For instance Irving Berlin only played on the black keys and became the most popular songwriter that way. Almost theoretically in a statistical way to completely limit the output to that which is proven most acceptable to the mainstream. Once you're groovin' these are the ones to build up your theory about what you're already doing together.Įdit: There's also the alternative approach of playing only a limited number of the notes available on any one instrument. That's more like instrument theory rather than music theory, but if your instrument familiarity is good enough you can do your part and pull your weight along with advanced theorists who can cover the academic areas that are encountered. If you succeed at making it sound better over time, by playing however you like more & more regardless of theory, that would be notable accomplishment. If you play each note every day for some reason or another, you can become more familiar with all of them than otherwise. If you concentrate on the instrument itself primarily, you might spend some time producing relatively unmusical passages, but each instrument only has so many notes. Even better documentation in many cases.Įvery instrument is different, but I do think it's a good idea if you're going to get into theory, you do it on an instrument where you have the greatest proficiency beforehand. With deeper understanding the theory can be built upon creatively on its own, and rewarding composition or improvisation achieved independent of a particular instrument. Theory was reductive to begin with, it codified what was already acceptable to qualify as music. People spent thousands of years just trying not to hit the wrong notes without knowing the difference between a sharp or a flat. The instrument itself is all you basically need to make music. The way you become good at speaking is by practicing, and what is speech if not some combination of recitation and improvisation? Reading is entirely incidental and secondary. Only later can some knowledge of grammar help, perhaps. You don't begin to speak by learning grammar first. Learning theory too early is a pedagogic mistake. Theory can, of course, later sharpen or lead you to certain insights that can shape the music you produce, but practice is what produces facility, familiarity, and understanding, whereas theorizing produces knowledge. You can learn as much theory as you want, but theory is not practice. Theory is about music it is not the practice of music. Improvisation was what historically characterized musicianship, not theory, not sight-reading.Īs the philosophical joke goes: anything you can do I can do meta. They were practitioners who picked up the skill by listening to others, practicing, and improvising. I would add that historically, most musicians did not read music or theorize. There's also a great YouTube channel I've been watching, based around the teaching theory of Barry Harris: It's amazing how little you actually learn about music when all you're doing is reading sheet music as a kid. Now when I go back to play, say, Bach, I can see so many other things going on since I've spent so much time hearing and feeling the improv theory. It's amazing how little you actually learn about music when all you're doing is reading sheet music as a kid. I studied your typical classical piano as a kid, abandoned it in college, and later in life came back to it with a jazz improvisation teacher. A good teacher that focuses on improvisation will help you navigate through all the different building blocks you need, which happens to be theory. I'd also suggest to the OP to find a teacher that specializes in jazz, because the practice of improvisation requires you to embody that theory. This is the most important part, for sure. You have to hear and feel the theory, it's not only intellectual.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |