Which edition?

Just replying so I can find your comment again when I revisit this video. Thank you

Whille i aguree with the aproaches you have outlined quite well here, i disaguree on this fundametal notion that there is "one right way to conceptualise music" and that " barry harris is simply correct" The simple fact is that music theory is meant to describe music which you can play, not to prescribe music what you should play.(with this you do aguree i believe( On another point. I really cant see why you insist on elevating the major scale, melodic minor scale and the harmonic minor scale to such a degree of importance, as opposed to the modes which from what i understood you reguard as unncessery (please do correct me if im mistaken in what i understood you meant ) The simple fact is that both the major scale, the minor scale, the dorian scale, the mixolidian scale and etc, are all the same scale, with the only difference beeing, which note we consider to be the tonal center in relations to the other notes. So why for example, isnt dorian the most correct , or why isnt any of the melodic minor or harmonic minor modes most correct?( since the mel min and har min modes are also just the same notes with a different tonal centre as well) The fact of the matter is that you will get a gramatically different sound depending on which chord you consider to be the tonic chord( or more precisely, which type of chord) Reguardless if i call it C major or D Dorian, if i treat G as the tonic note, than i will get a G mixolydian sound. Whille we can reffer to that sound as different names, some people found it simpler to reffer to this sound as the mixolydian sound, and i dont see anything wrong with that. It is only a tool after all. And a tool which has aided many people i might add. And it is especially useful when it comes to analisys. Its usefullness is derived from its simplicity. Its not meant to be the be all end all of what and how bebop is sopposed to be played. Im not sure why it would be since its just a different way to look at a major scale, just like the minor scale is a different way to look at a major scale , since a minor scale is also just another mode. Personally, all the modes for me are relative modes, just like we have a relative minor scale, i use a relative dorian scale as a shorthand in my composing. Now, when it comes to improvising, i think then, for many its likely to be stifeling, because for one thing, when im improvising, i dont need to think about an entire scale, because i dont need that entire scales notes to play generally. But if i did then thinking about the dorian scale over a minor ii chord, would inform me of every safe note which can be played over a the ii chord if i want to achieve a so called " dorian sound". Not just that, since that can be done by just knowing which scale it came from ,but more so it will tell me how its key major scale is intervalically related to this minor ii chord. And thats pretty much it i would say. As a tool for teaching, as a refference guide, and as an analisys tool thats pretty much what its useful for. But even if it wasnt even close to this useful, and only was a way to highlight a different sound of the major scale, i still wouldnt see what yours or Barry Harrises issue is with this concept? Because i cant wrap my head around why it would be stifeling to have a quick and dirthy way to show a beginer or intermediate musician a different sound within the major scale, a harmonic or melodic minor scale. On another note: there can be generated many more scales than a major, harmonic min and melodic minor scales, excluding their modes. There are simply better exmplanations for a wholetone scale than " a major scale with the sharp 4th,5th and 6th scale degrees; you can simply say, a scale built entirely with whole tones. But my ultimate point is that saying either is correct, because they are saying the same thing , and even if they said a different thing, as long as it was descriptive, it would still be " true", because music is subjective, and so this notion of " there is a mistaken notion that chords have scales" whille " In reality chords derive from scales". They are just 2 different ways of looking at the same thing. Just like with the thing you begon: george russel said play C lydian over C#11, but the really great jazz improvisers said " play G major over C#11" , and to that i say " G major and C lydian are litterally the same notes, with the destinction between which note is the tonic, and it comes back down to what kind of a sound you want to hear, and how do you want to conceptialise it " Whille there is a cirtain practicality to thinking about it like the major scale based off of the V chord, there is also a placticality in thinking about just adding a #4 to the major scale whare C is the I chord. Ill finish up by telling you the reason i wrote all of this in the first place(besides the fact that i find the topic interesting, since youve made some interesting points in there and id like to know more about them if possible..tho i will try to disprove them haha, its not meant in a negative way, so i hope you dont and didnt take it that way, i just like exploring topics like this) Now for the main reason. The frankly elitist attitude of Barry Harriss about what is and what isnt jazz I find it has been incredibli stifling for me and many others ive seen whenever there are gate keepers in music who tell us how something is sopposed to be done, rather than telling us what is possible and merely allowing us to explore without inserting their own rather unnecessery predjudice . If it was something which is too complicated, or genually didnt give any unility whatsoever, than fine, but this concept is so uncontrovertial that i dont undersrand why would anyone need to try to dismantle it. If ut were not the modes i personally wouldnt have been able to understand many concepts in music which become very simple the moment i understood the modes. Things like extencions, particular sounds within the major scale..etc.. Before the modes, the major scale was to me a boring and frankly useless scale, i just didnt understand at the time that i can take any note from it and make it my center note. And this is my main consirn about gate keeping ideas in this purist way: Some beginers will find it better in your way of conceptualising, and others will find better to conceptualise with a mode, If i was a begginer today and took you two seriously, then i might have never been able to see music in a way in which my brain understands it best. And thats exactly what happened for a long time when i first saw this same interview from barry haris, and i was a beginer who took him seriously, and then i said " well fuck the modes, if he said they are useless or at least who cares about them, then ill learn something else" Only what else? The rest of what he was talking about just sounded too complicated to me, and so i have up on learning theory soon after that for a whille, and didnt know what exactly to learn, and since the modes were not it, i was stuck. (I did continue playing tho) Untill a few years later when i had enough of gate keepers in other feilds , when i realised that the way i want to do things is, well, by any means necessery, and not with whatever someone else said, but with whatever ive personally learned, and then decided if its right for me or not. Thats what i did, long story short, here we are now in this long ass coment. So the last thing ill say a this time is, for the sake of any beginner out there who has no idea whare they are headed.. allow them the possibuility to explore options without judging the approach, even if its not the best, because over time, they will realise if it wasnt the best for them. You , as an experienced musician can speed up their discovery process by pointing them to useful recurses like you have done in your coment here, but a beginer oftain times most of all needs to explore and see for themselves. Thats all. Again, i dont think your approach is wrong, ( infact i think its right) but only that there are other ways of doing things for some people. Have a great day

Oh god, sorry for the lenght..i just realised when i sent it.

@@MalkuthEmperor Preface. I appreciate your comment very much, truly (ancient Western philosophy teaches us that dialogue is a noble art for mutual growth and approaching truth). From your words, it can beinferred that you are a reflective person who does not succumb to appearances and can see beyond. Perhaps I will surprise you, but we have more in common than you think, as our differences arise only when different contexts are being mixed. 1. On Theory: Theory is not the premise of practice but the consequence of practice; on this, we agree. However, theory is functional to practice, like a compass is functional to orientation. 2. On Scales: Exactly as you say, the "major" scale and the "Mixolydian" scale are the same scale starting from different notes. This scale, called "diatonic", is the alphabet of glorious Western music since ancient times, when Greece was the beacon of our civilization. Our ancestors, before developing the melodic-harmonic mechanisms typical of tonality, used the diatonic scale through its modes based on the sensations and emotional states they wanted to evoke in listeners. They called these modes "harmoniai," while the Romans used the term "modus." Among other things, I am a listener of reconstructions of ancient Greek and Roman music, so I love modal music and its resurgence in the modern era through masterpieces by Debussy, Satie, and Ravel. What I contested in my comment was merely the attempt to theoretically graft all modes into a system built on only two modes (major or minor), i.e., the tonal (or bi-modal) system. It's just a matter of context, whether modal or tonal. So, let me explain why I find it simply unnecessary and aberrant to speak of all modes within tonality. 3. How Tonality is Structured: Above all, there is the scale, which can be of major or harmonic minor mode (tonality is triggered in modes that have the perfect fourth and major seventh simultaneously). This scale generates both melodies and harmonies that are hierarchically equal, meaning they are interdependent and share the same scalar material as their mother. Tonality manifests itself in its alternation of tension and resolution given by the simultaneous movement of harmony and melody in the three tonal areas: In the tonic area, we can play all seven degrees of the scale except IV on the downbeat because it would clash with III (characteristic note). In the subdominant area, we can play all degrees except III on the downbeat because it would clash with IV (one of the characteristic notes of this area). In the dominant area, we play all degrees except I on the downbeat because it would clash with VII (characteristic note). Coincidentally, the chords related to each tonal area are built on the only scale degrees that allow emphasizing characteristic notes while avoiding the avoid notes (also because chords are often played on the downbeat and have a relatively long duration). Thus, we have Imaj, IIImin, and VImin (tonic area) emphasizing the III degree and avoiding the IV degree; we have IImin and IVmaj (subdominant area) emphasizing the IV and I degree and avoiding the VII degree; finally, we have Vmaj and VIIdim (dominant area) emphasizing the IV and VII degree and avoiding the I degree. I could give an extreme example to illustrate the idea. If you build a harmonic cluster with all seven degrees of the scale except IV, you have a perfectly functional tonic area harmony; the same goes for the other two areas, where you play everything except VII in the subdominant and everything except I in the dominant. Trust me ;) Things are actually much more complex, and they vary depending on whether we are in the minor or major mode, but I wanted to synthesize it. The reason why certain teaching often goes wrong is the confusion between harmonic intervals of a chord and scale degrees. For example, if we were in the key of C and played a chord built on the II degree, it's obvious that, for convenience, we write the intervals starting from its root (r) and numbering them using Indo-Arabic numerals (3,5,7,9,11,13), rather than writing all the scale degrees that make up the chords. Melody, on the other hand, has the same numbering as the bass, i.e., Roman (I, II, III, etc.), which also explains the birth of harmony from counterpoint (bass and melody are on the same level). Some teaching makes the mistake of treating melody as if it were simply the top of a chord, and this is very limiting for freedom. I'm sorry you had to use modes to analyze tonality because I'm sure that if you had been taught the structure of tonality logically and practically, not only would you not have needed it, but you would have gone even deeper into the subject. A lot of great tonal music has been composed without the knowledge of all the other modes. The most beautiful symphonies composed are built on the seven notes of the major scale. Of course, there are numerous harmonic and melodic techniques to create variety and surprise the listener, so many that the possible melodies and harmonies are almost infinite. In summary: If you play glorious modal music, modes are necessary :) If you play glorious tonal (bi-modal) music, only two modes are necessary (major and minor) :) 4. On Jazz Theory: Jazz musicians haven't invented anything on the theoretical level. (I say this as a jazz musician). 5. On Barry Harris: First: Barry Harris was objectively an excellent pianist and educator: may he enjoy the banquet of the gods. Second: Personally, I disagree with his stylistic purism because it is precisely from his teachings that one can learn all the melodic-harmonic techniques typical of 19th-century classical music to discover one's own style... one's own. Third: Regarding language, Barry is right because he simply doesn't invent anything but explains how music works (all music, at least tonal/bi-modal music). :)

@lw6457 it what it is, man. Ain't no way to be like Barry Harris or else. You can only be you, and theory it's a right hand

Yes but it’s what you study that matters. Barry is trying to express that he did study but he studied the music not what people taught.

@@mallygeedkm think i got the point, brother

​@lw6457don't study? 😂 this screams ignorant

(This is a coment directly at harris, and also i aguree, people should base what they do based on whi they are, not based on proven jazz legends) Also tell me what you think about this whole tangent i went on if you care to do so. To the reply: Wow, this is rediculous. Someone made up the modes for money 😂 Give me a break Money from music theory . Sometimes he talks as if he doesent understand the point of music theory, which is to try to describe what happens in actual music, and in order to explain tools you can use within music in order to achieve a cirtain effect. And whether someone did it for oney, or whethey they got any money is irrwlevant, when ultimately the modes describe elemens of existing music, and is a helpful tool for beeing able to hear the different sounds of the major scale. Personally, i consider the modes just as useful as the major scale. I call them the relative modes, just like the is a relative minor, for me there is alsona relative dorian, a relative lydian etc.. He is a wonderful player, and has great theories of hisown some of which i use..but his elitism when it comes to " who is jazz, what is jazz, what should and shouldnt be theory" just franly comes across as if he's so insecure that someone else might learn what he learned. He litterally called bill evans not jazz at one point. And at that point its like, bruh, youre gatekeeping and trying to kill jazz. Trying to kill jazz by attacking the most fundamental unique caracter of jazz which is the freedom of improvisation and inovation . What is jazz if not that? If it isnt for that, then jazz becomes classical music. And there is nothing wrong with classical music, i love both. But to limit it in this way is neglecting the fact that jazz can be both living as inovation and also "dead"(so to speak) by classifying it. Its undesputable that its both since jazz has many things which are typical to it as a ganre. But this is something that seems to be inescapable when it comes to any culture. Those who are a part of a culture, naturaylly try to defend and preserve theire culture, and i think people have a right to that. (Im off on a tangent at this point) But whare it goes too far for me is attacking anything that tries to imitate that culture, or which tries to improve upon it in some new way. Culture is socially constructed, and whille it cirtainly has and had real life concequences, it still is a fact that thease things are not inharent and ingrained in the nature of specific groups of people, and from that subjectivity to them practically copiright cultural elements, i think is rediculous, no matter who does it. Preservation is good, but gatekeeping, naah. And typically i think that people who gatekeep, only do so because they think that if they dont, than their culture will not be preserved. And again, i think they are right , because that can and does happen, especially under capitalism. But i think rather than trying, and failing to gatekeep, because gatekeeping only works as long as outsiders and insiders decide to follow the pre established rules ( which never seems to last too long) , and at that point they will change things. But rather than this, whats better is moderating the developement of new things through the culture which you want to preserve, because then youll have control over the process, and you can influence the direction of it, and can thus ensure that that which comes out maintains the soul of that culture . I apologise for beeing theoretical without giving concrete cultures and cultural elements, but i i hope what im saying is understandable nevertheless. And if it isnt, i will give concrete examples for whoever asks. To finish up. I want to say that this is not some grave sin, because i think it comes from a good place in general, even if not always, and so id only ask people to consider it as a reminder that no one has to allow you to create absolutely whatever the fuck kind of art you want to create. Anyway, have a nice day

Exactlym finally someone who cuts through the bs. There are different ways of doing things, and thats the real truth. ( i wrote a god damn essay in another thread about this 😂 lord) I think youll find it funny how obsessive i got, so ill send it here too)

Whille i aguree with the aproaches you have outlined quite well here, i disaguree on this fundametal notion that there is "one right way to conceptualise music" and that " barry harris is simply correct" The simple fact is that music theory is meant to describe music which you can play, not to prescribe music what you should play.(with this you do aguree i believe( On another point. I really cant see why you insist on elevating the major scale, melodic minor scale and the harmonic minor scale to such a degree of importance, as opposed to the modes which from what i understood you reguard as unncessery (please do correct me if im mistaken in what i understood you meant ) The simple fact is that both the major scale, the minor scale, the dorian scale, the mixolidian scale and etc, are all the same scale, with the only difference beeing, which note we consider to be the tonal center in relations to the other notes. So why for example, isnt dorian the most correct , or why isnt any of the melodic minor or harmonic minor modes most correct?( since the mel min and har min modes are also just the same notes with a different tonal centre as well) The fact of the matter is that you will get a gramatically different sound depending on which chord you consider to be the tonic chord( or more precisely, which type of chord) Reguardless if i call it C major or D Dorian, if i treat G as the tonic note, than i will get a G mixolydian sound. Whille we can reffer to that sound as different names, some people found it simpler to reffer to this sound as the mixolydian sound, and i dont see anything wrong with that. It is only a tool after all. And a tool which has aided many people i might add. And it is especially useful when it comes to analisys. Its usefullness is derived from its simplicity. Its not meant to be the be all end all of what and how bebop is sopposed to be played. Im not sure why it would be since its just a different way to look at a major scale, just like the minor scale is a different way to look at a major scale , since a minor scale is also just another mode. Personally, all the modes for me are relative modes, just like we have a relative minor scale, i use a relative dorian scale as a shorthand in my composing. Now, when it comes to improvising, i think then, for many its likely to be stifeling, because for one thing, when im improvising, i dont need to think about an entire scale, because i dont need that entire scales notes to play generally. But if i did then thinking about the dorian scale over a minor ii chord, would inform me of every safe note which can be played over a the ii chord if i want to achieve a so called " dorian sound". Not just that, since that can be done by just knowing which scale it came from ,but more so it will tell me how its key major scale is intervalically related to this minor ii chord. And thats pretty much it i would say. As a tool for teaching, as a refference guide, and as an analisys tool thats pretty much what its useful for. But even if it wasnt even close to this useful, and only was a way to highlight a different sound of the major scale, i still wouldnt see what yours or Barry Harrises issue is with this concept? Because i cant wrap my head around why it would be stifeling to have a quick and dirthy way to show a beginer or intermediate musician a different sound within the major scale, a harmonic or melodic minor scale. On another note: there can be generated many more scales than a major, harmonic min and melodic minor scales, excluding their modes. There are simply better exmplanations for a wholetone scale than " a major scale with the sharp 4th,5th and 6th scale degrees; you can simply say, a scale built entirely with whole tones. But my ultimate point is that saying either is correct, because they are saying the same thing , and even if they said a different thing, as long as it was descriptive, it would still be " true", because music is subjective, and so this notion of " there is a mistaken notion that chords have scales" whille " In reality chords derive from scales". They are just 2 different ways of looking at the same thing. Just like with the thing you begon: george russel said play C lydian over C#11, but the really great jazz improvisers said " play G major over C#11" , and to that i say " G major and C lydian are litterally the same notes, with the destinction between which note is the tonic, and it comes back down to what kind of a sound you want to hear, and how do you want to conceptialise it " Whille there is a cirtain practicality to thinking about it like the major scale based off of the V chord, there is also a placticality in thinking about just adding a #4 to the major scale whare C is the I chord. Ill finish up by telling you the reason i wrote all of this in the first place(besides the fact that i find the topic interesting, since youve made some interesting points in there and id like to know more about them if possible..tho i will try to disprove them haha, its not meant in a negative way, so i hope you dont and didnt take it that way, i just like exploring topics like this) Now for the main reason. The frankly elitist attitude of Barry Harriss about what is and what isnt jazz I find it has been incredibli stifling for me and many others ive seen whenever there are gate keepers in music who tell us how something is sopposed to be done, rather than telling us what is possible and merely allowing us to explore without inserting their own rather unnecessery predjudice . If it was something which is too complicated, or genually didnt give any unility whatsoever, than fine, but this concept is so uncontrovertial that i dont undersrand why would anyone need to try to dismantle it. If ut were not the modes i personally wouldnt have been able to understand many concepts in music which become very simple the moment i understood the modes. Things like extencions, particular sounds within the major scale..etc.. Before the modes, the major scale was to me a boring and frankly useless scale, i just didnt understand at the time that i can take any note from it and make it my center note. And this is my main consirn about gate keeping ideas in this purist way: Some beginers will find it better in your way of conceptualising, and others will find better to conceptualise with a mode, If i was a begginer today and took you two seriously, then i might have never been able to see music in a way in which my brain understands it best. And thats exactly what happened for a long time when i first saw this same interview from barry haris, and i was a beginer who took him seriously, and then i said " well fuck the modes, if he said they are useless or at least who cares about them, then ill learn something else" Only what else? The rest of what he was talking about just sounded too complicated to me, and so i have up on learning theory soon after that for a whille, and didnt know what exactly to learn, and since the modes were not it, i was stuck. (I did continue playing tho) Untill a few years later when i had enough of gate keepers in other feilds , when i realised that the way i want to do things is, well, by any means necessery, and not with whatever someone else said, but with whatever ive personally learned, and then decided if its right for me or not. Thats what i did, long story short, here we are now in this long ass coment. So the last thing ill say a this time is, for the sake of any beginner out there who has no idea whare they are headed.. allow them the possibuility to explore options without judging the approach, even if its not the best, because over time, they will realise if it wasnt the best for them. You , as an experienced musician can speed up their discovery process by pointing them to useful recurses like you have done in your coment here, but a beginer oftain times most of all needs to explore and see for themselves. Thats all. Again, i dont think your approach is wrong, ( infact i think its right) but only that there are other ways of doing things for some people. Have a great day

It’s pointless. It’s like saying you have a new alphabet but it’s just the ABCs starting from H and ending on G or something.

@@shanecombs1993 absolutely!

ironically you can study barry harris. barry harris knew alot of music theory, he just didnt really use modes

Yes, thats what modes of a scale are. Your criticism suggests that you conflate modes and scales.

They weren’t always in use. People like Barry Harris and his respective affiliates don’t use modes they use traditional Latin rhythms, the notes are only secondary.

@@jxnglxst6874 they weren't always in use in jazz yes

they used modes, they just used to have different names for them back them. Mixolidian was the "dominant scale" for example.

@@emilianogutierrezpozo8479 It wasn’t focus back then only more recently in the 60’s did they start to really make it “common music theory”, like I said the main focus is traditional ethnic rhythms if you listen to dizzy and then miles you will surely see how drastically different they play. Miles Davis has a lot of “empty space”.

What he does know is good music and how to create it. You know, the most important thing about music. 👍

you hit the nail on the head with this!

😂😂😂😂😂😂 this made me spit out my drink

Please stop BS. "Mixolydian" and dominant are NOT the same thing. The major problem Barry has with modes, is that they are not really applied in Jazz, it was just a gimmick, made to screw up Jazz, and as he said, to make quick money by teaching utter rubbish. TRULY modal music is mostly ethnic music, early Church music, so on. It's VERY coloured music. Even Classical music does not use modes often for that reason, but very seldom, nor the Classical music theory makes BS statement like modern Jazz theory does, while completely misusing the term "mode". True modal music sounds very differently from Classical and Jazz. Jazz never used modes in its inception and establishment on the scene, because Jazz developed directly from the Classical song genre which NEVER used modes.

@@zvonimirtosic6171 please explain how they differ other than linguistically. Mixolydian mode is 1 2 3 4 5 6 b7, Barrys "dominant scale" is 1 2 3 4 5 6 b7. They are enharmonically equivalent. Barry has done this with every "mode", he refers to them as the scale of the chord instead but it's enharmonically exactly the same stuff.

​@@danieldodson941 First of all, Mixolydian mode is 5-6-7-1-2-3-4. That is correct notation. Mixolydian mode has 7 notes. What is called as "dominant scale", has 8 notes. 7 is not 8. Then, the formula for "dominant scale" is 1-2-3-4-5-6-b7-8. Scales start with number 1, because 1 is called the tonic. Modes start with degrees of the scale, which in Mixolydian case is number 5. In Mixolydian mode, the intervals between the pitches are different, because their sequence goes like this: W-W-H-W-W-H-W. Those are two totally different things, that sound completely differently when applied in real music. Scales and their modes do not sound the same. Even Boethius said that 10 centuries ago, and said, treat them differently. For example, Aeolian mode (natural minor) has all the same notes as Ionan (major scale), but it sounds DIFFERENT, so different that it's called MINOR. And that difference rises from the DIFFERENT sequence of intervals. When you screw up intervals, you get a totally DIFFERENT music type. In some stupid music theory, Minor and Major scales are also enharmonic, because they have "all the same notes". Then all the modes are enharmonic too. I don't know if people realise how disastrous is this, how ignorant, it totally destroys music theory and music history, and it is exactly what Barry Harris was talking about.

Barry Harris

he says it was the first time trying to play the tune and then plays the most melodical solo ever on giant steps struggling? lol nice try but Barrys goated. dude lived with monk for 10 years and played with Coleman Hawkins during Hawkins final years, just for starters

Silly comment. Remove the 'bop' from your username, you disgrace it.

haha wow.. honor to have u comment

So work on what you think sounds good. Ultimately, play what you like or you'll never like what you play.

Armstrong could most certainly read and write music.

If you don't play microtonal music or "not occidental" music...😅

Okay I've done that too But no one but me liked it. Respectfully, I'll stick to the 12, but you are of course right all the way 😊😊​@@Sara-lk2yr

@@clemmcguinness1087 I also stick on the 12. They are quite enough for me... 😅

his main point is that there's no such thing as "jazz theory".. music is music. but somehow the modes is what they teach jazz students first instead off all the barry harris stuff - 8 note scales that make tension and resolution points within every chord using 6 and diminished chords. super nerdy stuff lol

yep. you study barry harris and he will make you rethink everything

As any good jazz theory book will tell you, "The only truth is the music itself." Theory is exactly that. Trying to make sense of the way music has evolved the way it has.

His point is that if you choose to “study modes” in order to play jazz, you will essentially be giving yourself unnecessary work. If you learn to improvise using notes like Harris does, you can improvise over chords with interesting lines, and inevitably throw in notes which are non diatonic (such as an Ab if you’re playing a tune in C) to get a certain “feel” or mood. That’s all modes are. Altered scales (not to be confused with “THE Altered Scale”, itself a mode), including non diatonic notes which when used in context are technically still in key, but give a different sound. Those various scales have become categorized and labeled as modes. For example, Phrygian mode in the key of C, is just a C scale with some notes altered to sharp of flat (I don’t know what they are as I don’t study modes). His point is that you could memorize a ton of modes, or you could just learn how to construct and improvise bop lines and eventually, you could do the same thing modes do, without having to memorize set scales with altered notes for each key and know when you use them.

He's right and wrong in this video. The named modes were "theorized" to communicate and explain the sounds you hear and why they work. But that's true of all music "theory". Barry is saying he figured out this stuff just by playing and experimenting. The great thing about being a human is that we can write down the things we've learned and pass them on. Music theory is what allows us to write down musical ideas and concepts. We don't have to waste time with experimenting to find things that have already been discovered. This allows us to quickly get up to speed with the masters and then BUILD on the foundation they provided for us. We can analyze a Barry Harris record and communicate our findings through music theory. Love Barry but he's yelling at clouds, like many of us will when we reach his age. So what now? Study the legends, stand on the shoulders of giants, continue to experiment and create new and uncharted music theory!