On Jul 17, 5:11 pm, LJS <ljsche...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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
By the way( I did not see your entire rant of a post), I did not say
that Schoenberg was "the first to use modal interchange." I said, he
*may* have been the first to write about it (in theory books, as a
study, about 100 years ago). I would be happy to learn who and where
modal interchange was written about in text before or mentioned in
lectures before 1910. Not that it is that im****tant, but it really
looks like you dig fighting. European Classical music theory,, once
again, is not the same as Jazz Theory (as I had mentioned over and
over). Jazz Theory is a separate entity. You must be very bored.
Maybe you ought to go out and play in traffic.
-TD
|
