Seeing as we are debating the context areas.... part of teaching any discipline contains a measure of philosophy, music especially.
When they teach solfege or sing a line and get a musician to play it back, or teach an instrumentalist to learn the melody as well as their own line, or sing their own solos or tell then to transcribe - there is a philosophy attached.
While they are different and as you mentioned that is known, they are certainly intertwined and that is also pretty much a no-brainer for any skill being taught or learned in any field. If the philosophy is wrong, there is an even chance what is being learned will also be wrong or at best, incomplete.

Teaching will always compete. If any musician can get lessons in person with someone they look up to, it beats a book or online course EVERY time.

EDIT: Philosophy if anything gets in the way of life. Nothing really gets in the way of music. Misunderstanding of the usage of knowledge and philosophy only gets in the way of realization. For example, Red Rodney and Miles Davis truly believed that in order for them to be able to play like Charlie Parker, they needed to use Heroin. The book "Bird Lives" documents this. It is, of course, incorrect, but the philosophy they took on got in the way of their life, not the music.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Dec 23, 2019

Charlie Parker had started playing very young and spent 10 hours a day or more for a lot of years as well as learning Lester youngs records and busters Smith recordings.

This over decade before Charlie Parker .
Listen and you can hear Charlie Parker in what buster Smith write in the 1930s.
After developing these things Charlie Parker came up with his own vocabulary using unique building blocks where he would create melodies say in the key of C major , melodies and building blocks from embellishments that could be used over any chord in the key . ( Depending on the rhythm placement.)
He created the most unique and developed vocabulary of music .

I'll show you some Parker building blocks that can be used over C major .
E is the target
AFDD#E
( That can be used over Ii V or I
AG#FF#E
( Same thing )
DCAA#CBAFDC ( triplet
EDCABDFG#G
Try those out in different places over a ii V I in C
( Or in F major key { functioning as IVmin substitution

 

Last edited: Dec 23, 2019

I've worked with all genres equally .
I've studied all genres equally.
Keep in mind genres are not s musical concept it's a cultural idea that has to do with sales .
Changing timbre does not impact the music portion .you can play " happy birthday" with heavy downtuned guitars, or cello or sing with give or flute or piano violin . No matter what you play it with it still sounds the same . Because the music portion is what the name " happy birthday " is about .
Genres are just music.
There's no real separate genres .
It's just a cultural way of naming behavior .
Developed to categorize selling things .
( Music has no connection to any of those things )
Put it this way.
" Genres" are what people do who cannot create their own sound each time they write a new song.
Genre is copying a list of attributes from someone else instead of creating your own ( for each song)
When look at literally what makes genres different all compared to each other . It's not the music that's any different . ( You should be able create a new genre for each song , otherwise you are writing a more generic version of something else that existed.)
When I talk about jazz what I'm talking About is composing music in realtime
( As opposed to pricing little fragments together bit by bit over long period of time .)
Jazz( the genre) is a certain set instruments with certain sounds that has certain rhythms .
None of my threads have talked about anything particular to a genre .
My threads talking about the deeper level than that .
The thing that whatever instruments and sounds are doing that's what I talk about .
So whatever ( me the person (
Personal taste in specific music is.
It hasn't impacted the information I share here.
What I share here is equally applicable to any " genre".
Whatever unique sound design created instrument sounds you make , it's equally applicable.

 

Last edited: Dec 23, 2019

Opinions even informed ones are still that. There is relevance in what you are saying. There is a movie you may have seen 'CBGB' which goes through the music movement of Talking Heads and The Police in that period. The labelling definitely I attribute to music critics when they hear something unfamiliar and they get afraid because they cannot put it into a square box, and are uncomfortable until they can label it. Coltrane with 'sheets of sound' they called noise. Parker in the earlier BeBop days, some people called 'Chinese music' (See historical documentation) because they did not understand it and it sounded foreign to many people initially.

The attributes definitely I agree with. There is a piece of logic being that if you put someone from birth into a forest with no music around them and they then write music would it have influence? Birds sing and wind whistles through the trees etc etc. Everything has a pitch. This came down to influence by whatever we are exposed to.

I think people TRY to write their own 'new' music. Regardless of however a person approaches anything, like a child growing up in a household, people mirror what they are exposed to.

I respect your opinion but I cannot say what you have because it is too generalised. In academic circles, you would be crucified not because you are necessarily wrong, but because like so many movies critics have a field day with these days, they would find too many loopholes in it due to alternative thought, which like yours, is a good thing.

Original thought is definitely feasible. The human need to categorize everything I find is humankind's greatest hindrance.
Have a nice Christmas.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Dec 24, 2019

This is the biggest problem in Jazz and it never got resolved because it's been based on highly problematical assumptions:

Jazz isn't a refined music.

And I'm 100% sure that you will never understand it.

 

I can mostly see your point of view for the greater part and understand what you are saying.

With no partiality, because I love ALL music, I can say honestly, that the jazz did redefine the upper extension harmony more intelligently than prior classical tetrachord and polychord definitions.
As for 'refined' - that is a can of worms to me, because it comes down to personal taste and personal opinion on what you, me and for that matter, what anyone else in the world considers is appropriate under the label of 'refined'.
If you asked someone that loves country music only what is refined, they might say anything other than country music isn't.
I would not agree and you may not as well, but hopefully I illustrated what I am trying to say well enough.

 

Thanks so much for instancing some problematic assumptions (of course there are lots of them) and diminishing them with threadbare subjectivism.

Please take my pally advice:
Never take seriously the assumptions from a guy that had a guitar in his hand.

 

Now that is funny (haha)

That reminds me of the joke:
Q: How do you shut up a lead guitarist?
A: Put a chart in front of him.

 

Please read these 2 articles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation
|
|
˅
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion

And I don't want the same happens here so I stay silent.

 

Merry X-mas!

 

sterren stünden der folksmusik