (before I got priced out of being able to complete it) I had to do some work in this area. Until then, I had a very low opinion of Rothko (and Pollock). My view was amended by learning about it. Some years later, Liverpool Tate Modern had an exhibition of Rothko and those enormous red canvases that were originally hung in a New York loft. Experiencing them as opposed to a print in a small book makes a big difference.

For me, music is the same, the more I learn about how it works the more I appreciate what the composer is doing and the artist performing it. You don't need to know that Beethoven broke the rules and made a tertiary modulation in the 5th symphony, but if you do it adds to the experience as you appreciate what is going on.

 

[Alice]

Totally agree with you @jbtsax and @tenorviol
Incidentally, on the subject of Rothko.. Yes, you have to be in amongst those works to really absorb them.

 

[aldevis]

I agree with @jbtsaxYes, you can appreciate a work of art, whether it is architecture, sculpture, painting, or music, without having a formal understanding of its construction or meaning, but you get more out of the experience if you do.

This is a personally delicate subject. Since I can spot many formal aspects of music, sometimes I feel like I am not enjoying it with a pure heart.
So I do my best to ignore technical aspects and socio-cultural-historical background of visual art and literature.
Within limits, it works. As long as I accept that the artist might be communicating in a different artistic language.
Still it does not make me like most of the YBA but it might be my limit.

Totally agree with you @jbtsax and @tenorviol
Incidentally, on the subject of Rothko.. Yes, you have to be in amongst those works to really absorb them.

And get emotional about them.

 

[Jez Watson]

all tools that help are great, only listening and mimicking to the greats will add the emotional content into ones playing without which its just notes, just been listening to Ernie Watts playing Lover Man, does it for me, if you played it from a transcription it wouldnt have half the effect without listening to the intent/emotional content of the playing, trying to copy this part will help in experimenting how to shape your sound, sometimes i love just playing a single phrase that i have listened to by a great player and trying to match the content of it, the way the player connects the notes

 

[aldevis]

all tools that help are great, only listening and mimicking to the greats will add the emotional content into ones playing without which its just notes, just been listening to Ernie Watts playing Lover Man, does it for me, if you played it from a transcription it wouldnt have half the effect without listening to the intent/emotional content of the playing, trying to copy this part will help in experimenting how to shape your sound, sometimes i love just playing a single phrase that i have listened to by a great player and trying to match the content of it, the way the player connects the notes

Guilty as charged: "Your latest trick" by Brecker. Easy notes, a lifetime of practice for sound and articulation.

 

[U CAN CALL ME AL]

Guilty as charged: "Your latest trick" by Brecker. Easy notes, a lifetime of practice for sound and articulation.

Hits the right note.
In order to 'improve' reading any amount of theoretical / mathematical analysis studying written material will not help one iota. Art has to be experienced. Seen and heard, and for the painter/musician it is the participating in the fundamental physical process which is essential.
The painter has his the advantage of the image as a constant reminder of his efforts, which may even be modified, immediately or later, even destroyed over a period of time. It is often a surprise to stand in front of a painting in order to appreciate its worth.
Musicians on the other hand must rely on technology to capture the moment (digitally modified? CD MP3 file) but there is nothing quite like a live performance as a listener or participant to appreciate the actual degree of a musicians skill
As a musician improvement will only happen with playing/hearing making that essential physical connection with your instrument and your ears and your audience, if present.

 

[trimmy]

but there is nothing quite like a live performance as a listener or participant to appreciate the actual degree of a musicians skill.

Agree wholeheartedly
I have always loved listening to music especially live music, since learning to play the sax the appreciation for the musician has increased ten fold.
I now realise the dedication and effort needed to produce good music, beforehand i was just enjoying music/performance.

 

[Dibbs]

...
For example there is a way to write for horns that I cannot grasp yet. I am slowly reading about the technique behind and hopefully I will have one more thing to use.
...

Please tell us more.

I'm trying to understand this http://valdez.dumarsengraving.com/Pomeroy-Ellington_Line Writing.pdf

 

[aldevis]

Please tell us more.

I'm trying to understand this http://valdez.dumarsengraving.com/Pomeroy-Ellington_Line Writing.pdf

This is another can of worms.
Are they notes from a Berklee course from the 80s?
I am slowly reading a book by Miller about modal writing, but I must win my hostility for ready made recipies, first.

The sound that I have in mind can be found in Stravinsky, Ravel, Gil Evans and some Ellington. A parallel motion that disregards chords, somehow.

Still looking for the right direction

 

[Dibbs]

Hits the right note.
In order to 'improve' reading any amount of theoretical / mathematical analysis studying written material will not help one iota. Art has to be experienced.

It has helped me. A lot.

 

[U CAN CALL ME AL]

It has helped me. A lot.

I too have read quite a lot. However I may know that note X scale Y chord Z will fit a particular situation it will not improve my precise placement, tone, articulation rhythm inflexion etc until I pick my instrument up and play. I need to be me not a stereotype of an image I might have or think I have in my head, the times I consciously think about what I am playing is when it all falls apart. I don't want to have to conform to accepted written perceived musical norms.

 

[Dibbs]

This is another can of worms.
Are they notes from a Berklee course from the 80s?

I think so, yes. I wish I had had the lectures that went with them.

I am slowly reading a book by Miller about modal writing, but I must win my hostility for ready made recipies, first.

The sound that I have in mind can be found in Stravinsky, Ravel, Gil Evans and some Ellington. A parallel motion that disregards chords, somehow.

Still looking for the right direction

Sounds interesting. I've found the books.

Is it really recipies or just that to get a certain sound you have to work within certain constraints or conventions?

 

[aldevis]

I don't want to have to conform to accepted written perceived musical norms.

It is not always about conforming.
A friend of mine had a musical worship for Gonsalves.
Gonsalves extensively used octatonic scales (HW). Once he grasped the concept behind the scale he could move beyond Gonsalves and develop original phrasing with those three scales.
Simply transcribing would have taken longer.

 

[Dibbs]

I too have read quite a lot. However I may know that note X scale Y chord Z will fit a particular situation it will not improve my precise placement, tone, articulation rhythm inflexion etc until I pick my instrument up and play. I need to be me not a stereotype of an image I might have or think I have in my head, the times I consciously think about what I am playing is when it all falls apart. I don't want to have to conform to accepted written perceived musical norms.

Yes, you can't just read something and then expect to do it just like that. You need to explore it, practice it, internalise it and do your own thing with it. I think you're going to sound like yourself even if you try not to. You're going to be conforming to some sort of conventions even if they are of your own making, either consciously or
unconsciously. Otherwise you'd be playing music that defied any form of analysis.

 

[Dibbs]

...
A friend of mine had a musical worship for Gonsalves.
...
.

Tony Coe?

 

[aldevis]

I'm trying to understand this http://valdez.dumarsengraving.com/Pomeroy-Ellington_Line Writing.pdf

Gonsalves extensively used octatonic scales (HW).

How interesting: the first note of your page describes exactly that octatonic sound (Bdim and C#dim over G7).
I am pushing Professor Greenberg, a clarinet teacher living in Paris, to write here about his hanging out with Ellington band, in the 60s. He claims that the Duke did not listen to other people music: all his concepts came from people in the band (for whom he had huge consideration).

Is it really recipes or just that to get a certain sound you have to work within certain constraints or conventions?

I am taking it very slowly. It is built on concepts that I don't agree with, but I must accept them to see where he goes.
I can't pretend that a teacher has to speak my language. I am the learner.

About recipes, in some Berklee book there is the "modern block chords" technique: five rules that make you write like a professional. You don't even have to think.
I was fuming when I first arranged "Confirmation" while having a coffee and it sounded good: no personal involvement.

Then I started using that style as a "colour" and adapt it to my needs.

About stealing styles, check Picasso and Braque...