On Jul 30, 3:57 pm, tonydecap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Jul 30, 4:52 pm, "Tom K." <tkor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <tonydecap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
>news:ebd7dd66-1238-4a8e-80f3-390359fbf853@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > On Jul 30, 12:42 pm, "Steve Latham" <llat...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >> <tonydecap...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> >
>>news:dcbfffae-5c1b-47b7-a15c-f97cc822ec3c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > >> > OK man, basic "major blues form" is:
>
> > >> > Tonic region: C7 / F7 / C7 / G-7 C7/ then sub-dominant region: F7
/
> > >> > F#dim7 / C7 / A7 / to dominant region: G7 or D-7 / F7 or G7 / to
tonic
> > >> > region C7 / G7 // We usually replace returning to tonic region
with a
> > >> > turnaround: C9 Eb9 / D9 Db9//
>
> > >> That's a "jazz blues" form.
>
> > >> A Basic blues form is far more basic than that:
>
> > >> I - I - I - I
> > >> IV - IV - I - I
> > >> V - V - I - I
>
> > >> I'm sure you know this, and it's simply not clear which of us is
> > >> discussing
> > >> which form.
>
> > >> Best,
> > >> Steve
>
> > > Ahhh, OK, I see. Well, you have sketched out a very primitive blues,
> > > and only one type of very primitive blues. Still, it is unlikely
that
> > > such a primitive blues would be played "all vanilla" and no 7ths.
You
> > > speak of what was played as blues from the 1910's to 1920s when the
> > > art form was still in it's post-infant stages. Before that it was
> > > pretty much one chord or, at best I to V or I to IV only. Most of
> > > those recordings revealed bits of progressions, many deviations from
> > > the standard form (later to be settled on) and many ambiguous chords
> > > added, while pertinent chords were deleted.
>
> > > I am not certain what your question or motive is, but more than
> > > likely, yes! CPP would address the I, IV, V triads that the
primitive
> > > blues thrived on. Mike C was not referring to your progression when
he
> > > mentioned blues. The 'sophisticationization' of the blues began to
> > > take form via the early jazz composers. In this newsgroup,
jazz/blues
> > > is spoken. That is the blues that is spoken in this forum.
>
> > Not sure what you mean by "this forum" as the thread is cross-posted.
Be
> > that as it may, your pronouncements about blues need to be clearly
> > restricted to certain genres - specifically bebop and later jazz -
since
> > they are not broad enough to apply to all blues.
>
> > > I think I have devoted a lot of my time to helping you and I am not
> > > sure if it is in vain or not. You can only answer this. Rest
assured,
> > > I was utilizing my experience to try to hip you to a few things.
>
> > And those of us in RMT, whose experience (and expertise) includes both
jazz
> > and classical music are certainly grateful that you have condescended
to
> > show us the error of our CPP based ways!
>
> > Tom K.
>
> Keep forgetting about the crossposting, sorry. Also I was referring to
> the blues in general which is of the dominant, plain and simple. Very
> rare to dub a blues as of the triad (no 7th whatsoever). I was not
> referring to origins, which were vague anyhow. If you mean not "apply
> to all blues", you are referring to an item that is rare. I simply do
> not agree with you about my "pronouncements", buts thats OK. Was
> clearly not intending to condescend or appear as such. Just looks like
> a lot of what I have taught here has gone to waste. I know,
> personally with you, at least I am a reliable glossary source.
>
> -TD
Anything that has actually been taught does not go to waste. The
subject matter may prove to be true and it will stay with the student
forever or it may turn out to be false and the student will move on to
another idea until he finds one that will stand up as Fact and then
this will stay with him. In either case, both of these cir***stances
are valuable and to a real student, the truth will be discovered. Even
IF a lesson turns out to be something less than an absolute fact, the
learning process will indeed help the student to find a better
solution. (I am not making any statement about the quality of your
objectives in your teaching here, only pointing out something that
pertains to ALL of teaching. If a teacher successfully teaches a
student ANYTHING, that student has learned something and has sharpened
his learning ability. In art, there are a lot of concepts that will be
true in one context and yet untrue in another. As a teacher of music,
one can only teach what HE (or she) believes to be true. Even it it
turns out to be false in the light of new evidence, the student has
learned something about the process of learning and studying an art
form.
So don't worry about your teaching going to waste. More likely, it is
simply falling on deaf ears and was never learned in the first place.
Evaluation of the effectiveness of teaching is very difficult in
something like a newsgroup. As teachers we can only present and try to
inspire learning. We can't force a student to learn.
LJS
|
