On Jul 17, 10:55 pm, LJS <ljsche...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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(
improvis=
ation, but
> > > > > > > > composition as well) is based on the major/minor harmonic
s=
ystems of
> > > > > > > > European Classical music, there *are* significant
differenc=
es. 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
harmo=
nic
> > > > > > > > materials, which they began imposing over those
major/minor=
systems.
> > > > > > > > Many of our chord progressions do not function in
tradition=
al ways;
> > > > > > > > again plain and simple. We are influenced by European
Class=
ical
> > > > > > > > theory, yes, but "identical"...identically so; no way.
>
> > > > > > > Of course, one can also take the view that jazz players
"caug=
ht up"
> > > > > > > (beginning in the 30's and 40's) with many of the "European
C=
lassical"
> > > > > > > extensions of tonality that began in the late Romantic
period=
.. Examples
> > > > > > > abound such as Berg's use of 11th and 13th chords in his
earl=
y (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
ea=
rly as 1860.
>
> > > > > > > For me there has been a great amount of cross-fertilization
b=
etween the two,
> > > > > > > but to say "Jazz musicians began utilizing a new array of
har=
monic
> > > > > > > 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
star=
ved 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.
Pl=
ain and
> > > > > > simple.
>
> > > > > > -TD
>
> > > > > Sorry, maybe I missed something. 1) nothing that I see here is
i=
n
> > > > > discord with Tom's post and 2) could you be a bit more specific
w=
ith
> > > > > 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
theo=
ry
> > > > (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
year=
s
> > > > 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
behavio=
r,
> > > > 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"
worl=
d
> > > 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
appropriat=
e
> > > 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
i=
n
> > > 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
mentione=
d
> > > 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
o=
f
> > > 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
thos=
e
> > > 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
yo=
u
> > > 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 ...
>
> read more =BB
One more thing. I have taken a break to participate in this discussion
which has gone on long enough. I will be happy to defend any positions
that I have taken, but from now until after Thursday (when I have an
im****tant presentation regarding property and Katrina problems) I will
not be having much time to reply. I will try to read posts and get to
them after that, but it could take a while. Just remember that Music
Theory is not the conventions of a style. Music Theory defines the
style.
LJS
|
