-
It might be an interesting journey of discovery in its own right that might have
Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
Many jazz musicians have checked out Schoenberg - Charlie Parker, Gil Evans, John Coltrane and many others. Rosenwinkel mentions him as an influence for Heartcore, which I can hear.
Music isn't (I don't think), put input A in and output B will result. If you find something in Schoenberg's music and ideas which interests you or appeals to you, that's great, if not, I'm sure you'll find something else instead.
-
01-30-2015 08:45 PM
-
Sure... but when we get into theory/history it may be important issue to approximately define what we are thinking about - of define impossibility to defineI think no one really knows. I think it's a rhythmic thing, a sensibility. Or whatever people decide is 'jazz'.
TBH I don't really care. I'm happy just to be a musician, albeit one who has studied and has a love for many artists in the 'jazz' sphere.
I understand this nad in general I am not against this approach... but I am looking at jazz more from a point of view of belonging this music to sertain culture, time, country... I am interested in learning its language... for me it is not language innovation issue... so I am kind of not interested in mixing these languages on the contrary I separate mu lute excercises from jazz and do not mix them... different worlds, different philosophies, different people... I dig also in cultutral context much - I like European art and history and spend much time over it, but I also like American culture ans history so music is also a part of it and vice versa... when you go to Pavia for example and get into some San Michele Maggiore with details with attention and then to Venice to San Giorgio Maggiore you feel huge difference even there - though remotely it might look close...es. I am talking about this with a modern mindset. This is not how Medieval composers thought about music.
and when after that you come outside and can hear some jazz playing in the street ... well that's a huge gap for me between these worlds
Did you check earliest Notre-Dame School - Leonine, Perotine? They operated rythmic modes most of all... Machaut in comparison to them sounds like thousands years awayI might add that an interesting thing about the treatises on music of the time is that (IRC) they discuss rhythm (specifically notation) and form, but nothing about harmony or polyphony...
-
Sure... but when we get into theory/history it may be important issue to approximately define what we are thinking about - or define impossibility to defineI think no one really knows. I think it's a rhythmic thing, a sensibility. Or whatever people decide is 'jazz'.
TBH I don't really care. I'm happy just to be a musician, albeit one who has studied and has a love for many artists in the 'jazz' sphere.
I understand this nad in general I am not against this approach... but I am looking at jazz more from a point of view of belonging this music to certain culture, time, country... I am interested in learning its language... for me it is not language innovation issue... so I am kind of not interested in mixing these languages on the contrary I separate mu lute excercises from jazz and do not mix them... different worlds, different philosophies, different people... I dig also in cultutral context much - I like European art and history and spend much time over it, but I also like American culture ans history so music is also a part of it and vice versa... when you go to Pavia for example and get into some San Michele Maggiore with details with attention and then to Venice to San Giorgio Maggiore you feel huge difference even there - though remotely it might look close...es. I am talking about this with a modern mindset. This is not how Medieval composers thought about music.
and when after that you come outside and can hear some jazz playing in the street ... well that's a huge gap for me between these worlds
Did you check earliest Notre-Dame School - Leonine, Perotine? They operated rythmic modes most of all... Machaut in comparison to them sounds like thousands years awayI might add that an interesting thing about the treatises on music of the time is that (IRC) they discuss rhythm (specifically notation) and form, but nothing about harmony or polyphony...
Last edited by Jonah; 01-31-2015 at 03:41 AM. Reason: Double posting
-
Much verbiage has been expended on this subject, here and elsewhere, some of it by me. TBH I am not going to think on my deathbed 'hmmm, I really wish I'd spent more time arguing about what jazz is.' I think it's more important to get on with it. Make music. Originally Posted by Jonah
But I prefer to see what everything has in common! I am a musician of 2015, not a jazz player in 1951 or anything else. Originally Posted by Jonah
I understand 100% what you are saying from a practice point of view - it is important to study a tradition with rigour, but nothing can really be separate.
What ever you practice helps make up the totality of your art, and whatever music you study and learn, which will come through when you play music in unexpected ways...
Yes I very much like this music. Sounds so modern in a strange way. Originally Posted by Jonah
-
This is not about preference for me... this is just they way I react...But I prefer to see what everything has in common!
In general for me it is fundumental idea of perception... when we try to see what is in common do we approach to the esesnce of the subjects?)))
I mean that essence is in differences. We actually distinguish things because they are different...
We appreciate our aquaintances because people are different, nit because they are all the same...
But the idea of inheritance is also very importan of course, I feel strongly, actually probably stronger than you might think...
These words and concepts are supportive.. imagine theater backgrounds with lots of various backgrounds one here one there one behind another... and imagine that they move all the time in various directions (painters of Rennaissance could make it visual with mixed perspectives (Botticelli, Cima, Piero)... so it is never quite the same for me... but the words of course make it a bit frozen... the art is important for me because it helps to correspond it as it is, without conventional limitations of verbal conversation.
Sounds good, Christian. But in this thread we do not make music, we speak about theories... I mean that discussion may be misleading if we think about different things...Much verbiage has been expended on this subject, here and elsewhere, some of it by me. TBH I am not going to think on my deathbed 'hmmm, I really wish I'd spent more time arguing about what jazz is.' I think it's more important to get on with it. Make music.
I do not say strict definition like in math, but at least an understanding of idea...
Of course it is not strict.. I unite it all with myself - and this is another basic principle of perception for me.I understand 100% what you are saying from a practice point of view - it is important to study a tradition with rigour, but nothing can really be separate.
Probably this is how we find common in things? It is me who makes things common?)))
Also escaping issue - when I get into other composer's music I should consider this side also - I get things in commone, but at the same time I want to keep understanding him as another person... I and Other .. how to keep percieving both simultaneously...
Sorry for getting into these more philosophical issues but conversation led to it
I did not wnat just to be understood straightforwardLast edited by Jonah; 02-01-2015 at 03:19 AM.
-
I just want to say how much I'm enjoying that this is a properly elevated level of discussion here, although I do have a perverse desire to step in with a fart joke, or make a reference to Nicky Minaj. I will resist. Originally Posted by Jonah
I feel there is an underlying commonality to all music, but this probably has less to do with the notes, rhythms and so on. But I do like to - as you say - make those connections myself.
I don't think it's a black and white thing, I think if everything is the same, of course it would be boring, but if everything was radically different it would be incomprehensible...
As a player I want to develop an approach to music that requires me to be flexible yet personal. Because of that, I tend to see commonalities in styles of music - things that I can use in different contexts. I'll give you an example.
At the moment, as you can guess, I'm really interested in 'classical' music again and particularly baroque harmony - figured bass, counterpoint etc. Baroque harmony is directly useful to the jazz improvisor because what we do as jazz musicians is based on similar chord progression, outlining chords and so on, and many jazz players have gone into Baroque repertoire - usually but not always JS Bach - in some depth. This music is part of Jazz's DNA. (Although the rhythm obviously trumps functional harmony as an organising factor in jazz as we can see from Mils, Ornette etc)
Obviously as soon as you look at Bach, you are aware of the tradition he was building on. To understand Bach better you have to get some idea of what Rennaisance composers were doing - species counterpoint etc. Needless to say if you are a jazz musician, some of your skills (such as being able to improvise accompaniments) are directly relevant to playing early music. For me, I start to wonder what stuff you can get out of Early music that might be useful for jazz. Adam Rogers for example, has made a thorough study of species counterpoint.
As a listener, I am probably more interested in differences. I'm not always in a mood to listen to jazz, for example. My tastes have also changed a bit - I like some hiphop stuff now - Pharaoh Monch for example (directly influence by jazz horn players, he says), I think has amazing phrasing - and a lot of 80's pop stuff, just for the peerless way it's played and put together, a little bit of the Arabic classical music tradition (which links to all kind of things BTW.)
The European classical stuff has been off my playlist for a while, but every so often a bit of Monteverdi comes up :-) I'm slowly coming back into the European music orbit I think....
It all goes in. Who know how it comes out. I think in the words of my friend (an excellent jazz and classical player) - 'don't give a **** about playing jazz on the bandstand' - I like that.
-
Maybe you 12 tone rowers will like this:
"John O’Gallagher has recently released the ambitious Anton Webern Project (a vibrant jazz take on the 12-tone methods of the serialist composers), as well as a thoroughly researched book on 12 tone improvisation (on advance music)."
-
Right I've ordered the book. I look forward to shoehorning some of this stuff into my next swing gig (it's 1920/30s music right? ;-))
That said, this piece shows some influence I think
-
Originally Posted by christianm77
If you're near London you should check out John O’Gallagher's ambitious 12 Tone Row Anton Webern Project at the Vortex:
Hans Koller/John O? Gallagher | Vortex Jazz Club
-
Christian,
as I mentioned any tool can implied in jazz practice, it is a part of jazz aesthetics I think... but you yourself in your posts extend this idea beyond just practical field
However rediculous it sounds I can even fancy Lester Young saying to Billie: hey, how about putting some Schoenberg structures in 'What a little moonlight ca do'?
Sounds funny but actually it describes how it should be with jazz...
To operate with all these tools succesfully jazz should somehow stay naive, innocent... then it is 'excused' (not by me of course, by music)....
I read that Bird loved his Big Band record (I love it too) because there were 'lots of violine/ and it was ' real music'... it is naive but it is touching...
People often do not see music behid sounds, this is the problem.. not everything that sounds the same means the same
As I said ii (iv)-v-i is classical cadance, but in jazz practice it is not even cadence any more...
Form - this is what is mportant, when one looks for similarity in music - he shoudl check the form, not just that something somewhere sounds similar, or character seems to be the same... what is giong on with the form in jazz and in baroque?
Form in jazz is absolutely unique for European music... because it is collective improvizational art. It is about communication here and now... that is why form in jazz is ellusive, there are few people who goes out one by one, each one creates his own climaxes and 'cadences' at the same time others support or interfere..
I am sure you heard or participated in night gigs where one tune can be played for 20-30 min and 5-6 sax players just come out from the bar one by one, and trumpeter plays directly from his table... what kind of form is this?
this is as far from baroque as ever anything in European music...
-
I would describe it as a form of Gladiatorial combat, or a rite of passage for the drummer and bassplayer (the tune is usually Rhythm Changes/Cherokee amirite?). I'm not sure it's music per se. Originally Posted by Jonah
-
TBH Jonah I'm not terribly interested in jazz aesthetics, beyond playing historical styles that are clearly defined. I have no real ambition to move jazz on. Jazz is a tradition I study and love.
If I am playing a genre of jazz, say bebop or swing, I have a clear idea of what expected (i.e. usually to swing and play the changes!) Contemporary jazz I have avoided mostly as a composer and improvisor because there are so many people doing it extremely well. (And getting paid little or nothing.)
If I am to be honest most of the deities of the contemporary scene don't connect with me the way that, say, Wes Montgomery does. I am interested enough in them to check them out, go to gigs and attend masterclasses simply because they are good musicians. But, I haven't got my contemporary jazz quartet playing my own tunes out there. Maybe this will change.
(I'd go further and say that much contemporary jazz is as rigid a genre as dixieland or bebop. The guitarists mostly play in a very similar style.)
My own project is not really jazz per se (although it probably has some unshakeable influence) in that sense, I am happy to draw whatever parallels I like, and include whatever music I wish to hopefully in a way that is natural and fun.
(At some point it becomes clear that I will never play bebop the way a jazz musician from NY in the 50's could. It will always be, in the words of Anthony Braxton 'bopbe or somthing.' At some point I understand I am a middle class white dude from the UK who's spent a lot of his adult life singing classical music and pastiching an archaic form of American music. Let's see what I can make out of that.)Last edited by christianm77; 02-02-2015 at 03:29 PM.
-
I'm not really contributing to the discussion here ... just a quick thank you for bringing this topic up. A few of his books have been on my Amazon shopping list for quite a while and I saw this thread and ordered used copies of Theory of Harmony and Structural Functions. Theory of Harmony came today and it took about three pages to find this ...
"To hell with all these theories, if they always serve only to block the evolution of art and if their positive achievement consists in nothing more than helping those who will compose badly anyway to learn it quickly."
... Man that's just good reading.
Reply With Quote
Thomastik Jazz BeBop 12 set - $10.
Today, 06:35 AM in For Sale