-
The study of music theory always begins with notation, so there's an obvious link there, but that's really to lay down a system of communicating the information in written form.
And a lot of people use theoretical terms without understanding them (or needing to), such as "dominant 7th", or "harmonic minor".
IOW, knowing some theoretical terms (and using them correctly as labels) is arguably not the same thing as "knowing theory". To most of us, I think the latter implies understanding abstract connections between things; being able to explain how it all works.
In a foreign language analogy, it's like the difference between being able to use some phrases from a tourist guide (and use them properly), and being able to explain the grammar of the phrases; knowing enough to be able to adjust the phrase correctly for different circumstances or tenses, or even invent new phrases. I don't suppose the person reading out of the tourist guide would claim to "know the language", certainly not in the way the person who understands the grammar does.
-
02-03-2014 10:12 AM
-
The study of music theory always begins with notation, so there's an obvious link there, but that's really to lay down a system of communicating the information in written form.
And a lot of people use theoretical terms without understanding them (or needing to), such as "dominant 7th", or "harmonic minor".
IOW, knowing some theoretical terms (and using them correctly as labels) is arguably not the same thing as "knowing theory". To most of us, I think the latter implies understanding abstract connections between things; being able to explain how it all works.
In a foreign language analogy, it's like the difference between being able to use some phrases from a tourist guide (and use them properly), and being able to explain the grammar of the phrases; knowing enough to be able to adjust the phrase correctly for different circumstances or tenses, or even invent new phrases. I don't suppose the person reading out of the tourist guide would claim to "know the language", certainly not in the way the person who understands the grammar does.
What about the person who learns the language totally by ear - and can therefore speak it very well - but may not be able to write it down? How do they compare with the person who can read and write it correctly, but can't speak it well? They might understand the grammar, but be unable to string a sentence together as convincingly as the first person.
How do we compare the hypothetical orchestral or session musician who can sight-read brilliantly, but may know no theory and be unable to compose or improvise, with the rock musician who can improvise and compose but can't read or write notation? The latter certainly "knows theory" in a very real sense, in that they can put sounds together in a correct, grammatical form, because they learned all the rules by ear. They just couldn't tell you what they were doing using the right theoretical jargon.
IOW, there are (at least) four different areas of knowledge, as I see it:
1. Musical literacy - being able to understand, read and write staff notation.
2. Technical skill on an instrument
3. Improvising or composing ability
4. Academic theoretical knowledge, ie knowing all the right names for musical sounds, and knowing a reasonable amount about how they all (conventionally) go together.
These can all be mutually exclusive. They don't depend on one another. You can be good at one and hopeless at the other three. (Although it would be odd to be good at #4 without at least a working knowledge of #1.)
I'm sure we all here have some level of ability in all four areas, as most musicians do. Musicians in different genres would display different levels in each.
-
Expanding on this idea...
Originally Posted by fumblefingers
this discussion seems like it is extremely open ended, and terms like 'theory,' 'classical,' and 'jazz' have wide and expansive meanings depending on the speaker and the listener. The terms aren't doing well to narrow the discussion to some concrete and central points.
There have been interesting (to me) contributions about that 'other school' (about which I know very little) but what are we all really trying to get at?
Just imo, in the context of this thread, if we're going to make a statement that starts with 'classical is' I think it's useful to define what period/what composers we're talking about. To discuss theory it makes sense to distinguish: are we talking about a style of analysis that addresses a time period/range of popular compositions? A type of first-year conservatory training that is popular today? An approach to 'composition' 101 in the style of X?
Sorry to beat a dead horse but when we compare, say, Beethoven to Ligeti, or Dizzy to Dave Douglass...similarly, the methods involved in composition/improvisation vs after-the-fact analysis of what was composed/improvised, 'theories' regarding the intentional organization of pitches/rhythms/motifs etc vs 'theories' of the creative process that led to...
I'm getting exhausted just writing this...anyone catch my drift here?
-
Classically trained musicians learn sight reading from the first day. You do scale work. As you advance, the music becomes more complex, but your pattern recognition and perception of intervals more accurate and intuitive. Nonetheless, many teachers likely spend little time with students discussing theory initially. I think many musicians are aware of ear training, sing in choirs, and begin researching theory on their own or in more formal classes.
-
Classically trained musicians learn sight reading from the first day. You do scale work. As you advance, the music becomes more complex, but your pattern recognition and perception of intervals more accurate and intuitive. Nonetheless, many teachers likely spend little time with students discussing theory initially. I think many musicians are aware of ear training, sing in choirs, and begin researching theory on their own or in more formal classes.
To me any notion that jazz is somehow fundamentally different than 'classical' or foundational harmony theory is off base. Jazz is an extension of the blues and influenced by classic Western notions of harmony with an admixture of African and other cross-cultural percussive influences including polyrhythms.
To put it another way, if you can play and understand Bach counterpoint on the guitar and/or keyboards, you are well equipped technically to play jazz. Learn to play extensions properly, diminished chords, and how to swing and you are on the jazz highway to perdition....
-
Music majors have to tackle theory and they regard it as a chore. They get a sort of watered-down version. If you study theory in a historical context then it becomes a fascinating subject. Taking on counterpoint is a way to get to the heart of classical music. Jazz theory serves the same purpose-to get the ball rolling and get musicians on the same page so-to-speak.
I studied counterpoint on my own and I always meant to get a little toy keyboard sequencer to noodle around with while doing it. I'm going to look into that.
-
Well said targuit, but unless you're a solo act who's getting into complex arrangements, trying to get serious about counterpoint on guitar would be a big PITA. Doing it on keyboard would be much easier and you could apply it to different things. Wish I was better at counterpoint right now working the string sections of midi files.
-
I agree counterpoint (and/or SATB harmony) is good to study - even for a rock/blues/jazz player like me not much interested in listening to classical music. I found it makes me hear harmonies more clearly. Some of those rules seem a bit arbitrary at first, but it does train you to hear the subtle differences: why such-and-such a move is "wrong" and another "correct". You may never apply those rules composing or arranging jazz, but it's very good ear training for all kinds of harmony: learning to trace the voice-leading, and being sure each voice is going the way you want.
-
It's a classic. I'm going to try and work through it again but with a sequencing keyboard. Little Cascio or something. Nice string arrangements based on some rules about movement, etc...,even loosly can carry a tune. Originally Posted by Vladan
-
Originally Posted by JakeAcci
Yes.
And I would say that "classical" in this context is NOT confined to the classical period. the overwhelming majority of the time when fans or pros speak of classical music they're referring to anything and everything from the Renaissance through 20th century stuff - at least early 20th century stuff (i.e. Stravinsky).
the key point is that the music has not stopped being composed. the same goes for jazz of course. when one says "jazz" are they only talking about New Orleans? or swing, or bebop? Of course not.
having gone through both classical and jazz music schools, and paying at least a little bit of attention to modern curriculum in the big schools, its evident that both classical and jazz majors have to cover multiple periods. this is especially true for "classical" majors. they have to play Renaissance through Romantic, Impressionist through Expressionist, and also the "questionably tonal" wacky modern stuff. and composition majors are certainly not allowed to graduate after simply imitating Bach and Mozart.
so that covers the casual use of the term "classical".
so now for the casual use of the term "theory".
it's likely that some people think of theory as what a student learns in the standard freshman and sophomore years in a classical university program. (harmony, part writing, melody, rhythmic studies, sight reading and sight singing, and a little bit about form). i think that's understandable but is a false boundary. its just a way to break classes into logical, digestable 16 weeks semesters. the truth (IMO) is that one's theory training doesn't stop until they have covered form, composition in several styles, orchestration, and even literature and history although to a lesser extent. in other words, the art of composition and performing is revealed to one degree or another throughout. as long as you are learning more about the art of performing - but especially composing - you are also learning theory to some extent.
all IMO.Last edited by fumblefingers; 02-03-2014 at 09:57 PM.
-
Jazz theory starts out with classical theory as a foundation and then just adds a few more things relevant to a jazz musician related specifically to principles and techniques of improvisation. Classical music theory is completely devoid of anything related directly to the process of musical improvisation. It is mainly focused on describing what classical composers wrote on the staff, and the exact interpretation and performance of said scores.
Last edited by Guitarzen; 02-04-2014 at 06:35 PM.
-
i think that's too narrow, if i may say so.
my "state U" freshman theory course in 76/77 did more than that. (no improv was included though, to your point).
the classical theory i took as frosh involved some partial score analysis, very little to no performance of same, and a lot of part-writing assignments, every single week. a rudimentary "composition course", in other words.
if we are saying that "jazz theory" teaches one to part write, re-harmonize, and compose a little, then we can rightly say that classical theory does the same.
BTW - i've studied "jazz theory" at Dick Grove and Berklee and know what they teach at other top schools like UNT, and I can tell you that "improv" is a separate set of classes.
another thought, many musicians/teachers speak of "traditional" theory as opposed to "classical" theory. perhaps we should do that too.
-
That is really hard to distinguish.
-
Good point. I really could not understand why people bring "periods" and what not into discussion, when it was obvious, for me at least, term "classical" was used in meaning traditional, or at least in broadest sense of so called "serious" music. Serious, as opposed to popular. Popular, including Jazz. Jazz, as viewed by anybody outside the Jazz world, while including the good part of it, the Jazz world that is. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
Reply With Quote
Melody between melody
Today, 03:25 AM in Chord-Melody