On Jul 17, 11:11 pm, tonydecap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> 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.
Funny, you don't pay attention to the posts and you fail to address
any of the specific points. I don't care what others that don't read
what they respond to think. You now are defining your terms and
contexts.. What I have been asking for all along. And you are now
trying to re-spin the same terms that you refused to clarify to prove
that what I had said all along is true. The CONVENTIONS are different,
but not the THEORY. You can't really be as successful as you are and
still be that obtuse can you? That is why you project an attitude. If
people think things about me without reading what is actually there.
Who cares! If you read everything, then they will see what I was
asking and why I was asking it.
You
> need a fight.
I asked questions, you ignored them. Repeatedly! if that is a fight,
then you have a rather thin skin!
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?
Lol, You have the exact same obsession as Joey Goldstein! I am what I
am. My posts address certain issues. Research the previous posts if
you are so interested in my private life. They have no bearing on the
ideas and concepts that I present. You have just raised another "red
flag" and you are now using the same evasive arguments and spin as
Joey. You two should maybe get together and argue about "credentials".
He is another Jazz theorist that seems to know a lot about jazz, but
insists on trying to isolate it from the entirety of music. We don't
speak any more and I think that you are about to be in that same
category. I DON"T CARE WHAT YOUR RESUME SAYS. It has nothing to do
with what you say. And neither does mine! I present personal
information in its proper place and advertising in a newsgroup is not
what I consider a proper pace. If you can't look at a statement on its
own, and you need to know that someone else agrees with it before you
consider it. That is your choice, but I don't have time for that.
>
> 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? ??
You miss the point. Or just ignore them. These progressions need to be
analyzed in context and compared to other similar progressions with
Music Theory and if it is used often, it will become a convention of
the player or players that use these substitutions or
reharmonizations. Are they part of a tune? What is the Melody? What
is the context? There are many ways to describe these progression with
a knowledge of the context. BUT the point is, I have stated and
restated that there is NOT a specific European Classical Theory. You
are giving this name to the set of conventions that were used in what
you consider the European Classical Tradition, or Conventions! So no,
these are not standard functional progressions used in this specific,
narrow part of classical music! (Have you bothered to read the posts?)
I have stated that many times over. Why do you insist on repeating my
statements and asking for something entirely unrelated to my
questions?
>
> 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.
Then why didn't you say that when I specifically asked that very
thing? I hope you listen to your students questions better than you
did here.
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.
Your comments about the these classical composers have been rather
shallow. Maybe you know more, but you have not shown it here.
>
> 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?
This is a spin argument. I can't give any examples of jazz that can
not be explained with regular theory. That is a dumb request. I say
that there aren't any and you say that I should give examples of
things that I say don't exist! Does that really make any sense to
you?
>
> 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.
That was one of the points! in this group, we try to speak music. I
didn't come to Jazz Guitar and spin things to make claims that I
refused to defend.
>
> -TD
So you just didn't bother to read the posts! I specifically asked you
about your context, your definitions and for examples as well as
pointed out the differences of the different genres. Maybe its an ESL
thing, but you either never understood the difference of conventions
and the theory. I would think that an esteemed jazz masterclass
presenter and teacher would be more sensitive to what was being asked
of him and would give more thought to his answers. I was wrong. But
since you do seem to be saying what I thought, but you refused to
confirm, my argument is over. If you want to still stay in your vacuum
of "jazz theory" being a separate entity, that is your choice.
LJS
|
