Hacker News Reader

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.

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.

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.

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.

> Any player who has musical practice but no knowledge of theory understands the notion of changing keys.

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.

You are conflating music theory with musical understanding. These two things are separate. For example, many singers know nothing about musical theory, but if you ask them to sing a song in a different key they will do it flawlessly (if they know how to sing in tune). A guitar player can do the same, even because of the shape of the instrument allows this. Maybe this is harder for an instrument like the piano, but it is not a limitation of the player, it is the instrument that requires you to learn about flats and sharps.

Being able to transpose != understanding how transposition works.

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.

I'm not saying that learning theory is bad. I love to learn it and I understand that traditional learning is a solid path for most people. What I'm saying is that it is not a prerequisite to play popular music, even in a complex instrument as the piano. Many people have now and in the past learned to play really well without knowing much more that the note names and the basic chord shapes. When it comes to jazz and improvisation, too much music theory will not necessarily make you a good player, and in fact it may hinder you ability to discover by yourself. Improvisation is about feeling the music and interacting with it, it is not about finding the best scale and writing the notes on paper.

I would agree that it is not a prerequisite to play popular music, and music theory will not necessarily make you a good player (theres so much more to it, including feeling as you say, as well as fine motor control).

> 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.

> 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.

>>> 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.

> 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...

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.

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.

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...

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

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.

Isn't "there are no meta-meta-rules" a meta-meta-rule? Or maybe a meta-meta-meta-rule...

No; that's just an empirical observation. If you see a meta-meta-rule, it may have to be revised.

> 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.