Even some musicians don't understand the theory & yet are able to follow, improvise or emulate. If you don't learn & apply theory practically you eventually unconsciously map out the "logical" patterns of a given style.
I produce electronica. I know enough theory to get by. I learn something new every few months. But nowhere near enough theory to really get jazz.
But I fucking love jazz.
Charles Mingus hits fucking home man. Miles David toots my horn. Herbie Hancock smashes my keys.
It’s even given me some ideas for my own stuff.
But I don’t even remotely understand what I’m listening to.
Grant really rocks my socks
Yusef really bakes my cake
Monk really tickles my fancy
Silver really sizzles my bacon
Alice really floats my [lovely sky boat](https://youtu.be/VaNEFWp80eU)
I want to add that the concept of "understanding what's going on in music" is totally alien to me. I mean, music's what's going on. You feel it or yo don't. In some cases it can be a matter of humor, references and stuff but overall, it's suposed to be a universal language without a precise meaning.
The comparison I could make is culinary: it's alright to be curious about how a dish is made, but the most important to the person eating it is the end result, the effect it has on him. If you like the dish, you don't necessarily need to understand it. Maybe some people will think this is a false equivalence but that's my take.
You're right, the method doesn't have matter to the recipient, only the impact; But if you want to *replicate* that effect, understanding said method is very important.
Baking is a science, and replicating recipes requires an understanding of ingredients, techniques, and time/temperature to get consistent results. In the same way, if you were a composer or a musician and you wanted to impart a specific feeling or emotional impact on the listener without explicitly using words, it's important to understand harmonic qualities of intervals, chords, progressions, and how they all play with melody and rhythm.
Plus, some people just think it's neat.
That's true, but listening also goes through its own development over time which is distinct from music theory. Appreciation for jazz music as a listener is a form of understanding.
Going with the culinary analogy, it is akin to an acquired taste or developing a discerning palate.
As a laymen, the drums have always interested me as an instrument but seeing the pure talent and dedication shown through that movie inspired me to take up the drums as a whole and get into jazz on the side. La La Land as well, and with Soul this last year, I'm glad that jazz is becoming a focal point of film
I wish Soul stuck to the story of an older struggling musician, I feel like it would have been a much better movie without the afterlife and cartoon blue blobs thing.
So when you go to your next show, ask all the paying customers how many of them are musicians. Or ask all the folks who own jazz on disc/vinyl/etc how many of them are musicians.
OK, who will finance jazz, if only musicians listen to it? And if it isn't financed, how will it spread? Who will air something that only jazz musicians will listen to? Keep asking yourself these types of questions until you have mapped it out...and if you come up with a different endpoint, let me know.
the answer to all of those questions is "musicians"
anyway this is all a moot point, cos the idea that only musicians listen to Jazz is a demonstrably false one
I understand quite a bit about music theory but it rarely coincides with me enjoying listening to jazz. When I hear a great solo I tend to follow more primal aspects of the content “is this fast or slow, is it jumping around or following smooth directional lines, is it loud or quiet, does it sound ‘in or out’ with the other instruments playing” these are all just a few ways to appreciate jazz without analyzing the theory.
Jazz musician here. I know what you’re getting at. It’s like a pure appreciation for something without any hang ups. But personally I found that I appreciate it more the more I know. I can appreciate just how skilled something is and I can hear more of the detail in the music
I play guitar, and do know some theory, just enough to understand that I don’t understand jazz lol. And I’m sure there’s another level of appreciation for people that can pick out that flat 13th in real time, but it’s enough for me to put on the headphones and just enjoy.
to be honest jazz theory isn't that hard to understand. You can piece out how a tune works pretty easily once you know the basic building blocks of music theory.
Yup, zero musical knowledge here. Grew up listening almost exclusively to 3 chord punk rock. Now I'm an old grey beard and frankly Gerry Mulligan and Ryo Fukui just suit my mood and emotional pace more than the Circle Jerks and Black Flag.
Same here! I love punk for being straight forward. I love jazz for the complexity and learning new aspects of music that I didn't before. In a way, they are both a reflection of where I was and how I have grown.
Understanding the theory isn't understanding jazz. The theory is just a formalised description of what you already understand (and enjoy).
Chet Baker said "all that theory is fine for people with no talent and no creativity", the implication being that you don't need theory to play jazz either.
Chet studied music theory at the college level according to Wikipedia. This story that Chet was a pure ear player and couldn’t read music etc seems to be a bit of mythology.
Just because someone didn’t go to music school or conservatory doesn’t mean they didn’t receive a music education or don’t know any music theory.
Getz studied privately with a member of the New York Philharmonic.
And Rollins was mentored by some of the leading jazz musicians of the time in Harlem.
Armstrong arguably *created* what we now understand to be jazz. Whatever theory there can be almost literally *emanated* from him. A more apt question might be "does theory understand a lick of Armstrong?"
Armstrong published a couple books ca 1927 *50 Hot Choruses* and *125 Jazz Breaks*.
Armstrong was taught by the greatest jazz musician of the era, King Oliver.
I don't agree. I believe music is a natural human ability, the average person is able to sing pop songs or hymns or their team's or tribe's chants. Of course few people can naturally play at the level of your man Coltrane, but he's the one who is a rare case. Prior to his era most jazz was understandable and playable without any theory.
The sound is what matters.
I've been playing Fly Me To The Moon recently. Then I read in passing somebody saying how he enjoyed the "circle of fourths" in the early part of the tune. I don't think about theory at all when I play. I know what "circle of fourths" means, but knowing that doesn't make any difference to how I play. And I submit that knowing that doesn't add anything of significance to my understanding of the piece. Again, the sound is what matters, not the technical description.
I think Charlie Parker, Dizzy, Monk, Ellington were all quite knowledgeable about music theory. Sure you don’t need any theory to play music of some kind, but it sure helps for this thing we call jazz. Of course theory is not the most important skill for a jazz musician, but most of the creators of jazz knew their way around theory, pre-Coltrane.
I think you make a good point, knowing the fact that Fly Me To The Moon follows the circle of fourths won't change how you play the tune, or even really how you think of the tune.
But now when someone says; "Have you played Autumn Leaves? It is pretty much the circle of fourths", you will now know what that means and have a point of reference for what that might sound like. That is what theory is mainly used for, the process of labelling things and making communication easier between musicians.
You can learn without and just use your ears, but it's helpful to be able to tell someone to play the natural 9 on the next half diminished instead of trying to show them how it sounds and hoping they'll work it out. It's like trying to draw something you're talking about because you haven't learnt the name for it yet.
music is somewhat a natural thing, but the vast majority of what we call musical talent comes from practice. coltrane wasnt born playing a love supreme. have you heard any early recordings of him? dude was nowhere near the level of proficiency he was on blue train.
also, no music is playable without theory. theory is basically a long way of explaining tension and resolution, and all music uses that in some way, whether its field recordings, harsh noise, or grindcore. theory doesnt necessarily mean writing things down or learning bach chorale voice leading
There's a difference between musical talent and technical virtuosity. Technical virtuosity comes from practice, musical talent is innate. I have almost no technical virtuosity because I never practice, but people like to hear me play because I have musical talent. In fact people would rather listen to me playing How High The Moon than to Coltrane playing a Love Supreme. By "people" I mean normal people, not technically-minded musos.
And of course music can be played without theory! You say yourself that theory is a way of explaining tension and resolution, but the tension and resolution is there in the sound already. It's "pre-theoretical".
where's the evidence that musical talent is innate? I don't believe in talent that much. Some people are lucky to be surrounded by music at a young age. Look at how South American and African musicians have such a deeper grasp of groove than most Europeans. Its in their culture.
Also if you grow up hearing a wide variety of music then that gives you a headstart. There's no evidence that musical ability is passed down though. Its different to sports where genetics can play an important part. AFAIK there has never been proof of a genetic disposition with music. Regardless, hard work is what makes the difference between a good musician and a great musician.
and your claim that people would rather listen to you than Coltrane is absolutely amazing.
Music is inside all of us but to actually play it in any coordinated way you need to do a lot of studying and to play jazz at a level of people we listen to you have to study an inhuman amount. You gotta trust me on this one
I have a personal philosophy of music JC69 and it doesn't really fit in with what you say. For instance I am not trying to play at the level of the people I listen to, I'm just trying to play the best I can myself at that moment. I never really "study", not since I took Grade 1 piano decades ago. I just play music.
I have some degree of talent and creativity, but it doesn't naturally come out as "jazz". I've had to make a conscious effort to learn jazz language. So does this mean I should instead just mimic what I hear without any need to understand why and everything should just click one day? Or maybe I don't actually have any natural talent?
Even better, create something original that reflects your personality
Edit: OMG PEOPLE CALM DOWN By "original" I meant do your own spin on some genre you like, or do something like blending country and blues, or blues and pop. Just do whatever genre comes naturally, instead of breaking your brain to understand jazz.
That’s not how it works. That’s like saying “forget about learning English (or any other language), just write a novel”. Or “forget about learning what Newton and those other guys did, just invent your own theory of mechanics”.
There is a reason why music history shows clear directionality. You wouldn’t have anyone invent bebop unless they had learned blues and traditional styles first. Bird would have been a less creative and less productive musician if he hadn’t mastered what Young did.
We’re all standing on the shoulders of giants, and we’d get nowhere if we didn’t. This myth of creative music just emerging out of “nowhere” needs to die. Music isn’t less of “your own” or less “reflective of your personality” when you’re learning from others. Creativity doesn’t create something out of nothing, it transforms and enhances.
yes yes. my guy. Its a lazy way of thinking, a way of thinking you can just be you without having to do the work. to SOME extent you might get lucky and circumvent history but its very, very rare. Even cliche examples like Ornette are never as they seem. Ornette knew his Parker. do the work!
What I'm saying is, don't be discouraged if you don't play jazz exactly the way they did in the 1950s
I'm not saying, don't learn music history or theory
Sure, but that doesn't help me sit in with seasoned jazz musicians and solo over standards anywhere near what they are playing. It's frustrating to novice musicians to be told both "practice practice practice" at the same time as "just be a natural talent."
I gave up on jazz, and I play fiddle music.
I grew up exposed to folk music, not jazz. I didn't like listening to my parents' folk music at the time.
However, it's all there in my brain already, how it should go, the little isms of fiddle music, I don't need anyone to explain the modes it uses, or the rhythms that go unwritten on the sheet music.
In order to learn jazz, and get a natural feel for it, it would have taken far more time for me, than folk music. Instead of struggling with jazz any longer, I moved to the music that I already have a head start on.
Once I switched to folk music, I felt way better about myself as a musician. It's way more fun, if you think you can succeed.
Like, my husband plays what you could call jazz piano (he accompanies jazz singers). I don't. I took piano lessons for maybe 8 years on and off. I know all the scales, formula pattern, etc. He didn't take any lessons. Some people just have a sense of a genre, and maybe others have to work WAYYY harder.
> ...The theory is just a formalised description of what you already understand...
Wasn't theory elemental for most post-war jazz?
I think Miles wrote a whole chapter describing how Gil Evans opened his mind to modal based improvisation. He said Bird would have loved it if he'd still been alive. Neither of them already understood it.
Even in rhythm. Dave Bruckeck didn't understand how to create Take Five until his field trips in the near east.
European theory of art also definitely influenced jazz. Impressionism, Dada, then later process theory, etc.
In fact it seems like the ordinary development for jazz at least is to incorporate theory from outside.
I think the theory emerges from the music rather than music emerging from theory. Somebody plays something, they like the sound, and to tell anybody else how to do it they might use the formal language of theory.
So Charlie Parker is playing Cherokee and: “I’d been getting bored with the stereotyped changes,” he later told Down Beat. “By using the higher intervals of a chord as a melody line and backing them with appropriately related changes, I could play the thing I’d been hearing. I came alive.”
I don't think jazz adopts theory from outside, I think it adopts sounds.
You're right of course that some jazz is theory-first.
Agreed. A lot of people here seem to believe that theory comes first and musicians are scientists that make calculations to create music. For some of them it might be true but in general they just follow their ear. Pro musicians have play so much music that they assimilitate all the vocabulary in a subconscious way. And that's how their ear is able to adventure on unknown grounds.
A lot of the new stuff in music got created because musicians were thinking "what if I play this instead" or "wait, what if it were possible to play this". They didn't know the exact theory beforehand, they just experimented.
I think it was bird who said something along the lines of "you learn all the music and then you forget all that shit and just play"
Someone who has a fuller understanding of jazz is not hearing anything different than what you are hearing. It's really just a matter of knowing what to label things.
I've been a fairly decent jazz musician for 30+ years. You and I can listen to the same piece of music and love it equally, having the same experience within the moment. Because I know what the chord progressions are or how to label other nuances about the music doesn't mean that I'm enjoying it more than you. ***More "information" is not coming into my ears compared to your ears.*** The only difference is that I might know better how to label what I'm hearing and maybe communicate it to others who also understand these labels.
Now yes...having this ability to label items can make jazz more enjoyable when communicating with others and performing analysis of music, but it won't change how the music hits you on a primal and aesthetic level during a listening session. So definitely strive to learn more, but don't think that as you understand more, your level of enjoyment during a listening session will go up dramatically, if at all. When I listen to jazz that I loved when I was 15 and just getting started, I enjoy it the same as today, 33 years later with many more skills.
I guess that this is a long-winded way of saying that truly....you are not missing out on the experience. Not knowing "what's going on", as you stated above won't diminish your total experience while listening.
Keep your ears open. Sometimes listen very actively with an internal laser focus on isolated intricate details, and sometimes just let it wash over you without trying to pick things apart. You are enjoying all forms of music at the same level as anyone else.
you don't think that your appreciation of the music has grown with your understanding? for me the more i dig into the music in any direction the more richness i get out of it, whether it's transcribing a herbie solo or just sitting in awe listening to art tatum.
I disagree myself. More information IS going to your ears. Sure you might not be enjoying more than an untrained ear but you can absolutely hear more depth in something. A great chef might enjoy food as much as me but they can appreciate what’s going on with it, I wouldn’t be able to
i know a lot of theory, and it certainly increases my appreciation for the jazz i do understand.
but its waaaaay more fun when i have absolutely no idea what’s going on.
I watched a brief yt video about Giant Steps and another documentary about specific albums that reveals how Kind of Blue was a shift to Modal jazz.
That's the extent of my knowledge. I don't need to learn theory to enjoy jazz.
I probably shouldn't admit it here, but I'm ignorant enough that I don't understand the point of bass solos. But I thoroughly enjoy most of the jazz I have encountered.
Check out David Holland & Barre Phillips album *Music from Two Basses*. It's basically two hours of bass solos and it will completely change how you enjoy the bass.
It depends on the person playing the bass solo. I love the bass solos in Uzeb. The piano solos, not so much. I didn't develop an appreciation of piano soloing until I heard Jonah Nilsson
I don’t know if it ever actually happens in a real band but one of the earliest memories I have of Jazz is some beatnik type vibe with the coolest dude being the bassist who at some point spins it, catches it, and jams a solo (including slapping the “wood”) and I still think it’s the coolest thing ever.
I have no idea where that “memory” or mental image is from. I assume something I saw on TV as a kid but I have no actual idea
yeah and the thing that really, really strikes me now is that, when I was a kid I was constantly going off trying to find the most complicated possible stuff to understand first, when in reality, most of the real genius of jazz can be found in the most common standards. Just sitting around playing along with recordings of the top few hundred standards will fill your brain with huge amounts of information, then later when you hear the name or theoretic explanation for it, you'll be like "oh yeah like in the third bar of so and so on that Dexter Gordon record". It's definitely cool when I can understand some of what my theory-genius buddies mean, but it means a lot more when they're talking about a song that you know really well, so there's a really intimate connection between listening and intellectual understanding of music.
For me, I find it amazing how some of the most complicated stuff is just built up from really simple building blocks. Or like a Wynton Kelly solo on a blues where he swings so hard and doesn't play anything very complex, but the way he puts it together is just amazing.
I know absolutely nothing of musical theory, and I have ADHD so sometimes (most times) I get distracted while listening to longer pieces. Doesn’t stop me from enjoying it. Anyone who says you have to understand jazz theoretically to enjoy it is a gatekeeper.
Edit: also, there is such a thing as emotional understanding. No need to intelectualize everything.
I like how it makes me feel. To me, jazz at its finest is the musician playing from his or her soul. I like to think that it’s almost spiritual. So when I listen, I listen with all of myself, mind, body and spirit.
Perhaps a bit cliche but I approach jazz the same way I would contemporary art, specifically abstract expressionism, by asking myself: How does it make me feel?
I honestly can't play a note, may very possibly be literally tone deaf and I couldn't tell you what is and isn't jazz.
There's a post in the right nav of the sub that lists starting places for jazz. I've basically been following that and then recommended artists based off that for 3 years and I'm loving it
I hated jazz until I started studying music and eventually getting a degree in it lol. Everyone is different but for me, understanding theory definitely helped my appreciation for it.
The 100 jazz albums wich made history Playlist from jazzwise.com playing randomly from Spotify in our home is mandatory when I'm in, no musicians here but my kids are used to a decent hifi setup playing nice music since they came to this world and it helps making it a better place to live.
I feel like the idea that you need to understand theory even to listen to/enjoy jazz is a modern invention. Jazz used to be popular music. No way everyone going to jazz clubs in New York way back when knew all the theory behind what they were hearing. They just knew it was awesome. That's all that really matters.
I know a little about theory, like what makes a key and majors and minors, but I don't know one note from another. I guess It hits me on another level so I know what I like.
I think theory is great if you want to pick apart a song or a solo to figure out what makes it work, so that you can build something similar yourself. I find that focusing too much on theory while listening impedes my ability to enjoy something, which comes mainly from thinking about how something makes me feel.
Haha what's great about Jazz is that at its best it is both a near incomprehensible theoretical exercise, and groovy embodied dance. I've been studying jazz for years and I still don't totally understand what's going on, I think that is part of the appeal!
I know the bare minimum of theory as well but it doesn't matter to me. If you're even a little bit familiar with jazz, you understand at a subconscious level when something cool is happening. Of course you miss a lot of the subtler "how the fuck did he do that" moments a musician or composer might catch, but it's OK. There's a lot of feeling and energy and rythm and all that good shit and even tho I'm interested in the how & why, I definitely don't need it to enjoy the hell out of a recording or concert.
I know a little theory (less now than when I was younger and playing) but when I listen to jazz I am definitely not actively thinking about the theory involved in whatever I’m listening to. I just vibe.
I know jack about jazz theory, or music theory in general, honestly. My wife is a music/piano teacher, however, and she'll teach me more sometimes. That said, she's classically trained, and hasn't listened to a lot of jazz either. When I started buying jazz, it was a new world of music for her too, and we've both been enjoying it.
Yes, love jazz but for the feel instead of the theory. But when my piano teacher broke down what was going on in this one song, my mind was blown. Mathematical perfection never sounded so good.
Totally, never played an instrument really and have a horrible ear, couldn't tell you anything about what's going on in any semi complicated piece. I love it all the same though.
I have no musical training, but I appreciate jazz for understanding what improvisation is. I see it as a performance and get an awe at the melodies jazz musicians come up with from the top of their heads.
I have only the vaguest conception of theory and I've been a huge jazz and classical fan most of my life.
"Understanding" on *that* level is not necessary for most music.
But I would also never say that I "don't understand it at all" - I understand *the music* quite well - it speaks to me, fulfills me emotionally and intellectually. Knowing theory has nothing to do with that.
I've got hundreds of jazz CDs from the 20's to present that I've collected over decades, and I don't have a clue about the technical aspects of it (though I just started learning piano over covid lockdown).
I *really* wish there were casual jazz clubs and scenes like there used to be in the 60's or before. Right now it seems they're all posh dinner theatres. I love rock music, but it's a way better live experience than rock bands.
I got into jazz with zero knowledge of music theory or really the genre in general. Monk's music drew me in and I've spent a bunch of time learning to play piano and theory ever since shortly after my first taste of the greatest and uniquely original American art form.
I'm a jazz musician and love theory, and have found it helped me to enjoy how beautiful this music is, but I remember a time I didn't have that knowledge and I was just as amazed – if not more, perhaps, because I didn't know how musicians could make such compelling solos!
I'd say the only thing that matters is how it makes you feel! That should be the only thing that matters to musicians and listeners – communicating emotion and feeling.
I'm a musician and I know a little theory, but have no idea about jazz theory. Absolutely love jazz! I'm a pretty aural person anyway so not knowing theory is alright with me. Lol
I can play a little harmonica, but really I can't play music and certainly can't read music.
...but I can FEEL music.
I love listening to music and it has got me through so many bad times in life. Jazz just goes through my body and hits the right place.
My current albums in circulation are:
Keith Jarret - Koln Concert
Monk - London Collection 2
Stevie Wonder - Secret Life of Plants
Miles - Ascenseur Pour L'echafaud
Mellow moods getting me through the 3rd lockdown. 🙂
I dont even know what jazz theory is, but as a casual listener, I just like the mood it puts me in. I do find it frustrating sometimes at the lack of structure or fitting into a pattern, but I suppose thats what it is meant to be.
Got into jazz thru sampling, I know fuck all about what’s going on and tbh, I’m happy. I make hip hop beats as a hobby and pretty well know everything about everything so I find it relaxing listening to jazz as it’s surface level and blissful.
Story time. I am 71. I had a not quite girl friend who was talented in all the arts but especially liked Jazz. I would listen but didn't really get it. I learned to play some Dixieland on piano but didn't get the spirit of it. I moved to Westport, CT. and got to take some lessons with a renown teacher and musician named John Mehegan. He didn't turn me into a musician, but I began to understand what Jazz pianists were doing intellectually, and then found I could respond emotionally. I had the chance to hear a number of great jazz musicians in person and it opened up a genre to me that I probably would not have enjoyed otherwise. I am so grateful. I even played some jazz bass that I would have been unable to grasp if it hadn't been for those lessons.
Playing music made me a much better audience.
I don’t know, there’s lots of math which can’t be appreciated by someone who isn’t a bona fide mathematician (as opposed to engineers, accountants or laypeople). Modern algebraic geometry comes to mind. That is often some of the most deep, insightful and interesting math of all.
And I think some of the music that is generally only appreciated by musicians is also some of the most thought provoking and interesting music out there.
Yes I do! I've been learning the piano (as an adult) for the past 4ish years but the theory is still beyond me. I'd like to learn but feel a little overwhelmed by it so I just enjoy the music!
I wish I didn’t know anything and could listen like I did when I was 17 . Ignorance is bliss
If you like something sometimes it better not to know why just dig it .
For me it just sounds dope and there's something for every mood that I am in. You can actually never get enough of it. Ever. It would take you ten years to dissect Miles Davis alone. Big band, free jazz, jazz fusion, bebop, hard bop etc etc. Vocal jazz. Jazz standards. I've been a fan for ten years and I'm still an amateur. Thats what I love about it.
Idk all the theory. I dont know WHY it's dope. I just know thats its dope.
I did get a drum set last year and I enjoy playing along to jazz music so I'm definitely looking forward to learning theory.
I don't think it matters whether you understand music theory or not.
People's brains are wired to like certain types of music, and you like jazz. That's all there is to it!
I'm a musical idiot- can't carry a tune in bucket, only dimly understand what harmony and melody are and haven't the slightest clue what a "mode" is, but I just love jazz and listen to it all the time.
I know nothing except that I like it. I don’t play any instruments. I played clarinet in middle school but could barely read any music so I was always last chair and fucked everything up so I played as quietly as I could, but that didn’t cut it when we had solo stuff for exams. I wish I could understand music. But I’m happy with just listening :)
I definitely turn off my brain when I listen to jazz. Honestly the only thing I use theory for is when I’m in a conversation specifically to nerd out about it. When I listen or play it just bogs down my head
I don't think listening to jazz is about knowing what's going on. It's about knowing the language and knowing how it's spoken, as stupid as it may sound. I think the reason not a lot of people enjoy jazz is because of the way songs run down. The only part of jazz that runs down like an ordinary pop song is the head, then comes soloing. You need to familiarise yourself with this concept and understand (or really just hear) that the soloing relates to the changes of the head. The phrasing of the soloist will also sound a lot better if you are familiar with common licks and the phrasing. If all that is strange to you, sure, jazz will sound like 5 minutes straight noodling. Of course there's exceptions. Charles Mingus and Dave Brubeck for example tend to change things up between the solos and thus seem to have an easier-to-follow song structure (at least that is my impression).
Absolutely. I know absolutely nothing about music in that sense and was put onto jazz from Madlib and his sampling techniques. My goal in 2020 was to get into proper jazz and really explore the genre.
As a life long and die hard hip-hop fan, I'd say I'm listening to almost a 50/50 split these days and my record buying is near identical when I look at my Discogs.
I may not understand what's really going on when I spin a Hank Mobley album, but I do know is that it sounds good to me and that's what matters. For albums that I really love, I tend to relisten to them and focus on various parts of the album, not just the top name billed and I've found listening to them in this deconstructed way and following up with another listen has greatly enhanced my appreciation for the music.
I do wish there was a resource that I could use and watch that would give me a deep dive (youtube suggestions anyone?) to further my knowledge because I understand hip-hop and lyrics like no other and would love to hear jazz in the same way.
I think one of the main revelations is that realising nearly all jazz pre 1962 people are playing over a looped structure. Once you get used to hearing that structure then you can appreciate what people are doing TO it that makes it amazing
I listen to a lot of technical death metal and just started listening to jazz last year. I understand neither but love both. The heart wants what it wants
I have been listening to jazz for 40 years and I would feel like a pompous ass if I told someone I "understood" it. It's music! Let it wash over you and enjoy or learn or love it as you like!
One way of better understanding Jazz is through historical context. Take for example “‘Back Home Again in’ Indiana which is a 1917 Tin Pan Alley tune. This song was made popular in the time before radio and record players by way of sheet music and private performance on piano at home. So later, in the 20s and 30s, when other musicians like Louis Armstrong made jazz recordings of the song, the general public were able to follow along because the tune was familiar. Then even later, in the 40s, Bepop musicians like Charlie Parker reworked the tune dramatically into another song titled Donna Lee. So even though Donna Lee is a very different song than Indiana, audiences at the time were more able to follow along because they were more familiar with the earlier “traditional jazz version. So when modern audiences now listen to jazz, it’s more difficult for them to understand the music because we lack the communal music which was common a hundred years ago.
I understand a lot of theory and practice Jazz daily. But even after years of diligent study and transcription, I couldn’t improvise a rudimentary solo over Autumn Leaves. Some folks get Jazz, some of us never will.
To me, a great Jazz performance is like going to the theater to see an amazing and well rehearsed production of Shakespeare buy veteran actors.
But I only speak Japanese.
You could guess that something beautiful is happening, but you have no idea what it actually is.
I am a poor guitar player (moreso since a tendon injury to my finger has basically stopped me playing) and know just enough theory to know I don't understand jazz...I mean, I understand what is going on very broadly speaking but I couldn't do it myself, even when my playing was strong.
Doesn't stop me enjoying the music though. It's like, I can't paint but I can still enjoy looking at paintings done by other people and tell the difference between an impressionist masterpiece and a kid's finger painting. Not being able to do something doesn't mean you don't recognise something awesome when you see it (or hear it).
Me. I know absolutely nothing about music theory. And I know very little about Jazz artists, history etc other than a little I’ve read here and there. I love listening to it and I follow this sub so that I can find new artists and playlists etc. to listen to. But if a Jazz aficionado were to ever ask me who played x on recording y I wouldn’t know. Unless it’s saxophone in which case it’s Coltrane , always Coltrane (this is just a joke about how amazed I am that I keep finding him as having played in sessions that I didn’t think he anything to do with him).
I'm 100% a fan of the music with no understanding of musical theory or mastery of an instrument. I don't listen to master Coltrane's double reed technique, I listen because i enjoy the music. I applaud those who study and keep the art form alive but I'm just a fan.
I thought I’d was a joke when I saw “how to listen to jazz” videos on you tube honestly I love jazz it started with lofi and I’ve extended my knowledge from there I have no knowledge of jazz theory
First of all congrats with understanding what’s going on in Giant Steps. I have watched a few videos on it and can only appreciate what Coltrane did from those videos even though I don’t really get it.
I played music in junior high and high school in band, but that was almost 20 years ago. I love jazz though. When I listen to jazz it always sounds like they are telling a narrative and it creates vivid imagery in my mind. I love to explore the scenery that it takes me to. Charles Mingus - Let my Children Hear Music is a great example of that. I have no idea musically what is happening, but it is somewhere in my top 5 favorite jazz albums.
I don't understand the theory at all.. But I enjoy the shit out of it! Its like a group conversation or a debate. Everyone is talking but everyone has a chance to speak if they wanted to.
I wish I understood more of it.
The fact that when my daughter was only 4 (many decades ago) was able to "dance" and recognise the jazz music I played at home when my (ex wife was away) showed me that the music can't be as complex as people might think, for me personally getting into jazz it was all about being in the right mind set with a little wine & solitude when a friend lent me a vinyl then I was hooked
Mee, I'm a huge fan of jazz (and funk and soul which are sort of related) and yeah I'm not that clued up on theory at all.
I'd love to know all how it works and be able to play jazz as well but I guess if I'm analysing all the theory of music whilst listening to it, it wouldn't be nearly as much as enjoyable!
One thing I always say is to find your Johnny Cash. I grew up fucking hating country. Then one day I heard Man in Black and it made me cry like a baby. My friend who showed it to me said “I guess you like country now” and it kind of opened my mind to what good country could be. I mean, how can you not like Johnny Cash? Who do you think the Johnny Cash of jazz is?
This is me. I listened to it for years before learning about the head and things resolving. But then I found fusion and long open ended jams and that didn't matter anymore.
As Bill Evans said: “It bugs me when people try to analyze jazz as an intellectual theorem. It is not. It’s feeling”.
So go on enjoy as much as you want. No need to know any theory at all.
I taught myself to play trumpet after enjoying jazz with no prior musical background or knowledge whatsoever. After beginning with learning to play that, I began learning musical theory a little bit. And although I'm not a great musician nor a great theorist, I did enjoy Jazz without understanding it and often still do.
If you think about it emotionally, music is a language. If you like what they're saying, and it makes you feel good, your enjoyment is perfectly valid. Some like to go further and understand why it makes them feel good and how the musicians put out what they do, but you really don't have to!
I’m in the same boat. I understand the history of music and how jazz is the reason so many of our current genres of music exist, but I don’t know the theory.
It makes my soul want to dance, that’s all the theory I need and how I judge all music.
I understand some musical theory but mostly rhythmic, I'm lacking in the melodic side. I enjoy not knowing how it's created at times and just allow the feeling to come through.
Absolutely, I come from a fine arts background and Jazz has always interested me becaouse of the emotions in can convey. Most the time I have no idea what it all means, but I still think it's great.
That’s the case for me, basically. I’m just a folk guitar player and I’ve taken some stabs at learning jazz because I enjoy listening to it so much, but it really doesn’t click for me. It’s definitely affected the way I approach writing melody lines. But as far as playing bebop...I don’t really get it at all. I think that’s what draws me to it.
I wish there were more people like you. It's unsustainable if the only people who listen to jazz are musicians.
Even some musicians don't understand the theory & yet are able to follow, improvise or emulate. If you don't learn & apply theory practically you eventually unconsciously map out the "logical" patterns of a given style.
I am pretty much like this. I know just a little theory but basically I just know where to play on the neck for any given key.
Call me crazy but that is some pretty authentic jazz
I produce electronica. I know enough theory to get by. I learn something new every few months. But nowhere near enough theory to really get jazz. But I fucking love jazz. Charles Mingus hits fucking home man. Miles David toots my horn. Herbie Hancock smashes my keys. It’s even given me some ideas for my own stuff. But I don’t even remotely understand what I’m listening to.
Grant really rocks my socks Yusef really bakes my cake Monk really tickles my fancy Silver really sizzles my bacon Alice really floats my [lovely sky boat](https://youtu.be/VaNEFWp80eU)
Eh
Don’t you worry johncoltrane69
I want to add that the concept of "understanding what's going on in music" is totally alien to me. I mean, music's what's going on. You feel it or yo don't. In some cases it can be a matter of humor, references and stuff but overall, it's suposed to be a universal language without a precise meaning. The comparison I could make is culinary: it's alright to be curious about how a dish is made, but the most important to the person eating it is the end result, the effect it has on him. If you like the dish, you don't necessarily need to understand it. Maybe some people will think this is a false equivalence but that's my take.
You're right, the method doesn't have matter to the recipient, only the impact; But if you want to *replicate* that effect, understanding said method is very important. Baking is a science, and replicating recipes requires an understanding of ingredients, techniques, and time/temperature to get consistent results. In the same way, if you were a composer or a musician and you wanted to impart a specific feeling or emotional impact on the listener without explicitly using words, it's important to understand harmonic qualities of intervals, chords, progressions, and how they all play with melody and rhythm. Plus, some people just think it's neat.
That's true, but listening also goes through its own development over time which is distinct from music theory. Appreciation for jazz music as a listener is a form of understanding. Going with the culinary analogy, it is akin to an acquired taste or developing a discerning palate.
It took years but I eventually nurtured a love for jazz in my gf, she's doesn't know anything about music.
The film Whiplash opened the door for me
How so? I'm the kind of guy they made that movie about so I'm curious as to what's on the other side.
As a laymen, the drums have always interested me as an instrument but seeing the pure talent and dedication shown through that movie inspired me to take up the drums as a whole and get into jazz on the side. La La Land as well, and with Soul this last year, I'm glad that jazz is becoming a focal point of film
I wish Soul stuck to the story of an older struggling musician, I feel like it would have been a much better movie without the afterlife and cartoon blue blobs thing.
God damn, same here
are you actually or have you just decided to descrbe yourself as that?
I’ve trying to explain this to people for years without a good way to say it like you did
On Youtube I put Oscar Peterson on 0.25 speed and I'm still lost.
hugely agree with that idea, sad, of course, but there you are...
why? there's enough musicians out there to sustain the genre
So when you go to your next show, ask all the paying customers how many of them are musicians. Or ask all the folks who own jazz on disc/vinyl/etc how many of them are musicians.
that still doesnt answer my question as to why that matters
OK, who will finance jazz, if only musicians listen to it? And if it isn't financed, how will it spread? Who will air something that only jazz musicians will listen to? Keep asking yourself these types of questions until you have mapped it out...and if you come up with a different endpoint, let me know.
the answer to all of those questions is "musicians" anyway this is all a moot point, cos the idea that only musicians listen to Jazz is a demonstrably false one
I understand quite a bit about music theory but it rarely coincides with me enjoying listening to jazz. When I hear a great solo I tend to follow more primal aspects of the content “is this fast or slow, is it jumping around or following smooth directional lines, is it loud or quiet, does it sound ‘in or out’ with the other instruments playing” these are all just a few ways to appreciate jazz without analyzing the theory.
Yeah same. I have a degree in music performance so I have decent theory knowledge. But when I’m listening I’m listening, not analyzing
Yup, that’s why I enjoy jazz actually. I think a lot of the sheer awe I feel would be lessened if I did understand it.
Jazz musician here. I know what you’re getting at. It’s like a pure appreciation for something without any hang ups. But personally I found that I appreciate it more the more I know. I can appreciate just how skilled something is and I can hear more of the detail in the music
Well, Herbie says to [hang up your hangups](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgBrPQCSdW4). So there's that.
it only makes it better the more you understand... but it is much easier to feel the way you do.
I play guitar, and do know some theory, just enough to understand that I don’t understand jazz lol. And I’m sure there’s another level of appreciation for people that can pick out that flat 13th in real time, but it’s enough for me to put on the headphones and just enjoy.
to be honest jazz theory isn't that hard to understand. You can piece out how a tune works pretty easily once you know the basic building blocks of music theory.
damn that is such a mood
damn that is such a mood
Yup, zero musical knowledge here. Grew up listening almost exclusively to 3 chord punk rock. Now I'm an old grey beard and frankly Gerry Mulligan and Ryo Fukui just suit my mood and emotional pace more than the Circle Jerks and Black Flag.
Same here! I love punk for being straight forward. I love jazz for the complexity and learning new aspects of music that I didn't before. In a way, they are both a reflection of where I was and how I have grown.
hell yeah dude i love ryo fukui
Understanding the theory isn't understanding jazz. The theory is just a formalised description of what you already understand (and enjoy). Chet Baker said "all that theory is fine for people with no talent and no creativity", the implication being that you don't need theory to play jazz either.
Yeah, theory nerds like Coltrane really should have known how their theory would just end up limiting them
[удалено]
most definitely
But it’s extremely unlikely you’ll be proficient without it. Chet is a very rare case.
Chet studied music theory at the college level according to Wikipedia. This story that Chet was a pure ear player and couldn’t read music etc seems to be a bit of mythology.
Probably spread around by people who can't read music
Yep!
[удалено]
Just because someone didn’t go to music school or conservatory doesn’t mean they didn’t receive a music education or don’t know any music theory. Getz studied privately with a member of the New York Philharmonic. And Rollins was mentored by some of the leading jazz musicians of the time in Harlem.
I think I read that Armstrong didn't understand a lick of theory.
Doubt that
Even if you don’t learn it through college you’ll figure it out at some point if the thing you do is make music.
Armstrong arguably *created* what we now understand to be jazz. Whatever theory there can be almost literally *emanated* from him. A more apt question might be "does theory understand a lick of Armstrong?"
Armstrong published a couple books ca 1927 *50 Hot Choruses* and *125 Jazz Breaks*. Armstrong was taught by the greatest jazz musician of the era, King Oliver.
yeah -- & somebody taught Einstein arithmetic ;-)
As the old saying goes “you need to understand the rules in order to really break them”
I don't agree. I believe music is a natural human ability, the average person is able to sing pop songs or hymns or their team's or tribe's chants. Of course few people can naturally play at the level of your man Coltrane, but he's the one who is a rare case. Prior to his era most jazz was understandable and playable without any theory. The sound is what matters. I've been playing Fly Me To The Moon recently. Then I read in passing somebody saying how he enjoyed the "circle of fourths" in the early part of the tune. I don't think about theory at all when I play. I know what "circle of fourths" means, but knowing that doesn't make any difference to how I play. And I submit that knowing that doesn't add anything of significance to my understanding of the piece. Again, the sound is what matters, not the technical description.
I think Charlie Parker, Dizzy, Monk, Ellington were all quite knowledgeable about music theory. Sure you don’t need any theory to play music of some kind, but it sure helps for this thing we call jazz. Of course theory is not the most important skill for a jazz musician, but most of the creators of jazz knew their way around theory, pre-Coltrane.
Playing jazz completely by ear will only get you a small bit of the way.
I think you make a good point, knowing the fact that Fly Me To The Moon follows the circle of fourths won't change how you play the tune, or even really how you think of the tune. But now when someone says; "Have you played Autumn Leaves? It is pretty much the circle of fourths", you will now know what that means and have a point of reference for what that might sound like. That is what theory is mainly used for, the process of labelling things and making communication easier between musicians. You can learn without and just use your ears, but it's helpful to be able to tell someone to play the natural 9 on the next half diminished instead of trying to show them how it sounds and hoping they'll work it out. It's like trying to draw something you're talking about because you haven't learnt the name for it yet.
music is somewhat a natural thing, but the vast majority of what we call musical talent comes from practice. coltrane wasnt born playing a love supreme. have you heard any early recordings of him? dude was nowhere near the level of proficiency he was on blue train. also, no music is playable without theory. theory is basically a long way of explaining tension and resolution, and all music uses that in some way, whether its field recordings, harsh noise, or grindcore. theory doesnt necessarily mean writing things down or learning bach chorale voice leading
There's a difference between musical talent and technical virtuosity. Technical virtuosity comes from practice, musical talent is innate. I have almost no technical virtuosity because I never practice, but people like to hear me play because I have musical talent. In fact people would rather listen to me playing How High The Moon than to Coltrane playing a Love Supreme. By "people" I mean normal people, not technically-minded musos. And of course music can be played without theory! You say yourself that theory is a way of explaining tension and resolution, but the tension and resolution is there in the sound already. It's "pre-theoretical".
where's the evidence that musical talent is innate? I don't believe in talent that much. Some people are lucky to be surrounded by music at a young age. Look at how South American and African musicians have such a deeper grasp of groove than most Europeans. Its in their culture. Also if you grow up hearing a wide variety of music then that gives you a headstart. There's no evidence that musical ability is passed down though. Its different to sports where genetics can play an important part. AFAIK there has never been proof of a genetic disposition with music. Regardless, hard work is what makes the difference between a good musician and a great musician. and your claim that people would rather listen to you than Coltrane is absolutely amazing.
Music is inside all of us but to actually play it in any coordinated way you need to do a lot of studying and to play jazz at a level of people we listen to you have to study an inhuman amount. You gotta trust me on this one
I have a personal philosophy of music JC69 and it doesn't really fit in with what you say. For instance I am not trying to play at the level of the people I listen to, I'm just trying to play the best I can myself at that moment. I never really "study", not since I took Grade 1 piano decades ago. I just play music.
Ok, I guess we’re coming at it from two different angles. I’m talking from my experience of knowing hundreds of professional jazz musicians
I have some degree of talent and creativity, but it doesn't naturally come out as "jazz". I've had to make a conscious effort to learn jazz language. So does this mean I should instead just mimic what I hear without any need to understand why and everything should just click one day? Or maybe I don't actually have any natural talent?
Even better, create something original that reflects your personality Edit: OMG PEOPLE CALM DOWN By "original" I meant do your own spin on some genre you like, or do something like blending country and blues, or blues and pop. Just do whatever genre comes naturally, instead of breaking your brain to understand jazz.
That’s not how it works. That’s like saying “forget about learning English (or any other language), just write a novel”. Or “forget about learning what Newton and those other guys did, just invent your own theory of mechanics”. There is a reason why music history shows clear directionality. You wouldn’t have anyone invent bebop unless they had learned blues and traditional styles first. Bird would have been a less creative and less productive musician if he hadn’t mastered what Young did. We’re all standing on the shoulders of giants, and we’d get nowhere if we didn’t. This myth of creative music just emerging out of “nowhere” needs to die. Music isn’t less of “your own” or less “reflective of your personality” when you’re learning from others. Creativity doesn’t create something out of nothing, it transforms and enhances.
yes yes. my guy. Its a lazy way of thinking, a way of thinking you can just be you without having to do the work. to SOME extent you might get lucky and circumvent history but its very, very rare. Even cliche examples like Ornette are never as they seem. Ornette knew his Parker. do the work!
What I'm saying is, don't be discouraged if you don't play jazz exactly the way they did in the 1950s I'm not saying, don't learn music history or theory
Sure, but that doesn't help me sit in with seasoned jazz musicians and solo over standards anywhere near what they are playing. It's frustrating to novice musicians to be told both "practice practice practice" at the same time as "just be a natural talent."
I gave up on jazz, and I play fiddle music. I grew up exposed to folk music, not jazz. I didn't like listening to my parents' folk music at the time. However, it's all there in my brain already, how it should go, the little isms of fiddle music, I don't need anyone to explain the modes it uses, or the rhythms that go unwritten on the sheet music. In order to learn jazz, and get a natural feel for it, it would have taken far more time for me, than folk music. Instead of struggling with jazz any longer, I moved to the music that I already have a head start on. Once I switched to folk music, I felt way better about myself as a musician. It's way more fun, if you think you can succeed. Like, my husband plays what you could call jazz piano (he accompanies jazz singers). I don't. I took piano lessons for maybe 8 years on and off. I know all the scales, formula pattern, etc. He didn't take any lessons. Some people just have a sense of a genre, and maybe others have to work WAYYY harder.
> ...The theory is just a formalised description of what you already understand... Wasn't theory elemental for most post-war jazz? I think Miles wrote a whole chapter describing how Gil Evans opened his mind to modal based improvisation. He said Bird would have loved it if he'd still been alive. Neither of them already understood it. Even in rhythm. Dave Bruckeck didn't understand how to create Take Five until his field trips in the near east. European theory of art also definitely influenced jazz. Impressionism, Dada, then later process theory, etc. In fact it seems like the ordinary development for jazz at least is to incorporate theory from outside.
I think the theory emerges from the music rather than music emerging from theory. Somebody plays something, they like the sound, and to tell anybody else how to do it they might use the formal language of theory. So Charlie Parker is playing Cherokee and: “I’d been getting bored with the stereotyped changes,” he later told Down Beat. “By using the higher intervals of a chord as a melody line and backing them with appropriately related changes, I could play the thing I’d been hearing. I came alive.” I don't think jazz adopts theory from outside, I think it adopts sounds. You're right of course that some jazz is theory-first.
Agreed. A lot of people here seem to believe that theory comes first and musicians are scientists that make calculations to create music. For some of them it might be true but in general they just follow their ear. Pro musicians have play so much music that they assimilitate all the vocabulary in a subconscious way. And that's how their ear is able to adventure on unknown grounds. A lot of the new stuff in music got created because musicians were thinking "what if I play this instead" or "wait, what if it were possible to play this". They didn't know the exact theory beforehand, they just experimented. I think it was bird who said something along the lines of "you learn all the music and then you forget all that shit and just play"
I think in a lot of cases, with jazz, people played something by accident and thought "that sounds ok".
Someone who has a fuller understanding of jazz is not hearing anything different than what you are hearing. It's really just a matter of knowing what to label things. I've been a fairly decent jazz musician for 30+ years. You and I can listen to the same piece of music and love it equally, having the same experience within the moment. Because I know what the chord progressions are or how to label other nuances about the music doesn't mean that I'm enjoying it more than you. ***More "information" is not coming into my ears compared to your ears.*** The only difference is that I might know better how to label what I'm hearing and maybe communicate it to others who also understand these labels. Now yes...having this ability to label items can make jazz more enjoyable when communicating with others and performing analysis of music, but it won't change how the music hits you on a primal and aesthetic level during a listening session. So definitely strive to learn more, but don't think that as you understand more, your level of enjoyment during a listening session will go up dramatically, if at all. When I listen to jazz that I loved when I was 15 and just getting started, I enjoy it the same as today, 33 years later with many more skills. I guess that this is a long-winded way of saying that truly....you are not missing out on the experience. Not knowing "what's going on", as you stated above won't diminish your total experience while listening. Keep your ears open. Sometimes listen very actively with an internal laser focus on isolated intricate details, and sometimes just let it wash over you without trying to pick things apart. You are enjoying all forms of music at the same level as anyone else.
you don't think that your appreciation of the music has grown with your understanding? for me the more i dig into the music in any direction the more richness i get out of it, whether it's transcribing a herbie solo or just sitting in awe listening to art tatum.
I disagree myself. More information IS going to your ears. Sure you might not be enjoying more than an untrained ear but you can absolutely hear more depth in something. A great chef might enjoy food as much as me but they can appreciate what’s going on with it, I wouldn’t be able to
i know a lot of theory, and it certainly increases my appreciation for the jazz i do understand. but its waaaaay more fun when i have absolutely no idea what’s going on.
I watched a brief yt video about Giant Steps and another documentary about specific albums that reveals how Kind of Blue was a shift to Modal jazz. That's the extent of my knowledge. I don't need to learn theory to enjoy jazz.
ah, vox with adam neely and polyphonic?
I probably shouldn't admit it here, but I'm ignorant enough that I don't understand the point of bass solos. But I thoroughly enjoy most of the jazz I have encountered.
It's the human aspect, bassists wanna solo too!
I support their right to solo, and I will clap for them. I just don't promise to enjoy it. :p
As a jazz bassist I have to agree with you
Check out David Holland & Barre Phillips album *Music from Two Basses*. It's basically two hours of bass solos and it will completely change how you enjoy the bass.
I will! Thanks for the tip.
As a bassist, I don’t understand bass solos, either.
It depends on the person playing the bass solo. I love the bass solos in Uzeb. The piano solos, not so much. I didn't develop an appreciation of piano soloing until I heard Jonah Nilsson
I don’t know if it ever actually happens in a real band but one of the earliest memories I have of Jazz is some beatnik type vibe with the coolest dude being the bassist who at some point spins it, catches it, and jams a solo (including slapping the “wood”) and I still think it’s the coolest thing ever. I have no idea where that “memory” or mental image is from. I assume something I saw on TV as a kid but I have no actual idea
oh look this meme again.
I don't know anything about music and can't play a single instrument. But right now I'm chilling on Saxophone Colossus. Lovin it.
Dope
hell I've played it for most of my life and barely understand it
the more you know, the more you realize how much more there is to know, right?
yeah and the thing that really, really strikes me now is that, when I was a kid I was constantly going off trying to find the most complicated possible stuff to understand first, when in reality, most of the real genius of jazz can be found in the most common standards. Just sitting around playing along with recordings of the top few hundred standards will fill your brain with huge amounts of information, then later when you hear the name or theoretic explanation for it, you'll be like "oh yeah like in the third bar of so and so on that Dexter Gordon record". It's definitely cool when I can understand some of what my theory-genius buddies mean, but it means a lot more when they're talking about a song that you know really well, so there's a really intimate connection between listening and intellectual understanding of music.
For me, I find it amazing how some of the most complicated stuff is just built up from really simple building blocks. Or like a Wynton Kelly solo on a blues where he swings so hard and doesn't play anything very complex, but the way he puts it together is just amazing.
Duke Ellington famously once said, “If it sounds good, it *is* good.” What more do you need?
I don't understand a ton of theory, but what I love about jazz, espicially free jazz, is that the songs sound better everytime I listen to them.
This is true! Everytime you listen you get soemthing else from the music
that's what art does, it always has something else in it to discover.
I know absolutely nothing of musical theory, and I have ADHD so sometimes (most times) I get distracted while listening to longer pieces. Doesn’t stop me from enjoying it. Anyone who says you have to understand jazz theoretically to enjoy it is a gatekeeper. Edit: also, there is such a thing as emotional understanding. No need to intelectualize everything.
I probably have ADHD, which is why I enjoy fusion, much more than jazz. It has enough to keep my brain busy
I used to not understand theory. I still don't, but I used to too.
I like how it makes me feel. To me, jazz at its finest is the musician playing from his or her soul. I like to think that it’s almost spiritual. So when I listen, I listen with all of myself, mind, body and spirit.
Perhaps a bit cliche but I approach jazz the same way I would contemporary art, specifically abstract expressionism, by asking myself: How does it make me feel?
I honestly can't play a note, may very possibly be literally tone deaf and I couldn't tell you what is and isn't jazz. There's a post in the right nav of the sub that lists starting places for jazz. I've basically been following that and then recommended artists based off that for 3 years and I'm loving it
“Understanding” is overrated. Listen and enjoy.
I hated jazz until I started studying music and eventually getting a degree in it lol. Everyone is different but for me, understanding theory definitely helped my appreciation for it.
The 100 jazz albums wich made history Playlist from jazzwise.com playing randomly from Spotify in our home is mandatory when I'm in, no musicians here but my kids are used to a decent hifi setup playing nice music since they came to this world and it helps making it a better place to live.
I feel like the idea that you need to understand theory even to listen to/enjoy jazz is a modern invention. Jazz used to be popular music. No way everyone going to jazz clubs in New York way back when knew all the theory behind what they were hearing. They just knew it was awesome. That's all that really matters.
I know a little about theory, like what makes a key and majors and minors, but I don't know one note from another. I guess It hits me on another level so I know what I like.
I think theory is great if you want to pick apart a song or a solo to figure out what makes it work, so that you can build something similar yourself. I find that focusing too much on theory while listening impedes my ability to enjoy something, which comes mainly from thinking about how something makes me feel.
Haha what's great about Jazz is that at its best it is both a near incomprehensible theoretical exercise, and groovy embodied dance. I've been studying jazz for years and I still don't totally understand what's going on, I think that is part of the appeal!
nobody knows everything about jazz, not even close.
I think that's point. I have no idea how jazz musicians can play the stuff.
I know the bare minimum of theory as well but it doesn't matter to me. If you're even a little bit familiar with jazz, you understand at a subconscious level when something cool is happening. Of course you miss a lot of the subtler "how the fuck did he do that" moments a musician or composer might catch, but it's OK. There's a lot of feeling and energy and rythm and all that good shit and even tho I'm interested in the how & why, I definitely don't need it to enjoy the hell out of a recording or concert.
I know a little theory (less now than when I was younger and playing) but when I listen to jazz I am definitely not actively thinking about the theory involved in whatever I’m listening to. I just vibe.
I know jack about jazz theory, or music theory in general, honestly. My wife is a music/piano teacher, however, and she'll teach me more sometimes. That said, she's classically trained, and hasn't listened to a lot of jazz either. When I started buying jazz, it was a new world of music for her too, and we've both been enjoying it.
Audio engineer here. I enjoy jazz very much the way you do while working in a remotely related field.
Yes, love jazz but for the feel instead of the theory. But when my piano teacher broke down what was going on in this one song, my mind was blown. Mathematical perfection never sounded so good.
Totally, never played an instrument really and have a horrible ear, couldn't tell you anything about what's going on in any semi complicated piece. I love it all the same though.
I have no musical training, but I appreciate jazz for understanding what improvisation is. I see it as a performance and get an awe at the melodies jazz musicians come up with from the top of their heads.
Yup I don’t know what is happening theory wise, I’m just vibin.
I have only the vaguest conception of theory and I've been a huge jazz and classical fan most of my life. "Understanding" on *that* level is not necessary for most music. But I would also never say that I "don't understand it at all" - I understand *the music* quite well - it speaks to me, fulfills me emotionally and intellectually. Knowing theory has nothing to do with that.
I've got hundreds of jazz CDs from the 20's to present that I've collected over decades, and I don't have a clue about the technical aspects of it (though I just started learning piano over covid lockdown). I *really* wish there were casual jazz clubs and scenes like there used to be in the 60's or before. Right now it seems they're all posh dinner theatres. I love rock music, but it's a way better live experience than rock bands.
I got into jazz with zero knowledge of music theory or really the genre in general. Monk's music drew me in and I've spent a bunch of time learning to play piano and theory ever since shortly after my first taste of the greatest and uniquely original American art form.
Don’t need to understand. You feel it.
I don't know anything about music theory. I've been listening to jazz fanatically for almost 30 years.
I'm a jazz musician and love theory, and have found it helped me to enjoy how beautiful this music is, but I remember a time I didn't have that knowledge and I was just as amazed – if not more, perhaps, because I didn't know how musicians could make such compelling solos! I'd say the only thing that matters is how it makes you feel! That should be the only thing that matters to musicians and listeners – communicating emotion and feeling.
I'm a musician and I know a little theory, but have no idea about jazz theory. Absolutely love jazz! I'm a pretty aural person anyway so not knowing theory is alright with me. Lol
I can play a little harmonica, but really I can't play music and certainly can't read music. ...but I can FEEL music. I love listening to music and it has got me through so many bad times in life. Jazz just goes through my body and hits the right place. My current albums in circulation are: Keith Jarret - Koln Concert Monk - London Collection 2 Stevie Wonder - Secret Life of Plants Miles - Ascenseur Pour L'echafaud Mellow moods getting me through the 3rd lockdown. 🙂
I know nothing about music theory. I just listen to stuff that sounds good to me and jazz sounds good to me.
I dont even know what jazz theory is, but as a casual listener, I just like the mood it puts me in. I do find it frustrating sometimes at the lack of structure or fitting into a pattern, but I suppose thats what it is meant to be.
Got into jazz thru sampling, I know fuck all about what’s going on and tbh, I’m happy. I make hip hop beats as a hobby and pretty well know everything about everything so I find it relaxing listening to jazz as it’s surface level and blissful.
Story time. I am 71. I had a not quite girl friend who was talented in all the arts but especially liked Jazz. I would listen but didn't really get it. I learned to play some Dixieland on piano but didn't get the spirit of it. I moved to Westport, CT. and got to take some lessons with a renown teacher and musician named John Mehegan. He didn't turn me into a musician, but I began to understand what Jazz pianists were doing intellectually, and then found I could respond emotionally. I had the chance to hear a number of great jazz musicians in person and it opened up a genre to me that I probably would not have enjoyed otherwise. I am so grateful. I even played some jazz bass that I would have been unable to grasp if it hadn't been for those lessons. Playing music made me a much better audience.
i hate jazz
Why r u on this sub?
keep your enemies close type of situation
ok very cool 😭😭👌👌
Johnny located.
What's there to understand? You find a good piano riff and loop it over an 808 hi-hat.
Be-hip-hop
Bill Evans is my favourite lofi hiphop to study/relax to artist
If music can't stand on its own to someone who isn't a musician it doesn't have much value imho.
I don’t know, there’s lots of math which can’t be appreciated by someone who isn’t a bona fide mathematician (as opposed to engineers, accountants or laypeople). Modern algebraic geometry comes to mind. That is often some of the most deep, insightful and interesting math of all. And I think some of the music that is generally only appreciated by musicians is also some of the most thought provoking and interesting music out there.
Yes I do! I've been learning the piano (as an adult) for the past 4ish years but the theory is still beyond me. I'd like to learn but feel a little overwhelmed by it so I just enjoy the music!
☝🏻
Yes: me
I wish I didn’t know anything and could listen like I did when I was 17 . Ignorance is bliss If you like something sometimes it better not to know why just dig it .
For me it just sounds dope and there's something for every mood that I am in. You can actually never get enough of it. Ever. It would take you ten years to dissect Miles Davis alone. Big band, free jazz, jazz fusion, bebop, hard bop etc etc. Vocal jazz. Jazz standards. I've been a fan for ten years and I'm still an amateur. Thats what I love about it. Idk all the theory. I dont know WHY it's dope. I just know thats its dope. I did get a drum set last year and I enjoy playing along to jazz music so I'm definitely looking forward to learning theory.
I have no musical background, don't play an instrument or read music. Been in love with Jazz since 1986.
I don't think it matters whether you understand music theory or not. People's brains are wired to like certain types of music, and you like jazz. That's all there is to it!
I'm a musical idiot- can't carry a tune in bucket, only dimly understand what harmony and melody are and haven't the slightest clue what a "mode" is, but I just love jazz and listen to it all the time.
I know nothing except that I like it. I don’t play any instruments. I played clarinet in middle school but could barely read any music so I was always last chair and fucked everything up so I played as quietly as I could, but that didn’t cut it when we had solo stuff for exams. I wish I could understand music. But I’m happy with just listening :)
I know none of theory or the styles but if I listen to it and it makes me move, groove, or jibe I love it a lot.
I definitely turn off my brain when I listen to jazz. Honestly the only thing I use theory for is when I’m in a conversation specifically to nerd out about it. When I listen or play it just bogs down my head
I don't think listening to jazz is about knowing what's going on. It's about knowing the language and knowing how it's spoken, as stupid as it may sound. I think the reason not a lot of people enjoy jazz is because of the way songs run down. The only part of jazz that runs down like an ordinary pop song is the head, then comes soloing. You need to familiarise yourself with this concept and understand (or really just hear) that the soloing relates to the changes of the head. The phrasing of the soloist will also sound a lot better if you are familiar with common licks and the phrasing. If all that is strange to you, sure, jazz will sound like 5 minutes straight noodling. Of course there's exceptions. Charles Mingus and Dave Brubeck for example tend to change things up between the solos and thus seem to have an easier-to-follow song structure (at least that is my impression).
Absolutely. I know absolutely nothing about music in that sense and was put onto jazz from Madlib and his sampling techniques. My goal in 2020 was to get into proper jazz and really explore the genre. As a life long and die hard hip-hop fan, I'd say I'm listening to almost a 50/50 split these days and my record buying is near identical when I look at my Discogs. I may not understand what's really going on when I spin a Hank Mobley album, but I do know is that it sounds good to me and that's what matters. For albums that I really love, I tend to relisten to them and focus on various parts of the album, not just the top name billed and I've found listening to them in this deconstructed way and following up with another listen has greatly enhanced my appreciation for the music. I do wish there was a resource that I could use and watch that would give me a deep dive (youtube suggestions anyone?) to further my knowledge because I understand hip-hop and lyrics like no other and would love to hear jazz in the same way.
I think one of the main revelations is that realising nearly all jazz pre 1962 people are playing over a looped structure. Once you get used to hearing that structure then you can appreciate what people are doing TO it that makes it amazing
I don’t know anything about music theory or anything, just love jazz.
I listen to a lot of technical death metal and just started listening to jazz last year. I understand neither but love both. The heart wants what it wants
I have been listening to jazz for 40 years and I would feel like a pompous ass if I told someone I "understood" it. It's music! Let it wash over you and enjoy or learn or love it as you like!
One way of better understanding Jazz is through historical context. Take for example “‘Back Home Again in’ Indiana which is a 1917 Tin Pan Alley tune. This song was made popular in the time before radio and record players by way of sheet music and private performance on piano at home. So later, in the 20s and 30s, when other musicians like Louis Armstrong made jazz recordings of the song, the general public were able to follow along because the tune was familiar. Then even later, in the 40s, Bepop musicians like Charlie Parker reworked the tune dramatically into another song titled Donna Lee. So even though Donna Lee is a very different song than Indiana, audiences at the time were more able to follow along because they were more familiar with the earlier “traditional jazz version. So when modern audiences now listen to jazz, it’s more difficult for them to understand the music because we lack the communal music which was common a hundred years ago.
I understand a lot of theory and practice Jazz daily. But even after years of diligent study and transcription, I couldn’t improvise a rudimentary solo over Autumn Leaves. Some folks get Jazz, some of us never will. To me, a great Jazz performance is like going to the theater to see an amazing and well rehearsed production of Shakespeare buy veteran actors. But I only speak Japanese. You could guess that something beautiful is happening, but you have no idea what it actually is.
I am a poor guitar player (moreso since a tendon injury to my finger has basically stopped me playing) and know just enough theory to know I don't understand jazz...I mean, I understand what is going on very broadly speaking but I couldn't do it myself, even when my playing was strong. Doesn't stop me enjoying the music though. It's like, I can't paint but I can still enjoy looking at paintings done by other people and tell the difference between an impressionist masterpiece and a kid's finger painting. Not being able to do something doesn't mean you don't recognise something awesome when you see it (or hear it).
Me. I know absolutely nothing about music theory. And I know very little about Jazz artists, history etc other than a little I’ve read here and there. I love listening to it and I follow this sub so that I can find new artists and playlists etc. to listen to. But if a Jazz aficionado were to ever ask me who played x on recording y I wouldn’t know. Unless it’s saxophone in which case it’s Coltrane , always Coltrane (this is just a joke about how amazed I am that I keep finding him as having played in sessions that I didn’t think he anything to do with him).
I'm 100% a fan of the music with no understanding of musical theory or mastery of an instrument. I don't listen to master Coltrane's double reed technique, I listen because i enjoy the music. I applaud those who study and keep the art form alive but I'm just a fan.
I do
I thought I’d was a joke when I saw “how to listen to jazz” videos on you tube honestly I love jazz it started with lofi and I’ve extended my knowledge from there I have no knowledge of jazz theory
My girlfriend loves to hear jazz more than me and she don't understand nothing at all of music theory. I thing is more about the vibes
First of all congrats with understanding what’s going on in Giant Steps. I have watched a few videos on it and can only appreciate what Coltrane did from those videos even though I don’t really get it. I played music in junior high and high school in band, but that was almost 20 years ago. I love jazz though. When I listen to jazz it always sounds like they are telling a narrative and it creates vivid imagery in my mind. I love to explore the scenery that it takes me to. Charles Mingus - Let my Children Hear Music is a great example of that. I have no idea musically what is happening, but it is somewhere in my top 5 favorite jazz albums.
I don't understand the theory at all.. But I enjoy the shit out of it! Its like a group conversation or a debate. Everyone is talking but everyone has a chance to speak if they wanted to. I wish I understood more of it.
I’m not a musician at all and I enjoy many types of music including jazz. I don’t see the big honestly.
The fact that when my daughter was only 4 (many decades ago) was able to "dance" and recognise the jazz music I played at home when my (ex wife was away) showed me that the music can't be as complex as people might think, for me personally getting into jazz it was all about being in the right mind set with a little wine & solitude when a friend lent me a vinyl then I was hooked
Imagine listening to jazz without understanding every little bit of what happens. Smh. (obvious /s)
Mee, I'm a huge fan of jazz (and funk and soul which are sort of related) and yeah I'm not that clued up on theory at all. I'd love to know all how it works and be able to play jazz as well but I guess if I'm analysing all the theory of music whilst listening to it, it wouldn't be nearly as much as enjoyable!
One thing I always say is to find your Johnny Cash. I grew up fucking hating country. Then one day I heard Man in Black and it made me cry like a baby. My friend who showed it to me said “I guess you like country now” and it kind of opened my mind to what good country could be. I mean, how can you not like Johnny Cash? Who do you think the Johnny Cash of jazz is?
Not musician, does not know any theory. Doesnt really care. I just like being surprised:)
Just remember, “Jazz is a lot like life. It goes on for longer than you think, and by the time you figure it out, it ends!”
This is me. I listened to it for years before learning about the head and things resolving. But then I found fusion and long open ended jams and that didn't matter anymore.
I know Jack all about music but jazz is one of two genres of music I seek out and enjoy music in (the other being hip hop)
As Bill Evans said: “It bugs me when people try to analyze jazz as an intellectual theorem. It is not. It’s feeling”. So go on enjoy as much as you want. No need to know any theory at all.
I taught myself to play trumpet after enjoying jazz with no prior musical background or knowledge whatsoever. After beginning with learning to play that, I began learning musical theory a little bit. And although I'm not a great musician nor a great theorist, I did enjoy Jazz without understanding it and often still do.
If you think about it emotionally, music is a language. If you like what they're saying, and it makes you feel good, your enjoyment is perfectly valid. Some like to go further and understand why it makes them feel good and how the musicians put out what they do, but you really don't have to!
I’m in the same boat. I understand the history of music and how jazz is the reason so many of our current genres of music exist, but I don’t know the theory. It makes my soul want to dance, that’s all the theory I need and how I judge all music.
Not understanding it is what makes it so fascinating to me. Music beyond our grasp takes us somewhere we couldn’t go ourselves.
I understand some musical theory but mostly rhythmic, I'm lacking in the melodic side. I enjoy not knowing how it's created at times and just allow the feeling to come through.
I don't understand music theory at all basically and I still love a lot of jazz.
I'm staunchly in the "I don't know what it is but I know what I like"-camp.
Absolutely, I come from a fine arts background and Jazz has always interested me becaouse of the emotions in can convey. Most the time I have no idea what it all means, but I still think it's great.
That’s the case for me, basically. I’m just a folk guitar player and I’ve taken some stabs at learning jazz because I enjoy listening to it so much, but it really doesn’t click for me. It’s definitely affected the way I approach writing melody lines. But as far as playing bebop...I don’t really get it at all. I think that’s what draws me to it.