| LearnJazzPiano.com archives: The value of improvisation | |
| harveyebrink -- 06/11/2004, 14:36:36 -- #4871 | |
| A post I just read triggered something I've been turning over in my head for quite some time now. It's a fairly loaded issue but I thought I'd post it anyway: Does improvisation have any artistic value per se? If you heard a piece of music without knowing whether it was improvised or not, would your understanding of the piece change when you found out? I argue that it should not matter whether the music is improvised or not in just the same way as my view of a recording would not change if I knew that post-production effects had been used. Of course, one's admiration for the performer increases with the knowledge that he is improvising or playing "live" but for me it changes nothing about the music itself. I can't deny, however, that there is a certain thrill about going to a live gig, but I feel that that excitement is brought about by the non-musical influence of music being created before one's eyes. I'd be interested to hear what other people think... | |
| Mike -- 06/11/2004, 19:43:24 -- #4874 | |
| Yes my whole understanding would change. Because my ear can hear the difference between improvised music and non improvised music. If I were fooled it would have to be intentional. If a skilled musician intentionally set out to decieve me it proballly could be done, but that would make the music a false type of music still changing my whole understanding of it. | |
| Rick -- 06/12/2004, 04:52:15 -- #4876 | |
| Listen to Jarrett's solo concerts ;-) LOL Some people can use the excuse that if a piece of music aint that good- "well, it WAS improvised!" Personally, I think improvisation is parallel to composition in being the highest form of art. Darn, that made no sense. | |
| albetan -- 06/12/2004, 07:48:37 -- #4877 | |
| "Does improvisation have any artistic value per se?" Improvisation is same as to compose in real time. Improvisation is the essence of jazz. A jazz player performs once a standard and then improvises freely over it. He/she is creating an artistic expression in real time. ¿Does it have any artistic value per se? I use improvisation not only for jazz. Some years ago i worked as staff musician in TV live programs with my keyboards, and everything was improvised, backgrounds, courtins, fanfarries, effects, jingles, shows, competitions, acompaniment of singers. One of those programs was transmited weekly from a circus, and all background music was improvised over elephants walking, terrific tigers... and so... I play organ for religious ceremonies, and i use a lot of improvisations over a song or freely over chord progressions. I play in social events dancing music, latin and tropical songs and i like to improvise over them. Improvisation has been a great fountain of resources in my musical job. Beginners may find good tips for learning to improvise at Albetan's Area in "file" "Beginning to improvise" or in Jazz en español "Aprendiendo a improvisar". Good luck and enjoy this artistic expression of improvisation. | |
| sid -- 06/13/2004, 06:33:42 -- #4886 | |
| I wish I could agree that jazz improvisation is composition in real time. Quite a lot of the time it seems to be much more like what language experts call "phatic communion". That is, it follows the same sort of convention that conversation does when people meet and say "Hi, how are you, it's a nice day". In other words, it has a social function and establishes relationships, but the information content is minor and secondary. Licks, quotes, vamps, riffs, the basic resources of the improvising jazz musician, are not really compositional elements at all. Instead they say "I'm a jazz musician, taking part in the social activity of making jazz with my peers and expressing the relationships that allow individuals like me, from a common social group, to combine and make a spontaneous musical performance". As often as not, improvisors that have a compositional approach aren't particularly highly regarded as soloists. Brubeck, for example, or Benny Golson. Conversely, many great improvisors are negligible composers. So that's my long-winded answer to Harvey's very intersting question: the value of improvisation is (remember this phrase, it's a great conversation-stopper) PHATIC COMMUNION. sid | |
| harveyebrink -- 06/13/2004, 14:45:56 -- #4895 | |
| Mike - surely you ear can only hear the difference between composed and improvised music by its stylistic attributes. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Rachmaninoff etc. all improvised and some of their improvised material has been permanised whether in notation or recorded. Would you be able to say with any confidence that a piece of music improvised by Bach (albeit performed faithfully by a musician of today) was improvised, given that reports suggest his improvisational style was very similar to his compositional? Why should your reaction to the piece differ on finding out it was improvised? This leads me to conclude that (as the -ation suffix would suggest) improvisation is a 'how' not a 'what' and the listner by definition is interested in the 'what'. Would your engagement with a Beethoven sonata change if you found out he had spilt coffee on half of his first draft and had to rewrite it? Surely not - the means by which a piece is created is irrelevant to how the listener experiences it (although his respect for the artist might be affected by it - a non-musical issue). In jazz, however, it is true to say that the fact of many musicians improvising together often restricts them to the use of a defined stylistic vocabulary and harmonic framework. If all they are expressing is: "I'm a jazz musician, taking part in the social activity of making jazz with my peers and expressing the relationships that allow individuals like me, from a common social group, to combine and make a spontaneous musical performance" then then listener is prone to understand this and perhaps, like partisans of 'reality tv', enjoy it. But I feel that certain artists are saying more than that. Their use of stylistic devices is only the means by which they communicate - like the cadential trill or other gestural devices from classical music. It is the structuring of these stylistic devices in time and between musicians which must contribute strongly to our understanding of a specific piece of music. | |
| Mike -- 06/13/2004, 20:42:43 -- #4898 | |
| I do believe I could hear the difference if Bach was improvising unless he were intentionally trying to decieve me yes, if Bach were alive today or I could travel back in time. So my answer is yes I have a different reaction to an atempt at deceipt than to an honest attempt to communicate. I am not convince you understand what I am saying by your question. I have nothing against a piece that is not improvised. But I would not want someone trying to make me think they are improvising when they are in fact not. | |
| Prado -- 06/14/2004, 00:45:32 -- #4903 | |
| I'm not sure to understand but it seems to me that you're talking about a "Koln concert"-like improvisation, say, one starting from nothing (nothing for me, not of Jarrett of course). In this case, I agree, I not able to tell what was composed before the performance from what has been improvised during the performance (and I don't care either). It's a bit like if someone says: "Listen to me, I'm going to speak about anything". But when I think of improvisation, I think of a standard tune that I've heard tousands of times and, yet, I'm waiting for the improvisation to see what the performer has to say about this tune. And what Bill Evans has to say is different from what K. Jarrett or Art Tatum has/had to say. Is what all those performers have to say about a tune, or a blues, or a I got rythm grid a "What" or a How" ? for me, it's a what. | |
| harveyebrink -- 06/14/2004, 02:10:22 -- #4904 | |
| Mike - what I think you're saying is that you would be able to tell the difference between an improvised and composed piece and that you're understanding would differ accordingly. I'm interested to know how your understanding would differ. I don't know if you're able to describe it (it's a necessity that we can't fully describe our understanding of a piece of music, otherwise the piece's reason to exist would be called into question), but any enlightenment would be fascinating. Basically, I'm wondering why it would matter musically speaking if a piece were improvised or not. What if you heard a composition, were fooled into thinking it was improvised, formed an understanding of the piece but never found out that it wasn't improvised? Would your understanding of it be false? If so, why? And even if it was 'false', would that matter if you didn't know? I'm genuinely interested! Prado - I, like you, am interested in what a given artist has to say when listening to an improvised solo on a familiar tune. You form an understanding of what is said by the interaction of the data you hear and your means of assessing it (from you're awareness of the conventions of style through to non-musical experiences you might have had). This data is what I think of as the 'what'. I think it's only important to be aware of the 'how' data (e.g. the artist(s) who created the music) insofaras you can you can align the music with your responses, so that you can say 'I am aware that a certain element of Bill Evans's music reacts in a certain way with my means of understanding music' and be able to influence your responses accordingly. | |
| Prado -- 06/14/2004, 04:43:41 -- #4905 | |
| Your last post was really hard to understand for me (poorness of my english or of my mind, I don't know). So I'll give it another try. I won't refer to the What and the How because the distinction is not so obvious for me (when the How conveys meaning, it becomes a What, so...). Basically, the fact that the music was improvised is part of its context. So is the fact that the performer was blind, or a young prodigy, or that the music was written in a train, or played by a computer. All these facts contributes to the way the music has been created. Knowing the context of a piece of music allows you to make a justified opinion of it. It allows you to understand rather than just seeing or hearing. It allows you to be subjective, which is required when listening music. | |
| Mike -- 06/14/2004, 05:52:38 -- #4911 | |
| It is as obvious as when you are talking to someone or listening to a speech. If someone is talking to you and they have planed out what they are going to say you can just tell. Its in the rhythm of their speech, Its in their phrasing... It is in everything about how they are talking It is a difference we start learning to hear from a very early age as very young children when we first begin learning language. Similarly the difference between and improvisation and playing a written score we can hear the difference in the same way and for the same reason. | |
| Mike -- 06/14/2004, 05:56:34 -- #4912 | |
| But if someone is a very good speaker. Say an excellent Actor. They may be able to give a planed speech and make it seem natural, make it seem like they are making it up as they go along. Ronald Reagan for example had this ability. Some musicians practice this skill and develope it to cover the fact that they can not improvise. Kenny G for example does this frequently and succeeds at least to a commercial extent. | |
| Rick -- 06/14/2004, 10:30:42 -- #4915 | |
| this may not be relevant, but for me- if I heard a wonderful solo piano concert and then was informed that the music was fully composed that would be great, but if then told no, it was completely improvised, it completely raises the quality of the art (well...if it was decent) | |
| marksdg -- 06/14/2004, 14:39:09 -- #4920 | |
| I personally do not value improvisation simply for the sake of improvisation (I don't care if the music I am listening to is improvised). I understand how some people would, however. If I heard a piano solo and found out they had added a second piano track to make it sound extra full, that would bother me. It all comes down to deception: people don't want to be decieved. If you go to a Pavarotti concert and find out he was lip-synching to a recording of himself, that would certainly bother most people, even if the recording sounded better. I personally never assume that solos on jazz recordings are fully improvised, so it doesn't concern me if someone has planned something out and made it sound improvised. I will sometimes plan out a general structure to parts of a solo, with improvising some extra licks and leading notes. I don't personally consider complete improvisation (of solos) an essential aspect of jazz. | |
| Rick -- 06/15/2004, 11:01:16 -- #4934 | |
| it's the essence of jazz (open to debate) | |
| Rick -- 06/15/2004, 11:01:46 -- #4935 | |
| ooh whoops, sorry do you mean COMPLETE, as in not playing a pre-defined structure? (ie a standard?) | |
| marksdg -- 06/15/2004, 12:27:43 -- #4936 | |
| I mean that if you plan out some parts of a solo, you are still playing jazz. I disagree that improvisation is the essence of jazz. There are many styles of music throughout the world that involve impovisation. I think the essence of jazz is in the chords and the rhythms. For example, big band music relies heavily on composition. Even if there are improvised solos, they are not generally the "meat" of the music. It is the rhythm and chords that define it as jazz. Maybe, ultimately, jazz is too vague to define precisely. | |
| Mike -- 06/15/2004, 19:33:10 -- #4943 | |
| Improvisation is one of the main ingredients. Billy Taylor jokes about classical musicians who get confused thinking they are playing jazz. "I ask them if they improvise.... "Oh yes they say... I have two improvisations at home on my piano I am working on right now"". And he laughs. | |
| Mike -- 06/15/2004, 19:41:57 -- #4944 | |
| Big Band music is the least improvisational form of Jazz. By necessity the bigger the ensemble the less improvisation that is possable. It takes real work to make an emsemble of any kind tryly improvisational. That is why the Bill Evans Trio was so revoloutionary and it is why The Keith Jarret Trio is the best ensemble today. Because there is spontaneous intrerplay and improvisation happening at every point in every arrangement of every tune. As you move up into quartets, quintets, etc ,,, it gets harder and harder. Max Roach for a long time prefered working with out piano players because he found them too form concious at the expence of spontanaeity and improvisation, so he often worked with just bass and horns, so that his larger ensembles would be more improvisational. Improvisation is always at the forefront of thought in all the Masters of Jazz. The how, where and when of it in a piece is always of paramount importance. | |
| 7 -- 06/15/2004, 20:48:50 -- #4945 | |
| ` Improvisation is at the heart of every composition. "Hey that sounds cool, let's make something out of it." Music's final value is whether or not you feel it's good music or dreck. Composition is the logical extension of imrpovisation. Many gray areas between these (supposedly) opposite ends of the pole. Like language, each improvisational musical style has it's own vocabulary, syntax and grammar. If you transcribe even the greatest musicians, you will still see that each has a particular bag of tricks. Some tricks they use more than others. But tricks nonetheless (call them "vocabulary items" if you will). This (IMHO) reinforces the concept that you learn what you practice. So if you really study Jazz, one day you WILL be able to speak Jazz fluently (and with feeling). When you start to catch on that most guys are mixing and matching riffs to get through changes, you say is that "improvisation"? I believe that it is. But I believe that the arrangement takes precedence over the individual collaborators in the ensemble. If I'm playing a piece the way it's "supposed" to be played - meaning that I'm using the conventions that everyone (including other musicians on stage) expects, but still putting *my* spin on those clichés, bringing them to life, I still feel like I'm improvising (but maybe I'm not). An even higher order of improvisation is where you have sufficient mastery to allow yourself to be led. That is certainly more magical, and occurs to most musicians every once in a while. But to achieve the state of pure exhilarated improvisation alpha state zone consciousness is rarer than we would prefer. 7 Sorry for the long post. | |
| sid -- 06/16/2004, 01:36:22 -- #4947 | |
| Towards the end of their careers, arguably the two greatest jazz soloists - Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker - were re-running their old improvisations more or less note-for-note. It would be difficult to argue that they had somehow stopped being jazz musicians. The standard model for contemprary jazz is dominated by the cult of the soloist. "Modernists" and "Traditionalists" parted company over the status of collective, New Orleans-style improvisation. For modernists, the rest of the band is there to provide a setting for the Great Man (always a man) to express himself out in front. An interesting thing about groups like K Jarrett, EST etc is that they have rediscovered improvisation as a group activity. Maybe it's just my advanced age, but I don't think much in jazz surpasses the thrill of a good, passionate New Orleans band blowing out the last chorus en masse. For me, some of the most interesting contemporary musicians have revived this art and are maybe recapturing a part of the jazz spirit that got lost in the soloist-as-god era. I'm rambling here, but then, I'm gonna ramble til the butcher cuts me down, so there. sid | |
| harveyebrink -- 06/16/2004, 05:15:56 -- #4949 | |
| I suppose it all comes down to how you define 'jazz'. If any of you have seen 'The Universal Mind Of Bill Evans' or read the Pettinger biography, you will be aware that Evans defined jazz not necessarily as a style but as a process. He defines it as 'making one minute's music in one minute's time' and argues that classical composers who improvised were in fact playing jazz. The problem with Evans' argument is that he cannot mean that the whole process of creating a piece of jazz happens in that one minute. His improvisational technique and stylistic vocabulary was cultivated over a long time and the notes he plays are a result of his entire musical and non-musical experience, not to mention the fact that those elements of the original composed tune that he is using as his framework were composed at a different time by a different man. All he can mean is that the elements that make a piece of music a piece of music are solidified in that one minute of time. Which is true of a note-for-note recording of a composition, the only difference is that in this case the rhythm and pitch are already defined. This would also negate his "conversations with myself" recordings as jazz! | |
| Mike -- 06/16/2004, 06:49:12 -- #4951 | |
| "Conversations with Myself" would in fact be the last thing I would pull out as an example of jazz to play for someone. These recordings were an experiment by Evans primarily motivated by the fact that Evans was never comfortable with himself as a Solo pianist yet was always dealing with intense pressure by recordings executives to produce solo piano recordings. | |
| Mike -- 06/16/2004, 06:50:12 -- #4952 | |
| well the last is an exageration.......... i would pull it out before I would play Gloria Gaynor recordings for sure. | |
| harveyebrink -- 06/17/2004, 06:29:27 -- #4963 | |
| It's clear from this post alone that the term 'jazz' means different things to different people. They range from jazz as a creative process alone to jazz as a style. For some people I expect it's both. Although it's not (in my experience) a common definition of it, the most logical way round the problem would be to call the process 'improvisation' and the style 'jazz'. This post begun, however, with a discussion of whether the process by which a piece is created has and should have a bearing on how the listener interprets it (it - the piece of music - and not the musicans who created it). | |
| harveyebrink -- 06/17/2004, 06:30:26 -- #4964 | |
| for "begun" read "began" | |
| marksdg -- 06/17/2004, 10:32:21 -- #4968 | |
| Yes, how it is created has a bearing on how people interpret music. I think that it also should influence how people interpret music. Knowledge of how music is produced makes music a richer experience for everyone. While in some instances that knowledge may diminish our enjoyment (for example finding out that a musician was a real jerk, or worse), overall I think our knowledge of all aspects of how music is created increases its value in our lives. Whether music is improvised is certainly part of this. | |
| Barry -- 06/18/2004, 02:05:08 -- #4978 | |
| I think it does affect how a piece is appreciated. It's like watching a magic trick - if you know how it's done you view it differently. You appreciate the skill and execution rather than being astonished. As musicians, I think most of us listen in two ways; we are engaged on an emotional level but we are also conscious of the technical process the musician is going through to achieve that sound - i.e. his/her technique, tone etc. Because of this, I think that knowledge that a piece is improvised affects our perception of that process and therefore alters our appreciation of the piece. I hope that makes some sense! Barry | |
| Mike -- 06/18/2004, 08:16:29 -- #4980 | |
| I kinda like that analogy. To me I can hear right away if someone is improvising so to me right away my mind says "ah Magic is happening". But if it is not improvisation my mind at best registers "ah that is nice music" or "I like that" but it is not magic and can never be magic in the way that improvisation is. And the fact that we never know how someone performs their magic is what makes it so different. But when it is not improvisation we can always say ... "well i could study that music and read that off the chart too... big deal".... no magic there. | |
| harveyebrink -- 06/20/2004, 04:56:04 -- #4996 | |
| "It's like watching a magic trick - if you know how it's done you view it differently" (1) In a physical sense, we do know how an improvisation is made, in the sense that we know an improvising pianist is playing the keys of a piano in a particular way. (2) Admittedly, we don't know the thought processes running through an improviser's mind which dictate what he is about to play. But this is equally true of composition - all we can know about the thought processes running through the composer's mind is what comes out in the music - the "magic", as you define it, is still happening. The same is true in the case of a non-improvising classical musician - the steps he takes to get from the notated score to the final performance are what the performer brings to the music. We don't know by what thought-processes he gets there and so, once again, the "magic" is still happening. The only case where there is no "magic" is where no creation is taking place e.g. in the case of someone trying to make an 100% accurate replica of a performance. Looking at the problem in this way, we are very much taking it from the artist's point of view. Is it important to know what the artist's intentions are in order to assess a piece? Surely it's our engagement with the data of the recording which is important? | |
| harveyebrink -- 06/20/2004, 05:00:55 -- #4997 | |
| "It's like watching a magic trick - if you know how it's done you view it differently" (1) In a physical sense, we do know how an improvisation is made, in the sense that we know an improvising pianist is playing the keys of a piano in a particular way. (2) Admittedly, we don't know the thought processes running through an improviser's mind which dictate what he is about to play. But this is equally true of composition - all we can know about the thought processes running through the composer's mind is what comes out in the music - the "magic", as you define it, is still happening. The same is true in the case of a non-improvising classical musician - the steps he takes to get from the notated score to the final performance are what the performer brings to the music. We don't know by what thought-processes he gets there and so, once again, the "magic" is still happening. The only case where there is no "magic" is where no creation is taking place e.g. in the case of someone trying to make an 100% accurate replica of a performance. Looking at the problem in this way, we are very much taking it from the artist's point of view. Is it important to know what the artist's intentions are in order to assess a piece? Surely it's our engagement with the data of the recording which is important? | |
| harveyebrink -- 06/20/2004, 05:09:55 -- #4998 | |
| Oops - don't know why this was posted twice! Apologies. | |
| 7 -- 06/20/2004, 08:39:50 -- #4999 | |
| If you hit "refresh" or "reload" immedaitely after posting it will "double" it. | |
| Mike -- 06/20/2004, 15:03:33 -- #5004 | |
| For me it gets down to the essence of why many choose to be Jazz pianists instead of Classical pianists in the first place. There are of course many different reasons, but right up there amongst the top reasons is improvisation. For practical purposes in todays music improvisation exists in Jazz and does not exist in classical music. If you are attracted to improvisation you get into Jazz. Sure once upon a time the masters ... Bach, Mozart, etc were great improvisors, but Today that is not true. At least your everyday local classical musician can not improvise if their life depends on it. Try to find out who the best classical musician is in your local and then find out if they can improvise....they may say they can... but if you test them to any degree you will find it is not true. Furthur more a great improvisor is a fine artist being a creator of art in real time. A classical musician is a fine Craftsman bringing out the art of a fine composer and artist from a time gone by. The difference between Artist and Craftsmen is critical. I recently played with a fine classical violinist. He had been first chair with the Presidents Symphony in Mexico, and been in Symphonies in NYC and many other Symphonies. I listened to him perform in a Church at a Wedding. Seguing from Bach piece to Bach peice, his performance was nothing short of spectacular. I was moved by this performance as much as I am moved by fine improvisations. Fine Craftsmenship can be very inspiring, craftsmenship tho it was. I was playing piano at this Wedding... Eventually this Violinist came to some of my gigs and asked to sit in. I was thrilled. I asked if he could take some solo's on some straight ahead blues... improvise... he said he knew how to improvise. He did not. AT the end of the gig I gave him some lead sheets to standards , told him to learn the heads, but told him he had to learn the changes to be able to improvise. The next gig he came to....... He was thrilled to be there, To hear his tone on the heads to some of those standards was a thing of such beauty. but improvisation.......not a clue.... a horrible thing to listen to. As Jazz musicians we do something more than learn a craft we learn an artform. It is an artform that includes improvisation... that is what makes it an artform, that is what makes us artists rather than craftsman. It is a classification some of us have worked very hard for indeed. | |
| comrade c -- 06/21/2004, 04:24:47 -- #5010 | |
| incredible post mike, thanks. i've been discussing with a fellow musician lately regarding classical vs jazz music as a whole. basically the exact same points i was getting at but much clearer:) | |
| Mike -- 06/21/2004, 06:40:47 -- #5011 | |
| Thanks a mica for the compliment comrade. I was expecting to come back to see objections rather than a compliment. Tackling the subject of Classical versus Jazz can be a touchy subject. | |
| harveyebrink -- 06/21/2004, 07:31:02 -- #5012 | |
| I agree with a lot of what you've said (especially the part about classical instrumentalists being particularly inept improvisors). I think you slightly oversimplify the matter as regards to the artist/craftsman divide. I don't think you can pigeon-hole classical musicians into the "craftsman" category and improvisors and composers into the "artist" category. Craftsmanship is just the ability to fulfil the criterea which define your area of expertise. In the case of classical musician it's "comply with the information on a given score" for a jazz musician it's (generally) "comply with a given structure and defined harmonic progression" and for the composer (/free improviser) it's "create a piece". Whatever the performer does other than this is surely the artistry. A classical performer is bound by the rhythm and pitches of the score but can use the other elements of music (tempo, dynamics etc.) to create his art. The jazz musician is bound by a fundamental chord sequence and (generally) a given notated melody at either end of the piece but he uses the other elements of music to create his art (melody, harmonic (always with reference to the fundamental sequence) and rhythmic + dynamics etc). The composer (in the strictly classical sense) is only bound by the fact that he is going to write a piece of finite length for a finite selection instruments and therefore he has most of the elements of music at his disposal (form, harmony etc.). Of course there are exceptions to this e.g. a classical musician making the artisitic decision to ornament or to decide to play Bach on a piano rather than a harpsichord, but essentially what I'm saying is that there is scope in the roles of all three musicians for artistry. I would agree, however, that it is more exiting and challenging to have more of the elemtents of music at your disposal and that's how I started learning jazz in the first play (and I compose btw). As more of a jazz musician (inasmuch as you can call me a musician!), I am not remotely fazed by your relegation of the classical musician to "craftsman" - I just happen to disagree! Oh, and by the way, there are still pinnacles of improvisation left in classical music! viz. church organists (in Europe at least - particularly in France) and baroque specialists. | |
| Mike -- 06/21/2004, 19:31:19 -- #5030 | |
| I agree I made a slight oversimplification. It was intended to be so towards the goal of making a point clearly. Neither did I say there are no improvising Classical musicians anywhere. I played the odds and sayed examine the best classical musician in your neighborhood. If your neighboorhood is anything like mine. If your neighboorhood is anything like mine you may 1.) have some fine Classical musicians 2.) be very far from any churches in France 3.) Find they can not improvise worth a damn. | |
| harveyebrink -- 06/22/2004, 03:24:17 -- #5034 | |
| OK - we agree that in general there are few classical musicians who are anything but inept at improvisation. You didn't address my point, though, that all musicians (unless trying to replicate something exactly - which isn't what classical musicians are trying to do) are creators and artists in that they are trying to bring something personal to them into the music (re my last post). | |
| Rick -- 06/22/2004, 07:27:23 -- #5037 | |
| Just how many recordings of the Bach Preludes and Fugues do we need now though? | |
| Mike -- 06/22/2004, 19:59:48 -- #5047 | |
| trying is the key word in what you say. they are trying to bring something personal and creative into it, but alas interpretation is not the equivalent of creation and therefore not an artform... no that is not an art it is a craft and a skill. | |
| Rick -- 06/23/2004, 01:58:27 -- #5051 | |
| a hell of a lot of classical musicians I have met who are AMAZING technitions at the piano and are both national and international class concert pianists can spend hours chugging away at a piece of Bartok and playing it perfectly, thankgod for them- we need them after all, but the vast majority of them could not sit down and think about creating something new with the music. I have increasingly turned a tiny bit negative towards those classical musicians who live in the past. I agree with what Mike says I guess. Sorry if have offended anyone! Just my point of view. We'll always need people to play classical music, but...something tells me the music needs to move forward more. | |
| harveyebrink -- 06/23/2004, 04:58:44 -- #5053 | |
| Both Rick and Mike are arguing the complete opposite of what I am! You seem to be arguing that classical musicians try to be artistic but are bound to fail because "interpretation" is not artistic. I'm arguing that "interpretation" should (and can in theory) be artistic but too many professional musicians are content to churn out "interpretations" which express nothing about themselves. Both the classical and jazz musician have essentially the same function. Both are concerned with expressing themselves within a given framework. For the classical musician this framework is the notated score and for the jazz musician it is a given harmonic repeating sequence. Therefore, if the jazz musician is an artist, so is the classical. Yes, the jazz musician has more scope for self-expression because he has more elements of music at his disposal (melody, rhythm) but the classical musician has some scope because a recording is a more specific musical medium than a score. I'm not sure whether you understand this argument, as you don't seem to have addressed it... The weight of evidence seems to suggest that interpretation can be artistic. Please give some form of evidence to back up interpretation being anything but. | |
| Rick -- 06/23/2004, 08:33:10 -- #5057 | |
| Interpretation CAN be artistic of course, but how big an interpretation can you have? I think if you listened to 10 classical pianists playing something as open to interpretation as Debussy or Ravel, they would still be very very similiar. I think the amount of classical musicians who bring something new to the music is limited. Im not trying to argue over the value of interpretation, im mearly having an ill-thought out knock at classical musicians :-P I dunno, for me, the best musicians are composers, conductors and improvisers. Classical musicians are great but I find them (well, a lot that i have met) a bit machine like. | |
| Prado -- 06/23/2004, 09:00:56 -- #5060 | |
| Of course, classical musicians are artists! So are actors, comedians, tragedians, aren't they ? Jazz musicians improvise, classical musicians don't. So what? Some actors improvise, others don't, and they're all artists. So, wondering if classical musicians are able to improvise is like wondering if jazz musicians are able to play basket ball: it doesn't make any sense. But in a jazz context, improvisation is an important element. It recalls us that jazz/blues culture was (still is ?) an oral tradition while occidental classical music is based on a written tradition. So, improvisation is a kind of jazz interpretation: it is the way jazz/blues musicians interpret music. | |
| Rick -- 06/23/2004, 09:11:23 -- #5064 | |
| Lol, i never said classical musicians werent artists (at least i hope i didnt...) I just find a lot of them machine like | |
| 7 -- 06/23/2004, 09:12:29 -- #5065 | |
| Actors interpret lines. Writers create those lines, but do not perform them. Dancers interpret choreography. Choreographers create those movements, but do not perform them. Traditional painters interpret reality (lanscapes, portraits, etc.). So only the creator is an artist? But aren't all creations based on some form of imitation? (Ex: variations on a theme) | |
| Sam -- 06/23/2004, 09:30:30 -- #5066 | |
| I agree with Harvey 100% on this one. Think of it this way: Is Monet's "Waterlillies" not art, just because it is essentially an 'interpretation' of a scene of nature? Is the fact that Monet didn't completely 'create' that image from nothing relegate the piece to mere craftsmanship? Or for that matter, is any visual art in which the artist refers to and works from a preexisting scene or image -- ie, interpretation -- merely craft? The response to this will probably go something like: well, of course Monet is an artist as opposed to just a craftsmen because he didn't merely recreate the scenery he saw, but rather he imbued it with something entirely unique, personal, and interesting. Well, I'd say tht exact same thing about, say, Glenn Gould's renditions of Bach's "Goldberg Variations", or Rubinstein's renditions of Chopin's Nocturnes. Sure, these are exceptional performers, and certainly not all classical musicians bring this kind of 'artistry' to their work. But this does suggest at least that musical interpretation is not inherently non-artistic. And certainly, I would agree that dry mechanical soul-less classical players rigidly adhering to the score are not making art, but that's their problem, not the intrinsic problem of their medium. I mean, don't kid yourselves -- there are plenty of dry mechanical soul-less jazz players as well, who rigidly adhere to the conventional harmonic changes and the garden variety 'aebersold' scale/mode choices. Is that a whole lot more artistic? My overall point is that the potential for artistry is great in any genre (jazz, classical, or any other), and it's only up to the individual to either realize this potential, or to fall short... | |
| Barry -- 06/23/2004, 10:23:44 -- #5068 | |
| Spot on Sam. A good point well made. | |
| Barry -- 06/23/2004, 10:39:05 -- #5070 | |
| Incidentally, I think the most damaging, stilting aspect of jazz today is the souless, formulaic trek through the standards in a totally predictable and mainstream way (hence the never ending army of interchangeable female singers and plethora of 'tribute' . This idea (courtesy of people like Stanley Crouch and Wynton Marsalis) that the 'tradition' is something sacred and must be preserved in formaldehyde in every mainstream jazz-by-numbers solo has helped the music to stagnate and become even more marginalised than it needs to be. Do we really need any more versions of Bach Preludes and Fugues? Probably not - but do we really need any more versions of 'Autumn Leaves' or 'Girl From Ipanema'? I doubt it. Music that lives in the past curls up and dies - however glorious that past might be. I don't think Miles Davis, the greatest innovator in jazz, gave a shit about tradition. Sure he admired people like Louis Armstrong and Roy Eldridge and respected them for as musicians, but I don't recall him ever mentioning his responsibility to uphold the stylistic conventions of their music. No offence to Mike and Rick, but next time you see some utterly bored looking cheese merchants cranking through medium swingers and bossas while being totally ignored in a corner of a hip wine bar, ask yourselves if they are creating art simply because they're 'improvising'. Great artists are great despite of, and not because of the genre in which they play. Glenn Gould is every bit the artist that Bud Powell was and yet they chose totally different mediums - and I love listening to them both. Great art is great art. All the rest is fluff. Barry | |
| Barry -- 06/23/2004, 10:44:05 -- #5071 | |
| Incidentally, I think the most damaging, stilting aspect of jazz today is the souless, formulaic trek through the standards in a totally predictable and mainstream way (hence the never ending army of interchangeable female singers and plethora of 'tribute' . This idea (courtesy of people like Stanley Crouch and Wynton Marsalis) that the 'tradition' is something sacred and must be preserved in formaldehyde in every mainstream jazz-by-numbers solo has helped the music to stagnate and become even more marginalised than it needs to be. Do we really need any more versions of Bach Preludes and Fugues? Probably not - but do we really need any more versions of 'Autumn Leaves' or 'Girl From Ipanema'? I doubt it. Music that lives in the past curls up and dies - however glorious that past might be. I don't think Miles Davis, the greatest innovator in jazz, gave a shit about tradition. Sure he admired people like Louis Armstrong and Roy Eldridge and respected them for as musicians, but I don't recall him ever mentioning his responsibility to uphold the stylistic conventions of their music. No offence to Mike and Rick, but next time you see some utterly bored looking cheese merchants cranking through medium swingers and bossas while being totally ignored in a corner of a hip wine bar, ask yourselves if they are creating art simply because they're 'improvising'. Great artists are great despite of, and not because of the genre in which they play. Glenn Gould is every bit the artist that Bud Powell was and yet they chose totally different mediums - and I love listening to them both. Great art is great art. All the rest is fluff. Barry | |
| Barry -- 06/23/2004, 10:44:21 -- #5072 | |
| Spot on Sam. A good point well made. | |
| harveyebrink -- 06/23/2004, 12:23:41 -- #5073 | |
| Phew! Finally people fighting my corner!! As to whether we need numerous versions of the same piece. I beleive they're necessary not because we need adhere to tradition in any way but because many artists need some sort of framework in which they can be most creative. | |
| Rick -- 06/23/2004, 14:05:57 -- #5076 | |
| dont worry, I totally agree with the majority of what sam and Barry have said- what i was getting at (which im sure noone cares about anymore) was those classical musicians Sam refered to, the "dry mechanical" ones. | |
| Mike -- 06/23/2004, 14:30:46 -- #5079 | |
| I love listening to Glen Gould as well. I never said I did not like listening to a fine craftsmen or a skilled musician. Glen Gould however was not even a small fraction the artist that Bud Powell was. It is not even close enough for reasonalbe debate. | |
| marksdg -- 06/23/2004, 15:51:43 -- #5080 | |
| I think that a good musical artist is one that produces good music: period. I certainly don't think one can argue that improvisation is universally better music than written music. Improvisation is just as limited as written music. Improvisation cannot attain the uniformity and careful pacing of written music. Improvisation, for all practical purposes, cannot create really interesting counterpoint. Improvisation cannot give you the sound of a choir singing beautiful harmonies. Improvisation and written music simply produce different sounds, and neither one is more artistic. | |
| Sam -- 06/23/2004, 15:53:05 -- #5081 | |
| Mike -- why isn't Glen Gould an artist? Is it because -- as you say -- interpretation cannot be art? In that case, please respond to my previous post, ie, is Monet's "Waterlillies" not art because it is essentially an interpretation?? | |
| Mike -- 06/23/2004, 17:23:35 -- #5082 | |
| I do not paint. I don't know anything about that. I have not read biographys of Monet as I have of Glen Gould and and Bud Powell. I have none of Monets work in my house as i have virtually all of Glen Goulds and Bud Powells work in my house. I do not consider myself even an amateur authority on on Monet while I consider my opinions of Gould and Powell proffesional and expert in nature. | |
| Mike -- 06/23/2004, 17:25:52 -- #5083 | |
| I have met lots of artists (painters) that pretend to have a special understanding of my music because they paint. I have talked at length to such artists. I have read portions of books that have been written on the topic. I reject the comparison as hogwash. | |
| Barry -- 06/23/2004, 18:14:43 -- #5084 | |
| I see, Well let's assess the situation and the opinions and see if your label of hogwash is justified. From your previous posts you are saying that because Glen Gould is not an improviser then he is worthless as an artist and all he has done is produced the most revolutionary performances in a deeply flawed genre of duplication. You mentioned the violinist that you played with and you said that to listen to him play heads was a thing of beauty and yet because he wasn't able to improvise to your standard then this interpretation of those heads counts for nothing. If this is truly the way that you think then you need to open your mind and ears to possibilities beyond the narrow sphere of your existence. I respect your right to free speech and to come here and say anything you like but I also reserve the right to oppose you when I think you are wrong. I think that you are very wrong in this case and I am prepared to be humiliated by you to disprove this. A man that can dismiss that artistry of Glen Gould as mere craftsmanship should be prepared to back that argument up with his own artistic abilities. I have heard the one midi file that you posted (A version of Giant Steps) and was not impressed. You managed to stay vaguely in tune whilst communicating no form of emotion whatsoever. Not surprising, as this is a bitch of a tune and one that I know that I am not capable of creating anything on. The difference is that I don't pretend to be some kind of master and get to slag everything and everybody off that isn't Art Tatum on steroids. I have had enough of garrulous self-indulgence and I challenge you to post a midi file that will let us see the artist that you are and demonstrate your superior improvisational artistic ability. Otherwise, as far as I can tell from your website, you are a guy that plays cocktail piano at functions and gets indignant because the world doesn't owe him a living because he plays 'Giant Steps' twice a day. Get over it. I'm almost sorry for this but I have read enough nonsense over the last few months to last me a lifetime and I'm calling the bet. Blow me away - please........ | |
| Mike -- 06/23/2004, 18:40:33 -- #5085 | |
| 1.)In your first sentence Barry you grossly misquoted me. Why would you do this? 2.) You go on to misquote me about the violinist that I performed with. Then you say "If this is truly the way you think then.... Well there is no point in my reading the rest of you thread because you have malisiously twisted and misquouted everything I said and that is Not "truly the way I think" To be perfectly clear: I never said nor came in any way close to saying that1) Glen Gould is "worthless as an artist" those are your words entirely 2.)I did not say that the violinst I played with counted for nothing because he could only play the heads... These are your words to fit your personal attack on me. Because he could only play heads he was useless to me on my gigs. As Band leader, Because it was my ensemble. I have a concept and there was no room for an instrumentalist who could only play written music. If for no other reason I could not afford then nor would I ever pay one musician to play heads and pay a seperate one to play improvisations. I employ musicians who can do both. If you disagree with that Barry.... Hire them seperatly in your own ensembles, I would never critique you for it... I am sure I would sit there in the audience fascinated that there was enough money to pay musicians to seperatly play heads and improvise and I would also be intrigued by the concept that any even endeavored to do so. But I am sure I would enjoy what would probally be a performance of that type that I would take only that one time in my life. As far as your critique of my Giant Steps midi.. Ludicrous you want me to present more midis to back up my abilities so ignorant critiques like you can critique them when you admittedly can not do anything as good as my piece of shit version... I dont think so. Your trying to judge my life by my little template web site leads me to believe that maybe the what needs to happen with life here is that: you need to get one. | |
| Scot -- 06/23/2004, 22:57:44 -- #5087 | |
| In the big picture we have two viewpoints that are different. This makes the world go around and creates the tension required for learning, advancement, and new thinking. Now with that said, there's really no reason to get personal when all we are dealing with is a difference in beliefs. No one is right, and no one is wrong when it comes to opinions. What is right is to express an opinion, and try to understand that other opinions are going to surface and that they are no less valid than any other. What is really right is to figure out why someone has a differing opinion and use that knowledge to strengthen or alter our beliefs (which could change, in the right situation, minute by minute). Here we have a couple of guys who contribute a lot to this board, are talented, intelligent, and very stubborn for some reason. Keep in mind that we'll all be dead in a hundred years, so why make the brief time that we have to make a difference stressful and negative? As professionals, musicians, and jazzers, we all have to stick together and understand that no matter what differences there are between us, our common love of music and art, that which makes people smile and cry, is what is really important. It's like being on a beach and getting caught up in the grains of sand. Get on a boat and row out a ways, and the beach is a white or gray line, no sand, no rocks, no trash, just a beach like any other. So kiss and make up :) You guys are both a benefit to this system and there's no reason to head any further down this path. Just my opinion, of course, and as we all know, opinions vary from one person to the next- Scot | |
| 7 -- 06/23/2004, 23:10:39 -- #5088 | |
| We would be as wrong to compare Dance to Painting as we would be to compare Jazz to ANY other art form (including Classical music). Slagging Classical musicians (the way they did me in high school and in college) only makes two wrongs. And that doesn't make a right. Far from it. They believe that they are artists, the public believes that they are artists. What more does one need? If I don't believe that they are artists, what difference does that make in the grand scheme of things? (As Scot said) 7 PS: For the record: I don't like Coltrane's "Giant Steps" period (Br. full stop). I learned Coltrane's solo note for note. I worked out a complete comping section and full blown bass line under my improv. And every time I played it in public, it went down like a lead ballon. The only reason I posted my analysis was to show the people like you what a lame-ass piece of work it is. "Giant Steps" is like some hazing ritual. In order to join the "Jazz Club" you HAVE to learn it. It's sadistic to the novice and not particularly rewarding to either the "artist" or to the public. Was my "interpretation" of Coltrane's maze Art with a capital "A"? I thought it was, at the time. You guys have heard me play, you know what kind of arrangement I would do with it. But a toe tapper it ain't! My advice to novices: Don't bother learning "Giant Steps" you can get your daily ration of ii-V-I progressions in quantity in many better Jazz compositions. Most importantly, "Giant Steps" will NOT get you laid. | |
| Mike -- 06/23/2004, 23:48:49 -- #5090 | |
| Scot i agree with what you said, but it was not I that started to make it personal so I feel no need to make up... on the contrary. | |
| Mike -- 06/23/2004, 23:54:59 -- #5091 | |
| So many top notch Jazz scholars have written enlightening articles about how to approach the Giant Steps changes and how Coltrane approached them. You can take all this knowledge and apply it to other tunes. And you can learn a lot about Coltrane by studying the tune if that is something you would like to do. For these reasons I do reccomend that all try to learn the tune and get good at it. What you learn by doing so will be applicable to all other tunes you learn. And what you learn from reading how the Masters aproach Giant Steps will help you aproach and learn all other tunes more easily. For example after reading 7's post on Giant STeps changes I reasssessed for a while how I analysed changes on all tunes. | |
| Mike -- 06/23/2004, 23:58:10 -- #5092 | |
| I never get much responce playing Giant Steps in public either... Then again Bob Dylan got booed by audiences for years when he started playing electric guitar. I realize my point is a little obscure there, but it is there somewhere. | |
| 7 -- 06/24/2004, 00:12:46 -- #5093 | |
| Doesn't Bob Dylan still get booed? LOL | |
| Barry -- 06/24/2004, 02:12:05 -- #5094 | |
| Look, I'm not an unreasonable person. Disagreements and different opinions are the way of the world and long may it continue. What does wind me up is when people become overbearing and dismissive in their posts - i.e I am right and everyone else is an idiot if they don't agree with me. In the case of Mike it's sentences like; "It is not even close enough for reasonalbe debate" and "I consider my opinions of Gould and Powell proffesional and expert in nature." Now maybe I misunderstand here and it could just be the way you write, but it comes across as extremely arrogant and disrespectful. It seems as if you are totally dismissive of anyone else's opinion until they get agitated and then you become more reasonable. I am sorry that my last post was personal - that's not acceptable and I apologise for that. I do however, stand by the points I made. You said; " I never said nor came in any way close to saying that1) Glen Gould is "worthless as an artist" those are your words entirely" but you also said in earlier posts "but alas interpretation is not the equivalent of creation and therefore not an artform... no that is not an art it is a craft and a skill." and "A classical musician is a fine Craftsman bringing out the art of a fine composer and artist from a time gone by. The difference between Artist and Craftsmen is critical." Therefore - those who interpret completely composed music are not artists but craftsmen. This leads to the conclusion that unless Glen Gould improvises in his spare time then he IS worthless as an artist - i.e what he does is entirely craftsmanship and has no artistic worth. As for the playing side of things - you said, regarding midi files.. 'ignorant critiques like you can critique them when you admittedly can not do anything as good as my piece of shit version... I dont think so.' I do indeed have many, many faults but ignorance is not one of them. I am pretty sure that I'm just as educated and musically aware as you are and the fact that I don't like your file doesn't make me ignorant. Also, in my post I said about Giant Steps; "this is a bitch of a tune and one that I know that I am not capable of creating anything on." Don't mistake the words 'creating anything' for 'staying in tune'. I am quite capable of spraying a load of scales and arpeggios over those changes but the harmony is so dense that I find it hard to get any kind of emotion over. I don't even think Coltrane managed to convey anything on this tune other than the fact that he'd come up with some interesting harmonic ideas - Tommy Flanagan sounds worse than either of us on the original version of that tune! That does not mean that I "can not do anything as good as my piece of shit version" - just that I have problems doing anything other than playing the changes on 'Giant Steps' The personal stuff isn't necessary and I do apologise for that - I do think all the other points are valid enough to make them "close enough for reasonalbe debate". Barry | |
| Mike -- 06/24/2004, 09:22:29 -- #5097 | |
| "therefore - those who interpret completely composed music are not artists but craftsmen. This leads to the conclusion that unless Glen Gould improvises in his spare time then he IS worthless as an artist - i.e what he does is entirely craftsmanship and has no artistic worth." That leads you to that sorry conclusion not me. So do not be putting words in my mouth thank you very much. | |
| Barry -- 06/24/2004, 09:28:14 -- #5098 | |
| Ok, fine. Could you please explain to me how it's possible to be a mere craftsman and yet be considered an artist? This is not picking an argument for the sake of it, I lost my temper and I've apologised for that. Now I am just trying to understand what it is that you're saying. Please show me how, from what you've posted, any other conclusion be reached. Believe it or not, I am genuinely interested. | |
| Mike -- 06/24/2004, 09:37:17 -- #5099 | |
| As for the Giant Steps stuff... I really dont know what all that is about... I love the tune ... I am relatively content with how I play it, I play it with emotion, yet I know I will study that tune for the rest of my life, and will enjoy doing so. Also I like the midi I posted of it although as I stated in the comments along with it I knew as I posted it that it was not flawless. But overall I like it and I do not really care if other piano players do not like it, especially piano players who can not play it. It concerns me more when audiences I play it for do not seem to like it. I work hard to try to find ways to make it enjoyable for audiences. I take it seriously when a non musician says they do not enjoy the tune or the music. But when a piano player critiques my playing of Giant Steps who cant even play the tune because I quote Coltrane note for note in places or rambling some nonsence about staying in tune while playing on a digital piano... These are the things that give Critics the bad name the so rightly have. | |
| Mike -- 06/24/2004, 09:38:14 -- #5100 | |
| your apology for the personal attacks are accepted so long as you refrain from them in the future. | |
| Barry -- 06/24/2004, 09:45:06 -- #5101 | |
| When I say staying in tune, I mean that a person is playing appropriate scale/note choices for the harmonic structure eg, changing key in the right place and so on. You still haven't anwered the previous question about how craftsmen can be artists though..... | |
| harveyebrink -- 06/24/2004, 10:23:52 -- #5102 | |
| Woah! I had no idea this post was going to be such a hot-spot - I mean, 72 threads - that's got to be a record!? I might have thought twice about posting it if I'd known it was going to get a violent as this. If I should have done, I apologise! Come on, guys! Scot's right - the whole point of a discussion is to try to understand someone else's point of view by their given a reasoned argument backed up with persuasive evidence. A self-recipricating slagging match gets neither party anywhere! If we're going to look at this argument seriously (and maturely) we should probably start by defining what we mean by 'artist' and 'craftsman'. For your ease of reading I'll repost how I defined the terms. Hopefully, you'll be able to point out any flaws in it and suggest possible revisions: "Craftsmanship is just the ability to fulfil the criterea which define your area of expertise. In the case of classical musician it's "comply with the information on a given score" for a jazz musician it's (generally) "comply with a given structure and defined harmonic progression" and for the composer (/free improviser) it's "create a piece". Whatever the performer does other than this is surely the artistry. A classical performer is bound by the rhythm and pitches of the score but can use the other elements of music (tempo, dynamics etc.) to create his art. The jazz musician is bound by a fundamental chord sequence and (generally) a given notated melody at either end of the piece but he uses the other elements of music to create his art (melody, harmonic (always with reference to the fundamental sequence) and rhythmic + dynamics etc). The composer (in the strictly classical sense) is only bound by the fact that he is going to write a piece of finite length for a finite selection instruments and therefore he has most of the elements of music at his disposal (form, harmony etc.). Of course there are exceptions to this e.g. a classical musician making the artisitic decision to ornament or to decide to play Bach on a piano rather than a harpsichord, but essentially what I'm saying is that there is scope in the roles of all three musicians for artistry." | |
| harveyebrink -- 06/24/2004, 10:24:46 -- #5103 | |
| for "given" (line 4) read "giving" | |
| Mike -- 06/24/2004, 10:27:23 -- #5104 | |
| I do not know what question you are talking about. you seem to overlap all topics into one. If I say something about a classical musician that I have perfomed with that can not improvise you seem to think that you can leap to the assumption that I also apply that to everyone including Glen Gould. That may be how you think. It is not how my mind works or sorts things out. So I would say again. What question specifically? As for your critique of my Giant steps... That is incorrect terminology. If you meant to say that you thought I was playing inapropriate scale/note choices for the changes you should have said so. But this is typical of a Critic. Take not one second to edit your own writing as you try to take down the work of an artist for your own benefit who has spent a billion hours producing a creative work. That is so fucking sad. You and every other Critic like you. If you would just spend that ill spent energy trying to creat a worthwile example yourselves what a better place this world would be. That is so lame. Not to mention my note choices were all appropriate conventional chord scale choices except where i intended for them not to be and except for where I played wrong notes which is also an intregal part of improvisation especially when playing with emotion which you were complaining there was none of. None of these things can a piano playing critic understand until they try to master the changes themselves. A non piano playing critic would not come up with such ludicrous irrelevant critisims. | |
| Mike -- 06/24/2004, 12:29:50 -- #5108 | |
| A conversation which began about improvisation vs non improvisation, did not have to become a conversation about classical vs jazz and I think that was an unfortunate turning point in the conversation. Ie.. They do not have to be the same conversation. The conversation could just as easily turn into Cover bands vs non Cover bands etc. Or a pianist who pre arranges all his music to one who improvises all his arranges at every performance. | |
| Mike -- 06/24/2004, 12:30:53 -- #5109 | |
| its just that classical vs jazz brings up some easy examples quickly, it does not have to be the focus of the conversation. | |
| harveyebrink -- 06/24/2004, 13:27:10 -- #5111 | |
| Let's leave whatever we think of each other's playing out of this as it provokes personal and often very unhelpful reactions. Besides, one's status as a musician does not necessarily have any bearing on the value of our musical discussion or comments. I mean, just because Pierre Boulez is one of the most celebrated composers of today dosn't mean that he was right when he said that no non-serialist composers were serious composers (or sth to that effect). The classical vs. jazz discussion stemmed from the assertion that with improvised music there was "magic" happening - the fact that we do not know how it is done gives us some extra-special feeling. I puzzled this over and jumped to the (somewhat hasty) conclusion that you must be talking about the artistry, which is for me the "magical" part of a piece of music. Maybe you meant something else - if so, please explain what this "magic" is that you hear when listening to an improvisation. If you did mean the artistry, then you've yet to convince us that a classical musician is not an artist too. Hope this is clear... | |
| ClosetBlues -- 06/24/2004, 15:18:00 -- #5114 | |
| I've been following this thread with interest every day now for about two weeks. I thought about jumping in, but there was no way for me to improve on 7's response on improvisation. But now that this thing has gone bezerk and doubled in size in one day...what the hell? I'm not taking sides, but I do tend to relate to harveyebrink and his responses on the topic. But he may have an unfair advantage since it was his post. You go harv! However, by far the thing that has held my interest most has been the comments from Mike. Thanks for waking everybody up, man! I also have to say that the post from our in-house philosopher, Scot, was deep. I also subscribe to the "why can't we all just get along?" school of thought. Prado, you cracked me up with the "So, wondering if classical musicians are able to improvise is like wondering if jazz musicians are able to play basket ball" analogy. I had been trying to come up with one myself. Here it is.. If fishing is a sport, are people who fish atheletes? On a somewhat philosophical note, I believe many apparent differences of opinion are, in fact, simply differences in terminology. 'Semantics' if you will. Within this post there are so many different terms that were thrown in as an attempt to clarify, but instead added more confusion because of the various definitions applied. As Harv pointed out 'jazz' means different things to different people. I would add 'improvisation', 'art' and 'artisitic', and 'classical music' (for starts) as terms that lead to confusion. And finally, in respect to Harveyebrink, I will attempt an answer to the original post... "yes" and "yes" | |
| Mike -- 06/24/2004, 15:59:11 -- #5117 | |
| On the other hand I said that my violinist friends performance in church segueing from one Bach piece to the next was nothing short of spectacular is pretty darn close to saying it was majical. Technical virtuosity can be majical I guess, so I in this instance I guess I would say I overstated the case for improvisation initially. Any pianist that could sit down and duplicate Art Tatum performances note for note would certainly be putting magic in the air even though there were no improvisation envolved I guess though I do not think we will see the day that will happen. | |
| Mike -- 06/24/2004, 16:04:30 -- #5118 | |
| LOL.. If you go back to my responce to Comrade c you will see that his responce did catch me by surprise .. . I was expecting something much more like Barrys responce at that point. | |
| Mike -- 06/24/2004, 17:02:24 -- #5119 | |
| All the questions this thread has brought up its amazing.... One that is bothering me... Does the quality of a piano players web site define the quality of the piano player??? If so where does that leave Glen Gould??? And obviously we all should pretty much quit playing then 'cause Scot is playing in a different league then. | |
| Barry -- 06/24/2004, 19:42:21 -- #5121 | |
| It's one thing to accept an apology in theory, but another to accept it in spirit. Is there anything in post #5104 that isn't directed as a personal criticism of me? If anyone has even bothered to read anything I've written in this thread then that person would hopefully have seen the logic in my questions. The fact that you I am unable to rephrase this any more is driving me nuts - How many ways can I ask one question? Mike asks; "What question specifically" and I am saying the question is this; Mike has posted the following statements in this thread. "but alas interpretation is not the equivalent of creation and therefore not an artform... no that is not an art it is a craft and a skill."and "A classical musician is a fine Craftsman bringing out the art of a fine composer and artist from a time gone by. The difference between Artist and Craftsmen is critical." What specifically? Specifically the question is that by your own statements a classical musician is simply a craftsman because interpretaion is not the equilvalent of creation. These are your own words Mike. The specific question is; "Do you believe that Glen Gould is not an artist because he interprets music composed by others?" And as for this; " As for your critique of my Giant steps... That is incorrect terminology. If you meant to say that you thought I was playing inapropriate scale/note choices for the changes you should have said so. But this is typical of a Critic. Take not one second to edit your own writing as you try to take down the work of an artist for your own benefit who has spent a billion hours producing a creative work. That is so fucking sad. You and every other Critic like you. If you would just spend that ill spent energy trying to creat a worthwile example yourselves what a better place this world would be. That is so lame.Not to mention my note choices were all appropriate conventional chord scale choices except where i intended for them not to be and except for where I played wrong notes which is also an intregal part of improvisation especially when playing with emotion which you were complaining there was none of. None of these things can a piano playing critic understand until they try to master the changes themselves. A non piano playing critic would not come up with such ludicrous irrelevant critisims" I described your file as 'vaguely in tune" which of course meant, if you read my definition, that your scale choices were mainly appropriate (wrong notes excluded). All I said was that I did not feel that there was any conveying of emotion - to each his own.... I will not apologise any more for the earlier personal comments that I made. I have done that. I will also not accept a situation where you say you accept that apology and then slag me off in a personal way. At the risk of being boring I will quote you again... "Take not one second to edit your own writing as you try to take down the work of an artist for your own benefit who has spent a billion hours producing a creative work. That is so fucking sad. You and every other Critic like you. If you would just spend that ill spent energy trying to creat a worthwile example yourselves what a better place this world would be. That is so lame." I don't think I would be unreasonable as describing this as a personal attack - and despite being 'so fucking sad' I am starting to ask why I need to put up with this. I posted ONE errant post and apologised. Can somebody else explain to me why this abuse is appropriate and why I should put up with it? | |
| Mike -- 06/24/2004, 23:28:22 -- #5123 | |
| you apologized when you were told to. And only after someone erantly made it seem like we were equally wrong in the situatiion. Seeing as I had not done anything wrong and had not made any personal attacks, but was made out to have equal blame in the dispute by Scots post I am making sure now I get in my digs on you where you deserve them. Everything about how you approached me was lame and cowardly and if you cant take the heat from the fire which you started by all means get out of the kitchen. | |
| dougmck -- 06/25/2004, 01:31:11 -- #5126 | |
| I hate to get involved in these slanging matches, but Barry - I am on your side! Reading the posts that Mike has made, they seem irrational, and self contradictory. One of Mike's absolute obsessions is the Critic - those who dare to criticize an 'artist' - who themselves, he deems, are not in the same league as that artist. There is an obsession with league tables, who can play better than who else, who deserves the title 'artist'.... Most people have read Mike's Kenny Gee ravings - as well as criticsm of many and varied things - musical styles, songs that should or shouldn't be played ... Surely this is the pot calling the kettle black - he is all the things he hates in a critic. Barry, I understand your comments on Giant Steps - even if Mike doesn't. I am sure that Barry could play his version and post it, and I suspect that it would be at least on a par with Mike's, but why on earth should he bother? Seriously, I believe that Mike has done a lot to harm this group. Most will have noticed that there are very few midi files posted in this group over the last few months - in fact since he made so much of a very mild (and quite constructive) criticism levelled at his (Mike's) Giant steps effort. The unbelievable fuss that was made by Mike in defending this was way out of proportion. Since that time, people seem to have been reluctant to post anything that may be criticised. This is a great shame, as there is so much that we can teach each other, and the midi file that can be slowed down, transposed, looped , tagged with explanatory notes, or viewed as notation, is a great way to communicate musical ideas. There may be other explanations as to why so few now post actual music to the group - most know that the hardest thing to do is to play to a room full of other musicians - which of course is the case here. Mike, you say above, that you have not made any personal attacks in this thread - really! It seems to me that all the venom in this thread has come from you - you seem so spiteful and concerned only to hit back ('...to get in (your) digs') as you say. No doubt I am setting up myself for a 'spray'. Doug | |
| Barry -- 06/25/2004, 03:50:30 -- #5127 | |
| I did not apologise because I was told to - I apologised because I was wrong. If you don't want to accept the apology then fine - that is your right. Why lie about it? I am amazed that you consider what I said to be lame and cowardly and yet don't see anything lame or cowardly about 'getting digs' in. Either way, I don't really care but it must be getting boring for everyone else in the forum now. What I am interested in however, is the musical debate that this thread has resulted in. When you feel you have got enough digs in, perhaps you will answer the musical question that I have asked several times now. Despite the repetition, I will ask it again. Do you believe that Glen Gould is not an artist because he interprets music composed by others? | |
| Mike -- 06/25/2004, 04:04:57 -- #5128 | |
| Yes Doug Thanks for adding your misquoutes of me. I did not say I have not made any personal attacks. I said I did not make them first. And yes I am hitting back. And I will respond to you and if you want to call that "hitting" so be it. My views on Critics I have backed up in a scholarly way. It is a legitamit topic amongst many great jazz musicians both past and present. I have quoted musicians views on the topic at length from Thelonious Monk to Pat Metheny to David Liebman. If after reading these posts people decide to not subject their work to a forum that is set up to provide critics for their work, then I believe that to be an educated decision. If you have been to lazy to counter the effort that I have put into presenting the negative opinions that so many artists have of critics that is your fault not mine. Also for the most part I have been talking about critiquing Jazz musicians, so I do not know why you are bringing up Kenny G in this conversation. As for why on earth should Barry post his version of Giant Steps? For the same reason you should Doug. Instead of critiquing my work show me how to do it better. Put your work where your mouth is. | |
| Mike -- 06/25/2004, 04:12:50 -- #5130 | |
| I have listened to both your work Doug and Barry's work. On occasion I have enjoyed both. But you dont study this idiom for as long as I have with out developing the ability to cut down anybody. So I have a choice as we all do If i wanted to talk about Barrys work I could point out what I like, I could point out what I think is wrong, Or I can just keep my mouth shut. In most cases I opt to keep my mouth shut unless I am asked to critque someones work. I do remember once I commented that one of your midis would have been better without the bass and drums. (maybe that is what this is about) I thought the piano on it was great, the bass and drums sounded like an uneeded afterthought. I thought it was a harmless enough critism to a pianist as it was complimentary to the piano playing... maybe I was wrong... If so I apologize. | |
| Mike -- 06/25/2004, 04:14:54 -- #5131 | |
| I have never said any song should not be played. That is a mis quote. | |
| Barry -- 06/25/2004, 04:20:49 -- #5132 | |
| Both myself and Doug have posted midi files on this site and they are available for download any time you like. I always find Doug's files entertaining and educational and he has posted more than enough quality material here to illustrate his abilities. Is there any chance of a 'scholarly' answer to my recurring question? | |
| Barry -- 06/25/2004, 04:23:03 -- #5133 | |
| Ah, simultaneous posts. Glad you found the files. | |
| Mike -- 06/25/2004, 04:50:24 -- #5134 | |
| I condsider Glen Gould to have been an artist. Amongst other things he was a recording artist. But as I stated I do not believe he was as much of an artist (in as much as this sort of thing can be quantified which I will admit is shaky ground) Bud Powell was. | |
| Mike -- 06/25/2004, 04:55:11 -- #5135 | |
| Glen Gould pioneered new ground not only in interpretation of classical music but also in how it was recorded. Making him a true inovator and creator in that sence. He also shattered conventions in many ways as to how Bach was to be played. His interpretations were not merely interpretations but ofter radical for his time and still sometimes radical. When I play invention #8 as slowly as Gould recorded it for true blood Classical musicians they all shuffle nervously and as soon as I finish say " Oh no that must be played much faster". | |
| Mike -- 06/25/2004, 09:33:06 -- #5149 | |
| Hey Doug seeing as you are so eager to jump in and support midi files and critiques of my Giant Steps midi in particular... How about pointing out to me where the 'out of tune" notes are in my solo, so I can learn to appreciate these critiques like you are telling me I should. 'Cause I aint hearing any "out of tune" notes. And seeing as you agree with the critiques surely you can tell me what measures they are in and what wrong note choices I am making right???? So I can learn from you how Giant Steps should be played. | |
| 7 -- 06/25/2004, 11:00:54 -- #5151 | |
| Sid Thomas' "Giant Steps" is one of the smoothest versions I've ever heard. We could all learn a lot from him. | |
| 7 -- 06/25/2004, 11:13:40 -- #5152 | |
| If anyone would like to hear the incredible midi collection of Doug McKenzie's piano genius, visit this site: http://home.wanadoo.nl/dougmckenzie/ Be prepared to be amazed! | |
| Scot -- 06/25/2004, 20:45:10 -- #5155 | |
| I would like to repeat myself, but in more certain terms- there will be no personal attacks here, period. If someone disagrees with someone else, be professional and disagree in a professional manner. No name calling, no clever remarks, no nothing like that. I hate to police things like this, but there just isn't any reason to be so damn defensive! If your posts are good and valid, let them speak for themselves. I can't stand it when people make so much noise trying to defend what they said, write, play, compose, etc. There is a HUGE difference between making your points known and trying to convert the whole universe to believing the same way you do. Allowing for people to make their own decisions is the only way to go. Continually going back and forth over points is something high school debate club, or presidential nominees, do. It's not appropriate here. There is a hall that has nothing to do with music where rooms like Politics exist. Make a "Children's Argument Room" if necessary. Take a step back from the things that seem so important and realize that in the big picture, they aren't important at all, and then you'll free yourself from the confining prison of defensiveness. | |
| Seb -- 06/26/2004, 02:55:59 -- #5161 | |
| Just posting to reach a 100 posts :p | |
| Seb -- 06/26/2004, 02:56:34 -- #5162 | |
| Ok, one mooooore and........... | |
| Seb -- 06/26/2004, 02:59:32 -- #5163 | |
| !!!!!!CHAMPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGNE!!!!!! (and everyody shake hands) :p Sorry for the ones who where expecting three more hot posts :)) (being the 100th (how the hell do you write that) poster do I win a T-shirt? lol):p | |
| Scot -- 06/26/2004, 11:30:00 -- #5168 | |
| Absolutely! T-Shirts all around! Someone give him a t-shirt! :) | |
| Bert -- 06/26/2004, 11:59:26 -- #5170 | |
| It's a shame this thread got broken because I think I was on the verge of learning exactly what is the essential difference between an artist and craftsman (or craftsperson). I've always used them almost interchangeably (however you spell it) yet the heat generated seemed to indicate that some people perceive a vital distinction. I know craftsman implies less originality but many craftsmen I've know or admired from afar are very creative and often quite original. And many who are called artists had one really good thought once then milk it for all it's worth maybe with slight variations. Certainly some improvisors seem to me to rise to the level of original art and some composers don't. And some people prefer one to the other. There's a lot to be said for revision (this post is a fine example) yet "spontaneous composition" as improvisation is often called sometimes does reach the level of magic. Painters like Pollack (I think that's who I mean-the guy who threw paint at canvasses) were certainly improvising yet still thought of by some as important serious artists. | |
| Mike -- 06/26/2004, 13:59:51 -- #5171 | |
| Well you are pointing out one aspect of the definition Bert. Like many things it is not always a clear Black and White issue. I could make a million comparisons. Are Steaks quality food and Hot Dogs bad food? If I asked that question to 100 people surely over 75 percent would say yes.... but some would say no. And some would say both are bad foods to eat... Some would say it doesnt matter as long as you dont eat carbs. So its not a clear issue even though at first glance it appears safe to say STeak is the quality food and Hots dogs are not. The difference between the Artist and the Craftsmen often has a rather fat grey line seperating the two. In music often the procedure by which one chooses to use to become a fine craftsmen is an Art in itself. In that way there is Art in every fine technical performance. Things like this keep the line fuzzy indeed This is why in the end it is flawed logic to equate a discussion about improv - non improv // artist/craftsen totally to Jazz - Classical and even more flawed to jump to the conclusion that the definition can apply to every classical musician that there is and has ever been. But I dont know... perhaps I am being too clever now? Maybe I am trying to convince tha whole univerese to think the way I do? It is hard to censore your own your own writing according to someone elses perception of it. | |
| harveyebrink -- 06/27/2004, 14:34:09 -- #5183 | |
| Is anybody clear in their own head as to their different definitions of "craftsman" and "artist"? I know I'm certainly not. If you are, please post your definitions in a clear and abstract manner so we can at least have some common term to work with! | |
| 7 -- 06/27/2004, 17:02:56 -- #5185 | |
| High Art: In tune with the universe Art: Beauty unfolds with intent High Craft: Evokes the eternal Craft: Emulates passion Low Craft: Poor imitation High Crap: The way I play (LOL) | |
| Mike -- 06/27/2004, 17:12:56 -- #5186 | |
| Absolutely; A Craftsman is someone skilled in the mechanic of his art but not in its artistry. An Artist is someone known for there artistic ability, ie the ability via imagination to create. An Artist may or may not also be a craftsman. Thelonious Monk is a great example of an Artist because he obivioulsy was extremely creative, but was constantly critiqued for lacking in the mechanical skills of some of the better craftsmen of his day. I will refrain from giving examples of Craftsmen who are not Artists and leave that up to you to determine. | |
| Mike -- 06/27/2004, 17:15:45 -- #5187 | |
| i would say that 7's definitions were Artistic while mine were dull and and at least attempting to be that of a Craftsmen. | |
| Rick -- 06/28/2004, 14:52:56 -- #5210 | |
| good to see we came to a good conclusion! I agree with Mikes second from last post. Sorry if my classical musician comments annoyed some people, after all its just my daft opinion so please dont let it! :-) But yes its probably flawed anyway getting into such a deep debate like has just been said | |
| Dr. Whack -- 07/04/2004, 22:14:47 -- #5398 | |
| I hear Craftsmen makes a pretty good lawnmower, although I'm currently using a Snapper... (sorry again - I really need o get a life) | |
| Dr. Whack -- 07/04/2004, 22:15:11 -- #5399 | |
| *Craftsman | |
| Mike -- 07/05/2004, 05:31:59 -- #5404 | |
| oh man, their mowers are just a copy of the Briggs and Stratton... not a thing original about them. | |
| Dr. Whack -- 07/05/2004, 06:56:47 -- #5406 | |
| hmmm...maybe we should start a "mowers" room? | |
| Mike -- 07/05/2004, 11:05:02 -- #5414 | |
| I got my own way with grass and I dont really want to hear nothin about it. | |
| Copyright © 2005 by Scot Ranney. All rights reserved. | |
| Click Here for more information about performances and clinics. Click Here to sign up for Scot's music announcements. | |