The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Posts 51 to 71 of 71
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by TruthHertz
    And seriously affordable, bless them. Love that place.
    David
    I'd bet their dropout rate is near zero. They're probably having a laugh about what Harvard is doing. With Harvard having ties to Berklee there might be a trickle down effect with the consolidation of theory and history. In the grand scheme of things, so what?
    Instead of taking two theory and two history courses students will have the opportunity to take 2 other courses.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnoL
    I believe Mr. Theory, Walter Piston is associated with Harvard.
    Yes. Harmony by Walter Piston barely touches 20th Century Harmony ...I tried to use it when younger as a self taught Guitarist..
    Not good for Modulation and 20th Century Harmony IMO.
    .
    I am on this Forum to fill in Gaps in Theory and Applied Theory.

    Many[ most ] Theory Books and Wickipedia include the Contributions of Jazz as part of Modern Harmony Theory

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    Hmmmm. My feelings on this are complicated. TBH I give a lot of respect to the classical music tradition and I think colleges are the natural environment of this music (although the nature of the conservatory has changed somewhat since the 18th century.)

    Idk really.

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by snailspace
    Probably planning to convert the music theory classrooms into "safe spaces" for students who can't handle opinions contrary to their own.

    Oh, Harvard -- how the mighty have fallen. Once, not long ago, you used to be a real university.
    Given your deep thoughts and insightful commentary, Harvard would like to know where you went to school.

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    Many great points above, such as:

    1. Harvard has a music school? Who knew?

    2. Berklee is across town. Berklee has lots of students enrolling online and on campus, from all over the world. A university needs students and music schools are slowly adapting. There are more "jazz programs" than ever before in the US - and it's 2017. Is that because jazz is big? No, its because classical is very old and there isn't enough meat to pop and folk music to warrant a 4-year degree. Jazz offers an alternative that can be rigorous - plus it's American.

    3. "Diversity" in this context means lots of students from third world countries, and in many cases they don't grow up on a steady diet of European Art Music (i.e. "Classical"). But if they want it, they can still get it (see the comment about academic counseling). So there is flexibility, according to Harvard.


    Questions/concerns that some may have are:

    1. Is a four-year university the appropriate place to learn "folk" music? Is there that much to folk music such that it warrants education in an accredited 4-year and masters level university? Isn't the community/junior college the place for that? Isn't it the depth and breadth of a classical and/or jazz program that elevates a music degree to par level with other fields of study? (math, science, business, literature, political science, history, psychology, etc.?)

    2. If a student is from India do they really need to travel to the US to learn Indian music in college? (same question goes for any/all regions beyond western Europe and the US). Do they really expect that American universities will know how to teach their homeland's music as well as the folks back home? Why should they bother to go to a foreign land to learn something that was already local for them? Isn't that counter-intuitive?

    3. People from Asian countries make it a huge point to attend American colleges and universities - to learn the American way of Business, Science and other topics. In many/most cases they intend to stay in America or at least do business directly with America. Shouldn't music schools do the same as business and science schools? That is, shouldn't they teach the American system (which in the case of music is primarily/traditionally the western European system). Why should they bother to attempt to teach foreigners something that is foreign as opposed to what is local? Is that what they do in all the other fields of study?

    4. Or, why not just keep it simple? Why not have a traditional/classical path and a jazz/contemporary path like others do?
    Last edited by Jazzstdnt; 06-30-2017 at 12:56 AM.

  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt


    Questions/concerns that some may have are:

    1. Is a four-year university the appropriate place to learn "folk" music? Is there that much to folk music such that it warrants education in an accredited 4-year and masters level university? Isn't the community/junior college the place for that? Isn't it the depth and breadth of a classical and/or jazz program that elevates a music degree to par level with other fields of study? (math, science, business, literature, political science, history, psychology, etc.?)

    2. If a student is from India do they really need to travel to the US to learn Indian music in college? (same question goes for any/all regions beyond western Europe and the US). Do they really expect that American universities will know how to teach their homeland's music as well as the folks back home? Why should they bother to go to a foreign land to learn something that was already local for them? Isn't that counter-intuitive?

    3. People from Asian countries make it a huge point to attend American colleges and universities - to learn the American way of Business, Science and other topics. In many/most cases they intend to stay in America or at least do business directly with America. Shouldn't music schools do the same as business and science schools? That is, shouldn't they teach the American system (which in the case of music is primarily/traditionally the western European system). Why should they bother to attempt to teach foreigners something that is foreign as opposed to what is local? Is that what they do in all the other fields of study?

    4. Or, why not just keep it simple? Why not have a traditional/classical path and a jazz/contemporary path like others do?
    Yes!! That is so so right on all points! Last time I checked most singer songwriters are doing just fine without 4 year degree in music.

    And perhaps as a Russian immigrant I should've requested a course in balalaika while in CCNY? And why would I go to NY to study it to begin with??

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    Many great points above, such as:

    1. Harvard has a music school? Who knew?

    2. Berklee is across town. Berklee has lots of students enrolling online and on campus, from all over the world. A university needs students and music schools are slowly adapting. There are more "jazz programs" than ever before in the US - and it's 2017. Is that because jazz is big? No, its because classical is very old and there isn't enough meat to pop and folk music to warrant a 4-year degree. Jazz offers an alternative that can be rigorous - plus it's American.

    3. "Diversity" in this context means lots of students from third world countries, and in many cases they don't grow up on a steady diet of European Art Music (i.e. "Classical"). But if they want it, they can still get it (see the comment about academic counseling). So there is flexibility, according to Harvard.


    Questions/concerns that some may have are:

    1. Is a four-year university the appropriate place to learn "folk" music? Is there that much to folk music such that it warrants education in an accredited 4-year and masters level university? Isn't the community/junior college the place for that? Isn't it the depth and breadth of a classical and/or jazz program that elevates a music degree to par level with other fields of study? (math, science, business, literature, political science, history, psychology, etc.?)

    2. If a student is from India do they really need to travel to the US to learn Indian music in college? (same question goes for any/all regions beyond western Europe and the US). Do they really expect that American universities will know how to teach their homeland's music as well as the folks back home? Why should they bother to go to a foreign land to learn something that was already local for them? Isn't that counter-intuitive?

    3. People from Asian countries make it a huge point to attend American colleges and universities - to learn the American way of Business, Science and other topics. In many/most cases they intend to stay in America or at least do business directly with America. Shouldn't music schools do the same as business and science schools? That is, shouldn't they teach the American system (which in the case of music is primarily/traditionally the western European system). Why should they bother to attempt to teach foreigners something that is foreign as opposed to what is local? Is that what they do in all the other fields of study?

    4. Or, why not just keep it simple? Why not have a traditional/classical path and a jazz/contemporary path like others do?
    I'd take a Harvard music degree over a Berklee degree any day. There's more education on a preparatory level from a Harvard program, more respect for the art and the many facets of what goes into an art and a craft, more integration of rigorous material and more respect for students as adults who have the intelligence and initiative to chose a path through their program to best use their time.
    Harvard has an extremely well thought out set of options that benefit a wide variety of paths to a well educated graduate. They have put careful thought into what it takes to take an intelligent student and provide them with a real workable future as a graduate.
    Berklee is a set of outdated retro-fitted overloaded requirements that are compromised by the preponderance of slackers who, because they are treated like children, never acquire the many skills it takes to be proficient and prepared for a real world. Berklee's strength is built on the ability to attract the few truly exceptional real musicians and give them a place to meet; their success is built on students that have more on the day they started than the 90% exiting graduates. Their reputation is built upon the few that came in as great players and managed to keep that intact until they were hired-while in school (John Mayer attended one semester or so, and he's their poster boy).

    I'd say there are many ways to become great musicians, and at the top of music intensive institutions are places like New England Conservatory and Curtis. At the top of insightful broadly visioned schools are places like Harvard. Both teach things well beyond the mere loading of gridded information. Both are very respectful of traditions and use them to actually inform and create a spirit of well versed individuality.

    This from someone who's seen the results and graduates of those schools. A good school respects a student's desire to learn and guides them with the authority to challenge them.

    Education is evolutionary. Uneducated judgement we have the cheap luxury of making up on our own.
    'seems to me
    David

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    All a degree from Berklee means these days is you weren't good enought to get picked up before you graduated.

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    All a degree from Berklee means these days is you weren't good enought to get picked up before you graduated.
    These days? From the beginning, it was a networking place to get recognized. The consensus was, it's like a river headed towards a waterfall. If you were good, you got picked up. If you weren't, you made it to the end and fell off the edge.
    Swallow and Carla Bley sent her daughter to Berklee because she really wanted to go. Their only stipulation being she couldn't graduate. She made her mark so she didn't; they were so proud.

    Wolfgang did graduate. But he was part of Gary's band and gigging before. Asked what the most valuable thing he got from the experience was, he said "A course on Spanish". Well played.

    There are people at Berklee that pay and graduate. Then there are those that Berklee pays and they don't graduate. THEY are the ones Berklee drops the names of. Business as usual.

    Still a great place to meet great musicians though.

    David

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    I can't say if you are right or wrong, I've only been to Berklee for a week at Summer Guitar Sessions on scholarship years ago, it was a great experience for me at the time. But anyway now, here in NYC, 99% people who I met and played with who are Berklee grads, were superb musicians. I was lucky to play gigs with them.

    I haven't met or played with anyone from Harvard music program yet. And by the look of things, it's probably for the best.

  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by TruthHertz
    These days?
    Lol, I actually added that as to not offend any grads we might have here.

    But you're absolutely right.

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    I've always thought of the "theory vs ears" argument to be overly binary.

    I need ears to make music, and I use theory to describe what the music is (say, to other bandmates so they can get a grip on a song faster).

    For some, theory becomes a trap -- for others, it is a swamp to be avoided. I think it's neither. To my way of thinking, the two are complimentary.

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Well, I certainly didn't mean to compare Harvard to Berklee in the general educational sense. Harvard had better be superior, and no doubt is. My point was to mention that college x and y are in the same town and one of them is consistently attracting lots of students, both local and international, online and on campus.

    I have observed a trend in American music colleges towards jazz and contemporary music studies over the last 2-3 decades. I don't know the details of Harvard's new approach - but - perhaps they are going the UCLA rout towards "ethnomusicology"?

    Even in that case the student needs to have the opportunity to specialize in a principle style for at least 4-6 semesters. That would be very difficult if; (1) one found themselves bouncing around in too many one-semester "world" styles, and/or (2) the instructors possessed limited mastery in any given style.

    As a footnote - this thread just goes to show you how much "Berklee" is an online trigger word, lol. This thread spawned lots of opinions from folks who either (1) never went to Berklee, or (2) are not currently enrolled. I also think that some folks in this thread are confusing college mission with student objectives/motivations. Berklee is not a jazz group, head-hunter, job placement agency. Berklee is there to teach.

    The reason students attend college is to learn and perhaps prosper. The college/university is accountable for pedagogy - and to a lesser extent, student results achieved post graduation.
    Last edited by Jazzstdnt; 07-01-2017 at 09:51 PM.

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus
    I've always thought of the "theory vs ears" argument to be overly binary.

    I need ears to make music, and I use theory to describe what the music is (say, to other bandmates so they can get a grip on a song faster).

    For some, theory becomes a trap -- for others, it is a swamp to be avoided. I think it's neither. To my way of thinking, the two are complimentary.
    There's a feedback loop between theory and listening. But to me theory means nothing without sound which is why I find dry discussion a bit frustrating sometimes.

    I'm not sure how much value there is in academic music theory. I see it more as an area unto itself rather than anything connected to musical performance.

    But that's a different thing to someone mastering the art of writing species counterpoint, say. I suppose the Western tradition isn't really an Aural tradition and that might set it apart from most other world musics?

    Not that there aren't music theoretical treatises in Sanskrit and Arabic, of course.

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    Well if all one does is mindlessly perform written music, then theory may not be as highly correlated with performance.

    And yet, it still is.

    In other words, theory isn't just harmony, it's rhythm and melody too. And it covers a little bit of composition and arranging while deferring deeper study in those topics to other texts and classes.

    When you learn the difference between a quarter note, eighth note, dotted sixteenth etc., you are learning theory. If one can't perform those correctly they won't be able to play at all.

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    Well if all one does is mindlessly perform written music, then theory may not be as highly correlated with performance.

    And yet, it still is.

    In other words, theory isn't just harmony, it's rhythm and melody too. And it covers a little bit of composition and arranging while deferring deeper study in those topics to other texts and classes.

    When you learn the difference between a quarter note, eighth note, dotted sixteenth etc., you are learning theory. If one can't perform those correctly they won't be able to play at all.
    Academic music theory is an end unto itself, and it can involve all sorts of things - both music itself, aspects of the humanities etc - it's academia.

    Conventional music theory is generally to do with the music itself - harmony, rhythm, structure, etc - but that isn' necessarily true today. It could involve other aspects of the humanities or the physical sciences or maths. The aim, not to necessarily write music, but understand it in some new way.

    Jazz theory isn't really theory in this sense (by and large) because it's primarily concerned with things we can play. Classical theory used to be like this - people would have learned how to harmonise from a bass line, how to compose and improvise simple pieces in the forms of the day.

    Believe it or not, the upper class young ladies of Jane Austen's time would have been expected to have skill at realisation of continuo (comping) and improvisation. A sign of good breeding, apparently! It's sad that classical musicians have lost this, but there are signs it maybe it may return.

    For instance a friend and colleague teaches classical musicians improvisation at a conservatoire. The students hate it (because they suck at it) but everything starts somewhere.

    And yet, I take umbrage at the idea that all classical musicians do is 'mindlessly perform' music. That's ignorant. You or I might not choose to express ourselves that way, but you don't have to be an improvisor to climb up the mountain, so to speak.

    Now, listen to some fucking Rostropovich and tell me it's 'mindless.'

    Last edited by christianm77; 07-01-2017 at 06:53 PM.

  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    I think that you misinterpreted what I meant to say by a fairly significant extent, but it's all good.

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
    I think that you misinterpreted what I meant to say by a fairly significant extent, but it's all good.
    Where's the fun of the internet if you can't stereotype the other guy's argument? ;-)

  20. #69

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Where's the fun of the internet if you can't stereotype the other guy's argument? ;-)
    Yep, easy to do. It's more difficult to communicate with someone in a forum with only written words as compared to speaking directly with them, etc. etc. Context can be unclear.

    My point about mindless playing was a response to your comment about separation from performance, and I was reminded of what I have observed in some students who play written music 95% of the time (not necessarily classical) and dread their theory studies, if they bother with them at all. To them the topics are separate or at least they attempt to keep them that way. And my point is that despite their aversions to theory, it is not really escapable in their performances.

    I wasn't speaking about professionals, or even serious music students.

    Moving on.

    I observed in my theory studies (both traditional/classical and jazz/contemporary) that the approach was very similar. That is, when it came to the application of theory is was 99.99% composition based as opposed to performance based (i.e. we didn't bring our instruments to class). I think that the approach assumes students will be performing in virtually every other music class. I do not recall humanities or other topics brought into the text or lectures to any material degree, but those topics certainly were/are covered in the music literature and history courses.

    Just my two cents.
    Last edited by Jazzstdnt; 07-02-2017 at 11:18 AM.

  21. #70

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevebol
    This seems to apply to only classical music majors at Harvard. They're consolidating two theory courses into one and two history courses into one. They're reasoning is that so many people are already prepared through pre-education.
    It frees up time for majors to take something else.
    There may be a trickle down effect to other music institutions and programs because, Harvard, but people will still go to college to learn to make tenny-bopper music.



    I'm not hating. it's a fun song but it's still bubble-gum music.
    Wait! You mean you don't think this rates as an all time Composition in Music History comparable to ....
    ....................

    ...........'..Macarena ' ?

    Both fun songs though..

    OR could the 'Problem' be that Walter Piston Professor Emeritus at Harvard really skimmed over the Chapter on Modulation in his Theory Book ? - ha .




    Forget about Scales and Improv...without some Theory would you even be aware of all the different Chord Structures and Harmonic 'Colors' extensions etc.?
    Last edited by Robertkoa; 07-02-2017 at 10:31 PM.

  22. #71

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    There's a feedback loop between theory and listening. But to me theory means nothing without sound which is why I find dry discussion a bit frustrating sometimes.

    I'm not sure how much value there is in academic music theory. I see it more as an area unto itself rather than anything connected to musical performance.

    But that's a different thing to someone mastering the art of writing species counterpoint, say. I suppose the Western tradition isn't really an Aural tradition and that might set it apart from most other world musics?

    Not that there aren't music theoretical treatises in Sanskrit and Arabic, of course.
    Theory has been useful for me in learning the instrument -- sitting down and practicing this mode or scale against these chord changes, that does help train my mind's ear to recognize the possibilities in a piece of music and allow it to easily access notes. When I improvise over some changes, of course I listen first. My brain will identify one or several scales or modes that will work conventionally, others that will work but ask more of the listener, and still others that might make the same listener wonder what sort of drugs I was on when I thought of that line. But my mind sorts those, and at some points I'll think, "I want to hear a minor third against this chord and a major sixth against this one". And then I will flip through scales on the fretboard to grab those intervals, because intellectually I know which scales or modes will deliver the goods. It's all part of a process that for me has me working to grab the melody I have in mind, and it happens quite a bit faster than this long, drawn-out explication.

    That's probably the only time I use theory on the fly.

    Most of the time I use theory, it's when I'm talking with another musician, who's also got some formal training, when we don't have an instrument to hand. Or when I'm discussing ideas about a song with a bandmate.

    I agree with you that dry discussion is, well, dry. I much prefer the communication that happens between two competent musicians on their instruments and nary a word passing between them. That is about ears. And theory informs it. You're sure right that the two are interactive.

    When it comes to songwriting, I generally avoid theory consciously, but think I practice it subconsciously. I avoid the cliche progressions as much as I can and work to simply tune in to my mind's ear and what it's hearing. Only after I'm done will I go back and say, "Okay, that's A Dorian, a nice F# every so often won't hurt" -- or decide that the best approach is simply to play through the chords, or use an approach based on arpeggios when considering soloing.

    Sorry if my reply seems so murky -- and it does to me -- but it's because I don't go full stop with one approach or another, but flip back and forth between the two as the moment demands.
    Last edited by Thumpalumpacus; 07-03-2017 at 02:29 AM.