Composers you don't get

[Mirror Image]

The point of Kapustin is that his music is actually inspired, note for note. This is of course very rare in a modern composer, modernity being by definition antithetical to genuine artistic inspiration. Granted, i'm speaking to a group of people who can't tell the difference between Chopin and Liszt in terms of actual inspiration, so how could i possibly convince anybody here of the worth of a composer like Kapustin? Its an act in futility.

Please spare us your gushing about this trite composer, Kapustin. His music is nothing in the world but notated jazz, which defeats the whole purpose of jazz, which is all about improvisation. I've talked to many jazz musicians through the years who would probably cringe when they hear Kapustin because what he's trying to do is sound like a jazz musician. If you take the music away from Kapustin, I'd like to hear how well he improvises over the changes to Coltrane's Giant Steps. Jazz is not classical music and classical music is not jazz. They can influence each other, but Kapustin puts this idea way over the edge.

[Luke]

Kapustin is a fine jazz player, and I'm sure he could improvise on Giants Steps just fine. But that's not my point. I just don't think his 'classical' compositions are the works of high genius JDP does. Excellently written, yes. But they don't come near the claims he makes for them.

[karlhenning]

. . . which defeats the whole purpose of jazz, which is all about improvisation.

I don't think that simplification is fair to jazz, BTW. When Duke and Monk were composing, was their activity antithetical to the whole purpose of jazz?

[DieNacht]

Granted, i'm speaking to a group of people who can't tell the difference between Chopin and Liszt in terms of actual
inspiration

It would be appropriate then that you gave us newcomers just a tiny few samples of your thoughts on the difference;
we might have a few immediate ideas, such as the vast difference in literary scope between the two, but still...

[Grazioso]

I don't think that simplification is fair to jazz, BTW. When Duke and Monk were composing, was their activity antithetical to the whole purpose of jazz?

Shades of the jazz thread coming back to haunt us... Hang on, I need to make a bag of popcorn so I can sit back and enjoy this... 

It would be appropriate then that you gave us newcomers just a tiny few samples of your thoughts on the difference;
we might have a few immediate ideas, such as the vast difference in literary scope between the two, but still...

"Samples"? You just intuit these things, claim you're right, and then make fun of people who disagree. It's easy!   

[Mirror Image]

I don't think that simplification is fair to jazz, BTW. When Duke and Monk were composing, was their activity antithetical to the whole purpose of jazz?

Monk admitted that most of his compositions were sketches. Did you ever see the film Straight, No Chaser, Karl? He openly admitted this. Ellington, on the other hand, was a big band leader and did some fine arrangements. He wasn't as noteworthy as a jazz writer as Billy Strayhorn was, which, as you know, was his right-hand man for many years. Ellington said in an interview that when Strayhorn died, he didn't really know how he was going to carry on, but he did fine without him I think. Recordings like New Orleans Suite and Latin American Suite proved Ellington the capable composer himself. But Ellington's true gift was in his arranging skills.

[Josquin des Prez]

It would be appropriate then that you gave us newcomers just a tiny few samples of your thoughts on the difference;
we might have a few immediate ideas, such as the vast difference in literary scope between the two, but still...

But still what? Can you tell the difference between the two? I'm curious.

I originally compared Kapustin to Scarlatti. That comparison was merely based on the fact both composers were able to write music of the utmost inspiration based on the same formula. So to the question of which Kapustin is supposed to be genuinely inspired, well, the answer is: all of it. There isn't a single work by Kapustin that isn't just as inspired as the other. Some just happen to be more ambitious.

[DieNacht]

Understanding the terms now, I see that my question was, of course, completely irrelevant.

[Mirror Image]

Kapustin is a fine jazz player, and I'm sure he could improvise on Giants Steps just fine. But that's not my point. I just don't think his 'classical' compositions are the works of high genius JDP does. Excellently written, yes. But they don't come near the claims he makes for them.

Well I was making an entirely different point, Luke. No need to comment on what I wrote. I have my own criticism of Kapustin just like you do. I doubt he could improvise on Giant Steps. This is a fiendishly difficult piece that has tripped up even the most accomplished jazz musicians. I've been struggling with it for a long time now.

[Josquin des Prez]

Please spare us your gushing about this trite composer, Kapustin. His music is nothing in the world but notated jazz

No it isn't. Its Jazz notated in a classical medium. The very fact you can't even see the difference invalidates any opinion you might have on the subject. Its like arguing Bartok is a worthless composer because his music is just notated folk Hungarian song. It also demonstrates you have no idea what Jazz music actually is (to wit, it isn't about improvisation per-se).

[Luke]

But still what? Can you tell the difference between the two? I'm curious.

I originally compared Kapustin to Scarlatti. That comparison was merely based on the fact both composers were able to write music of the utmost inspiration based on the same formula. So to the question of which Kapustin is supposed to be genuinely inspired, well, the answer is: all of it. There isn't a single work by Kapustin that isn't just as inspired by the other. Some just happen to be more ambitious.

Except

a) it isn't a 'fact' that both composers only wrote music of 'utmost inspiration'. That's disingenuous, because obviously it is unprovable. You think it true, but wrt Kapustin I and others dispute it, and, contrary to your imputations, I am perfectly able to listen and tell you why this is, note-by-note.

b) not only is it not a fact for the reason that one cannot prove 'utmost inspiration', it is also not a fact that Kapustin is a one-formula man (nor was Scarlatti, though the argument could be made that he was more easily).

[Luke]

No it isn't. Its Jazz notated in a classical medium.

It's not, really. Jazz, notated, looks very different. The worst bits of Kapustin, to my mind, are the bits which do look like notated jazz.

[Josquin des Prez]

Except

a) it isn't a 'fact' that both composers only wrote music of 'utmost inspiration'. That's disingenuous, because obviously it is unprovable.

Right. That's the whole point of artistic criticism. I can't prove that Beethoven was a greater genius then Britney Spears. That doesn't mean he wasn't. This is why modernist materialism and relativism is a decadent, limited world view.

[Mirror Image]

No it isn't. Its Jazz notated in a classical medium. The very fact you can't even see the difference invalidates any opinion you might have on the subject. Its like arguing Bartok is a worthless composer because his music is just notated folk Hungarian song. It also demonstrates you have no idea what Jazz music actually is (to wit, it isn't about improvisation per-se).

I see you're still holding the flag for Kapustin. Yeah, I don't have any idea of what jazz is , I've only been listening to jazz for 15 years now and playing it for almost as long.

If you enjoy listening to Liberace , I mean Kapustin, then that's your business, but don't try and pass him off as some kind of genius composer, because he's not.

[Josquin des Prez]

It's not, really. Jazz, notated, looks very different.

Which is what i said. Its not Jazz, its is a Jazz idiom notated in classical context. Kapustin is not Jazz anymore then Bartok was Hungarian folk song.

[karlhenning]

Monk admitted that most of his compositions were sketches. Did you ever see the film Straight, No Chaser, Karl? He openly admitted this.

It's interesting that you cast this in light of an "admission." And yes, I've seen the film.

You're not answering my question, I note.

[Josquin des Prez]

Yeah, I don't have any idea of what jazz is , I've only been listening to jazz for 15 years now and playing it for almost as long.

Which proves, exactly, nothing. Keith Jarrett has been playing Jazz for most of his life. He still doesn't know the first thing about this type of music.

If you enjoy listening to Liberace , I mean Kapustin, then that's your business, but don't try and pass him off as some kind of genius composer, because he's not.

Actually, he is. As close to genius as a modern composer can possibly get, in an age where the whole concept of genius has little meaning in the first place.

[Luke]

Right. That's the whole point of artistic criticism. I can't prove that Beethoven was a greater genius then Britney Spears. That doesn't mean he wasn't. This is why modernist materialism and relativism is a decadent, limited world view.

Rubbish, because back in the real world, it's perfectly possible to prove it, once you've agreed terms. Or you should be able to make a bloody good attempt, as it's bleeding obvious. The problem with Kapustin is that it is harder to make the case for him. It's not relativism that is making me dispute claims for Kapustin's almighty greatness. It's the opposite - I think that others are demonstrably greater.

[Mirror Image]

Which is what i said. Its not Jazz, its is a Jazz idiom notated in classical context. Kapustin is not Jazz anymore then Bartok was Hungarian folk song.

Listen to Bartok and then listen Kapustin and tell me who is more original. Where is Kapustin's Concerto for Orchestra, where is Kapustin's The Miraculous Mandarin, where is Kapustin's Violin Concerto No. 2?

Your defense of Kapustin is hilarious. Please keep it up. I needed a good laugh today, so if anything, thank you for that.

[Grazioso]

Monk admitted that most of his compositions were sketches. Did you ever see the film Straight, No Chaser, Karl? He openly admitted this. Ellington, on the other hand, was a big band leader and did some fine arrangements. He wasn't as noteworthy as a jazz writer as Billy Strayhorn was, which, as you know, was his right-hand man for many years. Ellington said in an interview that when Strayhorn died, he didn't really know how he was going to carry on, but he did fine without him I think. Recordings like New Orleans Suite and Latin American Suite proved Ellington the capable composer himself. But Ellington's true gift was in his arranging skills.

It's still a stretch to claim the whole purpose of jazz is improvisation. That creates an artificial boundary between composition and improvisation, it neglects other key jazz elements (such as swing and characteristic instrumentation), and downplays the fact that many compositions in jazz are beloved in their own right and have becoming hallmarks of certain players, styles, and albums.

A jazz composition might be "just" a sketch--it might be conceived primarily as a harmonic framework upon which to improvise--but someone thought it important enough to write one to serve as such an organizing principle for the music, instead of playing pure free jazz.