I think having knowledge of theory IS important. But I also think most people with talent (not all of course) learn more from listening and osmosis than academics. Monk, Ornette, Trane, Miles... they were out playing, not going to college. They created the things everyone else went to study. Sure, some really great players and composers come out of places like Berklee and Julliard. But the vast majority of those cats are just jerking off, thinking they'll go out and be real musicians SOMEDAY, when they're ready, when they're done learning as opposed to knowing they have the talent to just go do it. A lot of them will just teach and perpetuate that cycle, and a lot will get jobs working at Walmarts.

Really, when it comes to musical academia I think it's more important to learn orchestration techniques.

 

I believe Ad Heesive is accurate in his assessment that MMJ2017 has been somewhat disingenuous in the phrasing of his question. Yes, we are all interested in the theories that underpin our composing regardless of style. But usually we will find that a comprehension of major and minor scales will suffice in our endeavours to construct chords and melody. Past experience shows that you have a tunnel vision which has a focus on traditional jazz. Your opening question should be does anybody wish to learn the theory of jazz music circa 1920 to 1960. This would be in line with the reams of educational data that you have already stockpiled and which anybody can access. We don't need to read through it all again and again. This is not specifically a jazz forum and as much as you may wish to change the minds of every member here, most of us are not jazz musicians.

 

You literaly quoted four guys who all had parents formed in an instrument and musical theory, and who all learned to play one before the age of what 10....They all knew extremely well the theory.
You actually make a good point in favor of theory. Can't revolutionize something you don't know.
I find MMJ has a rigid approach to the thing, theory is just a base. It won't inspire you. Just a tool. But even geniuses need it.

 

No, I didn't say they had no grounding in theory. Far from it. I'm talking about how they absorbed that theory.

 

You disagree with this statement? I wasn't offering an opinion, I was stating a fact. Pop music has been the dominant genre since the early 60's. Please provide evidence that jazz has had a major influence on popular music since this time to the present.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Dec 11, 2019

This has been precisely the case for me. Through working with live bands, learning covers, then writing my own material, getting a publishing deal and working with artists around the world, I have absorbed much knowledge, but I have never needed to play jazz.

 

Esthetic revolutions come from breaking with the - usually well known - rules of the field you operate in. The irony of it is that the ones who break the rules ends up establishing new ones. Fact is all those geniuses are now classics studied in any serious musical curicular.

Let's see this painting.



Kind of seem boring nowadays.
That was a revolution. It made a scandal back then, and the guy who did this did this on purpose, knowingly to break with esthetic criteria he knew and disagreed with.
The problem isn't the nude. There were plenty of nudes back then. But this clothless lady here is represented with clothed men. Now, that was an absolute scandal back then, a lack of sensitivity for the critics, who litteraly all destroyed the painting in their review of it. That was the only difference with the painting that inspired Manet for this one, a classic painting by Raphael (2 nymphes) and Titien (Concert Champetre), which he had to know very well to do what he did. The only difference is the presence of those clothed men.
But Manet was in disagrement with classisism and academism from the get go, as soon as he started studiying the bases of its field, painting, its history, its internal criteria, the history of its technic, etc.
So he said "f...ck off" to the classics he studied and put the foundations for impressionism.

And you said that they were out there playing not going to college. And I said that it doesn't matter where they learned they did learn theory, it's this very knowledge that allowed them to do what they did. Well that and talent, imagination, all the basic skillset for an artist.
I don't know how they absorbed, don't know how you know, but I know how they digested it.

 

Last edited: Dec 11, 2019

I always preferred Bow Wow Wow.

 

Errr, these threads.

The OP spins one of these out every so often in a manner that most preteens could spot as sadly self-serving and as someone else here has correctly pointed out - a dishonest bait and switch.

Embarrassing.

And yes, the Bow Wow Wow cover is far more interesting.

 

THE 6 RULES TO RULE THEM ALL

1. Music theory is actually not the theory of music. It is - simply and absolutely - the theory of the human auditory system and its perception of sound.

2. The original direction of the flow of theoretical information is from the ear to the theory. Not the other way around.

3. People who have an ear for music know music theory very well, despite being completely unaware of it. Their knowledge is encoded in their brains and it is the foundation of how their musical hearing works. Can you think of a healthy brain that doesn't know how to operate itself? Nope. This is why people with no musical education have written some songs that will never get old.

4. Advanced musical ears - who are very few in society - have produced advanved theories of the human auditory system which will only make auditory sense for other advanced musical ears, or those who are interested in advancing their ears.

5. Advanced music based on advanced theory is good.

6. Anyone who thinks advanced music is better than simple music just because it is advanced is stupid.

SOURCE: Me, a music teacher of 17 years.

 

Last edited: Dec 11, 2019

The majority agrees that music theory is useful however there are many videos,books, and articles easily found on the web or for that matter on the sister site that people can avail themselves of,so there is little to no need for anyone to devote multiple forum pages to explaining it to everyone unless someone specifically asks for it.The emphasis on Jazz is off putting for many readers and there are fields of music where the study of theory is utterly redundant Scottish and Irish music is learned almost entirely by ear yet has virtuosic playing,melodic complexity,driving complicated rhythms etc but no one ever discusses the use of mixolydian and dorian modes or syncopation it is learned by listening to acknowledged masters and imitating them which I suspect is the case with most traditional/ethnic music. Theory informs but practice convinces.

I agree with Ad heesive,bait and switch is the order of the day with the original poster.

 

.....and in short sir, you have said all that needs to be said on the matter in the most succinct manner possible. Thank you.

 

No to all of that.
I have neither the talent or the skill to attempt that kind of conscious manipulation.
I am lucky to hack out some dubstep.

 

Wow. WOW!

 

1 and 2 are wrong unless we want to ignore the actual development and history of all world music theory and... practice.
Not only are all music theory systems based on extramusical (most of the time mathematical and aesthetic ) principles, but many important composers first decided to use new theory, then the practice emerged when people started imitating the new type of music(or we would have been still stuck in playing whatever ancient people deemed as music on their pentatonic bone flutes and similar).
It is true that music that sounds good must work with the human auditory system, but not always - contemporary film music language used in horror movies can be traced to atonal and dissonant systems that have no basis in human hearing and are considered as sounding "bad", but that's the point (in horror music, at least; as avantgarde music they are just a joke).

 

if ur not musically trained, ie cant play the piano or guitar then music theroy can be over complicated, or you can over complicate it, i took some lessons and know the scales and keys, i struggle with chords, best way is to use your ears and if it sounds right it is right, the circle of 5ths is a good starting point.

 

Last edited: Dec 11, 2019

T

Seems true enough. Most are interested in how music is appreciated by those who have not taken Music Appreciation 101.
I think it is interesting when a team creates some music that the general public loves but the individual team members feel they did not get their way & maybe one of them were really happy with the outcome. What was produced was a compromise so maybe hits more common triggers. And of course those magic moments when most of the team knows they have something good but most can't easily sum up the technical reasons.
We all have similar biological machinery and it is complicated but most will get similar feelings from art, and music (hearing) seems to demonstrate that the most.
That makes me wonder about what other animals have the best reactions to human music, if any.
I know there are claims, but I guess that perhaps without our physiology they wouldn't share the same emotional responses.
Still ..... Now I have to look into that..
Of course most other animals don't have the money for music theory classes, either, just to be get back on topic.

 

Those atonal and dissonant sounds are chosen to manipulate our feelings, so of course they DO have basis in human hearing.
Otherwise they would have no effect and we would not have noticed them and given them names!

 

Philosophy, not resume thread.

Sharp eye lol. He's probably him.

 

the 86 percent yes says it all.....