delete

[Chip McDonald]

They know a lot within their respective idiom. They've internalized "rules": "when it's "this" kind of blues "this" works with it". It's experience for the most part.

 

If one internalizes experience instead of externalizing rules ("it is "this" chord so I must use "this" scale").

 

Theory helps the process, though....

 

There's a number of guys that seem to "know better": Billy Sheehan claims to know nothing of theory. Jeff Beck. But they've internalized experience, which counts for more: given a certain situation, they know a certain group of tools will work. Easy.

 

------------------

New and Improved Music Soon: http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Emperator]

Considering that if you have a good understanding of diatonic scales. I mean in the music of Western Civilization you can go a long ways with just that. Actually the theory of that is pretty straight forward. More scales? There all just maps. Now when you go to playing blue. You could think minor penatonic and throw in a major 3rd or there are quite a few ways that you can play an extended blues scales (choice of other notes to add to it or delete). Really a lot of it is in the technique and especially a lot of microtonal bends. The blues was the first to lead the way with a lot of string bending, vibrato. Which now is applied commonly to all the other types of music, especially Rock. Theoretically it becomes very complicated very fast. Still it's always about having good ears and the blues is very good ear training And like Clapton says it's in the way that you play it. It's about what you make for real, however it's done. However you can as a player internalize it and make it work for you is the real thing.

.

[Emperator]

Oh yeah! Here's the thing. Bend a string just a little no smaller then that . And thus you have a tone that is not even a standard chromatic tone. The blues lives and breathes with that kind of stuff. So how hard is that to describe in scale theory? Of course knowing how to bend a half step, whole step, step&half and all the way off the neck is all in there two.

[Emperator]

Oh yeah! Here's the thing. Bend a string just a little no smaller then that . And thus you have a tone that is not even a standard chromatic tone. The blues lives and breathes with that kind of stuff. So how hard is that to describe in scale theory? Of course knowing how to bend a half step, whole step, step&half and all the way off the neck is all in there two.

[GuitarMan]

Ronnie Earl, Duke Robillard and Robben Ford all know boatloads of theory and play some badass blues... Ronnie Earl has a Masters Degree in music.

 

Many other fine players are truely less than conversant with theory and their not pretending to dummy up...they really are unable to explain it...but this does not mean they're magical ...they really do know the theory, they just can't articulate it in the conventional sense.

 

One way to get really good at playin' alot of blues is...... to play a lot of blues.

 

For example... have you ever met some guy who just started playin' in say... his uncles band...the guy can barely play but they do 5 hrs a nite, 5 or 6 nites a week.... check the guy in just a year or two and he's become a hot player(just do it)

 

Theory sometimes helps me write a tune or solve a problem while recording but other than that it's for jazz players or some academics in a university who may or may not be able to play their way out of a wet paper bag!

[gtrmac]

I know some of those guys really just play by ear. Some guys who obviously know theory downplay the importance of it also. I have an instructional video by Pat Martino and he demonstrates a lot of melody patterns which he describes as "melodies which I have found pleasing through experience". He occasionally mentions what scale they are and how they relate to the chord progression but he stresses the fact that they are melodies not scales. This is important to me because I hear a lot of players that sound like they are playing scales instead of music. As far as blues goes how much theory do you need to play Chicago Style I/IV/V progressions? Not too much really. That's what's so cool about it. You can stop thinking and play from the heart.

[AlChuck]

Same thing with Joe Pass, he would always stress the experience part, the internalization. He didn't stress theory because it hampers you too much to be trying to think of scales and rules for applying them while the music is rushing by. His playing conception was simply stuff like "this is major.. this is minor... this is diminished... this is dominant... this is a dominant chord going to a major 7th, so these things work... this is a dominant chord heading for a minor 7th, so these things work..."

[fantasticsound]

Hey, Pop,

 

Perhaps their ability to play without the ability to communicate the relationships in the music would make more sense if you think in terms of an illiterate person who can speak well. The ability to understand langauge and speak it is different than knowing why sentences are constructed a certain way. Playing notes that you've learned, through experience, work together is different than knowing what the names of the chords or scales are.

 

------------------

Neil

 

Reality: A few moments of lucidity surrounded by insanity.

[GuitarMan]

Music theorists frequently sound like sportscasters at a racing event...ie..."and he's comeing down the homestretch in the mixolidian mode, and burning thru the turnaround in the SUPERLOCRIAN ! now, he's picking up some speed and jabbing his way over the one with some Ionian smoke" etc... where as the musician being described this way is utterly bewildered by these comments and only wishes he/she had a copy of this drivel that he could show to his mother! so she could understand what a fuckin' genius he/she is! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

[GuitarMan]

Originally posted by popmusic:

Well, what I should've mentioned in my original post that it wasn't just theory that the guitarists seemed to not talk about... It was guitar technique too. I don't expect anyone in an interview to be able to describe how to instantly play the blues authentically, but I'd hope at least to hear some of a particular player's bag of tricks... Most of the interviewees weren't giving much away. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/frown.gif But yeah, maybe it's just one of those things that after you have a style really, really internalized, you don't ever think about what you're playing...

 

Technique is another matter entirely! Robert Johnson would purportedly moved his hands and body in such a way as to obscure his technique and/or "bag0tricks" etc... from the competition!

 

In my own case... I'm loath to give away stuff that is uniquely mine and has been developed over the years(I'm 48)... especially were the occasion an interview for TV or the internet(in my dreams!) Now were I to be getting well paid for an instructional video(dreaming again!) I'd still feel a little queasy about it but I'd have to do it or return the money.

 

So... if it's some blues technique, theory, bagOtricks etc...that your after, your best bet would be to either approach a player you admire(for lessons) or buy some of the many fine instructional materials available nowdays... and that's another thing...see, in my day sonny...we didn't have CD roms that cataloged and illuminated every nuance of so many great players technigues....THAT'S RIGHT! ...we did it the hard way by just ride'n the hell out O that sled and/or scratchin' it off an LP and continuing to develope our own damn technique... and then you just want it spoon fed to ya! SHEESE! you squirts don't know how good you got it! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

[Chip McDonald]

Originally posted by popmusic:

after you have a style really, really internalized, you don't ever think about what you're playing...

 

How *else* can anyone play?

 

If you're thinking about it, it's probably not going to be as deep and complex IMO. You can only maintain so many concepts in the front part of your awareness, that's wayyyyy too limiting.

 

I've taught that it's better to become a clone temporarily - and really get inside a style, absorb it totally - and then cast it aside. Consciously thinking about scale concepts, or substitutions, or reharmonizations is NOT the way to make pure music IMO.

 

If I'm really playing as I should be, it's exactly like daydreaming, or being in the state of mind of being enthralled by a good book to the point you turn off what's going on "outside". Sometimes, I don't even know what I just played unless I hear it back. That's *always* more interesting a result - the subconscious mind operates on many different levels I believe at an order of magnitude greater speed.

 

Hmm.

 

Actually, the conscious awareness is focused on the physical execution process: method of vibrato, touch, attack nuance, dynamics, so forth. It's actually like listening to a recording the mind is playing back (what it wants to hear in the next instant) and then thinking about how to do it the best way.

 

So really, one should ideally be schizo.

 

The way different people go about the instantaneous creative process of improvising is a fascinating subject. The power of the mind is fantastic. I know that I've played things that are hyper-fast, and when I hear it back I know that in one instant - probably less than a ms - I was thinking about a ton of different possibilities and directions before each note. It's the same phenomenon of falling asleep, having a "long" dream, waking up - and realizing you were only out for a few minutes. Fascinating, tapping into that subconscious mind.

 

------------------

New and Improved Music Soon: http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Emperator]

So true. It has to be mostly subconcious and automatic. So many things going on. I'm big on the concept of muscle memory. After playing in so many different ways. It kind of frees you not being concerned with the physical because it takes less effort to execute. You can really let your mind go and reach for what you need.

I think style is the thing that most defines music. It's a feeling it's an impression. It all adds up to style.

[DC]

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

Hey, Pop,

 

Perhaps their ability to play without the ability to communicate the relationships in the music would make more sense if you think in terms of an illiterate person who can speak well. The ability to understand langauge and speak it is different than knowing why sentences are constructed a certain way. Playing notes that you've learned, through experience, work together is different than knowing what the names of the chords or scales are.

 

 

I think Neil has a perfect analogy here. There are brilliant writers that couldn't tell you a verb from a noun and probably can't even spell well, yet they can tell a great story. Same with guitaring.

[LAPetrarca]

I can't read music but have been a working musician (bass player and recently, guitar player) for 35 years. While it would be nice to be able to read, I've seen that ability become a handicap far too many times for my own liking.

 

I've been in bands with numerous keyboardists, horn players and guitar players who are very good as long as they've got paper in front of them. Take it away and they're lost. I can't tell you how many times I've been playing in a club and a patron will ask for a particular song. Even though not a difficult one (G-C-D type stuff,)the theorist freaks at the thought of having to wing it.

 

So I guess I'm lucky to have been able to "internalize" all this stuff over the years. Just tell me what key we're in.

 

Given a choice of being able to play from "internalization" alone or being a slave to the paper, I'd choose "internalization". Over the years, I've played with some very good players on stuff that I never even heard before. I've also seen those theorists just sit it out while we're jamming.