I think when he says accompanying band, he means the comping ( as opposed to who is soloing at the moment )

 

A very long time ago, in New York, you would have a trio or a quartet ready to play any standard, and guys would go up on stage to improvise, not more than 2 at the same time. This trio is the accompanying band.
And here , a women of a cultural center, decided to revive that way. She paid a band who played like 1 hour, and after that they where accompanying musicians who got up to improvise.

Of course I've also played in total impros jam session, which I prefer personally.

 

Here's some really basic theory for those who have never had a lesson in their life. Nice little illustrations.
https://www.musicradar.com/how-to/10-things-that-every-producer-should-know-about-chords

 

play the songs you hear

 

Play the songs you enjoy hearing.

 

Hear the songs you enjoy playing

 

not for playing an instrument but for writing songs yeah

 

I'm getting flummoxed. This started with "play the songs you hear" but every time I get in the car my girlfriend has the radio playing Taylor Swift. Then the discussion took a sharp left, we slowed at a stop sign and did a U turn and I got lost when the suggestion was "not for playing an instrument but for writing songs yeah".... so, please clarify. Is the aim as indicated to write songs that copy the songs you like or like the songs you copy. Yeah. Either way, I'm not ever going to copy Taylor Swift. Maybe her clothes.

 

The articles on MusicRadar about music theory are nice; very practical, and well presented.

What I like even more is how @Crisis's very short post demonstrates one of the best ways we can share music theory knowledge, i.e., just find genuinely good stuff that already exists and simply tell each other where it is.
Infinitely better than misguided scruffy error-packed personal failed attempts at teaching.

 

"Any human practice that has a long history behind it and has changed dramatically in the course of time and done decentralizedly" is very hard to teach.

Learning "Rocket science" is far more easier than music because it belongs only to particular countries and is out of touch of illiterate countries so its knowledge is more centralized and the latter countries can not introduce and inject their faulty ideas into it. But every country and tradition has its own music and styles and finding general principles for all of them is almost impossible.

 

This is possibly better suited for a different thread topic.
There are too many titles for live jam-style nights and many areas of diversity to cover this. Whether it is an open-mic" night, or a jam night, or an instrumental, or acoustic jazz jam night or electric etc. Whether the management has brains and gets whether one musician to run it (if they are stingy) or a house band to kick it off. Sometimes they pay the musician and house band or not.... so on and so forth.
While a good discussion topic, it is broad and definitely not directly related to the title "What's your philosophy regarding " Music theory?"

 

Before it gets hived off to elsewhere...
In a roundabout way, I like to see a relevance here to philosophy regarding music theory.
I like to highlight two different concepts... 'Music Knowledge' and 'Music Theory'
(and I confess to feeling irritated if and when I see them get confused)
I think this thread benefits from the reminders of how, when musicians are improvising, they are 'directly' acquiring and exercising the important stuff, i.e., 'Music Knowledge' and they are doing so without wrestling with any of the abstractions found in 'Music Theory'. They are enjoying what really matters - Music Knowledge - and they probably have a range of attitudes to abstract Music Theory, some loving it and some ignoring it altogether.
I think that distinction is a relevant 'Philosophy of Music' topic.

 

BOOM Gold star - My point. You worded it better.

I have many peer professional friends that play great. Some of them read well and some not at all. But they all have a knowledge of music. This is also a can of worms.
I see it possibly differently to some people.
Wisdom is when Knowledge is known how to be used well (IMO).
Theory is part of knowledge but it is only one part of it. Knowing what not to do is wisdom gained from using knowledge incorrectly and learning from that. Knowing what to play in a certain style, situation or spontaneous event is experience knowledge. It is only wisdom if used correctly. It can come from a pure performance base or from a theoretical one - or both.

So yes, a can of worms. But that is only my knowledge and opinion, not necessarily someone else's.

 

I'm so happy that i didn't read music theory.
Musik is in the person, like any artist.
Some call it soul, some call it ADHD (nowdays) ans some call it the spirit.
I'll keep it with my Spirit

 

I heard people say this before .
I don't know what you are saying or trying to express here.
What does what every country does have to do with you do?
I guess I don't understand your point .
Yes there is variety to some degree .
( Not lot though )
No matter what music I have ever heard from any time period or and location on the planet.
It has more similarities with another time period and location than it does differences.
Finally if you think rocket science is easier than music. You definitely in the wrong Profession. Lol

Differences in timbre , temperament , placements of accents , changing tempos , having polyrhythm and polymeter etc.
Differences in those around the world .
It's just differences in specifics .
Here's a general principle that applies to all music at any time period at any location in the world.

" Music is 3 components
1 Harmony
2.Rhythm
3.Melody"

1 principle to describe all music that ever has existed and ever will exist.

From there we can break it down into detail of the specifics .

If you compare temperaments ratio based works the same and equal temperaments work the same .
A ratio based is easier ( less keys )
And a equal temperament whether 12 tone or 37 tone has fundimental mathematic relationships .

Changing the sound or timbre of Instruments
Changes that music the same amount as having 100 people saying the same sentence does.
( The sound difference of each one of their unique voices has no impact at the deeper level of semantics " the meaning " of what that sentence is they are all speaking.

 

Last edited: Dec 30, 2019

You made me disappointed by these lines...

 

Okay, well what is it about music from different areas that gives you the impression that is " very different" than the music from another area?
I don't get the impression that music from different times and areas is that different from each other.
( The things that are different , are not radically different . It's not as if some music cannot still be called music anymore because it differs so much it has nothing in common anymore )
If it's " music "
It has it's version of
1.Harmony
2.Rhythm
3.Melody

( From there you dig in to each one to see how it's version manifests )

It's not as if some music is missing 1 of those 3 and has a different thing in it's place.

 

Last edited: Dec 30, 2019

Re: @MMJ and @Lager current discussion...

An analogy.
Some people, when they see me and my brother together, will say "Oh, I can tell you're brothers, you look so similar"
Other people will say "I would never have guessed you are brothers - you look so different"
Who's right?

Clearly there are an infinite number of similarities and an infinite number of differences.
You choose whether to see the similarities or see the differences, and you choose which are more important to you.

Same with music.

@Lager is telling us that "every country and tradition has its own music and styles"
For @Lager, these differences seem to be more interesting than the similarities.

@MMJ is telling us "general principle that applies to all music at any time period at any location in the world"
For @MMJ, these similarities seem to be more interesting than the differences.

Apologies: those are just my cartoon summaries of @Lager's and @MMJ's views.
Both of them obviously think about it deeper than that.

I prefer to be interested in both the similarities and the differences and I enjoy seeing anyone describing either or both of those.

In the @MMJ and @Lager discussion so far, I would offer the following respectful observations.

@MMJ - is doing a pretty good job of identifying and describing the important similarities that he can find in all music.
He knows the list is infinite but he's describing the basics and inviting further discussion.

@Lager - I would enjoy it if you would spell out what the differences are that you enjoy noticing.
That list would also be infinite, but anything you provided there could be really interesting.
Regrettably - your comment to MMJ isn't especially useful.

I think it would be better to do one (or both) of these...
a) tell MMJ what you think is wrong with his theories about what's similar (good luck with that, he's on solid ground)
b) describe the differences instead (in some detail). I'm sure MMJ could and would join in with discussing those.

Cheers

 

lol

 

Have a good year in 2020 everyone.

While you are at it after this exhaustive differing opinion thread, try and remember that when you summarize ALL music down to its lowest common denominator it is always either good or not, no matter how much you dissect it.