Jazz Cliches and licks - I don't know

[christianm77]

---

That was clear - and also surprising, because possible ambiguity makes it seem rather out of place when other (unambiguous, and more appropriate) words exist. Such as those in the OP.

Sorry, but - as I'm fond of saying - "If you raise the level of the water, all the boats will rise."

EDIT: Buzzword Bingo: "C'mon, baby! I need 'nuanced'" Comment copied and pasted from another thread:

What is the musical meaning of the word?

[destinytot]

What is the musical meaning of the word?

I'm sorry, I haven't a clue beyond what was in the link:
"A trope or tropus may be a variety of different things in medieval, 20th-, and 21st-century music. The term trope derives from the Greek ?????? (tropos), "a turn, a change" (Liddell and Scott 1889), related to the root of the verb ??????? (trepein), "to turn, to direct, to alter, to change" (Anon. 2009)."

[Alter]

To me bebop playing is a language, just a particular way to play if you like the specific style. It sure contains licks and cliches, but at a certain point it becomes about using the language, having a flow, playing the changes etc. I also enjoy listening to all the younger, more modern style players, but i can only hear most new cds so many times, whereas the classics i can listen to forever . I mean, Sonny Stitt sure uses licks, but i 'll never get tired of hearing his lines, this whole era of music sounds so hip to me! Half my cds must be jazz from 57-63 , and we re talking thousands

[christianm77]

I'm sorry, I haven't a clue beyond what was in the link:
"A trope or tropus may be a variety of different things in medieval, 20th-, and 21st-century music. The term trope derives from the Greek ?????? (tropos), "a turn, a change" (Liddell and Scott 1889), related to the root of the verb ??????? (trepein), "to turn, to direct, to alter, to change" (Anon. 2009)."

The 12 tone thing I had come across.

TBH trope - well when Mozart writes an arpeggio pattern with lower chromatic neighbour tones in one of his concerti and I go, there he goes using a Django lick again.

Lick doesn't seem quite the right word for it.... It's ... furniture? Just stuff that's in the attic of Western music and no one knows where it came from. There are quite a few different ways of combining neighbour tones with chord tones, none of them 'licks' exactly.

(BTW this might digress into another thread - 'stuff which gets used in jazz to the point that it might be identified as such but actually originates somewhere else')

But tropes of this kind do vary between styles, eras, composers, improvisers etc... Many jazz musicians have a few things they use to death - the secret lies (IMO) in finding ways to vary them.

[Stevebol]

Yep, cliches...

[destinytot]

The 12 tone thing I had come across.

TBH trope - well when Mozart writes an arpeggio pattern with lower chromatic neighbour tones in one of his concerti and I go, there he goes using a Django lick again.

Lick doesn't seem quite the right word for it.... It's ... furniture? Just stuff that's in the attic of Western music and no one knows where it came from. There are quite a few different ways of combining neighbour tones with chord tones, none of them 'licks' exactly.

(BTW this might digress into another thread - 'stuff which gets used in jazz to the point that it might be identified as such but actually originates somewhere else')

But tropes of this kind do vary between styles, eras, composers, improvisers etc... Many jazz musicians have a few things they use to death - the secret lies (IMO) in finding ways to vary them.

What about 'motif'? That gets used to talk about 'jazz' - and it's a neutral descriptor.

[destinytot]

Yep, cliches...

"We've got to play them one game at a time.
"I'm just happy to be here."
"Hope I can help the ball club."

[christianm77]

What about 'motif'? That gets used to talk about 'jazz' - and it's a neutral descriptor.

I don't quite see them as motifs...

[destinytot]

I don't quite see them as motifs...

What is it that you don't quite see as motifs? Tropes? (As in "tired old tropes".)

[Stevebol]

"We've got to play them one game at a time.
"I'm just happy to be here."
"Hope I can help the ball club."

Crash was a good teacher. Holding the minor league record for home runs is quite an accomplishment. Nuke learned well...

He's a master of cliches now.
Well it's time to work on some Charlie Parker. Nothing clears a barroom faster than Charlie Parker lines but whatever.
I've been working on some Joe Pass country blues turnaround cliches. Those are really cool.

[christianm77]

What is it that you don't quite see as motifs? Tropes? (As in "tired old tropes".)

The sort of thing what I'm talking about. Since I don't have a good word for what I'm talking about it's hard to say exactly what I am talking about.

But patterns comes close - really how you make patterns in tonal music, the organisation of tonal music - as developed in 17th/18th centuries and inherited by jazz - is based on pattern. It's not based on theory.

It's based on taking simple elements and embellishing them into what we might term language.

It's based on a set repertoire of patterns that were used again and again for reasons of mostly fashion but also expedience and practicality. Later on theory came along to explain things for the sake of curiosity on the part of the non-musician.

To write good counterpoint note on note (i.e. in the manner of a Fux exercise) is time consuming - (perhaps even for Bach, but may be not...let's leave Bach out of this cos he seems to have had God's telephone number or something and there's no understanding that.)

So what do you do? Well you rely on a repertoire of things that work and sound good. The way the human brain works, it's likely that even you never learned these directly, you would employ things that you like again and again. (But it turns out that the Neapolitans did start teaching these modules, apparently.)

Here's one thing we jazzers can all relate to in baroque music - take for instance descending scalar basslines. You can find several ways of harmonising that. One very obvious way is to harmonise each note with a 3rd or a 10th above, but if you want to expand to 3 voices and use a fifth as well - it sounds a bit clunky, at least to the ears of common practice musicians....

So what do you do? Well one way is simply to add a 6th above. That works pretty good.... The practice of fauxbourdon, the English style of harmony that won popularity on the continent as far back as the 100 years war.

(An embellished pattern of this kind can form the basis of a melodic sequence btw.)

But that's pretty basic and ears looking for variety can get bored by something so samey and consonant. Isn't it nice if we stagger the change of notes, so that the movement of the thirds leads the movement of the sixth and so we get a string of suspensions and resolutions going 7-6... Now we have a story of tension and resolution. By the 17th century this is in the Big Bumper Fun Book of Thorough Bass for Waifs and Strays.

18th century - Rameau comes along and now 6 3 is an inversion of a 5 3 triad. Now we have root movement in 4ths around the cycle - which serves to unify this progression with another pattern that's also in the Bumper Fun Book.

Cool... but as Peter Bernstein points out .... inversions do not sound like root position chords. They are not in fact the same thing. So the musician is still dealing with the same information. You still need to know your materials.

Anyway the point of this is I wanted to point out that varied pattern is essential to tonal music... Patterns, far from being something mechanical and unimaginative are the basis of tonal music itself. Pretty patterns, used artfully with enough variation and surprise to enthral and entertain the listener. That's what harmony and form is.

In jazz, I see Barry Harris as offering something like this - a way of moving from pattern to music and beyond licks per se...

[destinytot]

The sort of thing what I'm talking about. Since I don't have a good word for what I'm talking about it's hard to say exactly what I am talking about.

But patterns comes close - really how you make patterns in tonal music, the organisation of tonal music - as developed in 17th/18th centuries and inherited by jazz - is based on pattern. It's not based on theory.

It's based on taking simple elements and embellishing them into what we might term language.

It's based on a set repertoire of patterns that were used again and again for reasons of mostly fashion but also expedience and practicality. Later on theory came along to explain things for the sake of curiosity on the part of the non-musician.

To write good counterpoint note on note (i.e. in the manner of a Fux exercise) is time consuming - (perhaps even for Bach, but may be not...let's leave Bach out of this cos he seems to have had God's telephone number or something and there's no understanding that.)

So what do you do? Well you rely on a repertoire of things that work and sound good. The way the human brain works, it's likely that even you never learned these directly, you would employ things that you like again and again. (But it turns out that the Neapolitans did start teaching these modules, apparently.)

Here's one thing we jazzers can all relate to in baroque music - take for instance descending scalar basslines. You can find several ways of harmonising that. One way is to harmonise each note with a 3rd above, but if you use a fifth as well it sounds a bit clunky, at least to the ears of common practice musicians....

So what do you do? Well one way is simply to add a 6th above. That works pretty good.... The practice of fauxbourdon, the English style of harmony that won popularity on the continent as far back as the 100 years war.

(An embellished pattern of this kind can form the basis of a melodic sequence btw.)

But that's pretty basic and ears looking for variety can get bored by something so samey and consonant. Isn't it nice is we stagger the change of notes, so that the movement of the thirds leads the movement of the sixth and so we get a string of suspensions and resolutions going 7-6... Now we have a story of tension and resolution. By the 17th century this is in the Big Bumper Fun Book of Thorough Bass for Waifs and Strays.

18th century - Rameau comes along and now 6 3 is an inversion of a 5 3 triad. Now we have root movement in 4ths around the cycle - which serves to unify this progression with another pattern that's also in the Bumper Fun Book.

Cool... but as Peter Bernstein points out .... inversions do not sound like root position chords. They are not in fact the same thing. So the musician is still dealing with the same information. You still need to know your materials.

Anyway the point of this is I wanted to point out that varied pattern is essential to tonal music... Patterns, far from being something mechanical and unimaginative are the basis of tonal music itself.

In jazz, I see Barry Harris as offering something like this - a way of moving from pattern to music and beyond licks per se...

Great post and an interesting read - thanks.

'Trope' seems loaded (with negative content). Perhaps the word 'schema' might fit, because we're talking about perception.

[destinytot]

Crash was a good teacher. Holding the minor league record for home runs is quite an accomplishment. Nuke learned well...

He's a master of cliches now.
Well it's time to work on some Charlie Parker. Nothing clears a barroom faster than Charlie Parker lines but whatever.
I've been working on some Joe Pass country blues turnaround cliches. Those are really cool.

"It's great to be here, ladies and gentlemen!"

[Jonah]

But patterns comes close - really how you make patterns in tonal music, the organisation of tonal music - as developed in 17th/18th centuries and inherited by jazz - is based on pattern. It's not based on theory.

It's based on taking simple elements and embellishing them into what we might term language.

It's based on a set repertoire of patterns that were used again and again for reasons of mostly fashion but also expedience and practicality. Later on theory came along to explain things for the sake of curiosity on the part of the non-musician.

Not quite true Christian - theory has always been a part of European musical tradition... I do nto try to be too theoretic. But theory was there even much earlier before baroque - it was always there as part of musical practice...
Almost all the musicians were theorisists... many of them left written esays on it - it could be traced through baroque time back to renaissance and earlier times to Boetius... it could expressed in different formss: from practical basic manual to complex philosophical essay.. but they considered the theory to be a part of musical practice.
Some did not leave any... but it was part of their musical concious - as well as written tradition was considered as a part of music.

Often theories were extremely theoretic and remote from practice - especially in earlier days - when theory per se was an interesting subject... but it does not matter here because what matters is that it was a part of mentality

Maybe I misunderstand you...

But could you please show me actual examples of patterns being reapeted and repeated in actual context of baroque music (or classical period)...
otherwise I just cannot see it as an argument.. with all respect... we find time to discuss it. It does not take much time to bring up a few musical samples with scores ... and analyze it basically to show what you are trying to say.
4-5 samples would be enough - but to my understanding they should not be taken out of the piece context...

[christianm77]

Not quite true Christian - theory has always been a part of European musical tradition... I do nto try to be too theoretic. But theory was there even much earlier before baroque - it was always there as part of musical practice...
Almost all the musicians were theorisists... many of them left written esays on it - it could be traced through baroque time back to renaissance and earlier times to Boetius... it could expressed in different formss: from practical basic manual to complex philosophical essay.. but they considered the theory to be a part of musical practice.
Some did not leave any... but it was part of their musical concious - as well as written tradition was considered as a part of music.

Often theories were extremely theoretic and remote from practice - especially in earlier days - when theory per se was an interesting subject... but it does not matter here because what matters is that it was a part of mentality

Maybe I misunderstand you...

I put it to you that we may be talking about different types of theory:

1) stuff you need to understand and practice to do music

2) general theory aimed at understanding music in a fundamental, mathematical or academic way.

Anyway a good musician may well be interested in both - but I think it's good to keep them separate. I don't think Boetius or Pythagoras were principally interested in doing music - they wanted to understand it philosophically.

Nothing wrong with that, but if you want to write a fugue you need to first write counterpoint exercises until the rules are internalised. That's not philosophy. That's craftmanship.

But could you please show me actual examples of patterns being reapeted and repeated in actual context of baroque music (or classical period)...

otherwise I just cannot see it as an argument.. with all respect... we find time to discuss it. It does not take much time to bring up a few musical samples with scores ... and analyze it basically to show what you are trying to say.
4-5 samples would be enough - but to my understanding they should not be taken out of the piece context...

Well to be honest, probably not as I'm kinda busy ATM (it's high gig season!) and this sort of thing takes time and research. Maybe some other time. I'm sure I'd learn a lot in the process of doing it. But basically, I'm not terribly interested in having an argument so I may disappoint you in this regard. I am interested in doing music and sharing what helps get me through the process of making music.

I write and improvise music everyday for income. I use what I can for that purpose. Music appreciation is separate.

Anyway, have you read Gjredingen or listened to the podcast? You seem dismissive of him and I was wondering if you could discuss further? Most of my points are his, regurgitated.

Just out of interest, and to move the debate beyond the abstract and philosophical (which I find tiresome) and towards the practical - how do you find the process when you write music?

[Jonah]

I put it to you that we may be talking about different types of theory:

1) stuff you need to understand and practice to do music

2) general theory aimed at understanding music in a fundamental, mathematical or academic way.

Anyway a good musician may well be interested in both - but I think it's good to keep them separate. I don't think Boetius or Pythagoras were principally interested in doing music - they wanted to understand it philosophically.

Nothing wrong with that, but if you want to write a fugue you need to first write counterpoint exercises until the rules are internalised. That's not philosophy. That's craftmanship.

It's true. Medieval theory was very much 'thing-in-itself' (it concerns any are - not only music - they wrote these kind of 'high tracts' on any subject (even rediculous maybe like breeding pigs for example).
Nevertheless, I believe it was part of artistic mentality... musician or architect had to be practical of course but his mind was also subject to these theoretical conceptionts... in a way he was eager to approach them (conciously or not) as an ideal fulfilment of his artistic task.
I put it here only to underline the difference betwee our artistic mentality and theirs. We should not ignore it once we use their music.

Of course, I do not mind if somebody borrows some little baroque music idea for jazz improvization in practical. Why not? But when he begins to extrapolate it further saying that baroque is similar to jazz because of this particular similarity he seemed to notice I cannot accept it. That is what evokes further deeper analysis. To speak of similarity one should investigate bothe phenomens quite well.

I am also very practical about learning music. I am not teacher but occasionally I teach (when asked) and my method is very practical.. actually I do not get to theory at all. I use some tasks with some stipulations - like play on piano I-V-I with voices goping that or this direction only then add 6 3 cdential chord etc. The idea is probably the same as practicing partimenti - only it is not based on prepared solutions... and also analyzing real music. I do not make any historical or theoretical references during the process.

What I like about music is that it is all there. I mean note are always notes, we can read or write million of books. But anyone can open a score and just hear something we missed. Music (as mostly the architecture too) has very concrete material representation. (Which we cannot say about literature for example).
That's why I try to insist on particular examples...

Well to be honest, probably not as I'm kinda busy ATM (it's high gig season!) and this sort of thing takes time and research. Maybe some other time. I'm sure I'd learn a lot in the process of doing it. But basically, I'm not terribly interested in having an argument so I may disappoint you in this regard. I am interested in doing music and sharing what helps get me through the process of making music.

I write and improvise music everyday for income. I use what I can for that purpose. Music appreciation is separate.

Up to you of course. But it seems that you do yourself put it in theoretic vein - maybe not on purpose...
and then you suddenly say that you're there only for practical reasons and not really in for argument and jump put.
You see... even when we discuss baroque and jazz and suddenly you throw 'Mozart- arpeggio - Django - lick' thing... it's already a question. Mozart is not baroque. But why is his music not baroque? Why is it different? It's not only because art historians nominated it to be so... there are actual things going on in his music that are very differenet from baroque consptions (and I can tell them). But mentioning it in the context of discussion brings up lots of questions...

As I said above... if you want to say: I borrow and arp that Bach also used from Mozart piece to outline harmony in jazz impro... no problem. But you then move to generalization... and then I am in)))

Anyway I do not mind if it takes time.. I am not in a hurry.

You are practicing musicians with a good ear and vast knowledge - really how much time does it take to analyze a piece of Locatelli I referred to above? Maybe 20 min... we do not need to analyze every single note - but there are enough episodes that you could easily intereprete as representative for your conception

Anyway, have you read Gjredingen or listened to the podcast? You seem dismissive of him and I was wondering if you could discuss further? Most of my points are his, regurgitated.

I don't have the book and cannot get it at the moment. But I searched and found some other sources including fragments of the book. Also I found some original partimenti books and went through them.

But again why would we apply to books once we have real music? You seem to swerve away from theoretical discussion... what could be more practical than getting into a real music score?

Just out of interest, and to move the debate beyond the abstract and philosophical (which I find tiresome) and towards the practical - how do you find the process when you write music?

I have not composed in a true sense for years. I was quite ambitious in youth... composing was not for me imitating some style, I wanted to achieve something I really hear... in that sense I believe today it is impossible to do that without elabaorating your own personal language based mostly on what you just hear (like most modern composers did).
I totally quite when I discovered music of Boris Yoffe... I got that I would never be able to achieve somthing even close to that im music. (There are other areas where I feel I have more confidence though).

As per style imitating - I do sometimes compose old forms - for developing skills on lute continuo playing - or just for fun - as excersises.

It's not that I always conciously think of it...
but the main thing in this kind of music is the form and modulations plan...

Again I want to stress that it's probably the most important feature...

whether they used partimenti as practice routine or not. Compositionally they thought in terms of form...

if we understand the form we understand the difference between baroque and classical periods even if they used they same arp to outline harmony.

[christianm77]

It's true. Medieval theory was very much 'thing-in-itself' (it concerns any are - not only music - they wrote these kind of 'high tracts' on any subject (even rediculous maybe like breeding pigs for example).
Nevertheless, I believe it was part of artistic mentality... musician or architect had to be practical of course but his mind was also subject to these theoretical conceptionts... in a way he was eager to approach them (conciously or not) as an ideal fulfilment of his artistic task.
I put it here only to underline the difference betwee our artistic mentality and theirs. We should not ignore it once we use their music.

Of course, I do not mind if somebody borrows some little baroque music idea for jazz improvization in practical. Why not? But when he begins to extrapolate it further saying that baroque is similar to jazz because of this particular similarity he seemed to notice I cannot accept it. That is what evokes further deeper analysis. To speak of similarity one should investigate bothe phenomens quite well.

I am also very practical about learning music. I am not teacher but occasionally I teach (when asked) and my method is very practical.. actually I do not get to theory at all. I use some tasks with some stipulations - like play on piano I-V-I with voices goping that or this direction only then add 6 3 cdential chord etc. The idea is probably the same as practicing partimenti - only it is not based on prepared solutions... and also analyzing real music. I do not make any historical or theoretical references during the process.

What I like about music is that it is all there. I mean note are always notes, we can read or write million of books. But anyone can open a score and just hear something we missed. Music (as mostly the architecture too) has very concrete material representation. (Which we cannot say about literature for example).
That's why I try to insist on particular examples...



Up to you of course. But it seems that you do yourself put it in theoretic vein - maybe not on purpose...
and then you suddenly say that you're there only for practical reasons and not really in for argument and jump put.
You see... even when we discuss baroque and jazz and suddenly you throw 'Mozart- arpeggio - Django - lick' thing... it's already a question. Mozart is not baroque. But why is his music not baroque? Why is it different? It's not only because art historians nominated it to be so... there are actual things going on in his music that are very differenet from baroque consptions (and I can tell them). But mentioning it in the context of discussion brings up lots of questions...

As I said above... if you want to say: I borrow and arp that Bach also used from Mozart piece to outline harmony in jazz impro... no problem. But you then move to generalization... and then I am in)))

Anyway I do not mind if it takes time.. I am not in a hurry.

You are practicing musicians with a good ear and vast knowledge - really how much time does it take to analyze a piece of Locatelli I referred to above? Maybe 20 min... we do not need to analyze every single note - but there are enough episodes that you could easily intereprete as representative for your conception



I don't have the book and cannot get it at the moment. But I searched and found some other sources including fragments of the book. Also I found some original partimenti books and went through them.

But again why would we apply to books once we have real music? You seem to swerve away from theoretical discussion... what could be more practical than getting into a real music score?



I have not composed in a true sense for years. I was quite ambitious in youth... composing was not for me imitating some style, I wanted to achieve something I really hear... in that sense I believe today it is impossible to do that without elabaorating your own personal language based mostly on what you just hear (like most modern composers did).
I totally quite when I discovered music of Boris Yoffe... I got that I would never be able to achieve somthing even close to that im music. (There are other areas where I feel I have more confidence though).

As per style imitating - I do sometimes compose old forms - for developing skills on lute continuo playing - or just for fun - as excersises.

It's not that I always conciously think of it...
but the main thing in this kind of music is the form and modulations plan...

Again I want to stress that it's probably the most important feature...

whether they used partimenti as practice routine or not. Compositionally they thought in terms of form...

if we understand the form we understand the difference between baroque and classical periods even if they used they same arp to outline harmony.

Your answer is close to how I view things. I don't disagree in terms of form - form, pattern harmony and melody are all closely interlinked.

If you write something relatively simple like a Minuet (which is not easy to do well nonetheless) you are exploring very strictly prescribed limitations on all these things together. What type of cadences you use, whether or not you employ a Fonte in the B section etc etc.

I actually think this is equally true of the standards repertoire. These songs were written by composers from the European tradition, which is why jazz musicians tend not to actually write standards. They don't have the chops to do it in a sense. I recognise some of the modules Gjedingen talks about in his book even (which is not specifically concerned with Partimento realisation like Sanguinetti, but rather the 'chunks' that make up 17th/18th century forms.)

Whether or not this is direct influence, cultural osmosis or coincidence doesn't really matter. The process is similar....

For instance, for the jazz student one of the moments when solo jazz guitar becomes a lot easier is when you start to recognise that it isn't actually just the chords that follow stock patterns in standards but also the way melody lines work over them and where certain formulae appear within the form of a tune. It's not a limitless number of possibilities, it's a repertoire of stock material worked over with variations.

Gjerdingen states in his podcast that modern musicologists tend not to place a strict dividing line between the Baroque and Classical era. Obviously fashions, forms and instrumentation changed and Mozart is different to Scarlatti... But it's fluid.)

[Jonah]

Your answer is close to how I view things. I don't disagree in terms of form - form, pattern harmony and melody are all closely interlinked.

If you write something relatively simple like a Minuet (which is not easy to do well nonetheless) you are exploring very strictly prescribed limitations on all these things together. What type of cadences you use, whether or not you employ a Fonte in the B section etc etc.

I actually think this is equally true of the standards repertoire. These songs were written by composers from the European tradition, which is why jazz musicians tend not to actually write standards. They don't have the chops to do it in a sense. I recognise some of the modules Gjedingen talks about in his book even (which is not specifically concerned with Partimento realisation like Sanguinetti, but rather the 'chunks' that make up 17th/18th century forms.)

I guess all the music based on functional tonality has melody as representaivve of the harmony (and vice vers: harmony implies melod). And traditional jazz standards are not exception. What jazz players did with these standards actually seems to be a bit different thing. Jazz impro is a sort of composition within very strict limits. You have the form already done - from classical point of view there's not so much to do already - even classical form of variation (which is closest to jazz soloint concept as a form) often breaks the predetermined harmonic form of the original tune... check Bach's, Mozart's, Betthoveen's, Schuebert's variations (not so many of them - as variations alsmost fall out of fashion already in baroque on the same reasons)... they usually break the form of initial piece in some of the variations to create kind of their own form... to creat development of the form. Not only ornamentation and texture variations of the original piece.
Jazz players inititally seem to come from different perspective... they 'vocalize' original song... they 'sing a tune'. One of the probably most interesting thing is that jazz players always phrase arpeggio as a line, whereas classical players (especially of baroque or Mozartian days would phrase it as harmonic polyphony or harmony spread in texture). Of course both hear that it can be a melody and a harmony in one.
But the essential thing is in details... and the detail is phrasing here.
One fo the common mishearing of modern players is when they play Bach's arpeggiated texture either as a harmony (as if they play accompaniment for some presumed melody) (BWV999), or as a melody, sort of arioso (BWV998)

All this does not exclude of course benifits for jazz player from understanding and hearing classical harmonic realtions and realizations in practice.

Gjerdingen states in his podcast that modern musicologists tend not to place a strict dividing line between the Baroque and Classical era. Obviously fashions, forms and instrumentation changed and Mozart is different to Scarlatti... But it's fluid.)

There's always a line between... there's always transistional period.
But Haydn and Mozart are far behind the line.
You just check the basic things: a classical sentence/period structure as an exposition just did not exist in baroque.
In baroque it's almost impossible that you find contrasting episodes withinh the same part where in classical it is all built around exposing initial conflict, its development and resolution.
The most important thing is the feel of time to me. Haydn, Mozart and to the extreme Beethoven developed linear conception of time... it's movie-like goes on and on (what's next, what's next?) and comes to an end. You cannot choose to come back or get off it... the precedent episode already defined the next... very clear undesrtanding of the beginning and the end and the direction where to go.
Baroque feel of time was more like circular... sometimes it feels like time does not move in any direction at all just waves around. There are no strict predifinitions, the end can become a beginning or continuation.

Just as an example,

please listen first 30 seconds (before the solo violine comes in) and just try to count how many times it seems to be resolving through full cadence and is being postponed... actually it does not make sense to count the logics here that it is 'multiple', 'limitless', never-ending

Then try this, also first 40-50 seconds. It's common classical period. But Mozart brings in dramatic effect into it by breaking in up - horns fanfare phrases... you can easiliy connect violine lines interrupted by horns in one coherent sentence... it's purely musical, orchestration only increases the effect
This is absolutely different approach (or philosophy? mentality? the
an was with Bach sample above)... the structure is extremely clear and very well defined...

In a way it is all about breaking 'from outside' - like making a a gap in a elaborated and weel-balanced fortress wall, and baroque structure is always 'inside' whatever you do

How is it possible not to distinguish this?

[matt.guitarteacher]

Great thread. I read first page or two. Can't wait to read the rest.

I'll mention one simple thing that's helped me immensely, which is kind of independent of myself personally - as you are an order of magnitude better player than I am, and it's this: using subdivision as the context for developing variation of any line.

Always pissed me off a little when people said "just vary the rhythm. Experiment with it and make it your own", because when I did so it always felt like so much crap and sounded like it as well. My problem nor the advice, but stool.... Felt like it would take me a century or two to make any progress, and I basically gave up on playing other people's licks or lines.

Though indirectly, Jimmy Amadie and Bert Ligon, taught me a very important lesson on varying lines:

That any eighth note line (or quarter note etc. for that matter) can be played as its equivalent "triplet version".

8ths = 8th note triplets, quarters = quarter note triplets etc. Because "triplets rush" comparatively, you can play many more variations of starting the line early/late, while still occupying (relatively) the same time-space.

Like many "limiting exercises" in music, this also has the unintended consequence of unlocking creativity in very surprising ways. I'm still years behind most of you guys - in terms vocabulary and most of the other important stuff, but this one thing has really opened up my rhythmic freedom, overall phrasing and feel, and general creativity (within my limited vocabulary), more than just about anything else.

You're definitely not alone in frustration with playing other people's licks and trying to make them your own. Anyway, I hope to play HALF as well as you at some point in my life. Good luck.

[destinytot]

. Baroque feel of time was more like circular... sometimes it feels like time does not move in any direction at all just waves around. There are no strict predifinitions, the end can become a beginning or continuation.

Just as an example,

please listen first 30 seconds (before the solo violine comes in) and just try to count how many times it seems to be resolving through full cadence and is being postponed...

I wasn't prepared for how powerful this is. (Eta muzyka slishkom krasiva dlya menya chto mne stanovtsya pochti bol'no ot ee proslushivania!)

[destinytot]

In a way (...) baroque structure is always 'inside' whatever you do

Superb. Thank you.

[Jonah]

I wasn't prepared for how powerful this is. (Eta muzyka slishkom krasiva dlya menya chto mne stanovtsya pochti bol'no ot ee proslushivania!)

Wow! You are really good at Russian)
If you want I could correct a bit but I'll do it in private message - not to create an off-top...

[Jonah]

@Christian...

by classicim - I mean Venniese classical school... the term 'classicism' is so derivative - especially in music...

[Jonah]

I wasn't prepared for how powerful this is.

Check also this. Furtwangler plays caenza in Bach's concerto (there's also full record on youtube).
Astonishing playing... I can hear all 300 years of German music behind him...

And it fits the topic becasue almost all the cadenza is about chordal texture))))

[destinytot]

Wow! You are really good at Russian)
If you want I could correct a bit but I'll do it in private message - not to create an off-top...

(Thanks that would be great. Just tried to use the resources that are available!)

My point was that - without completely understanding why - that example of 'circular' time feels fantastic (and the effect is almost unbearably beautiful).