-
Originally Posted by James W
-
09-16-2023 02:33 PM
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
if you don’t agree, no problem, stop reading my posts or furthermore replying to my replies to other people that you obviously don’t understand. It’s silly.
Good luck with your music!
Chris
-
Ok, so you won't clarify but I'm wrong by default. And I'm the childish one. Lol!
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
I'm fine with the argument having ended.
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
you are mistaken, if you believe I was arguing with anyone. It would be pointless. But maybe what Ive posted will help a few.
-
Ok guy. I don't think I've encountered anyone trying to establish superiority for so long while offering no content what so ever. And false info usually doesn't help people.
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
I read your posts. Which ones are you referring to? If there's a disagreement, it's your duty to explain yourself adequately, not attempt to put the other person down because they didn't follow your passive aggressive stream of logic lol. Grow up.
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
I’m offering to answer your questions right now. Shoot. Let’s talk about it. Feel free to private message me if you’re more comfortable with that. I’m open for you.
Chris
-
I don't need to keep arguing if you don't. But I can paste your original post that started our disagreement.
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
It was this.
Originally Posted by Jimmy SmithOriginally Posted by Chris236
-
Originally Posted by James W
Ive always taken the free jazz thing to be playing with other aspects of music other than pitch as such. Line shape, dynamics, timbre, tempo, raw consonance and dissonance. All the other elements that can hold music together. For what it’s worth, I was never a fan until I could see it live.
EDIT: by which I mean that all the rules tend to be dependent on other rules and things. So it’s interesting to see how far you can get from the musical rules and have it still hang together.
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
-
Originally Posted by pamosmusic
-
Well that’s a good point too. Ornette also had his own organization of pitch too.
-
Maybe it’s not playing with aspects other than pitch … maybe we’re talking about aspects other than harmony. Maybe that’s a better descriptor
-
Originally Posted by James W
Serialism is a funny one because unlike tonality or systems music the system is not obvious to the ear. Well unless you happen to have a highly trained ear for the music, or the composer has made an effort to make the serial structure very simple and obvious to the listener (there are some examples of this aren’t there? I forget who by.)
In general I tend to perceive music as varied repetition. The amount of variation and repetition varies and is a matter of taste. Reich obviously uses less variation and more repetition than Brahms, say. Even within idioms - as a singer it always seemed Handel used more unvaried patterns and sequences than Bach who would make subtle variations in patterns as a matter of course quite often after a single repetition - which made Bach’s music much harder or learn. (It was also much harder to sing but that’s another story… )
OTOH I would say that even tonal era Shoenberg to be elusive because things like Verkarte Nacht have a continuous sense of developing exposition. It takes a lot of concentration to keep track, and I do find the Brahmsian motivic symphonists like, well, Brahms, Sibelius and Elgar often quite challenging for that reason; I find Stravinsky and Bartok’s music much easier and more familiar culturally (they’ve been ripped off for a thousand film scores). Even orchestral Boulez as I don’t feel he expects me to keep track of themes or motives and I can just enjoy colour and movement.
Early Schoenberg is a step up from the Brahmsians in complexity…
So some of the difficulty of hearing the organisation was there from day one. The ‘atonality’ is only part of it.
-
Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
Now, does this mean that you do not need to work on the major scale, melodic minor scale, harmonic minor scale, diminished scale, whole tone scale, tertian and intervalic structures of all sorts….Absolutely not. The more proficient you are on your instrument and the deeper those physical pathways are, the more likely you are to get to the “right” places by ear(without thought). But I personally believe the only valuable music is the stuff that’s born FROM listening without forcing any technical details. And many great players have arisen from not much more as a matter of fact. Hope this clears it up for you.
C
-
If there’s any weird words in there my apologies. Dictation from my phone.
-
Yes, I agree with everything. The only thing where my perspective differs is where you said:
Originally Posted by Chris236
Although, yes the musicality is the end goal. Some play very musically with few fundamentals. Many play very musically with lots of fundamentals. To me it only helps.
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Originally Posted by James W
I think it is possible you underestimate your own level of specialist aural acuity. My appreciation of non tonal music is pretty unsophisticated. I listen to it and either I like the sounds or I don’t. And that’s about it.
I don’t doubt that if I spent some time with serial technique my appreciation for this works would increase. Similarly now when I listen to a c18 work I’m hearing Schemata and so on. It’s very obvious.
OTOH as a more experienced and widely listened musician I find atonal classical works less extreme than I used to. But it doesn’t mean I understand them in the way I now do a Mozart symphony.
I see what you're saying, regarding the difference between composers like Stravinsky and Bartok, and Schoenberg and those symphonists. TBH I'm not a great fan of quite a few of Schoenberg's serial works, they seem a bit rhythmically and formally staid, like his technique - serialism - was new, but in certain respects he's keen to hearken back to older forms, instead of seeing the full implications of the technique. But I quite enjoy getting lost and swept up in the pre-serial works of Schoenberg. Take the Five Orchestral Pieces for example, I don't think they're that tricky or dense, and he does use some older techniques like canon, but IMO there is lots of colour and deep expression. And the first two string quartets are amazing, especially the second where in the final movement the words 'I feel the air from another planet' are sung, as the piece finally abandons tonality, which it had been threatening to do in the previous movements.
Iirc Schoenberg regarded his free atonal works as a dead end because he had to anchor the extended works to texts rather than the brahmsian motivic approach he was obsessed with. Even in a blinking string quartet. Interestingly it’s that reliance on texts and mood which makes them effective… and his short free tonal pieces are easier to get into too.
I find his tonal music harder to get tbh. Probably helps if you were from that culture…
Tim Bram Tribute thinline archtop jazz guitar
Today, 01:40 PM in For Sale