On Jul 17, 4:48 pm, tonydecap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> 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
>
> I teach mastercl***** and am well published. I am not some novice. If
> you are interested in studying with me, that is fine. For me to sit
> here with a tit for tat with you is not my scene. Jazz Theory is a
> separate entity. Why do I have to sit here and list all the
> shortcomings concerning classical theory for jazz? I did not say "new
> world order" and hey...maybe YOU are the man!! You know better. Yes,
> Classical theory is no where near enough to cover the jazz idiom. Are
> you a jazz player? Do you improvise at all? Why do I have to sit here
> and teach you? Who are you, by the way? I know who I am. If you are
> looking for substantiation, I have already given hints. Perhaps, you
> have been living in a vacuum.
>
> -TD
That is why I am surprised by your comments. You should know better.
You don't have to teach me, I can analyze jazz quite easily with
regular basic music theory!
You have given hints? How about an example or two. I am happy that you
are published and that you give master cl*****. Just throw out a few
examples of what you are talking about.
If you read my posts, I have not criticized any thing you said about
Jazz. Your understanding of Modern Classical music seems to be a weak
spot, but everyone doesn't have time to get into everything. What I
have asked, very politely and very persistently is that you explain
the terms that you use. Again you say that Classical Music Theory is
inadequate to cover the Jazz idiom, but you refuse to give any
examples. Just unsubstantiated statements. No examples. No
clarification on your terms or definitions. Just statements with no
backup.
What do I do is of no im****tance. What I do, however, is to back up
what I say with either examples or at least logic and explanations. I
have seen none of that from you. That is all I am asking for and now
you are in a snit. But still no examples.
I would never myself and I would recommend to any student to never
study with a teacher that is not sensitive to their questions. If the
teacher can not back up what he says, then he will not be a teacher of
mine. I have not asked you to go tit for tat. You said that only Jazz
theory can cover Jazz and you said is with some very dubious
terminology. I asked for an explanation of your statements or your
terminology or at least an example of this revolutionary jazz that can
not be analyzed by what I have clearly defined as Music Theory (not
limited to the Classical Period) and what did I get. Nothing but
attitude.
With all the responses that you have made to this, all I have heard
are some absurd comments about classical music and not even one
example. Would it not be more simple for you to throw out at lest one
example that illustrated your point? If I had asked for 10 or for a
complete course that would be one thing, but one simple example of
harmony that is beyond Music Theory? Is that really an unreasonable
request? You posted the statement. All I want is SOME kind of backup!
LJS
|
