IMO breaking chords into moving lines (~counterpoint) is already a better start
Jazz kinda breaks the deal, I found counterpoint a mooter-point (hehe) in jazz. There is so much freedom you'd have to analyze each performance individually. Even in the same recording of a song, two identical sections' counterpoint can vary wildly (or not have counterpoint at all!) Parallel fifths/octaves are a no-no in classical music (they break the counterpoint) while they're liberally used in jazz.
You can't even canonically analyze a chord chart. Is that C6 a C6 or an Amin7? (exactly the same notes: C E G A) It's both and it depends on the composer/performer and which one they want to emphasize.
What I mean is, chord charts are mostly a way to print standards in books :P Just like the word tree isn't a tree, a C6 isn't a C6.
What about rhythm ? and grooves ? How do you write funk or swing on a score ?
Definitely a great point.
That's traditionally been left to the performer, even in classical music. Jazz brought that freedom to melody and harmony too.
People measured relationship between notes, but I've never seen it done to 'beats'.
It's been done and is pervasive in traditional music theory (not so much in pop music). E.g. syncopation is a formal relationship between beats, or ornaments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornament_%28music%29), or even pulses, beats and bars (which are just a take on rhythm formalization).
There have been efforts to accurately transcribe rhythm and feel, but it mostly gets in the way (e.g. the comments here about swing transcription http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_(jazz_performance_style)#...). Rhythm seems to be more innate, while note relationships are easier to hear than to produce. If you got rhythm, you can tap swing feel so a side note should be enough (and allows for personal feel, just like tempo wasn't transcribed as BPMs and they used allegro, grave, moderato...) Improvising/transcribing melody/harmony isn't that easy though (I attribute it mostly due to the available variety compared to rhythm.) I guess that's why pop/rock songs transcribe notes/chords but rhythm is usually left as an exercise.
I personally like it the artsy-jazz way: do whatever you feel sounds good and express yourself through music. Theory is cool, but ear is king.
Comments
Jazz kinda breaks the deal, I found counterpoint a mooter-point (hehe) in jazz. There is so much freedom you'd have to analyze each performance individually. Even in the same recording of a song, two identical sections' counterpoint can vary wildly (or not have counterpoint at all!) Parallel fifths/octaves are a no-no in classical music (they break the counterpoint) while they're liberally used in jazz.
You can't even canonically analyze a chord chart. Is that C6 a C6 or an Amin7? (exactly the same notes: C E G A) It's both and it depends on the composer/performer and which one they want to emphasize.
What I mean is, chord charts are mostly a way to print standards in books :P Just like the word tree isn't a tree, a C6 isn't a C6.
Definitely a great point.
That's traditionally been left to the performer, even in classical music. Jazz brought that freedom to melody and harmony too.
Coincidentally, just yesterday I saw some discussion about it in a jazz forum, some good points there: http://www.jazzguitar.be/forum/theory/38021-why-there-more-b...
It's been done and is pervasive in traditional music theory (not so much in pop music). E.g. syncopation is a formal relationship between beats, or ornaments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornament_%28music%29), or even pulses, beats and bars (which are just a take on rhythm formalization).
There have been efforts to accurately transcribe rhythm and feel, but it mostly gets in the way (e.g. the comments here about swing transcription http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_(jazz_performance_style)#...). Rhythm seems to be more innate, while note relationships are easier to hear than to produce. If you got rhythm, you can tap swing feel so a side note should be enough (and allows for personal feel, just like tempo wasn't transcribed as BPMs and they used allegro, grave, moderato...) Improvising/transcribing melody/harmony isn't that easy though (I attribute it mostly due to the available variety compared to rhythm.) I guess that's why pop/rock songs transcribe notes/chords but rhythm is usually left as an exercise.
I personally like it the artsy-jazz way: do whatever you feel sounds good and express yourself through music. Theory is cool, but ear is king.