-
Originally Posted by christianm77
-
06-23-2020 12:56 PM
-
Originally Posted by lawson-stone
good grief I am so sick of reading BS papers.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
I increasingly see playing music like that. I started into jazz with a heavy dose of CST and Aebersold play-a-longs and made rapid initial progress, then fell apart. Now I'm just learning melodies, transcribing solos, picking up bits of "vocabulary" and mainly trying to simply listen and play.
Whether I'm getting better or not, i don't know; I do know I'm having a ton of fun. Who takes up jazz to read theory books? I think as second-order reflection on fruitful music-making, theory can be very useful. But as an engine of prediction/production, not so much.
-
Well, this comes back to the central question - what is a book like the Jazz Theory Book for?
Most of the people who seem to like it see it not as theory at all, but a source book of cool ideas. Which I think I said back on the first page of the thread.
But that isn't how its written... There's a strong element of it trying to be authoritative.
Again, this possibly links into a basic legitimacy crisis of jazz education. Jazz is - practice oriented in all senses. No one disagrees here, or anywhere. But we feel we have to make it something more to make a case for the subject. In a wider sense, music educators have to do this all the time.
-
It is also meant to be a textbook. It's a teaching tool as part of a broader pedagogical context. The problem would be to see it as a comprehensive resource instead of treating it as just one piece of the puzzle or a reference for simplified isolated concepts that are meant to be incorporated and practised creatively.
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
"Definition. Theories are formulated to explain, predict, and understand phenomena and, in many cases, to challenge and extend existing knowledge within the limits of critical bounding assumptions. The theoretical framework is the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research study".
By that definition, it seems to me that Levine's book qualifies as at least "scraps of theory" - which may be all the field really supports. That is, understanding and explaining major scale harmony as in say, Satin Doll, does not predict McCoy's use of fourth voicings, aspects of melodic minor usage or strongly outside playing. I'd guess a case could be made, but there's a limit to the contortions of theory that are tolerable.
Levine does, however, explain, to a degree, a number of jazz innovations and devices. He writes perfectly clearly -- which itself is an innovation in this field -- and gives plenty of real-world examples of the points he's making.
What he does not do is provide an instruction manual for playing a song. And, of course, that's what everybody was hoping for.
-
Originally Posted by lawson-stone
-
Originally Posted by grahambop
”The walls came tumblin’ down” — certainly
”Joshua fit the battle of Jericho and [sc. ‘then’] the walls came tumblin’ down” — false
-
-
There’s nothing so effective as a really tight brass section.
-
Originally Posted by grahambop
[Mandatory guitar content: not that? New Yorker.]
-
Here's one take on the purpose of a theory:
"Definition. Theories are formulated to explain, predict, and understand phenomena and, in many cases, to challenge and extend existing knowledge within the limits of critical bounding assumptions. The theoretical framework is the structure that can hold or support a theory of a research study".
Theories are descriptive ideas formulated based on observation of a limited sampling of relevant material as collated by the theorizer(s).
The content chosen and the conclusions arrived at are based on previous education, experience and cultural orientation. Pragmatically speaking,
theory posits a set of experiments that can be undertaken in hopes of manifesting results related to the material referenced and possibly beyond. Whether an idea is found to be helpful moving towards a personal goal is far more relevant than how universally it is decided to have merit.
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
There isn't a really good single word for what conservatoires teach composers for instance, maybe craft; technique is another. But composers don't really study theory, because they are doing music (writing it).
Historically this split occurred when Rameau published his harmony - which first introduced the idea of theoretical root movement. His was perhaps the first theory; a system of thought which attempted to explain why music sounds good. What existed before was craft; voice lead this way, use these combinations, avoid consecutives, resolve leading tones upward, resolve the fourth downwards, that sort of stuff. A great many rules of thumb applied in practice. (Regelski characterises this as a split between aesthetics and praxis.)
You can probably see the comparison between 'scraps of theory' and an attempt to create a theory that explains the music. The first thing is of relevance to the musician, the second is of relevance to the musical scholar. Two different paths.
Jazz has historically been oriented towards 'getting on with it', not 'explaining it' - it's praxial (although it does have a strong aesthetic too).
(There are these days, plenty of musicology Phd theses on the other hand, attempting to explain why Wayne Shorter sounds good with trapezoids or whatever, that aren't focussed towards playing.)
So, those that find the Levine books to be useful do so because it belongs to the 'getting on with it', praxis category of cool stuff that can be used in music. As a theory of the music, it's just a bad example of something which is probably a bad idea to begin with. It all sort of reinforces what I already suspected.
Anyway, I don't think anyone particularly seems to want to argue that corner...
Levine does, however, explain, to a degree, a number of jazz innovations and devices. He writes perfectly clearly -- which itself is an innovation in this field -- and gives plenty of real-world examples of the points he's making.
What he does not do is provide an instruction manual for playing a song. And, of course, that's what everybody was hoping for.
So, I've got a slightly different set of concerns to a lot of commenters. I'm not purely learning how to play the music, though that quest continues, my best resources for that are generally, as Joel (and Mark) says, the music itself. I don't really need theory books any more. Instead I'm commenting on pedagogical technique, problems and issues, and potential solutions.
So, I could envisage a much better resource for the purpose it is often used for. This book does get used as a bit of a theoretical bible. I sometimes have to bite my tongue when I see educators giving out information I actually know to be wrong, and a lot of it can be traced back to this and similar works. Now some simplifications are appropriate in education, but I feel actually, we are missing a whole bunch of tricks by focussing on the music through this lens. Plus as an improvisation method, and remember this is actually what it gets used for in the wild, it has a lot of problems. You could do a lot better than this even with books that are out there.
Clearly the book is an outgrowth of CST, and that has many many criticisms levelled at it from all corners. Even many of the educators who use it seem to dislike it. Still it get used a lot in education, and feel this maybe in part because it presents as a complete theoretical system, and it is also conveniently available.
Above all the biggest problem is that - students struggle to play changes. Consistently. We need better resources for teaching that and to stop using this book cos it says 'Theory' on the front.Last edited by christianm77; 06-23-2020 at 06:46 PM.
-
When learning a theory, the thing I'm interested is prediction. Does the theory predict things and do the predictions come true.
So, when Einstein posited a theory and the red shift near the planet Mercury later confirmed the theory, well, that's my idea of a theory.
What does jazz theory predict?
One of my criticisms is that it can "explain" anything. We have an old thread with theoretical explanations of an F# against a G7. My reaction: if the theory can explain any note against any chord, it's worthless. Levine acknowledges that any note can be played against any chord, but, at least, he does indicate that some are "handle with care" notes. Others put notes in categories of chord tones, extensions and tensions, with gradations of tension. I'd accept that as a scrap of theory. It does tell you something (not everything) about what is likely to work.
I think there are a lot of examples like that in jazz and in Levine's book. It's a collection of scraps, not a Unified Field Theory of Jazz.
This is because jazz was invented over time by a large number of people, including some influential innovators. It was not created all at once by a Creator. Post hoc analysis of all-of-jazz is tempting but, apparently, futile.
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
I've a hard time reading all these opinions expressed in this thread as if they were factual. Some of you would be a lot more readable if you occasionally qualified your pros with phrases such as "in my opinion", "perhaps", or "maybe" instead of writing so dogmatically. So far, I have not learned anything positive among the more verbose posts.
I confess I have memorized every detail of all Mark's books, in all 12 keys, over the past 35 years. Every single concept he touched on I made flashcards, hundreds of them, in all 12 keys. I then spent 4-5 hours every day drilling them for years until they were totally subconscious and instantaneous as if I was a native speaker of a language. I'm glad I have the knowledge in my toolbox (brain). I also concurrently have studied with Barry Harris since the 1980's and his training is more applicable to melody making, thus his influence provided perhaps the most valuable tools in my personal toolbox. I also studied with Hal Galper, Mark Isham and Art Lande.Last edited by rintincop; 06-23-2020 at 09:50 PM.
-
Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
By treating all chords as essentially equal, as CST tends to, you lose the sense of that. A dominant chord can have a 'sound' (lyd dom, whole tone etc) but that's separate to its resolving function. A skilled jazz improviser, such as Peter Bernstein or Barry Harris, picks which vertical relationships they choose to honour, and which they choose to ignore.
Levine acknowledges that any note can be played against any chord, but, at least, he does indicate that some are "handle with care" notes.
Others put notes in categories of chord tones, extensions and tensions, with gradations of tension. I'd accept that as a scrap of theory. It does tell you something (not everything) about what is likely to work.
I prefer Stephon Harris's system as a way to organise vertical voicings like this. It includes all the sounds in CST but is a lot more precise and specific. I sometimes feel people think all the voicings within a single mode are somehow musically interchangeable and this is 100% not the case, to the detriment of the music. Again, generalisation is a necessary evil of theory.
I think there are a lot of examples like that in jazz and in Levine's book. It's a collection of scraps, not a Unified Field Theory of Jazz.
This is because jazz was invented over time by a large number of people, including some influential innovators. It was not created all at once by a Creator. Post hoc analysis of all-of-jazz is tempting but, apparently, futile.
-
Originally Posted by rintincop
I'd just move on if I could, but I can't, which makes me grumpy (and verbose) because I'm stuck with it. As I say, Mark could not have predicted that it gets used as a basic jazz theory guide and a basis for many beginner jazz syllabuses (though I reckon that's exactly what Sher wanted); that students tend to read it early on and get totally the wrong idea about what playing jazz entails. It doesn't change the fact that this happens.
In that sense it's really good to know the stuff that's actually in it - in all the most popular books - because I can find a way to address it, and where possible, build on it, link it to other knowledge. It's bit like how you had to know what was in the Real Book even if you had learned the tunes another way. Or that some people think of the first chord of Just Friends as the I chord. You need a strategy for dealing with that issue.
I confess I have memorized every detail of all Mark's books, in all 12 keys, over the past 35 years. Every single concept he touched on I made flashcards, hundreds of them, in all 12 keys. I then spent 4-5 hours every day drilling them for years until they were totally subconscious and instantaneous as if I was a native speaker of a language. I'm glad I have the knowledge in my toolbox (brain). I also concurrently have studied with Barry Harris since the 1980's and his training is more applicable to melody making, thus his influence provided perhaps the most valuable tools in my personal toolbox. I also studied with Hal Galper, Mark Isham and Art Lande.
This entails translating Barry Harris to people who use CST/mainstream terms - bebop scale, mixolydian etc. I think Barry's terms are clearer, but they are not the lingua franca. Barry purists hate this, but I think it is probably necessary development. This stuff is too valuable not be made accessible.Last edited by christianm77; 06-24-2020 at 05:00 AM.
-
Originally Posted by pcjazz
Mandatory guitar content!
AND: my little digression was an analogy only, not an overture to discuss historiography.
-
Originally Posted by lawson-stone
-
Originally Posted by lawson-stone
-
Lol
-
Time for a forum sabbatical.
-
Mark Levine playing in his systems
Last edited by rintincop; 06-25-2020 at 03:50 AM.
-
Mark Levine published all about block chords in 1989 in "The Jazz Piano Book" and in perhaps a more organized manner than Barry Harris has. Mark also offered some hip tweaks that Barry does not offer and Barry has many creative examples of his own. Barry has not published his own book to my knowledge. Barry uses melodic minor scale block chords over the minor 7 flat five (D-7b5) and V7 alt (G7#9 b13) chords and also over the tonic minor (C-6 and C-maj7). Mark does too, but Mark goes further and addresses all the modes of melodic minor, as did Herbie Hancock. I think John Mehagan was the first to publish lessons on block chords.Block chords were was played before George Shearing by pianists Phil Moore , Art Bruckner, etc.
-
I'll never forget the four-hour long workshop in Berkeley CA that Mark Levine hosted featuring his guest Barry Harris. Mark and Barry sat together at the piano and showed each other block chord ideas for hours. Mark is a master of block chords and is very deep into them, his systems add a lot of tension and bite to the voicings, very modern sounding. Mark and Barry both enjoyed each other's ideas and got along well. Mark recorded and later transcribed the whole session and I still revisit thoat 25 page transcription he gave me of those examples. I have not seen many of Barry's examples form that day in any of the books published by Barry's disciples. If you have not read Levine's Jazz Piano Masterclass with Mark Levine - The Drop 2 Book ... (the topic is all block chords, 6 dim scale type stuff, with unique tweaks, and application tips, many of the ideas are not found in Barry's workshops)
Chief Xian aTunde Adjuah (Christian Scott)
Today, 12:32 AM in The Players