Theory & Impro Do we really need theory?

[lydian]

I can't say "we" need theory, but I can say that "I" find it more than quite useful, possibly because going to music school brainwashed me in that regard.

While studying with Jerry Coker I was indoctrinated into the George Russell way of thinking. It was put across to me as a method of ear training that I would eventually discard, just playing what I thought sounded right. I said "why not just realize that on the altered dominant the 5th, 7th and 9th are altered from a major scale instead of thinking of lydian augs?"...

I'm with you there. Why not just think in terms of altering the major scale rather than altering modes of the major scale. That's another layer of complexity I don't need, and too many steps for me to do in an instant.

I knew Jerry Coker when he taught at UT. He even played (piano) at my wedding back in the 80s behind my friend, one of his students, on sax. For a sax player, he was an excellent pianist. I've got his books and still refer to them. Never did quite finish working all the way through any of them though, just the bits I was interested in.

 

[murrayatuptown]

Some call the selective study of points of interest 'cherry-picking'...

 

[Bokagee]

I've been pondering this, it's a thought-provoking thing. Years ago I knew an R&B player that just plain played his butt off, I learned so much from him -- yet he didn't even know all the names of the notes on his horn, nor what all the keys did. But I'm serious, he was an incredible player: sound, chops, pocket, inventiveness, just everything was there. His altissimo chops were quite impressive, he just somehow figured all that out by himself.

He asked me to give him lessons and I turned him down. His feelings were hurt, and I told him I'd be afraid that I'd mess up the natural greatness he had. I told him a story Stan Samole, famed guitarist who had taught at Miami, related about teaching lessons to Pat Metheny when Pat first showed up there. Stan said he gave him a few lessons, and then stopped teaching him, because he didn't want to interfere with Pat's natural approach. By his 2nd or 3rd semester, Pat was on the faculty.

My R&B friend eventually took lessons from another friend who didn't know very much nor play very well. I don't know how that turned out, I had moved away. But there's a case to be made for ignoring convention in rare cases, and just letting well enough alone. Just play, man, because I dig you already, you know? BTW I still play the tenor mouthpiece I traded a Dukoff for on a gig with that guy. A beneficial trade for both of us, I hope. I had it refaced by the masterful Phil Engleman. That's another topic I guess.

 

[Pete Effamy]

I've been pondering this, it's a thought-provoking thing. Years ago I knew an R&B player that just plain played his butt off, I learned so much from him -- yet he didn't even know all the names of the notes on his horn, nor what all the keys did. But I'm serious, he was an incredible player: sound, chops, pocket, inventiveness, just everything was there. His altissimo chops were quite impressive, he just somehow figured all that out by himself.

He asked me to give him lessons and I turned him down. His feelings were hurt, and I told him I'd be afraid that I'd mess up the natural greatness he had. I told him a story Stan Samole, famed guitarist who had taught at Miami, related about teaching lessons to Pat Metheny when Pat first showed up there. Stan said he gave him a few lessons, and then stopped teaching him, because he didn't want to interfere with Pat's natural approach. By his 2nd or 3rd semester, Pat was on the faculty.

My R&B friend eventually took lessons from another friend who didn't know very much nor play very well. I don't know how that turned out, I had moved away. But there's a case to be made for ignoring convention in rare cases, and just letting well enough alone. Just play, man, because I dig you already, you know? BTW I still play the tenor mouthpiece I traded a Dukoff for on a gig with that guy. A beneficial trade for both of us, I hope. I had it refaced by the masterful Phil Engleman. That's another topic I guess.

I think that many have posted in a similar vein in this thread. People like your guy have a “knowing “ and so don’t need theory to inform what they already excel at.
If he were to want to begin writing big band arrangements though or writing orchestral pieces then he’d need theory most likely.

 

[Tenor Viol]

There are people, I'm not one of them, that can just 'hear' music and immediately play it back (that is my definition of 'play by ear'). From there they have the ability to improvise, seemingly without effort (in reality, they probably practice and play a lot and develop those particular skills).

Does such a person 'need' to 'know' a great deal of theory? Probably not, but doing so might help with understanding 'why' and 'how' things work.

Conversely, people like me are the complete opposite. I like to know 'how' things work, so I've read and studied a lot of theory. Playing the viol and early music does mean I got a lot more exposure than most to some of the more arcane aspects of tuning and temperaments.

I don't find playing from memory at all easy to do. I have done it, I did it with the Bach G minor fantasy on sax with my teacher (solo with piano accompaniment - here is a version for sax quartet). As for improv... you don't want to hear me try that.