Hello Christopher,

I guess this is what you meant to some degree when we were talking about teaching, and you said something to the effect of getting a student to conceptualize what you were teaching, eh? :)

I'll only touch on a few things you've said, otherwise I'll sit here all day obsessing about it- which is not a a bad thing; it's exactly these type of discussions that make me think, and get a better understanding (but I have laundry to do :) ).

re: absolutes in music theory. When I said it depends, this goes back to what I learned (or didn't) at Berklee and lively, often heated discussions we Berklee students had with students from The Boston Conservatory (snobs, who'd sniff at us with their noses in the air and tell us everything that was "wrong" with be-bop/jazz/blues/rock- everything except classical- the only "real" music.)

I would unequivocally agree with you that there are absolutes- only if I agree that classical theory, strictly applied, is the only way of expressing music. However, I think music theory has evolved and expanded from the "original" classical music theory. For example, in in my improv class, and we were talking about passing tones, the instructor would say that the passing tone really doesn't fit classical theory, but it does if you play the passing tone off the beat, but would be wrong if played on the beat. This, along with "blue" notes being played can be reconciled with classical theory as long as we resolved the note to say the tonic or some other note within the mode/scale/key we were in. It was the "it's wrong but, if..." that would get me and the other players all the time.

You said something really important, that kind of underscores what I'm trying to get at:

What those classical theorists should have said is that Beach Boys harmonies do not conform to the standard of voice leading that classical composers used (no perfect fifth or octave motions, not too many consecutive thirds, etc.). But, of course, the Beach Boys don't have to conform to those standards.

And that's kind of my point about absolutes, or lack of them- to a hard-core classical theorist, there's no room for not "conforming"- because it doesn't follow the "rules" of what they rigidly adhere to. And I believe this is what can add to a lot of confusion; I have books on "classical" theory, and "modern/jazz" theory. Why the distinctions? This is a rhetorical question, as it really applies to me. I pore through a theory book written a hundred years ago, it tells me what I can/should do within the confines of what theory was accepted for at that point in time ; but then when I compare it to a "modern" theory book, there's always reference to classical theory of course, but then when I read what's "wrong" is "right", but only in a given context.

Hey, I think I've just had a breakthrough! I keep looking at "classical" vs. "modern" theory, but they are really one and the same!. Theory is just theory, and I've been looking at the old and the new as somehow diametrically opposed, when, in fact, the "new" is really just an extrapolation of the "old"! The two really fit together like pieces of a puzzle! I've been looking at theory with two minds; when studying classical theory, I'm in the mindset only from that given standpoint. Then when I look at modern theory, I'm looking at it from that given standpoint. But the two really fit together and is truly "one". Am I on the right track here? I kept separating the two and trying to reconcile it in my mind, when, in fact, there's nothing to reconcile. It's like I've been looking at a line drawn in the sand, and said "that's classical", then looked at another line, and said, "that's jazz"- when in fact, I should be seeing ONE line, because in the end, it really is. It was my (and many authors of theory) labeling one "classical" and another "jazz" that's given me this mental block all this time. Have I reached an "AHA!" moment here, Christoper? If I have, this is BIG for me, believe me. In talking to classically trained and jazz players, they've always made distinctions 'tween the old and the new, but, in fact, the "new" is just an extension of the "old"; it's not that the wheel was reinvented, the wheel is bigger maybe, but it's still a wheel. If you tell me I'm wrong in my thinking here, Christopher, I think my head may explode!