The division between classical and jazz theory...

[ksjazzguitar]

Anyone who's read any of my posts knows where I come down on this, but I thought I'd open it up. We have these little mini-debates in other threads, but it might be nice to have it in it's own thread.

So, does there need to be a division between classical theory and jazz theory? There seems to be a common opinion that classical theory can't handle jazz, or is too inflexible. These people argue that to attempt to describe jazz with classical theory is a waste of time and that jazz needs it's own theory, to the extent that it needs theory at all.

I say the opposite. With the exception of the blue note, I cannot think of one theoretical element of jazz that does not have precedent in classical music. True, there are performance elements unique to jazz (swing, heterogeneous sound ideal, group dynamic, heavy improv) but those are not really concepts of theory but of performance. (I'm not saying that one is more important than the other.) I think that there is nothing theoretical in jazz that cannot be explained with traditional theory without slight adjustment (which traditional theory always does when it encounters new music.) True, theory can only be an incomplete explanation, but that is true of all theory.

I guess I see danger in trying to reinvent theory. Number one, it's a lot of unnecessary work to reinvent the wheel. Number two, it creates a lot of confusion as people start inventing new terms for old concepts. And number three, it creates a distance between us and our brothers in the classical world.

Why does this happen? Well, I'm a little biased, but I think that we can see the reasons for this. Firstly, America and especially jazz has a bit of an anti-intellectual vibe. Many of the founders of jazz often put on an air of not knowing what they were doing (even though we know that at least some of this was fake.) I think that the "I don't need no fancy book larnin'" vibe is fashionable. Secondly, many jazz musicians seem to have an inferiority complex with classical musicians. It's ironic, because most of the classical people I know hold good jazz players in high esteem. Thirdly, jazz (and especially jazz guitar) is becoming increasingly "amateur." In one sense this is good - a lot of grass roots interest - but it also means that there are more people involved who don't have a solid background in things like theory, especially if it can't be played on an L-5.

So, what is the case for the separation? Is there some concept in jazz theory that simply cannot be contained in traditional theory? Do we need to draw this line? Why do people feel this way?

OK, discuss.

Peace,
Kevin

[max_power]

Firstly, America and especially jazz has a bit of an anti-intellectual vibe. Many of the founders of jazz often put on an air of not knowing what they were doing (even though we know that at least some of this was fake.) I think that the "I don't need no fancy book larnin'" vibe is fashionable.

...Thirdly, jazz (and especially jazz guitar) is becoming increasingly "amateur." In one sense this is good - a lot of grass roots interest - but it also means that there are more people involved who don't have a solid background in things like theory, especially if it can't be played on an L-5.

Earlier jazz musicians definitely had an anti-intellectual complex when it came to music. In Miles Davis' autobiography, he comments that during his tenure with Charlie Parker's band in the mid-to-late 40's, he noticed that many jazz musicians downplayed their understanding of music theory and also tended to avoid higher-level music theory. Miles stated that he disagreed with this approach, and that he studied as much theory as he could to help advance his playing and musical understanding. It seems to me that Miles' generation was the first generation of jazz musicians to really embrace theory and use it extensively in the development of new musical concepts.

I have to disagree with you about anti-intellectualism in the current jazz scene. I see the opposite: musicians are now expected to be well-versed in theory and knowledgeable about the technical aspects of music. In some musical styles (especially, for example, blues music), anti-intellectualism runs rampant, with people actually being PROUD of the fact that they can't read music and don't know what a scale is. I'm embarrassed to admit that I used to be one of these people. I was "converted" when I started taking formal jazz guitar lessons, and my teacher impressed me immensely by being able to play elaborate chord-melodies by sight reading lead sheets from the Real Book - something that I could only have dreamed about doing at the time anyways, not to mention doing so without actually knowing the tune in advance. Anyways, my point is that, while I agree that there tends to be anti-intellectualism among musicians, I see the opposite among jazz musicians. Perhaps your experience is different than mine? Please clarify if this is the case.

I'm also going to ask you to clarify your point about jazz becoming more "amateur". There are for sure a lot more amateur musicians interested in playing jazz, but I don't see them getting the good gigs. Maybe I've misinterpreted what you meant?

[Jeremy Hillary Boob Ph.D]

A couple of points... West Coast aka Cool Jazz is known for it's cerebral approach. The musicians usually could read well and had formal eduction in music. It is also noted that they were primarily "white", not that should matter. Cool Jazz was a big movement; not to be overlooked. konitz, Tristano, Chet, Jim Hall, and more...

Classical theory obviously can explain most jazz; anyone with any sense of reason should figure that out pretty quick. "Jazz theory" is "Improvisation Theory" or as you might put it a "Performance Theory". This deserves the distinction. It is theoretical shorthands that work in real-time with an ensemble. You cannot sit out and compose the perfect jazz solo over the course of 6 months... it would be pathetic, actually...

"The basic difference between classical music and improvised music is that in classical music you can take three months, to compose, for example, one minute of music, while in improvised music, one minute of time is one minute of music." ~Bill Evans

[ksjazzguitar]

...I have to disagree with you about anti-intellectualism in the current jazz scene. I see the opposite: musicians are now expected to be well-versed in theory and knowledgeable about the technical aspects of music.

Perhaps not in the higher ranks, but in the body of non-pros (here for example) there is a strong streak of "don't get your classical mumbo-jumbo near my jazz" attitude.

I'm also going to ask you to clarify your point about jazz becoming more "amateur". There are for sure a lot more amateur musicians interested in playing jazz, but I don't see them getting the good gigs.

I was searching for the right word there and wasn't really happy with what I came up with. I just mean that the amateur/untrained jazz guitarists make up such a large percentage of the community. Again, there is a good side to that and a bad side. There is nothing wrong with being an amateur. I consider myself and amateur chess player - I'm self-taught and don't get paid to play (only to teach kids.)

I think that there are some amateur players getting gigs. Sometimes they get gigs simply because they make enough in their day jobs that they don't worry about the bread. I've had students who get more gigs than me sometimes just because they're willing to go in an pay for tips. After gas and tolls, they sometimes loose money. (But that's a rant for another time.)

I just mean that the jazz guitar community is largely driven by amateurs. Just try and find a book that doesn't have tab in it. Even in the classical guitar community, it's getting increasingly difficult to find books without tab.

...Classical theory obviously can explain most jazz; anyone with any sense of reason should figure that out pretty quick. ...

I agree, but there are many here who don't and have lambasted me for suggesting it.

"Jazz theory" is "Improvisation Theory" or as you might put it a "Performance Theory". This deserves the distinction. ...

I hear what you are saying, but I don't think that I agree. With the exception of little tricks (or shorthands as you say) I think that the theory is the same for jazz composition as it is for jazz soloing. I don't have a different theory for writing a jazz melody as I do for crafting a jazz solo. Similarly, improv used to be a big part of classical - they didn't have different theories for improv and composition.

I think that it is the same theory, but we put emphasis in different areas depending on if it is planned or extemporaneous. That's how I see it for now, maybe someone can convince me otherwise.

Peace,
Kevin

[Jeremy Hillary Boob Ph.D]

How about Bill Evans? He had theory based guidelines on performance in his trio. Classical theory explains his music perhaps, but it does not create it.

[max_power]

I was searching for the right word there and wasn't really happy with what I came up with. I just mean that the amateur/untrained jazz guitarists make up such a large percentage of the community. Again, there is a good side to that and a bad side. There is nothing wrong with being an amateur. I consider myself and amateur chess player - I'm self-taught and don't get paid to play (only to teach kids.)

I think that there are some amateur players getting gigs. Sometimes they get gigs simply because they make enough in their day jobs that they don't worry about the bread. I've had students who get more gigs than me sometimes just because they're willing to go in an pay for tips. After gas and tolls, they sometimes loose money. (But that's a rant for another time.)

I just mean that the jazz guitar community is largely driven by amateurs. Just try and find a book that doesn't have tab in it. Even in the classical guitar community, it's getting increasingly difficult to find books without tab.

Ah, okay. I agree with this.

How about Bill Evans? He had theory based guidelines on performance in his trio. Classical theory explains his music perhaps, but it does not create it.

But the point of any music theory is to explain music, not create it. Jazz and classical occupy different musical niches, but both are based on the traditional western system of harmony. Just because the theory is used for slightly different purposes in the two genres doesn't mean that the theory is fundamentally different.

[JonR]

Perhaps not in the higher ranks, but in the body of non-pros (here for example) there is a strong streak of "don't get your classical mumbo-jumbo near my jazz" attitude.

Here in the UK I haven't seen that attitude among jazz musicians at any level (I know a few pros, and a lot of amateurs).
There's maybe the odd maverick (probably from a rock background) with a false sense of pride in ignorance, as if theory would stifle their creativity (man) . They'd have to be technically excellent, with a great ear, not to fall embarrassingly at the first fence in any amateur jam session.

Having said that, there is one name in particular worth mentioning. 13 years ago I was at a jazz summer school in Wales and a teenage pianist (he looked about 16 but would have been 19) was introduced to our student group. He politely turned down the offer of the notation for the piece we were playing. And proceeded to make a pretty good stab at comping from a chord chart, and took good solos. (Not astonishingly good, not "wow", but certainly competent.) He also proved to be a good singer, and led his own trio at the jam sessions in the evening. What he lacked in reading ability (and presumably in classical theory knowledge) he made up for in ear and confidence.
His name was Jamie Cullum. (I hope I don't need to remind you all of the $1m deal he got from CBS a few years later.)

I just mean that the jazz guitar community is largely driven by amateurs. Just try and find a book that doesn't have tab in it. Even in the classical guitar community, it's getting increasingly difficult to find books without tab.

I don't see this as a big problem. Renaissance lute music used to be written in tab. (I wonder if other musicians then sniffed at those amateur lutenists...)

And it's amateurs that keep a genre alive. I regard myself as a jazz amateur. I'm a professional musician, in that I make my living almost solely from music. I've played jazz on and off for over 40 years, and occasionally earned money doing it (only ever at small gigs). But I'm still an amateur, and have no illusions about becoming anything else. (The word "amateur" comes from the word for "love" of course.)

If amateurs get gigs, good luck to them. If they can't play, they won't get asked back. They may keep the odd gig in a bar where no one really listens (which a pro would turn down), but they're not going to get gigs at prestigious jazz venues. (Tho again, if they do, and carry it off, well done!) In live performance, the audience is the ultimate judge, whether we like it or not - and that's the way it should be, if jazz isn't going to disappear up its own ass. (Jazz has to keep being inventive and ahead of the audience, but it still has to convince audiences.)
Us older and ugllier players might grit our teeth when someone as cute as Jamie Cullum gets the gigs (and offers way beyond his ability), but that's the commercial world. If Cullum makes jazz cool (again) that can only be a good thing for everyone else.

With the exception of little tricks (or shorthands as you say) I think that the theory is the same for jazz composition as it is for jazz soloing. I don't have a different theory for writing a jazz melody as I do for crafting a jazz solo. Similarly, improv used to be a big part of classical - they didn't have different theories for improv and composition.

I think that it is the same theory, but we put emphasis in different areas depending on if it is planned or extemporaneous. That's how I see it for now, maybe someone can convince me otherwise.

I agree - the difference is only in emphasis, or perspective.
There is one subtle difference I see that you might be able to shine a light on. In classical theory there is the augmented 6th chord (which I understand reasonably well, if not thoroughly). It doesn't exist in jazz, but we do have the tritone sub, which is similar in some ways, but crucially different in others. Ie, the aug 6th resolves to the dominant (as a kind of "sub" in jazz terms for a subdominant); in jazz the tritone sub resolves to a tonic - or at least tonicises the following chord. That's not to say it can't also be used in a similar way to an augmented 6th, but its use is more flexible.

There would be other differences to do with blues: AFAIK, the concept of blues scale - with its movable pitches (variable 3rd, ornamental b5) - is alien to classical theory. There is some parallel with modal music, but only a distant one, IMO.

But still - we can use classical terms to cobble together descriptions of any such phenomena which don't appear (AFAIK) in classical music. IOW, one of the beauties of classical theory is the adaptabilty of its terminology (and notation) to musics it was never designed for.

[ksjazzguitar]

...His name was Jamie Cullum. (I hope I don't need to remind you all of the $1m deal he got from CBS a few years later.)

Yeah, but I don't judge the quality of an artist by how much money he makes.

I don't see this as a big problem. Renaissance lute music used to be written in tab. (I wonder if other musicians then sniffed at those amateur lutenists...)

I hear ya. But most of those guys were skilled musicians who played other instruments and could read music (as did anyone of learning in that time.) I actually prefer double notated stuff for jazz so I can see the complicated positions easier. I prefer standard notation only for classical because tab adds nothing but extra page turns.

I just mean the fact that there are fewer and fewer people that can read. I'm sorry to all the people that I'm about to offend, but if you can't read music, you are missing half of the picture. I see this anti-reading trend to be an indication of the dumbing-down of the the guitar community. (No, I'm not saying someone who can't read is dumb, just that on average, they tend not to know as much about music.)

There would be other differences to do with blues: AFAIK, the concept of blues scale - with its movable pitches (variable 3rd, ornamental b5) - is alien to classical theory. There is some parallel with modal music, but only a distant one, IMO.

Yeah, pentatonics had been around around. Bartok and Debussy used them. But the "blue note" is one we'd have to struggle to find a classical precedent for. I did mention that as the one theoretical element that can be traced to the African tradition.

But still - we can use classical terms to cobble together descriptions of any such phenomena which don't appear (AFAIK) in classical music. IOW, one of the beauties of classical theory is the adaptabilty of its terminology (and notation) to musics it was never designed for.

Yes, thank you.


So, where are all the anti-theory guerrilla-terrorists? I expected to have them come and make their case. I guess they only like to take snide pot shots in other threads.

Peace,
Kevin

[JonR]

Yeah, but I don't judge the quality of an artist by how much money he makes.

Sure. The point was that he was someone with an amateur's level of theory knowledge (if that).
He can play (and sing) well, no doubt about that. But he wasn't even the best student on the course that year, in terms of musical ability. (Let alone the tutors, none of whom have made anywhere near as much as he has.) But he had something else that none of them (us) had - a certain kind of charisma, deriving from a supreme confidence. The cute, youthful good looks were a bonus.
I'm not taking anything away from him. I enjoyed the small amount of playing I did with him he had a good feel.

I just mean the fact that there are fewer and fewer people that can read. I'm sorry to all the people that I'm about to offend, but if you can't read music, you are missing half of the picture. I see this anti-reading trend to be an indication of the dumbing-down of the the guitar community. (No, I'm not saying someone who can't read is dumb, just that on average, they tend not to know as much about music.)

Well, this is a common (and old) complaint. You won't hear me disagreeing with the notion that those who choose not to learn to read are missing out on an incredible amount of stuff.
I can kind of see it from both sides though. It's not unreasonable to point to all the successful musicians who can't read. The fact that they (therefore) have a quite narrow range of knowledge and influences is not a disadvantage in the genre they've chosen. (And it doesn't follow that they would make better music if they could read, or knew more theory.)
I don't think it's right that everyone learning rock guitar should be pushed to learn to read, and then feel inadequate if they find it too difficult.
But OTOH, I think it's dumb if anyone believes learning to read is too difficult to be worth it if they are "only" learning rock music, or - worse - that it will somehow stifle their creativity.
There seems to be too much "[famous person] can't read, so why should I?" and not enough "I want to learn as much about music as I can, so I'm going to learn notation".

Yeah, pentatonics had been around around. Bartok and Debussy used them. But the "blue note" is one we'd have to struggle to find a classical precedent for. I did mention that as the one theoretical element that can be traced to the African tradition.

There's also the whole cultural philosophy - admittedly well outside the remit of theory! - that informs African music, and which is fundamentally different from the European tradition.

So, where are all the anti-theory guerrilla-terrorists? I expected to have them come and make their case. I guess they only like to take snide pot shots in other threads.

You may be exaggerating the threat... (It would be surprising to find many you could describe in those extreme terms on a "jazz" site like this. On some other guitar sites, they're a lot more common.)

[MarkRhodes]

If someone knows classical theory, it would be silly to start over with 'jazz theory' but if someone hasn't studied theory and wants to learn jazz, it makes to sense to use a theory book full of examples drawn from jazz musicians rather than classical ones.
Also, if the theory is the same, why prefer 'classical theory' to 'jazz theory'? (It's like someone saying Buddhism and Christianity are really saying the same thing only Buddhism is better. Well, if it's the same thing, it's the same thing. One can only be better than the other if they are *not* equivalent.)

I'm fine with the notion of "music theory" as opposed to "classical theory" or "jazz theory" but I also understand that someone wanting to learn jazz wants things presented from a jazz standpoint with examples from great jazz players. (If there is ever such a thing as "rock theory" it will draw examples from rock musicians and songwriters.)

[Jeremy Hillary Boob Ph.D]

So, where are all the anti-theory guerrilla-terrorists? I expected to have them come and make their case. I guess they only like to take snide pot shots in other threads.

I think it's quite the opposite indeed! Here your opinionated post is appropriate... Others will respect your ground. On other topics, you are the one twisting the focus of the thread by talking down to others... Your ideas are valid and respectable, but they are intrinsically subjective via the internet. No amount of background sources will be enough in this world... Take it easy... And keep posting new topics that you want to discuss in your way.

[ksjazzguitar]

...There's also the whole cultural philosophy - admittedly well outside the remit of theory! - that informs African music, and which is fundamentally different from the European tradition....

Sure, there are aspects of jazz performance that clearly come originally from African culture. I'm not trying to diminish them - jazz wouldn't exist withoug them. But I'm talking about the theory.

You may be exaggerating the threat [of anti-theory guerrilla terrorists]...

Yeah, you say that now, but wait until they get weapons of mass destruction!

If someone knows classical theory, it would be silly to start over with 'jazz theory' but if someone hasn't studied theory and wants to learn jazz, it makes to sense to use a theory book full of examples drawn from jazz musicians rather than classical ones.

Cool. I'm not saying that everyone must start with a course in Bach. I'm speaking against the tendency of many jazz musicians to either reinvent theories and terminology out of ignorance, or to purposefully try to rebuke any attempt to apply theory to jazz. I can't count the number of times I've been told "You can't apply that theory stuff to jazz, it just don't fit." These are the anti-theory guerrilla terrorists.

But I have no problem with someone learning theory from jazz examples. Although I think that a broader understanding of theory would be beneficial. I don't know how many people I've talked to that think that jazz invented the 7b9 chord or that jazz invented improv. They think that jazz invented chromaticism. My point is that a true understanding of jazz history and theory doesn't begin 100 years ago, it begins with Pythagoras. True, amateur musicians may not have time to go that in depth, but just be aware that jazz did not spring out of the ground from magic beans. (And picking up a copy of Music History for Dummies and Music Theory for Dummies ain't too hard - it's not a complete education, but it's better than most are getting.)

I think it's quite the opposite indeed! Here your opinionated post is appropriate... On other topics, you are the one twisting the focus of the thread by talking down to others... ...

With all due respect, you are kind of new here. I think that a lot of people come in on the end of one of my rants and assume that they start out that way (with me being a jerk.) No, when I get into a thread where someone is saying that "there is no dissonance in playing an A major scale over an A7" or that "inversion and chord voicing mean the same thing" or that "modal jazz is just playing chormatic notes to connect the modal note" - (I'm not making those up, those were actual assertions.) I always start out gently. I start out with "I think you have your fact mixed up, here are the facts/" When they assert no, I follow with, "No really, you're confused, here are some reputable sources that say otherwise." They hunker down harder and start accusing me of elitism and picking on people that don't know as much (even though they ironically keep asserting that they are right and I'm wrong.) Things devolve from there.

It amazes me the number of names that I get called and the personal attacks that have been launched against me, but I get called out for my tone. I can be opinionated - that is one of the privileges that comes with doing your homework. And I can be a bit of an SOB when confronted with people who repeatedly assert falsehoods.

I never pick on people who simply make mistakes. I pick on people who make a mistake and then defend it to the death in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is a strange phenomenon in cognitive dissonance, that for some people, the more contradictory evidence that comes in, the stronger people defend their challenged belief. For example, after it became clear that Iraq didn't have WOMDs (at least not in the time frame or nearly the scale that had been discussed) some demographics actually increased in their determination that they were there. There are some demographics for whom it continued to increase.

I really hold no grudges. There is one guy in particular that I've caught in a couple lies and in my opinion is purposefully trying to disseminate misinformation and make up terms to make himself seem smarter - but the rest of them, I don't really go after consciously. If they make a mistake, I try to politely point it out. But in this community, telling someone that they are wrong is considered abuse and they all go into victim mode. But I'm not going to play the "I'm OK, you're OK" game of "Your incorrect definition of 'inversion' that you made up is just as valid as the one used but the entire rest of the music community." If the purpose of this forum is the sharing of information, then misinformation should be the enemy. Sure, we can spot the BS, but the noobs can't and there's already too much confusion and misinformation out there. My experience in forums is that the more experienced members are more aggressive in policing that kind of stuff, but so far it seems mainly to be me.

Yes, I can be an opinionated SOB, but I think that if you read through some of those threads, you might feel some of my frustration. And as I've said before, if the more educated people on the forum joined in to help me, maybe it would be easier. But when 20 people are saying "bebop is just playing fast scales" and I'm the only one saying that that is completely false, I look like a pompous elitist.

Peace,
Kevin

[Jeremy Hillary Boob Ph.D]

Ok... Those are some pretty big accusations, but they may be true. I'm not in on the whole story, being new and all... I can't imagine someone telling lies to sound smart with theory... maybe they just made mistakes... I don't know. I don't know much... You do have an aggressive posting style though... I'll be sure not to get in your way from now on...

[green.note]

Going back to the original topic, I have to agree with Kevin about this (mostly) imaginary division between classical and jazz theory.

Of course, there are idiomatic differences and most of those are "performance" based, as Kevin pointed out.

Theory generally follows practice, not the other way around (of course, theory informs practice). This is an important thing to keep in mind.

[ksjazzguitar]

Jeremy, I'm not asking you to pick sides. Make up your own mind. You don't have to worry about getting in my way - I like it when people disagree with me. I just hate it when they start making things up, or thinking that something that they read in a blog somewhere is "proof." It's actually pretty easy to not get me riled up - there are many people in the forum who disagree with me and never incur my wrath.

.

I find it fascinating that none of the usual anti-theory guerrilla terrorists have shown up. Normally their always lurking in the shadows waiting for me to use a term like "Neapolitan 6th" or compare Bird's use of chromaticism to Chopin's - and then they pounce. But now - they remain silent. That's the problem with guerrilla terrorist - you can never get them into a head-on fight.

Peace,
Kevin

[JonR]

It is a strange phenomenon in cognitive dissonance, that for some people, the more contradictory evidence that comes in, the stronger people defend their challenged belief.

Right. I read recently of some research that had been done that showed this to be true. When people are not totally sure of their ground, they often defend it more strongly, not less.
This is why superstitions have such a hold on people.
To be fair, I guess we all develop beliefs based on flimsy evidence, throughout our lives. Mostly it doesn't matter; it's a natural process to draw quick conclusions to enable us to get by in life; answers that work will do, even if they are flawed at some deeper level.
Sometimes we adapt those views as new evidence comes in, but other times a belief (especially if it is never seriously challenged by real life) can become entrenched, so it becomes part of our personality. So when - eventually - it is attacked by hard evidence to the contrary, we automatically resist, and take it personally. We dig our hole deeper.

[MarkRhodes]

To be fair, I guess we all develop beliefs based on flimsy evidence, throughout our lives. Mostly it doesn't matter; it's a natural process to draw quick conclusions to enable us to get by in life; answers that work will do, even if they are flawed at some deeper level. .

There's a good book on this topic by Kathryn Schulz. It's called "Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error." I highly recommend it.

Here's a podcast of Schulz giving a talk at a recent Pop Tech! seminar. If you get a little out of this, you'd probably get a lot out of the book.

PopTech : Popcasts : Kathryn Schulz: Being Wrong

[ksjazzguitar]

Right. I read recently of some research that had been done that showed this to be true. When people are not totally sure of their ground, they often defend it more strongly, not less.

Him, I never thought of it correlating to the flimsiness of the evidence. It makes sense to me, but I didn't want to assume. Good to see that my suspicions were not unfounded.

As you say, a lot of it is just human nature. We work so hard on forging our opinions, they become like our children. And then someone tries to take them away.

To be fair, I guess we all develop beliefs based on flimsy evidence, throughout our lives. Mostly it doesn't matter; it's a natural process to draw quick conclusions to enable us to get by in life; answers that work will do, even if they are flawed at some deeper level.

True. It would be impossible to function if we held ourselves to a ridiculous standard of empiricism and rationalism. But the danger is when people start letting that epistemological looseness infect important decisions that could be made logically.

Peace,
Kevin

[cosmic gumbo]

What the heck is this thread really about? It is very psychologically revealing in a very obvious way.

[Jeremy Hillary Boob Ph.D]

There's a good book on this topic by Kathryn Schulz. It's called "Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error." I highly recommend it.

Here's a podcast of Schulz giving a talk at a recent Pop Tech! seminar. If you get a little out of this, you'd probably get a lot out of the book.

PopTech : Popcasts : Kathryn Schulz: Being Wrong

Thanks!! That was a great video!

[max chill]

What the heck is this thread really about? It is very psychologically revealing in a very obvious way.

I agree, this discussion seems deeper and darker than just the merits of jazz vs classical theory for learning jazz.

[timscarey]

So, where are all the anti-theory guerrilla-terrorists? I expected to have them come and make their case. I guess they only like to take snide pot shots in other threads.

wow dude.

[ksjazzguitar]

As I said in the beginning. We keep getting these little "anti-theory" attacks in other threads when ever some of us try to talk about theory beyond "What scale do I use?" They spam the discussion with misinformation and try to disrupt any deep discussion.

Rather than hijack other threads, it made sense to address the idea in it's own thread. My point is that they "anti-theory" crowd don't want to have a real debate, they just prefer to snipe and run, like guerrillas. Rather than have a proper debate on the subject, they want to take pot-shots in other threads. Unfortunately that puts me in a spot where I feel a need (perhaps immature) to clear up the disruptive misinformation being spread. I end up looking like an elitist trying to hijack threads. But maybe that was the plan all along.

Peace,
Kevin

[timscarey]

I wouldn't say that there is anything in jazz that can't be explained using classical theory really, except that 8th notes are felt differently and that the concept of "blues harmony" is it's own thing altogether belonging more in the jazz theory idiom than the classical.

However, I would definitely argue that there are many aspects of classical music that cannot be explained using "Jazz theory"

One thing that I would like to point out from both idioms (but more so in jazz) is that the idea of chord voicing is not addressed at all with the exception of what note is on bottom.

a few examples of chords which have no symbols but are used (or I have at least encountered, and the names the composers gave them)... from the bottom up.

C E G# B D F# - CMaj9(#5b12) (Dave Peck)
C Eb Gb B - B15 (b9) (with a B in the bass) / Cdim(Maj7) with a C in the bass (Jim Knapp)
C E A B - C6/7 (Hermeto Pascoal)
C Eb G Bb Db - Cmin7(b9) (blasphemy) (Samantha Boshneck) although it functions as a dominant chord
C E F A C# E G# - Group 3.3 (Paul Hindemith) try adding a B on the top of this one.... opened my ears a bit... ha ha ha

So, in a way, both systems are the same... incomplete.

Can't wait to see what happens next.

[timscarey]

So, what is the case for the separation? Is there some concept in jazz theory that simply cannot be contained in traditional theory? Do we need to draw this line? Why do people feel this way?

OK, discuss.

Peace,
Kevin

I think it's because you don't need to know theory to play music, of any kind.... it just makes it easier in the long run and more rewarding. Plus.... it's pretty a tough subject for some people, especially hobbyists and people who find more enjoyment in self discovery and memorization. There are a lot of people like that. I know cats (as I'm sure you do too) that learned by ear, play by ear, and sound amazing, of course, at the end of they day, they have all eventually learned how to read at least a chord chart.... but not all of them, especially the ones who lead the band.

in 2007 I did a 3 month tour of japan with a gospel/blues group.... not a single person in the group but me read music, knew any theory, or even knew what key the songs where in..... but they where touring japan, playing to huge audiences, and where doing a lot of old jazz tunes, with great solos. And they still do.