Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Posts 51 to 100 of 116
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    Well, I wouldn't say I'm angry, I smile as I write (kinda wryly maybe), I get pissed off when I see that Jazz no longer garners the respect it should, particularly among young people. For example, it has become typical to witness this scenario: I youtube up and coming Jazz guitarists, then read comments underneath. Jazz lovers get how "good" the guy is, suggesting strengths and weaknesses (all subjective obviously), but the young "shred" brigade chime in with comments like, "wow, pretty good for jazz, he should try metal, he's almost fast enough"! Now how many times do I have to read moronic responses like that and cop it on the chin? Why don't the GP appreciate greatness like they used to? Even non musicians of the day knew Mozart was a superior composer to most others at the time, and peasants understood the greatness of Shakespeare. Jazz deserves more respect and you know it. If we stopped being humble, we might get noticed, not because we want the attention, but because we want Jazz to get it and go on getting it.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    As I said, it's just INSANE to think there are no objective standards at all in art or that there shouldn't be.

    Here, not to mention other names and controversial matters: I decided to start playing the sitar the other day. I will memorize one melodic passage or something. Am I now on the same "level" as Ravi Shankar? That's idiotic. Let's stop joking around.

    Some foolish clown who tosses red dye into the Trevi Fountain is not on the same level as Michaelangelo!!

    I just wrote a short poem about toilet paper.
    Here it is:

    I like toilet paper.
    You like toliet paper.
    Toilet paper is useful and good.
    Thank you all.


    I WANT, no I DEMAND that this BS to be recognized alongside the work of
    Shakespeare. Enough already.

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    Mr. B

    I have to repectfully disagree with you about levels of art. I believe they exist even to the point where the artist himself has gone through levels. No artist just picks up his instrumnet or brush and ZAP he's an artist.

    Jimmy D'Aquisto built guitars. One day he became an artist. The subjective part to me is at what point he became an artist. To me it's the same with every art form.

    I also don't think that by assigning levels to art we become elitist. Not everybody can see, understand or appreciate the arts and even among those who do, some people can see it and understand it on deeper levels than others. That doesn't make them, elitist.

    As per your last comment, I sometimes feel the same in that , in the scope of the world, as artists , we're not curing cancer or ending world hunger, but perhaps we can just improve the condition of this place by contributing some music and what have you. Don't underestimate that.

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
    Well, I wouldn't say I'm angry, I smile as I write (kinda wryly maybe), I get pissed off when I see that Jazz no longer garners the respect it should, particularly among young people. For example, it has become typical to witness this scenario: I youtube up and coming Jazz guitarists, then read comments underneath. Jazz lovers get how "good" the guy is, suggesting strengths and weaknesses (all subjective obviously), but the young "shred" brigade chime in with comments like, "wow, pretty good for jazz, he should try metal, he's almost fast enough"! Now how many times do I have to read moronic responses like that and cop it on the chin? Why don't the GP appreciate greatness like they used to? Even non musicians of the day knew Mozart was a superior composer to most others at the time, and peasants understood the greatness of Shakespeare. Jazz deserves more respect and you know it. If we stopped being humble, we might get noticed, not because we want the attention, but because we want Jazz to get it and go on getting it.
    I see art as a triad: Medium, transmitter and receiver. In the case of a musician: Instrument, player, listener. Take one away and its all gone. So...IMO, music is an offering to people. If the people don't understand the offering, maybe its time the artist did some serious self-examination. Or ... I suppose it is also possible to become arrogant and elitist and simply blame the reciever for failed communication.

    To me, elitism and arrogance speaks more about an artist's personal weakness than the quality of their music. Parker and the rest were not elitist, they were creative inovators who lost their audiance for a number of reasons. I think they would have liked nothing more than to see their music win and retain popularity.

    Ironically, it is popularity that breeds arrogance and when it wains, some find comfort in being elitists, catering to the so called "sophisticated" listener, others in humility and an understanding that an artists gift is perishable. IMO, there is more potential for growth, both musically and personaly, with humility.

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
    Yeah I know, one man's floor is another man's ceiling, but for chrissakes, this is a Jazz forum, JAZZ dammit, we're only talking about the highest art form known to man!
    Seriously, I don't know if you said that as a joke or not. It comes off as though you are all knowing, as though there is no room for various opinions or any doubt. Talking about arrogant and elitist!

    You write as though you'er the final arbiter of what is the highest art form.

    So there is no doubt that someone blowing Parker like bebob lines over diffucult and fast chord changes (or even Parker himself) is higher art than a major compostion by Mozart or Beethoven?

    So you've decided composition is a lower art form than improvisation?

  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    Art has two basic requirements. Both must be present for it to be art.

    1. The piece must demonstrate mastery of the medium.

    2. The piece must create an emotional reaction from the viewer.

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
    Well, I wouldn't say I'm angry, I smile as I write (kinda wryly maybe), I get pissed off when I see that Jazz no longer garners the respect it should, particularly among young people. For example, it has become typical to witness this scenario: I youtube up and coming Jazz guitarists, then read comments underneath. Jazz lovers get how "good" the guy is, suggesting strengths and weaknesses (all subjective obviously), but the young "shred" brigade chime in with comments like, "wow, pretty good for jazz, he should try metal, he's almost fast enough"! Now how many times do I have to read moronic responses like that and cop it on the chin? Why don't the GP appreciate greatness like they used to? Even non musicians of the day knew Mozart was a superior composer to most others at the time, and peasants understood the greatness of Shakespeare. Jazz deserves more respect and you know it. If we stopped being humble, we might get noticed, not because we want the attention, but because we want Jazz to get it and go on getting it.
    Jazz IS getting more respect. I believe it was 60 minutes (or some other tv show) that did a peice on the state of jazz education and sales in the US. Jazz has steadily represented about 2% of total music sales in the past couple of decades, but that is muddied as smooth jazz is figured in.

    Jazz sells about as well as classical. However, jazz programs at the university level have exploded in the past 10-20 years. So, these kids who get their jazz degrees certainly have an appreciation for the genre, more than in the 70s-80s when I was growing up.

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    i think maybe i'm missing the definition some of you are using for the "levels," and i'm not being clear enough in what i'm saying.

    is some art better than others? absolutely. the talk i don't like is about an artist reaching "levels" of importance or value. good artists still make bad art. let's use the beatles as an example again--they didn't, in my opinion, suddenly become more important when they became a studio band--they simply made records that were more serious and a "headier" listen. But not everything the beatles did after this point was as good as some of it. O-bla-di O bla-da? gimmie a break, that's a pop song.

    I see this all the time in the visual art world--an artist makes some big strides, creates some new interesting work, and then everyone collectively lauds everything they do after that. were all of monet's paintings good? no! artists get "deified." i don't like that, and i think it's totally fine that the beatles put a skiffle # like "the one after 909" oon a record after they had become "important."

    this also draws me to the distinction of art and craft. in the visual art world, when someone truly masters their craft, they are an artist (frank lloyd wright, for example--more than just an architect to most folks, right?) Pop songcraft is a craft, and i think the beatles showed mastery of it even in the early days..."She Loves You" is a work of art, to me.

    to me...again the subjectivity. But that's what i'm getting at. Certainly, i wasn't an artist when i first picked up the guitar, but i wasn't claiming to be making art then (nor am i now, really) But art need not always show mastery--look at the "outsider" artists like henry darger, or even grandma moses. The definition of art is very broad, and I don't think it gets any easier to define it when we cross over to auditory arts.

    To me, jazz is not more important than rock, hip hop, country, whatever. I like it more. I play it. But it's not more important.

    Is it more difficult to play? Probably. More difficult to master? that's arguable as well. But just because someone plays jazz does not mean they are an artist on another level--it's not the medium, it's the product. This is why, in my opinion, i find the art of a group like "godspeed you!black emperor" more relavent and enjoyable than the art of wynton marsallis, or of mozart. Sometimes, it has nothing to do with talent.

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    Stravinsky's Firebird comes to mind for me. There are certain parts of it that move me to tears every time I hear it. Mastery + Emotion = Art.

    Grandma Moses: there is mastery there. Look at her use of color, composition, etc. It's not "academic realism" but it exhibits clear mastery of her medium. The question for me, however, was whether there is an emotional element. For me, no, so by my definition it's not art. Most "folk" visual media is not art by my definition.

    A urinal on display. Is it art? No. Emotion (anger/outrage) yes, but no mastery.

    So what of bebop? Mastery? Yep. Emotion? I think so.

    Free Jazz? Mastery? Probably. Emotion? For me no, sterile, cacophonous, so not art.

    My two part definition helps me categorize these things very well. Like other posters have said, I too refuse to go along with "anything goes" definitions of art. I wrestled with this for a long time, frankly. I had to be able to put guys like Cy Twombley who scribble on a chalk board into some kind of perspective, or go mad.

    And, my definition also allows an artist to have some works that are art, and some that are not, which is very important. Nobody gets a free pass, i.e. Picasso. Just because you get the label of "artist" in front of your name doesn't mean everything you do is art. Picasso has a LOT of art. He has a lot of shlock too.

  11. #60

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont View Post
    ...good artists still make bad art.
    +1

    ...artists get "deified." i don't like that,
    Totally agree

    ...art need not always show mastery--
    +1

    ...just because someone plays jazz does not mean they are an artist on another level--it's not the medium, it's the product.
    +1

    To our patient "Original Poster".

    I think this interesting discussion really does relate to the original post.

    IMO the basic philosophy of improvisation is to spontaneously organize sound in such a way that it speaks directly to the listener. After all, the listener is an essential component to the equation regardless of their level of understanding. Good improv should transcend the illusion of technique and communicate directly to the listener. Sometimes this requires simplicity and other time complexity.

    Improv is a craft that over time may or may not develop to a point where the musician can successfully transmit an intended emotion response. When this happens it transcends craft and becomes art.

    So, IMO, the first goal is to develop the craft. Take a technical or theoretical concept that you know well and try to make it disappear in the ears of the listener. Don't deploy technique for any other reason than to communicate the emotional content of the tune.

    I am merely a craftsman on the journey, but IMO, the best way to develop this "philosophy" into practice is by learning to interpret and embelish the melodies of any favourite tune. The beauty of a good melody is that the artist has provided the artistic content to base your improv on and has already delivered a common denominator between you and the listener. Modify and play with the melody, always cognizant that there is someone listening. After a while, phrases in the melody can be replaced with your own phrases creating surprise and interest, but the phrase is paramount, technique is secondary.
    Last edited by Jazzaluk; 05-11-2009 at 01:21 PM.

  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Goofsus4 View Post
    And, my definition also allows an artist to have some works that are art, and some that are not, which is very important. Nobody gets a free pass, i.e. Picasso. Just because you get the label of "artist" in front of your name doesn't mean everything you do is art. Picasso has a LOT of art. He has a lot of shlock too.
    Surely that could mean that some 'artists' don't produce any art! That's like someone saying 'I'm a guitar player', when they don't play guitar.

    What about all the people who work in some sort of creative field who call themselves artists, or who are known as artists simply by their profession? Singers, songwriters, musicians, painters, sculpters, set designers, poets, writers, actors, etc etc etc, are they all frauds?

    If your child brought home some painting they'd done at school and said 'Look what I did in art class!', are you going to reply: 'Well actually that's not really art.'?

    Why does it have to have such a narrow definition?

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Goofsus4 View Post
    Stravinsky's Firebird comes to mind for me. There are certain parts of it that move me to tears every time I hear it. Mastery + Emotion = Art.

    Grandma Moses: there is mastery there. Look at her use of color, composition, etc. It's not "academic realism" but it exhibits clear mastery of her medium. The question for me, however, was whether there is an emotional element. For me, no, so by my definition it's not art. Most "folk" visual media is not art by my definition.

    A urinal on display. Is it art? No. Emotion (anger/outrage) yes, but no mastery.

    So what of bebop? Mastery? Yep. Emotion? I think so.

    Free Jazz? Mastery? Probably. Emotion? For me no, sterile, cacophonous, so not art.

    My two part definition helps me categorize these things very well. Like other posters have said, I too refuse to go along with "anything goes" definitions of art. I wrestled with this for a long time, frankly. I had to be able to put guys like Cy Twombley who scribble on a chalk board into some kind of perspective, or go mad.

    And, my definition also allows an artist to have some works that are art, and some that are not, which is very important. Nobody gets a free pass, i.e. Picasso. Just because you get the label of "artist" in front of your name doesn't mean everything you do is art. Picasso has a LOT of art. He has a lot of shlock too.
    I went to a Cy Twombley retrospective in Berlin in 1995. Several rooms of scribble, small, large, and extremely large. If there was anything "artful" about it, it was the accompanying essay-like attached descriptions, which are integral to his "art", in much the same way as, say, Dali's titles influences the "emotional" effect on the viewer. Anyway, all this goes to show that, of course, it is impossible to delineate art from craft sometimes, as it is to separate art from philosophy. Some things exist in these blurred lines, for sure. But most things don't, infact, contrary to any impression I'm sure my previous posts have left on some of you, I feel quite certain that some Rap is more artful that much that passes for Jazz, no question. But the truly great Jazz is in it's own building. With the possible exception of some Vedic, or even African music, it stands alone as the most sophisticated spontaneously improvised art form. Was Parker a greater artist than Stravinsky? It can be easily argued that he was, after all, he was composing spontaneously. Stravinsky marvelled at Parker's ability, apparently, when witnessing it live. Parker, arrogantly, never looked at the great composer all the while. I believe Bird couldn't help but feel elitist, much of his behavior alludes to this. Jazz was more exciting when it was cocky, when you risked humiliation if you couldn't cut it. Duke, Prez, Bean, Diz, Miles right through to Sun Ra and the Marsalis bros all had the chutzpah, the "f**k you" attitude that demanded attention at the same time as it invited derision. If you call that elitism, then, yeah, bring it on!
    Last edited by princeplanet; 05-11-2009 at 01:57 PM.

  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
    I went to a Cy Twombley retrospective in Berlin in 1995. Several rooms of scribble, small, large, and extremely large. If there was anything "artful" about it, it was the accompanying essay-like attached descriptions, which are integral to his "art", in much the same way as, say, Dali's titles influences the "emotional" effect on the viewer. Anyway, all this goes to show that, of course, it is impossible to delineate art from craft sometimes, as it is to separate art from philosophy. Some things exist in these blurred lines, for sure. But most things don't, infact, contrary to any impression I'm sure my previous posts have left on some of you, I feel quite certain that some Rap is more artful that much that passes for Jazz, no question. But the truly great Jazz is in it's own building. With the possible exception of some Vedic, or even African music, it stands alone as the most sophisticated spontaneously improvised art form. Was Parker a greater artist than Stravinsky? It can be easily argued that he was, after all, he was composing spontaneously. Stravinsky marvelled at Parker's ability, apparently, when witnessing it live. Parker, arrogantly, never looked at the great composer all the while. I believe Bird couldn't help but feel elitist, much of his behavior alludes to this. Jazz was more exciting when it was cocky, when you risked humiliation if you couldn't cut it. Duke, Prez, Bean, Diz, Miles right through to Sun Ra and the Marsalis bros all had the chutzpah, the "f**k you" attitude that demanded attention at the same time as it invited derision. If you call that elitism, then, yeah, bring it on!
    If you think that elitism, arrogance and attitude are somehow key to success in selling yourself as a musician...good luck and God's speed. These traits are usually a result of over-success, not a cause.

  15. #64

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by abracadabra View Post
    If your child brought home some painting they'd done at school and said 'Look what I did in art class!', are you going to reply: 'Well actually that's not really art.'?

    Why does it have to have such a narrow definition?
    it depends what the child painted. if he just splattered some paint on some paper with no reason or integration to be discerned, then yes, you would say "that is not art." if you are a rational person who knows what art is.

    the definition is not really narrow. it is not narrow to consider things that are not art to be not art. if you dont have specific definitions of things then they become meaningless.

    you want to say that art can be anything. art is not just the process or ends of creating, it matters what is created. in fact, thats really all that matters.

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by franco6719 View Post
    As I said, it's just INSANE to think there are no objective standards at all in art or that there shouldn't be.

    Here, not to mention other names and controversial matters: I decided to start playing the sitar the other day. I will memorize one melodic passage or something. Am I now on the same "level" as Ravi Shankar? That's idiotic. Let's stop joking around.

    Some foolish clown who tosses red dye into the Trevi Fountain is not on the same level as Michaelangelo!!

    I just wrote a short poem about toilet paper.
    Here it is:

    I like toilet paper.
    You like toliet paper.
    Toilet paper is useful and good.
    Thank you all.


    I WANT, no I DEMAND that this BS to be recognized alongside the work of
    Shakespeare. Enough already.
    it seems like you have at least partially realized my viewpoint from our last discussion about this.

  17. #66

    User Info Menu


  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    First off, when you use the word "mastery" with art, you have to be super careful. To master something means you've accomplished everything possible in your respective art and are at a finishing point. We as improvisers know well that you never master a music. Coltrane always said "there's no such thing as mastering and art, it's an ongoing process of creation and experimentation until we die." We always abosrb and apply new concepts until we die, otherwise, we'd never progress as musicians. To master something also means you've learned and applied every possible aspect. This is not true, especially for jazz. Why is it that a great player like Scott Henderson, who in his 50's comes out and says "I've been working on playing motives based around fifths in my blues lately," when 20 years earlier when he was playing with all those outside concepts, he could have quit progressing? because it would have grown stale

  19. #68

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzyteach65 View Post

    it might

    Last edited by sfas; 02-21-2013 at 02:39 PM.

  20. #69

    User Info Menu

    I would like to address the focus of the original questions as to whether improvisation is an innate ablility and can really be taught or learned.

    If we accept the premise that improvisation is a willful departure from an established parameter of the melody, harmony, rhythm or form of a musical piece it is, by definition, innate.

    As a music educator and well schooled in teaching the techniques of improvisation I have observed that most musicians, given the opportunity, can and do improvise at a level commensurate with their abilities. It can be as simple as changing the phrasing to a complete restructuring of a melodic or harmonic (or both) concept. Again, the element of volition is crucial to the process.

    Many years ago I had my awareness of the significance of volition heightened when a great jazz player turned me on the book "New Pathways to Piano Technique" by Luigi Bonpensiere. It is out of print but can be found in some larger libraries. There is a forward by Aldous Huxley and deals with this subject extensively. Some later books by other authors("The Inner Game of Music" etc.) lay claim to have "discovered" techniques that were written about by Bonpensiere in the late 1940's. At any rate, it should be required reading for serious students of improvisation, not just pianists.

    All this being said, the art of improvisation (in any genre) is only truly manifested when the artist commits a volitional act of spontaneous creativity. This can be anything from a 5 year old playing around with a pentatonic riff in an Orff ensemble to some dude playing 8 choruses of his favorite Parker tune (hopefully without falling into every cliche in the book).

    The true art in it is in the exploration of the possibilities, don't you think?
    Last edited by Jazzcat; 05-12-2009 at 10:19 AM.

  21. #70

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzcat View Post
    If we accept the premise that improvisation is a willful departure from an established parameter of the melody, harmony, rhythm or form of a musical piece it is, by definition, innate.......
    ....All this being said, the art of improvisation (in any genre) is only truly manifested when the artist commits a volitional act of spontaneous creativity.....

    The true art in it is in the exploration of the possibilities, don't you think?
    Great post Jazzcat!!

    Do you think that "intent" plays a role in the volitional act or is it sufficient to merely explore and present possibilities? This seems incomplete to me in terms of art.

    I think improvisational art must also include a willful attempt at effecting some response in the listener. Otherwise it would seem to be a rather aimless activity. An incomplete triad.

  22. #71

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mfarkas View Post
    it depends what the child painted. if he just splattered some paint on some paper with no reason or integration to be discerned, then yes, you would say "that is not art." if you are a rational person who knows what art is.

    the definition is not really narrow. it is not narrow to consider things that are not art to be not art. if you dont have specific definitions of things then they become meaningless.

    you want to say that art can be anything. art is not just the process or ends of creating, it matters what is created. in fact, thats really all that matters.
    I would say that art is the creation of something, anything, by a person, for the aesthetic appreciation of others.

    So, if a child knocks a pot of paint onto a canvas, that is not art. If the child intends to see and display the effect of the paint spill, that is art.

    Previous definitions posted have included the 'mastery' of the medium, but as others have said, it is hard if not impossible to guage when or if mastery will occur. Also, I don't think any kind of mastery is a pre-requisite.

  23. #72

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by abracadabra View Post
    I would say that art is the creation of something, anything, by a person, for the aesthetic appreciation of others.

    So, if a child knocks a pot of paint onto a canvas, that is not art. If the child intends to see and display the effect of the paint spill, that is art.

    Previous definitions posted have included the 'mastery' of the medium, but as others have said, it is hard if not impossible to guage when or if mastery will occur. Also, I don't think any kind of mastery is a pre-requisite.
    its true that mastery has nothing to do with whether something is or is not art, but it will probably have something to do with how good the art is.

    the problem with your definition of art is that you hold aesthetic appreciation as the purpose of art. that is not correct. that is like saying any sound that is made deliberately is music. that obviously doesnt work as a definition. real art serves as the inspiration for contemplation beyond a purely sensory level. so the child spilling paint is not art even if it is intentional, because no contemplation can come from looking at a paint spill.

    furthermore, with your definition, how would you know if the child made a mistake or was trying to show the effect of a paint spill? what does that even mean to show the effect of a paint spill? why is that worth showing?

    if you look at the history of art, from when it was first created, you can see that its purpose has always been for something much more than mere visual or auditory pleasure.
    Last edited by sfas; 05-11-2009 at 07:23 PM.

  24. #73

    User Info Menu

    Frank Zappa said "Art is making something out of nothing and selling it."

  25. #74

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzaluk View Post
    If you think that elitism, arrogance and attitude are somehow key to success in selling yourself as a musician...good luck and God's speed. These traits are usually a result of over-success, not a cause.
    Not to sell myself, or yourself as musician. I'm just talkin' about how Jazz can sell itself as a vital and exciting art form. After all, these days there's a lot of things out there competing for one's attention, especially youngster's. Whilst it's demeaning to all the arts to liken them to competitive sports, it cannot be argued that the greatest practitioners perhaps in all arts have been the ones spurred on by spirited rivalry. It's the human condition. So is the ego. Art celebrates the human condition, and some of it embraces the "ego". Without this there's no Wagner, or Miles Davis etc etc.

    Of course you make a great point, when artists become over-blown, they begin to rely on things other than their unselfconscious expression. That's gonna happen and that's ok too. It's all part of the cycle. When things become too up themselves the reaction is humility. Jazz is in a humility phase at present but has been for too long. Jazz needs a new loud mouthed champion that walks the talk. Where is the next Cassius Clay of Jazz?

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mfarkas View Post
    it seems like you have at least partially realized my viewpoint from our last discussion about this.
    Or, more probably, that you misunderstood my position in the first place. The discussion on the other thread was concerned partly with (ok, I'm going to toss out a big word here) epistemology, or how and whether we can KNOW what specific alleged artworks or art processes are really art and not art, to what extent this is subjective and so on. I claimed, and continue to claim, that is this process of the present identification and specification of specific examples as art is tremendously subjective and mostly impossible. Hence, I rarely make claims like "That painting is not art", "Ornette is not a musician" Rap is not art", etc.. I mostly don't know whether these borderline cases will or will not be classified as art by whoever turns out to be resposnbible for classifying such things in the future. This does not mean that no objective standards and criteria for art versus non-art exist (an "ontological" question).

    There certainly are some such standards. The poem I wrote above is BS and the poems of Robert Lowell are not. The point is extremely complex, but I think this comes down to several factors: skill and originality are foremost among them. The first factor is realtively easy to measure and define, but even IT harbors a large grain of subjectivity. In sum, I would say "if everyone can do it and it is all good, then it is not art."

    Originality is also a decisive factor. If it is a copy of a painting and not an the embodiment of an original view, experience or thougth process, then it is not art.

    Furthermore, we were talking about and debating the fact, which you deny, that art is both a process of creation and the products of that creative intentionality. In sum, we were discussion WHAT IS ART and not "Is THIS or THAT object a WORK of art. These are radically different questions.

    But, honestly, these philosophical questions will end up nowhere, as usual.


    I think we must look to our evolutionary biological history as a species to find out what purpose art serves to human well-being and consciousness. Many experts are now exporing this avenue. Dennis Dutton has wriiten about the evolutonary pschology of literature, for example. I will see if I can find the link.

  27. #76

    User Info Menu


  28. #77

    User Info Menu


  29. #78

    User Info Menu

    Webster says this about mastery:

    Mastery: possession or display of great skill or technique.

    This is one of a few definitions of course, but none of them say that mastery means "nothing more to learn" or "highest possible acheivement" or any of that.

    Mastery is an essential ingredient for art because it eliminates the idea of accidental art. There is no such thing. If it's accidental, it isn't art.

    Is the wind whispering through the trees art? Is a magnificent sunset art? Is the aforementioned child knocking over jars of paint and making an interesting, even beautiful result art?

    No, because no mastery was involved.

  30. #79

    User Info Menu

    Jazzaluk,

    Due do restrictions of space and time I can't go into the depth on the topic I would like but Aldous Huxley,in his forward to Bonpensiere's book, addresses the role of will and intent at depth (he even comes up with a formula!! - leave it to Huxley!). They are part and parcel of the end product. In the legal community the term"willful intent" is used as the definition for premeditation. Check it out if you get the chance. It is an interesting read.

    The thing about jazz improvisation that resonates most with me is that the artist (either fledgling or accomplished or somewhere in between) is making a personal statement. Aesthetic considerations can be debated but it still comes down to that artist being driven to make a statement and saying "can you dig it?" His success at expressing himself will be tempered by his technique, intellect and emotional range(not nercessarily in that order).

    As a sax player I have listened to or seen some pretty heavy hitters in my day. One performance really stands out as illustrative of this whole conversation. It is Gerald Albright's live recording of "Georgia On My Mind". He takes that classic tune and uses every resource of the horn (range, timbre, articulations etc.) to make an exciting and profound statement.

    I had a conversation with Ralph Moore(a former student of mine and sax player on the Tonight Show band) about that performance(Albright's). His response was "Man, you got to be willing to unzip, hang it out and possibly lose it to play like that!!!!"

    I think that is what seperates the truly great from the rest of us. That, and 10,000 hours in the woodshed!!!!

    I will leave you with my favorite quote from Lord Buckley (a true hipster):

    "If you gets there and you ain't got it, there you jolly well are!!!"
    Last edited by Jazzcat; 05-12-2009 at 10:45 AM.

  31. #80

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Goofsus4 View Post
    Webster says this about mastery:

    Mastery: possession or display of great skill or technique.

    This is one of a few definitions of course, but none of them say that mastery means "nothing more to learn" or "highest possible acheivement" or any of that.

    Mastery is an essential ingredient for art because it eliminates the idea of accidental art. There is no such thing. If it's accidental, it isn't art.

    Is the wind whispering through the trees art? Is a magnificent sunset art? Is the aforementioned child knocking over jars of paint and making an interesting, even beautiful result art?

    No, because no mastery was involved.
    youre right that there is no accidental art, despite what john cage would say, but there can be art without mastery or great skill in an area. a child can make a work of art if it produces contemplation about life in this world, even if it is not perfectly constructed. it may not be as good of a work of art as that of a master though.

  32. #81

    User Info Menu

    Goodsus4,

    I disagree that mastery is an essential element of creating art. How would you account for the creation of an interesting improvisation that was the result of accidentally playing a "wrong" note or chord and have it take you in a new direction?

    What are your choices if you play a "wrong note"? Repeat it or resolve it! In other words, find a way to make it work or abandon it. Creativity is an organic process and to hold that art is only created when complete mastery is achieved seems pedantic to me.

  33. #82

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by franco6719 View Post
    I claimed, and continue to claim, that is this process of the present identification and specification of specific examples as art is tremendously subjective and mostly impossible. Hence, I rarely make claims like "That painting is not art", "Ornette is not a musician" Rap is not art", etc.. I mostly don't know whether these borderline cases will or will not be classified as art by whoever turns out to be resposnbible for classifying such things in the future. This does not mean that no objective standards and criteria for art versus non-art exist (an "ontological" question).

    Originality is also a decisive factor. If it is a copy of a painting and not an the embodiment of an original view, experience or thougth process, then it is not art.

    Furthermore, we were talking about and debating the fact, which you deny, that art is both a process of creation and the products of that creative intentionality. In sum, we were discussion WHAT IS ART and not "Is THIS or THAT object a WORK of art. These are radically different questions.

    But, honestly, these philosophical questions will end up nowhere, as usual.


    I think we must look to our evolutionary biological history as a species to find out what purpose art serves to human well-being and consciousness. Many experts are now exporing this avenue. Dennis Dutton has wriiten about the evolutonary pschology of literature, for example. I will see if I can find the link.
    the reason you think philosophical questions end up no where is because your philosophy is full of contradiction and lacks reason.

    who are these people you speak of that come along and decide what art is? what qualifies them? why do you accept their decisions as absolutes? that kind of thinking will serve you well if you are ever a subject in a dictatorship.

    but at the same time you say there are some objective standards. what tells you what those are? it sounds like you used reason to come to those standards on your own. if you would take that process and use it to make up your whole philosophy then you would have something.

    how and why does the classification of art become subjective after starting out with basic objective principles that you admit exist? this mix of subjectivism and objectivism is confusing and leads to no where. it allows you to make basic distinctions based on reason (I think) and then leave the rest up to mystic art critics of the future or something. you need to integrate your thinking, and drop this idea that you need other people to validate your own thought.
    Last edited by sfas; 05-12-2009 at 11:01 AM.

  34. #83

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzcat View Post
    Goodsus4,

    I disagree that mastery is an essential element of creating art. How would you account for the creation of an interesting improvisation that was the result of accidentally playing a "wrong" note or chord and have it take you in a new direction?

    What are your choices if you play a "wrong note"? Repeat it or resolve it! In other words, find a way to make it work or abandon it. Creativity is an organic process and to hold that art is only created when complete mastery is achieved seems pedantic to me.
    Hitting a wrong note, then making something entirely new out of it? You are describing mastery in my opinion. The novice would likely hit the bad note and then ignore it, treating it just as a clunker and hoping to get back on track. The artist with a mastery of the instrument and music uses the accident as the foundation for a new idea.

    Accidents are part of the creative process. But the mastery is involved in making the accident work to your advantage.

    In the visual arts, for instance, say watercolor work - a painter with a mastery of the medium will often exploit the accidental bleeding and mingling of colors to create atmospheric effects intentionally. The novice just makes a mess and starts again.

  35. #84

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Goofsus4 View Post
    . The novice just makes a mess and starts again.
    Hopefully the novice learned something from the "mess" and grows in the process. Whether it is music or visual art, most artists produce their more interesting work while going through a "phase", "period" or some other label that we choose to describe their evolution as an artist, don't you think?

  36. #85

    User Info Menu

    who are these people you speak of that come along and decide what art is? what qualifies them? why do you accept their decisions as absolutes? that kind of thinking will serve you well if you are ever a subject in a dictatorship.

    Basically, they will be a combination of other artists, art critics and various knowledgable and expert people in the relevant fields. I don't accept their decisions as absolute. I might not accept many of them at all if I were still alive to debate such issues. But first of all, I won't be, since we are talking about many decades, if not centuries, before something can be legitimately called a work of art. Their is always a sort of mild conformist dictatorship in such matters (the ruling sociological paradigm). This even applies to a large extent to science, as recent philosophy of science has revealed. I have actually written many philosophy papers on the arbitray nature of expertise.

    An example among extremely many: who decided that Virgil's poems were worthy of being preserved and passed down through the generations. Well, Virgil himself asked to have them all burned at his death. Emperor Augustus intervened to save them because the poems were all basically hyms to the glory of Rome under his rule. Later, generations upon generations of artists and other "experts" realized that the work had merit. How many such works have been destroyed? Probably infinite amounts of the greatest work were lost at Alexandria for one. Arbitrary.


    Yes, there are some basic objective standards that probable have a biological origin. Beyond those BASIC principles, we get into muddy and deeply subjective waters. There is no contradiction in this at all.

  37. #86

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzcat View Post
    Hopefully the novice learned something from the "mess" and grows in the process. Whether it is music or visual art, most artists produce their more interesting work while going through a "phase", "period" or some other label that we choose to describe their evolution as an artist, don't you think?
    Absolutely. Creating art is a mentally exhausting process. It requires inspiration and intense focus. It's hard to keep that up 24/7. Some artists and musicians are more prolific than others, to be sure, and I wonder if that has something to do with how many "phases" they go through in their careers.

  38. #87

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by franco6719 View Post
    Basically, they will be a combination of other artists, art critics and various knowledgable and expert people in the relevant fields. I don't accept their decisions as absolute. I might not accept many of them at all if I were still alive to debate such issues.
    ok
    Last edited by sfas; 02-21-2013 at 02:40 PM.

  39. #88

    User Info Menu

    To franco6719,

    When eschewing mediocrative expression, it behooves one to be mindful that pedantry, being indicative of inherent megalomania, frustrates it own aim and results in ennubulation!

    To mfarkas: I was with you right up to the point where you said "faith has never done anything." Without faith there is no spirituality and thus we are left with only the resources of our intellect to guide us. We have come a long way in a short time, but in the grand scheme of things we are poor creatures indeed.

    Educators have gotten caught up with "learning styles" (auditory, visual, tactile, etc.). By and large they don't address the "prophetic" style - that is to say those individuals who have an inner sense of knowing(they don't know how they know, they just know). We all know people like that. Some call it intuition, some refer to it as "psychic". Its hard to pin down because you can't feel it, see it or touch it. Educators shy away from it because it is "paranormal" and being prone to pedantry just can't deal with it. Unfortunately (or fortunately as the case may be) some of our most creative individuals are strong in this trait. A lot of kids are diagnosed with ADD when the reality is they are most likely a prophetic learner - their creativity must be constantly challenged and they need to learn to follow through. Too often they have a sense of "been there, done that" because they "know" how it is going to come out, but they fail to realize that follow through on their part in necessary.

    This has been an interesting thread. Thank you all for the discourse.

  40. #89

    User Info Menu

    but what does it matter really
    Last edited by sfas; 02-21-2013 at 02:41 PM.

  41. #90
    Just my two bits, I actually signed up to this site because I thought this point was such an important one to discuss.

    My point of view is that improvisation is a canvas that we can fill HOWEVER we want. If you're playing purely with your intellect that's just as valid as throwing out melodies in a trance.

    The improvising is more or less a reflection of who you are, and in many many fragments according to the songs and the setting, your mood, and all that.

    Of course my favorite way of improvising is when my feelings combine with perfectly with my intellect and "soul"; though I always enjoy improvising purely from concepts. Frank Zappa said he thought of geometry when he improvised, John Coltrane would take binoculars to look at stars before his set... it's all valid, it just ends up making good music somehow.

    The reason you can't seem to agree is because you all have different approaches to improvising, and are all arguing that they are the same thing.

    It's like the buddhist story:
    "
    The king said that he should be brought an elephant and all the blind men in the city.
    They were brought to him,
    Now let the blind men study the elephant, he said, and let them tell me what an elephant is like.
    Of course the blind men only had small parts of the elephant to themselves; one had the ear, another the tail, another the leg....
    So once they had done the king asked, "so what is the elephant like?", and as the first blind man answered ("like a tree trunk")(he had the leg) the others were offended and yelled in disagreement ("no he it is like a hose""no like a great leaf")."

  42. #91

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by chicoplaysthetele View Post
    Just my two bits, I actually signed up to this site because I thought this point was such an important one to discuss.

    My point of view is that improvisation is a canvas that we can fill HOWEVER we want. If you're playing purely with your intellect that's just as valid as throwing out melodies in a trance.

    The improvising is more or less a reflection of who you are, and in many many fragments according to the songs and the setting, your mood, and all that.

    Of course my favorite way of improvising is when my feelings combine with perfectly with my intellect and "soul"; though I always enjoy improvising purely from concepts. Frank Zappa said he thought of geometry when he improvised, John Coltrane would take binoculars to look at stars before his set... it's all valid, it just ends up making good music somehow.

    The reason you can't seem to agree is because you all have different approaches to improvising, and are all arguing that they are the same thing.

    It's like the buddhist story:
    "
    The king said that he should be brought an elephant and all the blind men in the city.
    They were brought to him,
    Now let the blind men study the elephant, he said, and let them tell me what an elephant is like.
    Of course the blind men only had small parts of the elephant to themselves; one had the ear, another the tail, another the leg....
    So once they had done the king asked, "so what is the elephant like?", and as the first blind man answered ("like a tree trunk")(he had the leg) the others were offended and yelled in disagreement ("no he it is like a hose""no like a great leaf")."
    Hey Chico, great first post. Yep, too true, we are all like the blind men, grappling at our own little corner of the truth!

  43. #92

    User Info Menu

    im pretty sure joni mitchell was completley self taught, creating her own tunings and chords and everything from scratch. I'd say thats an artist. but this argument belongs on another thread. i wanna hear some more improve ideas.

  44. #93

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mfarkas View Post
    if it is subjective above the basic principles, how do they decide what is right and wrong? and when they do decide, what would make their decision right or wrong? the fact that they said it?

    and its interesting to say that you would debate them on it. what would you use as the basis of your debate? if there are no objective principles to go on beyond the basics, how would you debate anything? how would you know anything?

    this is mysticism you are talking about:

    art is whatever the mystics say it is.

    how do the mystics know?

    they just do!

    sorry. doesnt work. its circular and worthless. the only way to know anything is reason; the integration of sensory information. you are talking about taking things on faith and feeling. reason is behind my philosophy of art, faith is behind yours. reason has brought us everything we have. faith has never done anything.

    I never said that these experts actually had any kind of special insight. I don''t know where the devil you could have derived such nonsense. I, BTW, am an atheist, not to say an anti-theist. I don''t know what the hell you are talking about by mysticism and other such transcendental phantoms of the human imagination. Since we seem to enjoy taking thing to a personal level on this forum, or this thread at least, please LEARN TO READ.

    I said that the matter will be decided ultimately by human beings, many of whom label themselves "experts". These decisions will not necessarily be based on reason, mostly they will be totally arbitrary (tyranny of the majority, conformism of the time and other unconscious sociological pressures). They will not be either right or wrong. They will just be whatever they are. Of course I can disagree, but the disagreement would be totally useless in the present context, for example, since I am not a member of the established powers who control such matters.

    You seem to think we live in some kind of genuine Rawlsian ideal state of nature or something close to a Rawlsian ideal of democracy. You are dreaming, my friend. But I won't get into political philosophy here.

    Reason is the "integration of sensory information". Oh boy, I don't know where to start with that. What about deductive reasoning and mathematical/logical reasoning. The integration of sensory information is only a part of the process of empirical (inductive or abductive reasoning).
    Reason is a tool and not an end in itself. I begin to strongly suspect you are another one of these Ayn Randian pop philosophy cranks.

  45. #94

    User Info Menu

    To franco6719,

    "When eschewing mediocrative expression, it behooves one to be mindful that pedantry, being indicative of inherent megalomania, frustrates it own aim and results in ennubulation!"

    The word "mediocrative" does not exist. On the other hand, every single word I wrote can be found in any good dictionary of common philosophical terms or just with simple old Google. If you don't understand it, it's obviously more of a reflection on your ignorance of the English language and/or of philosophy than it is any reflection of my mediocrativity (BTW, is that anything like George W Bush's "misunderestimation"). Typical Americanism: let us be PROUD of our ignorance and make fun of those damned high-falutin' eggheads.

  46. #95

    User Info Menu

    The basic point is simply this: It is just as ridiculous to think that there are absolute objective standards according to which we can all agree to draw up some such ordered classification as the following:

    Mozart > Bach
    Bach > Beethoven
    Beethoven > Art Tatum
    Art Tatum > Miles Davis
    Miles Davis > Sonny Rollins
    Sonny Rollins > John Coltrane
    John Coltrane > Wes Montgomery
    Wes Montgomery > Jimi Hendrix
    Jimi Hendrix > Pat Metheny
    Pat Metheny > Pat Martino
    John Scofield > Joni Mitchell,
    Joni Mitchell > Sting
    Sting > Les Paul
    Les Paul > John Lennon
    John Lennon >

    It is just as ridiculous to think we can classify art and art creations that way than to think that "Everything goes and everything is good.

    So, I fall in neither simplistic camp. Sorry. Most things like this do not have easy answers.

  47. #96

    User Info Menu

    "When eschewing mediocrative expression, it behooves one to be mindful that pedantry, being indicative of inherent megalomania, frustrates it own aim and results in ennubulation!"

    What a truly assinine thing to say. Was it called for? Megalomania? You don't know a DAMNED THING ABOUT ME. I was actually making an effort to keep the discussion as accessible as I can. I write the way I write.

  48. #97

    User Info Menu

    As far as improvisation goes, it is an expresion of who we are, so in it's purest form it can't be taught, but we can teach tools to express ourselves.
    We have things to say before we can speak, it's just important not to forget there are things we can't say with the words we are taught, sometimes we have to make our own words or simply stomp and sign.

    As far as the the sub conversation, perhaps take it to PM.

  49. #98

    User Info Menu

    To franco6719,

    Please accept my apologies. It was an attempt at intellectual humor that missed the mark. On a lighter note I offer the following:

    "I think; therefore I am" - Descarte

    "To be, or not to be" - Shakespeare

    "To be is to do" - Sartre ( I am not totally sure he said this, but it works anyway)

    "Scooby dooby do" - Sinatra

  50. #99

    User Info Menu

    nnnnmm
    Last edited by sfas; 02-18-2013 at 05:48 PM.

  51. #100

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzcat View Post
    To franco6719,

    Please accept my apologies. It was an attempt at intellectual humor that missed the mark. On a lighter note I offer the following:

    "I think; therefore I am" - Descarte

    "To be, or not to be" - Shakespeare

    "To be is to do" - Sartre ( I am not totally sure he said this, but it works anyway)

    "Scooby dooby do" - Sinatra
    Alright then. I accept the apology. Forget it happened.