On Jul 17, 8:48 am, tonydecap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Jul 16, 5:56 pm, LJS <ljsche...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 16, 10:33 am, tonydecap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 16, 10:28 am, "Tom K." <tkor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > <tonydecap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> > >
>news:a8450072-0df3-4aff-a0cc-8c1ed42d8294@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > > > While it is true that a great deal of jazz theory(
improvisation, but
> > > > > composition as well) is based on the major/minor harmonic
systems of
> > > > > European Classical music, there *are* significant differences.
As Jazz
> > > > > music evolved more and more, those major and minor systems
needed much
> > > > > embellishment to meet the needs of the growing idiom; plain and
> > > > > simple. Jazz musicians began utilizing a new array of harmonic
> > > > > materials, which they began imposing over those major/minor
systems.
> > > > > Many of our chord progressions do not function in traditional
ways;
> > > > > again plain and simple. We are influenced by European Classical
> > > > > theory, yes, but "identical"...identically so; no way.
>
> > > > Of course, one can also take the view that jazz players "caught
up"
> > > > (beginning in the 30's and 40's) with many of the "European
Classical"
> > > > extensions of tonality that began in the late Romantic period.
Examples
> > > > abound such as Berg's use of 11th and 13th chords in his early
(pre 1915)
> > > > works; the extended chords, "non-functional" progressions and
unresolved
> > > > decorative tones of Satie and Debussy beginning in the 1880's, and
the
> > > > symmetrical octave division key relation****ps of Wagner as early
as 1860.
>
> > > > For me there has been a great amount of cross-fertilization
between the two,
> > > > but to say "Jazz musicians began utilizing a new array of harmonic
> > > > materials" ignores a great deal of music history.
>
> > > > Tom K.
>
> > > You missed the point as well as the mark. Jazz musicians used a new
> > > order of harmonic materials, nonetheless. Anyhow; "Tis too starved
an
> > > argument for my sword." We ignore no history. We embrace it and add
to
> > > it, is all. The embellished chords and extensions were applied to
new
> > > progressions, where the old theory was not enough to oblige. Plain
and
> > > simple.
>
> > > -TD
>
> > Sorry, maybe I missed something. 1) nothing that I see here is in
> > discord with Tom's post and 2) could you be a bit more specific with
> > the "new order of harmonic materials" are that you are referring to?
>
> > Thanks,
> > LJS
>
> I refer to Jazz theory as a *separate entity* from traditional theory
> (European Classical Theory), just that. "New Order", may be an
> ambiguous and off-the-cuff( bordering on pompous) remark, but I was
> trying to convey that jazz theory has evolved over the past 50 years
> to meet the needs of the idiom, based on not only chords of the
> seventh, but advanced chord progressions, modal interchange (albeit
> most likely first written about by Schoenberg),
Schoenberg! First to use modal interchange?!?! and advanced chord
progressions?!?!?
deceptive cadence
> material far beyond the mere use of mediant and sub-mediant behavior,
> on and on into the Ozone. We bless Wagner( and his Tristan chord),
> Debussy, Stravinsky and the like, but the actual evolution of jazz
> theory as a separate entity evolved much later on as the music
> advanced.
Yes, you keep saying that, but you don't say how.
Jazz Theory is based on the European classical theory, yes,
> and expounds upon it to meet the needs of the jazz idiom. There are
> countless examples of this in our literature.
I am still waiting to see some. I though I had asked in the last post
but I don't see any as yet. But I can assure you that if you think
that Schoenberg was the first to use modal interchange, that you are,
shall we say, a bit "out of the loop" on classical music and music
theory's explanation of a lot of things.
Maybe it is only that you are talking about using Music Theory to
define the conventions of Jazz harmony that are handled a bit
differently than by some of the Classical Period composers. If so,
fine, but this is not a NEW theory, it is what Music Theory has done
with the "advances" of each and every period of music and in some
cases even with each new composer.
I am assuming that an
> "argument" is being delivered over the idea that Classical theory
> covers jazz; it does not.
See the summary below, but this statement really means nothing. Maybe
you mean that the conventions of Jazz are a bit different from the
conventions of the Classical period of something of that nature. If
you don't have these terms (conventions and theory) then please save
us a lot of time and define your terms of "Classical Theory and Jazz
Theory"
>
> -TD
Just a few things:
1) You don't seem to understand that everything you mentioned was,
did, and is part of modern "classicall music". I am not saying that
jazz has never nor that it will not make contributions to music, but a
"separate entity?" How, for example? All tonal (and modal) music and
all functional music can still be taken on by "classical theory",
except for the fact that there is no such thing. The "classical" world
uses MUSIC THEORY. "classical theory" is only a set of conventions
that must be defined for the scope of what it covers and then this
set of pieces is analyzed by Music Theory methods that are appropriate
and then the conventions of the set are defined and this tells you
what these musicians were doing. If you insist on using these terms in
this way I will put it this way. Traditional Jazz Theory is not any
good for "Jazz Be-Bop Theory" and neither is adequate for "Modern
Modal Concept Jazz Theory" and MCJT is not adequate for any of the
others. Music Theory on the other hand, can cover everything mentioned
so far.
2) If you think that the same theory that defines all of music from
the beginning through today is not capable of dealing with the rather
slight variations to the various norms that are part of Jazz music is
not covered with this Music Theory, then you simply have no concept of
what theory is to people that deal with ALL the music rather than a
specific small segment of the spectrum. If may be simply a matter of
you using terms that have a different contextual meaning than to those
that studied Music Theory that did use a lot of the Western European
examples, but did not drop out when the study expanded to other
genres.
3) I still have no examples of the more advanced harmony that is so
unique that Music Theory can not deal with. I have no idea of what you
mean by the Jazz Theory that will deal with this, as yet, unspecified
harmonic advance. I don't know what you mean by the "New World Order"
and I don't care so much if you are pompous. I am only looking for
substantiation. Some examples or an explanation of what you are
saying.
Thanks for any information you can provide to explain these elements
of Jazz that I have been missing.
LJS
|
