About classical players and jazz

[medblues]

Fareed Haque may be a great example of someone bridging three genres: classical, jazz (organ trio, latin, fusion, bebop) and R&B. However, I haven't listened to more than a couple classical pieces played by him. But I think he has given recitals.

[yazzoo]

This is true that most classically educated guitarists do not play jazz music, and even if they try it doesn't sound jazzy. Opposite, many jazz and rock guitarists can play classics pretty good and many of them are classically educated.
Personally I play classical guitar since many years, graduated some schools. I also love jazz for almost 40 years!
But I never even try to play jazz. I just don't feel it.... but I can definitely hear it

There is one lady, student of legendary Julian Bream. She used to be very active guitarist once, playing with Julian Bream on TV, later she got married, emigrated UK and took a time away from performing. After many years and raising 5 children she's back to UK and back to playing guitar. I'm talking about Mrs Cheryl Grice Watterson, talking because I found her playing classically Errol Garner's "Misty". And this is the only performance of jazz standard played by classical guitarist that I really liked.
Cheryl is also very nice person. I used to contact her several times and she was extremely nice.

If you wish to see her playing, here's the link
Cheryl Grice-Watterson - Misty for classical guitar on...

[docbop]

Maybe if Bach or Mozart included more bebop lines in their compositions it'd be easier to cross over from classical? :-)

Those cats were the cutting edge of their day and I imagine would be whatever time they live in. So I can see Bach onstage with Coltrane or Ornette Coleman if he lived in the late 60's, probably playing a Moog synthesizer.

[fumblefingers]

I am a classical musician, from a family of classical musicians.

I love to play jazz guitar or to improvise jazz. (I love it, didn't say I was good)

It is just a matter of "wanting" to put the efforts in it.

Of course if you ask a classical musician who never put any effort in learning to improvise you will get sad results.

But if you ask a classical musician who practiced improvisation he will sound as good as the time he put into it.

There is no magic. Put your time in improvisation you will be good at it.

BUT please, if you mention that jazz musicians are better at crossing the border I can't agree. The best examples I saw where from Keith Jarett and I saw him playing Bach and Mozart. He got the notes right but classical music IS NOT ABOUT PLAYING THE RIGHT NOTES. its about HOW you play them and the TIME you spent thinking about which phrasing you will use for maximum effect. Where will you use vibrato, accents, nuances, articulations and WHY, not because you feel like it on the moment. There is tons of stuff you need to do that is NOT written in the part. You can't bullshit that.

Also classical music doest not end with Bach.

edit: For what I heard, when Marsalis was doing his classical stuff he would alternate a year of classic and then a year of jazz. Thats quite amazing dedication and he got great results but bring the question; how much of your practice should be "jazz" to be jazz guy coin classical or the opposite?

i agree with almost every part of this. the only part i disagree with is that if you put the time in you'll be good at improv. there are jazz artists who have put their entire lives into it, and don't sound particularly great to me. i look at it like composition, same kind of thing. a lot of people improvise, a lot of people compose. how many do we hear and think, "that was OK but I won't miss it if I never hear it again".

it is said that "tomorrow is promised to no one". neither is inspired creativity, seems to me.

[destinytot]

Humour

[Jonah]

I think it is importante to define..
there are classical musicians who can improvize in classical music language - functional tonality or early music modality (I know personaly a few brilliant improvizers of that kind) but this is absolutely different style of improvization than jazz...
Absolutely different concept.

And they are helpless with jazz improvization just because they do not know the language - of course being accomplished musicians they can improvize over some old standard some kind of nice melody with embelishments but I think this is not what we are talking about actually.

Frankly speaking I think every classical musician should be capable to improvize in classical music language... (and most of the top players can) because this shows how he understands the language of what he plays... and unfortunately the system of musical education at least during last century trains reading skills much more than understanding skills... they fight for years to make difference between ff and fff in some Beethoven sonta and then comes one Gould and play hear just p - and everybody is out... because he understands the language not just reads the signs..

But anyway I am sure this will hardly help to play jazz unless they get deeply into it or have some natural feel/ear for jazz language... concepts are way too different.

(That's why I hate sentences like 'Bach is jazz of the baroque', 'Metheny is Bach of our days' - it shows superficial understanding of one of these concepts (I do not mean to hurt anyone here who thinks so... but I can easily illustrate this idea with any musical samples).

[Jonah]

Guys,

I found quote from Keith Jarreth interview that once just stroke as a show of gap in mentalities of classical and jazz musical thinking

" And Bach has this crazy ability to change key in the middle of a scale. So you’ve changed harmonic center in the process of playing what you thought was a simple scale so you can’t take your eyes off the music. "

What KG calls 'crazy ability' of Bach is actually absolutely normal, regula or even general mean of classical music based on functional tonality. Every Bach's contemporary musician had this 'crazy ability' - the Bach was genius because of where he made these changes and how he built the form out of it.

The calssical and jazz musicians look at the same scope of notes, often use the same names for scales and chords but in most cases these notes make absolutely different relations, and these realtions is what makes the music.

[larry graves]

Any competent musician who can transcribe, and swing to some extent, could pull it of in front of an audience, after all 90% of jazz is cloned, that's why when you go into most jazz clubs you've heard it all before...Derek Bailey explains it in detail in his book "IMPROVISATION it's nature and practice in music"....

[Rob MacKillop]

Yes it's true that some classical musicians are terrified for improvising, and equally true that some love it.

My own classical guitar playing is restricted to the 19th century period, when many players DID in fact improvise. They improvised preludes before playing a piece, and might insert cadenzas into a piece. See my website for details and advice: http://19th-centuryguitar.com

Practising what I preach, here I improvise a 30-second Intro to a beautiful piece by Giuliani. I also add a short cadenza during the piece, again improvised. Just like jazz musicians, I have a chord sequence in my head, a typical one for the period:

[bako]

The classical and jazz musicians look at the same scope of notes, often use the same names for scales and chords but in most cases these notes make absolutely different relations, and these realtions is what makes the music.

Jonah,

I'm not disputing what you say. Please share examples to document these different relationships.
Words are cool but don't leave me with any insight beyond a slogan.

Thanks,
Bako

[Takemitsu]

Frankly speaking I think every classical musician should be capable to improvize in classical music language... (and most of the top players can) because this shows how he understands the language of what he plays... and unfortunately the system of musical education at least during last century trains reading skills much more than understanding skills... they fight for years to make difference between ff and fff in some Beethoven sonta and then comes one Gould and play hear just p - and everybody is out... because he understands the language not just reads the signs...

The reason so much time spent on reading skills is that the music and the job require it.

You can't brush aside reading skills! Its as demanding to get good reading skills as getting any skill. Again its only a question how you use your practice time.

In my band we have 1 to 2 new programs a week for 2 to 4 nights of shows. Program include music from Baroque to "today". We had a new piece last week by a living composer that would be unthinkable to put together in a week without musicians with extremely developed reading skills. Of course you practice at home but without those skills it would take a month just for a first reading without mistakes and then you would not have worked on any "phrasing" and "music".

Finally, and the MOST IMPORTANT is that classical music the way it is nowadays is about interpreting someone else creation. And the musician is fINE with it. Thats what he want! He does NOT want to improvise. He want to play a music where every detail was carefully thinked and crafted.

There is one guy who spent ALL his time practicing how to compose and write notes. And there is an other guy who spend ALL his time practicing to render the work of the other. This team work brings fantastic music.

[Jonah]

The classical and jazz musicians look at the same scope of notes, often use the same names for scales and chords but in most cases these notes make absolutely different relations, and these realtions is what makes the music.


Jonah,

I'm not disputing what you say. Please share examples to document this insight.
Words are cool but don't leave me with any insight beyond a slogan.

Thanks,
Bako

For example it was illustrated by KJ's quote I quoted above: 'Bach chaged the key duting the line..' - What does it mean? Let us take as relatively simple example a theme from Bach's Fuge C-minor WTK 1st vol. Only theme!
http://www.achimfessler.de/files_mus...%20analyse.jpg

What does this theme say to the classical musician? - First of all he hears harmonic background behind it
What is this theme for Bach as a composer? - A melodical expression of harmony.
There are a few ways to harmonize such a theme - and we go on into development of these fugue we will see how Bach uses these possibilities and this is what makes his art.
Of course there are rythimc and motivic issues also but in this kind of music they are strongly connected with harmony...

Now let's try to pretend what could jazz musician hear in this theme? - Firs of all he would hear motivic ideas, intervals, rythmich relations, then probably some general harmonic background based on some concept - it maybe scale/mode or some chordal structure... jazz player could play this melody over just one chord even (which is absolutely impossible for Bach) - it is more or less secondary...

Another sample might approach for arppegio - for jazz players it is first of all a line with certain intervals between the notes, for classical player it is first of all a texture to express a harmony.

Greates difference in the concepts is that in jazz we always play over something: there should be always some background - played, meant whatever - to improvize over it... always from the first note we play to the last one.
In classical music in most cases we improvize the music itself

So the closest form of improvization to jazz in classical music is variations, but even that is usually quite far in approach than what we have in jazz because of other factors I mentioned above.

PS
Classical music is huge world and I should say that the music of strong instrumental quality that uses lots of strictly intstru,mental methods of development often gets very close to jazz methods (e.g. very pianistic music of 19th century)

[Jonah]

The reason so much time spent on reading skills is that the music and the job require it.

You can't brush aside reading skills! Its as demanding to get good reading skills as getting any skill. Again its only a question how you use your practice time.

No,no! I do not brush it aside!
What I said are very general speculations, there are always persons and each personal approach is always more complex than this 'black and white' concept I put down here...
I just keep it in mind to lead the conversation to understand what is going on, but I do not say that everyone who reads well cannot play)))

[Jonah]

Yes it's true that some classical musicians are terrified for improvising, and equally true that some love it.

My own classical guitar playing is restricted to the 19th century period, when many players DID in fact improvise. They improvised preludes before playing a piece, and might insert cadenzas into a piece. See my website for details and advice:http://19th-centuryguitar.com

Practising what I preach, here I improvise a 30-second Intro to a beautiful piece by Giuliani. I also add a short cadenza during the piece, again improvised. Just like jazz musicians, I have a chord sequence in my head, a typical one for the period:

Hi Rob,

I've been watching your playing ever since I got an ideat to get a lute))) And your records gave me a push too!

But here I would disagree with you partly - I strongly believe the concept of your improvizing here is different from jazz!

You have not just chord changes - you have idiomatic set, language and you create a piece of it...
In jazz there are actually chord chages even if they do not sound and the player improvize over it... I would go as fas even as saying that changes are also a line /a mode... jazz is essentially modal even when uses functional tonality.

[Rob MacKillop]

Then, Jonah, I respectfully suggest you clearly haven't followed the link in my post to my website and read the articles, watched the videos.

[Jonah]

Then, Jonah, I respectfully suggest you clearly haven't followed the link in my post to my website and read the articles, watched the videos.

I did watch the video Rob, but I admit i did not follow the link. Excuse me if in a hurry I made a wrong conclusion.


What I can hear from your playing speaks for itself. Maybe it is variation over some harmonic texture... above I mentioned that variation is the closest form to jazz but even that in its simplest form.

Please, be so kind to explain where exactly I misunderstood your concept here.

thank you

[Rob MacKillop]

Please be so kind as to read my articles. I haven't got the time to write them all out for you here.

[Peter C]

Bluegrass, not Jazz guys but .....

[targuit]

I think this argument is something of a strawman. Not every musician is good at improvisation, though the skill range is large. Improvisation itself is a skill that can be developed to a large degree.

Music is fundamentally about intervals and their harmony. Some of the primary differences between ''classical" and "jazz" music is the expanded range of acceptable harmonies and rhythmic patterns. Bach had a kind of "swing" but not the jazz rhythm version. Musical styles were also interpreted as various "dance" styles.

It may seem hard to understand the allure of 'classical guitar' to jazz guitarists, yet it is about the beauty of the music itself. On the other hand, the allure of jazz guitar is the freedom and openness of the harmonies.

Jay

[Takemitsu]

I think this argument is something of a strawman. Not every musician is good at improvisation, though the skill range is large. Improvisation itself is a skill that can be developed to a large degree.

Music is fundamentally about intervals and their harmony. Some of the primary differences between ''classical" and "jazz" music is the expanded range of acceptable harmonies and rhythmic patterns. Bach had a kind of "swing" but not the jazz rhythm version. Musical styles were also interpreted as various "dance" styles.

It may seem hard to understand the allure of 'classical guitar' to jazz guitarists, yet it is about the beauty of the music itself. On the other hand, the allure of jazz guitar is the freedom and openness of the harmonies.

Jay

I think you got it a bit wrong here but mainly because "Classical music" and "jazz music" are terms used in this discussion but everyone seems to have a different DEFINITION of what those are.

Classical music: Here you have 3 choices:

A) the music of Haydn, Mozart and early Beethoven (NOT Bach)

or

B) music that is written by someone who expect the interpret to sound as close as possible to what he got in mind. Or "paper music" (Bobby McFerrin . My favorite definition.

C) (the weirdest for me but seem to make sense here) Music based on triads and functional harmony that sound a bit like occidental music before the romantics (Late Beethov and forward or Chopin if you're one of those). This is VERY reductive on what this music tradition is. Debussy, Wagner and someone like Magnus Lindberg are "classical music" and their harmonic language has nothing to envy to any other style or tradition.

Jazz Music

Here my problem is that this is mostly a style but when you start trying to define it (swing, 7th, 9th chords) you seem to lose a lot of music that is accepted as jazz too. ECM recordings, Late Coltrane etc.

So 3 definitions again

A)Improvised music (based on a fixed serie of chords) between 1930-40 to 1965 (isn). (awfully small)

B) everything that is accepted by the majority as jazz (vague and everyone has a different idea about it, but seems to be the norm)

C) improvised music. (I love this one and I wish jazz musicians stop using "jazz" and start calling themselves improvisors)


If we keep having our own different definition but continue debating with the "word" only it may be fun, but it does not allow for any sense or progress.

[Jonah]

Please be so kind as to read my articles. I haven't got the time to write them all out for you here.

I will, Rob, but it will also take some time.

Meanwhile I think it wont take an article-size post you from to put in a few you words what you think is the concept behind the video you posted here.
I will really appreciate it.

Thank you

[KirkP]

...
Jazz Music
Here my problem is that this is mostly a style but when you start trying to define it (swing, 7th, 9th chords) you seem to lose a lot of music that is accepted as jazz too. ECM recordings, Late Coltrane etc.
...

The word "jazz" encompasses so many many kinds of music that I avoid using the word unless it's coupled with a qualifier to make it clear what kind of music I'm talking about. It's a generic word like "dog". Saying someone "plays jazz" or has a "jazz tone" doesn't tell me much.

[Jonah]

Guys,

while I am in the process of diligent and respectful reading of Rob's articles which I expect to through after one sleepless night, another idea came to me..

We all know teh concept of so-called 'playing outside' in jazz.... i think this is another argument to confirm that jazz and classical improvizations have veru diferent concepts behid them.

In classical music it is impossible to play outside - because this relation in - out does not exist - and in jazz it is formed by this very understanding of chord change as a layer/mode

[Jehu]

WAIT JUST A MINUTE HERE...

Unfortunately my library doesn't allow for borrowing.

Your library doesn't allow for borrowing?!

[bako]

In classical music it is impossible to play outside - because this relation in - out does not exist - and in jazz it is formed by this very understanding of chord change as a layer/mode

I enjoy you trying to take on this level of definition but as Takemitsu described, classical and jazz as categories
are far to broad to speak of in general terms.

Some of the most restrictive description of inside/outside is taught in the name of classical music by teachers conveying their introductory insights into Mozart, Beethoven.

There are many jazz musicians that operate in realms vastly different than chord changes and to whom an inside/outside dichotomy completely misses the mark.

On average, the classical musicians I have met don't improvise.
I believe that they could if they engaged in the pursuit.
Not everyone will choose to walk that path.

Robert Starer, Tania Leon, David Del Tredichi, Noah Creshevsky and Pauline Oliveiros are classical composers
that I took classes with and they are/were capable improvisors (not jazz to my knowledge).

Style requires listening to assimilate.
Some will dive in to historical context adding adding the nuance of continuation to their work.
Others will largely follow personal insight as a religion to wherever it leads.

Pauline Oliveiros used the terms "explorers and settlers" as a framework
to describe former and ongoing musical evolution.