The official mad-at-theory thread

[Christian Miller]

Actually I would say it deals not just with classical improvisation (although that's the main battleground) but deals with the much wider implications of music theory and education as a whole.

So it's really a battle between Roman numerals/function theory/chord symbols vs figured bass/counterpoint/scaled degrees.

it's where non-chord notes are not treated as "chord extensions" but dissonances.

It's so fundamental a battle that it goes well beyond classical music into all tonal music.

I've given examples in previous posts how these older principles have no problem adapting to modern styles (jazz/film etc) and quite honestly are better suited to incorporating styles than chord symbols and function theory.

how often have we heard "is this a non functional chord? Oh what a genius!"

I'll leave with this quintet by Theodore Dubois:

I do think the main difference with jazz is the way ‘dissonances’ heard in a way which is fundamentally different from classical. In jazz the upper structure has tonal primacy. In trad harmony the lower structure does. It’s kind of upside down and the way we name extensions which is classical, doesn’t help this.

Anyway, I’m going to do a video that will explain this.

[kris]

I do think the main difference with jazz is the way ‘dissonances’ heard in a way which is fundamentally different from classical. In jazz the upper structure has tonal primacy. In trad harmony the lower structure does. It’s kind of upside down and the way we name extensions which is classical, doesn’t help this.

Anyway, I’m going to do a video that will explain this.

But for what purpose?
jazz and classical music-This is not the same.
Or maybe the less theory the better...I am mad at theory!!!

[humphreysguitar]

I do think the main difference with jazz is the way ‘dissonances’ heard in a way which is fundamentally different from classical. In jazz the upper structure has tonal primacy. In trad harmony the lower structure does. It’s kind of upside down and the way we name extensions which is classical, doesn’t help this.

Anyway, I’m going to do a video that will explain this.

Wow, maybe this thread will come up with some interesting discussions after all!

I'll preface my response by saying I'm only going to refer to bebop and not post bebop jazz improvisation, which I really don't know anything about.

I think Fats Waller/Art Tatum/Bud Powell/Charlie Parker's improvisations perfectly align with classical theory and I know those guys were absolute classical music hounds.

I looked at Barry Harris' single line workbook from the DVDs and while he claims he's thinking about scales and half steps, my personal opinion is that he is basically teaching diminution. There is nothing in his workbook that violates or goes against it.

I would also consider his "scale of chords" his own personal method of harmonizing a scale, which in Classical music there are many ways to harmonize an ascending scale and he would fit right in with his scale as another option.

[humphreysguitar]

But for what purpose?
jazz and classical music-This is not the same.
Or maybe the less theory the better...I am mad at theory!!!

as Barry Harris said, Jazz is a continuation of classical music.

[kris]

as Barry Harris said, Jazz is a continuation of classical music.

I don't know what the context of his statement was.
I wouldn't say it like him.
Check definitions; how jazz was born.
It's more of a cultural mix than a continuation of classical music.
The influence of classical music on jazz... that's it.
Classical and jazz music are not the same.
Two different musical worlds.
If it were so, that this is a continuation, then all classical musicians would be jazzmens.
But it would be nice!!!

[kris]

I also know that jazz musicians recorded some records with classical music.
But I am of the opinion that the best classical music is played by musicians who deal with classical music.
There are also attempts to play jazz by classical musicians.
I don't want to judge whether it contributes anything to the development of jazz.

[humphreysguitar]

Barry Harris: "Centuries ago, cats learned to improvise, they had to have certain... you had to have something to know how to improvise. So you gotta find some kind of system. Whatever system they had, Bach and them had, got lost [partimento/figured bass/counterpoint] 'cause they sure don't teach that. Now they teach you Jazz.. they teach you some kind of Jazz Theory™, that's the biggest dud of the year. A Jazz theory? So, that means I gotta learn about dorian, mixolydian [further rant about CST].."

[kris]

It's a pity he doesn't mention the importance of rhythm, feeling, which are more important in jazz than the notes themselves.
Is he mad at jazz theory?
Maybe he doesn't know exactly what jazz theory means.
dorian, mixolidian - these are the names of scales from the classical music.
B.Harris has his own method and theories of learning jazz - and kudos to him for that.
He must somehow popularize this method.
But this is not the only way to learn jazz in the world.
Just one of many.
That's why I'm curious about how they learned jazz:
Dexter Gordon, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Charlie Parker etc...

[Christian Miller]

But for what purpose?
jazz and classical music-This is not the same.
Or maybe the less theory the better...I am mad at theory!!!

Because I think the way we talk about jazz harmony theoretically means I think a lot of people don't quite get it, experienced jazz players such as yourself hear it and play it but we don't talk about it theoretically in a way that supports this hearing in mainstream jazz theory. The Stephon Harris/Jordan Klemons stuff was revelatory in this regard for me.

For instance the term 'tensions' is completely backwards and wrong. Upper structure is better, but the nomenclature (chord symbols etc) still tends to follow classical theory which doesn't reflect how these things sound.

It's a really profound difference in harmonic perception. It's one reason why classical musicians can't hear jazz harmony... but on the other hand jazz musicians don't really hear classical harmony (that's one that's less well known) or to put in a less negative way, distort it to fit their aesthetic and process (Stella by Starlight is a classic example).

[kris]

Because I think the way we talk about jazz harmony theoretically means I think a lot of people don't quite get it, experienced jazz players such as yourself hear it and play it but we don't talk about it theoretically in a way that supports this hearing in mainstream jazz theory. The Stephon Harris/Jordan Klemons stuff was revelatory in this regard for me.

For instance the term 'tensions' is completely backwards and wrong. Upper structure is better, but the nomenclature (chord symbols etc) still tends to follow classical theory which doesn't reflect how these things sound.

It's a really profound difference. It's one reason why classical musicians can't hear jazz harmony... but on the other hand jazz musicians don't really hear classical harmony (that's one that's less well known) or to put in a less negative way, distort it to fit their aesthetic and process (Stella by Starlight is a classic example).

I think everyone should agree here.

[kris]

Or maybe it's the case that all the giants of jazz music are guided by their hearing and intuition, and theory is only a percentage.
It is very complicated.
Besides teaching methods are different from actual playing by a jazz musician.
Theoretically, it can be assumed that there are as many methods as there are musicians.

[Christian Miller]

Or maybe it's the case that all the giants of jazz music are guided by their hearing and intuition, and theory is only a percentage.
It is very complicated.
Besides teaching methods are different from actual playing by a jazz musician.
Theoretically, it can be assumed that there are as many methods as there are musicians.

I think theory can be useful in elucidating what we already do sometimes, meaning we can extend to everything we do, and teach it. Actually I think that's one of it's main benefits.

[JimmyDunlop]

I think theory can be useful in elucidating what we already do sometimes, meaning we can extend to everything we do, and teach it. Actually I think that's one of it's main benefits.

could someone please tell me why barry harris seems so important in this thread? I think he didnt influenced any major jazz musician from the 20-50. Also he wasnt a major composer If I am not wrong? Is it cause he was a theorist? I dont know too much about this

[Christian Miller]

could someone please tell me why barry harris seems so important in this thread? I think he didnt influenced any major jazz musician from the 20-50. Also he wasnt a major composer If I am not wrong? Is it cause he was a theorist? I dont know too much about this

Look him up? One of jazz's greatest and most prolific educator (he was gigging and teaching when he was still in school.)

Everyone seems to have gone through his door to check out what he was doing as a teacher... Even Trane. Zawinul hung with him in the late 50s, before he moved on from bop. But yeah the Detroit players, Paul Chambers, Kenny Burrell, Flanagan, Joe Henderson etc. James Jamerson! Lee Konitz was hanging with him towards the end. People who might surprise you have been to Barry's classes.

Not to mention playing with ... well, mention a name and he's probably played with them.

So he was close to so many of the greats, it's not funny. Barry was an old school bop master, actually a quite consciously old school player in a world that was moving away from bop and into fusion. But everyone agrees he was one of the greatest bop pianists after Bud (go and listen to him) and one of bop's greatest teachers if not the greatest.

For my own experience, Barry taught me to play bop. So if you want to play bop (which many consider the foundation of modern jazz) - he's a guy to check out.

His approach to breaking down jazz language and harmony is completely different to that which you find in Mark Levine's books. Yet, Mark was also a students, and credits Barry in the Jazz Theory Book, if you look.

[kris]

There's also Pat Martino.
Does anyone here know in detail all the educational materials he has written or made?
Pat Martino is a mine of knowledge and a brilliant jazz guitarist.

[Christian Miller]

There's also Pat Martino.
Does anyone here know in detail all the educational materials he has written or made?
Pat Martino is a mine of knowledge and a brilliant jazz guitarist.

I know a bit. But I didn't learn to play jazz by looking into his stuff, so I can't really comment further.

The stuff about dim and aug symmetry on the guitar is clever. Also the minor conversion. These have analogs in Barry's teaching but obv Barry wasn't a guitar player. Obviously he had to learn twice! So that means he must have been good at organising stuff by definition.

The bottom line is guys like Barry and Pat were NYC musicians at the pinnacle of their art and plugged into that community. You are going to get a lot of good info out of people like that.

[humphreysguitar]

I know a bit. But I didn't learn to play jazz by looking into his stuff, so I can't really comment further.

The stuff about dim and aug symmetry on the guitar is clever. Also the minor conversion. These have analogs in Barry's teaching but obv Barry wasn't a guitar player. Obviously he had to learn twice! So that means he must have been good at organising stuff by definition.

The bottom line is guys like Barry and Pat were NYC musicians at the pinnacle of their art and plugged into that community. You are going to get a lot of good info out of people like that.

It's good that Pat Martino was brought up, and I think he's highly pertinent to this topic's thread of theory. But I don't know much about his system though.

I believe in Barry Harris' DVD or some video online, he was talking about his 6th (Jazz 6th chord CEGA, not Classical EGC 6 chord) chords and remarking to himself, "you know, maybe there's someone out there in the world who's created his own whole system based on the minor 7th chord", since C6 and Am7 have the same notes.

[kris]

It's good that Pat Martino was brought up, and I think he's highly pertinent to this topic's thread of theory. But I don't know much about his system though.

I believe in Barry Harris' DVD or some video online, he was talking about his 6th (Jazz 6th chord CEGA, not Classical EGC 6 chord) chords and remarking to himself, "you know, maybe there's someone out there in the world who's created his own whole system based on the minor 7th chord", since C6 and Am7 have the same notes.

[kris]

If anyone wants to get dizzy from the theory, I refer to the Aebersold website.

jazzbooks.com: Category

[JimmyDunlop]

thanks christian, you are very patient with beginners like me

[GuyBoden]

I have that video somewhere, but I don't have a video player anymore, he plays some truly great inspirational lines.

I'm trying to remember what he plays over Major 7th chords.

Good stuff.


EDIT: I looked it up, he plays minor lines from the 6th of the Major.

Example, I think this is correct, for a "C Major" 7th chord, the lines are similar to playing an "A Dorian" type line, which has the F#, so similar to a Lydian sound over C Major 7th chord. His system had too much complicated transposing for my little brain, but great lines.

[Christian Miller]

Yeah both Barry and Pat (and Holdsworth!) are examples of what Mick Goodrick called ‘derivative thinkers’ where they would take a small number of scales/pitch sets (or what Pat called ‘topics’) and apply everywhere, while ‘parallel thinkers’ apply a large number of different scales and ideas on different chords.

in the first case you learn less scales but have to get really good at converting chords into other chords in your head

in the second case applying scales to chords is trivial - you just choose the relevant pool of notes - BUT you have to learn a million scales!

I still feel the first approach is better at first, because if you have great language, ideas and voicings that work on one chord you can get the most mileage out of them by applying them on almost every other chord.

If you can do the ‘mental arithmetic’ it’s extremely efficient, probably a helpful aspect of, for example, you needed to relearn guitar in adult life due to a brain haemorrhage.

FWIW it’s how I mostly do it.

The other approach can be a bit peicemeal if you don’t have a well organised approach.

good grief, Pat, Barry and Mick all gone. We’ve lost some great ones these past couple of years. Allan a few years before.

[Christian Miller]

It seems to me Wayne generally talked about things in a very right brain way.

[ragman1]

Wayne Shorter, an outstanding jazz musician and brilliant composer, passed away not long ago.
are there any of his books and thoughts on jazz theory and education?
Maybe it's too hard to theorize about his playing and creativity.
Will any theoretician attempt to analyze his art of improvisation during the last quartet?
or maybe Shorter's playing goes beyond any theory?

Reaching Beyond: Improvisations on Jazz, Buddhism, and a Joyful Life - Herbie Hancock, Daisaku Ikeda, Wayne Shorter - Google Books

analyzing music of wayne shorter - Google Search

Amazon.co.uk

wayne shorter music analysis - Google Search

[Christian Miller]

This is a very superficial answer.

I disagree. Theory and analysis is superficial compared to the deep and unknowable aspects of music. I find Wayne refreshing in his apparent refusal to talk about music in these terms. Which is frustrating to those trying to ‘understand’ his music, but it may tell a more important story about how his process worked which may be more important if we want to be artists and not merely musical engineers.

What if we discovered for example that he picked his chords out of a hat and chose the ones he liked best?

besides, Wayne was a melody guy.

He played also in a very right brain way.
But try to theoretically analyze his playing in the last quartet.

NFI what’s going on there. I mean, I don’t really know what the process is.

I’m sure I can go in there with a jazz nerds international mindset and write down all my silly little numbers, but it may not actually mean anything much at all.