Coltrane. Can we talk?

Hi Jay. I did not mean to put fuel on the fire here; this is a great thread, and I thank Kublakhan for starting it. Of course, we are all entitled to our opinions, and I don't begrudge you for having your own about 'Trane; even if I don't agree with them. Probably, if you would have just stated that while you can appreciate his genius, he is not your favorite, I would have declined to comment. But you also implied some expert knowledge with the termonology you used (equidistant tonal centers, etc...) to justify your position, and because of that, well, I guess I got a bit wound up. Yes, I am a musician, and yes, big surprise, I'm play jazz. I consider myself very well schooled; I'm currently working on my DMA in composition. But oddly, I don't care much for big complex words and theories when it comes to describing art, at least not most of the time. You see, I've always felt that theories (like the 2 & 4 tonal system, Lydian Chromatic, etc...) are ONLY applicable if the artist is actually known to have UTILIZED the theories while creating; at the very least there should be some documented proof that the artist studied the theoretical material at some point in time, or that he/she developed musical concepts that were the basis for creation. I guess a couple of examples of "theory in practice" might be Schoenbergs 12 tone system, and Charlie Parkers use of extended chords as a basis for improvisation. In both these instances (and there are others) the artist CLEARLY, by there own admission, had a discovery that led them to what they felt was a higher level of self expression. So, it would be correct, both musically and theoretically speaking, to analize the music of Schoenberg with respect to his 12 tone method of composition; at least the pieces of music which were spawned by this theory, that is. And it would also be correct to examine Charlie Parkers improvisations with respect to his idea of "extending the chords"....But there are many instances where theory fails miserably, and in the end, the explaination actually detracts from the art, and our understanding of how the artist opperated. I feel that the "theories" which have been developed to help describe and define the art of John Coltrane are an example of the latter. Having said that, I also feel that the only theory which comes acceptably close to being able to describe the method in which 'Trane opperated is the Lydian Chromatic Concept, which makes sense, since it is common knowledge that JC was a believer in the system, and studied it in his youth. But like most theories, even the LCCOTO fails to fully explain what 'Trane was up too; no theory can expalin the spirit of a man who was as moved as JC was to expaned the music in such a deep way. But I digress. I guess I'm just really trying to explain why I got so fiesty, and appologize for doing so. If you're interested in learning more about why most musical theories fail, and if you've ever wondered why most "theories" never seems to help students of music actually create, there is a wonderful book published by Dover titled "The Great Composer As Teacher And Student" by Alfred Mann. I guess the most interesting point the book makes is that neither Bach nor Mozart would have had any understanding of even the TERM music theory. They only understood musical practices, and it is those very practices which help us to better understand their art, not some very wordy theory created my an intellectual high-brow 100 years or more after their death. If you examine the manuscript books of the students of Bach, Mozart, and even Beethoven, there is no text, only music notation. No wordy theories needed, just practical examples of music. Maybe I should take their lead, as this post is already too wordy for most, including me. So let me just say once more that I apologize to all if I got fired up, and if I rambled. But it's all for the love of music. BTW, Coltrane did not really "expand" anything harmonically, at least not in a fundamental way; he did not create a unique system for building harmonies. His music, and harmonies, are all still based on the western diatonic system, and are mostly tertian. But he did contribute greatly to the vocabulary of that western diatonic system, and that is not any less important. Schoenberg is probably the only artist this century that actually "expanded" harmony. Regards. Robert.