LJS wrote:
> On Jul 17, 11:47 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
> <bornfeldm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> tonydecap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>> On Jul 17, 11:47 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
>>> <bornfeldm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> Danny Schorr wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:29:46 -0700, "Chickenhead"
>>>>> <kuNOrtSPAMshapTHANK...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>> Was it Tommy Tedesco who said "no one ever got paid for playing
theories?"
>>>>>> I know I never have.
>>>>> Tell it to Leonard Bernstein.
>>>>> Danny
>>>> I walked over to Bernstein's gravesite (a short walk from my
home) and
>>>> asked. Sadly, no answer came.
>>>> This is a bit of a silly argument. Maybe someone can help me
out with
>>>> the source of the quote (I'm thinking it may have been Miles Davis)
who
>>>> said something to the effect of "study and learn all your theory,
then
>>>> forget about it and just blow".
>>>> I don't think this is a put down of theory at all. I think
it means
>>>> that a musician has to internalize it. Perhaps in a through-composed
>>>> piece there may be more conscious considerations of theory than there
is
>>>> for a jazz musician improvising on the spot. But if I had to guess,
>>>> Bernstein wasn't thinking about temperament, scale forms, or rhythmic
>>>> theory when he wrote "West Side Story" any more than I have to think
>>>> about the placement of my tongue in my mouth when I have to pronounce
>>>> the letter "t".
>>>> IOW, I think you're arguing about nothing but semantics.
>>>> Steve
>>>> --
>>>> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDShttp://www.dentaltwins.com
>>>> Brooklyn, NY
>>>> 718-258-5001
>>> The quote was attributed to Bird who had taken more liberties in it's
>>> utterance. Yes and true, a 't' can be easily misunderstood for a 'd',
>>> at least inside the mouth where the tongue dwells. The theory would
>>> adjust for that (eventually).
>>> -TD
>> Thanks for the correct attribution. I suppose it wasn't a
great
>> analogy, but you get the idea.
>> My eyes tend to glaze over on the theory threads since my
knowledge is
>> minimal, but I remember Joey once talking about how some of the
>> nomenclature of chords in harmonic context differs in classical and
jazz
>> theory usage, so some of the confusion is language. I'm not sure how
>> jazz theory is distinct, but I don't doubt that it can be in certain
>> areas. I would expect the same if one were looking at eastern music,
>> microtonal music, etc.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> --
>> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDShttp://www.dentaltwins.com
>> Brooklyn, NY
>> 718-258-5001
>
> Only if the Jazz was based on micro tonal music etc. But even in this
> case, Music Theory can handle micro tonal as well. The point is that
> by its very nature, the theory concept is used only for analysis and
> description and organization. Music Theory explains Jazz, Classical,
> Micro tonal, Serial, Chance, Romantic, Gregorian Chant, Whales
> singing, Electronic music, etc. ALL of music is by, its very nature,
> able to be explained and this explanation is a result of analysis and
> this is what Music Theory is.
>
> All of the genres of music are only known to be genres because they
> were compared, organized by their elements, sorted out and then put in
> with similar compositions and these groups became "Jazz", "Classical",
> "Microtonal" etc. No genre uses all the aspects of Music Theory. Each
> Genre used only those elements that apply. There is no separate "Jazz
> Theory" any more than there is a separate "Classical Theory". What
> people are saying is theory is only a collection of conventions. Jazz
> itself, has many sub genres and each has its own set of conventions.
> Jazz from 1915 is different from the music played in the Be-Bop area
> and from what is happening with the Miles Davis school and with what
> is emerging today. Jazz musicians in this group, as well as other
> places, seem to have this idea that they are so different from the
> broader sense of Classical music (which in itself is a poor choice of
> terms) when in fact, it is only their lack of perception of the depth
> of "composed music" in the so called "classical" world of music. This
> is why you don't see any examples of all this music that is so
> different that it can't be accounted for by Music Theory. The fact is,
> it certainly can and thus there are no examples that are forthcoming.
>
> LJS
I find it unfortunate that in 2008, you find it necessary to denigrate
jazz musicians as a group. Not surprised to see this attitude still
present, but disappointed nonetheless.
Steve (not a jazz musician)
|
