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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]