 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: sab15
Date: 2009-09-09 18:31
Hi,
I'm going to take a beginning theory class and the school offers both a Contemporary/Jazz Theory class and a Regular (Classical) Theory class. Next year I am thinking of getting a music certificate and at the moment am leaning towards classical, which is what I know the most. I am interested in some other music like Bossa Nova and have heard some Gypsy Jazz which is pretty cool to me. I've also always been amazed by people who can just sit down at a piano or with an instrument and bang out a tune or just be able to jam with other musicians on the spot. I would like to have that ability also. Anyway, the day of the week that the classcal theory class is on is not good for me now, but the jazz theory class day is good. I am considering signing up for the jazz theory class even though, like I said above I am leaning towards concentrating on classical next year. So, my question is what is different in a jazz theory class than a classical one and vice versa. Like, am I missing some important classical theory concepts by taking the jazz course, and if I took the classical one, what would I be missing in the jazz course. It seems to me that jazz would cover most of what is in classical and more, whereas the classical would, well, just be classical. Well, that's just a guess. Keep in mind, this is a Theory 1 course.
Thanks in advance.
Steven
Post Edited (2009-09-09 18:46)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2009-09-09 18:41
If you want to be a classical clarinetist, take standard theory.
Jazz theory is largely based on 20th century harmony. If you remain in standard theory courses you will eventually cover jazz harmonies as well. Also, many of the concepts taught in beginning theory courses are very relevant to jazz music- voice leading for example.
A few more caveats: if you have not studied theory before, you may be quite lost studying jazz theory. Also, studying jazz theory does not mean you will necessarily be able to play jazz music.
If you are interested in jazz and want to study it, check out Mark Levine's (the jazz pianist, not the conservative pundit) The Jazz Theory Book.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2009-09-10 01:00
Eventually take both...IMO...The classical first then the jazz.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-09-10 01:06
I'm mostly self-taught in this area, so I'm not altogether sure how they would break this down in terms of classes, but jazz theory is an extension of the traditional classical harmony (which is also called "common practice harmony"). It's pretty much impossible to talk about jazz harmony without using the concepts developed in classical harmony. Without knowing any better I would expect a jazz theory class to have a classical theory prerequisite. If not, then it probably covers the basics of classical theory at least.
Jazz harmony is largely about making chord substitutions and chord alterations to otherwise "normal" harmony. You use different chords in jazz to perform the same function they would in classical harmony. You might have a II-V7-I progression (as in classical harmony), but instead of your V7 chord being a G7 (as you would in C Major with classical harmony), for example, you might use a Db7. Or you might build your I chord from fourths instead of thirds. Or you might flatten the 5th of the chord or add a sharp 9th to a chord. All of these ideas require at least some knowledge of the traditional classical harmony to understand.
You should really check with the professor who teaches the class to find out more about what is covered in it, because, like I said, there is necessarily some overlap between these two areas, but it's really hard to tell how much there is without knowing the specifics of the courses themselves.
I'm with Katrina, though. I think you should probably take both.
Incidentally, there is a neat little guide to jazz harmony I found on the web the other day you might be interested in reading:
http://www.thereelscore.com/PortfolioStuff/PDFFiles/QuickJazzTheoryRefFinal.pdf
Post Edited (2009-09-10 01:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sab15
Date: 2009-09-10 02:35
Thanks everyone. I also just wrote the professors to get more info on the courses and advise.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: chris moffatt
Date: 2009-09-10 17:26
It would probably be best to start with the classical theory and take the jazz theory later. Check out www.berkleepress.com they have a range of theory and intrument specific books. They might help you to make a decision. You may decide Jazz isn't really your main interest. As for learning to improvise, it's unproven that people can learn to improvise (as opposed to learning hundreds of "licks" to go with specific harmonic patterns and stringing them together on the fly - the Jerry Coker method); you'll need to listen to a lot of the greats as well as get the theory and it'll all be easier if you have a good background in classical theory first and a well trained ear
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Mills
Date: 2009-09-19 19:17
Jazz Player magazine had plenty of theory to make a sophisticated harmony along with transcriptions (such as the Bluetrane album by John Coltrane, yikes, that is available as a music book at the store). You have to sit down with your clarinet and do some mental weightlifting with sequences of scales. Unfortunately there are 12 keys. In either school I would follow the rules of minor key harmony: the C major scale becomes the A natural minor and can be used interchangeably with the A harmonic minor and I call this combination my primary scale scale (but sometimes a chord demands just the harmonic minor scale, such the the A7b9 requires the D harmonic minor scale in the CM A7b9 Dm7 G7 CM cluster of chords from Gershwin that had the Am7 originally. Generally, just give me a cluster of chords that are diatonic to a certain major scale and I will choose just a single primary scale with the secondary scale harmony attached to it. Don't forget that this combination primary scale has four major triads in it if you want that flavor. I bought every Jazz Player. I know of six melodic minor scales and a diminished scale that serve as secondary dominants to, say, the A compound minor. Also Ecm or Bcm or Ccm (in the Gershwin again) will resolve straight to the Acm.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: chris moffatt
Date: 2009-09-20 02:19
What you said Dave. I laughed when I first saw the coker books - then I felt slightly sick. it's the jazz equivalent of the old Chopin waltz generator.....but as Coltrane said - "we'd all play like Stan if we could"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2009-09-20 13:13
sab15 -
Excellent advice all around.
I'm worried, though, about your statement that "the day of the week that the classical theory class is on is not good for me now."
Theory is the foundation for all other studies. If you don't know theory, and you can't hear the harmony or recognize the structure, your music-making will be chaos -- like drawing the human body without knowing anything about the bones underneath.
Drop the conflicting class, no matter what it is, and give your full attention to the theory course. Yes, it's medicinal, but you can't do anything without it.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2009-09-20 14:46
I like Coker's pattern book. It does not present itself as a substitute to listening and transcription, and if memory serves, it includes information on recordings where one can listen to each pattern.
I like that the Coker book does not transpose the patterns into all 12 keys but rather leaves it up to the student. I wish Baermann III and a number of other clarinet "pattern" books took this approach too instead of using countless pages transposing the same exercise into every key. Patterns force the student to cover the full range of his/her instrument in every key, and they also provide a palette of melodic motifs which can be developed when improvising. It would be ludicrous to only practice patterns, but combined with other things, I think they are beneficial.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sab15
Date: 2009-09-21 01:18
Ken,
No worries anymore. Turns out I audited 4 classes last week - Classical Theory 1 and 2, and Jazz Theory 1 and 2 - and after reading the comments here, seeing what the classes were covering and chatting with some of the teachers, I am going with Classical Theory 1 (I've actually realized the day of the week is not so inconvenient after all). Interesting to note I could go with the Theory 2 class (just would need to cram a bit at the beginning to catch up), but I just want to really make sure I've got the Theory 1 stuff down solid, before getting into anything more advanced. Also, what's even really excellent is that the Ear Training 1 class is immediately after the Theory 1 class, which is where the theory will be immediately applied (I don't even have to leave the classroom ), so I've decided to take that also.
Steven
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2009-09-21 02:12
Yup...Ear Training is important too!
Next year/semester/opportunity, take the Jazz Theory too! And always listen to lots of music for BOTH!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2009-09-22 01:54
Re: jazz --- don't just study it, don't just listen to it, GO PLAY IT! No matter how embarrassed you may feel (and you will be embarrassed at first, guaranteed!), go find a jazz jam session and sit in. If you can't improvise, you aren't playing jazz (this applies to many so-called "jazz big band" musicians I know who can't improvise a note -- they are in fact not playing jazz, they are doing a poor imitation of a classical musician by merely reading notes off the page).
"Jazz Theory" -- bah, humbug. Play the damn music!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
