A good way to 'think'?

[Kinoble]

Hey guys,

Got a question for ya.

Im awful at remembering patterns on guitar and recently ive found my own way to 'think' about imprvisation.

Basically i know the dorian mode very well all over the fretboard and when improvising i just go and play around the Dorian shapes.

For example, if i have a mjor progression like G-Em-Am-D7 i just 'think' A dorian and play around the patterns. It works very well for me.

So basically for any progression i basically think the relative dorian mode and play around that as its the mode i know the best.

Good way to 'think'?? Maybe i'll post some clips up to show how it works.

Cheers

-Ben

[JazzMick]

With any diatonic progression. Playing with the tonal center approach will sound OK in many cases. But it gets a bit boring rather quickly.

If the music you find yourself playing is 100% diatonic then your going to love this approach. The moment you start learning tunes with non diatonic movements though, your going to be in strife.

[Kinoble]

Thanks Mick. With non-diatonic movements i just think the same, say Am7-Cm7, i just think A dorian, C dorian.


With fast moving jazz changes and tonal centers i just think arpeggios and supeimposition so it doesnt really affect that.

How do you 'think'?

[JonR]

I think chord tones. I know all the notes on the neck, and all the possible shapes for any chord I see.
I think about connecting chord tones, from chord to chord - via diatonic scale notes (which can get boring), or via chromatic alterations.

I also - depending on the style of the tune - think about certain extensions. So if it's a ballad and I want to lay the sentiment on a bit thicker, I go for maj7s and 9ths. If it's a minor key jazz tune, I'll go for alterations on the V7 chord: b9, #9, b5, #5 - and that can work on major key tunes too.

When it comes to these extensions/alterations, I have a few strategies for getting the best ones together, using superimposed triads or pentatonics.
Eg, minor pent a half-step down for a lydian maj7. Or minor pent 3 half-steps up for an altered dominant.

Failing that, I just use blues scale on everything... :D

[curiousgeorge]

I like Dorian, but I don't understand how you wouldn't get extremely bored playing the same mode over and over again...I try not to think too much when I improvise. I save most of the thinking for trying to come up with fresh licks, and for practice. I am very much a believer that the patterns don't really matter after awhile...I learned patterns to internalize the sound and feeling of a scale/mode, and the relationship between the notes in the scale/mode...and then I forgot about the pattern because I knew the sound of the scale and could reproduce that sound at any time. I then began to follow the Satriani method of playing bass note pedal tones and drones on the low strings as I improvised with different modal and scalar lines (and arpeggios etc..) comparing different modes and scales back to back to form an opinion on each scale, and to discover which combinations of intervals worked and didn't work. I believe it is so important to make music out of every exercise you play, to not play anything that doesn't excite you in some way. I much prefer to let my ear guide me, than to worry if a dominant 9th arpeggio will work over a chord progression in the 5th mode of harmonic minor...

[JonR]

I like Dorian, but I don't understand how you wouldn't get extremely bored playing the same mode over and over again...I try not to think too much when I improvise. I save most of the thinking for trying to come up with fresh licks, and for practice. I am very much a believer that the patterns don't really matter after awhile...I learned patterns to internalize the sound and feeling of a scale/mode, and the relationship between the notes in the scale/mode...and then I forgot about the pattern because I knew the sound of the scale and could reproduce that sound at any time. I then began to follow the Satriani method of playing bass note pedal tones and drones on the low strings as I improvised with different modal and scalar lines (and arpeggios etc..) comparing different modes and scales back to back to form an opinion on each scale, and to discover which combinations of intervals worked and didn't work. I believe it is so important to make music out of every exercise you play, to not play anything that doesn't excite you in some way. I much prefer to let my ear guide me, than to worry if a dominant 9th arpeggio will work over a chord progression in the 5th mode of harmonic minor...I think we need to be clear here on what a "mode" means.

It's correctly applied in the context of the Satriani-style pedal tones you're talking about - in which different scale types can be imposed over the same bass note, which acts as the tonal centre.

But the sense I think Kinoble is using is a scale pattern on the fretboard. This will have a different modal sound depending on the underlying chord.
Eg, if you use an "A dorian" scale pattern over a sequence in G major, it's simply a G major scale pattern, with various different modal sounds over the various different chords. The pattern has no modal character any different from any other G major pattern.
It may encourage certain phrases, and lead to a limited or repetitive kind of solo playing - which is why Kinoble should stretch out into other patterns. But it won't give an "A dorian" modal sound unless the chord is Am (or the bass note is A).
In the key of G major, every pattern really has a "G ionian" sound, as long as we are aware of G as the overall key centre. (IOW, an Am chord is not really a dorian chord in any useful sense, it's simply a ii chord in G ionian. That's its function.)

Of course, if individual chords last long enough, we can enhance their modal identity by focussing on specific chord extensions. So if there is an Am chord in the key of G that lasts for at least 2 bars (pretty unlikely scenario...), we can focus on the F# and G notes, to highlight the fact this isn't just any old minor chord; it has a major 6 and minor 7, unlike the vi and iii chords in G, and unlike an Am chord in any other key.
We could even turn it into an aeolian or phrygian Am (or even harmonic or melodic Am) if we wanted - if we didn't mind it sounding wrong in context, of course... ;)

IOW, scale choice depends on context - which is usually an overall major or minor key. And if the piece is modal, the scales tend to be equally fixed by the composer; it's just a question of identifying them. (You would be right that the more experienced we are in playing different scales, the more we can do this correctly by ear, without conscious reference to theoretical concepts.)

None of this precludes the use of chromaticism, btw - bringing all 12 notes into play at any time. But context (key, mode and/or chord) rules.

So that awareness of modal sound and character you mention is important, but it plays its part in recognising the character of the piece you are improvising on, before you start.
Naturally, this doesn't apply to jamming over a single chord or pedal tone, or composing your own tunes - where there are no limits! But I think that question of the given context is crucial.

[JazzMick]

I would like to elaborate on JonR's comment but it's all there.

I think the main factor is to take the time to understand chords and thier origins( both literal origins and thier purpose within the tune your playing)

Once you do this you wont have to 'think'. So long as you know your scales and have a tune in your ear to build from.

Easier said than done in some cases. Thats my philosophy in a nutshell though.

[curiousgeorge]

I understand the concept of modes and how they work, but maybe I misinterpreted the original poster's comments. I tend to not think of one pattern that covers seven modes, because I feel that its not enough to just play the one pattern over whichever diatonic chord. I think its better to think of each mode as a different key, because you emphasize the notes differently. This is my personal take on it...I am always open to new ways of looking at things though, so if I am wrong in my views, please feel free to dish some constructive criticism...Excellent replies so far!

[JonR]

I understand the concept of modes and how they work, but maybe I misinterpreted the original poster's comments. I tend to not think of one pattern that covers seven modes, because I feel that its not enough to just play the one pattern over whichever diatonic chord. I think its better to think of each mode as a different key, because you emphasize the notes differently. Sure. Different patterns do encourage emphasis on different notes, or groups of notes (phrases), and can therefore have different sounds.
But it's a mistake to think of the difference as "modal", or anything to do with "key". Those two things are governed by the tonal centre you hear, which is likely to be dictated by the harmonic background - either a bass pedal, a chord root, or an overall key centre.
Every mode and key runs all over the neck, and each 3- or 4-fret pattern offers all the notes you need - at least 2 of each one, over 2+ octaves.

The reasons to choose one scale pattern (of the same set of notes) over another are:
1. how high or low up the neck it is (register);
2. which phrases it puts easily under your fingers - IOW, which chord extensions or scale degrees it makes it easy to hit. (Of course, any phrase can be played from any pattern, but some make it a little easier for certain phrases than others.)

Eg, if I wanted a lydian sound over a C major chord, I might go for a 7th fret G major scale pattern. I don't know what mode you call that ("B phrygian"?), but it puts the maj7 (B), 9 (D) and #11 (F#) of the chord all on one fret, with other chord tones easily in reach. I can play easy G, D or Bm arpeggios there (or a B minor pent pattern), which give a good lydian sound over a C root. I like the G major scale pattern I get on 7th fret because it involves no stretching (a "C"-form pattern in the CAGED system).
Of course, I can get a C lydian sound from any pattern of G major - provided that C root is evident. I just need to make sure I use an F# note (along with E and B). But the 7th fret pattern is kind of "friendly".

As long as the C chord or bass is audible, it makes no difference which notes I accent in my G major scale pattern. If I stress the B, eg, that doesn't make it "phrygian" - it just highlights the "maj7" of the chord. The overall modal effect is still lydian.

[Chim_Chim]

I much prefer to let my ear guide me, than to worry if a dominant 9th arpeggio will work over a chord progression in the 5th mode of harmonic minor...
The 5th mode of harmonic minor would have a b9.

You do want your ears to guide you. But your ears may guide you to that specific 5th mode of harmonic minor type of sound. Being able to describe it is just useful after the fact, after your ear has already guided you to that sound. Over time you become familiar with and can identify that type of sound as relating to that particular scale. Once you are familiar with it and identify it as being that particular scale then it's no longer any sort of mystery to you and you have a scale name to identify it with and to associate it with. But it is a specifc type of sound that your ear knows. So why shouldn't your brain know it also? Why not give it a name to descibe that sound or to associate that sound with?

5 beers plus 7 beers = 12 beers

^ That's easier than saying:
"if I have this many beers then I need this many
to make this many" -> the number names (5, 7 and 12) help tell us more clearly what we are talking about.

An easier way of saying "5th mode of harmonic minor" would be to call it by it's name Phrygian Dominant.

So there you go. Flat 9's and beers for all.

[gennation]

It's hard (and a bit stifling) to settle on one concept. And, if you have to solo over something a few times it's good to be able to move from concept to concept.

So, "think" in scales, chord scales, relative scales (topic of OP first post), chord tones/arps, half-step approaches, Intervals, tension/release, anticipation, and on and on.

Look at things in chunks and look at things all together in one large view. Similar to thinking A Dorian and C Dorian for Am7-Cm7...that's how they look individually, once you start looking at them as one giant scale consisting of all the notes from both you see that they produce a bunch notes from an A or C W-H tone scale (or a parallel/puesdo Diminished scale)...

try using the W-H/diminished connector notes in anticipation to moving between the chords.

I think the one thing that holds people back is taking the time to put down the instrument and write out things on fretboard diagrams. I can tell you how many times I've been able to see past the teaching and into areas that nobody teaches directly.

"Think" as many ways as you possibly can when approaching music.

[Crossroads]

It's hard (and a bit stifling) to settle on one concept. And, if you have to solo over something a few times it's good to be able to move from concept to concept.

So, "think" in scales, chord scales, relative scales (topic of OP first post), chord tones/arps, half-step approaches, Intervals, tension/release, anticipation, and on and on.

Look at things in chunks and look at things all together in one large view. Similar to thinking A Dorian and C Dorian for Am7-Cm7...that's how they look individually, once you start looking at them as one giant scale consisting of all the notes from both you see that they produce a bunch notes from an A or C W-H tone scale (or a parallel/puesdo Diminished scale)...

try using the W-H/diminished connector notes in anticipation to moving between the chords.

I think the one thing that holds people back is taking the time to put down the instrument and write out things on fretboard diagrams. I can tell you how many times I've been able to see past the teaching and into areas that nobody teaches directly.

"Think" as many ways as you possibly can when approaching music.


Mike, I take your point, and I know you're talking from experience and that you know your stuff etc. But do you think there's a danger of guys trying to learn too many options with different scales and arps etc?

IOW - there are a large number of different scales and arpeggios which you can play over any given chord type (Maj, min, Dominant). But apart from "genius" players who apparently learn to play anything in the blink of an eye, for mere mortals it usually takes many years to become familiar with anything much beyond Major & Minor diatonic scales and their pentatonic forms (although jazz players may make a special effort to learn melodic minor and half-whole diminished at an early stage).

Or to put it another way - for life in general, we all know the benefits of keeping things simple. And I'm mindful of how many "great" guitarists of the 1960's and 70's, seemed to rely almost entirely on pentatonics (inc. the b5). And I’m mindful also, that many of the licks created by those guys, are still being used today as absolute classics & "must know" (a lot of it adapted from earlier blues players of course).

It seems to me that you really need to know a scale very well indeed, & work a lot with it over a long time, before you become really skilled with it & begin to create truly memorable phrases? IOW - is there a case for learning one or two scale types really well & creating new sounds from that depth of knowledge, as opposed to looking for new sounds simply by using new scale types?

Even if you just played the minor pentatonic patterns (which are also the major pentatonic patterns of course, depending on where you play them), at a conservative estimate you'd still have literally hundreds of millions of possible note combinations to create interesting licks/phrases. And on top of that, as Scott Henderson says on his DVD, we also need to develop a wide rythmic vocabulary ... IOW, when we learn scales, we also need to be rhythmically creative with them, as well as finding nice note choices.

Anything in that? Anyone think that might be important?

Ian.

[gennation]

The half-step approaches and anticipation I mentioned can play a big part in developing the rhythmic side.

I agree that there's a lot of time spent on learning things you can absorb, then trying to play them. When you are missing rhythm in your playing, it shows.

I've always been one to learn a bunch, figure it out individually then all together, then throw it in the pot with everything else.

You can learn, learn, and learn some more, but without experimenting and actually letting the music use your knowledge, a person will continue to play the same things over and over and will become frustrated if trying to play multiple forms of music since it's the rhythm of the licks that makes the playing sound authentic. But, by experimenting you get the chance to push beyond what you've been taught. And, that experimenting can teach you a lot more.

[Blutwulf]

Kinoble, that is how I have been doing it for 30 years. Like Jazzmick says, it is darned handy for normal rock music.

What you are in for, if you don't bother to learn more and more as the other guys suggest, is boring and uninspired solo work whenever you play jazz chord progressions, or even boring and unspired soloing over basic chord progressions for too long. Whenever I play jazz standards, I simply improvise on the minor and major scales, playing across chord changes and occasionally working the chord tones when my ear finds them.

Eventually, you'll become a one-trick pony, not able to engage in the more stimulating threads here, relegated to posting only about your band/gigging experiences and keeping the world safe from Leegordo. Your teeth will go bad, you'll go two weeks without trimming your beard, and you'll forget to join a table in your SQL, creating an ungodly Cartesian product, bringing down the database, ruining the business, causing a run on stock sales, overturning the stock exchange, and you'll put London, Paris, New York, and Dubai in flames, setting off a global thermonuclear war.

You don't want that.

[Revenant]

The thinking should go on in the woodshed when you practise. When you make actual music, you don't think and that's because you've done all the thinking beforehand.

Internalize everything first, then you don't have to think about "mode this or mode that".
Learn the pitch collection, and when you practise play slowly and evaluate all outside notes over all chords. THAT is musical ear training.
When you can hear the fretboard, you don't have to do it the hard Jamey Aebersold way that goes like "OMG! a II chord lets play mode II of scale x".
You'll have the inside tones in front of you instead.
That old dusty approach implies that chords in music are frozen. The chords move for christs sake!

Do you think jazz greats twist their minds every time they go about soloing?
No way! They know what key they are in, and they have trained their ears to connect to their instrument so extensively, and for so many hours that MUSIC comes out instead of mathematical scale experiments.

This is the approach I am working on, and no other approach has given me such progress as this method. I used to be a theory freak, but I have accepted that music is SOUND and NOT analysis. Sure, theory comes in handy, but its only a help aid and not your be all end all tool to create music.

[ChrisJ]

There are many ways to the top of the same mountain and what may have worked for me may not be for everyone. Some thoughts:

I'm not a firm believer in the "Let your ear be the guide" theory of improv. Your ear will only pick out what sounds inside to you. For me, it was a matter of learning the theory, trying the scale over the chord, hating it, not hating it, liking it and finally not being able to live without it. My ear changed to accept the outside one over the inside one in time. In the end what was originally theory, should become natural, part of what sounds natural to you.

I remember once in college my professor told me that hundreds of years ago they tried an experiment in Europe. They wanted to find out what language God spoke and came to the conclusion that if they took a bunch of newborn children, separated them from the general population so they couldn't hear any spoken language, let them grow up, they would naturally speak God's language. The experiment was a dismal failure... All the children died. I think improv is sort of like that, the student's ear has to be directed and by having him learn a particular scale over a particular chord is the way. At least until he or she has the ear to make good choices. What would the beginners ear choose as the best choice for a dominant chord if the chord was voiced 1-b7-3? Mixolydian without a doubt. Scales like Altered or diminished would be a lot less common if it wasn't for the theory first approach idea.

About derivative approach as compared to Parallel. Both these points of views are equally important. To see the truth, it is important to be able to see things from the front and back. Derivative says: Mixolydian = Major Scale up a 4th. Parallel says: Mixolydian = 1-2-3-4-5-6-b7. Parallel is easy to understand, derivative is quick. I still think the number one priority for the student is to play, so I always suggest derivative first. It takes too much time to get parallel to work (because of the ammount of patterne that need to be learned) but in the end it needs to be adhered to. In all reality, a combination approach works well for me: G mixo is C major, the chord tones are G-B-D-F, I'll pay special attention to them.

[LaughingSkull]

I'm not a firm believer in the "Let your ear be the guide" theory of improv. Your ear will only pick out what sounds inside to you. For me, it was a matter of learning the theory, trying the scale over the chord, hating it, not hating it, liking it and finally not being able to live without it. My ear changed to accept the outside one over the inside one in time. In the end what was originally theory, should become natural, part of what sounds natural to you.

My thoughts exactly. But then, I learned the theory from your site so I might be influenced. :D
If I compare my choice of notes over the same progression now, or two years ago, there is huge difference. I am still guided by ear (;) ), but vocabulary is vastly improved. I now 'hear' what would sound even better (than before), because of the learning ot theory.

[curiousgeorge]

There are many ways to the top of the same mountain and what may have worked for me may not be for everyone. Some thoughts:

I'm not a firm believer in the "Let your ear be the guide" theory of improv. Your ear will only pick out what sounds inside to you. For me, it was a matter of learning the theory, trying the scale over the chord, hating it, not hating it, liking it and finally not being able to live without it. My ear changed to accept the outside one over the inside one in time. In the end what was originally theory, should become natural, part of what sounds natural to you.

I remember once in college my professor told me that hundreds of years ago they tried an experiment in Europe. They wanted to find out what language God spoke and came to the conclusion that if they took a bunch of newborn children, separated them from the general population so they couldn't hear any spoken language, let them grow up, they would naturally speak God's language. The experiment was a dismal failure... All the children died. I think improv is sort of like that, the student's ear has to be directed and by having him learn a particular scale over a particular chord is the way. At least until he or she has the ear to make good choices. What would the beginners ear choose as the best choice for a dominant chord if the chord was voiced 1-b7-3? Mixolydian without a doubt. Scales like Altered or diminished would be a lot less common if it wasn't for the theory first approach idea.

About derivative approach as compared to Parallel. Both these points of views are equally important. To see the truth, it is important to be able to see things from the front and back. Derivative says: Mixolydian = Major Scale up a 4th. Parallel says: Mixolydian = 1-2-3-4-5-6-b7. Parallel is easy to understand, derivative is quick. I still think the number one priority for the student is to play, so I always suggest derivative first. It takes too much time to get parallel to work (because of the ammount of patterne that need to be learned) but in the end it needs to be adhered to. In all reality, a combination approach works well for me: G mixo is C major, the chord tones are G-B-D-F, I'll pay special attention to them.

My approach is very much by ear, and it works for me. I know basic diatonic theory and scale patterns, as well as some diminished, harmonic minor, and augmented scales and arpeggios, yada yada yada...Nothing wrong with learning theory, but it gets boring very fast, and its hard to stay motivated to learn it...especially since I am searching for a motivation or rationalization of why I need to learn theory to improve my playing and my ear...I learn the augmented, diminished, and modal scales etc etc, mostly by transcribing licks and solos (most of the time its mental transcribing----no pen to paper), and listening to lots of music...If I hear a chord, arpeggio, riff, or solo I like, I'll try to pick it up by experimenting and playing until I can find that same sound on my guitar, and if I really like something, and want to incorporate it into my playing, I will play the riff, arpeggio etc repeatedly until I can internalize the sound, and then I can reproduce it on my guitar when composing or improvising. Why do I need to know if its a polytonal Gb9#11 arpeggio that works over a Super Lydian #5 scale etc? If it sounds good, it is good! (Isn't it???) :rolleyes: Anyways, I sound like I'm slagging on learning theory, but I'm just stating what works for me, and what I've experienced...I'm always open to new ideas... There is just SO MUCH to learn with infinite possible combinations, but I would rather spend most of my time playing music rather than frying my brain with this intense theoretical analysis. How do you get inspired to learn all this theory, and what motivates you to learn it? Every time I start to learn theory concepts, I just can't stick to it, because I just get overwhelmed with information, and I end up asking myself questions like, "Am I learning this stuff in the wrong order?", "Should I be focusing on one aspect at a time?" etc etc, and eventually I just get discouraged and give up.

[LaughingSkull]

In my case learning theory has sped up the process. I have a little time at my work which I can spend on theory. If that would not be the case, I would share your opinion.

[ChrisJ]

It really depends a lot on what you want to sound like. If you like Henderson or Scofield, theory is really a must. If you want to sound more traditional, theory is not as important, simply because a scale/chord relationship is not in order. Joe Pass would play a B diminished arpeggio over a G7b9 chord and Scott Henderson would play a h/w diminished scale. It is a different thing. A chord tone approach won't work very well in the kind of chromatic music that they adhere to while it works better in a key centered tonal type Jazz.

[JonR]

The thinking should go on in the woodshed when you practise. When you make actual music, you don't think and that's because you've done all the thinking beforehand.

Internalize everything first, then you don't have to think about "mode this or mode that".
Learn the pitch collection, and when you practise play slowly and evaluate all outside notes over all chords. THAT is musical ear training.
When you can hear the fretboard, you don't have to do it the hard Jamey Aebersold way that goes like "OMG! a II chord lets play mode II of scale x".
You'll have the inside tones in front of you instead.
That old dusty approach implies that chords in music are frozen. The chords move for christs sake!

Do you think jazz greats twist their minds every time they go about soloing?
No way! They know what key they are in, and they have trained their ears to connect to their instrument so extensively, and for so many hours that MUSIC comes out instead of mathematical scale experiments.

This is the approach I am working on, and no other approach has given me such progress as this method. I used to be a theory freak, but I have accepted that music is SOUND and NOT analysis. Sure, theory comes in handy, but its only a help aid and not your be all end all tool to create music.+1!
The jazz greats didn't work from books. The books came later.
Most of them certainly knew some theory - but it was conventional classical theory, major and minor keys, etc.
When they improvised, they worked from melody (key scale) and chords - and rhythm of course. They knew about "inside" (diatonic) and "outside" (chromatic), and use that contrast.
The improvisation principle - the urge to comment on the material - came from Afro-American vocal culture. It was a kind of "Oh, that's what you say? Well here's what I say..." (Maybe I agree - right on! - maybe I don't...)
IOW, it was melodic and rhythmic before it was harmonic.

Of course, to learn how to do what they did, we analyse (because those guys didn't write books on how they did it! :rolleyes: ). And - being well-brought up post-Europeans - we look at the harmony, because that seems the deepest, most impenetrable part of it: the place where the "theory" must reside.
We discover (eg) that a common "outside" sound involves notes that correspond with a mode of melodic minor. Did they know that? Maybe, maybe not. But we get the idea that we have to "apply" that melodic minor mode whenever we want that "altered" sound.

IOW, learning by analysis of what others have done (rather than just copying and getting into the feel) always involves some kind of reduction and simplification. We look for patterns - especially anything that corresponds with stuff we already know - and reject apparently random things that don't fit the patterns. When we see those patterns we think we understand, and the other stuff must be irrelevant.
When we listen and copy, OTOH, we pick up the nuances that have the most meaning for us. We hear the things that communicate - so we end up getting the important stuff. We don't need to look for patterns and theories.

It's like learning a language - and a street slang language at that: books won't do that for you. They'll give you the grammar, the vocabulary. They won't give you the nuance of sound and expression - the stuff that really matters if you're going to get it right. Do the guys on the street care how their words are spelled? :rolleyes:

Another metaphor... It's like trying to build a human being - you end up with a robot, because you strip out the blemishes, the random differences and asymmetries, the individual quirks, the apparent accidents of behaviour or appearance. Robots are fine for what they do - if that's all you want (you just want something to do a mechanical job).

Joe Henderson had a great quote. He said a lot of young players today come out of jazz courses playing solos that "sound like the index of a book". Technically highly accomplished and knowledgable - and "correct" - but no musical inspiration or feel. "Here's a chord, OK, I better use this scale."
OK, it fits. So what? What are you playing for? ;)

You have to have a REASON to improvise. Something you want to "say", about the tune, or about the moment, or about what the last guy just said. If you've nothing to say, don't say it. (Let the next guy take a solo.)

[gennation]

I too primarily use my ear. I use theory to either explain or clarify what I'm hearing or heard for myself. And, I also use theory as a tool to communicate things out to other people.

I can't say I ever really "play" any theory...music is always first, theory and whatever else follow.