-
As a long time Science Fiction nerd, I rather enjoy the fact that jazz is full of what I can only call egregious jargon of an order that would make even the king of delivering tracts of literally unspeakable nonsense himself, LeVar Burton, say on an encounter with the Lydian Chromatic Concept: 'you can type that shit, George, but you can't say it!'
(Sure these texts all might all make sense in context, but where's the fun in that?)
I invite you to post your favourite impenetrable jazz/music theory jargon below for my amusement.
Here's my opener, from Ernst Levy via Steve Coleman
“the progressing psychologization of music had reached a culmination point in the period after the first world war, when the existence of consonance and dissonance was largely disregarded or even denied, and when solely the ontic-gignetic concept pair was relied upon for producing the desired effects of binding and unbinding.”
I'm sure we can do better than that, but we gotta start somewhere.
(Mental note: must try and introduce the terms ontic and gignetic into casual conversation at the next opportunity.)Last edited by christianm77; 07-29-2017 at 04:57 AM.
-
07-29-2017 04:53 AM
-
that's not the stuff - that's philosophical stuff - the problems with that sort of stuff are different than the problems with just describing musical structures effectively and efficiently. this sounds okay to us - but to 'outsiders' it sounds insane (the stuff you posted sounds awful to us too!)
the stuff is e.g. - 'the back door progression is a seventh chord on the flat seven going home to one. you can get this sound by playing iv maj - iv minor - i'
this kind of stuff is everywhere - i speak it as if it were just ordinary english (at least when i bump into other humans) - but it does you no good at parties
it can all come to seem like awful jargon (bad jargon = pointless jargon) because there's a basic split between be-bop types and modal types - so it can easily sound to one jazz musician as if another is just blowing smoke
when they aren't
-
Ernst Levy your talking about a person who taught music at MIT so that scholarly jibber-jabber is to be expected. Now if you have heard Coleman speak he doesn't talk anything like that and he is probably one of the most knowledgeable musicians I've ever heard speak going from someone bangs two rocks together to create a chant to the most modern progressive musicians like Threadgill and Muhal Richard Abrams.
After spending years attending traditional college, private music schools, and working in a private music school I'd say the the Jazz Technobabble usually comes from the traditional college Jazz professors. The only ones that don't tend to talk that way are the ones that are still gigging in clubs and touring in summers. Real Jazz is street music and still is so you'll hear more people talkin' like Miles than like Ernet Levy. Then you have ones like Monk who on the rare occasion would answer a question his rely was to play something on the piano and walk away.
-
[QUOTE=christianm77;791597]
(Mental note: must try and introduce the terms ontic and gignetic into casual conversation at the next opportunity.)[/QUOTE
I had to open my Oxford Dictionaries tab for that one. "Ontic" is there, but "gignetic" is conspicuous by its absence. Presumably ontic's opposite or complement?
I must say, you have picked a sterling exemplar of the nub of your gist.
-
Don't try to pull that shit on Pat Martino, he'll daze and confuse you for weeks.
-
Originally Posted by docbop
-
hmms - I may have this wrong but it seems that Christian's post actually is the ontological ( ontic) proof of gignetics ( assuming gignetics exists- I think this is a chicken/egg thang ). As his post shows up as one of the first on Google to verify both terms.
WillLast edited by WillMbCdn5; 07-29-2017 at 11:14 PM.
-
[QUOTE=citizenk74;791696]
Originally Posted by christianm77
May the ontic be with you as you interpret that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Right on-tic!
David
-
[QUOTE=blille;791803]
Originally Posted by citizenk74
-
I intend to use the study of gignetics to attract more gigs
-
'Static' and 'dynamic'? 'Categorically so' and 'becoming so'?
Last edited by destinytot; 07-30-2017 at 09:14 AM.
-
Originally Posted by citizenk74
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
And I'm posting it as an example of 'impenetrable jargon' because I think it's the very simplicity of the vocabulary that makes this quiet (and, admittedly, clever) 'correction' so effective at clouding its intentions.
I'm not saying there's no truth behind the invented acronym; I'm saying I think the reasons for actually publishing it are misguided.Last edited by destinytot; 07-30-2017 at 02:33 PM.
-
[QUOTE=citizenk74;791818]
Originally Posted by blilleOriginally Posted by Thumpalumpacus
David
-
[QUOTE=TruthHertz;791863]
Originally Posted by citizenk74
-
Originally Posted by destinytot
-
-
Originally Posted by morroben
They forgot "you dig?".
-
Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus
Last edited by citizenk74; 07-30-2017 at 03:29 PM. Reason: More mischief
-
Originally Posted by TruthHertz
Last edited by Thumpalumpacus; 07-30-2017 at 05:49 PM.
-
Originally Posted by citizenk74
Last edited by Thumpalumpacus; 08-01-2017 at 05:00 PM.
-
Originally Posted by citizenk74
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
This thread has got Foucault to do with jazz guitar.
-
Originally Posted by grahambop
Peter Sprague & Leonard Patton "Can't Find My Way...
Today, 07:47 PM in The Songs