Theory & Impro Do we really need theory?

[Jez Watson]

Thinking about this discussion earlier on this evening I played God Save The Queen starting on various random keys on the sax. It was pretty much instant. Slower and more mistakes in keys I don't play much. I don't think I've ever played the national anthem before. How easy you find this sort of thing depends on how you learn. I've learned the sax by ear, by playing and improvising on tunes I know. That's all I want to do, so that's all I've done.

i think learning to play by ear is one of the most vital skills you can have , and for you as you say it all you want to do, however there are levels with everything and its dependent on the language of the idiom you want to communicate in, for example God save the queen is completely diatonic and quite an easy one to do as it doesnt have any awkward leaps in the melody, its almost all moving to the next note in the scale either up or down, the only other intervals in the tune are 3rd's, on an instrument like guitar its very simple to transpose as once you have learnt the pattern you just play the "shape" up or down the relevant amount, however on piano or sax it becomes a bit more difficult but still easy because of the nature of the tune. When it involves more complex language then it can get very difficult?

 

[Bernie]

But if you knew the theory what they said would make sense surely? It's only because you don't that it is like listening to a foreign language 🙂

Jx

I do know the theory, up to a point anyway. So in the improv workshops I attended I could follow the tutor's explanations, if I concentrated, but they didn't add anything useful to my understanding.

He might say "you could play a Dorian scale (or mode) over this type of chord sequence", then he'd explain what modes are and what the Dorian mode is, and then (finally!) he would demonstrate by playing something rather like what I would have played, except I wouldn't have thought about modes at all. He would play much better than me, but not because I don't use theory. You don't need to know the theory about modes at all to be able to use them correctly. All the information is there in the sound.

 

[Tenor Viol]

Connecting your brain to the sax, is the same as connecting it to youre first instrument, your voice.
In my own experience, it has been easier.

I'm sure some educated guess work could master even the most tight arsed latin.

Probably, except that Latin is an inflected language, unlike English. In English, the sentence structure tends to be : subject, verb, object, heap of rubbish. For example: the dog (subject) bites (verb) the man (object) with a wooden leg (heap of rubbish). Whereas, 'the man (subject) with a wooden leg(heap of rubbish) bites (verb) the dog (object)' has a different meaning, as does 'the man bites the bog with a wooden leg'. Because Latin is inflected as the case (i.e. subject/object) is indicated by the ending of the word, the word order does not matter, although it tends to be: subject, object, heap of rubbish, verb.

 

[Tenor Viol]

I do know the theory, up to a point anyway. So in the improv workshops I attended I could follow the tutor's explanations, if I concentrated, but they didn't add anything useful to my understanding.

He might say "you could play a Dorian scale (or mode) over this type of chord sequence", then he'd explain what modes are and what the Dorian mode is, and then (finally!) he would demonstrate by playing something rather like what I would have played, except I wouldn't have thought about modes at all. He would play much better than me, but not because I don't use theory. You don't need to know the theory about modes at all to be able to use them correctly. All the information is there in the sound.

I think that rather depends on how you learn / listen. People differ and I would want/need the explanation. On a Myers-Briggs assessment I come out as INTJ meaning you have to give me facts and information - I have to understand how/why something works. Other learning / personality types work in different ways.

 

[Veggie Dave]

I wasn't going to join in for two reasons; the last time I made a joke about jazz I was still looking under my van for bombs two weeks later, which suggested that some people take music a little too seriously and because one of my favourite bands is CRASS, which suggests I know absolutely nothing about music. 😉

However, now I'm here... 😉

If you sing or play an instrument in anything remotely resembling a melodic way then you understand music theory. You may not know you know it, but you know it. I can already here people warming up their keyboards to respond 😉 but bear with me.

If you can catch a ball that's thrown to you then you have just shown that you understand a number of very, very complex rules of physics, including the laws of velocity, resistance, gravity and trajectory. You may not be able to explain how they work, but by catching the ball you have proven that you understand them otherwise you wouldn't have been able to predict where the ball would be in order for you to catch it.

The same's true for music. If you can create music then you understand the theory behind it, even if you don't realise.

In short, everyone's technically right.

 

[Bernie]

He sings.
We kind of know the keys (not always the same).
He might jump on the bridge, change tune, improvise a medley, start dancing...
We must keep going.

Sinatra to "Can't take my eyes"

Audience loves him

The question is, what is the nature of the harmonic knowledge you say you use to keep up with the singer.

I can do that, keep up with somebody who doesn't stick to the structure of the tune, but musical theory doesn't come into it at all. I mean I never think "that is a minor chord" or "this is in 6/8 time".

 

[Bernie]

Jolly good.
Other people like to play jazz. For that they find it is very useful to know about chords and stuff.

You can know about chords and stuff without knowing any theory Nick. All the information is in the sound.

 

[Jeanette]

You can know about chords and stuff without knowing any theory Nick. All the information is in the sound.

Personally I can't do that, I need to be told which notes sound better over which chords, maybe in time I will hear it better, if not I'll be going back to my dots 🙂

Jx

 

[aldevis]

I'm sure some educated guess work could master even the most tight arsed latin.

Probably, except that Latin is an inflected language, unlike English.

Worst nightmare was a Latin lawyer (not a Latin lover): Cicero.
Understanding his convoluted syntax is like playing fiendish sudoku. He was a lawyer....
Julius Caesar is much easier.

But TV is right: at school we wondered how the Romans could communicate without writing it first (answer: they were speaking a simpler form).
German has some similarities.

I wasn't going to join in for two reasons; the last time I made a joke about jazz I was still looking under my van for bombs two weeks later, which suggested that some people take music a little too seriously and because one of my favourite bands is CRASS, which suggests I know absolutely nothing about music. 😉

It suggests that your sense of paradox is not universally understood.
Do not forget that I am a Zappa fan. On the other hand, referred to the CRASS album title...
"I disagreed with Sigmund Freud: he limited that to women" (Zelig)

If you can catch a ball that's thrown to you then you have just shown that you understand a number of very, very complex rules of physics, including the laws of velocity, resistance, gravity and trajectory. You may not be able to explain how they work, but by catching the ball you have proven that you understand them otherwise you wouldn't have been able to predict where the ball would be in order for you to catch it.

The same's true for music. If you can create music then you understand the theory behind it, even if you don't realise.

In short, everyone's technically right.

Very nicely put.
I did a lot of practice not to realize the theory that I know

The question is, what is the nature of the harmonic knowledge you say you use to keep up with the singer.

I can do that, keep up with somebody who doesn't stick to the structure of the tune, but musical theory doesn't come into it at all. I mean I never think "that is a minor chord" or "this is in 6/8 time".

Sometimes I think "he is singing the penultimate 2 bars half step higher, like Bobby Darin" or "that is a I iv I".
More often "he is singing the root, I better avoid the 7th".

I usually struggle to find a dep, when needed. The best one so far is a great arranger too.

 

[Jez Watson]

Personally I can't do that, I need to be told which notes sound better over which chords, maybe in time I will hear it better, if not I'll be going back to my dots 🙂

Jx

im my experience a lot of the time thats the way it works for a lot of people, they learn theory and the sound of it and it educates the "ears" and over time it becomes internalised, for example i came from a rock/blues background playing guitar and bass, when i wanted to get into more complex forms of music it helped me to understand what was happening and by listening to the sound my "ear" began to understand and internalise this sound, it was a slow process and i am still working on it.

 

[Bernie]

If you can catch a ball that's thrown to you then you have just shown that you understand a number of very, very complex rules of physics, including the laws of velocity, resistance, gravity and trajectory. You may not be able to explain how they work, but by catching the ball you have proven that you understand them otherwise you wouldn't have been able to predict where the ball would be in order for you to catch it.

This is well-meaning but misguided reasoning, my dog can catch a ball but it would be absurd to claim that he understands the laws of physics, you would be overextending the scope of the concept "understanding".

Incidentally though I read a really interesting thingy the other day about how we do know where to stand to catch a cricket ball. Apparently we (quite unconsciously!) move to a position where the apparent speed of ascent of the ball is steady, not accelerating or decelerating. Also interestingly the ball will always appear to be ascending, until the moment it arrives at our eye level.

I didn't understand any of that stuff until I read it the other day.

 

[aldevis]

my dog can catch a ball but it would be absurd to claim that he understands the laws of physics, you would be overextending the scope of the concept "understanding".

when i wanted to get into more complex forms of music it helped me to understand what was happening and by listening to the sound my "ear" began to understand and internalise this sound, it was a slow process and i am still working on it.

There are things that come easily to your dog and things that come hard to Jez.
I am rubbish at catching balls (and I am not going to learn now), I had to work hard to catch singers and improvise on the spot.

Final goal is to interiorize a skill. "Understanding" in a rational or non rational way is probably the way.

Or we can debate about the meaning of meaning: a great theory book that helped to to understand my own reasoning.

 

[Veggie Dave]

I didn't understand any of that stuff until I read it the other day.

And yet both you and your dog caught the ball anyway. 😉

 

[Bernie]

I think that rather depends on how you learn / listen. People differ and I would want/need the explanation. On a Myers-Briggs assessment I come out as INTJ meaning you have to give me facts and information - I have to understand how/why something works. Other learning / personality types work in different ways.

I don't really believe this stuff. Obviously there are different personality types, but I don't think it's all as mechanical and inflexible as you suggest here.

But also I don't believe you (or anybody) logically or practically requires an explanation of something like major and minor keys in order to be able to distinguish them.

 

[Bernie]

And yet both you and your dog caught the ball anyway. 😉

So that means understanding the theory is not necessary to catch the ball. It doesn't mean the dog understands the theory, which is what you are claiming.

 

[aldevis]

But also I don't believe you (or anybody) logically or practically requires an explanation of something like major and minor keys in order to be able to distinguish them.

There is no (valid) explanation for "minor" or "major". Just a description.
We call "minor" what has a specific relation between 1st and 3rd note of the scale.

- "What's that?"
- "C minor Blues"
- "Cool: I won't start with an E natural, then"

Just a matter of communication.
"Prescriptive" theory is just a shortcut to save time. Everyone is free to break the rule if it sounds good (I used to make two versions of the composition assignments: one formally correct, one that I liked)

 

[Bernie]

for example God save the queen is completely diatonic.... When it involves more complex language then it can get very difficult?

But that would be just the same with singing. I was trying to show you that playing an instrument "by ear" is a similar skill to singing by ear. So it's a natural, innate sort of ability.

 

[aldevis]

But that would be just the same with singing. I was trying to show you that playing an instrument "by ear" is a similar skill to singing by ear. So it's a natural, innate sort of ability.

Not trying to be provocative. Can you sing "have you met Miss Jones" with no backing track?
The hard bit is singing the bridge and getting back to the "A" section in (roughly) the same key.

 

[Bernie]

There is no (valid) explanation for "minor" or "major". Just a description.

Yes! And that's true of all music theory, it doesn't add anything to what we know from the sound. It's a description of what we already know.

 

[Jez Watson]

But that would be just the same with singing. I was trying to show you that playing an instrument "by ear" is a similar skill to singing by ear. So it's a natural, innate sort of ability.

im my experience and others i have observed , there is nothing innate about playing an instrument, its a skill that requires a lot of application depending on the level one wants to get to, but there is differing levels of this "innate"ability between people attempting the same instrument, at some point improvement becomes determined application over a long period of time