That is hilarious. I just put out a video yesterday that is exactly the first few minutes of this interview over on my ‘exploring classical improv’ channel. I am … reassured.
A gallant evisceration of mainstream "music theory", and the best Xmas present I ever received from South Dakota! Sincere thanks to you both. What I long to better grasp: how the hexchordal mutations have informed our music, I suspect to this day, long after such choir training ceased at scale. Further, how might we credibly describe the plethora of popular genres from 1880 to the present, without Neo-Riemann reductions and functions, as if explaining them to Bach....et al? Viva Barry Harris!!
Great review! I have to admit that I listened to it in the podcast form. I have subscribed to your podcast and try to listen to your great reviews there 😊
Sorry for all these posts - but have you looked at Tchaikovsky or Hindemith’s books on harmony? Quite interesting from the perspective of this discussion.
"Casta Diva" was originally written in G-major, but even Giuditta Pasta (creator of Norma) never sang that aria in the same key. I read somewhere that on some performances she even transposed it down to the D-major. Today it's usually done in F-major.
25:21 this hasn’t been exactly my personal experience. I have heard conductors occasionally mention harmony (major sevenths, Neapolitan sixths) over the years in rehearsal. But it IS quite rare and I think they tend to avoid technical terms when talking to musicians who just ‘do the dots’ ….I think it is more the case if you play piano especially accompanying (concert pianists don’t have a clue haha). I’ve met Repetiteurs as a classical singer who were incredibly knowledgable about harmony etc. They tend to be fantastic practical musicians and would all take to Partimento brilliantly. The skillset of an orchestral player does not, on the other hand, require that sort of knowledge. What is not regularly used falls out of memory. I don’t think any of this is a consequence of Roman numerals or Reimann’s functions, not necessarily saying this is what G is saying. I think practical musicians, well, practice.
@@superblondeDotOrg but ask any jazz musician or working session musician and you find they will absolutely say yes. I don’t there’s anything about them that is impractical per se. It’s up to the musician working in their idiom to build up musical resources they can apply in detail. That’s by far the thing I’ve found most challenging about partimento.
@@JazzGuitarScrapbook learning roman numerals in a music class is like learning creationism in a physics class. there is absolutely no basis for it and it is misdirection. it does not work in jazz either. jazz musicians will insist they look at roman numeral 'rules' to only specifically ignore or break them. roman numerals are not a valid tool in any sense, it is like driving a nail with a squid.
@@superblondeDotOrg Nope. They are used all the time as a practical tool for easy transposition and understanding chord progressions and they are perfectly useful in that context. Look up ‘the Nashville System’ for example.
Nikhil, I have been wondering about this. How come no one has been talking about schemas from the romantic era and nineteenth century music? I am really curious about this.
This is the second time Mr. Gjerdingen - on your channel - attributes the quote about J.S. and the "inversion business" to C.P.E. I have yet to find a source on it - could you ask him about it next time he is on? :) And of course, thank you for all your content.
I believe the source is from the introduction to the 2nd volume of Kirnberger's Die Kunst des reinen Satzes in der Musik, where he cites CPE Bach's support, "You may loudly proclaim that my basic principles and those of my late father are anti-Rameau" against Marpurg in a dispute over Rameau. Check out my interview with Professor Thomas Christensen also: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HY0cFCIA_Aw.html
The term schema as you are using and the way that Kant uses it are different. So there are two somewhat related but distinct meanings using this term. I only mention this because I personally use both concepts and I believe they are both highly valuable, I don't want to go into Kant here but his concept could assist music and mathematical scholars in reevaluating the use of symbols in Western musical and mathematical practices throughout its history and how they obscure what is actually being observed.
Actually what you are saying finally gives me an opening. My approach satisfies both a Kantian approach and an Aristotelian approach. In order to discuss music theory, there needs to be a generic study of what constitutes music theory. In turn, the question is: how are music systems created? The notion of tuning comes about in the actual creation of a musical system. That is my methodology. You are taking the Western musical system as a given and this leads to many errors in your discussions. You never ask what you are assuming and whether that assumption has validity. Whenever tuning comes up in your discussions, the right questions are never asked.
Hey man. Actually if you read the book, you'll find out in the first chapter that Gjerdinten tackles all of the versions of the term by various philosophers.
New composers can only gain performances by being in academia. Yet academia requires the study, practice, and examination on an incorrect, useless and baseless system of harmony. This is a hopeless situation as a student of music, and additionally, explains why nearly universally, New Music Concerts perform absolutely horrible sounding music, at both universities and Conservatories.
@@NichtWunderkind it is all wrong. A lot of correct concepts of harmony and composers can pay an orchestra anytime outside of academia. The exams are different depending on instituition . I believe that in USA is more abstract but they have good people like W Piston
'There is nothing in the ear' ........ to compare to RGB in eye ? No, but there is in the brain. For a nice discussion on the nature of this I recomment 'The Music Instinct' by Phillip Ball. Orchestral musicians, at least the ones I know, do not need any theory as every note is written. Those who play other styles will be conversant with the relevant nomenclature (notably bass players with an appetite for jazz). Those who play by ear are often hamstruck by the 'need' to play what the theory they know tells them is correct. The ear is better, much better. All musicians should play tunes by ear. Issues of class are a factor, most music teachers are 'all unaware' shills for the music publishing industry. Using one's own ear has been subtly branded as cheap. Publishing is not in great shape as it strives to offer less and less music for more money as a comparison Nigel North's pretty book with lots of pictures of Lutes and the now out of print treatise on figured bass by John Gavall. The latter has actual models and examples and the other look good on a coffee table.
Take a folk tune and harmonise it with I IV V . Sing it. Now switch out iv for one and sing it again. Switch out ii for four and sing it. Switch out iii for V and sing it. You will have learned how to turn a childrens song into a pop song. You will have learned about tonic and dominant functions. Dr. Gjernigan's position that this doesn't work is based on starting with the wrong material. Humans sing tunes, they are often self contained and perfedt examples of the craft of composition and the balance of phrases. The basis for good improvisation is playing tune by ear. The basis of understanding tonic dominant and subdominant function IS WITH REFERENCE TO TUNES. The desire to reject this model comes from mistaking oversight for genuis.
ii V I is not a schema. ii subs for IV and V is five so the cell ii V can either be expanding the sound of V (ii placed in front) or helping us get home from a IV (V placed after ii(IV)). It seems that all we need to misunderstand harmony for centuries is to allow a duffer's conjecture to be codified into a 'scholarly' text. This is the true lesson of the sauvant........... it's not so hard to get it right if we ignore second hand conjecture. Once we've bought into those conjectues.......ballet dandcers who can't dance in time, gymnasts ditto, orchestral players who cannot syncopate (and ridiculously and arrogantly imagine that singers are getting it 'wrong') ...........we create pompous phillistines. These pompous phillistines consume ranvenously for at heart they know there is something missing. Unfortunately what the consume is more theory when they should be reconnecting with playing instinctively. Those who have consumed so say things like 'there is no such thing as improvisation' THIS IS BOLLOCKS and Steven Pinker rather masterfully explains Chomsky's work on the subject in 'The Language Instinc'. It's easy to disprove, play a short melody to someone who cannot have heard it and who has a good ability to play by ear. They will play it, and if they have talent they will answer it. People used to learn by playing along with the radio. No books were sold and it worked.
'Any musical style'......... lots of people have generalised practical theory of music. Fewer every year unfortunately. We convince kids go too soon to books, before they have used their own instincts. It's a crime to teach a child to work exclusively from a page and especially if they want to improvise. Colleges produce open mouths, they want more instruction when they should be playing. Physical education is the same, we are born amazing monkeys and taught how to be clumsy. Not just class Richare, usury.
