Theory Professor's Negative Review of Mark Levine's Book

[petros]

Robert Rawlins, Review
of Mark Levine's, "The Jazz Theory Book."

http://www.societymusictheory.org/mt....1.rawlins.rev

Dr. Robert Rawlins
Chair, Department of Music, Music Theory

"Robert Rawlins is associate professor and coordinator of music theory and chair of the Department of Music at Rowan University. In addition to a Ph.D. in Musicology, he holds master’s degrees in Music History & Theory, Humanities, and Public Relations. He is author of A Simple and Direct Guide to Jazz Improvisation (Hal Leonard, 1995), Classic Jazz Solos for Practice and Study (in press), Intermediate Serial Duets for Two Flutes (Southern Music, 1990), and has published more than 50 articles on various aspects of music theory and performance. Dr. Rawlins has performed extensively on flute, saxophone and clarinet in both jazz and classical venues."

[Tom Storer]

It's funny, I don't understand any of this stuff since I'm not a musician, but I love reading it. I find it totally fascinating and feel it gives me insight into the way musicians think. Goodness knows why, since I wouldn't know a first-inversion major seventh chord built on the root a major third lower if I tripped over it.

[groover]

Great article, petros.

Now I don't feel so bad for getting stuck on Chapter 3:

"...while the first chapter includes a digestible summary of basic intervals and chords, and chapter 2 introduces some common chord progressions, chapter 3, "Chord/Scale Theory," soon plunges into murky waters. Levine quickly becomes bogged down in discussions of several esoteric chords that are bound to raise objections from experienced jazz musicians and simply lead to confusion among less experienced."

The review is far from a complete negative: "If one's interest in jazz theory leans toward procedures and methods, this book fits the bill perfectly. Although those with an interest in theoretical explanations will not find their wishes gratified by this volume, they will nevertheless find in it an invaluable cache of information regarding some of the most significant harmonic procedures of jazz theory."

Rawlins doesn't completely trash Levine's approach, and some of his criticisms are nitpicking, but this article is a great supplement for anyone attempting to work through the book.

[graypencil]

I read through it , and I wouldn't classify it as a "negative" review ..He points out several approaches that FROM HIS THEORETICAL VIEWPOINT are not sufficiently explained the was he would prefer it .

To balance the above, he also compliments Levine on the areas which he found very usuful ..

On that basis, I'd recommend bookmarking this "review" and reading through it in detail as an adjunct to the Levine book ..

[J Lee]

Well said, GP -- it's not like he's slamming ML's book to the floor or anything.

I have to say, I didn't really understand why the author of this review INSISTED throughout his article upon claiming that jazz standards (like "Blue Monk," say) weren't as well known as, like, "My Romance" or something. Who *else* cares about the latter standards other than jazz musicians, who, de facto, *already* know all the other examples deployed by Levine.

But, as you said, GP. a lot in there is a great companion -- even an adversial companion -- to the talmudic style of interpreting so-called jazz harmony. A welcome corrective.

[cookie]

I think it's pretty difficult for one volume to contain all of the specifics and nuances of both traditional and "jazz" harmony (I put the word in quotes because I think modern improvisational harmonic/melodic language is wider than the already wide genre of jazz).

I do not own the Jazz Theory book, but I do own and use the Jazz Piano book which seems arranged in a similar fashion (based on Rawlins's review). I *did* in fact feel that some things could have been put in a different order (though using the index and having half a clue already about playing jazz piano, I'm able to suss out what I need) and that he spent a LOT of time on the phrygian sound before he dealt with more common scales used in traditional straight-ahead jazz.

I think Levine's books are good PRACTICAL guides. I believe that he's writing for an audience that he *assumes* knows a modicum of traditional music theory and therefore don't need a reminder that ti tends to resolve to do and fa to mi.

I found the article very interesting, though. I agree with James that the examples Levine uses from the jazz instrumental repertoire are probably known to users of the text. I would argue that if they aren't familiar with them, that their use in the text will make them go listen to essential recordings.

I also agree with GP that this is one man's opinion based on his own view of how jazz theory should be approached and presented. All I can say is that I improvise and I teach and what I've discovered is that there are COUNTLESS ways to do both. Mark's books, like any others, have their shortcomings, but are still good, valuable guides, especially for those who already have had a reasonable introduction to traditional theory.

I don't think of the review as entirely negative, either. And I do view as welcome commentary---sort of like the corrections at the front of later editions of the old Real Book.

Thanks for posting the link.

[groover]

Originally Posted by Tom Storer

...I wouldn't know a first-inversion major seventh chord built on the root a major third lower if I tripped over it.

That's no reason to feel shame, Tom. There are plenty of people who consider themselves musicians in many genres of music who wouldn't know that either, including many successful popular performers and "artists".