Re: What is enough theory for amateur musicians?

reed ( (no email) )
Wed, 11 Dec 1996 06:32:14 +0000

>
>I interviewed and read about (or watched videos of) many top players in an
>attempt to try and see common threads of what they did. This is how I
>developed the method I use now .
>
>Most players told me they transcribed alot. It became obvious that
>many players worked things out to play long before getting
>on the bandstand. Most players new alot of tunes without the need
>for written music.
>

Another common thread was that players started off just
playing the melody and then gradually added fills usually.
Over time they started doing more of what we could call
improvising.

This is the historical way jazz improvisation developed and in a
microcosm it developed that way for most top players.

By the time we see them, they are doing so many things we
can't see the humble beginnings that they came from.

Bill Evans on his instructional video talks about how
people always want to approximate the final product.
However, they arent ready for that so instead jsut create
alot of confusion which they wrongly assume will just
sort itself out and become the final product. It never
does and they just build confusion on top of that confusion.

He illustrates what someone soloing should be doing in the beginning.

It's just very simple and sincere attempts to play some kind
of simple melody. Barney Kessels video has the same thing.etc.etc.

For me, the formula methods are ways to try and approximate the
final product. For example, allowing people to play lots of notes at a time
when they basically have nothing of any real value to say musically and
should be just playing very simply.

I feel like Bil CLintons campaign advisor when he kept saying
"It's the economy, it's the economy".

For me: "It's the melody, it's the melody...."

reed