My thoughts on jazz theory

[Christian Miller]

Also, regarding academic papers about Jazz - not all of these will be to do with jazz theory. They might be historical or transcription and analysis. In which case they might hold some value, don't you think?

I think the former is great. The latter tends to have more value for the author than the reader.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James W]

I think the former is great. The latter - do you need someone to chew your food for you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well since you previously casually dismissed academic jazz papers I'll take this. One out of two isn't bad.

[Christian Miller]

Well since you previously casually dismissed academic jazz papers I'll take this. One out of two isn't bad.

You are a rather literal minded person



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aiq]

As a non-expert I’m generally a “both/and” as opposed to “either/or”.

[dconeill]

Keep it Latin or Greek. Pick one and stick to it. ...

This isn't just a problem in music. In my engineering days, two of the biggest problems I encountered was people using different names for the same thing, or even worse, using the same names for different things. That led to no end of difficulties.

[Christian Miller]

Well since you previously casually dismissed academic jazz papers I'll take this. One out of two isn't bad.

- Honestly, if you aim is to get a PhD in Jazz studies, you should read every paper you can find.
- If your aim is to be a jazz musician, there are far better things you can be doing with your time.

Sometimes musicians need to do a PhD, it is true. But usually that comes further down the line, and usually for employment purposes within ... boom ching.. the academy. To go up the academic career ladder.

It was very stark when I did my MA in Music Education - first year was about teaching teaching. Next two years were about teaching academic research - because after a certain point of higher education, everything becomes about teaching academic research. Which in this world is to say it's 95% about reading. Which is time I'll never get back. Still, good to have it on the CV.

I quite like ethnography as a form. Social context is so much more important.

[kris]

what do you mean?

I mean, there will always be a theory... I meant a general statement.
I don't know in which direction all this is going and what will happen to jazz theory, for example, in 2040.

[kris]

I was in Crete, Greece a few weeks ago, the language has changed dramatically, it's now written in cyrillic. But, the names Angelos and Yanni are very common. Great country to visit.

I will going to Greece in August...:-)

[James W]

- Honestly, if you aim is to get a PhD in Jazz studies, you should read every paper you can find.
- If your aim is to be a jazz musician, there are far better things you can be doing with your time.

Sometimes musicians need to do a PhD, it is true. But usually that comes further down the line, and usually for employment purposes within ... boom ching.. the academy. To go up the academic career ladder.

It was very stark when I did my MA in Music Education - first year was about teaching teaching. Next two years were about teaching academic research - because after a certain point of higher education, everything becomes about teaching academic research. Which in this world is to say it's 95% about reading. Which is time I'll never get back. Still, good to have it on the CV.

I quite like ethnography as a form. Social context is so much more important.

I don't intend to do a PhD or even a master's right now. Seems a bit of an overboard reaction - all I did was mention Lewis Porter as an example of some good jazz scholarship and I get accusations of wanting to do a PhD thrown at me!

As for someone chewing my food for me - I dunno, it can be illuminating hearing how someone else hears something.

[kris]

i guess, i'd rather listen to coltrane than read a technical explanation of what he was doing. I want the soul, not the math. Jazz theory is pretty simple but you have guys trying to describe it with 12 pointed stars and sonic shapes.

I like this guy's way of explaining concepts. I think the demos "fix" the problem with the white paper's soullessness

I love Coltrane-I listen to his recordings every day / I have most of his albums/.

[kris]

Do technical exercises grow out of theory?
Theoretically, every wise exercise opens up some horizons for the future...
Coltrane also invented his progression (see Giant Steps).
He was a giant of work – he exercised a lot.

[Christian Miller]

I don't intend to do a PhD or even a master's right now. Seems a bit of an overboard reaction - all I did was mention Lewis Porter as an example of some good jazz scholarship and I get accusations of wanting to do a PhD thrown at me!
.

I didn't see your post about Lewis Porter. I have no idea whether you want to do a PhD or not.

I think it is important to focus on what you want to develop.

[James W]

This isn't just a problem in music. In my engineering days, two of the biggest problems I encountered was people using different names for the same thing, or even worse, using the same names for different things. That led to no end of difficulties.

I think it's a trait of the English language which has taken a lot from lots of different languages.

[Christian Miller]

i guess, i'd rather listen to coltrane than read a technical explanation of what he was doing. I want the soul, not the math. Jazz theory is pretty simple but you have guys trying to describe it with 12 pointed stars and sonic shapes.

I like this guy's way of explaining concepts. I think the demos "fix" the problem with the white paper's soullessness

You know, I'm a fan of YouTube for this purpose (unsurprisingly). It's what I try to do in my videos.

OTOH, I'm not sure watching YouTube videos is the best use of the jazz learner's time either. It's important for viewers to realise people like me and that guy are basically enthusing about and sharing things we've worked on with the world. But it's far too passive a thing for people to learn music from. But it is a rich form of organic scholarship.

As Tigran Hamasyan said in his interview with Rick Beato the other day, there's a sea of information. The challenge is to concentrate on one thing. I struggle with it. Which is one reason I don't watch jazz stuff on YouTube much - I get distracted very easily.

[Christian Miller]

I mean, there will always be a theory... I meant a general statement.
I don't know in which direction all this is going and what will happen to jazz theory, for example, in 2040.

Everyone will be railing against Barry Harris being the received wisdom.

[charlieparker]

Theory for me is nothing more than, 'Hey, I learned this lick that was over a ii-V and I am hearing that same cadence here so I will try and play some variant of that here.'

Maybe it's paint by numbers but it's what I'm trying to do at the moment.

[kris]

Everyone will be railing against Barry Harris being the received wisdom.

Or instead of jazz there will be other music similar to jazz....:-)
Artificial intelligence will solve all the problems of theoreticians.

[kris]

Theory for me is nothing more than, 'Hey, I learned this lick that was over a ii-V and I am hearing that same cadence here so I will try and play some variant of that here.'

Maybe it's paint by numbers but it's what I'm trying to do at the moment.

Ok.These are, as I understand it, only the beginnings of knowledge about 2 5 1.

[James W]

It is tautological within CST. A fully extended dominant chord (13) is in the theory the same thing as a mixolydian mode.

(ignoring pitch ordering, which CST tends to.)

Which is why we should call it a dominant scale.

The same for major and minor. Not Ionian or Aeolian. Then you can match the scale to the diatonic scale degrees on which they appear.

Of course then it wouldn’t sound nearly so fancy.

I mean it isn’t a huge deal, but it does illustrate how much of music “theory” is simply labelling things.

It’s similar with terms like harmonic and melodic minor, augmented sixths and so on. These were all invented in the 19th century. Someone looks at a jazz transcription and says ‘oh look it’s the Mixolydian b9 b13’ and they get 5 points.

I meant to say, the Greek terms aren't going away. IDK what the problem with that is? There is a nice consistency to retaining all of the Greek terms, rather than Major - Dorian - Phrygian - Lydian - Dominant - Minor - Locrian.

Genuinely don't know what the issue with these terms is. They don't sound fancy to me. But I guess this is a recurring topic on the forum...

[Christian Miller]

I meant to say, the Greek terms aren't going away. IDK what the problem with that is? There is a nice consistency to retaining all of the Greek terms, rather than Major - Dorian - Phrygian - Lydian - Dominant - Minor - Locrian.

Genuinely don't know what the issue with these terms is. They don't sound fancy to me. But I guess this is a recurring topic on the forum...

People think that that is music theory.

It’s not. It’s nomenclature.

So you if you say…
- The Mixolydian goes on the Dominant chord
You are saying
- The dominant scale goes on the dominant chord

And if you say
- the Lydian Dominant scale goes on the 7#11
- The dominant#11 scale goes on the dominant #11 chord

It isn’t conveying any information at all. Especially since the chord scale system numbers scale degrees as if they are part of an extended chord anyway. And yet this is something people teach for some reason. We do it because we do it.

Obviously you need to know what notes are in the chord/scales and - critically - be able to hear them. That’s the real meat of it. And really, that’s an ears thing at the end of the day. Sing the melody to A Train etc.

I think it annoys me not because there’s any real harm in it, but because it seems that a lot of the terminology we use today is meant to sound more involved than it is. I think this was done on purpose to make jazz come across as some principally intellectual pursuit. This is a bug to me, but a feature for others. Such as people seeking respect within the academy.

One result that certain people seem to not only be surprised that people learn jazz without “theory” - or should I say knowing the names - but flat out call you a liar for saying it. Otoh people seek to make the music by plugging in theory and wonder why it doesn’t work.

When I do a video about how Chet Baker ignores half the changes and plays Cmaj7 on an Ebo7 and it sounds great - and you can sing it, no problem - a bunch of nerds in the comments are quick with a convoluted theoretical justification, somehow utterly missing the point.

It drives me a bit mental, but it’s not the worst thing in the world lol. But it is a bit of a preconception to overcome when learning and teaching the music. I struggle with getting away from this mind set.

But no one is going to change that now. What it may do is offer an insight into what we are actually teaching, and what a musician might learn by ear.

Anyway rant over. It’s the same one I’ve been doing for a while lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[James W]

Well, there is an intellectual dimension to some jazz and some jazz musicians.

I totally get the context in which you're saying what you're saying, Christian but I think it may be the case that jazz hasn't been sufficiently respected in the past maybe for a perceived lack of intellectual dimension behind it, sometimes with undertones of racism.

I personally have nothing against intellectuality in music and certainly don't think such music therefore lacks feel or soul because of it.

But yeah much of what's called theory is just nomenclature.

Edit - you may have changed your post to say 'principally' an intellectual pursuit. Which I can more or less agree with, so discount much of this post...

[Groyniad]

I think JZ's original point is hugely important

it is very tempting to think that you're meant to produce the music by applying the rules

but this puts the cart before the horse (and seriously messes you up if you're trying to learn how to actually do it)

theory is an attempt to describe the essential features of actual music (which may not have ANY essential features)

and the description is - very very clearly - non-musical. it is verbal. when you try to say e.g. why bird song (or engine noise) is not music you will be speaking or writing not playing music....

you may be motivated to try to describe what all actual examples of music must have in common - what makes them music rather than mere sound or noise - by purely intellectual considerations (the question - what is the difference between musical sounds and mere sounds? - may strike you as a fascinating question); or you may be motivated by musical considerations.

in my case - for example - one of the ways i've tried to learn how to play music has involved trying to learn how to say what different songs have in common

i've tried to use my verbal and intellectual capacities to develop my musical capacities

i'm pretty sure this has been a good method for me to use

but of course - if i had not been affected in a non-verbal (and perhaps non-intellectual) way by the music itself - i would have had no (musical) reason to try to do this.

btw - when we ask how musical theory relates to musical practice we are doing philosophy (and to do that well requires a great deal of effort and time)

[djg]

People think that that is music theory.

It’s not. It’s nomenclature.

yes. imo the theory of music deals with the physics as they apply to our tonal system. theory can answer the interesting question: why does anything in music move in the first place. the other stuff seems like descriptions of common practice within genres and idioms to me.

[Christian Miller]

Well, there is an intellectual dimension to some jazz and some jazz musicians.

I'm not talking about being an intellectual. For example, Barry Harris could solve the NY Time crossword in 20 minutes, advised Charles MacPherson to read philosophy etc. Many jazz musicians were self consciously intellectual.

What I mean is jazz is perceived by many as being basically the same thing as music theory. And that the way one improvises in jazz is through the application of an intellectual set of rules etc. Very prevalent - and who can blame people for thinking that?

I totally get the context in which you're saying what you're saying, Christian but I think it may be the case that jazz hasn't been sufficiently respected in the past maybe for a perceived lack of intellectual dimension behind it, sometimes with undertones of racism.

That is certainly the case.

I think even without the dimension of racism, jazz has spent quite a lot of its life being characterised by the hang ups of classical musicians. Still true today. You don't want to get me started about Music Education academics on the subject.

I personally have nothing against intellectuality in music and certainly don't think such music therefore lacks feel or soul because of it.

But yeah much of what's called theory is just nomenclature.

Well 'Trane was a massive theory nerd and one of the musicians that has truly moved me. No-one in jazz expressed deeper than him.

There's nothing wrong with theory per se. There's even nothing fundamentally wrong with fancy names if they make you happy. These are all nice add ons. And jazzers - that is people who are already feeling and hearing musicians on a high level - have a way of taking theoretical concepts and turning them into resources for music making. No-one more so than Trane.

But I do feel the emphasis on "theory" when learning jazz is a problem - too often it is treated as the prerequisite for improvisation and a sort of panacea for issues that have nothing to do with it. Furthermore, it attracts some people but alienates others who I feel would have something to offer to the music.

[Christian Miller]

yes. imo the theory of music deals with the physics as they apply to our tonal system. theory can answer the interesting question: why does anything in music move in the first place. the other stuff seems like descriptions of common practice within genres and idioms to me.

Yes, that is certainly what it purports to do.