On Jul 17, 4:49 pm, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
<bornfeldm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> LJS 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
>
> For my benefit--as an avid listener (to both jazz and
> classical--probably more classical), could you attempt how traditional
> music theory and notation "deals" with swing? I know swing is a
> somewhat fungible concept, but jazz musicians can pretty much tell you
> if something swings or not.
> Anyone care to have a go?
>
> Steve
>
> --
> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDShttp://www.dentaltwins.com
> Brooklyn, NY
> 718-258-5001
This is not really a subject that is usually meant by music theory. It
is really more of a convention of performance and is not really a
factor of the music itself. The rhythms, the syncopations etc would be
more aptly included in the analysis. The performance is so varied by
period, geographical location and other factors that just as Jazz
musicians can usually only give examples by playing, or anecdotes
about Swing and write more than anyone cares to read about it. All you
have to do is to immerse yourself in it and (if you need technical
terms) pick a particular "swingster" that you think has the feel and
you learn the rhythm matrix that he uses and you copy it. If you do
this with enough different examples, you will probably eventually "get
it". Or you can just open your mind and LISTEN to the musicians that
you play with and adjust your "counting" to be in rhythmic tune with
them and you will be swinging with them if they are swinging, or you
will be playing "straight 8ths" if they are doing this, or you will be
playing a Viennese Waltz with the proper space between beats 2 and 3
or you will be playing your dotted eights and sixteenth notes in the
Handel style with the appropriate elongation of the 8ths and the
proper shortness of the 16's.
If, on the other hand, you are talking about the actual music, i.e.
the notes and mostly written elements of the Big Band Swing era, well,
their melodies and harmonies are certainly within the realm of basic
Functional Harmonic Theory, scalar melodic theory and numerous other
elements that are present in both the Swing era and the "Classical"
era. (In this particular case, the music itself is very much related
to that of the "Classical" period, defined in this group usually (more
or less) as the CPP.
LJS
|
