-
Anyone who's read any of my posts knows where I come down on this, but I thought I'd open it up. We have these little mini-debates in other threads, but it might be nice to have it in it's own thread.
So, does there need to be a division between classical theory and jazz theory? There seems to be a common opinion that classical theory can't handle jazz, or is too inflexible. These people argue that to attempt to describe jazz with classical theory is a waste of time and that jazz needs it's own theory, to the extent that it needs theory at all.
I say the opposite. With the exception of the blue note, I cannot think of one theoretical element of jazz that does not have precedent in classical music. True, there are performance elements unique to jazz (swing, heterogeneous sound ideal, group dynamic, heavy improv) but those are not really concepts of theory but of performance. (I'm not saying that one is more important than the other.) I think that there is nothing theoretical in jazz that cannot be explained with traditional theory without slight adjustment (which traditional theory always does when it encounters new music.) True, theory can only be an incomplete explanation, but that is true of all theory.
I guess I see danger in trying to reinvent theory. Number one, it's a lot of unnecessary work to reinvent the wheel. Number two, it creates a lot of confusion as people start inventing new terms for old concepts. And number three, it creates a distance between us and our brothers in the classical world.
Why does this happen? Well, I'm a little biased, but I think that we can see the reasons for this. Firstly, America and especially jazz has a bit of an anti-intellectual vibe. Many of the founders of jazz often put on an air of not knowing what they were doing (even though we know that at least some of this was fake.) I think that the "I don't need no fancy book larnin'" vibe is fashionable. Secondly, many jazz musicians seem to have an inferiority complex with classical musicians. It's ironic, because most of the classical people I know hold good jazz players in high esteem. Thirdly, jazz (and especially jazz guitar) is becoming increasingly "amateur." In one sense this is good - a lot of grass roots interest - but it also means that there are more people involved who don't have a solid background in things like theory, especially if it can't be played on an L-5.
So, what is the case for the separation? Is there some concept in jazz theory that simply cannot be contained in traditional theory? Do we need to draw this line? Why do people feel this way?
OK, discuss.
Peace,
Kevin
-
02-02-2011 12:30 AM
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Earlier jazz musicians definitely had an anti-intellectual complex when it came to music. In Miles Davis' autobiography, he comments that during his tenure with Charlie Parker's band in the mid-to-late 40's, he noticed that many jazz musicians downplayed their understanding of music theory and also tended to avoid higher-level music theory. Miles stated that he disagreed with this approach, and that he studied as much theory as he could to help advance his playing and musical understanding. It seems to me that Miles' generation was the first generation of jazz musicians to really embrace theory and use it extensively in the development of new musical concepts.
I have to disagree with you about anti-intellectualism in the current jazz scene. I see the opposite: musicians are now expected to be well-versed in theory and knowledgeable about the technical aspects of music. In some musical styles (especially, for example, blues music), anti-intellectualism runs rampant, with people actually being PROUD of the fact that they can't read music and don't know what a scale is. I'm embarrassed to admit that I used to be one of these people. I was "converted" when I started taking formal jazz guitar lessons, and my teacher impressed me immensely by being able to play elaborate chord-melodies by sight reading lead sheets from the Real Book - something that I could only have dreamed about doing at the time anyways, not to mention doing so without actually knowing the tune in advance. Anyways, my point is that, while I agree that there tends to be anti-intellectualism among musicians, I see the opposite among jazz musicians. Perhaps your experience is different than mine? Please clarify if this is the case.
I'm also going to ask you to clarify your point about jazz becoming more "amateur". There are for sure a lot more amateur musicians interested in playing jazz, but I don't see them getting the good gigs. Maybe I've misinterpreted what you meant?
-
A couple of points... West Coast aka Cool Jazz is known for it's cerebral approach. The musicians usually could read well and had formal eduction in music. It is also noted that they were primarily "white", not that should matter. Cool Jazz was a big movement; not to be overlooked. konitz, Tristano, Chet, Jim Hall, and more...
Classical theory obviously can explain most jazz; anyone with any sense of reason should figure that out pretty quick. "Jazz theory" is "Improvisation Theory" or as you might put it a "Performance Theory". This deserves the distinction. It is theoretical shorthands that work in real-time with an ensemble. You cannot sit out and compose the perfect jazz solo over the course of 6 months... it would be pathetic, actually...
"The basic difference between classical music and improvised music is that in classical music you can take three months, to compose, for example, one minute of music, while in improvised music, one minute of time is one minute of music." ~Bill Evans
-
Originally Posted by max_power
Originally Posted by max_power
I think that there are some amateur players getting gigs. Sometimes they get gigs simply because they make enough in their day jobs that they don't worry about the bread. I've had students who get more gigs than me sometimes just because they're willing to go in an pay for tips. After gas and tolls, they sometimes loose money. (But that's a rant for another time.)
I just mean that the jazz guitar community is largely driven by amateurs. Just try and find a book that doesn't have tab in it. Even in the classical guitar community, it's getting increasingly difficult to find books without tab.
Originally Posted by Jeremy Hillary Boob Ph.D
Originally Posted by Jeremy Hillary Boob Ph.D
I think that it is the same theory, but we put emphasis in different areas depending on if it is planned or extemporaneous. That's how I see it for now, maybe someone can convince me otherwise.
Peace,
Kevin
-
How about Bill Evans? He had theory based guidelines on performance in his trio. Classical theory explains his music perhaps, but it does not create it.
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Originally Posted by Jeremy Hillary Boob Ph.D
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
There's maybe the odd maverick (probably from a rock background) with a false sense of pride in ignorance, as if theory would stifle their creativity (man) . They'd have to be technically excellent, with a great ear, not to fall embarrassingly at the first fence in any amateur jam session.
Having said that, there is one name in particular worth mentioning. 13 years ago I was at a jazz summer school in Wales and a teenage pianist (he looked about 16 but would have been 19) was introduced to our student group. He politely turned down the offer of the notation for the piece we were playing. And proceeded to make a pretty good stab at comping from a chord chart, and took good solos. (Not astonishingly good, not "wow", but certainly competent.) He also proved to be a good singer, and led his own trio at the jam sessions in the evening. What he lacked in reading ability (and presumably in classical theory knowledge) he made up for in ear and confidence.
His name was Jamie Cullum. (I hope I don't need to remind you all of the $1m deal he got from CBS a few years later.)
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
And it's amateurs that keep a genre alive. I regard myself as a jazz amateur. I'm a professional musician, in that I make my living almost solely from music. I've played jazz on and off for over 40 years, and occasionally earned money doing it (only ever at small gigs). But I'm still an amateur, and have no illusions about becoming anything else. (The word "amateur" comes from the word for "love" of course.)
If amateurs get gigs, good luck to them. If they can't play, they won't get asked back. They may keep the odd gig in a bar where no one really listens (which a pro would turn down), but they're not going to get gigs at prestigious jazz venues. (Tho again, if they do, and carry it off, well done!) In live performance, the audience is the ultimate judge, whether we like it or not - and that's the way it should be, if jazz isn't going to disappear up its own ass. (Jazz has to keep being inventive and ahead of the audience, but it still has to convince audiences.)
Us older and ugllier players might grit our teeth when someone as cute as Jamie Cullum gets the gigs (and offers way beyond his ability), but that's the commercial world. If Cullum makes jazz cool (again) that can only be a good thing for everyone else.
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
There is one subtle difference I see that you might be able to shine a light on. In classical theory there is the augmented 6th chord (which I understand reasonably well, if not thoroughly). It doesn't exist in jazz, but we do have the tritone sub, which is similar in some ways, but crucially different in others. Ie, the aug 6th resolves to the dominant (as a kind of "sub" in jazz terms for a subdominant); in jazz the tritone sub resolves to a tonic - or at least tonicises the following chord. That's not to say it can't also be used in a similar way to an augmented 6th, but its use is more flexible.
There would be other differences to do with blues: AFAIK, the concept of blues scale - with its movable pitches (variable 3rd, ornamental b5) - is alien to classical theory. There is some parallel with modal music, but only a distant one, IMO.
But still - we can use classical terms to cobble together descriptions of any such phenomena which don't appear (AFAIK) in classical music. IOW, one of the beauties of classical theory is the adaptabilty of its terminology (and notation) to musics it was never designed for.
-
Originally Posted by JonR
Originally Posted by JonR
I just mean the fact that there are fewer and fewer people that can read. I'm sorry to all the people that I'm about to offend, but if you can't read music, you are missing half of the picture. I see this anti-reading trend to be an indication of the dumbing-down of the the guitar community. (No, I'm not saying someone who can't read is dumb, just that on average, they tend not to know as much about music.)
Originally Posted by JonR
Originally Posted by JonR
So, where are all the anti-theory guerrilla-terrorists? I expected to have them come and make their case. I guess they only like to take snide pot shots in other threads.
Peace,
Kevin
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
He can play (and sing) well, no doubt about that. But he wasn't even the best student on the course that year, in terms of musical ability. (Let alone the tutors, none of whom have made anywhere near as much as he has.) But he had something else that none of them (us) had - a certain kind of charisma, deriving from a supreme confidence. The cute, youthful good looks were a bonus.
I'm not taking anything away from him. I enjoyed the small amount of playing I did with him he had a good feel.
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
I can kind of see it from both sides though. It's not unreasonable to point to all the successful musicians who can't read. The fact that they (therefore) have a quite narrow range of knowledge and influences is not a disadvantage in the genre they've chosen. (And it doesn't follow that they would make better music if they could read, or knew more theory.)
I don't think it's right that everyone learning rock guitar should be pushed to learn to read, and then feel inadequate if they find it too difficult.
But OTOH, I think it's dumb if anyone believes learning to read is too difficult to be worth it if they are "only" learning rock music, or - worse - that it will somehow stifle their creativity.
There seems to be too much "[famous person] can't read, so why should I?" and not enough "I want to learn as much about music as I can, so I'm going to learn notation".
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitarLast edited by JonR; 02-02-2011 at 03:32 PM.
-
If someone knows classical theory, it would be silly to start over with 'jazz theory' but if someone hasn't studied theory and wants to learn jazz, it makes to sense to use a theory book full of examples drawn from jazz musicians rather than classical ones.
Also, if the theory is the same, why prefer 'classical theory' to 'jazz theory'? (It's like someone saying Buddhism and Christianity are really saying the same thing only Buddhism is better. Well, if it's the same thing, it's the same thing. One can only be better than the other if they are *not* equivalent.)
I'm fine with the notion of "music theory" as opposed to "classical theory" or "jazz theory" but I also understand that someone wanting to learn jazz wants things presented from a jazz standpoint with examples from great jazz players. (If there is ever such a thing as "rock theory" it will draw examples from rock musicians and songwriters.)
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
-
Originally Posted by JonR
Originally Posted by JonR
Originally Posted by markerhodes
But I have no problem with someone learning theory from jazz examples. Although I think that a broader understanding of theory would be beneficial. I don't know how many people I've talked to that think that jazz invented the 7b9 chord or that jazz invented improv. They think that jazz invented chromaticism. My point is that a true understanding of jazz history and theory doesn't begin 100 years ago, it begins with Pythagoras. True, amateur musicians may not have time to go that in depth, but just be aware that jazz did not spring out of the ground from magic beans. (And picking up a copy of Music History for Dummies and Music Theory for Dummies ain't too hard - it's not a complete education, but it's better than most are getting.)
Originally Posted by Jeremy Hillary Boob Ph.D
It amazes me the number of names that I get called and the personal attacks that have been launched against me, but I get called out for my tone. I can be opinionated - that is one of the privileges that comes with doing your homework. And I can be a bit of an SOB when confronted with people who repeatedly assert falsehoods.
I never pick on people who simply make mistakes. I pick on people who make a mistake and then defend it to the death in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is a strange phenomenon in cognitive dissonance, that for some people, the more contradictory evidence that comes in, the stronger people defend their challenged belief. For example, after it became clear that Iraq didn't have WOMDs (at least not in the time frame or nearly the scale that had been discussed) some demographics actually increased in their determination that they were there. There are some demographics for whom it continued to increase.
I really hold no grudges. There is one guy in particular that I've caught in a couple lies and in my opinion is purposefully trying to disseminate misinformation and make up terms to make himself seem smarter - but the rest of them, I don't really go after consciously. If they make a mistake, I try to politely point it out. But in this community, telling someone that they are wrong is considered abuse and they all go into victim mode. But I'm not going to play the "I'm OK, you're OK" game of "Your incorrect definition of 'inversion' that you made up is just as valid as the one used but the entire rest of the music community." If the purpose of this forum is the sharing of information, then misinformation should be the enemy. Sure, we can spot the BS, but the noobs can't and there's already too much confusion and misinformation out there. My experience in forums is that the more experienced members are more aggressive in policing that kind of stuff, but so far it seems mainly to be me.
Yes, I can be an opinionated SOB, but I think that if you read through some of those threads, you might feel some of my frustration. And as I've said before, if the more educated people on the forum joined in to help me, maybe it would be easier. But when 20 people are saying "bebop is just playing fast scales" and I'm the only one saying that that is completely false, I look like a pompous elitist.
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 02-02-2011 at 09:38 PM.
-
Ok... Those are some pretty big accusations, but they may be true. I'm not in on the whole story, being new and all... I can't imagine someone telling lies to sound smart with theory... maybe they just made mistakes... I don't know. I don't know much... You do have an aggressive posting style though... I'll be sure not to get in your way from now on...
-
Going back to the original topic, I have to agree with Kevin about this (mostly) imaginary division between classical and jazz theory.
Of course, there are idiomatic differences and most of those are "performance" based, as Kevin pointed out.
Theory generally follows practice, not the other way around (of course, theory informs practice). This is an important thing to keep in mind.
-
Jeremy, I'm not asking you to pick sides. Make up your own mind. You don't have to worry about getting in my way - I like it when people disagree with me. I just hate it when they start making things up, or thinking that something that they read in a blog somewhere is "proof." It's actually pretty easy to not get me riled up - there are many people in the forum who disagree with me and never incur my wrath.
.
I find it fascinating that none of the usual anti-theory guerrilla terrorists have shown up. Normally their always lurking in the shadows waiting for me to use a term like "Neapolitan 6th" or compare Bird's use of chromaticism to Chopin's - and then they pounce. But now - they remain silent. That's the problem with guerrilla terrorist - you can never get them into a head-on fight.
Peace,
Kevin
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
This is why superstitions have such a hold on people.
To be fair, I guess we all develop beliefs based on flimsy evidence, throughout our lives. Mostly it doesn't matter; it's a natural process to draw quick conclusions to enable us to get by in life; answers that work will do, even if they are flawed at some deeper level.
Sometimes we adapt those views as new evidence comes in, but other times a belief (especially if it is never seriously challenged by real life) can become entrenched, so it becomes part of our personality. So when - eventually - it is attacked by hard evidence to the contrary, we automatically resist, and take it personally. We dig our hole deeper.
-
Originally Posted by JonR
Here's a podcast of Schulz giving a talk at a recent Pop Tech! seminar. If you get a little out of this, you'd probably get a lot out of the book.
PopTech : Popcasts : Kathryn Schulz: Being Wrong
-
Originally Posted by JonR
As you say, a lot of it is just human nature. We work so hard on forging our opinions, they become like our children. And then someone tries to take them away.
Originally Posted by JonR
Peace,
Kevin
-
What the heck is this thread really about? It is very psychologically revealing in a very obvious way.
-
Originally Posted by markerhodes
Thanks!! That was a great video!
-
Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
-
As I said in the beginning. We keep getting these little "anti-theory" attacks in other threads when ever some of us try to talk about theory beyond "What scale do I use?" They spam the discussion with misinformation and try to disrupt any deep discussion.
Rather than hijack other threads, it made sense to address the idea in it's own thread. My point is that they "anti-theory" crowd don't want to have a real debate, they just prefer to snipe and run, like guerrillas. Rather than have a proper debate on the subject, they want to take pot-shots in other threads. Unfortunately that puts me in a spot where I feel a need (perhaps immature) to clear up the disruptive misinformation being spread. I end up looking like an elitist trying to hijack threads. But maybe that was the plan all along.
Peace,
Kevin
-
I wouldn't say that there is anything in jazz that can't be explained using classical theory really, except that 8th notes are felt differently and that the concept of "blues harmony" is it's own thing altogether belonging more in the jazz theory idiom than the classical.
However, I would definitely argue that there are many aspects of classical music that cannot be explained using "Jazz theory"
One thing that I would like to point out from both idioms (but more so in jazz) is that the idea of chord voicing is not addressed at all with the exception of what note is on bottom.
a few examples of chords which have no symbols but are used (or I have at least encountered, and the names the composers gave them)... from the bottom up.
C E G# B D F# - CMaj9(#5b12) (Dave Peck)
C Eb Gb B - B15 (b9) (with a B in the bass) / Cdim(Maj7) with a C in the bass (Jim Knapp)
C E A B - C6/7 (Hermeto Pascoal)
C Eb G Bb Db - Cmin7(b9) (blasphemy) (Samantha Boshneck) although it functions as a dominant chord
C E F A C# E G# - Group 3.3 (Paul Hindemith) try adding a B on the top of this one.... opened my ears a bit... ha ha ha
So, in a way, both systems are the same... incomplete.
Can't wait to see what happens next.Last edited by timscarey; 02-04-2011 at 02:08 AM.
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
I think it's because you don't need to know theory to play music, of any kind.... it just makes it easier in the long run and more rewarding. Plus.... it's pretty a tough subject for some people, especially hobbyists and people who find more enjoyment in self discovery and memorization. There are a lot of people like that. I know cats (as I'm sure you do too) that learned by ear, play by ear, and sound amazing, of course, at the end of they day, they have all eventually learned how to read at least a chord chart.... but not all of them, especially the ones who lead the band.
in 2007 I did a 3 month tour of japan with a gospel/blues group.... not a single person in the group but me read music, knew any theory, or even knew what key the songs where in..... but they where touring japan, playing to huge audiences, and where doing a lot of old jazz tunes, with great solos. And they still do.
Home, guitar playing and travel
Today, 06:11 PM in Everything Else