Your Own Classical Evolution

[karlhenning]

I strongly doubt it. It's part of their show, but they were quite naive and still had the believe they made real music, as the crowd did. Monk only repeated himself, Coltrane could only progress to go in extremes as his "schemes" allowed.

Before I could much discuss this with you, you would have to explain to me how "real music" is distinguished from jazz. You see, in this composer's naïveté, I consider a lot of jazz to be a subset of Real Music™

Why do you think music of Kind of Blue nowadays is used in funny tv shows?

Dunno; same reason that Rossini, Liszt & Wagner were used in Looney Tunes? The use in pop culture doesn't de-legitimize the source Art.

[karlhenning]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Henk has a right to his opinion of course, but I think to say that jazz musicians don't have any kind of relation to their instrument or that they're not creative is an interesting comment to make since a jazz musician's art relies on nothing but spontaneous creativity and in order to be creative, the jazz musician must know their instrument incredibly well.

Exactly; I am in awe of their command. I don't believe for an instant that I know my clarinet so well as Dolphy knew his bass clarinet.  And I've lived with my clarinet for 32 years . . . .

[Henk]

Exactly; I am in awe of their command. I don't believe for an instant that I know my clarinet so well as Dolphy knew his bass clarinet.  And I've lived with my clarinet for 32 years . . . .

Precisely, Karl. For Dolphy was his clarinet something he knew very well. But only in a very superficial way. You, in contrary, as I imagine, have a relation with it.

[Mirror Image]

For a jazz musician, it's all about expressing oneself in an honest way. Jazz is music. It has rhythm, melody, harmony, and structure. But jazz gets beyond these confines in the use of improvisation, which many classical listeners don't understand. Improvisation is what makes jazz what it is. It's completely fine if Henk doesn't understand it.

[MN Dave]

I think Henk has to retHenk his opinion on jazz. 

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

my story as a listener

For hearing classical music, 2 environments were important: home and school. At home, my parents had a basic but high-quality record collection, including standards like the Beethoven symphonies (I remember the 5th and 7th under Steinberg, the 6th under Klemperer, the 9th under Munch), Tchaikovsky ballets, the Bach Brandenburgs (Casals recording), some Schubert, Grieg, Wagner, some of those "[composer]'s greatest hits" compilations, and bits of light music. In other words, standard stuff in solid performances.

My high school featured a standard "clapping for credit" (music appreciation) course which everyone had to go through. It is easy to disparage such courses, since they basically involve sitting around and listening to recordings while the teacher has a smoke and a coffee in the next room. But I have to admit that course gave me a lot. I learned all the basic forms (symphony, concerto, etc.) and got a decent historical overview of Western music.

Another very important factor was classical radio. As a teenager in the Chicago area in the 1980s, I had access to 2 all-classical stations, WFMT and WNIB. The first was (maybe still is) one of the best classical stations in the country, maybe the world. They played everything: not just the standards, but chronologically everything, from Machaut to Xenakis. Thanks to WFMT, I first heard the Bruckner and Mahler symphonies (my companions through life) complete. And every Sunday, they broadcast the Chicago Symphony's concert of that week. The other station, WNIB, was not quite as outstanding as WFMT, but still played plenty of good stuff, without dumbing down. Years ago however, they switched over to a pop format.

I suppose I could list live concerts, but they were an infrequent activity for me at the time. I did manage to attend the Ravinia Festival more than a few times, though, and heard some concerts that are still sharp in my memory (this was during the Levine years).

As to the actual music, it went basically: standard classics and romantics, plus Bach -> standard early moderns (Stravinsky, Bartok, Prokofiev) -> more modern moderns (Ligeti, Lutoslawski, Schnittke, Carter, Xenakis) -> byways of the 20th c. (UK/Nordic symphonists, Americans, etc.) -> Baroque and Early music.


Thinking back on this, it strikes me that I was extraordinarily lucky to have all these avenues for discovering good music.

[Scarpia]

Precisely, Karl. For Dolphy was his clarinet something he knew very well. But only in a very superficial way. You, in contrary, as I imagine, have a relation with it.

How can you reconcile this preposterous theory to the fact that there have been musicians who performed both Jazz music and Classical music?

[karlhenning]

Precisely, Karl. For Dolphy was his clarinet something he knew very well. But only in a very superficial way. You, in contrary, as I imagine, have a relation with it.

But I'm puzzled, Henk; how could I possibly aver that my relation to the clarinet is less superficial than Dolphy's to his bass clarinet?

[AndyD.]

I'm kind of freaking out about hearing how great jazz players aren't creative, repeat themselves,etc. I'm hoping that I read that wrong.

Mozart and Bach repeated themselves, quite a bit in fact.

[Henk]

For a jazz musician, it's all about expressing oneself in honest way. Jazz is music. It has rhythm, melody, harmony, and structure. But jazz gets beyond these confines in the use of improvisation, which many classical listeners don't understand. Improvisation is what makes jazz what it is. It's completely fine if Henk doesn't understand it.

Well, I have listened to jazz very much. It's only later that I started to listen to classical music. And I attended concerts much and had contact with artists. But somehow I felt strange being an attender of concerts. As I said, jazz musicians want to make music, but they give away a show, but they don't want to give away a show but make music. In earlier times of jazz this wasn't apparent already, but it has always been that way. But I can't form an attitude more as an attender. The artists make a fool of themselves these days performing and improvising on stage. Improvising isn't cool anymore. Of course the crowd have respect for the playing skills of the musicians, but seeing them perform (and seeing them make a fool of themselves) is an underestimated part of the fun.

You can divide jazz artitst in two categories: the ones that show that improvising takes a lot of effort and the ones that show that it goes easily. Both make a fool of themselves in my opinion because they both represent the same idea I have of jazz.

Henk

[Henk]

But I'm puzzled, Henk; how could I possibly aver that my relation to the clarinet is less superficial than Dolphy's to his bass clarinet?

Dolphy has more status as a performer, because for jazz being creative (which I see as applying schemes) and perform goes together.

[Josquin des Prez]

Since when have you started to like jazz?

Since a couple of years actually. Why would that be surprising?

I believe he's an Ellington fan, as am I.

Coltrane is my favored Jazz musician, if that means anything. And yes, i do in fact admire Ellington.

[Sergeant Rock]

Sounds like you have some evolving ahead of you.

No, I don't think so.

So you're an evolutionary dead end? Sorry to hear that, MI    but at least you can be proud of the fact that you join a long line of extinct species that litter history 

But to answer this thread's topic seriously: my evolution began early. I recall hearing opera in the 50s on The Bell Telephone Hour and The Voice of Firestone when I was five, six. Mom was an accomplished pianist and I often sat next to her on the bench while she played Schumann, Chopin, Rachmaninoff (the only piece that made a lasting impression, however, was Rach's famous C sharp minor Prelude).

Although we had no classical recordings in the house until I was old enough to pay for them myself, my father always tuned into the classical fare on television, including ballets and Lenny's Young People's Concerts (that's where I discovered Ives, Berlioz and Vaughan Williams). Hearing at age 13 The Ride of the Valkyries on the radio turned me into an instant Wagernite. I heard my first live opera at age 17: Lohengrin (the Met came to Cleveand every year for a week's worth of performances). By the time I was 16/17 my best friend and I had a joint classical LP collection, small but interesting that included: Ives 2, Vaughan Williams 2 and 8; Elgar Enigma, Stokowski's Wagner, Brahms 4, Rachmaninoff PC2 (Richter, of course), Robert Craft's collection of "Pieces" by the Twelve Tone boys; Janacek's Sinfonietta, the Bernstein Tchaikovsky LP (1812, etc), Dvorak 9. There was no Bach, Beethoven or Mozart though (see, you weren't so unique ) A love for those composers came much later--with few exceptions, I didn't "get" the Classical era until I read Charles Rosen's The Classical Style in the mid 70s. Mahler was an early love too: Klemperer's M2, borrowed from the library when I was 17, was a revelation.

I had the good fortune to attend quite a few Cleveland Orchestra concerts when I was in my teens and early twenties. Saw George Szell on numberous occasions (Mahler, Brahms, Mozart, Wagner, Sibelius, Strauss, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky). Sibelius didn't really do anything for me, though, until I heard Maazel's first concert in Cleveland after he'd been named Music Director in 1971: he conducted the Fifth and I was blown away. It's still one of my three favorite symphonies.

Bruckner also wasn't an instant love. In fact, I found him unappealing and boring when I was in high school. I guess that's because he's a terrible composer (I keed, I keed  )  My best army buddy turned me on to Bruckner finally, during a very trying time in my life (I'd been severely wounded)...and an even more trying time in my friend's life. Turns out I just needed a little evolutionary push to fully appreciate that delightful and utterly profound Austrian.

The only music that took an even longer time to appreciate was French...almost anything French actually save Berlioz and Satie. I was in my late thirties, early forties before Ravel and Debussy finally clicked. Poulenc was easier.

I think I've evolved into a highly developed listener, with a collection, and appreciation for, over three hundred composers.

Sarge

Edit: I was going to correct my spelling of numerous but you what? I like the typo: maybe it will catch on 

[Philoctetes]

You said:
 
How exactly is somebody supposed to take this? Look, don't make excuses, which you are doing, just accept the fact that you can't stand anybody else to dislike Satie's music and speak out against him.

You're a moron if you think that. I don't even know how you came to surmise that. Perhaps you are like Teresa and Saul, imagining things to make up for the shortcomes of your own 'argument'.

[Philoctetes]

You know I think that several posters misread the tone of MI's post.  You took him to be trolling, when that emoticon (which is why we have and should use them) clearly indicated that he was just expressing his opinion and having a laugh at how contrary it sounded.  Seriously lighten up you guys, the world won't fall apart if one poster doesn't like Satie.

Not at all. I don't think that was our complaint at all. Our complaint was his designating Satie to the category of 'terrible composers. I honestly don't give two shits if someone likes or dislikes him.

Perhaps you should follow his lead and actaully read his posts and the ones following it, because it was quite clear what the directionality of the discourse was.

[Mirror Image]

Well, I have listened to jazz very much. It's only later that I started to listen to classical music. And I attended concerts much and had contact with artists. But somehow I felt strange being an attender of concerts. As I said, jazz musicians want to make music, but they give away a show, but they don't want to give away a show but make music. In earlier times of jazz this wasn't apparent already, but it has always been that way. But I can't form an attitude more as an attender. The artists make a fool of themselves these days performing and improvising on stage. Improvising isn't cool anymore. Of course the crowd have respect for the playing skills of the musicians, but seeing them perform (and seeing them make a fool of themselves) is an underestimated part of the fun.

You can divide jazz artitst in two categories: the ones that show that improvising takes a lot of effort and the ones that show that it goes easily. Both make a fool of themselves in my opinion because they both represent the same idea I have of jazz.

Henk

Improvisation isn't about "being cool" it's about honest, human communication, if you think that it is then I highly doubt you've actually sat down and seriously listened to a jazz musician as you claim you have.

The only person making a fool of themselves is you I think and everybody else who doesn't necessarily enjoy jazz music would probably agree. You continue living in your bubble.

[Mirror Image]

You're a moron if you think that. I don't even know how you came to surmise that. Perhaps you are like Teresa and Saul, imagining things to make up for the shortcomes of your own 'argument'.

I see that you're still on the topic of Satie and more importantly my opinion.    Can we move on now? Everybody else has.

[karlhenning]

Improvisation is a skill; one to which I am largely a stranger.

[Mirror Image]

Improvisation is a skill; one to which I am largely a stranger.

I improvise a lot. Sometimes I will workout a solo, but most of the time I like to play totally off the cuff or on the edge if you will.   I never felt more freer when I improvise.

[Henk]

Improvisation isn't about "being cool" it's about honest, human communication, if you think that it is then I highly doubt you've actually sat down and seriously listened to a jazz musician as you claim you have.

The only person making a fool of themselves is you I think and everybody else who doesn't necessarily enjoy jazz music would probably agree. You continue living in your bubble.

Well, do you listen to modern jazz? I have lots of cd's and really listened to them with lots of honesty. But there's a point when you loose interest. I only try to figure out why.

Henk