The difference between jazz and classical music theory?

[raspy]

could someone explain the difference in classical & jazz theory ?

also how many different type's of music theory are there ?


thx raspy .

[targuit]

Raspy, I think the answer to that might be a semester or two course in music school.

[cosmic gumbo]

For the sake of improvising, jazz usually wants to reduce function to tonic, subdominant, and dominant.

[JensL]

For the sake of improvising, jazz usually wants to reduce function to tonic, subdominant, and dominant.

For the sake of improvising, classical usually wants to sit down and listen..

Jens

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Difference in emphasis. Things like tritone subs are part of the furniture in bebop but probably get you blank stares in classical theory.

[MattC]

I think theory is theory at least to some extent. Both disciplines are concerned with fundamentals like tonal harmony, chord function, ear training, cadences, resolutions, voice leading, melodic contour, etc. There are certainly differences in terms of some terminology, specific issues, etc. But really it's in the application and musical language rather than the theory that the major differences show up. All this is to say that one could probably do a couple semesters in a college "classical" theory class and then use that foundation to study jazz.

In other words, lots of differences in the approach to the musical styles, but I'm not sure those differences are so much about theory. Seems they're much more about improv vs. set pieces, repertoire, rhythm, melodic and harmonic language, etc.

IIRC, some notable jazz players studied "classical" theory way back many years ago. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Jim Hall and Kenny Burrell earned degrees in theory/comp and classical guitar respectively.

[MattC]

Difference in emphasis. Things like tritone subs are part of the furniture in bebop but probably get you blank stares in classical theory.

Probably true, however "classical" theory does deal with an animal called a "Neapolitan" chord, which is built off of a root a 1/2 step up from tonic, and which resolves down to tonic.

Similarly, B-D-F-A = a "half-diminished 7th chord in "classical" theory, whereas some jazzers seem to prefer "minor 7th flat 5", which is probably actually more descriptive.

Anyway...

[cosmic gumbo]

some notable jazz players studied "classical" theory way back many years ago. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Jim Hall and Kenny Burrell earned degrees in theory/comp

Jazz courses weren't an option back in the day. Jazz just expands on western harmony, the foundation is the same.

[Stevebol]

Check this out;

http://www.opus28.co.uk/Fux_Gradus.pdf

[Pukka-J]

Difference in emphasis. Things like tritone subs are part of the furniture in bebop but probably get you blank stares in classical theory.

Not entirely true IMHO. I learned about tritone subs when I was in conservatorium studying classical music. Try analyzing your average late romantic work: tritone (and other) subs galore! I even used them in my compositions, as did some other students.
'Classical' theory doesn't differ much from 'jazz' theory, I think you're right in that it's the emphasis that differs mostly.

What I do find that's different is some 'rules'. Parallel 5ths and octaves for instance are considered not done in classical (read classical as in time period classical) composition, but that says more about classical ears ('it just sounds bad'); it has no real foundation in theory afaik.
But I suppose Wes would have a problem complying to that rule

[JonR]

Difference in emphasis. Things like tritone subs are part of the furniture in bebop but probably get you blank stares in classical theory.

As mentioned above, similar things do occur in classical music, they just have different names.
Check out the "German 6th" chord - one of three different types of "augmented 6th" chords. The only difference from a tritone sub is that the b7 is considered to be a #6 ("augmented 6th"), and must resolve upwards. Eg, the interval Ab-F# (#6) resolves by moving outward to a G-G octave.
Also, aug 6 chords classically always resolved to V - until Tchaikovsky decided they could also resolve to I, like jazz tritone subs. (Not that one can therefore elect him as father of jazz harmony...)

The "neapolitan chord", meanwhile, although built on the bII degree, is a 1st inversion chord supposed to resolve to V, not I. Eg, Db/F > G > C. That doesn't really happen in jazz; jazz would see no need for the intervening G (nor the 1st inversion for the Db), and would just add a B to the Db.

IOW, one could say (from that example) that jazz differs from classical theory in that it's a little lazier with the concepts, as well as simplifying (and renaming) a lot of things. It kind of cherry picks what it likes from the European heritage.

Most of the differences with jazz are down to the influence of blues, and other remnants of the African heritage. Classical theory is bound up with tonality, harmony and form, and has very detailed and complex sets of practices, developed over a few centuries. Blues is a very freewheeling, modal form, its expressive dimension coming from melodic embellishment and pitch bending, rather than from the chord progressions of classical theory. Classical theory is heavily dependent on fixed pitches; there is no place for the microtonal bends of blues, which would be considered "out of tune".
So jazz adopted the simpler elements of European tonality (major and minor key sequences), while retaining the swooping embellishments of blues singing in its instrumental techniques - and, above all, focussed on improvisation as the prime element of performance.

To oversimplify, classical music (at least as performed today) is about reproducing the great works of dead geniuses, as accurately and respectfully as possible. Jazz, in contrast, is about taking some simple popular tune, and messing around with it.
In classical, the composer is king; in jazz, the player (improviser) is king.

[JensL]

In my experience classical theory is more focused on form than on harmony, which makes sense since the harmony is less important than the form to them (certainly compared to us who improvise over it).

One reason why it makes sense to take a look from a classical perspective is that if you are studying jazz music where they play standards or songs written over standards then you are playing structures that were not written by people with a training in jazz, but rather in classical music.

Cole Porter, Sammy Cahn, Van Heusen, none of them were jazz musicians, but we play thir songs all the time.

Jens

[GuitOp81]

There is a course on coursera dedicated to classical music harmony (something like "composing like mozart"). Very good to understand basic classical harmony. One of the first thing stated there is that in classical music it's all about root, dominant and sub dominant, and no fancy 11, 13 chords, at least not in the classical theory. It is worth checking out.
I personally liked a lot the explanations in Arnold Schoenberg theory of harmony book. I know that in the classical music environment there is some criticism of that book but I am not that deep into those question. The basic explanation of harmony given there is the best I ever read.
Knowing that it should not be difficult to check jazz theory methods and do your own comparison

[ecj]

JonR has it. The big difference is the blues. There's no such thing as a song with a dominant I chord in common practice period classical music. The whole concept of tonality and consonance is different.

[JakeAcci]

Good to add that "classical" is an extremely broad and general term.

Also relevant - beginning studies of harmony reveal historical fundamentals and some very old common practices, they are not universal truths about all music, even music that falls under the 'classical' umbrella in a general sense.

Similarly, 'jazz' is now a broad term. There were common practices in the harmony of Porter, Kern, etc, and things have evolved from there. Someone who was a 'jazz music theory' expert in 1950 might be a little lost when trying to use those tools to analyze some of the music that is made in 2014.

Maybe a more useful thing to explore is the history and training of individual composers.

[cosmic gumbo]

I think we get hung up on the term "classical" and equate it with music of the past, when a better term would be western harmony, which is still the dominant active concept being used in music today...in the west. Jazz adopts it to have a common language to communicate among musicians, often as only a point of departure for other jazz concepts.

[Stevebol]

What Jake said. Study the composers. Their lives, the social conditions, read the books they read, the technology in use at the time.

[GuyBoden]

I'm glad I learned the discipline of playing in each of the Classical Guitar fretboard positions when I was a teenager, this opened up the fretboard for me at an early age.

[orri]

Which came first, the music or music theory?

The simple answer is that first there was music and then people started to try to analyze it, make sense of it and makes a theory about how it works.
Classical music theory and Jazz music theory are simply two different theories to try to make sense out of different types (yet similar in many ways) of music.


On the other hand, I think some music is written or created based on the on some music theory idea or concept. For example modal jazz.

[Pukka-J]

Which came first, the music or music theory?

The simple answer is that first there was music and then people started to try to analyze it, make sense of it and makes a theory about how it works.
Classical music theory and Jazz music theory are simply two different theories to try to make sense out of different types (yet similar in many ways) of music.


On the other hand, I think some music is written or created based on the on some music theory idea or concept. For example modal jazz.

I second your first notion about what came first.

I don't however think that there are two different theories. First: the differentiation between 'classical' and 'jazz' is rather arbitrary. There is western music theory and in both styles of music for instance the function of a dominant 7 chord is explained the same.

A different theory would be when the working and function of a musical concept is explained differently, which isn't the case.

As stated above there are differences in emphasis for each musical style. Someone mentioned the blues, but that gets used in classical music nowadays too and the theory behind semitones works in jazz as well as in classical.

There simply aren´t two different theories. There is stuff that gets used in some styles more than others, but that doesn´t mean that there are two different explanations for the same musical concepts.

To be clear: classical is not just Mozart etc, but also contemporary. The classical music tradition is a sponge just like the jazz tradition. Debussy and Ravel for instance incorporated aspects of gamelan music into their own compositions.

[orri]

Thanks Pukka-J
I agree with you.

Saying it like that, was a bit clumsy way to put it into words on my behalf.
I didn't mean that they are two totally separate theories. More like two different theories (or at least two different names for two variations of music theory) that are similar and much related to each other and have much in common.

[raspy]

thx for all the great response to this thread .


the way that i am understanding everyone's explanation is
that classical music was set in the 1700's and jazz started
to develop in the late 1800's .

so i'm guessing that the theory used when jazz was developed
was not allowed , invented or had different names in the time
of classical era music. But classical music just evolved
allowing it to be more diverse in the later year's that led to
jazz music .

just like music evolving from the Renaissance & Borque era to
Classical .

[Pukka-J]

Hi Raspy,

I respectfully disagree with your recap. I read (and wrote) something different.

I think you confuse musical styles (classical music, even if you only mean 17th century music is in fact very, very diverse) with theory. Classical music idiom does indeed differ from jazz idiom, but the musical functions can be (and are) explained with the same theory!

Some concepts didn't exist at a certain time in either jazz or classical, but that doesn't mean that the explanation of those concepts lead to a different theory.

Someone mentioned blues. Of course that didn't exist yet in the 17th century and people in those days would indeed have a hard time trying to explain the Dom7 concept or the so called 'blue' notes. But, just like jazz, classical music evolved over a 1000 years and got (and still gets) influenced by all types of other musical concepts and traditions.
This also means that 'classical' theory didn't stop expanding in the 17th century. With every new influence people tried to explain how the new concept functions.

Classical music theory does not explain Dom7 chords in blues differently than 'jazz theory' does!
There are many musical styles and traditions, but in the case of jazz and (western) classical music: one theory to bind them

In other words: different musical concepts can be (and are) explained by one theory. It's when you have different (contradicting) explanations for the same concept when you need more theories!

[MattC]

This turned out to be an interesting thread-a good example of the combined musical intelligence and understanding on this forum. Jon R as per your post #11, I stand corrected about the resolution of the Neapolitan chord. It's been a long time since college theory classes. Lots of good insights in your post and the several after it.

I completely agree with the comments about studying various composers, too. After all, when you think about the fundamentals of "classical" theory (the first couple semesters of college theory classes), much of it can be boiled down to one guy, namely J.S. Bach.

[ecj]

Classical music theory does not explain Dom7 chords in blues differently than 'jazz theory' does!

I don't have a huge understanding of classical music theory, but I have enough to think that I disagree with this statement. How do you describe the tonality of a standard 12-bar blues in classical theory? What is the I chord, and why is it okay that despite the fact that it's a dom7, it never resolves?

My knowledge of classical stuff is pretty limited to CPP theory right now, so I'm curious to hear how the framework evolved.