Theory of music in jazz and composition

[etc-etc]

This is the second, expanded, version of my post that originally appeared on saxontheweb.net.

As of now, university jazz education has firmly established itself as one of, if not the main supply stream of new professional jazz performers. Inevitably, students of jazz music become exposed to theory, in particular to harmony which has obvious applications in both improvised and composed jazz. An unfortunate result of this process is graduation of hundreds upon hundreds of new adepts of the bebop school of thought. Of course, bebop is the style where the harmonic richness reaches its zenith, while the ability of public to comprehend the perfomance, and accordingly, the desire of public to pay for listening, reaches its nadir. But this is not yet the worst part.

Similarly to theory of physics, theory of music attempts to explain what has been experimentally proven. Breakthroughs in music are accomplished by playing beyond what is established in musical practice, and by extension, theory. Once a breakthrough in musical practice - in physical parlance, in experiment - occurs and becomes (more or less) accepted, music theorists will belatedly find an explanation and foundations for it. However, the breakthrough itself is rarely, if ever, achieved, or predicted, by music theorists.

Possible exceptions to the above include dodecaphony and musique concrète (neither of which are, strictly speaking, jazz). Among these, at least musique concrète has reached general acceptance in the realm of commercial and background music. Otherwise, how could one explain the existence of soothing background music created from concrete sounds of everyday life, broadcast daily on dedicated channels of Sirius XM satellite radio - a subscription-based service?

Unlike physics theory, however, musical theory is almost never used to predict a statement that can be objectively tested in an experiment. The main reason for it: physics studies the (as far as we know) immutable laws of nature that can be objectively researched in an experiment, while musical theory and experiment are grounded in human perception that by definition is subjective.

As a summation of hitherto achieved consensus on what is the acceptable musical practice, theory of music is indispensable. By the same token, however, does it not become a shackle binding the imagination of future jazz composers and performers?

[Goby]

Ignoring the obvious anti-intellectual bias of your post, I would ask you this: when has learning ever harmed a student's development? Surely you are aware that Charlie Parker studied western classical music, even stating in a letter towards the end of his life that his dream was to take a sabbatical and study composition at the Paris Conservatory. John Coltrane famously carried Slonimsky's Thesaurus of Scales and Musical Patterns everywhere he went. Herbie Hancock earned a degree in music composition before going on to become one of the most prolific composers and performers of the 20th century across a variety of genres. You are correct that music theory is generally developed after works are created in order to explain them, but learning theory allows for greater understanding of the intricacies of music and expands the realm of possibility for composers and performers.


Does university music education have its issues? You won't hear me arguing that it doesn't, but dismissing education as some sort of adversary to creativity is naive and ignorant. Students hone their skills by being challenged in their degree program so they are able to adapt quickly to professional demands. The coordination of technique, vocabulary, style, and aural skills required to improvise over harmonically complex bebop tunes represents the zenith of musical mastery, in your words. Bebop is also a "common practice" style from which almost all improvised music from the last century draws from. Do you have a problem with classical students studying Bach's counterpoint? The logic and musicality of Bach provide a basis for most western music and has directly inspired countless contemporary composers. Innovation does not come from oblivion, but from knowledge expanded under new contexts.


As far as I'm concerned, the creative limits placed on musicians has more to do with economics than academics. Life as a working musicians is much harder than it was in the 1950's, and most musicians can't afford to pursue personal composition projects at the expense of gigs that pay the bills. Touring is no longer a financially viable plan for the vast majority of groups and album sales are practically nonexistent with the advent of Spotify and other streaming services. On top of that, public music education has been greatly diminished over the last 30 years, leaving fewer amateur musicians and fewer listeners to instrumental music. I agree that the music industry is in trouble, but it's not from people working within the education system to preserve the jazz style.

[JayKosta]

[Richard III]

[lipshurt]

There is kind of a lot of weird talk in the original post.
For one, the word ‘theory” in regard to music should be replaced with some other word. That way people would not think it relates to music like the word theory relates to the sciences. There really isn’t a theory of music. We use the word becuase there isn’t a convenient word that means “ways to organize vibrations and resonances into music with harmonic and melodic and rhythmic elements that have a variety of effects on the listener because they can be predictable and soothing or wildly unpredictable, and there are ways to master this by studying music composition and music improvisation”

As to learning jazz is school, all those students are doing is trying to get better, learn to play, meet players, get mentored, learn the music, learn the business, etc. It’s hard to put that down as some sort of bad system. No school teaches bebop above all else, or even has any rigid expectations other than benchmarking progress, like checking off scales, ability to play play over major ii-V’s, then minor ii-V’s, then non-functional progressions, inside-outside over modal, etc etc which includes learning tunes and playing appropriately in different situations Yada yada. Every student gets as far into that as their talent and (more importantly) INTEREST brings them. They may focus on one direction and then another direction as their interest leads them.

If you hear a kid play who went to school, and they cant play like you want its because they haven’t gotten there yet.

Jazz education is a great thing.
_________________
Mouthpiece Maker
vintage Trumpet design enthusiast
www.meeuwsenmouthpieces.com
www.youtube.com/lipshurt

[etc-etc]

I agree with JayCosta on dangers of dogmatic instruction.

Requiring students to conform, in order to successfully graduate, makes an indelible imprint over the course of study. A student who gets a few F marks for a "wrong" opinion will either drop out from the program or learn quickly to "fit in".

Of course, a few strong-minded students will persevere regardless of the mode of instruction. If they are lucky, they will encounter one or two teachers who live and perform outside of the narrow constraints. Those particularly motivated will seek individual instruction from great jazz musicians - usually outside of the university structure.

You cannot expect to have stellar graduates if you have a weak intake. Check out the performances of Tachibana and other top Japanese high school jazz bands. Collectively, they achieve a level rarely encountered among any given group of university graduates of music programs in North America. That is because Tachibana performers start early, practice right, practice well, and have great instructors and great motivation.

Neither you can expect to get stellar graduates with weakly (if at all) inspiring teachers. The professional top performance level in jazz has been established in its various genres over the last 100 years. Very few college and university instructors can perform at that level. Those that do, usually combine performing with teaching master classes. And yet, the students will compare the performances of their teachers with the world standards. Hence, the dilemma - the teacher plays much better than the student, but is, at best, a competent sideman. The instructor is NOT at the level of Billy Strayhorn, Stan Kenton, Buddy Rich, or Sun Ra.

This situation is not limited to jazz studies. It may be related to the sheer number of music programs. According to music.org, in United States alone, there are 1,795 degree-granting music programs. Each music program is going to have anywhere between 10 to 30 instructors. If we take 20 as an average, we get 36,000 university instructors of music. Let us say only 1% of these are truly top-level, comparable, say, to Rachmaninoff, Xenakis or Saint-Saëns (all three taught at music schools). Would you believe if someone told you we have now 360 Xenakis-level university music instructors? I would not.

Teaching by example, university education shows that if one conforms to what is required and is good at conforming, the graduate might eventually get a teaching position. This, in turn, reinforces the trend of hiring conformist and dogmatic teachers.

Of course, there are exceptions among teachers, as well. If you are lucky or persistent enough to find an inspiring teacher well versed in composition and performance, hats off to you and teacher. You found a golden treasure.

No one says that learning what worked well in the past is not needed or not helpful. It is helpful as long as it is not considered to be the end, and rather, a beginning. A springboard letting you explore what has never been done yet, knowing what has.

If you focus on failure, you will get a lot of failures. A particularly uninspiring example I had seen on the door of (best left unnamed) instructor of music at Vancouver Community College (public college in BC Canada). It was a yellowed-out statement of royalties paid out on the performance of a composition, which amounted to a measly few cents, and was accompanied by a note saying (paraphrased) "If you are planning to make a living off composition". That might be very well true since the reforms of (I believe) 1970s, but showing a single dead end without any positive example is stiffening.

Education is great when it inspires, helps and, figuratively and literally, opens the doors. It is when education forces a rigid conformance to a particular school of thought, composition and performance that it becomes problematic.

[etc-etc]

[kehaulani]

[etc-etc]

[weeeeve]

>>> As a summation of hitherto achieved consensus on what is the acceptable musical practice, theory of music is indispensable. By the same token, however, does it not become a shackle binding the imagination of future jazz composers and performers? <<<

Music theory is only a shackle if the student allows it to be. Otherwise it is, in my experience, the greatest tool and stepping stone to understanding the past and then pushing into the future.

If learning music theory is a shackle that binds, then taking that attitude to the extreme- we are never more creative and more expressive than when we're completely ignorant of all musical knowledge. And every bit of musical knowledge we acquire results in an ever increasing decline of creativity. This seems to me to be intuitively nonsensical.

In my experience (I say 'my experience' because I don't want to make absolute statements that may be counter to another's experience), the greatest and most creative performers and composers were and are those deeply immersed in music history and theory.
_________________
Steven Laurent

Bach Strad Model 72
Holton Firebird

My music: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/5vmwM185PWOnMCC1I8Cwjr

[Halflip]

Ultimately, music composition and improvisation are intellectually satisfying only when they exist in the context of a system of rules against which they can be understood and appreciated. This may sound like a terrible constraint, but in reality it is not due to the fact that music, like pure mathematics, allows for the creation of new rule systems; as long as a rule system is consistent with itself and sufficiently robust, it can be used to create meaningful music.

In abstract algebra, one can define a set of objects and operations on those objects that define a universe within which theorems can be developed to define a mathematical system. Such a mathematical system may have no apparent applicability to the real world, but it exists and is consistent with itself.

In music, the 12-tone system is so completely divorced from the traditions of diatonic and chromatic music that to the uninitiated, 12-tone compositions sound like they are completely random, yet they follow a system of rules just as strict as those constraining diatonic works.

I recall seeing a saxophonist at the Jazz Estate in Milwaukee who either played "outside" the chords, or so high up in the implied harmonic overtones that he might as well have been playing "outside". Yet he played with such a strong sense of order, or "logic" if you will, that his solos were both accessible and enjoyable even to the casual listeners in the audience.

My point, I suppose, is that music must follow some sort of pattern or strategy to be satisfying, but this by no means needs to imply a limitation.
_________________
"He that plays the King shall be welcome . . . " (Hamlet Act II, Scene 2, Line 1416)

"He had no concept of the instrument. He was blowing into it." -- Virgil Starkwell's cello teacher in "Take the Money and Run"

[etc-etc]

[etc-etc]

Relevant to this is a much longer thread at cafesaxophone.com:
https://cafesaxophone.com/threads/teaching-saxophone-too-much-jazz-of-the-50s.32979/