[deleted]
Sorry, I think what I said was misunderstood and was not very accurate, so I made the decision to delete it.
Sorry, I think what I said was misunderstood and was not very accurate, so I made the decision to delete it.
The problem with music theory is that it's _extremely_ contextual, and I think you have to at least get a sense for some of the "rules" of chord construction to be able to make sense of the notation. Music theory is just a language for talking about sounds and harmonies, and while there are cases where "just focus on the intervals" would make sense, there are just as many times that it's useful to say "it's a ii-V-I in Ab major." Having the language be based on the diatonic chords of the key you're in can make it easier to express a lot of different concepts in a shorthand, instead of having to spell out the intervals of every chord you come across.
My advice to folks learning music theory would be to check out the Signals Music Studio channel - that dude has helped me make sense of theory concepts that I never grokked in years of playing music. I think it's really one of those cases where you have to get a good sense for the language before you start to get frustrated by the limitations and blemishes of the whole system.
If I couldn't have any information about the key, I'd still want the root and the melody.
The point I think you're missing is that the blog post isn't a music-theoretical presentation of what E7 is 'ontologically', it's a guide for what jazz pianists should play on that chord in an ensemble context. And in that context what's written here is very standard advice, since it's assumed the bassist will be playing the E. If there was no bassist, say if they were playing solo piano, a pianist will often play the E in the bass.
It's also clear from the way the article is written that they're already assuming some basic theoretical knowledge. It's never explained what notes are in an E7. If you don't know that, yes it will be confusing, but only because the article is not for you.
Overall I think the post would be very helpful for someone who knows the basics and is just getting starting playing with others.
The player chooses what voicings to use, often on the fly. Voicings like 7-9-3-5 for a ii chord are only the most basic one-hand voicings that can give some minimal voice leading in common progressions.
Once a player learns a lot of different voicings, and more voicing concepts, they will add other notes like the 11, 13, and yes the root. Two-handed spread voicings on piano might often have a root on top, or pass through a root via voice leading in a progression.
The simpler voicings are there for beginners to teach the theory, enough practice to play a bit, and to emphasize getting the root out of the low register where it muddies things with the bass.
So the important piece of information is the key and chord quality. For an E7 as a V7 chord, it really matters that the root is E (and that you're in the key of, and maybe resolving to D) even if you don't, right at some particular moment, play the E.
From my reading of the article there wasn't a suggestion the root was unsounded, just that it wasn't provided by the piano or guitar voicings, i.e. left to the bassist (or potentially even the soloist). Having said that I'd say there clearly are times even playing solo it makes sense to think of a particular chord as rootless, given what it's leading to or what it's substituting for, or what you might reasonably expect a bass player to do if they were present.
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.
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.
If they understand the notion of changing keys, then they don't have no knowledge of music theory. Transposition is basic theory, but music theory nonetheless. What do you reckon theory is? It starts with understanding how scales and chords are built.
I mean sure you can handpick scenarios where some musicians on certain instruments may be able to transpose without knowing any theory. But knowing a bit of theory would unlock the requisite knowledge to do it reliably on any instrument. There is really no reason not to learn some music theory is what I am getting it - it will only make you a more versatile musician.
> Improvisation is about feeling the music and interacting with it, it is not about finding the best scale and writing the notes on paper.
Knowing music theory is not about finding the best scale. It is about being able to talk and write about the building blocks that give rise to musical expressivity in a common language that is communicable to others. In other words, it is descriptive, not prescriptive.
> in fact it may hinder you ability to discover by yourself
As someone who has taken 6 semesters of music theory, and still stumbles upon things that surprise me musically, I would disagree. The difference is when I stumble upon a new sound, I can remember it not only by feeling and how it sounds but also by it's harmonic, rhythmic, melodic, structural characteristics. Which would allow me to use it in greater contexts.
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.
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.
"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...
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
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.