-
I can't answer for Litterick or anybody else but I doubt if he's purposefully lying, as you put it.
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
Of course theory isn't a niche subject if it's the basis of all the music we do, which it is. But it becomes somewhat of a niche subject when it's treated as an intellectual exercise. That sort of thing can go on endlessly, as we know.
So in the first sense you're right and in the second sense he's right too. People do like to play with it intellectually. It's one of those subjects that goes back in history and one can discuss that knowledge till the cows come home because a lot of it depends on personal interpretation.
On the other hand, because of its nature, new ideas can come out of it, as people like George Russell and Barry Harris have shown. Not everyone takes to that kind of thing but it has its place. After all, new forms of jazz and pop have proliferated down the years, all stemming from the basics we know now.
You were not wrong when you said even to name and play a C chord depends on theory. It surely does but the subject by no means stops there. It continues into the complexities of classical and jazz forms and probably pop music too. It also encompasses further possibilities still because of its nature. In the future it will doubtless evolve into forms we have no idea of at the moment.
So we can't just stick rigidly to any one idea or definition and reject others. One has to be open to the whole thing even if such explorations are not particularly up one's street. Ultimately the abstract consideration of music theory is a good thing, not a bad thing, providing it's done intelligently; it has a future.
-
03-23-2023 07:21 AM
-
I agree with your perspective, but his whole post was aimed at spinning the truth, not voicing anything accurate. Again, the only alternative is he doesn't have the capacity to understand his error. Which I guess is possible.
-
Then contradict what he says with fact, not the personal stuff.
-
The usual meaning of mad is mentally unbalanced but in American English it also means angry. 'Mad at theory' means angry with theory. Originally Posted by kris
-
It's not a true post, rag. It obviously reads as spin. Blighted thread, trying to discredit all views on the thread. Few theorists have been mentioned, as if a comprehensive subject needs to be cited to exist and be viable. The theorizing has finished years ago? Not possible since musicians use it constantly. It's niche, meaning only a minority use it. This is false, the majority uses it. We're post-theory, meaning it's irrelevant. This is false, theory could never be irrelevant the same way the mechanics of how to write and speak will never be irrelevant. Or the mechanics of how to make a movie will never be irrelevant. Musicians are dependent on the same established mechanics for their discipline as any other. It's not willy nilly. Saying otherwise means either the person doesn't understand or they're purposely trying to push their falsehoods. Originally Posted by ragman1
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
Litterick's is not a foolish post. There hasn't been much innovation in theory for a long time, at least as far as I'm aware. Maybe Barry Harris was the last person to introduce something different. And, to be honest, only a certain amount has come of it. One could consider that fairly niche. Originally Posted by Litterick
But I doubt if we are literally post-theory since it's an evolving subject.
-
It's his usual spin. But I'm not going to argue anymore with you about a post he made.
About the terminology of mad lol. Noone in North America goes around saying 'I'm mad.' 'You're obviously mad.' 'He's gone mad.' And all that. The usage of insane doesn't exist in every day language. It's purely a theatrical usage for us.
-
I'm saying don't argue at all. That's not a discussion, it's a brawl. There's no 'you vs him', there's just the subject.
This may be of interest.
Music Theory Online
There are discussions like this. Try reading the first posts.
Reddit - Dive into anything
-
So what? Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
Ok kris, if I defend the truth I 'dream of theory.'
This is the whole mad-at-theory phenomenon. Say one thing regarding theory and people's brains get flushed out about your rationale and they come to attack you.
-
1) Angry Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
2) Mentally ill (usually crazy)
3) To love someone or something.
mad | English meaning - Cambridge Essential American
-
Thanks for restating my position to me. Originally Posted by ragman1
-
How would you know my purpose, Jimmy, if it were other than my words?
Had you read my post carefully, you might have noticed I was writing specifically about jazz theory. Of course music is theoretical, if you determine the most basic procedures to be dependant on theory (in some other argument, I might suggest that many musicians carry out these procedures with no understanding of their theoretical basis, but that is another matter). My point here is that the theory of jazz is limited to a few publications. It seems to me that theory is not deeply rooted in jazz and, since most of these publications are quite old, jazz theory is not a thriving practice. I don't know how many musicians read these books or have any commitment to jazz theory; I suspect it is not many.
This debate did prompt me to go to my local library to borrow its copy of Levine, but I found it out on loan. So there is at least one theoretically minded jazz musician in the naked city.
For the record, I am not mad at theory. I am enchanted by modes, especially Messiaen's modes of limited transposition and the modes of the Scottish pentatonic scale. Jazz theory is of less interest to me, because I do not practise straight-ahead jazz; but for those who do, it is obviously very useful.
-
Litterick, I see what you're saying. Jazz theory has always existed, but it's taken a while to get formalized and be visible. It certainly exists now. Open Studio is a huge jazz think tank and education platform. I joined for a month and there's comprehensive and accurate jazz theory all over in there.
-
I think you may have missed the point Ragman was making (as I understand it.)
Being: there is no extra kudos or intellectual clout to be gained from being combative, rude, insulting or dismissive. It doesn’t make anyone respect you any more. In fact it may have the opposite effect.
I mean one can know this and do it anyway for fun lol. Venting is human.
OTOH it always amuses me when *sometimes* I make some nuanced point in fairly guarded and qualified language and get my head bitten off anyway. I guess people read what they want to read and it doesn’t matter. Might as well say stupid stuff. Makes no difference and may be more entertaining. People don’t read closely and don’t pay attention (mea culpa, but I’m working on it)
thus the internet
-
Levine’s books are on kindle if that helps Originally Posted by Litterick
-
Fwiw I thought I’d see how many books would come up if I put ‘jazz theory’ into Kindle, and a lot of books are on there, several pages of titles.
However on closer examination there’s a lot of workbooks and pattern books which to me suggest a more practical mindset, suggestions for what to play, rather than some unified theory of jazz in the spirit Rameau, Riemann, Schenker etc. (in fact Gjerdigen compared Partimento to Aebersold…)
As I said elsewhere I would include Mark Levine’s books in this category - practical guides, material for music making and suggestions on how to apply that material rather than academic theory books - although they do sometimes make general theoretical pronouncements (and are IMO weakest when they do so). I’m not sure anyone is really that interested in the latter though; jazz musicians are in general focussed on making music. This is not always true of the classical world.
-
Sure.
If I’m ‘mad’ at anything, it’s more at bad teaching (usually from those who themselves can’t play jazz to a high level - but maybe not always), bad institutionalised teaching practices, or the idea that one can learn music from a book. this may seem like a strawman to someone who has had only good teachers and didn’t go down blind alleys in their learning, but I see it a lot in the wild.
Perhaps even worse if that situation where students know what they should be doing but are intimidated by it and cling to theory and books. Transcription is a case in point. To someone starting out, the idea of working out a Parker or Trane solo by ear is - quite rightly- incredibly intimidating; and yet it’s also unnecessary at this stage when simple melodies and lines can be worked on in bit sized digestible amounts.
and it gets to the point where people who know nothing about theory probably have an easier time of it (albeit generally limited to lick playing). To act as a substitute for checking out the music is obviously not the purpose of jazz ‘theory’ at all. No one thinks this - not Aebersold, not Levine, not Barry, not anyone - and yet this is so often where students end up.
And just when I think I’m overstating it, I hear the same things from others, such as Jordan, who studied at elite institutions in NYC FFS. He calls it ‘the jazz industrial complex.’ In contrast, Sco comes in to teach and the first thing he does is get them to learn Prez’s solo on Lady be Good. BANG - into the music first and foremost, and the absolute roots at that.
One reason I like Randy Vincent‘s Guitarists intro to jazz so much is its intelligent presentation of material. It has four parts, the first is rhythm guitar (big band style), the second is comping (and a little more chord melody) the third is using vocab and it’s the fourth that is scales etc. The material in the last chapter is generic to modern jazz edu books, but the ordering and presentation have been thought about really carefully.
it’s as simple as leading with music and using theory later. Good teachers afaik have always done this.Last edited by Christian Miller; 03-23-2023 at 09:31 AM.
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
I think we have different notions of theory. My experience is like Christian's: a lot of publications (online as well as books) are more practical than truly theoretical. My background is in architectural history and theory; there, theory is all about meaning and purpose, rather than how to design. Jazz theory seems to be more this goes with that: a means to an end. Learning which scales work with particular chords solves practical problems, for example.
Garry Hagberg and Howard Roberts called their system 'praxis', which might be a better term. It was acceptable in the eighties, at least.
Now, I will watch this guy:
-
Yes. I failed to find something that might explain jazz, despite much searching (I was naive and thought jazz could be explained; forgive me). Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Musically, jazz can be explained like anything else. The spirit of it is another matter.
-
Praxis is accurate. I don't understand what you're semanticizing about before that tho. Originally Posted by Litterick
-
After three years of an highly academic music education degree I never want to hear the bloody word Praxis ever again haha
Mostly it’s used to justify ‘non idiomatic’ free improv projects where the way the music actually sounds is down at the bottom of the list of criteria. Below whatever criteria it is that the funding bodies deem to fit in with their requirements. I won’t say more as I’ll sound like a reactionary, and I’m really not.
I think there should be more beauty in the world and it’s our job to bring it into being and to help others bring it into being. Apparently music educators seeking funding would rather make any argument at all than suggest that beauty can be transformative and connective. Despite that ALL musicians actually believe this deep in their souls.
It need not be conventional or easy beauty, but beauty nonetheless.
I leaned very fast not to advocate this position in essays and so on. It’s not the way the wind is blowing.
we’ve strayed far from the path …
anyway, sorry for the rant hahaLast edited by Christian Miller; 03-23-2023 at 05:50 PM.
-
And it's half a goodnight from him
-
Praxis is the process of using a theory. It is quite a useful word. Arts administrators and academics do use it as a substitute for 'practice', because they are wiseacres.
Reply With Quote
when 2 Chets meet ...
Yesterday, 07:29 PM in The Songs