The division between classical and jazz theory...

[ksjazzguitar]

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?

Childish? Perhaps. But I reserve the right to combat misinformation. Especially in my own thread.

And the whole point of this thread was to argue with the anti-theory guerrillas in one place instead of spread all over the forum.

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

But I reserve the right to combat misinformation.

Ah, the right to combat. They just keep slipping out, don't they? Fight, opponent, combat" Music as war. From that famous scholarly reference - Von Clausewitz Does Music.

Congratualtions! You are the Westboro Baptists of the Jazz Guitar Forum. And the Supreme Court just ruled 8-1 to affirm you right to be a jackwagon.

[Aristotle]

What's the difference between that and pitch alteration?

I don't know. I didn't say it. I am just guessing. The statement, as written, was not clear to me.

[Aristotle]

you sure argue a lot.
no i don't!
yes, you do!
no i damn well don't!!!

If it's not one Monty Python, it's another. I love when someone catches him in a mistake and he does the Black Knight thing. He can't help it - you know - musical; "opponents" and "combat" and "fight."

[oneworld]

If it's not one Monty Python, it's another. I love when someone catches him in a mistake and he does the Black Knight thing. He can't help it - you know - musical; "opponents" and "combat" and "fight."

i've been reading through older threads and i'm realizing now that he has a long history of being in combat...

[oneworld]

Peace,
Kevin

Children, the thread is yours.

[Aristotle]

Anyone have any ideas about other types of music

Blue theory versus grass theory
Country theory versus western threory
Rock theory versus roll theory
Be theory versus bop theory
Rag theory versus time theory
Lenon Theory vs McCartney Theory
Lerner vs Lowe
Pacquiao vs Mayweather
Ginger vs Mary Ann
?

And just remember, I am ready to go to "war" against any "opponent" and "fight" any-and-all you's gorillas or guerillas, you pseudo-scholars. C'mon, C'mon, I'll fight you with one note tied behind my back! Step up and toe the line.

[Ron Stern]

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".

Are these the two possibilities

1. Not theory, but practices
2. Theory, therefore classical, but . . . .

any other description isn't classical theory and therefore is a different theory?

I don't follow. Some guy could say, "I hate that jazz where they go weedly weedly weedly." Is that a different musical theory, because it's not classical music theory?

[ksjazzguitar]

...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". ...

Well, that is a more accurate way to say it, "compositional practices of western composers in the time period m through n." All art theory has to be understood for the specific time periods. Certain principles span all time periods, some span several, some only exist in a limited historical context. In the same way that there is a lot of overlap between the Classical and Romantic eras but there were some concepts that were specific to either, the same can be said of jazz theory and CPP theory. All art theory is a complex Venn diagram of different ideas that fade in and out over time and place. We like to try and simplify it into categories and periods to make it more manageable - that is fine as long as we remember the subjectivity of it.

My larger point was just that we don't need to start theory from scratch just because some new ideas are introduced. I would say that composers like Stravinsky made an even more radical change from CPP theory than jazz ever could. But we don't reinvent theory from scratch for Stravinsky, we just add some "rules" that only apply to that sub-genre of music. And jazz is much closer to CPP theory than that so it requires even less accommodation.

I think that it is just the anti-intellectual vibe and ignorance, perhaps mixed with a slight (but entirely undeserved) inferiority complex that causes some jazz musicians to act like jazz theory and history has nothing to with that of classical. What I've seen on this forum has only strengthened that opinion.

[KS said] But I reserve the right to combat misinformation.

Ah, the right to combat. They just keep slipping out, don't they? Fight, opponent, combat" Music as war. From that famous scholarly reference - Von Clausewitz Does Music.

Once again you're putting words into my mouth. I said nothing about combat in music, just against your misinformation. But hey, why get your facts straight if they get in the way of a childish slam? Really, the only point you can make is by putting words in my mouth and misinterpreting a metaphor?

The point of your misquote? It's misdirection trying to divert attention from your in ability to substantiate your claims:

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

I guess the answer is "no." But that's what you've done in many discussions. You make claims and then when asked for an explanation or a source, you quickly change the subject.

[KS said] Children, the thread is yours.

Yes, I'll admit I'm a human being. But after a break, the thread was brought back to life and it seemed to be getting productive again, until the anti-theory guerrillas showed up. I suggested starting a new thread with a more narrow focus, but it didn't take.

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

You have discovered one of Kevin's main talents, Ron, his facility for putting people's backs up even when they are on his side.

I think he even disagrees with himself.

Here's what I mean.

Once again you're putting words into my mouth.

By quoting you.

See, he even disagrees with himself.

[Aristotle]

Yes, I'll admit I'm a human being.

Admit? I'd be asking for proof. Anyone have NASA's number?

But after a break, the thread was brought back to life and it seemed to be getting productive again, until the anti-theory guerrillas showed up. I suggested starting a new thread with a more narrow focus, but it didn't take.

After I took you off ignore, I found you in another thread complaining I wasn't here.

Hi boo-boo, I'm home just in time to brush you up on Theory 101.

[Ron Stern]

you tell us.

you seem to be implying "nothing".

please fully define pitch alteration, and we shall see.

I'm not implying anything. I just asked what it was about jazz that ordinary music theory can't handle. The things mentioned were not mentioned by me, they were suggested answers to my question. Questions as to the answers should be directed to the answerers, not the questioner.

If pitch alteration means a note between two traditional notes, that's easy. Just put in a capital B for bend. Bend to what? Up to the player.
Next issue.

I seem to recall hearing that in the Baroque Era in the middle part of the concerto they would put in a note to the harpsichord guy to just play what he thought was good. Whatever. It's not a matter of precedent, it's a matter of logic.

[ksjazzguitar]

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

I guess the answer is "no." But that's what you've done in many discussions. You make claims and then when asked for an explanation or a source, you quickly change the subject.

So, the answer is still, "no"?

You chime in to take some cheap shots (half of which I don't even understand) and manage to once again avoid backing up your claim.

But that is your lietmotif. Here is Aristotle's rhetorical method:

1. Make an unfounded claim, preferably one that contradicts an accepted fact in music history of theory in an attempt to make it look silly.
2. Ignore all contradictory evidence, regardless of it's source. Attack the credibility of any source other than Aristotle.
3. Provide no actual source of your own, or claim an imaginary source that you refuse to quote and name. When asked to name it, just tell the asker to find it himself and insult him for not knowing the imaginary source.
4. When finally relentlessly confronted to provide a source, quickly change the subject.
5. If that doesn't work, ignore substance completely and just use personal attacks.

You have this going on here, in the mel min thread, and it's what you did with your "obscura" fantasy. I'm sure you've done it in other threads, but I find it hard to keep all the anti-theory guerrillas from blurring into each other.

.

So, I'll try once again: What are your 4 characteristics [of a Neapolitan chord] and what is the source?

Should I hold my breath?

Peace,
Kevin

[Tom Karol]

Mary Ann, definitely!

[MarkRhodes]

I was partial to Mary Ann too.

[Aristotle]

But that is your lietmotif. Here is Aristotle's rhetorical method:

I doubt anyone here is interested in jazz want the details of your light weight "theory" of me. I know I am not. But then I suppose any war is a good.

Peace, er, he meant War

[Aristotle]

I was partial to Mary Ann too.

Yeah, low maintenance.

[Aristotle]

So, I'll try once again: What are your 4 characteristics [of a Neapolitan chord] and what is the source?

Should I hold my breath?

Taking the questions in order:
1 and 2) if you don't know, you are too ignorant of basic music theory for me to both educating you, and
3) Yes.

BTW, I guarantee my source is better than yours.

[Aristotle]

Why the hell don't you guys take your juvenile, grammar school playground fighting to PMs

what makes you think I'd open his PM?

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.

I'm not trying to one-up him. I am using the same technique Gerry Spence wrote about for cross-examing expert witnesses. You poke them with a stick, like you would an animal in a cage, and then you sit back and watch them screech.

It is only a coincidence that the best stick to poke him with is to feed him a ration of his own sh...you know what.

[ksjazzguitar]

Here is Aristotle's rhetorical method:

1. Make an unfounded claim, preferably one that contradicts an accepted fact in music history of theory in an attempt to make it look silly.
2. Ignore all contradictory evidence, regardless of it's source. Attack the credibility of any source other than Aristotle.
3. Provide no actual source of your own, or claim an imaginary source that you refuse to quote and name. When asked to name it, just tell the asker to find it himself and insult him for not knowing the imaginary source.
4. When finally relentlessly confronted to provide a source, quickly change the subject.
5. If that doesn't work, ignore substance completely and just use personal attacks.

....

So, I'll try once again: What are your 4 characteristics [of a Neapolitan chord] and what is the source?

Should I hold my breath?...

So, let's see how we did this time:

Taking the questions in order:
1 and 2) if you don't know, you are too ignorant of basic music theory for me to both educating you, and

Ah, yes, your rhetorical device #3, don't give your imaginary source and insult the asker for not reading your mind. Man, you are getting so predictable.

BTW, I guarantee my source is better than yours.

A reiteration of #3. Only cowards quote imaginary sources and then refuse to name them. Why don't I make up an imaginary source? I have an imaginary book made of gold and unicorn hair that says that you're wrong. Hmmm, that gets us nowhere, does it?

...I'm not trying to one-up him. I am using the same technique Gerry Spence wrote about for cross-examing expert witnesses. You poke them with a stick, like you would an animal in a cage, and then you sit back and watch them screech.

First of all the goal of a lawyer is not to get at the truth, but to win the argument, even if it leads to a false conclusion. You've revealed your real intent. And how do you think Mr. Spence would be greeted if he walked into the court room and said, "I have an unimpeachable source that says that my client is innocent. It is far superior to anything the State has. Only I am allowed to know what the source is. I will not give you a direct quote or tell you who or what it is. If you question my source then it just means that you are stupid." How do you think that that would go over in court? That is essentially what you do in these threads.

That is the difference between you and me - I'm trying to get at the truth. I provide my sources and my logic. You just make things up and refuse to say where it's all coming from and quickly change the subject as quickly as you can.

It is only a coincidence that the best stick to poke him with is to feed him a ration of his own sh...you know what.

Isn't that just admitting to being a troll?

You seem to get some impish glee from riling me up - but you can't make me angry. You lack the arguing skills to raise my ire. All you do is make up imaginary sources and make unfounded claims about things that you obviously don't understand. Why would that threaten me?

Look, when you want to have an adult conversation let me know. But to have a real discussion, you're going to have to provide evidence to support your claims. But all you seem to do is try to run in circles trying to find some desperate sliver of a way to avoid admitting that you're making it up.

But until you start even pretending to back up your ridiculous assertions, I don't see the point in continuing. You still have several questions that you've avoided answering and are just playing games now. I answer any question put to me and cite sources and examples when I can. You just run around making ridiculous claims and then change the subject when challenged. But that's the MO of the anti-theory guerrilla.

Peace,
Kevin

[paynow]

Mary Ann, definitely!

I was partial to Mary Ann too.

Yeah, low maintenance.

You cats are all over looking the obvious:

MRS. HOWELL.

It's always the sophisticated rich ones that are the most wild. In addition her husband was always too busy to notice her; he was either supervising Gilligan building him a golf course, or listening to the radio to get the stock report or having the professor search for rare truffles for the evening meal. That gives you an in; she needs love, man!

Mrs. Howell! Think about it. She'd be the best for a poor jazzman. You'd be "kept", as they say. (She reminds of the people who are your audience at country club gigs. )

[Aristotle]

A reiteration of #3. Only cowards quote imaginary sources and then refuse to name them.

Oh no, don't tell me. I am in violation of you Code of War?

First of all the goal of a lawyer is not to get at the truth,

It is for my clients. Often, the truth is goal for the lawyer who wears the robe. Obviously, you know nothing of legal proceedings. You are just an anti-legal-theory guerilla and are anti legal-scholar. You are so dumb, you probably don't even know who won the famous case of Jazz theory vs classical theory.

BTW, jazz theory vs classical theory? Who told you there was such a thing as jazz theory? One of your "sources?" One of your "scholars?" Who are these cowards? LOL!

Peace

[ksjazzguitar]

It is for my clients. Often, the truth is goal for the lawyer who wears the robe. Obviously, you know nothing of legal proceedings.

I don't know how it works in your country (I'm assuming that your not American since our lawyers don't wear "robes") but in our country, it is the job of the attorney to represent the interests of the client, even if they are contrary to the truth. A defense attorney is supposed to try to get his client off, even if he knows that he's guilty. The job of a lawyer representing the defendant in a civil suit is to win the case, even if they know that their client is guilty. This is common knowledge in the States - it's how it's done. Defense attorneys usually know that their clients are guilty. Most attorneys defending large corporations that pump out chemicals that give people cancer know that their client did it. Their job is not to get to the truth, but to try to win the case. Obviously their not supposed to lie to do it, but they can bend and distort the truth. The job of the lawyer is to win the argument. If the argument is consistent with the truth, then they try to reveal the truth. If their argument is contrary to truth then they have an obligation to try to obscure the truth. The goal is to win the argument.

That appears to be what your trying to do, but you've abandoned the argument. You are no longer making coherent points. You've abandoned any pretext of discussing the subject, don't even pretend to answer the questions, and are just throwing up bizarre statements that you think will somehow impugn my argument. It's like someone running away and wildy throwing things behind them to try and hit the pursuer. But I'm not pursuing you, just the truth.

You seem to be caught up in what you perceive to be lawyeristic trickery. It's ironic that you bring up Gerry Spence. The quote that I most remember from him is, "The first trick of the winning argument is the trick of abandoning trickery." The problem is that you aren't even pretending to address the argument anymore and are just trying trickery for the sake of trickery (and failing at that.) You've abandoned the argument (wisely) and are just being a troll (childishly.) Amazingly, you seem to think this is the path to some victory. But you can't win the debate because you abandoned that a dozen posts ago, so all you can really win is the contest to see how annoying you can be. (Again, isn't that the definition of a troll?)

BTW, jazz theory vs classical theory? Who told you there was such a thing as jazz theory? One of your "sources?" One of your "scholars?" Who are these cowards? LOL!

What? Just questioning the meaning of everything someone says is not an argument, it's just a stalling tactic. And it's just once again an attempt to change the subject. (#4 of your rhetorical tricks.)

If you question the existence of "jazz theory" then why read and post in a "Theory" folder on a jazz forum? I don't believe in astrology which is why I stay off of their forum. I suppose I could go there and just be a troll, challenging everything that everyone says, trying to disrupt their conversations - but how childish would that make me?

Let me know if you have something of substance to discuss. Life is too short to just be the foil for your trollage. So far I can't think of one ridiculous claim that you've even pretended to back up with anything more than "because I say so." The amazing thing is that you think this is clever.

Let me know if you want to discuss the musical issues, but if all you have is impotent attempts at rhetorical trickery, I see no need to continue. Let me know when you have an actual point to make besides incoherent, OT sniping.

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

You seem to be caught up in what you perceive to be lawyeristic trickery.

It was just an apt description. It was only a coincidence that the source was a lawyer.

Amazingly, you seem to think this is the path to some victory

Victory? Combat, opponent, fight? Jazz vs classic? Win the argument? Hey Von Clausewitz. This has been a Rhorshach test. I am just posting inkblots. Now you can switch from raving ignorantly about lawyers to raving ignorantly about shrinks.

If you question the existence of "jazz theory"

I just asked which of your scholarly sources says there is such a thing? Probably don't have one.

[Tom Karol]

Enough already! And ...

Mrs. Howell! Yeah - that's what I call, "... thinking outside of the box!"