As an academician myself in a realm that is both science and art
(interpreting religious texts historically and literarily, for religous
purposes) I can tell you that the "rules" of good interpretation are
second-order reflection on work that was initially done intuitively. The
rules only define "what happened" not what has to happen.
I'll give my definition of good music theory here. Any theory, in any
realm, is simply a mental model that does a few important things. First,
it explains why things that work, work. Second, it explains why things
that don't work, didn't work. Third, it allows you to predict what might
or might not work, thus suggesting fruitful initial avenues of inquiry,
though not exhaustively; Fourth, a good theory allows you to expand your
learning consistently and effectively without collapsing under the
stress of new things.
The "scales over chords" approach, combined with the visualized "scale
boxes" just about destroyed my playing. It didn't really explain the
sound I heard in others, it didn't help me get that sound, and I kept
running into great playing that just didn't need it. Bad theory. Some
good information is housed in that theory, just like a lot of
astronomical and geological data was housed in the Ptolemaic theory of
the universe, which was advocated passionate by many intelligent and
learned people. But it was wrong. Copernicus was right.
I'm beginning to make progress because I'm transcribing solos very
precisely, studying how they work, and trying to play melodically by
composing solos over the changes of tunes I've transcribed. I'm like a
kid learning to write by connecting the dots. Funny, but my solos sound
better. Still awful. But better. And I have hope. This is fun again.
SNIP
> What I advise is that people transcribe the solos of people that
> they are interested in and figure out what those players are doing.
> Using that information you have a better idea of which approaches
> will lead to the kind of playing you are interested in.
>
> Getting that information from a book is a bad idea.
>
BTW I have hundreds of dollars worth of books I'll sell to anybody who
doesn't want to take Reed's advice here! Such a deal have I got for you.
Then I can buy more CDs, pay a graduate student to grade my papers and
do research for me, so I get more time to transcribe & play!
Heck, I'll even sell the commercial transcriptions. I've bought books of
these things, but I've seen that the value of a transcription is for the
transcriber.
> Reading books of others helps you to understand ways to think about
> music and formulate things but it's not a substitute for you own
> personal exploration.
>
And if it prevents one's own experimentation and direct encounter with
the music, the best book is still a bad thing! The enemy of the best, is
the good.
-- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////////////// Lawson G. Stone-Asbury Theological Seminary-Wilmore, KY ////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future. --Niels Bohr