On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:57:39 -0400, Steven Bornfeld
<dentaltwinmung@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>LJS wrote:
>> On Jul 17, 11:47 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
>> <bornfeldm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> tonydecap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>> On Jul 17, 11:47 am, Mark & Steven Bornfeld
>>>> <bornfeldm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> Danny Schorr wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 04:29:46 -0700, "Chickenhead"
>>>>>> <kuNOrtSPAMshapTHANK...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>> Was it Tommy Tedesco who said "no one ever got paid for playing
theories?"
>>>>>>> I know I never have.
>>>>>> Tell it to Leonard Bernstein.
>>>>>> Danny
>>>>> I walked over to Bernstein's gravesite (a short walk from my
home) and
>>>>> asked. Sadly, no answer came.
>>>>> This is a bit of a silly argument. Maybe someone can help
me out with
>>>>> the source of the quote (I'm thinking it may have been Miles Davis)
who
>>>>> said something to the effect of "study and learn all your theory,
then
>>>>> forget about it and just blow".
>>>>> I don't think this is a put down of theory at all. I think
it means
>>>>> that a musician has to internalize it. Perhaps in a
through-composed
>>>>> piece there may be more conscious considerations of theory than
there is
>>>>> for a jazz musician improvising on the spot. But if I had to guess,
>>>>> Bernstein wasn't thinking about temperament, scale forms, or
rhythmic
>>>>> theory when he wrote "West Side Story" any more than I have to think
>>>>> about the placement of my tongue in my mouth when I have to
pronounce
>>>>> the letter "t".
>>>>> IOW, I think you're arguing about nothing but semantics.
>>>>> Steve
>>>>> --
>>>>> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDShttp://www.dentaltwins.com
>>>>> Brooklyn, NY
>>>>> 718-258-5001
>>>> The quote was attributed to Bird who had taken more liberties in it's
>>>> utterance. Yes and true, a 't' can be easily misunderstood for a 'd',
>>>> at least inside the mouth where the tongue dwells. The theory would
>>>> adjust for that (eventually).
>>>> -TD
>>> Thanks for the correct attribution. I suppose it wasn't a
great
>>> analogy, but you get the idea.
>>> My eyes tend to glaze over on the theory threads since my
knowledge is
>>> minimal, but I remember Joey once talking about how some of the
>>> nomenclature of chords in harmonic context differs in classical and
jazz
>>> theory usage, so some of the confusion is language. I'm not sure how
>>> jazz theory is distinct, but I don't doubt that it can be in certain
>>> areas. I would expect the same if one were looking at eastern music,
>>> microtonal music, etc.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDShttp://www.dentaltwins.com
>>> Brooklyn, NY
>>> 718-258-5001
>>
>> Only if the Jazz was based on micro tonal music etc. But even in this
>> case, Music Theory can handle micro tonal as well. The point is that
>> by its very nature, the theory concept is used only for analysis and
>> description and organization. Music Theory explains Jazz, Classical,
>> Micro tonal, Serial, Chance, Romantic, Gregorian Chant, Whales
>> singing, Electronic music, etc. ALL of music is by, its very nature,
>> able to be explained and this explanation is a result of analysis and
>> this is what Music Theory is.
>>
>> All of the genres of music are only known to be genres because they
>> were compared, organized by their elements, sorted out and then put in
>> with similar compositions and these groups became "Jazz", "Classical",
>> "Microtonal" etc. No genre uses all the aspects of Music Theory. Each
>> Genre used only those elements that apply. There is no separate "Jazz
>> Theory" any more than there is a separate "Classical Theory". What
>> people are saying is theory is only a collection of conventions. Jazz
>> itself, has many sub genres and each has its own set of conventions.
>> Jazz from 1915 is different from the music played in the Be-Bop area
>> and from what is happening with the Miles Davis school and with what
>> is emerging today. Jazz musicians in this group, as well as other
>> places, seem to have this idea that they are so different from the
>> broader sense of Classical music (which in itself is a poor choice of
>> terms) when in fact, it is only their lack of perception of the depth
>> of "composed music" in the so called "classical" world of music. This
>> is why you don't see any examples of all this music that is so
>> different that it can't be accounted for by Music Theory. The fact is,
>> it certainly can and thus there are no examples that are forthcoming.
>>
>> LJS
>
>
> I find it unfortunate that in 2008, you find it necessary to denigrate
>jazz musicians as a group. Not surprised to see this attitude still
>present, but disappointed nonetheless.
>
>Steve (not a jazz musician)
It's not denigration so much as it is pointing out an"inconvenient truth"
Danny
|
