Your Own Classical Evolution

[Philoctetes]

Well, let me explain.

You have some feeling about music, somewhat hidden so it doesn't affect taste. When some reason supports feeling, the feeling begins to affect taste.

You'd be much better simply saying nothing. The ability to string together words does not a coherent thought make.

[Philoctetes]

Well, what do you think it makes it coherent and where do I fail?

Seemingly my Kantian sentimentalities. Reason and taste are quite tied together (I'm with you there.), the problem arises in regards to that 'feeling', which is itself based on reason (just because you cannot voice its exactness, does not negate that the reason is an actuality), and all if it leads to the buildup of taste.

Although, this is all quite bullshittish, to give formulation to something as subjective and fickle as taste, is barely thought, in my opinion.

[Henk]

Then what point is there in inventing imaginary reasons why music is inferior, just because you don't like it?  Why not accept, "this music has clearly recognized merit, although it does not appeal to me."  That would make too much sense?

That I discard music on reasons and taste is to check if my taste develops in the right way and to check if my reasons are right.

[Henk]

What remains is more feeling for art. 0:)

[AndyD.]

I think I would lose interest in a lot of music if it didn't have some sort of edge to it. That falling-down-the-stairs-hoping-to-land-on-your-feet sound is one of the most exciting, exhilirating sounds in music. Improvisation is a common denominator in that kind of sound.

This where interpretations, both live and in the studio, can be so interesting.

Maybe it's just me, but I grew up believing improvisation and free interpretation to be absolutely vital in music; it occurs in most genres of music.

Improvisation often entails playing from the heart, with little to no head involvement. Without heart, music sucks.

I feel a little like an alien, talking about this. It's like I entered a conversation with with someone I think is secretly joking.

Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe that's just my opinion.

[Henk]

I think I would lose interest in a lot of music if it didn't have some sort of edge to it. That falling-down-the-stairs-hoping-to-land-on-your-feet sound is one of the most exciting, exhilirating sounds in music. Improvisation is a common denominator in that kind of sound.

This where interpretations, both live and in the studio, can be so interesting.

Maybe it's just me, but I grew up believing improvisation and free interpretation to be absolutely vital in music; it occurs in most genres of music.

Improvisation often entails playing from the heart, with little to no head involvement. Without heart, music sucks.

I feel a little like an alien, talking about this. It's like I entered a conversation with with someone I think is secretly joking.

Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe that's just my opinion.

In jazz it's the locus. Jazz is all about schemes. It's where the Apollonistic gets independent from the Dionysistic and gets Socratic.

In most pop and rock (and metal) music and classical music this is less (not) the case and improvisation can be of added value. Pop and rock are about show much more then about art and I find nothing wrong with it. Jazz though holds itself for more artistic, it's not clear whether it's about show or art.

Also Andy just my opinion and perception and based on my readings.

Henk

[Josquin des Prez]

You call that progression? From Brahms on it went wrong with you, except the step Early Music .

I didn't say the progression went upwards or downwards, that's just the path of my exploration throughout the years, curiosity being my main guide.

Jazz musicians don't have any relation with their instrument. They don't play it, they use it only.

That is just absurd. Its actually the other way around. It is classical composers who often have little to no relation with their instrument of choice, assuming that they even play an instrument. Many composers of course do have a special relationship with their instrument, but for many it just isn't an imperative.

For a Jazz musician however, the instrument means everything. Because his creativity is tied to improvisation, his entire musicianship and expressiveness hang on his understanding and familiarity with the instrument. For some this relationship was so intense to be almost symbiotic. Tatum for instance, who experienced waves of anxiety at the mere though of separating himself from the piano for the few days necessary to reach New York, or Coltrane, who's spent almost every waking hour of his life trying improving his horn abilities, to the point he started studying practice text books meant for the piano once he had ran out of study material for the Saxophone. There are things Jazz musicians are able to do with their instruments that can make some of the accomplishments of renowned classical performers sound like child play in comparison.

Jazz musicians aren't creative, but have a good memory for schemes. The result can't be music. It only sounds rhythmic and you hear a sequence of harmonics and dissonants.

I don't think you really understand Jazz improvisation. The idea is based on the assumption that intuition supersedes consciousness. That there are things a performer is able to do on the fly that simply aren't possible to plan or rationalize. The thing that makes Jazz different from composed music (or even improvised, spontaneous composition) is that improvisation is a way of playing a composition rather then creating one, which is where comments like yours, that improvisation is somehow "imperfect", make very little sense. Jazz improvisation is not about composing music on the fly, its about adding individual touches to an already existing melody or harmony which depending on the performer can achieve incredible levels of complexity and sophistication. Its a form of improvised variation where everything, and i mean everything is used to add to the melody, from the most subtle rhythmic change to the most extreme harmony. Here's an example given my Marsalis when speaking of the breakthrough Duddy Bolden introduced when he allegedly invented Jazz music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9BVe1JH4Ow&feature=related

The secret of understanding Jazz then is to understand what individual touches are being applied to the melody in the first place. Most people do not tend to have that type of profound insight into the individual player, at least not at first, so that Jazz soloing end up sounding like a bunch of notes which may be pleasant in a superficial way but which make no real sense. At the highest levels, i think Jazz improvisation is one of the greatest art forms ever conceived precisely because it is often so excruciatingly difficoult to understand.

[Henk]

I didn't say the progression went upwards or downwards, that's just the path of my exploration through out the year, curiosity being my main guide.

That is just absurd. Its actually the other way around. It is classical composers who often have little to no relation with their instrument of choice, assuming that they even play an instrument. Many composers of course do have a special relationship with their instrument, but for many it just isn't an imperative.

Jazz musicians like Mengelberg use their instrument, a piano, as a table. He just puts his cup of coffee on it. Willem Breuker almost blows up the bargel organ, steam coming out of it and he thinks it's fun. That's exemplifying for all jazz musicians.

Performers (not composers) of classical music have a much more deeper, stranger maybe, relation, as I can imagine, with their instrument. They can love it, but they also can hate it.

For a Jazz musician however, the instrument means everything. Because his creativity is tied to improvisation, his entire musicianship and expressiveness hang on his understanding and familiarity with the instrument. For some this relationship was so intense to be almost symbiotic. Tatum for instance, who experienced waves of anxiety at the mere though of separating himself from the piano for the few days necessary to reach New York, or Coltrane, who's spent almost every waking hour of his life trying improving his horn abilities, to the point he started studying practice text books meant for the piano once he had ran out of study material for the Saxophone. There are things Jazz musicians are able to do with their instruments that can make the some accomplishments of renowned classical performers sound like child play in comparison.

I don't think you really understand Jazz improvisation. The idea is based on the assumption that intuition supersedes consciousness. That there are things a performer is able to do on the fly that simply aren't possible to plan or rationalize. The thing that makes Jazz different from composed music (or even improvised, spontaneous composition) is that improvisation is a way of playing a composition rather then creating one, which is where comments like yours, that improvisation is somehow "imperfect", make very little sense. Jazz improvisation is not about composing music on the fly, its about adding individual touches to an already existing melody or harmony which depending on the performer can achieve incredible levels of complexity and sophistication. Its a form of improvised variation where everything, and i mean everything is used to add to the melody, from the most subtle rhythmic change to the most extreme harmony. Here's an example given my Marsalis when speaking of the breakthrough Duddy Bolden introduced when he allegedly invented Jazz music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9BVe1JH4Ow&feature=related

The secret of understanding Jazz then is to understand what individual touches are being applied to the melody in the first place. Most people do not tend to have that type of profound insight into the individual player, at least not at first, so that Jazz soloing end up sounding like a bunch of notes which may be pleasant in a superficial way but which make no real sense. At the highest levels, i think Jazz improvisation is one of the greatest art forms ever conceived precisely because it is often so excruciatingly difficoult to understand.

In the days of Tatum and Coltrane jazz was quite popular and improvising cool. It's not surprising that Tatum and Coltrane were always busy with making music. It was their talent and it was rewarding. 

But how can improvising in jazz be so intuitive? You don't have an answer to that. I think it's because jazz musicians apply schemes. They just play some combinations of notes and if it sounds nice, they memorize them and apply them. That could possibly be the trick that demystifies the intuitiveness of improvising by jazz musicians. The rhythm does the rest or rather the rhythm makes it sound like music. That's possibly why they like their own playing and get technical very skilled. I've tried to play some jazz myself and that was what made it attractive to me.

Henk

[Henk]

Another aspect of improvising is just listen to what you play and use it as feedback so play the following note slower, faster, softer or harder so that it sounds nice again and put your feeling in it (expression). It has not so much to do with creativity or ("instant") composing.

[AndyD.]

I didn't say the progression went upwards or downwards, that's just the path of my exploration through out the year, curiosity being my main guide.

That is just absurd. Its actually the other way around. It is classical composers who often have little to no relation with their instrument of choice, assuming that they even play an instrument. Many composers of course do have a special relationship with their instrument, but for many it just isn't an imperative.

For a Jazz musician however, the instrument means everything. Because his creativity is tied to improvisation, his entire musicianship and expressiveness hang on his understanding and familiarity with the instrument. For some this relationship was so intense to be almost symbiotic. Tatum for instance, who experienced waves of anxiety at the mere though of separating himself from the piano for the few days necessary to reach New York, or Coltrane, who's spent almost every waking hour of his life trying improving his horn abilities, to the point he started studying practice text books meant for the piano once he had ran out of study material for the Saxophone. There are things Jazz musicians are able to do with their instruments that can make the some accomplishments of renowned classical performers sound like child play in comparison.

I don't think you really understand Jazz improvisation. The idea is based on the assumption that intuition supersedes consciousness. That there are things a performer is able to do on the fly that simply aren't possible to plan or rationalize. The thing that makes Jazz different from composed music (or even improvised, spontaneous composition) is that improvisation is a way of playing a composition rather then creating one, which is where comments like yours, that improvisation is somehow "imperfect", make very little sense. Jazz improvisation is not about composing music on the fly, its about adding individual touches to an already existing melody or harmony which depending on the performer can achieve incredible levels of complexity and sophistication. Its a form of improvised variation where everything, and i mean everything is used to add to the melody, from the most subtle rhythmic change to the most extreme harmony. Here's an example given my Marsalis when speaking of the breakthrough Duddy Bolden introduced when he allegedly invented Jazz music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9BVe1JH4Ow&feature=related

The secret of understanding Jazz then is to understand what individual touches are being applied to the melody in the first place. Most people do not tend to have that type of profound insight into the individual player, at least not at first, so that Jazz soloing end up sounding like a bunch of notes which may be pleasant in a superficial way but which make no real sense. At the highest levels, i think Jazz improvisation is one of the greatest art forms ever conceived precisely because it is often so excruciatingly difficoult to understand.

Post of the month.

[Mirror Image]

Another aspect of improvising is just listen to what you play and use it as feedback so play the following note slower, faster, softer or harder so that it sounds nice again. It has not so much to do with creativity or ("instant") composing.

What a bunch of BS. Just go home already. Nobody agrees with you.

[Henk]

What a bunch of BS. Just go home already. Nobody agrees with you.

I speak out of my own experience.

[Philoctetes]

I speak out of my own experience.

Fucking christ, dude. Must these threads always be derailed into utter morocity. Is there a way to lock Henk in a single thread? So that he can be fully deluded by his lomesome furthering the delusion?

[Henk]

Fucking christ, dude. Must these threads always be derailed into utter morocity. Is there a way to lock Henk in a single thread? So that he can be fully deluded by his lomesome furthering the delusion?

I just explain the basics of (free) jazz. By just giving another explanation one doesn't give arguments against my supposed delusion.

I can see that I irritate people, but I can't help that.

Henk

[Scarpia]

Another aspect of improvising is just listen to what you play and use it as feedback so play the following note slower, faster, softer or harder so that it sounds nice again and put your feeling in it (expression). It has not so much to do with creativity or ("instant") composing.

This is simply nonsense.  Improvisation is the same essential process as composition.  It is composition on the fly so there is less potential for planning very elaborate structures, but it involves interaction with other musicians and the audience, so it has the potential to be more dynamic and complex in a different way.  But good composers can be interactive, and good improvisers can build remarkably intricate structures.  It is a matter of degree.

[Philoctetes]

I just explain the basics of (free) jazz. By just giving another explanation one doesn't give arguments against my supposed delusion.

I can see that I irritate people, but I can't help that.

Henk

Actually you weren't describing 'free' jazz at all. You were just explaining your delusion of it.


You wouldn't irritate people if you weren't so <...>. I'm actually missing Teresa. I mean she was fucking retarded, but she at least had some thought.

[Henk]

This is simply nonsense.  Improvisation is the same essential process as composition.  It is composition on the fly so there is less potential for planning very elaborate structures, but it involves interaction with other musicians and the audience, so it has the potential to be more dynamic and complex in a different way.  But good composers can be interactive, and good improvisers can build remarkably intricate structures.  It is a matter of degree.

Then I bring in my second point that for a jazz artists applying schemes is a guiding principle, a good composer doesn't use schemes.

[Philoctetes]

Then I bring in my second point that for a jazz artists applying schemes is a guiding principle, a good composer doesn't use schemes.

I created a thread, built especially for your particular nature.

[Henk]

Actually you weren't describing 'free' jazz at all. You were just explaining your delusion of it.


You wouldn't irritate people if you weren't so fucktarded. I'm actually missing Teresa. I mean she was fucking retarded, but she at least had some thought.

You play on the man, Philoctetes. You don't use any arguments. You're just frustrated. Calling me a christ? On what grounds?

Henk

[AndyD.]

It's not neccessarily that you're being irritating, Henk. It's just...there are so few accomplished musicians that would agree with the points you're making. Improvisation in jazz, by experienced players, is just as musically valid as any other music. Without it, music overall wouldn't have been the same today. The great musicians, like Marsalis, Davis, Wes Montgomery, Joe Pass, and so many others are brilliant on a level that's so far beyond the average person...

I again can't help but wonder whether you're just speculating/playing the devil's advocate.

Then I bring in my second point that for a jazz artists applying schemes is a guiding principle, a good composer doesn't use schemes.

I'm flabbergasted now. Speechless.