modern jazz theory stuff

[Sixofour]

I never understood it, you have jazz theory, then you have actual jazz, which is mostly horrific music that throws any instance of consistency and harmony out the window. Get a guy with a Sitar from India, a white guy from the 1700s on a piano, a Latino guy on Bass, and some African Tribe for the percussion...have them play completely different songs, different rhythms, different textures and tones.....and you have Jazz.

What do you people see in it?

[nuffink]

I never understood it, you have jazz theory, then you have actual jazz, which is mostly horrific music that throws any instance of consistency and harmony out the window. Get a guy with a Sitar from India, a white guy from the 1700s on a piano, a Latino guy on Bass, and some African Tribe for the percussion...have them play completely different songs, different rhythms, different textures and tones.....and you have Jazz.

Sounds right up my strasse. What are they called?

[soulata]

I never understood it, you have jazz theory, then you have actual jazz, which is mostly horrific music that throws any instance of consistency and harmony out the window.

Good jazz isn't inconsistent or purely random at all. It's a great mixture of theory, technique and taste.

Do you find (f.i.) Brad Mehldau horrific?

Get a guy with a Sitar from India, a white guy from the 1700s on a piano, a Latino guy on Bass, and some African Tribe for the percussion...have them play completely different songs, different rhythms, different textures and tones.....and you have Jazz.

Not really, although it's an interesting idea.

What do you people see in it?

Freedom of expression (as opposed to getting the notes right he he). Although one has to speak the language of jazz before really making something out of it.

k

[Pichulina]

Sixofour, do you know "Four On Six"?
Its a great jazz tune from Wes Montgomery

[Sixofour]

Nah, i don't, i should give it a listen sometime.

[jopy]

Okay, bypassing the extremely well-informed discussion tangent for just a moment , I wanted to note this great resource for modern jazz fans:

http://www.m-base.com/download.html

That's right, Steve Coleman is making his music available for free. Many of you may know about this already, but if you didn't, now you do. They're all 128 kbps mp3 files. There is some incredibly intense rhythm theory going on here, dozens of polyrhythmic structures.

[soulata]

Okay, bypassing the extremely well-informed discussion tangent for just a moment , I wanted to note this great resource for modern jazz fans:

http://www.m-base.com/download.html

That's right, Steve Coleman is making his music available for free. Many of you may know about this already, but if you didn't, now you do. They're all 128 kbps mp3 files. There is some incredibly intense rhythm theory going on here, dozens of polyrhythmic structures.

thanks a lot

[buckshead]

SIXOFOUR

You may be ignorant, but why do you think that the rest of us need to know it. If you can't write sense, why don't you keep quiet. Ball s h i tt i n g about things of which you neither know or understand just makes you look stupid

[Sascha Franck]

BTW: this is the tune Orbits...

I have studied jazz/rock/pop at the local music university, I do have a rather comprehensive knowledge of jazz theory as well, but I fail to see any "logic" behind this tune at all. Basslines and the improvisation on top of it simply sound randomized. I'm sure there's an analytical approach which would explain things, but as a listener (even as an educated one) this is just "some other stuff". Stuff that I can't stand, to be honest.

[jopy]

I hope this doesn't come across as overly hostile, but I can't comprehend why people would provide an opinion about a style of music someone else is trying to better understand intellectually. I don't recall anyone asking "hey, who likes modern jazz?" or "who likes free improv?" The thrust of most of this conversation has been informational.

Obviously if you don't like the style being discussed, it's not relevant to you, so it's well enough to leave the topic alone. No one with any sort of social awareness who likes modern jazz believes its going to appeal to very many people. That's been beyond the point of argument or observation for quite some time. That's fine with me. I don't really get too excited about what anyone else does or doesn't like. Just because you personally don't understand or emotionally connect with a style of music doesn't mean there's nothing to understand. Explaining why someone should not like something seems like a futile and destructive exercise, unless you're persuading an extremely weak minded individual.

Honestly, do people think that when they offer criticism that someone who is drawn to a certain style of music is going to suddenly throw up their hands and say, "Damn, all those hours I spent getting off on Wayne Shorter were a waste of time! You're right, I hate these hundreds of CDs that I own!"

[Sascha Franck]

jmeier, I didn't leave this thread alone because I found your "explorations" quite interesting.
Also, I'm always interested in learning something new about music theory.
But then, in the tune my (admittedly sneaky) side remark was about, I couldn't find any of these theories being applied, it could as well be just *some* strangeness that was used as a theoretical background. The other tunes you posted (such as "Maiden Voyage") were quite better in explaining what your writings were all about.

[jopy]

Ah, I see, that makes sense. Again, apologies if I came across as hostile, I wasn't sure where you were coming from.

And as you might have guessed, my comment wasn't directed primarily at your post (if it had been, I would have quoted you).

[Bobbotov]

jmeier, I didn't leave this thread alone because I found your "explorations" quite interesting.
Also, I'm always interested in learning something new about music theory.
But then, in the tune my (admittedly sneaky) side remark was about, I couldn't find any of these theories being applied, it could as well be just *some* strangeness that was used as a theoretical background. The other tunes you posted (such as "Maiden Voyage") were quite better in explaining what your writings were all about.

I am an artist as well as a musician and I am used to people expressing disdain for modern art particularly abstract expressionism or any non-figurative art.

Similarly with music many things are abstract and it is difficult for people to grasp a connection to it since they cannot intellectual understand it nor do they "feel" it. For me a lot of abstract music and art is more visceral than cerebral. It is more about feelings than intellectualism. Jazz has such a wide vista of styles and has evolved so much in the last hundred years but it basically started viscerally and not intellectually. The intellectualism came after the fact. As the earliest American black musicians strove to find a voice that they could call their own they drew from the depth of their souls and heritage and the result was pretty much rejected by mainstream musicians as being tribal cacophony and not following established musical traditions and therefore inferior. It was radical from day one and completely subjective. But those early musicians were not trying to compete with anything; they were expressing their feelings that were repressed, rejected and marginalized but needed to be vented. Jazz is all about soul more than theory. Most of those early Jazz musicians were self taught and had no chance of studying the classics except what their ears could hear. Thank God for that for to me talent trumps theory any day.

Miles Davis is probably one of the most talented musicians to have ever played Jazz. He doesn't actually play Jazz as many who study theory do, he IS Jazz. That is a big difference. For Jazz is nothing if it isn't the people who make it. The theory comes after the fact just like the art critics who ponder what the meaning of a Jackson Pollack or Ellsworth Kelly painting might be. Can you imagine intellectualizing a really good meal? Or a fragrance or a tactile sensation? People do but I think they miss the point entirely.

[grammo]

I found this very useful: http://linuxmusicians.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=469

[jopy]

i said a while back that i wanted to put something more contemporary up as an example of where jazz theory has been in the past few years. i can't think of a better example of the general trend than this piece by cuong vu:

http://www.jopyjopyjopy.com/public/about-2/cuong-vu

there are a few things that i really think mark out the theoretical modernity of this piece that are a clear break from the history of jazz. the most obvious is that one of the initial concepts of jazz fusion, to emphasize timbre as a vital component of composition, is clearly dominant. although all the members of this group are virtuoso players in their own right, excepting for occasional flourishes your ear isn't always drawn to just how facile they are. dexterity is de-emphasized, phrasing and rhythm are everything. using electronics is not really "theory" i suppose, but the use of timbre and orchestration via electronics is very much a part of conventional music theory and there are a hell of a lot of orchestration choices being made in this group as this piece evolves.

a second key feature of this piece that i hear in a lot of stuff from the '00s is the use of a very minimal melodic and harmonic structure that permits a lot of freedom for all members of a group. this is, i think, a reflection of free jazz (cuong vu plays acoustic free jazz too). the quick lines and chord changes of bebop are very demanding, and to keep up with all the changes basically means playing some fairly restrained rhythmic ideas. the more minimal structure allows for a much more fluid conception of the piece and also encourages long ideas that take up a lot of space to be used.

and for the record, wynton lost the war.