Hello ryan,

This post is directed to both you and Christopher mostly. Again, I'm not going to quote very much if at all, as this prevents me from posting anything.

First and foremost, my apologies to you and any other "classical theorist". Any references I've made in that regard were really directed to many of my former instructors, and yes, some of those "Boston Conservatory snobs", as they were my main points of reference when discussing "classical theory vs. "modern/jazz" theory. Of course also, not all Boston conservatory musicians are snobs either.

I agree much more with both Christopher and you than disagree (and where I disagree, is extremely minute, and as far as Christopher is concerned, it may be more a matter of perception, my inability to articulate exactly what I mean, possibly a combination of both, or even "simply" a difference of philosophy in how one views things.)

Again, I can't emphasize enough when referring to "hard-core classical theorists/musicians" I was talking about those I personally interacted with. It was those people, many my instructors, that were "rigid", and railed about how "wrong" this and that was about jazz and "modern" music.

It was particularly frustrating being in a "jazz" school when I was told I couldn't play this note or that. In improv class of all places, I was told I couldn't play this note or that. HUH? When I challenged their reasoning, the simple answer was, "because it's not right". Again, WTF! HUH? It could have come from a classically trained musician or a Berklee trained instructor. A non-answer, that certainly wasn't helpful by any means. So, yes, I vigorously disagreed with them also (and confused, to say the least.)

ryan
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

Actually, that was what I intended to say. Just came out wrong. :eek:

So as far changing my views on classical musicians, there really is no need to. I was dealing with my own (mis)understanding/conflicts of "classical" vs. "modern"- and also take into consideration my admittedly limited knowledge of (Western) music theory and its application. Christopher clarified his position that he was only interested in discussing Western theory. Fair enough- much gets lost in online discussions. I wasn't initially coming coming from that standpoint.

That's why I parenthesized Western above, as I wasn't necessarily coming from the standpoint of strictly Western music theory (but for the most part, I was.) And that's why I stated I don't feel there are absolutes. Western theory or not. Yes, there are certain absolutes within the context of what Christopher was talking about (of course I'm definitely not blaming him in any way for speaking from that context, as Arabic or any other type of ethnic music isn't on the table here in this forum)- A, A#, B, doesn't = a G major chord. A major scale is constructed a certain way. But this is predicated on rules that were agreed upon as correct. However, in other areas, I would say there aren't absolutes. Is there an "absolute" A tone or any other? I say yes and no. Yes if if we tune to 440 A- no, if not. Of course, it's been agreed upon that certain rules be followed, otherwise there would be total chaos. So rules have been accepted for the sake of uniformity.

Where I was coming from- and here's where things probably will go off in a really insane direction- are there any absolutes in music that are absolute from an empirical sense? An A tone isn't an A if we disagree on what concert pitch is, and that it should vibrate at a certain frequency. Modes, etc, aren't what we accept them to be if we don't agree the major scale is the source from which everything springs forth. Is dissonance inherently inharmonious, unresolved, or a learned response? Again, I say yes and no. Yes dissonance is unresolved when following...let's call it conventional Western music theory. I say no, because I was coming from...I'll call it a "global take on music" for lack of a better description. But Chris narrowed it down to Western music theory, so of course I can't disagree.

My involvement in this post was in response to light's explanation of phrygian, and I was simply attempting to point him in a different direction. Of course, I could only point him in a direction from the standpoint of how I perceive things, and from the onset, I stated, and continue to state, I come from a limited understanding of music theory. Christopher's, and some others here know from my prior posts that I've returned to music from a very long layoff, and I'm literally all over the place; playing, learning different tunes, technique, and my love/hate relationship with music theory. And when it comes to music theory, I've been reading books that go back a hundred or more years ago, to Frank Gambale, to atonal theory. So I'm not, and don't necessarily look at music theory from the same standpoint of probably anyone that has posted here. Hopefully, I clarified where I'm coming from to give my posts a better context.

To sum up, I don't disagree with you or Christopher (99.99 %). Still, I don'taccept that there are "absolutes" in music theory, because I believe theory is a set of accepted principles as opposed to the actual application of those principles. That's why it's called theory. I don't necessarily accept the ideas of "musical fact".

The irony of all this is, I'm a basic 70's rock and roll/blues guy. Just give me a pentatonic scale and crank up the volume! ;)

But seriously speaking- this discourse is good; hopefully not just for myself, but for anyone reading it. I normally stay away from the theory forum, but for whatever reason, here I am, and the discussion has been very enlightening. And Christopher, your explanations are mini-lessons all by themselves. In whatever areas we may disagree, I say simply- it's all rock and roll to me :D