I think there's a number of people who learned to play by ear who just sort of "internalized" theory without needing a formal curriculum.
Copy and paste “hello, world” ot install sqlite3 looks like computer science?
Just because something is the Nth lowest first step does not mean it's not a step.
Is it understanding formal music theory? No, only if you stretch the definition of formal music theory to include what is definitely not formal music theory by any one's definition.
My point is that what he did is what music theory describes, and he definitely arrived there. He most definitely could play the scales and the modes, even if he never used the word dorian.
There is just some allergic reaction to the word that people take to mean something along the lines of demeriting the artistry. Had he learned the diatonic chords would that mean he is no longer a no theory guy, and would that make him worse?
I know thats not what you are saying, but i do see that from the hardcore 'theory is bad' proponents. Is theory the names of the relationship between tones, or the relationships themselves?
Like, I know what a secondary dominant is because I've had to use it in blues turn arounds- I didn't know that's what some folks would call it, but I knew that in the key of G, I'd often play an A instead of the Am.
And I think that the vocabulary should describe what folks do rather than the doings being driven by the vocabulary.
Most guitar players (and improv folks) that I know have much more theory that the folks who are reading but who generally don't think about what the function of their line is in a larger song.
If you're playing by memory and ear, you have to have some concepts because you can't just read a part.
Those concepts -are- the theory.
At the same time, I wish more folks would learn to read music, or even be literate enough to read lead sheets- my life would be so much easier if folks could just show up and play the thing without spending hours learning from recordings and making whatever kind of esoteric notations they've made up.
Once Davis taught him the concepts he got them immediately, or it might be a chord he knew and played, but didn't know the formal name of. So, he was a brilliant intuitive musician, but didn't have the theory chops of someone who attended Juliard like Davis.
That is what we mean by Hendrix didn't know the theory.
Most of the musicians I know have very minimal theory, ironically even less than folks who can't read.
One of the things that is bittersweet about learning a song is that it can take the magic out of the song; instead of just hearing it, I am thinking in chord shapes, positions, lead lines, etc.
I can't even Phish because if I'm on drugs I fall into listening-like-I-need-to-play-the-next-chord. Whereas a lot of songwriter music I can listen-like-I'm-reading-underegrad-poetry
I do feel that way about tetris, too. I think the reason I enjoy older jazz standards on bass is playing them is a little like solving a suduko- I can get a satisfying answer without much more than the melody. That doesn't work for modern rock where the riff is key. That kind of "well, it sounds okay but it doesn't line up with my idea of what makes sense" is my own anti-magical-feeling.
There are reasons why folks know the names of notes in some positions better than others.
When I was playing a lot of bass for folks in low rent with bands that were playing standard music and never rehearsing, I generally only paid attention to the low string and worked my parts out (often on the fly) around the relative pitches.
If you're trying to keep up with the bass part on a song you've never heard before while performing it on stage, it's much more relevant (and far easier/faster) to know the position of the minor 3 note of the scale than it is to know what note is the minor 3.
Over the decades I play a lot more piano, and that changes. I play a lot of blues and jazz but am quite poor at reading typical rep for the instrument. While I started out mostly playing using chord fingerings (and inversions), the more I play the more specific I can get on my understanding of actual notes. Because I've been playing a lot of clarinet (which forces me to transpose a whole lot, including reading a part and transposing on the fly), the names of specific notes has gotten a whole lot more important, but also easier with practice.
On the pedal steel (which I have only been playing for a decade on and am still coming to terms with), while I can pull all that knowledge I am still usually playing based on a notes position- I know what string/lever combo is going to get the 6 note in a given scale rather than thinking "I need to play an A to get this C chord to be a C6, and that's this position on the neck with the BC pedals down or that position with the LKR lever pushed.
All that is to say, it's okay to not know the names of notes if you understand their function related to the melody.