On Jul 17, 10:58 pm, LJS <ljsche...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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
I was not speaking about "modern classical theory" , I was addressing
European classical theory a la Jean-Philippe Rameau. There is where a
misconception with a junction may emanate. I am not certain. I think
everyone here can see that *you* are the one with the attitude. You
need a fight. And it does matter who you are. State who YOU are and
give credentials; JUST ONE. Are you published, for example? If so,
what have you written? Who have you worked with? Lets not assume who
has weak points when it is very clear YOU are the one with the weak
points. I think , for one thing, that we may be speaking of two
different subjects. We very well may be. Where is my weak point
concerning European Classical Theory? I was not addressing any "modern
classical theory." Does European Classical theory address Chromatic
harmony? Does it deal with the Blues? Does it deal with tonicization,,
for example? Does it deal with Trane's major third chord movement? In
fact does it deal with seventh chord harmony at all?. Yes, "modern
classical theory deals with 7th chord harmony, but I spoke of European
Classical Theory. I did not read you saying speaking about music
theory "not limited to the classical period." I saw only you jumping
in on my posts acting like the big condescending wizard of Oz behind a
puter keyboard. You claim you have examples, where are they? What
examples do YOU have?
Where does European Classical Theory address: Abmaj7 B7/ Emaj7 Eb7/
Abmaj7/? for example? Abmaj7 as the I chord; B7 as being the subV7/II
and Emaj7 being the bVImaj7. Or: Abmaj7 B7/ E-7 A7/ Abmaj7/ again B7
being the subV7/II and A7 being the b5 sub resolving into Abmaj7. Or:
Abmaj7/ G7 Db7/ Gbmaj7/ Abmaj7// Where, assuming Ab remains as the I
chord and G7 is V7/III and Db7 is subV7/III and Gbmaj7 is the
bVIImaj7. Jeez, I can give hundreds of examples for an abrasive
character such as yourself. And while Music Theory, in general can
explain anything "theoretically", can you site any general books that
address these simple progression movements and do not refer to such
movements as "jazz"?
Where does European Classical Theory account for the possibility of
replacing D-7/ G7/ C/ with D-7 Eb7/ C-7 F#-7 B7/ Db7 C// ??
Or: G7 Ebma7/ Ab7 Bma7/ E7 G7/C// ??
Or: G7 Ab7/ Bb7 Db7/ C? ??
Where does it account for "side-slipping?" I assume you are familiar
with the term and practice.
For example: D-7 (Eb-7) D-7/ B7 (C)/ B7/ F-7 (G)/ F-7// ??
Where does the old classical theory account for voicings such as: F-11
(b5, b13)? Or Abaug over Bb?
Where does it account for or even address fusing modes such as, minor
over lydian, mixolydian over phyrgian or minor over major as fused
tetrachords? In jazz theory, for example, the term tetrachord as been
adjusted to refer to any succession of 4 notes.
You say you back up your abrasive wording; go for it. But I can see
where this is all leading, whoever you are.
1: I was intitially referring to classical theory beginning during the
Baroque error and dealing with triads in major and minor systems as a
theory that does not fulfill the needs of jazz music. Where is my
weakness, you speak of? Where is your weakness, while we are at it?
Yes, I repeat, Wagner, Schoenberg, et al pioneered in introducing a
twelve tone system where eventually "all notes are related like all
men are related." This was the beginnings leading to jazz theory;
meaning a theory specifically designed "ordered" for jazz music,
because of what was being simultaneously developed by the likes of Bud
Powell and Charlie Parker and later extended by the likes of Dennis
and Adolf Sandole and John Coltrane, Miles Davis, et al.
If I understand you correctly, you simply do not dig the idea of "jazz
theory". That it is all just Music Theory, like English is simply
English no matter what country it is spoken in. Fine, would you like a
lass of wine to go with that? No problem. Your prerogative. I suggest
that you understand that it exists (Jazz Theory) and I did not coin it
and I am not the only man utilizing it and it's term. I can see how
you want it all to be "music theory" and nothing called "jazz Theory'
or even "classical theory". I think I understand you, but many of us
call jazz theory, "jazz theory" and general music theory as it is. I
do not care. However, I would like to see literature where general
music theory addresses all of the above. And if any such book exists,
that's cool. Give *me* some examples. And where does general music
theory build basis if outside of the jazz idiom where such "extra
theory", if you will, had been designed?
2: This is all I really have time for, so I hope you either chill out,
or perhaps return to your true other newsgroup. I was not looking for
a fight and neither were the regulars here. Let me take a wild guess,
Music teacher? Don't be shy, let us know who you are so we can have
some sort of commonality. OK? I will get back to serious music now.
Oh, *are* you a jazz player? You never answered that; did you? We
speak jazz here.
-TD
|
