The division between classical and jazz theory...

[ksjazzguitar]

Aristotle, let me know when you want to stop playing childish word games and want to discuss something of substance.

Peace,
Kevin

[JonR]

Flexibility in what sense?

The blue 3rd is a pitch somewhere in between a minor and major 3rd. Not any specific pitch - just a variable region. It can move between m3 and M3 according to the expression desired - but there does seem to be a gravitational centre just sharp of m3. (It doesn't correspond to any ratio I'm aware of, btw. The "centre" is sharp of 6:5 and flat of 5:4. But mainly it just moves around.)
Similar with the b5, which is a decoration of P4 or P5, but is not an exact b5 (or #4): it can be anywhere between P4 and P5.
This is all melodic stuff, of course, not harmonic.

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?

Could be. If you know of some conventional theory (classical or not) that deals with blue notes in a way that explains them satisfactorily, I'd like to see it.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist, only that I don't know it. I've read quite a lot of classical (and jazz) theory over the last 40 years or so, but I'm sure there's a lot I still don't know. (That's why I'm here.)

The above is a description of blue notes, as they appear in practice, using classical interval terminology. It's sufficient as such - IMO - but is hardly a "theory".

[Aristotle]

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

Ouch. I don't know how I am going to get that image out of my mind.

[Aristotle]

The blue 3rd is a pitch somewhere in between a minor and major 3rd. Not any specific pitch - just a variable region.

So blue notes was the right answer or guess, way back before KS began clogging the thread's artieries with his bobastical barrage of BS.

I would suggest the variable range of the pitch can be wider than just the half-step.

[Ron Stern]

. . . some conventional theory (classical or not) that deals with blue notes in a way that explains them satisfactorily . . . The above is a description of blue notes, as they appear in practice, using classical interval terminology. It's sufficient as such - IMO - but is hardly a "theory".

Kevin also draws a distinction between description and whatever-else-it-is-that-makes-a-theory which I continue to grapple with.

To explain something satisfactorily . . . satisfactory for what purpose?

A description is less than a theory . . . what does a theory do? I thought a theory posited several descriptions and then made a predicition. How are we going to predict what this guy is going to play tonight when he solos on Autumn Leaves? The immediate question is, why do I care? If I could predict it reliably, why would I even listen? So I think prediction is not the object. What then?

The only aesthetic theory I can think of is Edmund Burke's, who said the sublime always carries an element of terror, and that's why people like mountains. The predicition: if they don't feel terror, they won't perceive it as sublime, so you have to make mountains scary looking when you do a painting of mountains, if sublime is what you're aiming for. How valuable is this theory when painting? Very little, I would guess, but I've never tried it out.

[ksjazzguitar]

A description is less than a theory . . . what does a theory do? I thought a theory posited several descriptions and then made a predicition. ...

An interesting distinction. Your "make a prediction" idea is certainly an important part of a scientific theory. But then this is art theory, so theories are more descriptive than predictive or proscriptive.

I think that in the field of art theory, the purpose of a theory is look at what is judged to be aesthetically pleasing (to a certain culture in a place and time) and try to make some "rule" arrived at through induction that attempts to describe how it works. Of course, the "theory" may be entirely artificial, but is judged on it's ability to describe what sounds good. As to your need for predictive value, we could say that if the theory allows music that is aesthetically displeasing (to said culture) then our confidence is weakened. In that case, the theory needs to be made more specific - which is what theorists do.

Of course, since the mind is a black box and it is programmed by complex cultural interaction, any theory is going to be an abstraction of an invisible process - it can never be a concrete rule without subjectivity and even arbitrariness. Therefore, in many cases there may be more than one explanation for a musical "phenomenon" and this is completely acceptable.

But I think that they danger is thinking that the word "theory" means the same thing in science and art. In science, the theory is attempting to describe an an objective phenomenon of the physical world. In art, a theory is trying to describe the function of a completely artificial and essentially imaginary construct, and judging it on aesthetic values that are constantly in flux and are nearly completely subjective.

For a music theory to be useful, I don't think that it needs to explain how something works on a neuron level. I think that it just needs to select a certain phenomenon, label it, and attempt to create a theoretical model that can explain what is happening. Ideally, it should suggest other things that sound good and not suggest things that don't.

That's how I might sum up my thoughts on that anyway, unless someone has a better description.

Peace,
Kevin

[JonR]

An interesting distinction. Your "make a prediction" idea is certainly an important part of a scientific theory. But then this is art theory, so theories are more descriptive than predictive or proscriptive.

I think that in the field of art theory, the purpose of a theory is look at what is judged to be aesthetically pleasing (to a certain culture in a place and time) and try to make some "rule" arrived at through induction that attempts to describe how it works. Of course, the "theory" may be entirely artificial, but is judged on it's ability to describe what sounds good. As to your need for predictive value, we could say that if the theory allows music that is aesthetically displeasing (to said culture) then our confidence is weakened. In that case, the theory needs to be made more specific - which is what theorists do.

Of course, since the mind is a black box and it is programmed by complex cultural interaction, any theory is going to be an abstraction of an invisible process - it can never be a concrete rule without subjectivity and even arbitrariness. Therefore, in many cases there may be more than one explanation for a musical "phenomenon" and this is completely acceptable.

But I think that they danger is thinking that the word "theory" means the same thing in science and art. In science, the theory is attempting to describe an an objective phenomenon of the physical world. In art, a theory is trying to describe the function of a completely artificial and essentially imaginary construct, and judging it on aesthetic values that are constantly in flux and are nearly completely subjective.

For a music theory to be useful, I don't think that it needs to explain how something works on a neuron level. I think that it just needs to select a certain phenomenon, label it, and attempt to create a theoretical model that can explain what is happening. Ideally, it should suggest other things that sound good and not suggest things that don't.

That's how I might sum up my thoughts on that anyway, unless someone has a better description.

Peace,
Kevin

For what it's worth, that's exactly how I see music theory. As I said earlier, to me it's like a grammar. It's looking at how musicians do things - "common practices" - and identifying the rules they seem to be following (whether they know it or not). It doesn't explain anything, any more than English grammar explains what people are talking about, let alone how they think.
Of course, the more these rules are written down, the more they can assume a kind of spurious authority. They begin as descriptive, but can easily (in the wrong hands) become prescriptive.
I like the story of Beethoven and his tutor. Beethoven had put some parallel 5ths in one of his exercises, to his tutor's dismay:
"But Ludwig, parallel 5ths are not allowed!"
"Well, I allow them."

[ksjazzguitar]

...Of course, the more these rules are written down, the more they can assume a kind of spurious authority. They begin as descriptive, but can easily (in the wrong hands) become prescriptive. ...

Definitely. That is one of my big beefs. As much as I love theory ... well you said it well enough. I guess I could try to put it in street parlance: Theory is practice's bitch.

Peace,
Kevin

[rintincop]

Wikipedia:

"Blue notes are also prevalent in English folk music.^[5] Bent or "blue notes", called in Ireland "long notes", play a vital part in Irish music."

[christianm77]

Wow this is a seriously old thread - but an interesting one...

There are definitely blue notes in other styles - Flamenco is another example.

Personally, I think there is no such thing as jazz harmony. Harmony is harmony - understanding classical harmony will help you get inside standards and earlier jazz forms, and getting into Debussy, Hindemith, Bartok and Ravel will give you an insight into most modern jazz harmony. But they need to sell some something because they sure as hell can't teach cats to swing haha.

At least that's the perspective of most of the older generation players I've had contact with, I can see the point.

The big divergence with classical harmony is the blue note, as mentioned in the OP. But that is primarily a melodic embellishment that can be used to enrich diatonic harmony - V7#9, V7#5 and so on.

[Vladan]

Deleted,

because I only now see thread started in 2011.