-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
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?
-
05-11-2009 10:30 AM
-
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.
-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
...artists get "deified." i don't like that,
...art need not always show mastery--
...just because someone plays jazz does not mean they are an artist on another level--it's not the medium, it's the product.
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.
-
Originally Posted by Goofsus4
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?
-
Originally Posted by Goofsus4
Last edited by princeplanet; 05-11-2009 at 01:57 PM.
-
Originally Posted by princeplanet
-
Originally Posted by abracadabra
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.
-
Originally Posted by franco6719
-
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
-
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.
-
Originally Posted by Jazzcat....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?
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.
-
Originally Posted by mfarkas
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.
-
Originally Posted by abracadabra
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.
-
Frank Zappa said "Art is making something out of nothing and selling it."
-
Originally Posted by Jazzaluk
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?
-
Originally Posted by mfarkas
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally Posted by Goofsus4
-
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.
-
Originally Posted by franco6719
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.
-
Originally Posted by Jazzcat
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.
Enharmonics
Today, 09:59 AM in Theory