-
bako,
I do not try to make final statements, and as I mentione before I understand that any genral specualtion is not telling any truth it is just a tool to achieve the feel of truth)))
And dispute is one of the methods...
By the way, could you get me a bit more into this?
How exactly they did it? Maybe some samples?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.
Classical musi as well as jazz is very personal affection to me... Mozart and Beethoven are not just 'names' or 'brands' for me - I spent so much time with them, I keep coming back, I think I know them much better than some of the persons I meet daily in my life))) So I am really (no irony) curious what was meant by that 'restrictive description'?
Thank you
-
01-12-2015 04:45 PM
-
MAybe a bit off-top, I have a very close friend whom I consider to be one of the greatest composers of our days (I really seldom say such things but I was so much astonished by his art, and later when we met by his personality and fantastic musical insight). I think you might be interested at least to check...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).
Friends of Boris Yoffe's Music | Boris Yoffe
Since 1994 he composes one short quartet daily, not because he forces himself and put a target, just because this source never dries out... he calls it The Book of Quartet...
He has very delicate approach to performers - they can feel kind of practically absolutely free to do anything but at the same time they integrate it with him very closely... it is very interesting every time I listen to the new record he gets - some times it is student record, some time top pros but alsmost always they have their own insight, I believe it is also the quality of his music that makes people to bring out their innermost though and feel...
By the way he had a collaboration with Augustin Wiedemann - classical player that resulted in a set of guitar solo and emsemble pieces
-
As long as you work with 12 notes. May you be for any tradition, you start any theory with the overtone serie.
From this, traditional theory has developed, sometimes by accident, to what it is now.
It is a corpus that grow and is not finished at any date in the past.
Now the reason why there is "inside/outside" in "jazz" and not in traditional theory is because jazz musicians choose to not explain those notes.
And it is perfect this way because the only difference between the so called jazz theory and traditional one is that the jazz theory is a theory of SHORTCUTS!
It HAS to be, and the genius of a jazz musician (or any improvisor) is the way he organize those shortcuts in is head to have access to the biggest pool of creativity possible. You can't assimilate everything! The more shortcuts, the more possibilities in improvisations.
This mean you have to be VERY SELECTIVE on the theory you assimilate and the way you understand it.
Traditionnal theory does not have to be lean... it just grows and grows and explain any solo you can hear note for note.
Things like traditional theory can't explain blues is BS.
The available corpus of analysis theory in the so-called classical music is HUMONGUS!
edit: reading myself I realize I sound arrogant. Please forgive me those are all opinions not truth
-
It is hard not to notice that the history of classical music has engaged with a broad spectrum of harmony.By the way, could you get me a bit more into this?
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.
How exactly they did it? Maybe some samples?
I recently watched a video by a professor say that the leading tone in the upper or lower voice must always
resolve to the tonic. There are specific harmonic materials that constitute classical music and those that do not.
Within this reductionist vision, there are clear right and wrong choices to be made.
Dissonances are handled but never embraced. Perhaps this is simply a teaching strategy, laying the groundwork for future revelations. Anyone is bound to get into some trouble by describing a broad swath of musical history as a singular entity be it classical or jazz.
Thanks for the composer link, I'll try and check it out later tonight.
-
Takemitsu,
maybe you take a bit too strict..
I look at this simpler...
When I spoke about 'outside/inside' I did not speak about theory, I spoke about mentality - expression of mentality...
some jazz players just got that feel that they may play 'outside' or 'inside' - and it is very interesting because it shows how they percieve their music... it means that they have something in their music to be inside when they improvize .
This is where we can try to see from point of musical events - what is going on there that gives such a feeling...
I understand your point about 'choosing of not explaining those notes' - it is a great definition actually.. because invovle also artistic will in it.
But what is important that this aesthetic choice - I mean they have to keep not explaining - not only in their intention/mind but in playing music...
ANd this is where I come from - I try to explain them not bringing into classical model, but just looking at this the way I hear trying to catch inner musical relations and logics that makes it integral and sensible.
I apply theory here not to the practical approaches but to the musical result I hear..
yes with jazz it is very subtle, because it is practicle...
Nevertheless my humble suggestion about oopsition of jazz structure to classical fuctnional tonality music seems reasonable to me - based just on the fact jazz music mostly does not care about modulation which is the most important mean in classical music from baroque till mid 19 century at least... jazz is closed in key. This is the basis for absolutely different thinking, this where outside/inside also comes from, motivic and intonative improvization (instead improvization of harmonic structure in classical) etc. I think it is reasonable to say so...
we take Parker's solo and even outlining chord tones it stays a line, he thinks it as a line - and it always means reference to some background musical material (this is what I mean by layers in jazz - there are always a few layers of musical material which can be clearly separeted). That is why one can go out side because one of the layers is taken as 'inside'. Reference is one of the main feature of jazz musical thinking.
we take Bach's line and even being chromatic it stays a voice of the harmony and everything this has is in this harmonic development - no layers, no possibility to go outside, because there is nowhere to go - it is like universe wherever you stay in it.
Just an idea - very general - but let's go into details... let's check more samples, the more we go into it the more we learn...
-
Thanks for answeringIt is hard not to notice that the history of classical music has engaged with a broad spectrum of harmony.
I recently watched a video by a professor say that the leading tone in the upper or lower voice must always
resolve to the tonic. There are specific harmonic materials that constitute classical music and those that do not.
Within this reductionist vision, there are clear right and wrong choices to be made.
Dissonances are handled but never embraced. Perhaps this is simply a teaching strategy, laying the groundwork for future revelations. Anyone is bound to get into some trouble by describing a broad swath of musical history as a singular entity be it classical or jazz.
I guess we have a chance if we look at this as a language of art, there should be just clear cultural limitations...
For example the fact that in modern tradition dissonances do not need (are not heard) to be resolved does not mean that it should be talen like this in Mozart's music, even more it would wrong to apply it to Mozart's music...
But you are right of course... I believe actually that the perception of great piece of art is out of history of art - I mean when you are into St. Matthew's Paasion nothing can be greater that that and that's it, but when you hear Bird live what can be greater that that? THe face of art is always personal, and oone cannot see a face in crowd of historical images.
but as I said I take discussion more in talmudic - never-ending conversation that reveals more senses and ideas)..
We just have to keep in mind that words are not the things they try to describe, then we have a chance to stay out of trouble)))
-
So just so we understand each other. I consider this classical music. If you don't, its fine, just tell me what is your definition
-
Unfortunately I cannot listen to these vids right now, but from this list I know at least Ligeti's music quite well - I had a period of deeper interest in his works, so I think I can understand more or less what you mean ...
In my posts before by 'classical music' I meant the period when functional tonality was living musical language - for me it is approximately from early baroque till.. wel... l Alban Berg... with some exceptions and extensions of course - it is very very general..
But what I meant - just another sample..
lets take chords c-g-c triads in regualar voicing.. I think that occasionally we can find this progression in various musical styles and cultures: in early modal music as a coincidence of polyphonic voices, in tonal period as a i-v-i cadance, in modern music as a result of modal relations etc.
It is like with words... in some close languages words get opposit meanings, for exampla in russian 'urod' means ugly, and in polish 'uroda' means beauty... it would be really really wrong to call russian girl a beauty using a word from polish)))
Same with music - it looks the same but means absolutely different...
It is not that complex - no need to make strict definitions, I always start with perceprtion... with music I begin from what I hear, what makes this piece of music integral for me, what are relations inside it... that's all I do.
I do not care about scientific basis or aspects of theory... I just try to describe what I think is substancial for this or that music... but of course that description will always be a pale shadow of direct perception.
This is just to illustarte what is behind my speculations, where I come from...
-
I love Gulda's playing:
-
Gulda is very delicate and musical player in general, I like him in any aspect... maybe not great but very involving, thoughtful
Denis Matsuev plays jazz concerts... I do not like it, as well as his classical performance, though he is considered to be a vituoso star...
Fazil Sai also does it and I also do not like it... unfortunately.
-
Rob,
I have read your articles.
Thank you very much for your job, I always admire people who invetigate sources and spend their time to put it all together and out for public for free.
Regardless to this thread, these articles are very interesting material for me since I am interested in HIPP though I do not play romantic guitar now.
But I think from this thread it is already more or less clear that there is difference between what you describe in your articles - mostly practical methods for guitar - and I - attempt to describe experience of audial perception of music.
-
I think he was great, at least (LOL) in Bach, Mozart and Beethoven. Martha Argerich considers him her mentor.
Originally Posted by Jonah
I only knew them by name (even if Sai regularly plays in Rome).Denis Matsuev plays jazz concerts... I do not like it, as well as his classical performance, though he is considered to be a vituoso star...
Fazil Sai also does it and I also do not like it... unfortunately.
-
[QUOTE=Takemitsu;490867]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.
(ABOVE QUOTED FROM AN EARLIER POST HERE, SOMEHOW I MESSED UP THE "REPLY WITH QUOTE")
Some interesting jazz/classical overlaps:
1. Kenny Burrell studied classical guitar, I believe.
2. Look at the Earl Hines episode on "Jazz Casual" available on youtube. Hines was classically trained, & did not even attempt to play jazz until 16 or 17 when he was already an accomplished player getting gigs because of his sightreading ability. He rather scathingly disses boogie-woogie jazz and stride players as "people who can't even read". He also discusses the development of bebop in terms of theoretical stuff he worked on with Bird and Diz. This short episode is incredibly instructive and his demonstration of musical technique and development probably summarizes, I believe,many many pages of printed material.
3. Barry Harris has described bebop as classical musical-transplanted with African rhythms...not his exact words, maybe, but true to his message...which is, as pointed out here, that classical players (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Lizst) were all great improvisers. I believe Chopin's favored venue was a small soiree, with 40-50 spectators, he would play for perhaps 1.5 hrs, and of that maybe 10 minutes (?!) was "written out" music. OTOH, Harris asserts that many classical pianists don't even know the underlying chord progressions to what they're playing--whereas jazz musicians can't even play without knowing this. He also states that jazz musicians should study classical, as it shows the best examples of how to "get to there"...harmonically..."from here". Having said that, he also shows and demonstrates specific jazz vocabulary. I'm not sure I really understand Harris' harmonic theories, but I thought he was saying at one pt. that he kind of lifted them from Chopin. He also thinks Great American Songbook stuff is better written because a lot of it was written by European influenced (or trained) composers, e.g. Bronislaw Kapers, Vernon Duke, and he doesn't think much of modal stuff finding that it lacks movement, so maybe he is a "died in the wool neo-trad. Bebop classicist" (my term, not his)
My take---musicianship and knowledge surely transfers, and classical develops this, but rhythmic feel and approach is so different that many will never bridge the gap. Jazz also requires knowledge of specific vocabulary and tradition to ....be accepted....play well with others. So maybe it is more correct to say that (most) classical players could, in theory, be very good jazz musicians, but most are not. ON top of this, there is a big difference between studying a creative discipline, and being able to do it one's self. : I may know Shakespear's plays or poetry, inside and out, but that doesn't mean I'm about to write "Son of King Lear" or "MacBeth II--the Story Continues".Last edited by goldenwave77; 02-09-2015 at 02:38 PM. Reason: Add explanatory note re: quote
-
Well said....I listen and enjoy music for its emotional impact...I don't care what it is or where it came from or how it got there.....If your a jazz musician and you play a Bach piece that moves me...Then That's enough...I really don't care to know if it fits into traditional classical music theory as studied in a university or if its some hybrid form.....UTube is full of great classical guitar players that boor me after the first piece, I try to like it!....I can say the same about so many rambling improvisers in jazz, its not easy to build a great solo.....like you said...its just not the notes.....and its all personal taste...not right or wrong....in my opinion....
-
02-10-2015, 09:42 AM #65destinytot Guest
[QUOTE=goldenwave77;500921]
Love this post - thank you! Watching this now (I'm assuming this is the right one): Originally Posted by Takemitsu
-
Yes, that is the one I meant. Thanks for finding this, and posting it directly! I need to learn how to do this.
Hines is an incredible figure, it seems to me...what Charlie C. is to guitar, or Louie A. to trumpet, or Coleman H. to the tenor sax. I'll stop here, before it spawns another thread....but I saw him in DC in the late 70's, and even as an elder statesmen, he could still bring it. (I think the music kept him young.)
-
There are two sides to jazz - playing music with the harmonic and rhythmic language of what we call jazz (which is actually a pretty broad language - Jelly Roll to Jobim to Coleman) and improvising (composing in real time in performance). Jazz can be nostalgic, cliched, trite, challenging, offensive, inspiring, sublime, or a combination of these even in one performance depending on the artists. One group of musicians can sound entirely different from other groups playing the same standards and an individual will play differently with different players on the same songs. The greater the players, the greater the chance of something incredible. Or maybe something very weird. The players take chances.
When i go to a classical concert (let's agree that classical is Bach to Debussy for arguments sake), I know that 90% of what I am going to hear is as I expect it to be played. It will be anywhere from very good to great within the narrow framework of the composed music. The conductor will bring shading and nuance and maybe a different energy level or feel, but nobody is climbing out on a limb and exposing him or herself. Or is that what the conductor does by classical music standards?
Just different types of music.Last edited by DRS; 02-14-2015 at 01:42 PM.
-
on piano several jazz masters come to mind that have classical training that comes out in their playing..Bill Evans Chick Corea and Herbie Hancock..and one player who does not get enough mention is Dr. Billy Taylor..
on guitar..some classical flavor in some of McLaughlins' work..his melodic construction..perhaps Lee Ritenour .. but as good as some jazz players are..and they can flavor their work with classical techniques..i don't think they would be considered "classical" players .. There is a "youtube" of ted greene saying he can not play classical..while he is playing a Bach chorale-on a telecaster!..
-
I agree with this. But there are not that many guys who play great Jazz and use a classical technique (fingers, finger-nails etc)
Romero Lubambo is an awesome and rare example of this. He gives personal lessons on MusicGurus.com which you can check out (there are a few free videos..)
Romero Lubambo ? The Lubambo Method | MusicGurus
Enjoy!! Here's a clip he made in a hotel room to give you an idea (the other lessons on MusicGurus are more professionally produced..)
-
And what happens when you just can't make up your mind? I mean what if you just love both forms, and you enjoy playing both forms. This is my conundrum. I love classical, and really enjoy playing it, yet I really want to learn to swing like the jazz greats. Originally Posted by TruthHertz
I feel that if I do not decide which form to "specialize" in than I will never become proficient in either. Or maybe I can prove them all wrong and be both. (Yeah right).
-
I had this problem.. not exactly with the same components but..I feel that if I do not decide which form to "specialize" in than I will never become proficient in either. Or maybe I can prove them all wrong and be both. (Yeah right).
I came to point it's a human being that unites things.. but it may take time...
-
Not one of my friends at the philharmonic can play jazz ( improvise-swing ) They can however play any standard ever written....L...
-
Surprised I missed this thread! It's always a bad idea to make broad generalizations. If you study jazz, and put yourself into it, you can learn it just as good as anyone who has put roughly the same amount of time into it as you. Naturally if someone has spent their entire life learning classical music and has never studied jazz they will not be able to play it, duh. When I was in college I met plenty of both --- those who never studied it, and those that did, in addition to their classical training. As a general rule most of the brass and woodwind players I met in college were at least familiar with jazz, and some (especially the sax players) were quite good at it because in high school they were in jazz band. But people on other instruments like violins, cellos, oboes, (i.e. instruments you don't see in a jazz band) generally would not have been in the H.S. jazz band, and thus generally were not familiar with jazz. Pianists that I met seemed to mostly be classical trained from the age of 5 or whatever, and most of them did not play jazz, but a few did. You'd think that there would be a high percentage of jazz players amongst the guitarists, and I'm sure at certain schools like Berklee or UNT, that would be the case. But at my college there were only a handful of us guitar majors and I was the only one into jazz! The others were either coming from a rock / pop background or classical.
Anyways, one myth that is basically the same as this one is that people with music degrees are worse at playing popular music (or music in general) than people without...I'm sure some of you have experienced this or maybe even propagated the myth. While it's true that not everyone that graduates with a music degree is going to be a great musician, to say that those with degrees by default are worse in some way is stupid. And yet I've heard this on more than one occasion. Just judge everyone based on what they show you. But better yet, don't judge. Your standards may not matter to the person you are judging. They may have a different set of standards. You may think being able to play a Jimi Hendrix style solo is the highest point in music, and they may think being able to write and arrange music for an orchestra is a much higher achievement (which they can do and you can't). I think another important thing here is that there are many facets to being a musician. You may be superior at shredding 20+ notes per second because that's all you practiced for 10 years, but hey I might know a few other things in music better than you do, like how to read music, or how to arrange for an orchestra. You may be better at playing the blues, but that formally trained guy you dissed might be a better composer than you, or better music teacher, or better at playing another style of music. Whatever. The point is, myths like these only serve one purpose -- to boost somebody's ego by disrespecting someone else.
-
I have a student now, who is a classical pianist and teaches at the same music school I do. He has a classical guitar, and wasnt specifically interested in either jazz or pop, so we chosen the C.Parkening book for him. He made amazing progress in a short time, btw.. Anyway, naturally I asked him what he thinks about jazz pianists, and he was very polite, but in short I can summarize his opinion as jazz pianists often lack a proper technique. So I understand the first thing he looks at is not how good one can swing or improvise, but how ones hands are on a piano from a classical perspective. In a way, it sounded like he looks down on jazz pianists a bit, because they might not have the finess of a classically trained. For me its where the problem is, if you go through the whole classical training routine, you dont practice things that would prepare you to approach jazz. And even more significantly, your classical teacher wouldnt encourage you to deviate from the strict approach. The lack of freedom is completely opposite to the spirit of jazz.
Btw. my first ever guitar teacher was a classical guy, very strict, and I quit after a few months. At the time I wasnt intersted in jazz, but I had a very good idea what songs I wanted to play, and he told me he wont teach me this because he just didnt see any value in a kind of music that I liked.
-
one has to catch the spirit... what attracts me in jazz this weavering line - intonation interplay - which leads you soemhwere you have not been before right now...
For my classical friends it often sounds just like never-ending ornamentation... they just do not distinguish much difference betwen two licks over the same chord just because they are over the same chord... it's like jsut a bit different ornament
It's just absolutely different concept.
Most of my classical friends appreciate jazz as a special culture especially in its brightest personalities like Monk or Bird... but soon they get bored...
And also practice.. all my classical friends are good classical improvizors... One of them when he stayed at my plce could sit at piano for hours developing sonato allegro or fugue to some unxepted direction... but the point is classical improvization has different status.. it is not final actually.. it's like training for composer... or excersise in musical language...
And in jazz it all you have now... no tommorows.
People fascinated by jazz usually follow the solo as if they play it themselves - they are at that point of risk and challenge with the player...
Those who not - they often do not even understand it is improvized...
I do lute playing.. and it is funny when I first came to local society - how gentle and nice everybody was... most of the local teachers themselves actually could hardly play.. but they did recitals and people clapped... and they go on and on...
Of course on the higher level it's tougher but still the whoel world calssical music allows such an attitude.. sometimes I wish old tradition of throwing tomatoes and eggs would come up again becasue too many players make the whole just without knowing they play it terribly becase people are nuce and polite (or just deaf)...
Sometimes I wich they go to a couple of jazz jams to feel what it's like when iyou risk it all and right now...
PS
Jazz jams though also became softer these days...
To be fair - there's just one negative point I know for sure - I know sone originally classical player who moved to jazz becasue it was to tough for them to fit high classical standards of performance... and in jazz youca play whatever you want (meaning however you want)... in jazz also come people who fake this freedom who use kitchy stylistic of jazz to cover their inability to be more subtle.. In early days it was impossible because the jazz competition was extremely high... so to be just kitch was not enough... but today it became too relaxed... so in some cases I can understand when classical players make judgements liek they feel this fake freedom.
Actually .. I think after some short time of practice good jazz player could play classical part convincingly - maybe not quite correctly in concern of style, not that good as great classical player - but interesting and convincingly enough to be appreciated.
Reply With Quote
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale