Theory & Impro Do we really need theory?

[Nick Wyver]

I think that's a mistake Dibbs, I think you've been misled.

And I think you're being hopelessly optimistic/naive. While it is undoubtedly true that, for most people, practising something will lead to an improvement in that skill, in my experience (26 years teaching), it doesn't appear to hold for everybody. Some just never seem to get what it is they're trying to do. That seems fair enough, not everyone's brain is wired the same. If your goal is to play the saxophone then it makes sense to try different methods. If proceeding by ear is proving slow then try reading. You get a bit of instant gratification by being able to play the tune you want to. It's the sort of thing that keeps learners motivated. If you can't improvise over a complex set of chord changes by ear then look at the chord chart and try to understand what it's telling you.
It's no good to keep saying "all the information is in the sound" because if it takes you 10 years to extract it then you're going to be very bored and give up long before you reach your goal.
Do what works for for you - what keeps you motivated, what allows you to play what you want and don't worry about some esoteric, purist philosophical approach.

 

[Dibbs]

I think that's a mistake Dibbs, I think you've been misled.

This is worth very careful reading: Learning to improvise - introduction | IWasDoingAllRight

I didn't learn to play jazz at a college. I just listened to a hell of a lot of it, tried to figure it out and picked up the odd tip from other musicians here and there. I've learnt the majority of my theory since the internet has been available. It's given me numerous "light bulb goes on" moments. "So THAT's why that works!, In that case, maybe THIS will work as well. Wow! I've invented something new!"

That's the value of theory, to guide you in finding good sounding things that you've never heard before.

 

[jimmylh]

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

View: http://youtu.be/Jc94EFd7SHI

I love his playing and tone. Sounds a lot like Scott Hamilton to me.

 

[Bernie]

Until you want to write a symphony.

I think you should do an engineering degree Nick: after all maybe one day you'll want to make a car?

 

[Nick Wyver]

I think you should do an engineering degree Nick: after all maybe one day you'll want to make a car?

Now you're just being silly.
I presume you're trying to make the point that you yourself do not want, at this moment, to write a symphony. What you might want in the future is unknown to you or anyone else.
All I'm trying to do is point out that to do some things in music a bit (or a lot) of theory is necessary or, at least, a help. I don't care that all those things are the things that you personally don't want to do. Other people do and they find the theory useful. Why can't you accept that?

 

[Dibbs]

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

View: http://youtu.be/Jc94EFd7SHI

If you want to play when you're drunk you have to practice when you're drunk.

 

[Nick Wyver]

Every time this sort of thing happens I'm reminded of this.

 

[Bernie]

Now you're just being silly.

You started it.

I presume you're trying to make the point that you yourself do not want, at this moment, to write a symphony. What you might want in the future is unknown to you or anyone else.

Don't be daft. I will never want to write a symphony, learn Chinese or build a spaceship.

All I'm trying to do is point out that to do some things in music a bit (or a lot) of theory is necessary or, at least, a help. I don't care that all those things are the things that you personally don't want to do. Other people do and they find the theory useful. Why can't you accept that?

Can you point to where I said I don't accept that?

 

[Bernie]

Every time this sort of thing happens I'm reminded of this.

Every time this sort of thing happens I'm reminded of this:

Groupthink - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Veggie Dave]

1. Not good to link the two activities if you intend to spend much time playing
2. You'll learn a lot more from your practice if you have a clear head.

No. 2 assumes you're drinking enough to make a difference to your perception rather than the playing being a pleasant part of a more pleasant whole.

However, this is utterly irrelevant because of point 1. I have seen so many people, actors and musicians, who did precisely this and how their little pre-show routine quite quickly became became a crutch and then a problem. I do like to occasionally have a glass of wine when practising or playing - it makes the whole experience more pleasurable - but if I started to do it more often than occasionally then I'd start to become concerned.

I would like to think that someone recommending it as part of your practise routine as joking.

 

[Veggie Dave]

Please forgive me everyone but I seem to have lost the point of this discussion.

Is my synopsis correct?

The question:
Do we really need theory?

The opposing sides:
Yes, it makes understanding and expanding knowledge easier.
Yes, whether you realise it or not you're still using it.
No, you can achieve the same musical goals purely by listening.

If this argument is, in its essence, the above then this argument appears to require a number of very difficult to believe assumptions.

No one can argue that you can't initially learn the very basics of any instrument without theory as this is blatantly untrue. Anyone can pick up an instrument and very quickly start producing notes.

It's also unarguable that our same person can then listen to a song/recording and, after a little practise, play the melody/chord patterns without having the slightest idea what those notes or chords are called or how they were constructed.

However, to then start to produce your own melodies does require a certain amount of theoretical knowledge. Whether the person knows it or not, their idea of melody has been learnt. The only way for this to not be true would be if the person had never, in their entire life, been exposed to any sort of music.

The 'no' argument also requires that our person, over all those hours of playing, to never notice any patterns in their playing or, indeed, to ever knowingly repeat a phrase or pattern that they've played before because that, too, would be using theory.

The definition of 'play by ear' in this thread appears to be a wholly unachievable position to be in because it would require never having previously heard or ever listening to music played by others and never learning anything while you yourself played.

A simple example to prove this theory is how we learn to speak. First we mimic what we hear, then we start to understand that certain sounds represent certain things. From here we start to construct more complex phrases as our vocabulary and grammatical understanding grows. At no point do you need to know what a subjunctive is but that doesn't mean you don't use it correctly. Quite simply, whether you know it or not, you're using grammatical rules to construct your sentences.

 

[Bernie]

You're confusing matters Dave, in much the same way as you did in your post about "understanding" and catching cricket balls.

 

[Nick Wyver]

All I'm trying to do is point out that to do some things in music a bit (or a lot) of theory is necessary or, at least, a help. I don't care that all those things are the things that you personally don't want to do. Other people do and they find the theory useful. Why can't you accept that?​

Can you point to where I said I don't accept that?

Here:

You can do it without theory.

If you'd been a bit more specific and said "you can do some music stuff without theory", of course I'd agree.
​

 

[Veggie Dave]

In which case I'm afraid that I've tried to follow your argument and failed as even your own links have heavily contradicted what you appear to be saying.

It's rather frustrating that I never grasped what you were trying to say...

 

[Bernie]

Nick: I said you can understand music without theory. I didn't say I don't accept that some people find theory helpful.

I try to be careful about what I say, I'd ask you to be as careful when reading it.

 

[Nick Wyver]

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.

 

[Bernie]

It's rather frustrating that I never grasped what you were trying to say...

It's because your own thinking is muddled, specifically your conception of "understanding". You think if a dog can catch a ball, it understands theoretical physics. It doesn't, it catches the ball without understanding the theory.

I am saying that you can understand and play music without understanding the theory. To grasp what I'm saying, you will have to grasp how I'm using the word "understanding".

HTH.

 

[aldevis]

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.

No worries: he wrote his own theory book when he was young.
Also his assistant in Paris Conservatoire is very close to this forum. I can ask her, if you want...

 

[aldevis]

To grasp what I'm saying, you will have to grasp how I'm using the word "understanding".

Please, help me understanding too.

 

[aldevis]

Every time this sort of thing happens I'm reminded of this:

Groupthink - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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