Is it indispensable to know harmony well to be a "Musician" or is it not indispensable?
Harmony is just a detail to be known; is (art) music also made of electronics?
I'm posting this because I have it ready
"Mortuos plango, vivos voco" by Jonathan Harvey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYdRzDx1_J4
I won't be your age Modale, but I haven't been twenty for a while. For me, modality is just a stage of study, just like dodecaphony or tonality... just like mixtures, etc. All this to say that if someone does not participate in the discussion, perhaps it is because they have decided that it is not worth dwelling too much on that detail; besides, I would like to understand what kind of analysis (modal? the center of the world you have built for yourself and are right to pursue) you would perform on the piece I posted.
It's not that those who seem doubtful to you are young; they have simply decided that the world has moved on, and if I really had to choose a modality... I would rediscover the Renaissance one... or better yet, cultivate the Flemish ones to create a whole in the past?
I ask this because it is good for young people to know that the music of our time is not made only of tonality, modality, and even less of just modality, an important historical stage.
I was speaking of Harmony in a broad sense, not modal or tonal or otherwise. Everyone might perhaps delve deeper into the aspect of harmony based on their own choices, but they still have sufficient knowledge in other fields of harmony as well. However, there are musicians who know nothing or almost nothing about harmony; I don't think they are many, but they exist. I would like this aspect of musical culture to be discussed independently of me or any other person, but in general.
I am speaking about harmony in the jazz section of this forum because it seems to be the only possible place, but that does not mean I haven't expanded my studies to modal harmonies of other origins. I listened to the track you proposed; perhaps it is not indispensable to know harmony, at least traditional harmony, to compose a piece of this type, and perhaps even study—at least as understood in the traditional sense—is not necessary; I believe an excellent ear, good taste, and great interiority (and that is no small thing!) are sufficient. Does the definition of musician need to be revised?
Perhaps it does.
T
Tiger
Member
Reply 103 by Tiger
Posts
447
So we are on the same modal wave frequency
J
JazzMania
Member
Reply 104 by JazzMania
Posts
116
modale wrote:
I would like this aspect of musical culture to be discussed independently of me or any other person, but in general.
To me, they are half-musicians
Understanding harmony is also useful for performers, and let's not even talk about conductors (whether choir or orchestra).
J
JazzMania
Member
Reply 105 by JazzMania
Posts
116
If, as you were saying, you were referring to harmony in a 360° sense, then perhaps it is a question that deserves space in classical music... in short, more generally
J
JazzMania
Member
Reply 106 by JazzMania
Posts
116
Perhaps a topic tangent to Modale's last post has been discussed here
mmhm. Given the entrance exams for electronic music, I doubt anything else is needed. Of course, what Modale claims is sacrosanct... well... taste is also formed, so... I don't know how legitimate it is to think that a musician knows nothing of the traditional...
I believe that harmony should be known whenever one finds oneself in a musical context where it is necessary to know it. I know an Orchestra Conductor who proposes music by Mozart and other classics and knows almost nothing about harmony, yet he conducts an orchestra. I believe, however, this is an exception. Do you think a musician who does not know harmony can present themselves as an orchestra conductor?
I believe that music, as Frank says, must stem from an innate sensuality of the musician, a seeing through one's own senses; many jazz musicians know nothing about harmony, they don't even know how to read music, and yet they play divinely, they play by ear. Why not? Even an orchestra conductor might not know harmony; the important thing is that they know how to read, execute, and interpret. The musical ear in all types of music—classical, jazz, electronic... is the primary thing, as are the objective and the ability to externalize one's emotions. However, I would like to say that apart from the geniuses who reach high levels without having studied either music or harmony, generally speaking, the study of music in general and of harmony helps a lot, especially non-geniuses like me and many others. In my opinion, the problem lies in the fact that growth is aided by rules, by study... but then at a certain point one must be able to break free and travel on one's own, with simplicity; see E. Morricone, he began with very harmonically complex music, then returned to simplicity because simplicity is the solution to complexity. See M. Davis who at a certain point changed genres around 1954, moving toward linear modal, which is the simplest form of modal; many jazz musicians remain anchored to the African-American model—that model serves for learning but must then be surpassed, after all it does not belong to our culture, it is superimposed culture. Our true culture, as Italians, is that of the Middle East.
You probably have more of a performer's vision; in this case, I have a more didactic approach, so I follow basic paths. Musical sensitivity and talent are certainly the most important things, but they cannot be taught, let alone stimulated. As a principle, my choice is to give students a clear vision of harmony etc., starting from elementary things and possibly close to their cultural background, then gradually moving on to more complex things, in order to provide them with solid (I hope) foundations from which they can then autonomously develop their own musical path.
It might seem strange to you but, even though I teach these very things for a living, I have always maintained that Jazz cannot be taught (!).
It may seem like a contradiction, and perhaps it is, but the fact is that here the conditions are not present to live immersed in the music and the cultural environment in which a Charlie Parker or a John Coltrane grew up; therefore, I try to provide students with all the necessary tools to be able to find their place in this music in the future (and, something much more difficult, characteristic of very rare great teachers, to foster within them strong motivations, a passion, and a great interest), but it is absolutely indispensable that they find their own way and their own stylistic identity on their own.
M
Martina
Member
Reply 113 by Martina
Posts
92
DrJellyfish wrote:
It might seem strange to you but, even though I teach these very things for a living, I have always maintained that Jazz cannot be taught (!).
Sorry, why?
Even Mozart went to lessons and it is certain that he knew how to improvise... this talk about not teaching sounds more like a legend than anything else to me. I was reading right here that moving from paper, and therefore from analytical study, raises the quality bar of the works produced, or at least raises one's own limits... so, conceptually, studying Jazz with a more classical approach can only be beneficial.
Of course, it was a bit of a paradox. In fact, for an American (particularly a Black person, during certain historical periods), Jazz was part of the normal cultural background, and one had the possibility to practice it, to immerse oneself in it, to breathe it. For a contemporary European like us, there is indeed the possibility to listen to CDs or attend some concerts, but it always remains a less intense approach. From this perspective, I think it is legitimate to have texts and guidelines that provide us with foundations, but improvisation in the strict sense, particularly pronunciation or phrasing, is learned by playing. At least, it is an idea I have developed over time.
M
Martina
Member
Reply 115 by Martina
Posts
92
Me, as a European, would take all the grit of Jazz ... for the rest I would do things our way
How much does the pronunciation of a dialect matter? A lot, I say, but in the end, Italian matters to truly understand each other.
As a European, I would take all the grit of Jazz ... for the rest, I would do things our way
How much does the pronunciation of a dialect matter? A lot, I say, but in the end, Italian matters to truly understand each other.
Yes, but you have to practice the dialect if you want to speak it. Then again, put that way and it would seem as if European classical music is a language and Jazz is a dialect...
M
Martina
Member
Reply 117 by Martina
Posts
92
Objection accepted, I meant to say that being in Europe, it is good that our identity is preserved and why, in the end, speak another language within it?... or rather, also. Contamination, according to me, is the right path; imitating is never interesting.
Yes, I agree, at most imitation can be a stage of the process. In the end, as stated, it is just like learning another language. At first, you imitate the pronunciation of native speakers. Then, naturally, the content and developments must be your own creation.
As far as contamination is concerned, the discussion is a bit different: if you want to perform a bebop piece "philologically," it is necessary that you learn that specific language, much like you would for Baroque music and so on; if you want to pursue a personal stylistic discourse, you will have to explore new territories... ;-)
Yes, in essence the argument is always the same, harmony is like eggs and flour: once you know how to treat them, you can make the cake however you want ;-)
