-
Tbh the tutor had made several statements that made me take a sharp breath, but I have to bite my tongue because there’s not really time to debate shit.
Originally Posted by JCat
However improvisation does not have anything to do with jazz necessarily.
What he meant is that if you put a piece of Mozart in front of an experienced sight reader with errors in it, they will play it without the errors.
So the point being that an experienced sight reader knows enough of Mozart’s style to be able to know how it goes even when the music is wrong.
Also, there’s the obvious point that it’s better to approximate and carry on than stop... that’s an improvisational skill in itself. Sight reading is always sketching the music.... the better you are of course and the more familiar you are with the composer the better your sketch will be, but there’s always an aspect of going for it.
Furthermore a good classical sight reader will not read notes, but read shapes, phrases and musical sentences, as well as interpreting with appropriate style and phrasing sight unseen.
Btw if this sounds ridiculous, I live on the UK, which has the best sight readers in the world. This is not actually a good thing - it’s down to lack of money. Sight reading is a big deal in all areas of music.
US orchestras are not very good sight readers in comparison but rehearse more so often end up giving much better performances.
The most ridiculous reading musicians I know are repetiteurs. They can do things like sight transpose on piano SATB vocal parts from open score down a semitone to approximate baroque pitch. Some also play jazz.
-
05-29-2019 05:50 AM
-
Yes I think that’s the real reason to do it. Originally Posted by pauln
Obviously licks are great when you are starting out... but they are a by product...
Incidentally these things - improv, sight reading, audiation and of course composition have in common that you hone your skills within a language.
Classical musicians may not be able to ‘hear’ upper structure harmony or swing polyrhythms for instance... I can’t hear classical phrasing as well as someone who specialises in that music, otoh.
I think it’s always worth stating - music is not just notes. We aren’t just machines that go note by note writing, reading and hearing. We work in phrases and ideas that belong to a language, with context and culture.
-
That's a good point. I suppose it's about anticipating the notes based on a certain frame of reference, i.e music that has been internalized by ear training and muscle memory. Originally Posted by christianm77
Jazz musicians share GASB as our common understanding of the genre. This is the legacy we attend to, expand and develop.
I could write something in the style and spirit of GASB and it would sound just like it's been written before by somebody else. Not necessarily bad, but hardly pushing forward, breaking barriers. But at some point it may not be possible to push a genre without leaving the audience behind, turning the genre into an obscure curiosity. Some would claim (even around here) that Classical and Jazz passed that point a long time ago. Fortunately, Bach & Co as well as my trusty GASB never get old.
-
It’s an interesting exercise particularly if you love your standards. Trying to imitate a past form is great for technique even if you don’t ultimately want to write that way.... Originally Posted by JCat
-
Qs
Your assumption regarding #2 sinks an otherwise interesting thread. Originally Posted by Tal_175
why assume they aren’t serious about their composition? Remember, jazz composers also have to sometimes ‘scale it back’ if they want to get it performed. Rehearsal time is a constraint for modern composers of all genres.
-
It's amazing how so easily threads sink isn't it. Just like that Originally Posted by rictroll
I was hoping that we would go back to the thread topic but since you brought it up, here it goes.
It was a really a tongue-in-cheek post as I'm aware it's not entirely meaningful to compare improvisation and composition this way. Also the situation described in the post does not represent every jazz performance but by no means unimaginable.
Of course I'm aware that there is a lot of work that goes into improvisation (takes me 2-3 hours practice time daily and I feel I still have a life time to explore). People spend countless hours learning the language, studying masters, learning tunes, working on their time, developing their ears for harmony and melodic material. Guess what, composers do that too. On top of that they slave over a composition for months to perfect it only to discard it in the end if it's subpar (which it is sometimes for everybody I assume). On the other side you got composition put together on the fly. Yes elements of the product has been woodshed, but the final form is not a thorough composition (unless you are Wes).
On the other side you got pieces from a modern composer who walks on water (otherwise their work wouldn't be selected for performance in good venues) or works of the best geniuses in the past 400 years. Then you got performers, who are specialized for this task and trained to control every performance nuance consistently to bring the piece into life in the way intended by the composer. You got a highly trained conductor (a very competitive profession) who understands the work very well and has got great ears that ensure everything is put together right.
So in some abstract perhaps academic sense, one would think that classical music is a more elevated art form.Last edited by Tal_175; 05-29-2019 at 04:35 PM.
-
On the other hand, apparently some of the great composers of the past were also great improvisors. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart etc. I heard some of their compositions are really snapshots of their improvised performances. Though, I'm sure not everything they produced were improvised.
Last edited by Tal_175; 05-29-2019 at 03:37 PM.
-
What about Keith Jarrett? Originally Posted by christianm77
<checks/>
He's put out over a dozen classical recordings.
-
Yeah you are really touching on some big subject areas that could end up producing a lot of verbiage. Originally Posted by Tal_175
You don’t actually need to go back that far actually... Messiaen was an extremely accomplished improviser on organ... although apparently he improvised in a different style to his compositions.
But in the era of Bach etc music was composed at great speed with tremendous fluency in a well understood common style, a lingua Franca. So you could say it was improvised straight to paper... although Beethoven was an inveterate reviser...
But then so are many improvisers - refining material over time... this is how many of the greats did it. Not Miles, or Sonny, but Oscar, Louis, Joe Henderson....
Drill down and improvise and compose are almost synonyms. The former only really means it’s not written down because when it’s in the musicians mind it’s impossible to know how much is prearranged and how much is spontaneous without being privy to more than a single performance...
-
I’m not really the right person to ask. Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles
-
Even if this wasn't an overstatement of how improvisation and composition are really equal, the bar of compositional merit for getting a jazz gig is not comparable to have your piece selected for performance by a professional orchestra. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Ok I’ll take this post in a tongue in cheek vein cos I don’t buy it. I’ve had too much contact with the actual classical world. Originally Posted by Tal_175
It's amazing how so easily threads sink isn't it. Just like that
I was hoping that we would go back to the thread topic but since you brought it up, here it goes.
It was a really a tongue-in-cheek post as I'm aware it's not entirely meaningful to compare improvisation and composition this way. Also the situation described in the post does not represent every jazz performance but by no means unimaginable.
Of course I'm aware that there is a lot of work that goes into improvisation (takes me 2-3 hours practice time daily and I feel I still have a life time to explore). People spend countless hours learning the language, studying masters, learning tunes, working on their time, developing their ears for harmony and melodic material. Guess what, composers do that too. On top of that they slave over a composition for months to perfect it only to discard it in the end if it's subpar (which it is sometimes for everybody I assume). On the other side you got composition put together on the fly. Yes elements of the product has been woodshed, but the final form is not a thorough composition (unless you are Wes).
On the other side you got pieces from a modern composer who walks on water (otherwise their work wouldn't be selected for performance in good venues) or works of the best geniuses in the past 400 years. Then you got performers, who are specialized for this task and trained to control every performance nuance consistently to bring the piece into life in the way intended by the composer. You got a highly trained conductor (a very competitive profession) who understands the work very well and has got great ears that ensure everything is put together right.
So in some abstract perhaps academic sense, one would think that classical music is a more elevated art form.
I think one thing you get in classical music is a rigorous hierarchy, highly important gatekeepers and societal kudos. This allows certain complex things to happen such as highly expensive and hard to organise art forms such as opera, in a way that’s simply unimaginable in any other way.
This musical world also attracts a certain type of person - not just from the point of view of ability, but who can deal with the business and have the patience navigate all the various power structures.
It’s also easy to see why this music attracts such kudos as well (which I think might be part of what you are saying) because it’s so obviously good - music that has stood the test of time being expertly performed. What’s not to appreciate?
On the other hand I think modern composers have a tougher time... who even thinks of contemporary classical composers aside form musicians. And if they hear it they usually hate it for being unfamiliar. As true for your ‘accessible’ composers....
-
BTW, I'm not saying that a superb jazz musician cannot compose at the elite level. I bet Barry Harris can. But if he did compose music for a classical orchestra (he said this was one of his dreams in a workshop), I believe his process would be very different then performing in a jazz gig. Even though he doesn't think that Jazz is different than classical music.
-
I think there’s an extra layer in this which is that so many of the musicians we hold up as the greats in black music wanted to be concert artists by were unable to pursue careers. Originally Posted by Tal_175
Anyway jazz composition as a form is different to classical. What constitutes ‘elite’ composition? Don’t know. There are a great many (to me) fantastically boring symphonies which I’m sure have great craft behind them. OTOH jazz composition has existed since the early days... You may have heard of this guy Ellington, maybe?
Stravinsky did say he regarded Ellington as the greatest American composer so he clearly held the form in high esteem.
-
No I don’t it as an overstatement actually. You would would be hard pressed to copy music as fast as a professional 18th century composer could write it. Originally Posted by Tal_175
Sorry what is the point of all this?
Classical music has gatekeepers.... mind you so does jazz. There’s gigs and gigs.
To get a large ensemble to play your music is always going to be harder than a small ensemble... but large ensembles are not the only game. In fact many of the most influential 20th century pieces were for small ensembles.
-
Of course composition can be done in realtime which would make it improvisation. The difference is being done in realtime is not a requirement for composition but it is for improvisation. I suspect many composers not only take advantage of this fact but are also extremely reliant on it. Originally Posted by christianm77
I don't think one can compare blowing over ATTYA changes to writing a 21 century sonata. For one ATTYA is already a composed piece. Quite brilliantly I might add. Coming up with a solo over a well composed piece is the way easier compositional challenge.
Good question. I'm not sure anymore. I'm certainly guilty of causing this segue. I was comparing the classical model of music making vs jazz. I find it interesting that three components of making music, composition, performance and ensemble dynamics are extremely specialized areas in classical music and done by different experts (composer, performer, conductor). Also specifics are planned, premeditated and highly rehearsed. Where in the jazz model all is done by the same people and at least specifics are realized in realtime. It's interesting because from the audience perspective you'd think the first model should be preferred as the (at least on the paper) superior one. But it isn't. (well kinda). Originally Posted by christianm77
Anyway I'm happy to go back to the thread topic.Last edited by Tal_175; 05-30-2019 at 02:28 PM.
-
Come to think of it, the first model was preferred by the audience for jazz as well. Big band swing orchestras were a lot closer to that model and the mainstream audience loved it. But musicians loved the more improvised format of the small combos and I concur.
-
Yeah, ATTYA is OK. It's better in 3, because there the rhythmic predictability of the melody is less pronounced. Not my favourite standard from a melodic standpoint although jazz musicians like the harmony. Probably not my favourite Kern. Originally Posted by Tal_175
You know they say familiarity breeds contempt... And while any halfway competent jazz amateur can play ATTYA after a fashion, obviously there's some difference between someone who can do it really fucking well (let alone Parker or someone) and someone who has recently learned the 'right' scales from an Aebersold...
Of course, the fact is that distinction may be completely lost an audience... (I remember that episode of Friends with Ross's music) but actually I don't think it is. People can tell the difference between something rhythmically engaged and something meandering, for one.
(Now, go back in time and you'll find basic repeating forms such as Chaconnes that formed the basis of many simpler pieces in the baroque era. Or in the case of Bach, an honest to god masterpiece.)
But yeah, classical music is obviously good, attracting funding from corporate sources and wealthy patrons for instance... Contemporary concert music, not so much because it sounds very different and hasn't become part of the cultural furniture. Tends to more subsidised by the state...
The fact that you mention Sonata form suggests you are not massively familiar with trends in New Music - and you yourself are obviously an interested party, a musician? So there you go...
Yeah, I hear you.Good question. I'm not sure anymore. I'm certainly guilty of causing this segue. I was comparing the classical model of music making vs jazz. I find it interesting that three components of making music possible, composition, performance and ensemble dynamics are extremely specialized areas in classical music and done by different experts (composer, performer, conductor). Also specifics are planned, premeditated and highly rehearsed. Where in the jazz model all is done by the same people and at least specifics are realized in realtime. It's interesting because from the audience perspective you'd think the first model should be preferred as the (at least on the paper) superior one. But it isn't. (well kinda).
Anyway I'm happy to go back to the thread topic.
Division of labour, specialisation of tasks, strict hierarchy allow certain things to be achieved that could not happen with a looser organisation, Mahler symphonies, Wagner operas and so on....
(We could of course compare to the industrial revolution, which is when these changes happened in music... The orchestra to some extent models the social structures of the time.)
It's interesting hearing you say this stuff after a weekend of hearing classical music educators complain about how students are taught to always revere the composer, never write or improvise their own music, never develop strong aural skills and essentially train only to interpret the notes on the page...
And did you know job satisfaction for orchestral professionals is on a par with refuse collectors?
OTOH today's musicians are increasingly very versatile freelancers. They can play pretty much anything.
It's also worth pointing out that many of the composers the lay audience may have heard of - Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Schubert etc - were also performers, and many improvisers. Their artistic world did not much resemble that of the present day, which is largely inherited from the 19th century. The division of labour of this kind is more 19th century than it is 17th or 18th. Orchestras were also smaller, the conductor did not exist as a specialised role, and so on...
But I think bottom line if you are saying - jazz musicians are not trained to be good composers, why would we expect them to be so, I would agree. There are fantastic composers in jazz of course - ranging from Jelly Roll Morton to Maria Schneider... but to expect all jazz improvisors to be good composers of original material is silly... You have to respect the craft of composition and shed the fuck out of it to be good at it.
But I would also say, the notion that a performer can not also be a strong composer and they have to be two separate things is obviously untrue, and I feel I've shown that here.
-
Wynton Marsalis is a good example of a jazz musician who has made some well-regarded classical recordings.
-
He had a lot of training as a boy, including lessons with Eleanor Sokoloff at the Curtis Institute of Music (she has been on the faculty at Curtis since 1936 and still teaches at the age of 104). Originally Posted by Lobomov
-
He was trained, and played with the New Orleans Philharmonic as a boy. Originally Posted by grahambop
-
Chris Thile certainly seems to be able to play Bach to a very high level. On mandolin. It shouldn’t work....
But it does to the point that every classical music fan I’ve talked to about it is kind of like ‘ok, fair play.’
-
Gary Burton has some interesting thoughts on the original topic
-
I was going to post the same video but you beat me to it! Burton spends the first 10 minutes or so talking about this very issue, and explains that his audience wanted to hear the tunes that they grew up - mostly the same 150 Broadway show tunes, 2-5-1 progressions with similar syncopations - but he realized that the audience was getting older and he needed to find new musical styles that would appeal to a younger crowd. (He was still a teenager when he played with folks like George Shearing and Hank Garland!) This led him to creative rock musicians (like the Beatles) who weren't locked into 3 chord progressions and folks like Larry Coryell who incorporated both rock and jazz into their playing. And voila, "jazz/rock fusion" was born. Originally Posted by christianm77
The "new standards" are the rock and pop songs of the 60s to present.
This is well worth watching in its entirety.
-
Yeah, really good interview. Thanks Christian for the link.
I'm not too crazy about the jazz content of Rick Beato videos and the way he covers them. But I have to give it to him, he is as good an interviewer as it gets. His questions, the way he interacts with Gary Burton, his laid back vibe was just perfect. Not just the questions he asks but questions he does not ask shows good judgement. Classy.Last edited by Tal_175; 06-01-2019 at 10:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
Who killed jazz ?
Today, 03:31 PM in From The Bandstand