Django and music theory

Shemi

@Buco That's the feeling I got, which first struck me in something Grapelli said in his first meeting him but I can't remember what it was. I've known plenty of people who are extremely outwardly confident, but that confidence is sometimes a mask for some deep insecurity. Many hardcore thespians are a great example of this.

Lango-Django

Secretly insecure thespians like, say, Marilyn Monroe?

Well, like her, Django did have a similar propensity for arriving late, or sometimes failing to arrive at all.

The way I imagine Django is that he'd be extremely secure in the company of fellow musicians, or fellow pool players, or card players, or any males, whether manouche or not, who engaged in the kinds of activities that he enjoyed.

But having to make small talk with millionaire fans? or royalty? or those Nazi jazz lovers he had to play for in occupied Paris? I can't imagine him being very comfortable in those situations, much like most jazz cats I know...

What would he have been like with women? Somehow I picture our hero being a bit shy, although there are stories of occasional dalliances with prostitutes... as seems to have been rather common with musicians of that era...

scot

scot wrote: »

Professor to student, 2015: "Of course it works in practice, you idiot. The important thing for us is, it must work in theory".

As I intended it, the humorous exchange between the student and professor represents the general disconnect between the the theorist and the man doing the work. Don't forget, one of the purposes of "critical theory" is to elevate the critic to the same level as the artist. Or as Bob put it, the trivialization of knowledge - or endeavor of any kind. The theorist does not have dirty nails and may not like those who do. All of Matthew Crawford's books on working with your hands are worth reading.

kevingcox wrote: »

It is not difficult for me to imagine a time and culture in which such such observational skills as Django clearly had were cultivated and incentivized to the degree where explanation (which, to me, is the essence of theory) becomes largely irrelevant compared to actual execution.

Kevin really nailed it.

As long as people enjoy dangerous endeavors - things like climbing, motorsports, and land war, where these skills are necessary to survive, they are not in any danger of dying out. It's actually pretty amazing how quickly you can learn when your life is on the line. Considering the problems that gypsies had dealing with Europeans, I expect that nearly all gypsies had fairly well-developed observational skills. It was part of the job.

In the world of mechanical or trade work, most people will learn exactly what they need to learn in order to accomplish the task at hand, and not much more. But they keep that knowledge in reserve because it might make the next task easier. As a guitarist, I always believed that everything I learned about music helped my playing in some way - still believe it.

Django was never described by anyone who knew him as being self-conscious. He was certainly aware of his own talents. And he was a professional womanizer.

Bob Holo

scot wrote: »

As long as people enjoy dangerous endeavors - things like climbing, motorsports, and land war, where these skills are necessary to survive, they are not in any danger of dying out. It's actually pretty amazing how quickly you can learn when your life is on the line....

I didn't know you were a climber, Scott. I know we've talked motorcycles, though I seem to remember that we rode different styles.

But you took me back to learning/teaching climbing. Some techniques had a lot to do with theory because they were done (nearly) identically by everyone. But other techniques were more dependent on physiology, body proportions and mental toughness AKA the willingness to do something that feels terrifying and wrong because, in fact, it's actually the best and safest way to do it. Guitar feels like that to me sometimes. Some things, like ear training and modes & tonal centers can be improved by theory and learning in a controlled environment, but other things require going out on a street corner, opening your case, and getting your a** handed to you until you can apply what you've learned in the context of the often harsh realities of performing for audiences. If there's a reason that I'm not a better guitar player it's that I've not done enough of that second part.

NylonDave

Hi Scot, I am sure I understood your point very well. I chose to offer another possibility because such a circumstance often does arises.

I remember maybe some time ago it was believed that the archaeopteryx and other protean birds were incapable of taking off and could only walk up hills and then glide down. But then evidence built up to show that not only was that not a great hunting strategy but also that really their entire existence only made sense if they could take off.

So here we have a classic example where a professor might say.
Professor to student, 2015: "Of course it works in practice, you idiot. The important thing for us is, it must work in theory"

Because if there was an error in the theory (regarding the velocity which needed to be achieved and the strength of muscle as indicated by the size of muscle inserts in the fossilized skeleton and estimated life weight) falsely indicating that sufficient uplift could not be generatedthen that meant that there was something which was being missed and in finding that they would have a better understanding of the situation. And eventually the hole was found and it was discovered that the density of the air was different then. And that opened up some other very interesting observations.

I agree with you fully that when learning you should only get what you need for the task at hand. The most common mistake in music would be something like the Aebersold scale syllabus with a very unhelpful list of out of context options. Far better to learn an actual tune and maybe notice that it exemplifies something specific that might come op in a similar tune in a similar style.

Back to working with hands. If I were teaching someone how to strip down an engine I might do a few different engines in a short time if possible. Maybe start with an old simple one that would never really need to run again and let them butcher it maybe one each and he would copy me from the next bench. Then maybe give him a shot on his own on something a bit more involved where they would be in the driving seat and securing their knowledge through independant practice and then help them troubleshoot when they got stuck. Finally our last engine might be something really modern and tricky and maybe work on it together pretty much as equals. Then I would think that I had served them well. Because when a new and seemingly completely different engine was presented to them they might be able to see how it was actually quite simple at heart and a lot of the seeming complication was just bells and whistles that they didn't need to worry too much about.

If we never got our hands dirty and talked theory and pressure and expulsion rates then it might be interesting but when all is said and done afterwards they would not be able to strip an engine down never mind put it back together.


Same with music.

What I really really find futile is when a young kid gets to music school and cant really work on the simple thing well but learns a load of stuff that they think that they might use later geared towards the supermodern flashy end of the market.

And I think that last thing is why so many of us are here getting back to Swing. Most of the early fusion guys came out of Berklee and there was a lot of experimenting where deliberate weirdness masked an inablilty to really play a good solid guitar solo that made sense to anyone. And not a lot of great tunes came out of it.

And here is another thing I personally love about taking an all inclusive approach and trying streamline thinking and realise that the newest thing is really the same as a very old thing.

Most people know that All the Things You Are is kind of a Fancy Version of Fly Me to The Moon. But I also find it kind of interesting that it is also kinda Greensleeves and that Greensleeves is also kind of a Flamenco Solea and that a Solea is also kinda this



And if I know that all of that is just an elaboration on the Andalucian Cadence then I might start noticing it in fiddle tunes written in tablature by illiterate scottish peasants before the Biber.

And I would think that this Andalucian Cadence is something worth thinking about. I might just replace the first chords minor with a major 6/9 muck about with the harmonic rhythm and call it some kind of Bolero, if you catch my drift.

Of course I might not even know that I was doing this.

But I think History is a valid study in its own right. I've never thought about what the long term implications of rock climbing might be for the greater population.
I would assume that motorsports had the effect of selling cigarettes and putting V8 engines in cars that never touched a racetrack or visited an autobarn. And that those cars might burn more fuel than could be produced cheaply domestically.

But if I was being sold the line that conducting a land war would stop terrorism I might notice that

'In the world of mechanical or trade work, most people will learn exactly what they need to learn in order to accomplish the task at hand, and not much more. But they keep that knowledge in reserve because it might make the next task easier'

And would hope that the people leading those fellows from one place to the next had noticed the one to one correspondence between occupation and terrorism obvious to any student of history.

In fact I would actually assume that they, or at least someone within their inner circle, did and that their actual motivations were entirely different. And I might ask myself just what that meant about democracy and its relationship with business and media when I never hear this mentioned by a politician or journalist.

I agree that criticism in the arts is often motivated by the desire to place the critic as much as possible above the practitioner. But this is by no means the only kind of critical thinking in the artistic and musical community. There is also the critical thinking of the artist in trying to be honest about his own shortcomings and try and fix the things that are not satisfactory. And of course there is the time spend in studying the music of another from every angle available for the sheer love of it. And the best guitar teacher I ever had spend about four months telling me that I couldn't get from one not to the next without spoiling things in one way or another, and thank goodness for him.

And of course there is the other thing the other working with hands, Mr Daimler was as familiar with calculus as he was with dirty hands. And the engines didn't build themselves to be played with in a spirit of lofty pragmatism, there were brows marked with ink as well as grease and there still are.

D.

scot

NylonDave wrote: »

I remember maybe some time ago it was believed that the archaeopteryx and other protean birds were incapable of taking off and could only walk up hills and then glide down. But then evidence built up to show that not only was that not a great hunting strategy but also that really their entire existence only made sense if they could take off.

So here we have a classic example where a professor might say.
Professor to student, 2015: "Of course it works in practice, you idiot. The important thing for us is, it must work in theory"

Because if there was an error in the theory (regarding the velocity which needed to be achieved and the strength of muscle as indicated by the size of muscle inserts in the fossilized skeleton and estimated life weight) falsely indicating that sufficient uplift could not be generatedthen that meant that there was something which was being missed and in finding that they would have a better understanding of the situation. And eventually the hole was found and it was discovered that the density of the air was different then. And that opened up some other very interesting observations.

That's really interesting and I had never heard this anecdote before. Must have been before the corruption of science. My point was mostly that the disconnect between theory and practice hurts the theorist far more than the practitioner. I can still overhaul a transmission without knowing much transmission engineering, just as Django was able to play highly advanced jazz music with knowing much or any theory. But every mechanic has slapped his forehead and said "Who the f--- designed this and what were they thinking?" Kind of like listening to Larry Coryell play a guitar.

NylonDave wrote: »

And of course there is the other thing the other working with hands, Mr Daimler was as familiar with calculus as he was with dirty hands. And the engines didn't build themselves to be played with in a spirit of lofty pragmatism, there were brows marked with ink as well as grease and there still are.

This was probably the norm for most of the machine age, when design engineers worked side by side with mechanics in the plant. As we have moved into the information age, there is less appreciation for commercial craft, and thus the current gulf between the lab and the shop floor, and the related open disdain that elites have for the middle-class. Read magazines like "Wired" or "Fast Company", you'll see what I mean. But there is hope, as I work with several mechanical engineers who are quite skilled with machine tools, and I know a particle physicist who makes amazing things on a Bridgeport. Personally, I believe strongly in the intrinsic value of work and that idle hands are the devil's workshop. And I admit to a certain unreasonable lack of respect for those who know but can't do. But no mechanic was ever disadvantaged by knowing exactly how and why something works the way it does.

Neither are musicians, though the work/theory balance that works best is different for each of us. I like to work, but I also like to know.

Isn't naming chords with solfege the norm in europe?

NylonDave

scot wrote: »

Isn't naming chords with solfege the norm in europe?

Yup, everywhere but the English speaking countries. The song from The Sound of Music Helps, the only other things to remember are that Si sounds C, replaces ti and means B and that the Germans use H for Bb and that meant Bach could spell his name as an in joke.

I think we are mostly in agreement Scot about the pointlessness of the alleged strife between theory and practice. That's why I brought up Daimler but it could as easily have been the Wright brothers, two eyes are better that one, especially for perspective... But people can get along with one.

I will admit that a big problem I have with the teaching of theory in the classical world is that when I went to the conservatoire I could improvise a little and when I left not at all. I have these truisms on the matter, if I cant make a fair stab of sight reading a new classical piece then I am not ready to play it and secondly if I think I have learned something about theory and when I pick up my instrument I cant demonstrate it then I am actually just kidding myself on and I have only learned trivia.

I do think that it is worthwhile trying to strike a balance between theory and technical proficiency on an instrument. Mozart,Chopin,Beethoven and even Andre Previn were all improvisers. Schoenberg I am not so sure. The way I see it is that improvisation is theory in practice, if a chorus holds water then the theory just has to be good.

It is a shame that conservatoires and also places like GIT demand outcomes within a short timescale in the life of a musician. That pretty much requires, for most people, that they take short cuts. And that wouldn't be so bad if the professors were honest about it or if we weren't already a couple of generations in with teaching staff who drank the coolaid and a fairly advanced marketing machine churning out really infantile material and spinning it as the holy grail.

D.

Matteo

Isn't naming chords with solfege the norm in europe?

Yup, everywhere but the English speaking countries.

No, not in my country, Sweden. And I don't think it is used in Germany either; after all it's called the H-mollmesse (not anything with "si"). So probably countries with germanic languages use c,d,e,f,g,a,h,c. And countries with latin languages use do, re, mi etc. For the countries in Eastern Europe, I have no idea.

A detail: In Sweden, the anglosaxon b has been adopted in the jazz and pop harmony taught in schools and has replaced h there. But there has been a really fierce debate about this. And there are two distinctive camps, each one believing they are right and the other ones are wrong. I don't think Django would have cared, though.

Bones

People have mentioned that Bireli doesn't know much theory and I've heard him say as much in a lecture/master-class so I believe it's true. So it is possible to play at a high level without theory. I'm trying to figure out the way that he might think about what he is doing and one example comes to mind.

In this vid at 5:48 he plays a sub for E7 chord that looks like Bb9 (in theory the tritone sub). While he may or may not know of it as the tritone sub makes no difference as long as he knows it functions as an E7alt. Might even be better to just think of it as E7 than to try to remember 2 names (in this context of course).

http://www.dc-musicschool.com/catalogue/video-lessons/in-the-style-of-bireli-lagrene-vol-1/2777505544/

I'm wondering if for some of us who have not been thru formal music training it is possibly more confusing to know all the theory (not that theory is bad to know) and maybe better to just learn by listening/watching/playing??? Either way you have to do the proverbial 10,000 hours and if you do you that and work hard you'll probably sound pretty darn good.

NylonDave

Thanks for the clarification Matteo. It always uses the latin form on scores of say Bach here but I obviously hadn't thought it through or checked.

Bones here is a truism.

'The more you have to remember the more you have to remember'.

You can read it two ways. One that remembering more is a task but I think that there is another way of looking at it.

The more ways you have of thinking about something then the more likely you are of getting to the memory you are after. Like having a filing cabinet with lots and lots of cross references or a good database. That's actually how our brains are wired, the more we know about something the more pathways we build between different elements of a concept.

Again I would like to stress that there is no dichotomy really. Whenever we are tempted to choose between two allegedly conflicting approaches it is best to refuse. Nothing about reading music or knowing theory stops you looking at another guitarist or pianist and taking note or just learning from osmosis. And nothing about having a good ear stops you enjoying reading or say writing music from scratch.

I appreciate that daytime talk shows and adversarial politicians convince us of the binary nature of choice and that we have to see black and white everywhere but it really is quite possible to see things from both sides.

Nice link to the Bireli by the way. He might just be thinking in the simplest possible way, that you can approach a target from a half step above the root in a lot of different ways. If I am not mistaken that this video demonstrates a wide range of ways of getting from A to B and then C and back ie lots of ways of looking at chords. Might even use it as a study in having more than one way of moving from one to a four a five and back. Ie not to make a single blanket choice and leave it at that.

But here is where I agree with you absolutely you need to put the theory straight away on your instrument otherwise it wont help and might get confusing. And you need the theory that's relevant to the style and you need to have the proper scientific approach, ie always looking for the insonsistency in the results that you can learn from to improve your model and have a better aim next time.

And I also agree that bad theory is confusing and useless. John Stowell's infuriating guitar lessons are a great example try one on youtube and see how long before you want to throw your monitor out the window. Yet the dude can play, go figure.

D.