-
Originally Posted by Litterick
I‘m not even joking lol.
-
03-11-2023 05:21 AM
-
I think one stumbling block is that we've made far too great a separation between practical and theory, as though the two were thoroughly unrelated, like two different worlds.
They're not. The practical is applied theory, that's all.
-
'Daddy, where do babies come from?'
'Well, theoretically...'
-
-
Originally Posted by kris
-
Originally Posted by LitterickOriginally Posted by Christian Miller
This is the whole mad-at-theory phenomenon. As if info that can only benefit a musician can harm their music somehow. On the other hand, if it doesn't benefit you, then don't use it. How hard was that?
Also for most musicians, having some kind of base theory framework is essential to being able to play at all. And then people act like theory is destructive somehow. Or that it's inversely proportional to ear - the more your theory goes up the more your ear goes down. Lol! Doesn't make any sense.Last edited by Bobby Timmons; 03-11-2023 at 09:16 AM.
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
You should be absolutely mad at the following kinds of theory as elaborated by Robert O. Gjerdingen:
- Roman Numeral Analysis
- Harmonic Function Theory
- Rameau's Fundamental Bass Theory
- Chord Scale Theory
As it's all garbage and a waste of your time and will make you a confused, non-composing musician.
All the musicians I know who claim to use the above, tend to compose or improvise using something else and then say they use the above systems to organize their thoughts.
Much better is Figured bass (just counting up from the bass, no chord inversions) and counterpoint.
-
^ You'd probably want to include explanations for those silly statements lol. Do you not transpose? What could possibly be wrong with roman numerals as a basic tool?
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
Now you can use basic tools and get something out of it, I guess.
But try putting roman numerals on Ravel or Rachmaninoff. If advanced PhD music theory scholars can't agree on the placement of roman numerals on Rachmaninoff, what does that tell you about the system?
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
Originally Posted by kris
I agree it’s not worth getting drawn into some of the more tedious discussions that go on here. I tend not to these days - life’s too short for us oldies!
-
Originally Posted by humphreysguitar
-
Originally Posted by JimmyDunlop
Originally Posted by humphreysguitar
-
So let me mention a few things to connect the importance of something like figured bass with a so-called "contemporary" style like jazz.
Figured bass is simply reading intervals above a bass, it doesn't have any prejudice to style or era. Intervals are intervals, and no matter how you look at it, consonances will always be consonances and the same for dissonances. Treatment of these intervals and diminutions (passing notes etc), plus of course rhythm, will dictate the style but as far as the harmonic framework, there is nothing that figured bass cannot explain in tonal music.
Also the idea that figured bass is only accompaniment for the Baroque is utterly false. Schumann studied it, Ravel studied it, Debussy. Heck, even Luciano Berio.
Claus Ogerman (1930 – 2016), who many today cite as a major influence on jazz arranging, such as Rick Beato and his ilk, was a straight classically trained contrapuntist from Germany.
I know for a fact that Barry Harris liked figured bass and quite literally said in his workshop DVD "We should be learning figured bass."
Don't forget, Charlie Parker knew what was what and wanted to further his education with Edgar Varese before his untimely passing. Varese was Paris Conservatory (read: figured bass) trained.
So the idea that "we are jazz players" and only the 19th-century form of ineffective, slow, useless, incorrect classical analysis of RNA works instead of tried and true figured bass/counterpoint, makes absolutely no sense. With respect.
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
Originally Posted by humphreysguitar
-
-
Every chord has four names and I can't keep track of them and so I'm angry at theory. I should have stuck with country blues, I don't need to know all this crap to pay Freight Train.
-
Originally Posted by humphreysguitar
As it's all garbage and a waste of your time and will make you a confused, non-composing musician.
All the musicians I know who claim to use the above, tend to compose or improvise using something else and then say they use the above systems to organize their thoughts.
Much better is Figured bass (just counting up from the bass, no chord inversions) and counterpoint.
I like Gjerdingen and have read his books. But he self identified on a recent podcast as ‘an American salesman sort of guy’ (roughly) and I think I agree.Last edited by Christian Miller; 03-11-2023 at 12:57 PM.
-
The most mindblowing thing I discovered in this thread is that the author has 1000+ posts in 1 year ... never seen before
-
Originally Posted by pauln
For example there’s references in Bach that just go over our heads because we are not early 18th century Germans. Same with mid century jazz. In so much as instrumental music has any meaning content at all, it disappears over time (unless there are lyrics and even then… )
We don’t hear Bach the way Bach expected to be heard.
Every new generation hears music in a slightly different way. we reinvent music through our own sensibility and culture in our listening as much as our music making.
-
Originally Posted by JimmyDunlop
If you want to learn to improvise? Depends.
I think the tone of ambivalence, even self-deprecation in Levine’s foreword is very telling. He doesn’t want to be writing ‘the theory book’. I appreciate this. I understand Sher had some influence in the matter. He may have suspected that this was going to be a textbook that was going to be read by a lot of people. That’s a big responsibility.
there are things I like about it. There’s some some sweeping statements and so on in it that I have come to think don’t have much basis in the music (it’s quite clear where his knowledge is strongest). I think the best thing is to turn to the records and see what you think. I think that’s what Levine himself would have wanted. That’s what he says off the bat!
the highest praise I’d say about Levine’s book is that it is - very sensibly - not a actually theory book. It is a source book, like the piano book, full of interesting things to try. As this, it’s valuable and strongest on post 60s music which was Mark’s stated focus. I think the less successful aspects of it may be due to publisher interference. As a ‘how to jazz’ book it’s not very effective. That’s not what it’s meant to be anyway.
the other book I don’t know.Last edited by Christian Miller; 03-11-2023 at 01:20 PM.
-
Originally Posted by JimmyDunlop
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Seems you also dont like them too much, WHat theory book or what method do you suggest to improvise?
Free Western Swing recording
Today, 08:38 PM in Other Styles / Instruments