Well, we're not speaking of an "intuitive" versus "schooled" approach at all. We're talking about a conservatory-schooled versus community-schooled approach. The dangers of being conservatory-schooled have nothing to do with "theory". You must learn theory regardless, even if you (somehow) believe you are going your own way. The dangers of being schooled have to do with the limitations of learning the craft from at most one or two teachers, as well as the stultifying effects of the institution. The wealth of knowledge about music and music theory is distributed around the community. But the knowledge in the community is just as rigorous in its treatment of theory as anything in the conservatory, if not more so.
I think this is an interesting (although, possibly OT) discussion in itself.
When someone talked about "theory", I must admit that I connect that term with knowledge that have been accumulated in academic institutions. I.e. explanations for observations that have (hopefully) been published in some publication, scrutinized by fellow academics, generally accepted after some time, and eventually incorporated into some kind of canon for the field. Though I must admit that I know less about the process in human sciences than natural science.
When you seem to propose that skill learned through listening to great masters (on your own) or at jam-sessions or through informal meetings with fellow artists is also "theory", I think that is a confusing choice of terms.
I can agree that the mathematical structure behind choice of harmony, rhythm and melodic lines may well be similar as taught at a conservatory or at a jam-session, as it may be a matter of condensing (potentially) centuries and millions of culturally (or evolutionary) "preferred" patterns. I have 88 notes on my piano. For "musical theory" to be of any practical value to me playing, it has to say something about what notes to choose, when, how hard to strike them, in different contexts.
Don't put any bets on the idea that Joey DeFrancesco doesn't know theory inside and out.
I mentioned him because I quite like his music. My reference was an interview he did 20 years ago or so (has it been so long?) where he specifically mentioned that he did not know how to read notes - at all. Obviously, this has not limited him from playing with some big shots and performances that (according to my preferences) are aesthetically "good".
As for Metheny, he's rather elementary, but has a "pretty" sound. Few jazz musicians take him seriously as a jazz musician.
I think that is a discussion that leads about as far as a discussion about Peter Lik (or Ansel Adams) not being a serious photographer. They may or may not have done serious photography.
-h
