On Jul 17, 6:07 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
>
> 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
True enough. I did miss the word "about" but he was not the first to
write about it either. It was common practice at least back to the
early Classical period as well as the earlier Baroque period. There
were many theorists that argued about modal interchange in the
Classical Period. We even have extensive discussions of this in this
group. If you are interested I will try to find that thread. (it was
rather long and had a lot of sub threads embedded in it)
And no, I don't dig fighting. I don't dig unsubstantiated statements
about the limitations of theory. I have yet to see a different theory
concerning Jazz. I have seen many rewrites of traditional methods of
analyzing music. It seems to be only the jazz musicians that insist
that there is a different theory for Jazz. Jazz is special. I love it.
It is the rebirth of the more rounded and complete musician much like
the performers of the Baroque era who not only codified the
progressions that have been the bread and butter of the popularity of
Jazz, but they improvised it, they had a similar notation for the
improvising and they improvised in styles that very few, if any, jazz
musicians are capable of using even today. (Bach would take a subject
from the audience and improvise a fugue! and it would fit perfectly
into the same changes that are use in most of the BeBop period!)
There are many musicians that have played jazz with the depth of
classical composers and have done it on the fly. Bill Evans is an
example of this and I am sure that you can name others as well. But
the theory is the same. Different notational styles, different
conventions, but the theory is the same. The only difference is that
Jazz is real time improvisation and in general, classical music is
composed. I, personally, am sorry to say that my experience is that
Jazz is becoming more and more classical in the sense that the
improvisation seems to be coming less and less im****tant.
It is still good music, but I don't hear the spark of spontaneity as
much as I have in the past. Many (not all of course) will work out a
solo and play it practically the same every time. Good music, but I
miss the improvisation.
So, I suspect that you mean that the conventions of Jazz and the
nomenclature that is taught in Jazz schools is different from the
nomenclature and conventions of "classical" music. This is true. But
the theory behind both of them are the same and it came from the
Classical world of music and it this Music Theory works quite well for
all music, Jazz included. I will change my opinion if you show me
something that will not be accountable in regular theory. Of course
then, I can publish how it can be analyzed by regular theory and it
will then become a part of the larger whole of music theory! ;-)
I don't want to argue. I want to learn. If you have something that is
that new. Well give me an example, or if (and you certainly seem to
have the background to) don't understand what I am saying, then simply
ask and I will explain it again. But theory is theory. You can use
roman numerals or letter names. You can use spots or alphabets. But
the theory is the same even if you redefine it.
LJS
|
