The division between classical and jazz theory...

[JonR]

Yeah, that is probably a better analogy. While some linguists will argue that there are some universals (like Chomsky's attempt at Universal Grammar) there is far more that is culturally dependent. Some languages are closely related and others have nothing to do with each other and must be understood on their own terms. In this analogy, classical and jazz would be like British and American English, just dialects of each other.

Peace,
Kevin

I detect an African accent in jazz too...
But mainly American, of course.

[ksjazzguitar]

Trouble maker.

Peace,
Kevin

[Ron Stern]

What features of jazz are supposed to be unaccountable for by "western musical theory"?

[nic]

Allow me to quote Volume One of "Jazz Theory Resources" by Bert Lignon. Second paragraph of the introduction.

"It is my contention that jazz music theory should not be separated from traditional tonal music theory. C major is C major. Music of many different styles still share fundamental building blocks. Jazz shares tonal principles, harmonic frameworks, forms, and melodic construction with tonal music from the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic periods and with ancient folk and contemporary popular music."
-Bert Lignon-


I think we are done with this thread.

[JonR]

Trouble maker.

Peace,
Kevin

Trouble maker? Moi?

[JonR]

What features of jazz are supposed to be unaccountable for by "western musical theory"?

If I can repeat something kevin mentioned earlier in the thread: blues.
Blues follows its own idiosyncratic rules which are not well covered by "western musical theory", namely in pitch alteration and flexibility.
Jazz is - of course - deeply infused with the blues.

Many aspects of blues can of course be described using conventional terminology. But - in contrast with the function of theory in western music - it tends to make the music look a lot more complicated than it is, not simpler. When theory makes music seem more complicated, something is going wrong somewhere...

[Baltar Hornbeek]

Many aspects of blues can of course be described using conventional terminology. But - in contrast with the function of theory in western music - it tends to make the music look a lot more complicated than it is, not simpler. When theory makes music seem more complicated, something is going wrong somewhere...

That's it! a lot of forum debate (here and on others) has just been resolved with those words. Here's a big AMEN! on that.

[ksjazzguitar]

If I can repeat something kevin mentioned earlier in the thread: blues.
Blues follows its own idiosyncratic rules which are not well covered by "western musical theory", namely in pitch alteration and flexibility.
Jazz is - of course - deeply infused with the blues....

Yes, the "blue note" is certainly it's own animal. The dominant tonality is no big deal - the mixolydian mode and modal modulation had been explored, in the Baroque and Impressionist eras, even by some Romantic composers. But the "blue" note, the idea of a strong dissonance that is treated as a consonance, that is a new idea. (One teacher described the blues as "playing a minor scale over a major chord.)

But you don't throw out the whole theory because of one new idea. Classical is constantly adding new ideas and it simply adds the new idea. There were many new ideas that were permitted in the Classical that were not heard of in the Baroque. And new things that popped up in Romantic that were unheard of in the Classical. And the Impressionists did things that were unthinkable in the Romantic. And don't even get me started on 20th century composition. Really, the addition of the "blue note" is a relatively minor addition (no pun intended.)

As I said in the beginning, the blue note is definitely something new that blues/jazz had to offer. But it is no problem, just another new concept to be added in a long list.

Peace,
Kevin

[Baltar Hornbeek]

but your sound is vapid and dry, its like some kind of theory ad nauseum. jazz factory of uglinesss

[JonnyPac]

Allow me to quote Volume One of "Jazz Theory Resources" by Bert Lignon. Second paragraph of the introduction.

"It is my contention that jazz music theory should not be separated from traditional tonal music theory. C major is C major. Music of many different styles still share fundamental building blocks. Jazz shares tonal principles, harmonic frameworks, forms, and melodic construction with tonal music from the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic periods and with ancient folk and contemporary popular music."
-Bert Lignon-


I think we are done with this thread.

WORD.

It takes Burt some 900 pages to cover the basics of jazz theory from there though. I love those books; he really pulls it all together well. Blue notes and all.

[Aristotle]

Allow me to quote Volume One of "Jazz Theory Resources" by Bert Lignon. Second paragraph of the introduction.

"It is my contention that jazz music theory should not be separated from traditional tonal music theory. C major is C major. Music of many different styles still share fundamental building blocks. Jazz shares tonal principles, harmonic frameworks, forms, and melodic construction with tonal music from the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic periods and with ancient folk and contemporary popular music."
-Bert Lignon-
I think we are done with this thread.

Or demonstrated why thread title was a foolish idea in the first place, by quoting a small snippet of common sense.

[ksjazzguitar]

It's ironic Aristotle, because you have been such a vocal opponent of classical theory application - you fought hard against the application of N6 or bII and you had a hissy fit because I tried to apply classical analysis techniques to a jazz tune (railing it because it failed to answer the "What scale do I use?" questions.) In another thread you are trying to cloud the definition of mel min with your cartoonish definition.

And, the fact that he feels to need to say it indicates that there is a camp that feels the opposite. The fact that he feels the need to state "[his] contention that jazz music theory should not be separated from traditional tonal music theory" means that there are some that say the opposite. If everyone agreed, there would be no need to state it. It would be like saying "It is my contention that the study of the colors blue and purple should not be separated from traditional color studies." That would be a ridiculous statement because no one contests it. That fact that his is stating this as a "contention" also implies that there is something against which to contend.

And if it is so obvious that jazz theory has so much to do with classical theory, why are there so many self-proclaimed jazz theory experts that seem to be willfully ignorant of anything to do with classical theory or history?

So far from proving that this is "common sense," clearly Ligon agrees with me that there is and anti-theory camp (or at least anti-jazz-theory-is-a-branch-or-classical-theory camp) and agrees that it needs to be addressed. It amazes me that people can read a simply worded statement like that and come to the exact opposite conclusion of the author's intent.

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

It's ironic Aristotle, because you have been such a vocal opponent of classical theory application

As I posted so many times, I am not an "opponent" of anything. That's how you operate, evidenced by the "versus" in the stupid title of the thread. Pitting one thing against another, so Kevin, so trite.

you fought hard against the application of N6

Fought? Maybe you are in a fight, evidenced by the "versus" in your thread title.

What I said, is I count 4 characteristics of an N6. You example had only 1. Thus, you were 25% correct and 75% wrong - which is about a C+ in "scholar" land.

If that is what you call an "application of classical theory" to a jazz song, I'd have to ask, where other the other two Stooges, Curly?

Peace

[Ron Stern]

Blues follows its own idiosyncratic rules which are not well covered by "western musical theory", namely in pitch alteration and flexibility.

Flexibility in what sense?

Many aspects of blues can of course be described using conventional terminology. But - in contrast with the function of theory in western music - it tends to make the music look a lot more complicated than it is, not simpler.

I'll have to take your word on that. Could it just be that the stuff you're talking about was poorly thought out and/or poorly written?

[ksjazzguitar]

As I posted so many times, I am not an "opponent" of anything.

Well for not being an "opponent" to anything, you sure argue a lot.

What I said, is I count 4 characteristics of an N6. You example had only 1. Thus, you were 25% correct and 75% wrong - which is about a C+ in "scholar" land.

I reread your GFI posts and can't find your "4 characteristics." The only thing I can find is your complaint that it doesn't resolve - which is of course ignorant of back-relation and that pivot chords don't need to resolve, especially when involved in a sequence. (But hey, why let a lack of understanding get into the way of a perfectly good opinion.)

But your objection wasn't just against that particular N6 or bII chord, but to the use of the term in jazz, and objected to it's analysis not answering your "What scale do I use?"

But maybe your "4 characteristics" are just as fictitious as your English word "obscura" which you claimed to have found in "several English dictionaries." So we know it wouldn't be the first time you made something up.

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

I reread your GFI posts and can't find your "4 characteristics."

You are the only one on this forum that would search for the exact words, instead of the ideas.

Let's see if you can up with three missing characteristics. There's real "theory" challenge. Only those on the topmost "scholarly" level would dare take it on. A hush falls over the crowd. I'll pretend I am listening to the Jeopardy theme.

[Aristotle]

Flexibility in what sense?

Bent notes?

[ksjazzguitar]

You are the only one on this forum that would search for the exact words, instead of the ideas.

Let's see if you can up with three missing characteristics.

Once again you avoid the question.

It is not my job to list and number your imaginary "rules."

The only "requirement" is that it is a major triad built on the bII - the M7 can just be explained as a pedal, but is common . Things like inversion, resolution, etc. are just common characteristics but are note requirements. Everything else is just your anti-theory guerrilla propaganda.

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

It is not my job to list and number your imaginary "rules."

Not my rules. The rules. Rules, recognized everywhere by all legimate scholarly sources. You are just an anti theory gorilla.

[Ron Stern]

Bent notes?

What's the difference between that and pitch alteration?

[ksjazzguitar]

Not my rules. The rules. Rules, recognized everywhere by all legimate scholarly sources. You are just an anti theory gorilla.

And yet I can't find them listed anywhere in any of my theory texts, nor in Grove's online, nor in Oxford online. And yet again you avoid mentioning them. You like to do this, claim some imaginary source and then refuse to tell what it is or what it says. (This is the "obscura" debate all over again - you claim a definition that you refuse to give and claim several sources but when cornered you quickly change the subject.) In contrast, I always try to share my sources, both in name and content.

Are you capable of answering a direct question? What are your 4 characteristics and what is the source?

Peace,
Kevin

[Flyin' Brian]

Why the hell don't you guys take your juvenile, grammar school playground fighting to PMs and have at each other and spare the rest of us who have passed into adulthood?

This is really gotten absurd. I can't believe that two adults can look at themselves behaving the way you are and not be embarrassed.

I'm right
No I'm right you said it WRONG
NO YOU said it WRONG and you're stupid
NO I'm not stupid, YOU'RE stupid.
Oh yeah well fuck you
Oh no...fuck YOU

It might be entertaining in a car wreck sort of way if it weren't so pathetic.

Edit: Oh I forgot.......Peace, Brian

[fumblefingers]

What's the difference between that and pitch alteration?

you tell us.

you seem to be implying "nothing".

please fully define pitch alteration, and we shall see.

[fumblefingers]

Well for not being an "opponent" to anything, you sure argue a lot.



I reread your GFI posts and can't find your "4 characteristics." The only thing I can find is your complaint that it doesn't resolve - which is of course ignorant of back-relation and that pivot chords don't need to resolve, especially when involved in a sequence. (But hey, why let a lack of understanding get into the way of a perfectly good opinion.)

But your objection wasn't just against that particular N6 or bII chord, but to the use of the term in jazz, and objected to it's analysis not answering your "What scale do I use?"

But maybe your "4 characteristics" are just as fictitious as your English word "obscura" which you claimed to have found in "several English dictionaries." So we know it wouldn't be the first time you made something up.

Peace,
Kevin

you sure argue a lot.

no i don't!

yes, you do!

no i damn well don't!!!

[fumblefingers]

WORD.

It takes Burt some 900 pages to cover the basics of jazz theory from there though. I love those books; he really pulls it all together well. Blue notes and all.

uh. right. they "should not be seperated", but that doesn't mean that they are "the same". hence the 900 pages. hence Mark Levine's book, or any other jazz theory or harmony book.

Theory is not just about the treble clef and c major and so on. most theory books conclude with that stuff by chapter 5 if not sooner, and then get into idiomatic practices and keep going.

so, either the idiomatic practices aren't "music theory", but are really "compositional practices of western composers in the time period n through n", or they are theory, and are lumped into "classical theory". if the latter is true then any other description of musical practices (and in particular one centered on jazz practices) is a "different musical theory".

can't have it both ways, seems to me.