On Jul 18, 7:54 am, LJS <ljsche...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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
Amen
-TD
|
