On Jul 17, 5:40 pm, "Chickenhead"
<kuNOrtSPAMshapTHANK...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> He just did. Hello? Is anyone home?
>
> Try re-reading his posts. There is no Great Unified Theory of Jazz.
There
> are conventions which evolve for different purposes and different
styles.
> There is an established method of chord-symbol usage and interpretation
> which has evolved to communicate certain harmonic elements while leaving
> room for interpretation; there are certain stylistic conventions in
reading,
> such as conversion of straight 8ths to swing-triplets when running down
a
> chart in certain jazz styles. There are some shared conventions among
> various jazz styles, but the conventions that don't apply to reading or
> writing a chart are best learned by ear.
>
> In jazz, every player, style, and period has its own parameters; a good
jazz
> musician has a depth of understanding of one or more styles, learns to
hear
> and adapt on-the-fly, and can play with other musicians in a way that
> complements what the other musicians are doing: It's a real-time,
> interpretive and interactive art form. A jazz musician "gets inside"
styles
> and players. The subtleties change from player to player, style to
style,
> and even moment to moment. Jazz "theory," as you call it, is mostly
> chord-symbol notation conventions, which are for written communication
of
> harmonic skeletal frames.
>
> If you want to write a chart, say, for a horn section, or even just
voice
> chords to a melody, there are some basic conventional arranging
> techniques -- drop voicings and the like -- that have been used a lot,
but
> someone with good enough ears would hear them anyways; again, these
> conventions are for written music, such as big-band horn sections, and
are
> just small part of "jazz." Some of those same arranging techniques can
also
> be applied to voicing chords on a harmonic instrument such as piano or
> guitar, but, again, someone with good enough ears would hear them
anyways --
> So again, the "theory" is just for interpreting written charts, and
written
> charts are only a small part of jazz. Some people get confused when in
the
> learning stage of these basic writing and reading conventions; they
aren't
> always as logically consistent we expect, but they are what they are.
> There's also a fair amount of misinformation floating around about them.
>
> Beyond that, if you were inclined towards that sort of thing, you could
> probably write lists of what's forbidden, obligatory and permitted in
one or
> more styles or by one or more players and call it "theory." If you
wanted
> to teach theory for theory's sake or be a music teacher, you might be
able
> to get a gig where people to pay you to teach them those lists. If you
like
> lists, but are lazy, you could pay someone to give you those lists and
then
> call yourself a jazz musician. You would not be.
>
> The problem is that if you want to be a jazz musician and not just a
teacher
> or listkeeper, you'll still need ears and time good enough to be able to
> suss those things out on your own; you will still need to have spent a
great
> deal of time listening to and copying recordings by ear; you will still
need
> to be able to hear and suss-out those constantly changing parameters
> on-the-fly by ear. Without that, all the lists in the known universe
won't
> help you; but if you have that, then the lists are just second-hand
news.
>
> "LJS" <ljsche...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:3d05338f-9f19-468f-acd9-0ac9a7a8bbc0@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> [snip]
>
> > please save
> > us a lot of time and define your terms of "Classical Theory and Jazz
> > Theory"
No that is not it. You have produced a good example of what I said.
You have listed many of the conventions present in Jazz. This, how is
not a specific Theory that is unique to Jazz. This has all been
organized with the same theory that gave us the Classical Period, The
baroque period and every other period of music that has occurred so
far. You can change the symbols, this has happened many times in music
history, you can change the progression of tertian chords, this is
also common, you can do quartal, quintal or microtone harmony and this
is still common to all.
There are notations that are commonly used in Jazz, there are
progressions that were not used in the CPP. They may have even come up
with a progression that has a new twist or variation or used a
different extension. This does not make it unique. The Classical
Period changed the conventions of the Baroque period. The Baroque
period took Counterpoint and used it in a totally different way and
"invented" chords. Well not really, because they just extended what
was a result of the voices combined in counter point.
The list can be expanded both forward and backward in time. Jazz is
simply a period of music, or a genre, or a set of conventions. There
is no special theory. The nomenclature may change, but the music is
the same if it is written it conventional Music Theory style or if you
write it in the Jazz nomenclature style. They are both only forms of
Music Theory and the concepts used to organize them are the same.
It was stated that there were harmonic innovations or some such
wording that were unaccountable in Classical Theory. Well, what is
classical theory? It is, as I have said before, not anything. It is a
set of conventions that are a result of Music Theory that does
Classical (all periods) and Jazz.
If there is a new type of music that I am not aware of that is so
different that it can't be explained with anything other than Jazz
theory, please, either give me an example or explain the terms.
If you are saying that there is differences from Jazz and CPP. Well,
yes. There are differences. There are also differences from early
Jazz, Blues, Be-Bop harmony, Modal Harmony and there are examples of
all of this kind of music in classical music as well. I love jazz as
much or more than anybody. But it is not separate from other forms of
music. It incor****ates MUCH from the classical world. And in todays
society, if you read some of my previous posts, you will know that I
consider it, for good or bad, to be the new classical chamber music of
the 20th and 21st century. But Jazz in a vacuum? Jazz that can not be
explained without Jazz specific terminology? No way! It just isn't the
case. Show me the money! If you have examples of things that can not
be analyzed by the concepts of Music Theory and can only be analyzed
or explained in the so called "Jazz theory" I will change my opinion.
But so far, no one has presented any. What can I say? Show me!
LJS
|
