The division between classical and jazz theory...

[czardas]

Well it's a bit over the top claiming that I can't build a triad, when I've been busy with composition for over 20 years.

[Baltar Hornbeek]

the above is a prime example of what is called pathological behaviour....
he's the father of us all...we're stupid and his children... this is scary...

I think the responsible thing to do when dealing with mental illness on the internet, is simply, *do not engage*. Unless, either you have a particularly big heart, or, you're an evil SOB

[oneworld]

But it just turned into troll-apalooza and flamenco spam and arguing with people who don't know how to build basic chords and want to define everything in Dutch/German.

...another groundhog day...

[lkmuller]

I think the responsible thing to do when dealing with mental illness on the internet, is simply, *do not engage*. Unless, either you have a particularly big heart, or, you're an evil SOB

I like that. Do not engage. Ignore is a great feature, for both the ignorer and the ignoree, lol.

[nic]

If you guys don't mind I'm going to ignore the last eight pages and jump in with an observation that relates to the original post.

I see the theory of western music akin to the laws of physics. Theory exists uniformly for all types of music. It doesn't matter if you know music theory or not, if you use a "system" or not, or if you can read music or use tabs. Jazz, classical, country, rock, etc., are all based on the same principles.

[Ron Stern]

I don't get it. How can there be more than one "theory of music"? It would seem one or both would have to be wrong.

Is there "the theory of invertebrate biology" vs. "the theory of vertebrate biology"? No. Different subject area focus is all. The fact that one doesn't "explain" the other is like, obtuse. We only divided them in the first place for administrative convenience.

What is this thing called jazz theory? There's more than 8 notes in an octave? What, exactly, is the difference?

[nic]

I don't get it. How can there be more than one "theory of music"? It would seem one or both would have to be wrong.

Is there "the theory of invertebrate biology" vs. "the theory of vertebrate biology"? No. Different subject area focus is all. The fact that one doesn't "explain" the other is like, obtuse. We only divided them in the first place for administrative convenience.

What is this thing called jazz theory? There's more than 8 notes in an octave? What, exactly, is the difference?

I think we are the only sane ones here. See my post above yours. Music theory just explains what exists. You don't have to know anything about it to make good music.

[Ron Stern]

Music theory just explains what exists. You don't have to know anything about it to make good music.

Same for drawing and painting. Some people have a natural talent which allows them to produce work of great vitality which almost creates its own genre but tends to be confined thereto. The rest of us study primary and secondary colors, tonal values, perspective, art history, etc. Eventually the study finds a way to incorporate the innovator. That has no bearing on the usefulness or validity of the study. You might say that *is* the study. That way you don't spend half your life to learn something you could have learned in five minutes. It's kind of why writing was invented.

[ksjazzguitar]

...I see the theory of western music akin to the laws of physics. Theory exists uniformly for all types of music. ...

I don't get it. How can there be more than one "theory of music"? It would seem one or both would have to be wrong.
...

No, because music is not some immutable law. It is not like a "theory of gravity" where it is based on the observation of an objective phenomenon. This is a mistake that a lot of people who are not exposed to other musics make. They assume that music is some phenomenon of the universe - no it is a product of our mind and to a great extent our cultural upbringing. Gravity is the same everywhere in the universe (at least the phenomenon and effect is) but music is strikingly different from culture to culture.

But music is based on several assumptions. What is consonance? What is temperament? What is rhythm? How do notes combine together to form larger structures? Are there chords? Are there chord progressions? What is a scale? The different musics of the world have different answers to these (and many other) questions. Consequently, you can not have one theory that covers them all. Even within our own culture, there were radical changes in the concept of music from the 16th cent to the 18th cent and they therefore require different theories.

The equation of "scientific theory" and "music theory" is flawed.

Music theory doesn't simply explain what exists - it explains what a culture considers to sound good, and attempts to explain why. Since different cultures have come to different ideas of what sounds good, they will by necessity have different theories. The same theory we apply to Western music will not apply to Japanese gagaku, or Balinese gamelan, or Hindustani raga, or African drum tradition, or Navajo songs, or any of the other musics of the world. Western theory does not fit to these theories. This is something that musicologists have realized for a century and a half, but we still have people trying to argue against it. I think at heart is a Amer/Euro-centric view that our music is more advanced - but anyone who has studied these musics knows that they are just as advanced, just in different ways. We cannot apply our theory to theirs anymore than they could understand Bach or Bird by applying raga theory.

And unlike in science, where theory (ideally) is purely descriptive, in music, theory is also generative. The theory that you choose will help to change the music. Again, in the 16th cent, they explained chords as being built off of the bass note and by the 18th cent that had switched to thinking of chords as being built off the root and that had a radical effect on music. Additionally, in Western music theory we often assume that there is a tonic-dominant relationship, but there is music that abandons that assumption in favor of something else - Impressionism for example. Music that comes from that theory is different.

Even people who claim to know no theory have been programmed by a lifetime of listening. And most of them have some understanding of theory, even if it is their own. But that personal theory was not created out of nothing, but was based on years of playing a specific kind of theory.

With that said, the point of the thread was to counter the notion that jazz and classical have two incompatible theories. My point was that jazz theory is almost completely derived from the Western tradition (in terms of harmony and form) and therefore is essentially just a branch of that. There is often an implied and sometimes explicit assumption that jazz has nothing to do with classical and I was often getting bombarded with it by anti-theory guerrillas in other threads, often hijacking the threads, so I thought it would be good discuss it somewhere else. But unfortunately it turned into troll-ville.

Peace,
Kevin

[Ron Stern]

No, because music is not some immutable law. It is not like a "theory of gravity" where it is based on the observation of an objective phenomenon.

Science itself has shown itself to be subjective. See e.g. Heisenberg and Einstein. Relativity means uncertainty and that means subjectivity. That doesn't mean science is invalid or useless. It just means certain claims of objectivity are not warranted. Who discovered that? Science.

it is a product of our mind and to a great extent our cultural upbringing. Gravity is the same everywhere in the universe (at least the phenomenon and effect is) but music is strikingly different from culture to culture.

Like science.

The different musics of the world have different answers to these (and many other) questions. Consequently, you can not have one theory that covers them all.

Why not? Just write more books.

Western theory does not fit to these theories.

Yet. The validity is in the process, not the product.

And unlike in science, where theory (ideally) is purely descriptive, in music, theory is also generative.

Pure or applied, it's all science.

The theory that you choose will help to change the music.

Like science. But enough of this already. All knowledge used to be called philosophy, and not just for want of additional labels. Building a bridge, tuning the lyre, or speculating on the origin of life were considered branches of the same endeavor, because they are.

Even people who claim to know no theory have been programmed by a lifetime of listening. And most of them have some understanding of theory, even if it is their own. But that personal theory was not created out of nothing, but was based on years of playing a specific kind of theory.

Yeah. And before playing they were hearing, from the womb, and some say, from inside the womb. This jazz about being original is just the ego claiming supremacy.

With that said, the point of the thread was to counter the notion that jazz and classical have two incompatible theories.

Get that guy down here and I'll make the sweat pop out on his forehead.

My point was that jazz theory is almost completely derived from the Western tradition (in terms of harmony and form) and therefore is essentially just a branch of that.

Yep. The (one) theory can be modified to include things from outer space if necessary.

There is often an implied and sometimes explicit assumption that jazz has nothing to do with classical . . .

Assumption is right. It's objectively false.

[ksjazzguitar]

Wow, so much writing to say so little. This is why intelligent discussions like this are not possible on the internet. I knew I was going to regret coming back into this thread.

Peace,
Kevin

[Baltar Hornbeek]

Oneworld was right this forum seriously lacks moderation.

[ksjazzguitar]

Don't go callling oneworld a troll. I was stupid to offer you the opportunity to make peace, especially after oneworld got involved. As soon as the heat is off, you just pick another target. =>


Oneworld was right, you are pathetic, and this forum seriously lacks moderation.

Sorry, I stopped paying attention to him once he went racial. I wasn't even aware that he was still involved in the discussion.

Peace,
Kevin

[oneworld]

I wasn't even aware that he was still involved in the discussion.

Peace,
Kevin

i'm not...

[oneworld]

[Ron Stern]

Wow, so much writing to say so little. This is why intelligent discussions like this are not possible on the internet. I knew I was going to regret coming back into this thread.

Peace,
Kevin

Now I am confused. I thought we were in agreement - ?

[JohnRoss]

Now I am confused. I thought we were in agreement - ?

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. Reminds me of the Jack Nicholson character in that film with Helen Hunt. It's one of the most entertaining facets of this forum (when you're not on the receiving end), I'm thinking of basing a novel character on him.

[nic]

No, because music is not some immutable law. It is not like a "theory of gravity" where it is based on the observation of an objective phenomenon. This is a mistake that a lot of people who are not exposed to other musics make. They assume that music is some phenomenon of the universe - no it is a product of our mind and to a great extent our cultural upbringing. Gravity is the same everywhere in the universe (at least the phenomenon and effect is) but music is strikingly different from culture to culture.

You must not have noted my specific reference to "Western" music which is all based on the same 12 notes. Unless perhaps there are some magic jazz notes I'm unaware of. I'm not referring to other cultures that use completely different scales.

ksjazzguitar, you seem to be confusing music theory with music styles. If a musician is asked to build a C7b5 it will be exactly the same notes whether they are a classical musician or a jazz musician. Further, the major scale is the basis of all western music theory. All scales and modes are derivatives of the major scale. All chords are described by the scale degree of the notes of the major scale. This is the same for jazz and classical, and blues, rock, pop, etc..

The art of music, the part that comes from our minds, is a completely different thing. It has been established that a musician can play phenomenally creative music but know nothing about music theory. Yet what they are playing always fits within the theory of music. Like the laws of physics, when you are creating music you are not consciously aware of music theory, when you walk down the street you don't need to understand gravity to keep from floating away.

Music theory is just a set of simple rules. Music styles, (jazz, classical) are just different styles of music using the same rules.

Also, this isn't the kind of thing where you can break the rules. You can play things that are unexpected, or out of the norm for a particular style, but anything you do still falls within the realm of a consistent theory of music.

I suggest you work your way through a theory workbook by Barbara Wharram called "Elementary Rudiments of Music"

[ksjazzguitar]

I'm sorry, Ron, you and I have two different concepts. Sorry, a lot of what you said just came across as anti-intellectual nihilism. But I'll reconsider it.

Science itself has shown itself to be subjective. See e.g. Heisenberg and Einstein. Relativity means uncertainty and that means subjectivity. That doesn't mean science is invalid or useless. It just means certain claims of objectivity are not warranted. Who discovered that? Science.

I think that the subjectivity of quantum mechanics and relativity is ill applied to music. My point is that the basic effect of gravity is universal. The experience of music is not universal - different cultures have radically concepts of what sounds good. The subjectivity of Heisenberg may incredibly minutely affect the accuracy of the measurement of gravity, but the different concepts of music have humongous effects on the result.

[KS said:] it is a product of our mind and to a great extent our cultural upbringing. Gravity is the same everywhere in the universe (at least the phenomenon and effect is) but music is strikingly different from culture to culture.

Like science.

No, the theory of gravity may have been different in different places, but gravity itself is the same everywhere (ignoring minor differences in it's measurement) but music is radically different.

[KS said:] The different musics of the world have different answers to these (and many other) questions. Consequently, you can not have one theory that covers them all.

Why not? Just write more books.

We do. They have their own theories. A century and a half ago, they tried to explain everything from a Western perspective. Now, we realize that they are their own systems and deserve their own theory. To try and shoe horn them into Western theory or insist on explaining them on Western theories terms would be an insult to those cultures. Again, explaining Ravi Shankar with CPP theory would be just as much a waste of time as trying to explain Bach with Hindustani Raga theory.

You could try to group them all together under and umbrella of "Universal Music Theory" but that would be in name only. They would just be a grouping of incompatible and separate theories that are just artificially grouped together. In reality, they essentially are - in the West, we just group them as musicology and ethnomusicology.

[KS said:] And unlike in science, where theory (ideally) is purely descriptive, in music, theory is also generative.

Pure or applied, it's all science.

Music theory is not a pure science. The point is that science is empirical. Music theory is partially empirical but it is also generative. When Schoenberg created his a priori theories about "What is music?" it had a tremendous effect on what came out of the process. The assumptions that go into gamelan have a tremendous effect on the output. Can that be said of gravity? Does a new theory of gravity change how an apple falls? With the right theory of gravity could I fly?

[KS said:] The theory that you choose will help to change the music.

Like science.

No, the opposite is true. The scientific theory that you choose does not affect your results. Whether I use Newton's or Einstein's formulas to calculate the orbit of the moon, it will just effect the number I generate, it won't change the orbit of the moon.

All knowledge used to be called philosophy, and not just for want of additional labels. Building a bridge, tuning the lyre, or speculating on the origin of life were considered branches of the same endeavor, because they are.

This is the kind of sophomoric mental onanism that gets us nowhere. So, all knowledge is now inseparable? A couple of thousand years ago, all knowledge was grouped together because a man could study it all in a lifetime. Even then, they still divided disciplines. They didn't consider anatomy, theater, and physics to be the same subject. "Philosophy" was essentially just a blanket term for "knowledge." Nowadays, to just say, "It's all knowledge so it's all the same subject." - it's just ridiculous.

[KS said:] My point was that jazz theory is almost completely derived from the Western tradition (in terms of harmony and form) and therefore is essentially just a branch of that.

Yep. The (one) theory can be modified to include things from outer space if necessary.

But the point was that classical theory and jazz theory are so closely related that they don't need to be forced together. To try and squeeze together all the musics of the world would be an awkward fit.

It would be like I'm saying that the "theory" of American football and Canadian football are close enough that they could be considered branches of the same thing. You seem to be saying that all sports everywhere on the planet (and even outer space) are all the same thing so they can be lumped together.

Peace,
Kevin

[oneworld]

quoting from post above:

'this is the kind of sophomoric mental onanism that gets us nowhere'...

[Aristotle]

Science itself has shown itself to be subjective.

A thing cannot be subjective, but a person can be. I think you may be confusing uncertainty with subjectivity.

[Ron Stern]

Sorry, a lot of what you said just came across as anti-intellectual nihilism.

I must have expressed myself very badly because that was the opposite of my intent.

I don't know very much music theory and so I have to analogize to other areas. Like biology, let's say. For centuries, they had no idea of germs, but they learned a few things, they had biology. Then they found germs and kablam, much of the old biology had to go and a great big space had to be made for the new stuff, but that didn't mean that biology couldn't deal with it, it meant that then-existing biology couldn't deal with it.

So if some non-western culture has a different scale, or other grouping of notes, different harmony, no harmony, whatever, it seems all you have to do is determine the elements and their relationships, write a book, and get rich and famous. What's the big deal?

Meanwhile musicians are figuring out ways to incorporate the non-western stuff, so you just write down what they do. Make up new terms if you must. This is where the trouble starts, right?

[ksjazzguitar]

I must have expressed myself very badly because that was the opposite of my intent.

I apologize if I misunderstood.

...I don't know very much music theory and so I have to analogize to other areas. Like biology, let's say. For centuries, they had no idea of germs, but they learned a few things, they had biology.

Analogizing is fine, but at some point you have to ascertain if the analogy is valid. The comparing of music theory and scientific theory has one big flaw. Science is trying to describe the physical world. But music is not a physical phenomenon. Sound is, but the understanding of sound as an organized hierarchical structure is a purely mental phenomenon. The idea that music was a product of the universe died out hundreds of years ago and we now know it to be a mix of evolutionary biology and cultural conditioning. Gravity is the same for everyone, everywhere. But music has a different effect, from culture to culture, even from person to person.

So if some non-western culture has a different scale, or other grouping of notes, different harmony, no harmony, whatever, it seems all you have to do is determine the elements and their relationships, write a book, and get rich and famous. What's the big deal?

I'm not saying that the music of other cultures is not describable by a theory, just that it takes a different theory. My point is that these other musics must be understood on their own terms. The attempt to force these other musics into a Western theory is not only disrespectful to their traditions but also fails because the different musics are based on such different and incompatible culturally specific assumptions.

This has of course all been done, it's called ethnomusicology. It is a complex field requiring serious study. Many ethnomusicologist actually spend time living in the target culture and studying the music on it's own terms. There are places where comparisons to Western theory can be made, but they shouldn't be forced and they shouldn't taint our understanding of the exotic music on it's own terms.

Meanwhile musicians are figuring out ways to incorporate the non-western stuff, so you just write down what they do. Make up new terms if you must. This is where the trouble starts, right?

They've been doing that since the Renaissance. I'm not objecting to that. But incorporating the spices of other cultures into your music is different than trying to understand them on their own terms. When 16th cent composers started writing sarabandes (originally based on the Central American zarabanda dance), they weren't doing an in depth study of the zarabanda, how it worked and the social function it filled with the natives. No, they just used a little native flavor. Similarly, when some jazz musician uses some scale that he learned from a raga, he is not really understanding the theory of raga (which is quite complex) but is using a bit of spice.

There is nothing wrong with using some spice from other cultures, but we shouldn't confuse it with really understanding the music of those cultures, which is a discipline unto itself.

Peace,
Kevin

[JonR]

I'm going to jump in and agree with kevin.
Music "theory" is quite a different beast from scientific "theory". Music theory doesn't explain anything. It can't be proved or disproved. It names and describes certain cultural habits.
If you want an analogy it's more like the grammar of a language. Hence it is different in different musical cultures. Jazz and classical are really part of the same culture; hence they have the same theory, more or less, (They are different dialects of the same language, as it were.)

"Theory" is really the wrong word. (A scientific "theory" of music - something that seeks to explain how it works - would need to deal with acoustics, biology, psychology, cultural history,etc. "Music theory" is not interested in any of that.)

[ksjazzguitar]

...If you want an analogy it's [music theory] more like the grammar of a language. Hence it is different in different musical cultures. Jazz and classical are really part of the same culture; hence they have the same theory, more or less, (They are different dialects of the same language, as it were.) ...

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