开云体育

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 开云体育
  1. Jazz-Guitar
  2. Topics

ears vs theory

 

I think its a balance between 'theory' and 'ears'; the two can (and should)
work together in harmony. The problem can come when one approach takes too
much precedence. If that becomes the 'ears', then we risk becoming repetitive
and boring as players; if 'theory' takes too much precedence, our playing
becomes mechanical and formulaic.

Theory can help a player hear things differently, and take him/her to
different places musically, as long as the ears are there as well to help 'manage'
the process.

That to me is one of the coolest things about being a musician; it takes a
lot of different elements working in (pardon the pun) concert to enable someone
to produce music that is creative, and that resonates with the audience.
In the case of some players, 'ears' took precedence primarily because that was
the process at the time. Remember, it's been only about 25 years or so
since technology has provided us with those things that have made it relatively
'easy' to uncover secrets (such as those things that slow down music, etc).
In the 'old days', you had to figure that stuff out on your own, and (I
believe) as a result, you 'owned' the process and the material more. That enabled
the greats to achieve their success perhaps w/o knowing a lot of 'theory' per
se.

I lean towards 'ears', because I'm trying to develop my own voice on the
instrument, but I believe music theory is important, I teach it to my students,
and I believe I apply it to my playing, but I'm trying to make that happen
more 'unconsciously' than by 'design' as I believe that spontaneity is a big
part of what makes jazz such a tremendous art form.

Cheers,
JV

Juan Vega
 

A lot of our threads in here, end up with the conclussion/general-
idea (roughly) "lets use our ears instead of theory". The most
resent one was the one about modes.

Here are my thoughts on this. Please disagree with me.

It is wrong to believe that knowing theory will prevent you from
sounding good. It is wrong to believe that using just the "ears" can
get you as far as combining it with good knowledge of theory would.
John Cage said once-Im gonna paraphrase it, i dont remember where I
read it-"If I am to use my ears, I will end up writting something
that I have heard before". Ok, thats a bit out there, you cant sound
original every single time you pick up the guitar.

So my conclussion, learn theory, no matter how boring it might be,
and use it along with your ears. If you feel you're loosing you
sense of freedom in playing because of your knowledge, I will assume
that you learnt something in the wrong way or you just learned it
and it hasnt become second nature yet.

I'm sorry about all the you you you you I I I I I. Im not addressing
anyone in specific.

I'm pretty sure that Wes, Joe Pass, Jimi and all those players who
are said that didnt know theory and reading will come in mind. Well,
if you sound as good as any of them, then go ahead and discard all
your theory chops. But remember, none of the three were given the
luxury of learning, and they all complained and felt insecure.

Im not saying close your ears and think in numbers. Im saying open
your ears, and use the numbers to organise what you hear.

Building a musicianship on ear alone, is like getting married to
good looking woman without considering her abilities in cooking.

I think the problem starts from schools. All schools not just music
schools. Theory teachers are-usually, not always-the most boring
guys on earth, because they dont mix practice. Theory is an analysis
of "practice", done in order to understand, comprehend and advance
the level of practice. It is not an obstacle.

Dimitris

dlazaridis.com
John Amato
 

--- jim_9791 <dimitris@...> wrote:

A lot of our threads in here, end up with the
conclussion/general-
idea (roughly) "lets use our ears instead of
theory". The most
resent one was the one about modes.
Jim,

Hi, brother, I've contributed to many of the posts you
speak of, and the understanding I foster and come away
with is this:

..there is no black or white on this subject, no
YES/NO .. no written in stone rule, law, but it seems
that the exceptions rule in fact ... I think everyone
has agreed that the final arbitor is this:

"Let's use our ears AND theory". I don't recall anyone
saying that theory is not necessary -- or that only
"ears" is the way --

Both are very important, and one should not be the
final arbitor of improv. over the other -- there must
be a co-existance between the two -- a synergy if you
will...

thanks for the post, brother ,...

John Amato
Music blows the dust off your soul...
Isa.55:11



__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

Toby Rider
 

John Amato wrote:

"Let's use our ears AND theory". I don't recall anyone
saying that theory is not necessary -- or that only
"ears" is the way --

That's the way I look at it. Now if I only had better ears and a better grasp of theory! :-)
 

I'd say in a slightly simplified way:

Theory gives you possibilities.

The ear chooses between them.

All the best,
Pete
www.petrikrzywacki.com
John Amato
 

--- Toby Rider <high-tech-hillbilly@...>
wrote:

That's the way I look at it. Now if I only had
better ears and a better
grasp of theory! :-)

Toby,
The ears come with playing and playing ... and the
theory comes with playing and reading ... no matter
what, it takes time ... and time is all we have
besides playing and reading ...put the 3 together and
we have a winning combination...




John Amato
Music blows the dust off your soul...
Isa.55:11



__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

John Amato
 

--- Petri Krzywacki <petegtr_1971@...> wrote:

I'd say in a slightly simplified way:

Theory gives you possibilities.

The ear chooses between them.
Pete,

Very well put .. I have to remember that ... and with
your permission use it again...



John Amato
Music blows the dust off your soul...
Isa.55:11



__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

Dave Woods
 

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Amato" <jamato316@...

"Let's use our ears AND theory". I don't recall anyone
saying that theory is not necessary -- or that only
"ears" is the way --
Dave, (Boot to full size)

I agree with John, but have something to add. I went the classical rout because back then, there was nothing else available.

The notational system has a theory unto itself that in reality only serves to justify the notational system.
A student is confronted with this first, and given the idea that this is music theory. However, it's only the theory that pertains to the notational system alone. Yes, I know that we're stuck with it, and have no choice but to learn it.

Music notation is not music. It only represents music. Music is the sound and the rhythms that animate it. Notation only approximates the music it's supposed to represent. it's up to the player's imagination and feeling to supply the rest.
Ear Training in schools is usually presented as tests. This tends not to create an atmosphere that makes a musician fall in love with sounds. They're just glad they got by, and it's the hell and gone over with.

Once we get past the notational system, conventional music theory tackles the sound. However, all of the terms
presented in the theory of music notation, get heaved into the pot along with a myriad of new labels. All of this turns into a morass of verbiage that usually makes a Jazz musician with a talented ear cut and run. If they don't cut and run, they usually wall it off in a sort of conceptual cyst, and go ahead on and play.

We knew what a cat looked like, sounded like, purred like, and moved like, before we ever saw the word "Cat" on a piece of paper. It was an easy word to learn and understand. Imagine the reverse of this, starting with the word first, and then back tracking to explain what a cat was to somebody, who'd never seen one, and there's no photograph of a cat. With music, one can't show sound in a photograph.

In my teaching I always start with the sound first, and then follow up with the verbiage. This seems to facilitate things a lot. Teaching music theory with Cakewalk is great also, because the student gets to hear what the symbol represents right away.

At it's best practical music theory is a blueprint for educating the ear. A good blueprint can always be referred back to for double checking any weak points. A blueprint can also be expanded upon bit by bit as its limits are thoroughly realized. So, as I say, I agree with what John Amato says.


Dave Woods www.musictolight.org
John Amato
 

--- Petri Krzywacki <petegtr_1971@...> wrote:

I'd say in a slightly simplified way:

Theory gives you possibilities.

The ear chooses between them.
Pete,

Very well put .. I have to remember that ... and with
your permission use it again...



John Amato
Music blows the dust off your soul...
Isa.55:11

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

Rick_Poll
 

In a way, and with no offense intended, I find the ears vs. theory
argument to be silly. It seems to me that it would be difficult to
become a well-rounded jazz player today without a healthy dose of
theory, if for no other reason than it helps to understand the
harmonic approaches of certain composers and players.

On the other hand, the whole enterprise is impossible (not just
difficult) without reasonably good ears.

Here's another take on it.

Think of the musicians you like to listen to frequently. Are they
known for theoretical knowledge or are they more "ear" players?

I don't listen to guitar players that much except as part of combos
(usually Brazilian music with vocals), but players I've listened to a
good deal over the years include Wes, Jim Hall, Carlos Santana, Mark
Knopfler, Albert Collins, Pat Metheny and early Joe Pass. On the
whole, I think I like guys who aren't that big on theory, but with
some exceptions. I heard Lorne Lofsky on one CD. His stuff sounded
heavy on theory (my guess, maybe somebody knows for sure), and I
thought he was awesome.

Rick



--- In jazz_guitar@..., "Dave Woods" <david_woods@v...>
wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Amato" <jamato316@y...

"Let's use our ears AND theory". I don't recall anyone
saying that theory is not necessary -- or that only
"ears" is the way --
Dave, (Boot to full size)

I agree with John, but have something to add. I went the classical
rout
because back then, there was nothing else available.

The notational system has a theory unto itself that in reality
only serves
to justify the notational system.
A student is confronted with this first, and given the idea that
this is
music theory. However, it's only the theory that pertains to the
notational
system alone. Yes, I know that we're stuck with it, and have no
choice but
to learn it.

Music notation is not music. It only represents music. Music is
the sound
and the rhythms that animate it. Notation only approximates the
music it's
supposed to represent. it's up to the player's imagination and
feeling to
supply the rest.
Ear Training in schools is usually presented as tests. This tends
not to
create an atmosphere that makes a musician fall in love with
sounds.
They're just glad they got by, and it's the hell and gone over with.

Once we get past the notational system, conventional music theory
tackles
the sound. However, all of the terms
presented in the theory of music notation, get heaved into the pot
along
with a myriad of new labels. All of this turns into a morass of
verbiage
that usually makes a Jazz musician with a talented ear cut and
run. If they
don't cut and run, they usually wall it off in a sort of conceptual
cyst,
and go ahead on and play.

We knew what a cat looked like, sounded like, purred like, and
moved like,
before we ever saw the word "Cat" on a piece of paper. It was an
easy word
to learn and understand. Imagine the reverse of this, starting with
the word
first, and then back tracking to explain what a cat was to
somebody, who'd
never seen one, and there's no photograph of a cat. With music,
one can't
show sound in a photograph.

In my teaching I always start with the sound first, and then follow
up with
the verbiage. This seems to facilitate things a lot. Teaching
music theory
with Cakewalk is great also, because the student gets to hear what
the
symbol represents right away.

At it's best practical music theory is a blueprint for educating
the ear. A
good blueprint can always be referred back to for double checking
any weak
points. A blueprint can also be expanded upon bit by bit as its
limits are
thoroughly realized. So, as I say, I agree with what John Amato
says.


Dave Woods www.musictolight.org
Toby Rider
 

Rick_Poll wrote:

I don't listen to guitar players that much except as part of combos (usually Brazilian music with vocals), but players I've listened to a good deal over the years include Wes, Jim Hall, Carlos Santana, Mark Knopfler, Albert Collins, Pat Metheny and early Joe Pass. On the whole, I think I like guys who aren't that big on theory, but with some exceptions. I heard Lorne Lofsky on one CD. His stuff sounded heavy on theory (my guess, maybe somebody knows for sure), and I thought he was awesome.
Just out of curiosity, how much of an understanding of theory did Charlie Christian, Coleman Hawkins and Charlie Parker have?
Those guys are why I play this stuff.
Rick_Poll
 

Years ago I learned a few Charlie Christian solos. One thing I recall
was diminished arpeggios. I have read interviews that said that, of
the bop pioneers, it was Dizzy that was knowledgeable about music
theory, not Bird. I don't know about Hawkins.

Rick

--- In jazz_guitar@..., Toby Rider <high-tech-
hillbilly@b...> wrote:
Rick_Poll wrote:

I don't listen to guitar players that much except as part of
combos
(usually Brazilian music with vocals), but players I've listened
to a
good deal over the years include Wes, Jim Hall, Carlos Santana,
Mark
Knopfler, Albert Collins, Pat Metheny and early Joe Pass. On the
whole, I think I like guys who aren't that big on theory, but with
some exceptions. I heard Lorne Lofsky on one CD. His stuff sounded
heavy on theory (my guess, maybe somebody knows for sure), and I
thought he was awesome.
Just out of curiosity, how much of an understanding of theory
did
Charlie Christian, Coleman Hawkins and Charlie Parker have?
Those guys are why I play this stuff.
jazzclif
 

ears vs theory


If this makes sense to anyone when they read it, I'd suggest you are
going to find trouble if you haven't already.

I don't think it's a good way to set things up in your head. Here's
why:

They aren't adversaries, and they certainly aren't mutually
exclusive.

You might recognize that cognitively and not feel it on a gut level,
and I think it's important to your success with the muse to do that.

You need something to train your ears and your internal systems need
external validation by the practice of making music, whatever kind
you make.

that requires disciplined non-playing organization AND automatic
reaction to tonal recognition with no encumbrance of intrusive stray
thought during the time you're playing.

Not only that, the two have to be part of the same dynamic.

If you do one and not the other, at some point you'll be stymied.
Probably pretty early on.

No versus - meld them.

There's what you hear and what you know and what you can do with it
all - if there's anything else, I can't think of it.

Clif Kuplen
 

I think it would be very difficult to play anything without using your ears
 

Where did theory come from ?

Well it came from our attempt to describe what we hear and create
labels for what we hear.

Theory therefore can be used in a "reverse engineering" way to train
your ear.

For example probably your first brush with theory - when you play say
a C and then the next note up or higher we say you've sharpened it and
describe it as "C Sharp". We use the term sharp because that's the
best word we have to describe the feeling we have when this happens.
We could say the note is "C Up" or "C Higher" etc...

So as time went on our collective auditory experience was documented
and described.

Teaching theory should could go hand in hand with teaching your ear.

Unfortunately, Colleges and institutions have a major problem, most
students ears are underdeveloped, and the ear takes time to develop.
So theory courses become removed from the ear content and become an
intellectual exercise. Sadly, also some who are doing the teaching
have under-developed ears, so many mistakes are made, and many
misunderstandings perpetuated.

In my teaching I start with ear training lesson 1. You can never start
to early. Theory is taught as we go along, as the ear develops. As your ear developes the labels and the system we've made makes sense,
both intellectually and more importantly to your ear.

The ear is essential, theory helps us give labels to what we hear and
increases our understanding, better to say "C Sharp" than say "C up a
bit", and a consistent labeling system helps.

For example when someone says it's a iim chord you should have a
sensory ear experience that tells you what that is or will be
like. Likewise when a iim chord sounds you should be able to say
a "ah there goes the iim"!

Alisdair MacRae Birch
Guitarist/Bassist/Educator/Arranger
 

Message: 25
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 17:31:29 -0500
From: Toby Rider <high-tech-hillbilly@...>
Subject: Re: Re: ears vs theory

Rick_Poll wrote:

I don't listen to guitar players that much except as part of combos
(usually Brazilian music with vocals), but players I've listened to a
good deal over the years include Wes, Jim Hall, Carlos Santana, Mark
Knopfler, Albert Collins, Pat Metheny and early Joe Pass. On the
whole, I think I like guys who aren't that big on theory, but with
some exceptions. I heard Lorne Lofsky on one CD. His stuff sounded
heavy on theory (my guess, maybe somebody knows for sure), and I
thought he was awesome.
Just out of curiosity, how much of an understanding of theory did
Charlie Christian, Coleman Hawkins and Charlie Parker have?
Those guys are why I play this stuff.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

It seems obvious (to me, anyway) that Charlie Parker and Coleman Hawkins had
an immense understanding of music theory. I have no idea on Charlie
Christian, but suspect that he was well versed, too.

Mike C.

Teaching:

"As the light changed from red to green to yellow and back to red again, I
sat there thinking about life. Was it nothing more than a bunch of honking
and yelling? Sometimes it seemed that way."
- Jack Handey
jazzclif
 

--- In jazz_guitar@..., Kevin Sterchi <KSterchi@r...> wrote:
I think it would be very difficult to play anything without using
your ears

Ludwig Van would agree with you.
Sean Williams
 

I think it is kind of like eating something new or
spicy. You try it and may not like it at first but
then you may actually acquire a taste for it later.
Or, you absolutely love it and add it to your menu.

Is it lunch time yet?

Sean Williams
www.gtr4hire.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

[email protected]
 

I dont know about Hawkins and Christian but i am quite sure that Bird knew
his theory. Afterall he did study compostion with Varesee!
I would be suprised if the others didn't I think musicians of that era knew
more that they are generally credited. Additionally musicians tend to downgrade
there education to give the impression that they are intuitive geniuses.
Maybe they are!
As Joe Diorio would say ultimately everything does come from intuition!
I agree! However, as Boulou Ferre stated to me personally it is best to
achieve a balance. A self evident truth IMO. I have never understood the Anti
intellectual posture many take. Music is language in one sense Whatever helps you!
You cant know too much. I stayed with teachers I admired for near decades I
never bought the idea that if you stay with one to long you will sound just
like him.
We interpret and re interpret it becomes yours. That along with the music we
listen too one draws on all of music history!
Best
Tony Hughes
Pancho Bravo
 

Hey, I have a simple recipe: know your theory, but
make sure you are having fun with it.
Jazz music is about having fun doing what you do,
being who you are. Without ear, you don't get fun. In
the other hand, without theory it's easier to get
frustrated, and that's another way of not having fun.
We better stop trying to be geniuses, we better try to
be happy with our music.

--- blues4hues@... wrote:

I dont know about Hawkins and Christian but i am
quite sure that Bird knew
his theory. Afterall he did study compostion with
Varesee!
I would be suprised if the others didn't I think
musicians of that era knew
more that they are generally credited. Additionally
musicians tend to downgrade
there education to give the impression that they are
intuitive geniuses.
Maybe they are!
As Joe Diorio would say ultimately everything does
come from intuition!
I agree! However, as Boulou Ferre stated to me
personally it is best to
achieve a balance. A self evident truth IMO. I have
never understood the Anti
intellectual posture many take. Music is language in
one sense Whatever helps you!
You cant know too much. I stayed with teachers I
admired for near decades I
never bought the idea that if you stay with one to
long you will sound just
like him.
We interpret and re interpret it becomes yours. That
along with the music we
listen too one draws on all of music history!
Best
Tony Hughes





__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

1 - 20 of 20