Page 1 of 4
#1
a lot of people (not just here, but many other guitar related forums) seem to get way too hung up on theory to the point where it actually decreases their ability to play.

i see this all the time, someone wants to play jazz and keeps asking about modes, etc and thinks the modes are some holy grail. The truth is, they have very little importance in actual real world playing applications. Knowing all the modes, and how to construct them might make you more book smart, but let me just tell you it isn't going to make you play jazz any better.

I see it in music schools, with the students graduating, they know all the theory, they know how to finger a crap load of many different scales, and can talk you to death using theory. Yet they still can't play for crap. They still can't play good lines, and are still frustrated. They play in a very academic way.

Then you have the one or two people on every guitar forum who seem to be a walking theory encyclopedia. They are usually the popular forum members. These people make amazing music talkers, they are great at talking about music, but i find that maybe 99% of the time, they can't play, or play very poorly. They can explain to you that for this chord you use this scale, or this note etc, but they themselves can't do it. Which is why whenever i see these type of people on a forum, i don't take them very seriously.

This is not a theory bash thread. I think theory is great to an extent. I do recommend any serious musician to at least learn the basics of it, but not get to caught up in it, or they will end up as a music talker rather then a music player.

I think the idea of making music sometimes gets lost. I think a lot of the universities and conservatories produce more book smart musicians, but crappier players overall. The ones who come out as monster players, were already monster players before they went there. And the reason they went there, and i can be certain on this, is to learn exactly what they were doing that they figured out "on the street" for lack of better terms. These players already had sounds in their head, and could recognize what they were playing sound wise but couldn't explain it to you. So they went to learn what they were doing. The important thing here is that the theory came 2nd, the playing came first.

i hope my little rant was clear
http://richmusic.dmusic.com

"Those who dream by night, in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible."
#2
To play the devil's advocate, what's wrong with being a book smart musician? You could become a musical historian or a theory teacher or even a university professor if you are really smart at theory. Learning music doesn't mean you HAVE to play like Satriani or Joe Pass...does it?
#3
naw modes are important they are cumbersome and unwieldy for beginning improvisers tho
anyone trying to intellectualize while they are "playing" is doing it wrong. thinking about notes is for practice
#5
theory definitely came second, but it came for a good reason...

it's almost like science - you start out knowing nothing, and you try your luck and make new findings. and so that your progress isn't lost, you turn it into "theory" and tell it to the kids so that they can build off of that without having to waste time going through what you went through already.

that was by no means a good parallel, but the spirit of it applies.


another point: if even with all the music theory of the world, those certain people can't play better, they probably sucked to begin with. they're hopeless. =)
Quote by archerygenious
Jesus Christ since when is the Pit a ****ing courtroom...

Like melodic, black, death, symphonic, and/or avant-garde metal? Want to collaborate? Message me!
Last edited by vIsIbleNoIsE at Sep 26, 2009,
#6
I agree with you, rich2k4. Your rant definitely was clear. Theory should come second, after you have learnt to play some songs and lead parts.
Last edited by robinlint at Sep 26, 2009,
#7
You're right. Even if you know everything you could know about music, you're only going to be good at playing if you practice playing.


It has everything to do with the person, not the theory.
#8
Quote by robinlint
I agree with you, rich2k4. Your rant definitely was clear. Theory should come second, after you have learnt to play some songs and lead parts.

not necessarily you could learn the theory behind something before ya internalize it as long as you actually internalize it
#9
Quote by hitlerbro69
not necessarily you could learn the theory behind something before ya internalize it as long as you actually internalize it


the problem is, the internalizing is usually the missing piece of the puzzle
http://richmusic.dmusic.com

"Those who dream by night, in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible."
#10
Quote by rich2k4
the problem is, the internalizing is usually the missing piece of the puzzle

ya you are 100% right on that
#11
Quote by hitlerbro69
ya you are 100% right on that


i remember watching a video of a pro jazz guitarist, and he said something to the effect of.

"the scales, and all that are the tools. the problem is, some students just play the tools"
http://richmusic.dmusic.com

"Those who dream by night, in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible."
#12
I'll be honest, when I was studying theory the music I was writing sucked ass. I know it was MY fault... but I was so concerned about staying in key and making sure everything "worked" that everything sounded forced and boring. I learned all the theory I wanted, and now when I write I don't even think about it. I play what sounds good and if I need help or don't understand something, then I'll pull out the theory books.
#13
Quote by drewfromutah
I'll be honest, when I was studying theory the music I was writing sucked ass. I know it was MY fault... but I was so concerned about staying in key and making sure everything "worked" that everything sounded forced and boring. I learned all the theory I wanted, and now when I write I don't even think about it. I play what sounds good and if I need help or don't understand something, then I'll pull out the theory books.


your ear is the final deciding factor on everything. Play first, let someone else come by afterward analyze what you are doing.

it doesn't matter if you are playing a superlocrian scale from mars, the important thing is to get the sound of it in your head, and how it sounds over different chords. The sound needs to be ingrained in your head.
http://richmusic.dmusic.com

"Those who dream by night, in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible."
#14
Quote by rich2k4
your ear is the final deciding factor on everything. Play first, let someone else come by afterward analyze what you are doing.

it doesn't matter if you are playing a superlocrian scale from mars, the important thing is to get the sound of it in your head, and how it sounds over different chords. The sound needs to be ingrained in your head.

I've noticed my playing sounds boring. Every time I write melodies it follows the same pattern. Do you have any advice for breaking out of that pattern? (And i don't mean patterns in terms of scales and arpeggios, but what notes I hit. It all sounds too much like what I always play. I want variation in my playing.
#15
Theory helps when you for example have written a riff and want to write an arpeggio part over it, if you don't know theory it will take much more time to figure it out by ear than just knowing "ah yes, I'm in this key so I can use those arpeggio's, and maybe even some out of key arpeggio's that will sound awesome".

Point is you have to combine theory knowledge AND playing skill AND your ear.
#16
It is because people try to be autodidact, when they simply don't have the skills to do so.

They go through theory to fast, without covering all angles.

It also happens with people who try to learn guitar themselves.

There's more then just "learning the facts", and you need to understand the underlying thought about it.

Some people only look at the how part, but not the why part.

ie. Why does someone play this scale here, or "why does this work" (theory explains only why it works on an arguable superficial level, but not in the grand-scheme of songwriting)

It often results in when they write songs, it has all individually cool ideas, but it doesn't seem to have an overall coherence or a consistent "feel" to it.

Where does the problem kick in?

People learn music theory, and know a lot, but they still can't write songs. Now the mind has all that info, but it has holes on angles and applicable uses of them, that it becomes near impossible to back track all your theory to find where you might missed something.

In the Netherlands there's a saying, and I don't know if it is the same in english;

Can't see the trees through the forest.

Now, a music teacher can spot where you might have missed something, or what part of theory you might thought to lightely off, and which part might have more uses then one might think.

The most obvious example I see on UG is the major scale, which has far more uses then 90% of the people realise, hence the modes questions and stuff.

Just learning theory factually is just not enough for good songwriting.

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
Last edited by xxdarrenxx at Sep 26, 2009,
#17
Quote by xxdarrenxx

Can't see the trees through the forest.


Think it exists as 'can't see the forest through the trees', like in Dutch. I agree with the rest though

@ TS, what if somebody wants to be good at theory and doesn't mind his skills and technique aren't good? You're actually saying it's less preferable only to know theory instead of mastering the guitar. If people choose being good at theory instead of mastering their guitar, i don't see why that would be a problem to them, let alone to you.
Last edited by deHufter at Sep 26, 2009,
#18
Quote by rich2k4
a lot of people (not just here, but many other guitar related forums) seem to get way too hung up on theory to the point where it actually decreases their ability to play.

i see this all the time, someone wants to play jazz and keeps asking about modes, etc and thinks the modes are some holy grail. The truth is, they have very little importance in actual real world playing applications. Knowing all the modes, and how to construct them might make you more book smart, but let me just tell you it isn't going to make you play jazz any better.

I see it in music schools, with the students graduating, they know all the theory, they know how to finger a crap load of many different scales, and can talk you to death using theory. Yet they still can't play for crap. They still can't play good lines, and are still frustrated. They play in a very academic way.

Then you have the one or two people on every guitar forum who seem to be a walking theory encyclopedia. They are usually the popular forum members. These people make amazing music talkers, they are great at talking about music, but i find that maybe 99% of the time, they can't play, or play very poorly. They can explain to you that for this chord you use this scale, or this note etc, but they themselves can't do it. Which is why whenever i see these type of people on a forum, i don't take them very seriously.

This is not a theory bash thread. I think theory is great to an extent. I do recommend any serious musician to at least learn the basics of it, but not get to caught up in it, or they will end up as a music talker rather then a music player.

I think the idea of making music sometimes gets lost. I think a lot of the universities and conservatories produce more book smart musicians, but crappier players overall. The ones who come out as monster players, were already monster players before they went there. And the reason they went there, and i can be certain on this, is to learn exactly what they were doing that they figured out "on the street" for lack of better terms. These players already had sounds in their head, and could recognize what they were playing sound wise but couldn't explain it to you. So they went to learn what they were doing. The important thing here is that the theory came 2nd, the playing came first.

i hope my little rant was clear


I like this.
#19
Quote by KoenDercksen
Theory helps when you for example have written a riff and want to write an arpeggio part over it, if you don't know theory it will take much more time to figure it out by ear than just knowing "ah yes, I'm in this key so I can use those arpeggio's, and maybe even some out of key arpeggio's that will sound awesome".

Point is you have to combine theory knowledge AND playing skill AND your ear.


that reminds me. arpeggios. for example lets say you have ii-V-I in C. Dm7-G7-Cmaj7

people somehow think that you can only play a dm7 arpeggio over a dm7 chord, or a cmaj7 arpeggio over the cmaj7 chord, and that's just not true. one should practice playing each arpeggio over all the chords, and getting the sound of each of them over different chords in your head.

there is another saying "it only lines up in a book" in other words, dm7 arpeggio over dm7 chord is the academic vanilla way of doing it. there is nothing wrong with it, and it sounds good, but there is nowhere that says you have to play a dm7 arpeggio over a dm7 chord, only in the books.

arpeggio's should be used to initiate a line.


and if someone wants to be a walking encyclopedia of music, and not be a player, that's fine with me. except that when i decided to learn guitar, it was to make music.
http://richmusic.dmusic.com

"Those who dream by night, in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible."
Last edited by rich2k4 at Sep 26, 2009,
#20
No.

This isn't a problem with theory. This is a problem with people who are stupid or people who have learned incorrectly. Most guitarists are good at both of those. Theory might improve how you improvise, but it will do way more for your writing skills. Who gives a **** how well someone can play? How about how well they can write? I'm not an amazing player by any means, but I can write a thing or two.
i don't know why i feel so dry
#21
Quote by Eastwinn
No.

This isn't a problem with theory. This is a problem with people who are stupid or people who have learned incorrectly. Most guitarists are good at both of those. Theory might improve how you improvise, but it will do way more for your writing skills. Who gives a **** how well someone can play? How about how well they can write? I'm not an amazing player by any means, but I can write a thing or two.


how about both? both are important
http://richmusic.dmusic.com

"Those who dream by night, in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible."
#22
I had a professor say something along the lines of, we need to learn the rules in order to break them. I think a lot of things in theory help connect the dots of ideas you may have but can't quite get the right thing. Sitting and playing every single note on the fretboard to see which one sounds best next is a bit tedious and inefficient, but having a direction to go in can help a lot. I agree though musicians shouldn't trap themselves in the 'rules' but experiment and make it more personal.
Quote by acjshapiro

Quote by Vrstone87

meh, I've listened to every radiohead album and honestly don't get what everyone loves about them.....


cause you're ****ing stupid

#23
Learning theory is like fire. You can use it to keep you warm, cook your food, etc, or it can be used to destroy and kill. It's in your hands and you choose how to use it. If you look at theory as an opportunity to study the language of music and analyze what other musicians have done throughout history and get ideas, you'll get value out of it. If you look at theory as a set of rules you have to follow, then it will limit you. There are a lot of threads with people saying things like - "My progression is in G major and I want to use and A major chord, but I can't because it doesn't fit G major," ,etc. The bottom line with music is you do what sounds good, not what fits theory, but you can definitely learn a lot from studying theory, just don't let it limit you.
#24
Quote by jsepguitar
Learning theory is like fire. You can use it to keep you warm, cook your food, etc, or it can be used to destroy and kill. It's in your hands and you choose how to use it. If you look at theory as an opportunity to study the language of music and analyze what other musicians have done throughout history and get ideas, you'll get value out of it. If you look at theory as a set of rules you have to follow, then it will limit you. There are a lot of threads with people saying things like - "My progression is in G major and I want to use and A major chord, but I can't because it doesn't fit G major," ,etc. The bottom line with music is you do what sounds good, not what fits theory, but you can definitely learn a lot from studying theory, just don't let it limit you.


Along the same lines I believe that you can justify, with theory, anything you play. I think theory is important, BUT knowing all the theory in the world wont put the fingers on the strings. A player has to use what he knows to put together notes and chords in a way that is intreging and pleasing. I do believe that some people over analyse some things and can limit themselves that way.
Gibson ES335
Ibanez RG370DXGP
Ibanez SA Series
Fender Acoustic
Marshall JCM800 1-12 split channel
#25
Quote by jsepguitar
Learning theory is like fire. You can use it to keep you warm, cook your food, etc, or it can be used to destroy and kill. It's in your hands and you choose how to use it. If you look at theory as an opportunity to study the language of music and analyze what other musicians have done throughout history and get ideas, you'll get value out of it. If you look at theory as a set of rules you have to follow, then it will limit you. There are a lot of threads with people saying things like - "My progression is in G major and I want to use and A major chord, but I can't because it doesn't fit G major," ,etc. The bottom line with music is you do what sounds good, not what fits theory, but you can definitely learn a lot from studying theory, just don't let it limit you.


Well said mate.

I went through that. I started learning theory to learn how to play guitar. Later I found that theory's good when you apply it to the work. At that point I realized I gotta listen, not hear.

I bought a guitar course called Planetalk by Kirk Lorange. It made me realize the way the guitar is tuned and I'm looking at my fretboard differently then. He simplified the fretboard. It's a nice method.
Parker PDF30
Vox VT40+
#26
Quote by rich2k4
how about both? both are important


That would be up to you and your interests. Your "rant" was really just you telling us about how your opinion is different from other guitarists. Yippie. Way to go. So other guitarists are into theory. Cool. Is that really so hard to accept? What's the problem?

By the way guys, theory has nothing to do with what sounds good. Using theory as "rules" (WTF. How do you guys get these ideas?) won't make your music stale. A lot of great music is completely diatonic and predictable. You are making your music stale.
i don't know why i feel so dry
#27
I know what you mean.


I know alot of theory. Scary amounts. I've read books and no doubt could've written books by now. I don't claim to be a genius at it but I know more than usual.


That being said my writing doesn't reflect it. You become schooled, rather than creative. Meaning you let theory tell you what to write rather than experimenting.


Well some do (I did for example) I'm not bashing theory, I love it.


Creativity = Writing music
Music Theory = How to explain music


Thats how I've adopted it anyway, someone on the forum told me this, good advice
#28
I call BS.

Quote by rich2k4
a lot of people (not just here, but many other guitar related forums) seem to get way too hung up on theory to the point where it actually decreases their ability to play. This happens when musicians think of theory as rules, which it isn't. Theory does not dictate anything; it describes. If you don't learn that fact, you've missed a lesson as important as harmonizing the major scale.

i see this all the time, someone wants to play jazz and keeps asking about modes, etc and thinks the modes are some holy grail. The truth is, they have very little importance in actual real world playing applications. Knowing all the modes, and how to construct them might make you more book smart, but let me just tell you it isn't going to make you play jazz any better. That's not quite true. With the "randomness" of the chords in many jazz pieces, in many cases, all the soloist can do is treat each chord as an island and just think, "Hmm, this is Cm9. C Dorian works here! The next chord is A7. A Mixolydian works here!" You don't think a good jazz soloist is sticking to the minor pentatonic scale, do you?

I see it in music schools, with the students graduating, they know all the theory, they know how to finger a crap load of many different scales, and can talk you to death using theory. Yet they still can't play for crap. They still can't play good lines, and are still frustrated. They play in a very academic way. When have you seen this happen? From where have these people graduated?

Then you have the one or two people on every guitar forum who seem to be a walking theory encyclopedia. They are usually the popular forum members. These people make amazing music talkers, they are great at talking about music, but i find that maybe 99% of the time, they can't play, or play very poorly. They can explain to you that for this chord you use this scale, or this note etc, but they themselves can't do it. Which is why whenever i see these type of people on a forum, i don't take them very seriously. Who are these players, Arch and me? We're pretty good. Do you mean Cas?

This is not a theory bash thread. I think theory is great to an extent. I do recommend any serious musician to at least learn the basics of it, but not get to caught up in it, or they will end up as a music talker rather then a music player.

I think the idea of making music sometimes gets lost. I think a lot of the universities and conservatories produce more book smart musicians, but crappier players overall. The ones who come out as monster players, were already monster players before they went there. And the reason they went there, and i can be certain on this, is to learn exactly what they were doing that they figured out "on the street" for lack of better terms. These players already had sounds in their head, and could recognize what they were playing sound wise but couldn't explain it to you. So they went to learn what they were doing. The important thing here is that the theory came 2nd, the playing came first. There are entrance requirements to music schools. You don't just deicde that you want ot earn a music degree and then go to college/university/whetev to study. You're supposed to know quite a bit before you enter the classroom. It's no different than "normal" college. To matriculate where I go, I was expected to have completed four years of high-school-level math, science, history, English, and foreign language. I didn't just go to college one day to learn about a topic in which I had no knowledge.
#30
Quote by Suav Nitebeest
^This woman speaks the truth.

*Cough*

Fixed.
Quote by thsrayas
Why did women get multiple orgasms instead of men? I want a river of semen flowing out of my room to mark my territory.

You can play a shoestring if you're sincere
- John Coltrane
#31
very intelligent post by bgc
Quote by acjshapiro

Quote by Vrstone87

meh, I've listened to every radiohead album and honestly don't get what everyone loves about them.....


cause you're ****ing stupid

#32
Quote by rich2k4


I see it in music schools, with the students graduating, they know all the theory, they know how to finger a crap load of many different scales, and can talk you to death using theory. Yet they still can't play for crap. They still can't play good lines, and are still frustrated. They play in a very academic way.



This makes me think you have no idea what your talking about

Also, to BGC, im sorry. But jazz chords are not random at all. Im starting to think you probably dont play a lot of jazz if thats what you think
Last edited by tubatom868686 at Sep 26, 2009,
#33
Quote by jsepguitar
There are a lot of threads with people saying things like - "My progression is in G major and I want to use and A major chord, but I can't because it doesn't fit G major," ,etc. The bottom line with music is you do what sounds good, not what fits theory, but you can definitely learn a lot from studying theory, just don't let it limit you.


Everything fits theory.

Several people have pointed this out since your post, but I thought I'd highlight that specific part of your post - theory just explains. It doesn't dictate. You don't make something 'fit' it, you just make the air vibrations you want to make and then afterwards, if you want (or before/during, if you want), you can explain why it is those vibrations sound like they do.
Quote by Ed O'Brien
“It’s not genius. It’s just that if you want something good to come out of something, you have to put in a lot of effort. That involves a lot of hard work, and a lot of blood, sweat and tears sometimes.”

http://urbanscarecrow.bandcamp.com/
Last edited by Damascus at Sep 26, 2009,
#34
Quote by Damascus
Everything fits theory.

Several people have pointed this out since your post, but I thought I'd highlight that specific part of your post - theory just explains. It doesn't dictate. You don't make something 'fit' it, you just make the air vibrations you want to make and then afterwards, if you want (or before/during, if you want), you can explain why it is those vibrations sound like they do.

.EVERYTHING.? Including chromatic wanking like this?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMV_KViSnC8
#36
You answered your own question by using the word chromatic.
Quote by acjshapiro

Quote by Vrstone87

meh, I've listened to every radiohead album and honestly don't get what everyone loves about them.....


cause you're ****ing stupid

#37
Quote by robinlint
.EVERYTHING.? Including chromatic wanking like this?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMV_KViSnC8

yea. you could analize that still and put it to theory. theory just explains music and how it works. im sure you could still find chords, modes, scales, harmonies, etc... within that "random crap" if you really wanted.

anyways, im not seeing the point of this thread. TS, what exactly are you upset about? theory or the players or the teachers? sure, there are a lot of players that tend to take theory too far and think of it as rules and their playing is boring. but then there are also players who refuse to learn theory and their playing is based on a few licks and scales and is also quite boring. then there are people who know how to apply the theory when needed and know how to follow the sound of the music.

i think its all about taking chances. usually self taught players tend to learn by trial and error. so they know how to take chances and eventually they make stuff that works. so then they also know how to take chances while soloing. if someone is way to concerned with staying true to theory, which isnt actually rules in the first place that need to be followed, then they dont seem to take as many chances and wont be as musically free. maybe thats why people think playing without theory has more soul. it doesnt really. its just that the players know how to forget all that and just play. there are tons of players who know theory and can play amazing as well.

we should also remember that schools are for teaching and grading. its hard to teach how to improvise from the heart. its also hard to grade things like that. but you can with theory. they give you the tools you need in order to play but you need to learn how to use them.
#38
Quote by bangoodcharlote
This happens when musicians think of theory as rules, which it isn't. Theory does not dictate anything; it describes. If you don't learn that fact, you've missed a lesson as important as harmonizing the major scale.


that's my point.


That's not quite true. With the "randomness" of the chords in many jazz pieces, in many cases, all the soloist can do is treat each chord as an island and just think, "Hmm, this is Cm9. C Dorian works here! The next chord is A7. A Mixolydian works here!" You don't think a good jazz soloist is sticking to the minor pentatonic scale, do you?


jazz progressions aren't random. Also, no serious pro jazz musician thinks in the chord/scale relationship, you'd be screwing yourself to think that. very rarely does any good jazz musician think Cm9=C dorian A7= A mixolydian. that's a "it lines up in a book" player, that's an academia player, that's a vanilla player. That might be technically what's going on, but they aren't thinking that way when they play, that's too much thinking. why make it harder?


When have you seen this happen? From where have these people graduated?


i see it all over the place, it happens everywhere. berkley, MI, university of miami, northwestern, etc. list goes on. first hand accounts of people who went to these schools, came out knowing a lot, but not playing any better. Even Bobby Broom, a well respected chicago jazz guitarist has wrote an article on this same subject.

Who are these players, Arch and me? We're pretty good. Do you mean Cas?


yes, you are someone i had in mind. I know you know a lot of theory, but i'm sure you can't apply a good portion of it. You can know it, but to me, you don't really "know it". i could be way out in left field, but that is what i generally see in many forums.


There are entrance requirements to music schools. You don't just deicde that you want ot earn a music degree and then go to college/university/whetev to study. You're supposed to know quite a bit before you enter the classroom. It's no different than "normal" college. To matriculate where I go, I was expected to have completed four years of high-school-level math, science, history, English, and foreign language. I didn't just go to college one day to learn about a topic in which I had no knowledge.


heh, trust me. Someone who is a monster jazz player, will have an easy time getting into a school, regardless if he knows theory or not. The theory aspect of it will take care of itself at the school. Then again, the monster players are usually already out their actually playing. They either go like i said for the theory learning, or for connections and opportunities. Scott Henderson went to MI because he wanted to know the names of the stuff he was playing. He already had the sounds in his head, he was already a monster player. Frank Gambale said he went to MI for basically one reason, to get a teaching job. Both he and scott henderson got teaching jobs after their first semester at MI because they were already so good.

Pat Matheny was already a berklee professor after his first semester there.

you think Kurt Rosenwinkle was accepted into berklee because he was a theory master? Hell no, it was because he was a monster player. He had it easier then the "normal" students trying to get in. I bet the theory stuff sorted itself out while he was attending, and he was able to put names to what he was playing. But then on stage, all that crap goes out the window. You think he's thinking "Oh A7, man i'm going to play an A mixolydian, or better yet, i'll play an E melodic minor" **** no he just does it, because he already has those sounds in his head. I bet berklee didn't teach that to him either. They might have taught him that the certain sound he was getting by playing those certain notes at that certain time was called E melodic minor over A7, but he knew that way before attending the school. i'm betting without the name attached to it too.


i guess my main point in the thread is to use your ears. Don't take theory so serious, don't play the way everything lines up in a book. Don't play mechanical, make melodies in your improv. Listen to how each note in a scale reacts to different chords, let that dictate your lines. Don't line arpeggios up to chords, use them to initiate a line.

i guess there is many points.

the catalyst that caused me to start this thread, was going to forums, youtube, etc seeing people soloing over jazz tunes, they analyze what they are going to do. then when they actually put it to use, it sounds like garbage. They make things way harder then it has to be, which causes them to think more while playing, everything sounds mechanical. like charles barkley would say "it's trrble"
http://richmusic.dmusic.com

"Those who dream by night, in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible."
Last edited by rich2k4 at Sep 26, 2009,
#39
imo most people that cant write good music after years of studying music theory would have sucked just as much if the didnt know any music theory (and probably even more).
#40
Quote by rich2k4

jazz progressions aren't random. Also, no serious pro jazz musician thinks in the chord/scale relationship, you'd be screwing yourself to think that. very rarely does any good jazz musician think Cm9=C dorian A7= A mixolydian. that's a "it lines up in a book" player, that's an academia player, that's a vanilla player. That might be technically what's going on, but they aren't thinking that way when they play, that's too much thinking. why make it harder?


Clearly you DO NOT KNOW any serious pro jazz musicians. Just because they do it enough that using C dorian over cm9 and A mixo over A7 comes naturally to them, doesn't mean that they didn't start out thinking about that stuff and subconsciously go there.
Quote by acjshapiro

Quote by Vrstone87

meh, I've listened to every radiohead album and honestly don't get what everyone loves about them.....


cause you're ****ing stupid

Page 1 of 4