| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sanborn_chase
Regular Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2019
Posts: 30
Location: Toronto
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 11:00 am Post subject: CS YouTube: Jazz Theory (Help Or Hindrance?) |
 |
|
Can you learn to improvise through the study and application of chords and scales? This week's video was sparked by a comment from someone who questions what can seem like an overwhelming amount of music theory confronting jazz students who should be focusing on sound, first and foremost. Read the comment and watch the video and weigh in with your own thoughts. Have you experienced similar frustration?
https://youtu.be/D0HDe_U4VAU
Comment, share, subscribe!
Thanks for watching!
_________________
www.chasesanborn.com
www.youtube.com/chasesanborn |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
HERMOKIWI
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 24 Dec 2008
Posts: 2581
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your video is excellent. You tell it like it is.
The study of theory, scales, chords, etc. can be helpful to the process of learning to improvise but at the end of the day you have to be able to pick up your horn and instinctively play what you hear. It's primarily a process of hearing, imitating and assimilating. Those three are the most important steps in learning to improvise. There are no substitutes for those three steps. A player can become extremely fluent in improvisation on the basis of those three steps alone without ever studying theory, scales, chords, etc.
Clark Terry said it best: Imitate. Assimilate. Innovate.
_________________
HERMOKIWI |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sanborn_chase
Regular Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2019
Posts: 30
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2019 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I made the point in the video that one can learn to improvise solely by ear, but that you'd wind up musically illiterate. Theory doesn't teach you to improvise, but it helps you to communicate and absorb information. There is a common misconception that the ability to improvise is innate, and while some have greater natural ability, it is a skill that can be learned, just as any language can.
_________________
www.chasesanborn.com
www.youtube.com/chasesanborn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HERMOKIWI
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 24 Dec 2008
Posts: 2581
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2019 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sanborn_chase wrote: | | I made the point in the video that one can learn to improvise solely by ear, but that you'd wind up musically illiterate. Theory doesn't teach you to improvise, but it helps you to communicate and absorb information. There is a common misconception that the ability to improvise is innate, and while some have greater natural ability, it is a skill that can be learned, just as any language can. |
I'm in agreement to the extent that "musically illiterate" describes being illiterate in an academic sense, that is, being unable to describe what is happening in the technical terms of theory. I also agree that knowledge of theory can help you communicate and absorb information. However, I don't agree that understanding information communicated in the academic terms of theory is a necessary prerequisite to the development of fluency in improvisation.
For some players knowledge of theory in academic terms is helpful if not vital. For others the knowledge and application of "theory" is fully and effectively embodied in listening, imitating and assimilating.
I completely agree that improvisation is a language that is learned like any other language. We all learned our native language by the process of listening, imitating and assimilating without any knowledge of theory. Later, when we started learning theory, this knowledge may have helped us become more aware of the fine points of the language and may have increased our understanding of the mechanics of the language which, in turn, may have led to us becoming more articulate.
The operative words are "may have." To some, the knowledge is vital. To others it's confusing busywork. The fact that someone is highly articulate in a language does not automatically mean they know anything about the language in the academic terms of theory.
To me, by far the primary focus in learning improvisation is listening, imitating and assimilating. Knowledge of theory has the potential to be helpful but it may or may not be helpful on a case by case basis. It depends on the player, the player's approach and the player's ability to learn, understand and apply theory.
If a player can instinctively play anything the player hears does it really matter whether the player can explain it in terms of theory? Knowledge of theory would not seem to be a necessary prerequisite to developing that skill.
Did Shakespeare know anything about the technical theory of the English language? Could he diagram a sentence to the satisfaction of a high school English teacher? Did he even need this knowledge to write what he wrote? I don't know the answers, it's just something to ponder.
_________________
HERMOKIWI |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sanborn_chase
Regular Member
Joined: 08 Nov 2019
Posts: 30
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2019 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Admittedly the word ‘illiterate’ could be interpreted as inflammatory. I use it in comparison to being able to speak or understand spoken language, but unable to read or write. Understanding chord symbols, not just on a theoretical level but as an indication of sound, is likened to any other aspect of written music in this context: a starting point and an assist to the ears. There are and have been great jazz musicians who know little of the theory of what they do—fewer than there used to be, I think—but most of us (me, anyway) need all the help we can get in terms of understanding and responding to what we hear.
_________________
www.chasesanborn.com
www.youtube.com/chasesanborn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrOlds
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 25 Apr 2003
Posts: 722
Location: California
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting topic. Chicken, egg. Egg, chicken.
Jazz is no longer a common or even popular music so the opportunities to learn through osmosis are long gone. Few people are still alive who heard one of “The Greats” in their prime at a local venue.
Today people learn jazz in school. Schools focus on developing tools to dissect and codify how an artist did whatever 60+ years ago.
This is not a bad thing. Stravinsky knew all the theory and caused a riot. So learn the theory. And learn idiomatic performance practices. Get past diagramming sentences and cause your own riots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HERMOKIWI
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 24 Dec 2008
Posts: 2581
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2019 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sanborn_chase wrote: | | Admittedly the word ‘illiterate’ could be interpreted as inflammatory. I use it in comparison to being able to speak or understand spoken language, but unable to read or write. Understanding chord symbols, not just on a theoretical level but as an indication of sound, is likened to any other aspect of written music in this context: a starting point and an assist to the ears. There are and have been great jazz musicians who know little of the theory of what they do—fewer than there used to be, I think—but most of us (me, anyway) need all the help we can get in terms of understanding and responding to what we hear. |
I don't find the word "illiterate" to be inflammatory at all. I think it's actually a very good description of what you describe. I fit that description. I've been playing for 59 years. I was not a music student in college. I learned to improvise by the method I've described, specifically, by listening, imitating and assimilating. I knew nothing of any consequence about music theory as I developed this skill.
Over the years I thought a lot about whether and to what extent knowledge of music theory could have benefited my ability to improvise. So, about 5 years ago I enrolled at the University of Nebraska and took two semesters of theory.
In all honesty, what I learned in those classes didn't transfer over to increase my improvisational skill in the least. I think much of that result can be explained by the fact I've played for so many years and have had so much success with the listening, imitating, assimilating model that I saw theory only as a way to dissect what was already coming naturally. I saw theory as unnecessarily complicating the process.
All that being said, I still think that the study of theory can be very valuable to some students in learning to improvise. I particularly think this is the case with the student who learns theory before starting to work on improvisation.
_________________
HERMOKIWI |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jaw04
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 31 Dec 2015
Posts: 899
Location: California
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 04, 2020 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MrOlds wrote: | Interesting topic. Chicken, egg. Egg, chicken.
Jazz is no longer a common or even popular music so the opportunities to learn through osmosis are long gone. Few people are still alive who heard one of “The Greats” in their prime at a local venue.
Today people learn jazz in school. Schools focus on developing tools to dissect and codify how an artist did whatever 60+ years ago.
This is not a bad thing. Stravinsky knew all the theory and caused a riot. So learn the theory. And learn idiomatic performance practices. Get past diagramming sentences and cause your own riots. |
+1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jazz_trpt
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 25 Nov 2001
Posts: 5734
Location: Savoy, Illinois, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
