-
Where did I say formal music theory didn't exist in the 20th century?
Originally Posted by Marinero
Why do you expect me to do this? Are you incapable of reading up on the matter yourself? Are you asking me this because you think music theory hasn't changed during the last several hundred years? Well it has, it has changed as music has changed, from the modal theory of medieval and renaissance music from figured bass of the baroque through functional harmony, Schenker and 'composing out' a triad, Riemann for more chromatic triadic tonal music through to the set theory used to analyse and think about atonal music. Schoenberg as far as I am aware didn't know set theory, though, when he wrote 'Erwartung' but intuited the lot, described it as a written out improvisation that he wrote feverishly over a few weeks IIRC.And, tell me how music theory/pedagogy has changed in the last several hundred years.
No, what gave you the impression I thought these things?Do you think Jazz appeared from divine intervention or a shamanic chant? And, how do you know what those Jazzers thought??? Clairvoyant??? Do you think they played scales, chords, and inversions out of reverberations from a low-hanging cloud???
The point that was made was that the kind of theory Bird and others used and how they thought about the music was different from that which many people, perforce retrospectively, used to analyse it and think about it.
To summarise - musicians obviously use theory and learn from it. But theory, as detailed above, changes and is always something that FOLLOWS new music. The theory that Bird learnt did not teach him to be an original genius. He assimilated the theory that existed up to the point in history where he was and went BEYOND.
-
10-06-2022 08:35 PM
-
Now how hard was that to express one's opinion while reconciling other valid perspectives and not deliberately trying to spin the truth.
-
Frustrating thread, I don't think one side is understanding the other.
What do we know about Charlie Parker's theoretical framework? Not much. We knew he was a creative individual who had a ravenous appetite for music, devouring classical music and the music of his time like Lester young. But while he did memorize things like Lester young solos, he had an improviser/composer's heart to try to use the material to improvise. Most classical musicians cannot improvise despite playing lots of music and even studying watered-down theory like roman numeral analysis.
I read an anecdote where he told someone who asked him what he played over a tune and he replied: "Bb7". Was that the chord Bb7 with passing notes, appoggiaturas, and ornamental notes or a Barry Harris style omni-scale called Bb7 (a dominant scale). We just don't know.
Barry Harris came close to describing CP but i'm afraid used all the wrong terminology while understanding how it all worked implicitly. In a sense, he was a great and terrible teacher at the same time. It would have been better if he used classical music melodic terminology instead of street theory. He was absolutely right in trashing CST and modes though, which are dreadful in explaining how bebop works.
-----
Dear Jimmy Smith, CST did not exist during CP's lifetime, they are an invention for university students in the 2nd half of the 20th century for pedagogues to systematize and make money off college kids. CST may be good for post-modal fusion styles, which were largely the product of CST education to begin with but is rather hopeless in generating an authentic-sounding bebop musician.
Just because a certain theory can label things doesn't mean it's actually useful. Roman Numeral analysis can be used to label lots of things in 18th-century and 19th-century music but that doesn't mean you'll be able to compose like those musicians.
-----
Dear Marinero, most classical musicians cannot improvise or compose to save their lives, but have greatly developed instrumental ability. I know this from experience, they cannot even harmonize twinkle, twinkle little star and yet can play difficult repertoire like Chopin and Liszt (true story). There was also an extremely hostile culture to improvisation that has been documented in the 20th century that actively prevented musicians from taking cadenzas. Lately there has been a renaissance moving away from this that relates to figured bass and schema theory that Christian talked about.
-
Cst the pedagogy didn't exist in the golden age. The understanding to associate chords and scales and to outline the chords while creating your own melodies existed. What is so offensive to you about that truth? Originally Posted by humphreysguitar
I dunno, it seems pretty useful to be able to understand how the structure of music works, so you can go about making it yourself. This guys gets that point across in a mere 2 minute video. But stay mad at theory and refuse to accept that you can apply it beyond mix goes over a 7 chord.
-
I just would like to know how Charlie Parker and Bud Powell actually thought when soloing, that's it. We don't know. We'll never know. Some people get closer to the truth than others. I'm not offended, i'm very interested in what many pedagogues and teachers have said on the matter. This is theory as well. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
Analyze their music. Either they used theory to inform their choices or they didn't. Parker said in an interview that his schooling enabled him to play as well as he did. Therefore between his statement and the evidence of his approach in his music, he most likely used a pre-standardized form of cst. Pretty simple logic.
-
Yes, he used theory. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
Analyze their music. Either they used theory to inform their choices or they didn't. Parker said in an interview that his schooling enabled him to play as well as he did. Therefore between his statement and the evidence of his approach in his music, he most likely used a pre-standardized form of cst. Pretty simple logic.
No, it was not CST though. I totally disagree, there is a world of difference between CST (and the implication of modes like Ionian/Dorian etc.) and what Charlie Parker was using.
It was closer to Barry Harris (and David Baker as well), who are so totally different from CST. David Hazeltine is not CST. You're better off using Andreas Oberg or Gary Burton as an example for your case.
CST implies that a C major 7 chord would take a Ionian or lydian scale. Bebop is not like that, bebop is more based off the 3 and 4 notes of the chord itself and depends on passing notes, arpeggios, and more classical style diminution.
Look at the example you showed Bar 10 (I don't even know if the omni book has the correct notes and chords but let's take it on good faith), why does CP start on an F note on the 1st beat and a B NATURAL on the 2nd beat if it's a C7 chord??
-
I think the question in that Paul Desmond interview related more to technique with the klose books but even ceding your point, that is classical-style diminution, which has nothing to do with CST. Yes, it's theory, classical counterpoint, but it's not CST. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
Analyze their music. Either they used theory to inform their choices or they didn't. Parker said in an interview that his schooling enabled him to play as well as he did. Therefore between his statement and the evidence of his approach in his music, he most likely used a pre-standardized form of cst. Pretty simple logic.
-
No, there's no proof where Parker states his thought process of playing such and such over chords. It is evidenced in his transcripts and it's implied in the interview. So the evidence points toward him using pre-standardized chord scale conceptions. Yet you would rather take the opposite view..
-
I just shared an anecdote where he said Bb7, I don't remember the source. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
Please define what a pre-standardized chord scale conception is.
-
I'm saying I think Parker had knowledge of the information in cst and had his own advanced conceptions of it even though it wasn't standardized until after the golden age.
-
I don't even know what that means, you have to define it. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
I studied CST in college, you take a chord symbol and give it a scale like Dm7 in C takes D dorian and G7 takes G mixolydian. That's not really what CP does in his solos.. the solos are more chord-based (guide tone if you will) with passing notes and approach notes. He frequently uses arpeggios of chords that are not the same as underlying chord symbol that the rhythm section is using.
What would a "pre-standardized CST" mean?
-
By pre-standardized I mean I think he understood the information that is now in cst but utilized more advanced devices than simply assigning a scale per chord like you explained.
-
Well, okay then I just disagree with the type of theory being employed. I don't think all theory is the same, not by a mile. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
I think he improvised along with what I just described, which is nothing to do with CST (assigning modes and superimposing scales onto chord symbols), and worked more practically with the chords (and their arpeggios) themselves, using more elaborated extended chords in place of the normal chords. He connected them with every melodic device that can be perfectly explained with classical diminution theory. Certain progressions like rhythm changes allow for more diatonic playing in the A section but generally, I think this describes the melodic content of bebop well.
At least we can agree that he uses theory.
-
I agree with your assessment of the devices he used. The are bits of chord scales too though. I have no emotional involvement in the type of theory being used, just for the record.
-
Jimmy Smith’s tone is something I can do without. I’m not sure if I am honour bound to carry on being accused of lying or having some sort of agenda, let alone anything else. Maybe he just takes exception to me in which case the upshot is the same, and there’s not much point in continuing to engage.As for our difference of opinion, it ended up being a somewhat repetitive discussion anyway. Originally Posted by Marinero
Last edited by Christian Miller; 10-07-2022 at 02:40 AM.
-
This is an excerpt from Louis Moreau Gottschalk's Le Bananier. Charlie Parker, who was an enormous fan of classical music, would have known stuff like this all day long (he knew for instance Debussy's arabesque). He would have practiced etudes that looked like this. Stuff like this draw directly from figured bass, counterpoint, and diminution. CST is really quite radical in its approach while bebop in my opinion is much more "classical".
-
What is the preoccupation with cst?
-
Its the dominant method of explaining jazz theory in music education. It's part of the present discussion, and I'm bringing counter examples to show how much closer CP is to classical pedagogy in terms of melodic than CST. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
if you could show sections of a sample Charlie Parker solo which in your mind show definitive CST, or pre-CST thinking I'm happy to take a look.
I had some issues I already mentioned with the Omni book excerpt you showed in a previous post being incongruous with CST thinking.
-
I already said I have no investment in a semantic argument and that my assessment of the theoretical devices that Parker used is the same as yours. Are you ok?
-
You mentioned you noticed evidence of chord scales or chord scale thinking in CP's playing, I'm just asking for examples to continue this scholarly discussion but it appears that you are not interested so I'll desist. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
I don't give an f about the semantics of schools of theory. I'm just interested in the truth about the music. I'm very happy that someone else on the forum can accurately describe the theoretical devices that Parker used. I 100% agree that his language is very chordal with arps, enclosures, and chromatic approaches to chord tones. He does use some scalar stuff at times too. (No I am not trying to argue pro cst. Dear lord stop with the red herring.) There is scalar stuff in the page I scanned. In the previous page that I'm not going to scan, in one bar over a D7 on the bridge of scrapple he literally runs down the bebop scale from d to f#.
I also think you are on the right track with the possible sources of his knowledge.Last edited by Jimmy Smith; 10-07-2022 at 03:25 AM.
-
1) Your position of ignorance. Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
2) Parker never actually entered academia.
3) Parker's playing may be analysable using CST, but this is not proof that Parker 'used' CST. As Christian and others have pointed out, it didn't exist at that point.
4) The fact that you think Christian is trying to spin things 'by definition' is just crazy and daft, to put it incredibly mildly. By definition of what? You're not making any sense. Very trollish.
5) Putting aside Christian's qualifications, he's just pointed out facts and been very patient about it. You're right, he's not 'in authority' - no one is saying he isn't a 'regular member' it's just some 'regular members' are more knowledgeable than others.
Honestly mate, it is tedious debating or trying to debate with you because of your obtuseness, self-contradictory and self-congratulatory utterances and poor use of language.
-
2) Listen to the interview where Bird himself refers to his studies as schooling. I know he wasn't in academia.
3)Read my last post. Bird probably had knowledge of what scales to use over what chords and other devices to use. No shit he couldn't use a school of theory that didn't exist yet.
4)He keeps trying to argue that the musicians in the period in question didn't use theory or trying to minimize it for some reason. This makes no sense. Listen to him try to minimize theory's impact on Bach when Bach was literally a theory machine.
5) I'm not as ridiculous as you guys. Look how easy it was to reconcile with someone, humphreysguitar, who is posting accurate information and being reasonable. I think you need to calm down.
-
Really? What theories did Bach produce? Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
Reply With Quote
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale