4 ms·

Honestly, I have to say I do not understand the obsession on Hacker News and more broadly on music theory. Music theory is interesting, but as an amateur jazz/b

Honestly, I have to say I do not understand the obsession on Hacker News and more broadly on music theory. Music theory is interesting, but as an amateur jazz/blues/rock pianist for the past twenty years or something, it's not going to make you a better player. The best thing to do to learn these styles is to simply play. I do agree you need to know some things (like if you see an E7 in a jazz book you shouldn't play the E), but really there's not that much complexity to it. Music is a language, someone shows you how to play some licks and you take and expand on that by practice practice practice. I honestly couldn't tell you any of the theory behind half the stuff I play. Thus, when I hear things like "Of course, a rootless 3-7-9-5 so-called I7 (E7) chord is actually a diminished seventh chord (minor third, diminished fifth, diminished seventh (major sixth)) viio7 (D diminished 7th chord)" it makes sense in my mind what you're saying, but I'm also thinking... if someone showed you how to play it, rather than attempted to 'teach' you by showering you in theory, there wouldn't be a whole lot of confusion. At the end of the day, the American styles of music are ultimately all aural traditions, whereas 'classical' has -- unfortunately, in my opinion -- become transformed into a written one. But going back to the E7. Only the piano pays Gsharp, B, D, F#/F. The Bass player will play E, so while it's rootless on piano, it's not rootless in a band. Which is probably another reason you're confused. Jazz comping should not be played without a band. If you're just playing jazz piano then you should certainly play the root at some point (unless you want to sound cerebral, in which case don't do that). > My advise to people who are learning music theory is to ignore terminology as much as they can and focus on intervals. Intervals are the true source of truth of harmony and everything else is someone's opinion as to how a particular structure should be named, perceived or modeled. I always tell people attempting to learn improv and piano to 'play what sounds good and don't play what doesn't.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wizofaus 3y ago
> if you see an E7 in a jazz book you shouldn't play the E "Shouldn't" seems a strange way of putting it - if you're fortunate enough to be playing in an ensemble with a dedicated bassist then sure, it's their job to provide the root (for any chord!) but I've never heard it suggested as a pianist that you should avoid doubling it...
- anon291 3y ago
  typically pianists do avoid doubling the bassist though. Playing jazz piano solo you do a whole different set of things than if you're playing together.
- coliveira 3y ago
  It is common in jazz for other players to avoid the root note in its lower position, the idea is to give more freedom to comp, and to avoid repeating the low note in the bass. Remember that unlike classical music where the composer can decide where each instrument will support the music, jazz players have to do this on the fly, so they need to follow some common rules like this.
  - wizofaus 3y ago
    I'd agree you'd normally not use the root position if you're playing with a bassist (unless they're soloing), but whether or not I avoided including the root at all would depend entirely on what fit well under the fingers and "felt right" at the time. I never imagined there was any sort of "rule" around it...
    - anon291 3y ago
      There are no rules, which was exactly the point of my comment. There's no studying of systems to be had, because there is no system. I said "I always tell people attempting to learn improv and piano to 'play what sounds good and don't play what doesn't." The particular sentence you quoted sounds rigid on its own, but when put into the context of my entire comment, it's clear that I'm not trying to give a hard rule, but a general convention. Like I said... you should play what sounds good; and don't play what doesn't
      - kazinator 3y ago
        There are rules; then there are meta-rules about which rules to choose and how to combine then, but there are no meta-meta-rules.
jdietrich 3y ago
HN has a slightly nerdy preoccupation with theory for its own sake, but a solid understanding of theory is immensely useful, particularly in jazz. You don't need it per se, but in an awful lot of situations it's the difference between desperately faking it in the hopes that no-one will notice and confidently choosing from a broad palette of options that you know will sound good. When taught properly, modern jazz theory is a clear and pragmatic aid to improvisational fluency. The time investment needed to get to grips with theory is really quite modest in the overall scheme of learning to be a jazz musician.
- coliveira 3y ago
  I think some basic understanding helps, but the problem is to think that you need to master theory, especially esoteric scales, to be able to play. Jazz is more experimentation than anything else, you play what sounds good. Practicing scales and chords per se will not take you anywhere.
  - midiguy 3y ago
    You can experiment all you want, but to reproduce those results consistently in any situation that might arise you need to contextualize your experimentation within the framework of theory so your mind has something to grasp onto other than 'moving this muscle makes this sound'. Let's say you are on the gig with a singer who wants to do a standard piece in Eflat and you only practiced it in G. Someone who knows theory well will be able to transpose on the spot. Someone who relies on muscle memory and ear will likely be pretty useless in that situation.
    - coliveira 3y ago
      Transposition has little to do with theory. Any player who has musical practice but no knowledge of theory understands the notion of changing keys. If you think this is something acquired by learning music theory you should revisit this idea.
      - midiguy 3y ago
coliveira 3y ago
> I do not understand the obsession on Hacker News and more broadly on music theory Agreed, jazz teachers have the tendency to overcomplicate things. Jazz is not that difficult (on the theory side), because most of what players do is to decide on the fly what sounds good or not. All the complex analysis of scales is just something that is introduced afterwards to try to understand what is going on, not something you need to learn. The only concepts that I believe you need to master to play jazz is basic chords sequences (II/V/I style) and voice leading. Everything else follows from that.
midiguy 3y ago
> but as an amateur jazz/blues/rock pianist for the past twenty years or something, it's not going to make you a better player. Knowing theory won't necessarily make you better at playing music in a certain style on a certain instrument. But it will make you a much more adaptable musician who can pick up styles and instruments faster, communicate musical ideas more efficiently, and form a mental conceptual model of a piece much more effectively. Particularly in music as harmonically complex jazz, if you can't speak the language of theory other musicians frankly won't be able to communicate with you on paper and thus won't take you very seriously. Now if you want to play for example punk or Appalachian folk music and nothing else, I would agree with you. But a working musician these days needs to be adaptable.
analog31 3y ago
>>> Honestly, I have to say I do not understand the obsession on Hacker News and more broadly on music theory. I'm an amateur jazz bassist. I've also learned relatively little theory, but have a reasonably active gig schedule with 3 bands plus whoever calls me. I handle my role well enough, including extensive soloing. But I offer some caveats to younger players when they're given a chance to learn theory: 1. What I've learned by ear and intuition has taken me 45 years. And there were more opportunities to learn by immersion when I started out. A young player who studies theory can get there an awful lot quicker. And there are a lot more college trained jazz players competing for gigs. 2. I compensate with some other strengths, including knowledge of the standards (rarely bring fake books to "standards" gigs), and fluent sight-reading. Even pro's who don't maintain their reading chops will have a hard time subbing for me on my big-band gigs. Some jazz follows the written tradition. 3. Players who go beyond just playing standards and canned arrangements, by writing their own compositions and arrangements, are almost exclusively trained in theory. And unlike the rock scene, playing high quality "originals" seems to enhance the audience appeal of a jazz band. Two of my bands have fairly prolific composers. Unfortunately, neither band records, or I'd share. 4. There's a fair amount of modern stuff that's over my head, and I'm forced to find ways of soloing and harmonizing that are work-arounds.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

wizofaus 3y ago

> if you see an E7 in a jazz book you shouldn't play the E "Shouldn't" seems a strange way of putting it - if you're fortunate enough to be playing in an ensemble with a dedicated bassist then sure, it's their job to provide the root (for any chord!) but I've never heard it suggested as a pianist that you should avoid doubling it...

anon291 3y ago
typically pianists do avoid doubling the bassist though. Playing jazz piano solo you do a whole different set of things than if you're playing together.
coliveira 3y ago
It is common in jazz for other players to avoid the root note in its lower position, the idea is to give more freedom to comp, and to avoid repeating the low note in the bass. Remember that unlike classical music where the composer can decide where each instrument will support the music, jazz players have to do this on the fly, so they need to follow some common rules like this.
- wizofaus 3y ago
  I'd agree you'd normally not use the root position if you're playing with a bassist (unless they're soloing), but whether or not I avoided including the root at all would depend entirely on what fit well under the fingers and "felt right" at the time. I never imagined there was any sort of "rule" around it...
  - anon291 3y ago
    There are no rules, which was exactly the point of my comment. There's no studying of systems to be had, because there is no system. I said "I always tell people attempting to learn improv and piano to 'play what sounds good and don't play what doesn't." The particular sentence you quoted sounds rigid on its own, but when put into the context of my entire comment, it's clear that I'm not trying to give a hard rule, but a general convention. Like I said... you should play what sounds good; and don't play what doesn't
    - kazinator 3y ago
      There are rules; then there are meta-rules about which rules to choose and how to combine then, but there are no meta-meta-rules.

jdietrich 3y ago

HN has a slightly nerdy preoccupation with theory for its own sake, but a solid understanding of theory is immensely useful, particularly in jazz. You don't need it per se, but in an awful lot of situations it's the difference between desperately faking it in the hopes that no-one will notice and confidently choosing from a broad palette of options that you know will sound good. When taught properly, modern jazz theory is a clear and pragmatic aid to improvisational fluency. The time investment needed to get to grips with theory is really quite modest in the overall scheme of learning to be a jazz musician.

coliveira 3y ago
I think some basic understanding helps, but the problem is to think that you need to master theory, especially esoteric scales, to be able to play. Jazz is more experimentation than anything else, you play what sounds good. Practicing scales and chords per se will not take you anywhere.
- midiguy 3y ago
  You can experiment all you want, but to reproduce those results consistently in any situation that might arise you need to contextualize your experimentation within the framework of theory so your mind has something to grasp onto other than 'moving this muscle makes this sound'. Let's say you are on the gig with a singer who wants to do a standard piece in Eflat and you only practiced it in G. Someone who knows theory well will be able to transpose on the spot. Someone who relies on muscle memory and ear will likely be pretty useless in that situation.
  - coliveira 3y ago
    Transposition has little to do with theory. Any player who has musical practice but no knowledge of theory understands the notion of changing keys. If you think this is something acquired by learning music theory you should revisit this idea.
    - midiguy 3y ago

coliveira 3y ago

> I do not understand the obsession on Hacker News and more broadly on music theory Agreed, jazz teachers have the tendency to overcomplicate things. Jazz is not that difficult (on the theory side), because most of what players do is to decide on the fly what sounds good or not. All the complex analysis of scales is just something that is introduced afterwards to try to understand what is going on, not something you need to learn. The only concepts that I believe you need to master to play jazz is basic chords sequences (II/V/I style) and voice leading. Everything else follows from that.

midiguy 3y ago

> but as an amateur jazz/blues/rock pianist for the past twenty years or something, it's not going to make you a better player. Knowing theory won't necessarily make you better at playing music in a certain style on a certain instrument. But it will make you a much more adaptable musician who can pick up styles and instruments faster, communicate musical ideas more efficiently, and form a mental conceptual model of a piece much more effectively. Particularly in music as harmonically complex jazz, if you can't speak the language of theory other musicians frankly won't be able to communicate with you on paper and thus won't take you very seriously. Now if you want to play for example punk or Appalachian folk music and nothing else, I would agree with you. But a working musician these days needs to be adaptable.

analog31 3y ago

>>> Honestly, I have to say I do not understand the obsession on Hacker News and more broadly on music theory. I'm an amateur jazz bassist. I've also learned relatively little theory, but have a reasonably active gig schedule with 3 bands plus whoever calls me. I handle my role well enough, including extensive soloing. But I offer some caveats to younger players when they're given a chance to learn theory: 1. What I've learned by ear and intuition has taken me 45 years. And there were more opportunities to learn by immersion when I started out. A young player who studies theory can get there an awful lot quicker. And there are a lot more college trained jazz players competing for gigs. 2. I compensate with some other strengths, including knowledge of the standards (rarely bring fake books to "standards" gigs), and fluent sight-reading. Even pro's who don't maintain their reading chops will have a hard time subbing for me on my big-band gigs. Some jazz follows the written tradition. 3. Players who go beyond just playing standards and canned arrangements, by writing their own compositions and arrangements, are almost exclusively trained in theory. And unlike the rock scene, playing high quality "originals" seems to enhance the audience appeal of a jazz band. Two of my bands have fairly prolific composers. Unfortunately, neither band records, or I'd share. 4. There's a fair amount of modern stuff that's over my head, and I'm forced to find ways of soloing and harmonizing that are work-arounds.