Music from non-orchestral cultures

[jowcol]

Don't take what i said literally. The concept of swinging isn't something you can quantify, it isn't a specific technique with its own rules and fixed values. It is something intangible, which can only be reproduced instinctively. Human language cannot deal with the world of invisible things therefore the only way to properly express a particular idea is to use language to convey a feeling of the direction of where the idea may lie. The rest its entirely up to you.

I agree wholeheartedly with a lot of this-- many of the questions I had raised in the earlier post  was to clarify this very point.  (I'm  a big fan of the Socratic method). But the limitations to the labels and language also raise the issue where terms have a subjective meaning that are not necessarily shared by everyone.  Certainly, if one defines ones own terms, it is very easy to create tautologies that work within the context of the definitions.  In terms of communicating, however, it is often helpful to acknowledge that more widely shared definitions.


Music would not be so endlessly fascinating for me if it wasn't for the intangibles, the subjectivity, and the endless variations in the personal experience it provides.   What I admired most about your original post was the passion you displayed about another genre of music, and a recognition that there were valid qualities in that form that a listener of Western Classical can benefit from.  I may not choose to accept some of the terminology you use, but I also believe than anyone with a pair of ears and a passion for music should be entitled to post to this forum.

[Chaszz]

Back to the original topic. OK, I agree that jazz can hold a candle to classical music. I'd say that in general it is somewhat lesser in greatness, but when you look at its most finest exponents, it measures up. But where is present day jazz headed, and what in this era measures up? Coltrane is probably the last of the really great ones, and that was awhile ago. Is there any jazz today that equals the jazz of the best musicians in its history? Or is it past its prime for good? And if it is past its prime, perhaps permanently, when you place the achievements of the two forms side by side, jazz is  seriously wanting. This is partly what I was getting at in the original  topic...

[Josquin des Prez]

Is there any jazz today that equals the jazz of the best musicians in its history?

Not in my opinion. Jazz went the way of classical music, I.E., decline.

[jowcol]

Back to the original topic. OK, I agree that jazz can hold a candle to classical music. I'd say that in general it is somewhat lesser in greatness, but when you look at its most finest exponents, it measures up. But where is present day jazz headed, and what in this era measures up? Coltrane is probably the last of the really great ones, and that was awhile ago. Is there any jazz today that equals the jazz of the best musicians in its history? Or is it past its prime for good? And if it is past its prime, perhaps permanently, when you place the achievements of the two forms side by side, jazz is  seriously wanting. This is partly what I was getting at in the original  topic...

How does one define "greatness?"  Different styles of music have different strengths and weaknesses.  Since the original thread mentioned "non orchestral cultures" is classical chamber or solo music not as great? Who would win a "greatness" smackdown between Wagner and Satie?  Their strengths were radically different.  Do you grade them on volume?  Conciseness? (For my money, I'd take Satie, but that is because my senses are more wired to the Satie aesthetic.)  What is Classical anyway?  Palestrina?  John Cage?

Is an equal tempered scale better at everything than natural tempered?  Which is most important-- harmony, melody, rhythm?  Sonority and timbre? How can one objectively score Beethoven's 9th on a 1 to 100 "greatness" scale so that everyone will get the same value? If the last few hundred years of musical criticism have taught us anything, it can't be done.

I think  comparisons between Classical  and Jazz(or any other genres)  in any absolute sense don't really communicate much.  If we refine the criteria a bit more, an "apples to oranges" comparison can yield some very fruitful (no pun intended) discussions.  We can better understand why a given piece sounds "great", or a given style exhibits "greatness".  We can also understand why the western classical music tradition has often borrowed elements from other genres, when a composer like a Gershwin saw something worth borrowing. 

[Josquin des Prez]

The best of including Beethoven?

[Ugh]

I like to read about ancient Greece and Rome, and sometimes come across a line about the intense power of ancient music as testified to by its listeners. Likely this music was played by a flute and a lyre, or either one alone, in a modal scale. It starts me wondering about the power of this music to evoke deep sustained emotion and catharsis when compared with the formidable harmonic forces of orchestrated Western music. I like many kinds of jazz, blues and rock and also Indian ragas, but cannot say any of those has ever moved me as deeply as numerous works I could name of "classical" music. I know one can point to Western chamber music as being on a comparable small scale as non-Western classical musics, and very profound, but chamber music uses the formidable resources developed by the evolution of well- and equal-temperament, complex harmony (made possible by those temperaments) reaching into distant keys, and extensive orchestration. What about it -- are other musics as powerful as this? Of course it's easy to call me narrow-minded and bigoted, but what about the meat of the issue?

I had to read your post a couple of times before I realized that the problem is that two ostensibly separate issues are in danger of being conflated here: the power of music and musical complexity. The way I see it, there is no apriori link between the two.

Anyway, it is impossible to compare chronologically when it comes to the power of music given the omnipresence of music in our age compared to the more ritual use of it in prehistoric times. Imagine the magic of hearing a flute for the first time if you never heard a single note of music in your life....

There really is no power in the music itself outside the listener

[Chaszz]

How does one define "greatness?"  Different styles of music have different strengths and weaknesses.  Since the original thread mentioned "non orchestral cultures" is classical chamber or solo music not as great? Who would win a "greatness" smackdown between Wagner and Satie?  Their strengths were radically different.  Do you grade them on volume?  Conciseness? (For my money, I'd take Satie, but that is because my senses are more wired to the Satie aesthetic.)  What is Classical anyway?  Palestrina?  John Cage?

Is an equal tempered scale better at everything than natural tempered?  Which is most important-- harmony, melody, rhythm?  Sonority and timbre? How can one objectively score Beethoven's 9th on a 1 to 100 "greatness" scale so that everyone will get the same value? If the last few hundred years of musical criticism have taught us anything, it can't be done.

I think  comparisons between Classical  and Jazz(or any other genres)  in any absolute sense don't really communicate much.  If we refine the criteria a bit more, an "apples to oranges" comparison can yield some very fruitful (no pun intended) discussions.  We can better understand why a given piece sounds "great", or a given style exhibits "greatness".  We can also understand why the western classical music tradition has often borrowed elements from other genres, when a composer like a Gershwin saw something worth borrowing.

I tried to address the issue of chamber music and solo music by saying originally that these styles grew out of classical orchestral music with its exploration of harmony. I suppose one could as easily argue it the other way around, that orchestral music grew out of solo music, but the point is really that they developed together and the exploration of harmony drove both to a significant extent. Of the elements you mention -- harmony, melody, rhythm, sonority, timbre -- most music contains all of them, but in Western classical music harmony is developed to a much, much greater degree than in any other culture, and sonority and timbre also in a specific sense in the enlarged orchestra.

There is nothing even remotely like a key change in any other music (leaving out of course later other musics which adopted this device from classical) which all stay within the original tonality of each work. What I am trying to get at is that these tools - mainly harmony - made possible a music of depth and seriousness, where sustained length could provide increasing development and frequent renewal of interest without necessarily resorting to the speeding-up of the tempo that is the main means for providing renewal of interest in other purely instrumental (non-storytelling, non-operatic) musics of sustained length. Or as James said, quoting me but adding his own description in brackets: "jazz is  seriously wanting [compared to the breadth, depth, richness & complexity of the western art music legacy] ."

However, having said all the above, but knowing that the ancient Greeks did practically peerless work in every other art form they practiced, I still wonder about the power of their music. Especially when the testimony of the ancient listeners is so intense, and that prig Plato wanted to ban music from his totalitarian state...

[jowcol]

I don't want to flog this to death, but if key changes and equal-tempered scale are your criteria, then it's pretty much a slam dunk.  However, since, to my understanding, the ancient greeks based their music on a natural scale on exact ratios, it would stand to figure that A: they couldn't support Key changes and B: they had a richer overtones to work with.   How these map onto a concept of greatness is up to you.

[Ugh]

Yea true, but art music is just as rich and broad in other terms too ... and obviously more focused, written tradition.. (i.e. of a higher order, consciousness) ... than all other music. Not to mention the longevity (a true measure), that ability & potential to travel thru time long distance ...

An extremely ethnocentric view of course. It all depends on the plethora of views on what is valued in particular cultures - what is deemed of a higher order - and I emphasize the inherent heterogenity of all cultures, so it is unlikely that all people within one culture would agree on what "higher order, consciousness" for instance consists of. To me it sounds like theosophical metaphysical gibberish or even an unfortunate colonial legacy establishing a strict dichotomy between "civilization" and "primitivism"....

As for longevity, written records are no guarantee that particular western musical pieces have survived longer than those transmitted by other means in other cultures for centuries. Add to that the meticulous work done by many 19th century scholars and composers in transcribing non-western music, etc....

[Josquin des Prez]

There are many different cultures in the world with their own unique traditions and values, but the human element is completely fixed at the outset. This is precisely what makes western culture greater then all others. Its focus on individualism and personal achievement created an atmosphere where the human element was allowed to shine in all its glory in the form of genius, which western civilization produced at a remarkable high rate.

[Dax]

[jowcol]

There are many different cultures in the world with their own unique traditions and values, but the human element is completely fixed at the outset. This is precisely what makes western culture greater then all others. Its focus on individualism and personal achievement created an atmosphere where the human element was allowed to shine in all its glory in the form of genius, which western civilization produced at a remarkable high rate.

We are indeed fortunate that not of our great artists and believers in individualism and personal achievement never looked to other cultures for inspiration and incorporated them into our traditions.  I shudder to think what would have happened if someone like Debussy would allow himself to be inspired by Javanese Gamelan music....

[Josquin des Prez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Asia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

I rest my case.

[Josquin des Prez]

I shudder to think what would have happened if someone like Debussy would allow himself to be inspired by Javanese Gamelan music....

Too bad Javanese culture never produced an individual genius like Debussy, which is precisely what i said in the first freaking place. Still don't get it, do you.

[jowcol]

Too bad Javanese culture never produced an individual genius like Debussy, which is precisely what i said in the first freaking place. Still don't get it, do you.

Nope.  But then again, I have it on good authority that I'm not very bright.    I apologize for any difficulty my lack of intellect may present. 


"Give up learning, and put an end to
your troubles.
Is there a difference between yes and
no?
Is there a difference between good and
evil?
Must I fear what others fear? What
nonsense!
Other people are contented, enjoying
the sacrificial feast of the ox.

In spring some go to the park, and
climb the terrace,
But I alone am drifting, not knowing
where I am.
Like a newborn babe before it learns to
smile,
I am alone, without a place to go.
Others have more than they need, but I
alone have nothing.
I am a fool. Oh, yes! I am confused.
Others are clear and bright,
But I alone am dim and weak.
Others are sharp and clever,
But I alone am dull and stupid.
Oh, I drift like the waves of the sea,
Without direction, like the restless
wind.
Everyone else is busy,
But I alone am aimless and depressed.
I am different.
I am nourished by the great mother."

Lao Tsu, the Tao Te Ching, Chapter 20

(A misguided soul like me would tend to call Lao Tsu a genius, but that is before I was told that only western civilization can produce geniuses!)

[jowcol]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Asia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

I rest my case.

The wiki page on Western culture doesn't mention the term "genius.  "

I rest MY case....

[jowcol]

Talk about gibberish sheesh! Which culture has a legacy that matches the breadth, depth & complexity of western art music? I'm talking from 1098 to 2010! Think. And name me the great masterpieces of history from other cultures then that have the same sort-of widespread staying power & influence  ... not to mention the well.. the breadth, depth & complexity!?! A St. Matthew Passion? A B Minor Mass? Tristan und Isolde? La Mer? The Rite of Spring? etc etc etc Name me pieces from other cultures of this sort of order, thoughtfulness & complexity. And yea, western art music composers have (& continue) to tap sources from abroad (and all around!), which includes transcribing with a trained ear, but nowadays also using sophisticated technology, computers.. the system of notation... It doesn't have to be said that a lot of training, thought, practice, rigour... goes into mulling over & carefully notating/writting, conceiving, hearing (i.e. composing) pieces of music i.e. why it's of a higher order of thought, focus and consciousness applied to painstakingly writing it all out  ... and i'm not making this up, the great composers and works left behind and that have carried thru time and that have been endlessly studied, performed & recorded back this up. It's not gibberish, the best stuff is built to last.

A very valid point in this observation is the degree of sophistication in the notation of western music for composed music-- I certainly do not know of parallels in other cultures.  However, in terms of the conventions, training, practice, rigor of improvised music, I'd have to say that jazz (a lot of which I love) is playing catchup to the degree of sophistication one can find in Hindustani and Karnaktic music in terms of what  improv is capable of.  (Yes-- my opinion-- your mileage may vary ).   Also in terms of staying power-- the Hindustani tradition probably has an age advantage over most of Western music- if that is an important factor.

Also, I'd agree that complexity and sophistication in many dimensions  in western classical is hard to beat.  (I think my first post in the thread said that as well).   But in all possible dimensions and aspects?  I would not accept that generalization -- particularly after having studied Hindustani music to the limited degree I have.

But life is short, and one must choose to embrace the music that does the most for oneself. 



Q:  Why would assuming that Western Culture is not the be-all and end-all of music somehow equating it to gibberish, or somehow degrading the tradition?   Why is this a binary decision?  Is like the old testament "Ye shall have no other gods before me" command?

[jowcol]

Some valid points....

Improvised music is what it is but it certainly is not built to last, and 'improvising' has been around since the earliest music ....but it hasn't & doesnt have the right fuel for time travel that the best written/composed has (obviously). It's designed in brief, here & now and doesn't have the same amount of careful thought and rigour either.

In the western tradition, I'd agree.  I don't think this analysis effectively addresses other traditions dedicated to improvising, such as the body of devices that are applied in a given style to a given raga in Hindustani music.  And I don't think the listeners in that culture would think that that music (whose tradtions predate the equal tempered system) was not build t last.   But that has probably been at the crux of this whole thread--  what is the goal of the tradition?  Is it more important that everything is worked out in advance? 

Nowhere near the forsenic focus & complexity that you can apply to composition aswell. Can you imagine a group of musicians simply improvising the great masterworks of the past? Impossible. Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt, Bruckner etc...were known as phenomenal improvisors & players...but it's their carefully & thoughtfully composed/written music that travels & has staying power.  .

Some valid points-- however, could someone have written the 1963 Stuttgart  performance of My Favorite Things by the John Coltrane Quartet in 1963?  Written out Free Jazz note for note?   Much of the jazz tradition has been based on getting at things that aren't necessarily (or possibly) captured by western notation.  And if the western tradition was so advanced, why (as you pointed out earlier in this thread) did western composers feel the need to borrow from these other traditions and incorporate improvisation in to their works?

We may be undergoing a change where the definitive document may be the recording, and not the written notation.   We'll see if a Kind of Blue or Sgt Peppers has the staying power of the masterworks of the past. 

[Ugh]

My problem with your line of reasoning James, is that your point of departure in defining the criteria for your argument are all based on western assumptions of what consititutes greatness, complexity, etc. For instance, you assume that longevity is a key here, which is why improvisation does not count in your opinion. First of all, you forget about recording media vs written notation: certainly improvisations captured on tape may be "built to last"?  - and I am sure that if we ever by a miracle discovered tapes of Bach, Beethoven or Liszt improvising, those tapes would be very highly valued. But more importantly, the idea of longevity as a key factor here is ethnocentric. In other cultures the idea of attachment to the present moment is more highly valued than attachment to the future, , and in this context your arguments may be inverted: improvised music may be perceived of as of a "higher order" than written music. There is simply not universal criteria for greatness that would allow us to make straight forward comparisons.

[Chaszz]

There is written literature and visual art from non-Western cultures that can be compared with Western literature and art and come off quite well in comparison. In my personal opinion Chinese landscape painting, which has a continuous history of over 1,500 years and went through many schools, and still flourishes today, is certainly equal to Western painting. It is improvised, usually after drinking some wine to loosen one up, and is at the same time thoroughly grounded in a long tradition, with later artists commenting on the work of earlier ones in their own compositions and brushwork. The greatest of these works, in my opinion, from the Northern Sung dynasty, are among the most profound paintings from any culture. I could give other examples of non-Western art and literature, but enough said. The idea that only the West has produced geniuses in succession I think is mistaken. And there is no reason this should be true of art and literature and not of music.

Re improvisation, I believe the jazz of Charlie Parker and Louis Armstrong, among others, will still be enthusiastically listened to five hundred years from now if civilization survives. And of course it will not necessarily be widely played or reinterpreted; if we had good listenable recordings of Bach's weekly concerts at Zimmerman's coffee house there would be far fewer recordings of Bach keyboard concertos, as there would be no need for reinterpretation. Also listener testimony on the improvising of, for example, Beethoven and Chopin, makes clear that there are certain aspects of depth to the improvisations of a master that are not equaled by written works.

One further note is that Armstrong's solos were sometimes not improvised but were worked out in advance and memorized. And then on the other hand, there are reports of his improvising thirty choruses at a stretch on live dates in the 1920s, at a time when jazz and pop records were limited to three minutes. So the whole issue of improvisation vs. composition is a complex one.

(My comments on Armstrong apply only to his work of the 1920s and early 1930s).