What is meant by this?

[Andyrondack]

QUOTE=Italuke;7171270]

I gave up a LONG time ago the notion dear to my heart that there is only ONE way to present and think about music theory. (Reconciling jazz theory with common-practice or "classical" theory helped in this process.)
.[/QUOTE]

I took this comment from another thread to avoid hijacking the thread on auto tune with a diversion into music theory.
It puzzles me, what does it mean why does Italuke believe there are multiple ways of thinking about music theory and why did he the believe what he calls jazz theory needed to be 'reconciled' with common- practice( What's this?) theory, and just how did he do that?
Perhaps Italuke would care to eloborate further?
Thank you.

[Mr. Jelly]

I don't know what he/she/it/they/those might have meant. Music theory explains music after it's been created. If you look at the music that is made the world over, you can see almost anything goes. Music isn't made by music theory.

[Silly Moustache]

Andy, I learnt to play guitar, mando and Dobro (and other stuff) knowing hardly any real music theory, but kinda absorbed it along the way.
I have never learnt notation, and by the time i was introduced to "tablature", it was too late as I "saw" notes in my old brain a very different way.
n.b. I also believe tablature to be little more than a piano roll instruction for humans.

However, as I am now asked to teach other people, (many of who want to learn how to play like I do on my Y/T vids), I have found myself needing to teach aspects of theory - but on a "need to know" basis.
further, I have had to learn to explain scales, intervals, Number system, and chord progressions in an understandable way - and different people "see" music in different ways.

We aren't writing and performing classical orchestrations here - I'm not talking John Williams or tar wonderful guy Neil Brand who speaks so well about music on Radio 4. .

* Most popular music that we play is in "normal Major scales, plus some bis of Maj/Min Pentatonic.
(Yes I know there are about 30 different scales for each key note but we don't "need" to know them - at least until we "need" them.

(I've got a great little book or scales and modes as and when = see:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Scales-Mode...ks%2C96&sr=1-1

Understanding Harmonising the scales is a useful teaching/writing skill, but also when/how to depart from the Maj, min, min Maj, Maj, min Dim, pattern.

I realise that I'm still on the "popular music" type theory, so I don't teach jazz voicings, leading tones etc., or classical music.

So, if and when you need to know something more obscure, it can be found, esp. online.

Hope that helps, however I'm always interested in knowing/discussing/helping others more so if you'd like to chat about it offline, maybe we could Zoom meet?
Ol'Andy

[Brent Hahn]

In this particular case, I'd say "theory" might be the wrong word. "Language" is more like it, or maybe "dialect." A way of communicating that's a bit more specific to the genre.

[stanron]

In non jazz theory, grades one to five are mostly about reading notation. Basic triads and their inversions are also covered as are basic and compound intervals. Grades six to eight were about different Composers and their music.

I don't know how jazz theory is structured. How does it differ? Is there any one single curriculum or is it just pick and mix?

[ceciltguitar]

For example, Walter Piston, George Russell, and John Coltrane each have different systems of harmony and melody. Walter Piston’s “Harmony” is the most widely used approach. I thought I read somewhere that Berkeley school of music does it sound system that is somewhat similar to (very possibly based on )nGeorge Russell‘s Lydian chromatic system.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Brent Hahn

In this particular case, I'd say "theory" might be the wrong word. "Language" is more like it, or maybe "dialect." A way of communicating that's a bit more specific to the genre.

This - exactly!

[JustGlyphs]

Classical (traditional) music theory and jazz music theory have some differences in notation and harmonic analysis, including things like figured bass, modes and rhythm. You can read different perspectives on this but there are basically advantages to different interpretations of music for different styles (ie jazz uses syncopation and improvisation, so jazz theory lends itself to these better).

They are overall quite similar, especially compared to music theory from non-Western places or contemporary electronic music. But perhaps that's broader than scope of the comment.

[mr. beaumont]

Could be something as simple as the Melodic Minor being the same ascending and descending in jazz...

I think the bigger picture is that each type of music has common practice and conventions that aren't explained well by theory. The I chord being a dominant 7th in a blues, for example.

And that's why it's important to remember that theory serves to help categorize and explain why things work (or don't work) in music. It doesn't dictate what can be played.

[JonPR]

Every kind of music shares some factors, and differs in other ways.

"Music theory" is simply a system for identifying and naming the various common practices in each style or genre. The "grammar of the language", if you like. Classical and jazz - as Brent says - are like two dialects of the same language (the language of "harmony", essentially, chords and so on, which is a peculiarly western thing).

The classical "dialect" is a rather old-fashioned way of speaking, considered "correct" in some academic circles. As with some English grammarians, some people get very fastidious about the "right" way to do things, which is mainy concerned with honouring tradition. In the language analogy, it's like believing that the most "proper" kind of English is the English as spoken by the upper classes between the periods of Shakespeare and Queen Victoria. (The language obviously evolved during that period, but the stuffiest grammarians would say it;s gone downhill ever since.)

In comparison, jazz is an American urban street slang. It's still a form of "English", of course, so obeys a lot of the same rules as "Victorian" English. I'm guessing this is what Italuke meant about "reconciling" the two. If any foreigner wanted to learn how American jazz musicians speak, a standard English text book (even one published 100-200 years ago) would do pretty well. But of course, some "jazz speak" would be hard to understand from that old vocabulary and grammar.

Some people would say this is because jazz (let alone rock and blues) "breaks the rules". This is nonsense, of course. If you think it's breaking rules, you're just applying the wrong rules. Not using music theory correctly. Jazz follows its own rules, and never breaks those! The purpose of music theory is to identify all of those "jazz rules" - the ones it shares with classical music as well as the ones it has established for itself.

In the Venn diagram of "music theory", the classical and jazz circles overlap quite a lot. But each one has areas quite distinct from the other - and those areas are all the factors by which we identify a piece of music as "jazz" or "classical".

For example, if we were to listen to a classical symphony, and compare with an orchestral jazz suite by (say) Duke Ellington, we'll probably tell which was which quite easily. But then if we compare both with (say) some Australian didgeridoo music, or African drumming, we'd hear straight away that the classical and jazz pieces in fact have a whole lot in common! Not least the fact that they both use "tonal harmony", as well as sharing many of the same instruments.

So, when it comes to discussing things like keys, chords and chord sequences, then "jazz theory" differs little if at all from "classical theory". The problem with that is it can lead to sidelining what is important about jazz. It can encourage the view that classical music is superior - because its harmonic and formal practices are so much more complex.

This is actually a very common bias, especially when people compare rock and R&B with classical music. People will claim that classical music is "obviously" better than rock music, because they are using formal and harmonic complexity as their criteria. And they happen to like formal and harmonic complexity - to them it's automatically a "good thing", and the most important aspect of music.

That's fine as a personal opinion, but it's nothing to do with music theory. Music theory can't be used to justify value judgments about any form of music. Music theory itself has no bias. It's just a discipline of observation and description of musical behaviour. As such, it's rather like a natural science. Zoologists don't have arguments about which animal is "best!" Even when they talk about evolution, they don't tend to talk in terms of "progress", as if today's animals are "better" than the ones they evolved from. "Success" is measured in terms adaptation to environment, which changes all the time.

That still works as an analogy to music. Music "evolves" in each society, to fit the society as it changes. Old music will survive (being written or handed down aurally) provided it still has meaning for that society, or at least some members of that society. But new music is created all the time: always building on the old, usually with much less innovation than is sometimes imagined. (The most innovative music will struggle to survive, because its "environment" may stretch little further than the composers's brain!)

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by JustGlyphs

Classical (traditional) music theory and jazz music theory have some differences in notation and harmonic analysis, including things like figured bass, modes and rhythm. You can read different perspectives on this but there are basically advantages to different interpretations of music for different styles (ie jazz uses syncopation and improvisation, so jazz theory lends itself to these better).

They are overall quite similar, especially compared to music theory from non-Western places or contemporary electronic music. But perhaps that's broader than scope of the comment.

Hi JG
I have come to believe that there is not a unified, single, nor concrete approach to music theory. There are different reasons players use music theory…and many do not. Actually, most players DO NOT knowingly even use music theory.

My minor in college was 'applied' music theory (Major was music education), and different teachers taught it differently, using different text books (some didn't even use text books). Some approached it academically (on paper) whereas others approached it using instruments to illustrate it.

Because I was exposed to many different approaches and explanations, and a number of skilled teachers (and rules and exceptions to said-rules) I believe I'm a lot more flexible, better equipped, and diverse as a musician. And because I was curious I found many other applications of just through exposure to , and observation of skilled musicians.

I can read scores just fine, and read chord charts and transpose on the fly. I'm great at monkey-see-monkey-do, but I can also jot down out a quick notation section for the sax player or flutist if needs be. On a trip to Mexico where I was teaching teenage guitarists for an afternoon in an orphanage, I taught in Spanish and Solfege at the same time (fixed Do Solfege). And most people don't even know Solfege is still used worldwide to teach music.

For day-to-day use, I mark out lead parts for electric intros or solos for Worship Team (or any other place I'm playing lead) using alphanumeric numbering for the notes related to the key of the song.

That way I can adapt the chart quickly if they change keys.

There are different reasons players use music theory…and many do not.

[Andyrondack]

Originally Posted by JonPR

Every kind of music shares some factors, and differs in other ways.

"Music theory" is simply a system for identifying and naming the various common practices in each style or genre. The "grammar of the language", if you like. Classical and jazz - as Brent says - are like two dialects of the same language (the language of "harmony", essentially, chords and so on, which is a peculiarly western thing).

Yes this is pretty much how I put music theory to practical use, identify the common practices as you say and that goes a long way to making music that sounds like it fits within the genre your trying to emulate.
But that doesn't get us any closer to understanding Italuke's position, if anything it gets us further away.

Originally Posted by JonPR

In the Venn diagram of "music theory", the classical and jazz circles overlap quite a lot. But each one has areas quite distinct from the other - and those areas are all the factors by which we identify a piece of music as "jazz" or "classical".

For example, if we were to listen to a classical symphony, and compare with an orchestral jazz suite by (say) Duke Ellington, we'll probably tell which was which quite easily. But then if we compare both with (say) some Australian didgeridoo music, or African drumming, we'd hear straight away that the classical and jazz pieces in fact have a whole lot in common! Not least the fact that they both use "tonal harmony", as well as sharing many of the same instruments.

Italuke has studied ethnomusicology and I thought it might be interesting if he could share some of his insights of how a musical syntax or grammar , (because I don't know what else to call it,) develops in small non complex communities, I mean everyone wherever they are has some culturally formed idea of what music is 'supposed' to sound like so music must follow some rules otherwise it's just not going to sound musical at least within the culture that produces it.

I have not 'studied'music theory for more than a few hours and have frequently found it very useful indeed.
Just one example someone taught me some scales once and I went away and messed around to see what music I might come up with and it didn't take long to realise that when I fooled around with a minor pentatonic scale copying the rhythms I got from Hollywood westerns I could create the sounds that conjured up images of the injuns last party before they all got killed by John Wayne.

Few years later I'm in a Sami museum in Lapland talking to a guide about Sami music and she puts on an LP of Sami yoiking which is what they call their traditional chants, it sounded to me very similar to the Hollywood interpretation of what Native American songs are supposed to sound like , and really it wasn't pleasant to my ears at all but I thought I got to find something polite to say about this so I just said "that sounds like a pentatonic scale". Well maybe I just got lucky but she turned the record sleeve around and read out a learned description of Yoiking which confirmed that these chants were based on a 5 note scale.

But I don't understand why Italuke might interpret those chants as using a 'different theory' or needing to be reconciled with other forms of music? Perhaps as Brent Hahn posted he just meant 'musical dialect or language' which is how I think of it , but then why would another cultures musical language need to be reconciled with anything?

But maybe he will elaborate, I would find that interesting.

[mr. beaumont]

Originally Posted by Andyrondack

But I don't understand why Italuke might interpret those chants as using a 'different theory' or needing to be reconciled with other forms of music? Perhaps as Brent Hahn posted he just meant 'musical dialect or language' which is how I think of it , but then why would another cultures musical language need to be reconciled with anything?

But maybe he will elaborate, I would find that interesting.

You're getting at an important point here, actually--

What we refer to as music theory is a pretty "young" invention. And it's specifically Western, it's piano theory.

So when you have music created by cultures long before the piano or the concept of Western music existed...

[rllink]

Interesting thread and interesting comments. I guess I had not thought about it this way before. But theory does not create, it is a way of trying to understand. I do think that often times people take theory and try to apply it as rules. Nothing says that if we go outside the bounds of theory it is wrong yet at the same time some people believe it is.

Anyway, every time we play a chord we are putting the theory into practice whether we know music theory or not. I've seen really great players who claim they know nothing of music theory, yet their playing says otherwise. They just don't know what theory they are playing. I mean, how many soccer players need understand Newton's Laws of Motion in order to kick a goal?

[Andyrondack]

Originally Posted by rllink

Interesting thread and interesting comments. I guess I had not thought about it this way before. But theory does not create, it is a way of trying to understand. I do think that often times people take theory and try to apply it as rules. Nothing says that if we go outside the bounds of theory it is wrong yet at the same time some people believe it is.

Anyway, every time we play a chord we are putting the theory into practice whether we know music theory or not. I've seen really great players who claim they know nothing of music theory, yet their playing says otherwise. They just don't know what theory they are playing. I mean, how many soccer players need understand Newton's Laws of Motion in order to kick a goal?

There was a famous country/bluegrass guitarist who grew up on a very remote farm in Appalachia, his mother bought him a guitar on a visit to town but he had no music books and knew no one else who might teach him to play. They had a radio and this bloke created his own chords to play along with the music he heard on the Grand Ol' Opry show.
When he left the family farm and met other guitar players they found that he had re-created all the commonly used 1st position chords that we all learn to begin with.
Had he remained isolated with nothing but the radio how far could he have developed as a guitarist?