Shows us Theory Newbies how to implement chords.

[vurt]

hmm 10 bands of that ilk that use jazz and you even allow prog...

!= means "does not equal".

As in, I do NOT allow prog, prog is entirely diff.

and it's underlings are different to metal precisely because...?

windmills.

....
....
....
what?

hes asking why you get to keep altering the goalposts so everything fits your definition...

[Kingston]

don quixote

[Toxikator]

see eariler edit: I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm making the point that there are bands and styles which aren't influenced by jazz. There are probably jazz/metal crossovers that you could file under Metal if you wanted, but you and I know that when I say "thrash, metal, and hardcore, industrial, dnb" I'm talking about bands like Chimaira, Bleed the Sky, Dieselboy, Celldweller, KMFDM, Pitchshifter, etc.

The music that I listen to.

Not Dream Theater and Squarepusher and other bands that you could probably get away with filing in that category but clearly aren't what I'm talking about.

[vurt]

see eariler edit: I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm making the point that there are bands and styles which aren't influenced by jazz. There are probably jazz/metal crossovers that you could file under Metal if you wanted, but you and I know that when I say "thrash, metal, and hardcore, industrial, dnb" I'm talking about bands like Chimaira, Bleed the Sky, Dieselboy, Celldweller, KMFDM, Pitchshifter, etc.

The music that I listen to.

Not Dream Theater and Squarepusher and other bands that you could probably get away with filing in that category but clearly aren't what I'm talking about.

i feel i should take the shovel from your hands round about now, please stop digging.

[whyterabbyt]

don quixote

the jazz trumpeter?

[BosseJo]

Says you. I can think of maybe 3 bands out of my collection of hundreds of albums that employ vague tonality. Again, if you're analyzing modern pop and jazz, this is true. for Rock, it's somewhat true, but when you start to consider derivative forms like Punk, Metal, Thrash, etc as well as genres like DnB, Indus, etc. you'll find almost NO jazz influence at all; It's particularly true of black-metal and classical crossover acts, which are neoclassical and to which a classical system CLEARLY applies.

Now you have really lost it.

Let's drop DnB out, since on a forum like this DnB also evidently means IDM (I don't count them as the same at all), Drill, Breakcore, Dub, and a hundred other genres that use the Amen break.

When I say DnB I'm thinking of Dieselboy and that ilk; Aphex Twin, Squarepusher, that's not at ALL what I mean.

And Bosse, you're free to find me 10 examples of thrash, metal, or hardcore bands that employ jazz theory. If you do, I will literally delete this account and leave KvR forever. (Prog Rock != metal, BTW)

Oh , do not where to start...This jazz vs. classical, you just don't get it do you?

[Kingston]

I'm making the point that there are bands and styles which aren't influenced by jazz.

and that has exactly what to do with the (original and already derailed) topic on whether jazz theory is fit to describe most, if not all modern music?

does not compute

[Toxikator]

Only to the extent that jazz theory makes the most sense when jazz sensibilities are implied.

As Sascha said, Jazz theory has it's advantages, primarily in those styles of music with vague tonalities or tonal shifting.

All I was trying to demonstrate was that there's plenty of music out there that it makes perfect sense to analyze from a classical perspective since the primary advantages offered by Jazz analysis aren't put to any use.

BTW sorry for derailing another thread, I've created a new one for this crap.

[Sascha Franck]

And Bosse, you're free to find me 10 examples of thrash, metal, or hardcore bands that employ jazz theory. If you do, I will literally delete this account and leave KvR forever. (Prog Rock != metal, BTW)

My f**king goodness, even if I promised to stay out of this, you just don't WANT to understand, do you?!?
The Berklee numbering system has got NOTHING to do with analysis! It's a SOLELY descriptive system. Just as there's NOTHING to argue about when it comes to describing, say, a f**king major third, there's as well NOTHING to argue about when it comes to describing a I-IV-V7 movement.
It's got nothing to do with analysis, not even for a nanosecond.
And that's the very reason why this system is rather versatile, as long as things are remotely kept in one tonality. The system is as clear as a morning sky without any further theoretical knowlege (but intervals).
Analysis would be if I described II7 as a secondary dominant. But the numbering system is doing nothing like that. It's not assuming that there's a major or minor tonality things are based upon either and it's as well not doing anything analytic.
The fact that it became established by jazz education has got nothing to do with it being bound to whatever style either.

And because it's like that, you can happily use it to describe prog rock, punk, trash, black metal and whatever you wish. Jazz included as well, of course. Something the classical system isn't that great at - it serves other purposes better (and it might even be a better tool for analysis).

[Sascha Franck]

As Sascha said, Jazz theory has it's advantages, primarily in those styles of music with vague tonalities or tonal shifting.

And no, Sascha didn't say that all throughout this thread.

[Toxikator]

As Sascha said, Jazz theory has it's advantages, primarily in those styles of music with vague tonalities or tonal shifting.

And no, Sascha didn't say that all throughout this thread.

It was the point I was replying to.

And anyway, if I WERE to grant that the Berklee system is more useful for nonanalytical notation, since this whole thing stemmed from JJF's ANALYSIS of a ii7 chord, does it really belong at all?

[nuffink]

For God's sake, can't we just agree that there are many different methods of notating chords. That's not just one for classical and one for jazz, but many for classical and many for jazz. Some are more suited to certain types of music. No system is inherently better or worse than another for every type of music.

People use what they are familiar with. There's nothing wrong with that. You may find it harder to understand, but that doesn't make it wrong. It is up to every individual to adopt a style which suits them best. No one can say that all music should be analysed in a certain way and only that way. What works well in one context doesn't necessarily work well in another.

Agreed? (If not, I can't be bothered to argue, so you'll either have to accept it, or continually hurl insults at everyone who doesn't use the same exact methods that you do).

Like I said Jack, you really need to stay out of this for a while. There will be plenty of opportunity for us to bicker about naming conventions in the future. I enjoy our little discussions.
At the moment the problem child is trying to ally himself to you, and he's not an ally you want. So best stay clear.

[nuffink]

oh and that dnb quote is a bloody gem.

This was my favourite

I forgot the melodic minor (I hate that scale).

It's a bit like "I've done four years of art theory and I forgot about blue. I hate that colour."

[Toxikator]

oh and that dnb quote is a bloody gem.

This was my favourite

I forgot the melodic minor (I hate that scale).

It's a bit like "I've done four years of art theory and I forgot about blue. I hate that colour."

yeah but what if I do?

That was an honest and genuine mistake because I honestly and genuinely hate that scale and never use it. You're less inclined to consider it if you saw it twice in a textbook and never looked back.

BTW in the future just keep this crap to itt. I know you really like putting me down but don't waste threads on it.

[nuffink]

oh and that dnb quote is a bloody gem.

This was my favourite

I forgot the melodic minor (I hate that scale).

It's a bit like "I've done four years of art theory and I forgot about blue. I hate that colour."

yeah but what if I do?

That was an honest and genuine mistake because I honestly and genuinely hate that scale and never use it. You're less inclined to consider it if you saw it twice in a textbook and never looked back.

BTW in the future just keep this crap to itt. I know you really like putting me down but don't waste threads on it.

It was an honest and genuine mistake because you're a little chancer who doesn't know what he's on about. This wouldn't be a problem and you'd have more help than you could deal with if you'd just stop pretending that you know anything about music theory.
You've read a book you don't understand and are using it to argue with people who know what they're talking about.