User talk:Rictus/Jazz theory

Does Jazz theory exist?

I would make some reference in the article to the fact that some musicologists contend that "jazz theory" does not exact per se, rather that jazz is comprised of a collective warpings of classical theory. For instance, Ed Byrne, who taught at Berklee College, says: "Since jazz has traditionally been characterized by the fusion of the salient characteristics of the two cultures, and the harmony comes from Europe, it is therefore misleading to describe anything as jazz theory or jazz harmony. Even the 12 bar blues is comprised of a tonal European chord progression (I, IV, and V, however it may be dressed up with other European harmonies. Call it what you like, it’s still all European harmony." The contention is basically that what's unique about jazz is not harmonic, but rather rhythmic and stylistic. royblumy 03:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I'm not a student of classical theory, but while I can see his point, I don't think there's anything wrong with calling it "jazz theory", even if it may happen to be subsumable into a larger theory of Western music. As an analogy, mathematicians don't have any trouble speaking about "number theory" even though all of its principles are potentially deducible from "set theory". Rictus 05:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I wasn't suggesting changing the article, but including these points in the discussion. royblumy 21:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That argument is mute, you would expect a concert pianist to know all about the chord progressions, but a Jazz musician must. What's missing is a discussion of rhythm. Also, II-V-I is ii-V-I in my experience.Nj78 18:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean mute or moot? I also don't see how what you say pertains to the concept of jazz theory. Perhaps you could explain. royblumy 00:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, moot. What's the single most important ingredient in jazz? Rhythm. You can play all the harmony and melody you want, but if you don't understand the rhythm it doesn't work.

Nj78 22:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What you're saying here is true of absolutely any genre. The reason it "doesn't work" if "you don't understand the rhythm" is because the feeling is wrong, not because the theory, notation, time signature, counting, etc. is wrong. Is there a theory of feeling? 68.123.47.103 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, how do you suggest "discussing rhythm" in the context of jazz theory? What theory concerns would you see in this article regarding rhythm? I'm not asking this to take the mick, I'm interested to know what contributions you'd like to see. 68.123.47.103 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I would talk about rhythm changes and the blues (although you do mention it) more, and go more in depth on the structure of "I Got Rhythm" and the influence on theory these two song structures have had on jazz music. Ignatiuswiki 16:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Stylistic ideas

This is a great beginning for a much-needed article, in my opinion. I'd do something to make the inline references to scale degrees more readable. For instance:

For example, if a tune resolves to a I chord one or two measures before the end of the form, and the beginning of the tune is the same I chord, rather than hold on that I chord for the extra measures, the form will add a progression like VIm7-IIm7-V7 to lead back to the I chord at the beginning of the tune.

The "if a tune resolves to a I chord" type references kind of get lost. I'm not sure what the solution is-- bold the "I" perhaps? Maybe bold "I chord?" There may be some stylistic guidelines in the Music Wikiproject, I don't know. I do know I find similar issues in other articles, so my guess is there's not an agreed-upon standard.

Anyhow, good work, and I'd like to see it fleshed out and blended with the existing article on jazz theory to make it more understandable. Janus303 (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I also see there's an article on jazz harmony that is highly similar. It would be great to blend all three with discussion on the history along with the hows and whys, and then perhaps split into sub-articles along those lines. I also agree with folks who emphasize rhythm as part of the theory. When to make changes is as important as how to make changes, especially when improvising using a single scale that covers multiple chords, such as the root blues scale over a II-V-I progression. Again, good work. Don't let it go to waste! Janus303 (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

mmaj7 vs m7b5 "Chords and scales"

This is a great looking article overall. I'm confused that the minor-major seventh is listed as one of four basic seventh chords -- in my experience the half-diminished seventh is much more common, and I think it's possible the two were mixed up here. This is especially because this section continues, "These chords can all be thought of as built from different modes of the major scale," which is true for the first three but not so for the minor-major seventh, which is usually built from the first mode of the melodic minor scale. The half-diminished seventh chord, on the other hand, is built from the seventh mode of the major scale, and this is part of why it sees more use than the mmaj7. I've submitted an edit changing this section. Hemisemidemitone (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)