You are obviously a very knowledgeable guy and I agree with a lot of what you say. However, please allow me to take issue with a few of your statements since I am one of the "classical" guys.
Originally Posted by: Silimtao
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.)
[/QUOTE]
First off, any classical musician who would try to tell you that there is something wrong with jazz is an idiot. Although I would never begin to play jazz, because of my lack of training in the field, I enjoy it and respect it as much as anyone. I think jazz and classical are both great art forms that are on opposite sides of a mountain. Likewise, jazz should not be analyzed in a classical manner and classical should not be analyzed in a jazz manner.Originally Posted by: Silimtao
However, I think music theory has evolved and expanded from the "original" classical music theory. [/QUOTE]
Here is where I start to take issue. You are referring to four centuries of music by the term "classical". Basically you are grouping the rules of Renaissance counterpoint, Baroque harmonies, Classical and Romantic trends, and 20th century music all into one. I agree with your original statement but also in the sense that classical music has evolved so much too. What is more evolved than this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nryKMIvS7SU ?Originally Posted by: Silimtao
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.
I don't agree with your instructor at all here.
[QUOTE=Silimtao]
You said something really important, that kind of underscores what I'm trying to get at: 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.
I don't agree with that at all. Every great classical composer (namely Bach, Mozart and Beethoven) broke the rules like crazy. You learn the "rules" (and I use that term loosely) to learn about the trends of the epoch. There is plenty of room for flexibility and the hardcore theorists I have studied with have enjoyed talking about breaking the rules (it makes their job less boring).
[QUOTE=Silimtao]
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".
BINGO!!!!! Gaining knowledge and insight can only help you. Look at Christopher. He combines jazz and classical theory all the time and has achieved amazing results with it.
I just hope I can change your view of classical musicians and theory a bit. Most classical musicians and hardcore theorists LOVE jazz. That probably was not the case 50 years ago or so but it is certainly the case now.