Thoughts on Improvisation in Classical Music

[AnotherSpin]

It can be considered an established fact that music may be born out of nowhere — from a realm beyond time and space. Many composers have spoken about this quite clearly. In that sense, the analogy with improvisation may be appropriate, if one finds it helpful. But once music is born, it simply is — and it doesn't need to be endlessly reworked, like jazz musicians endlessly riffing on tunes from musicals.

[atardecer]

Stravinsky's attitude has led to an ossification of performance practice. He wanted to stamp out any and all departures from the score. That is what made the Dutch Baroque performance style such a breath of fresh air.

There is a spectrum between rigidly adhering to a score and long winded jazz solos. I welcome performances that bring personality and spontaneity to music making.

Of course. I think there is also a spectrum within adherence to the score, there is still a lot of room there for individuality. Also some music is better suited for some improvisation than others. Hearing someone improvise during a Bach repeat, is great, hearing someone improvise during a Ravel piece (or most post-classical era music) is generally not what I want to hear.

[atardecer]

I think when it comes down to it I respect artists who make conscious decisions (influenced by the unconscious). There is something I find gutless about certain aspects of improvisation in this sense. If a performer is improvising there is like this unspoken concept that they shouldn't be held too accountable for what happens, after all it is just an improvisation. Also the mere fact it is improvised some seem to feel should elevate the performer in itself somehow, it becomes like a conceptual spectacle that is not entirely about the music itself, but the physical ability, like one is at a circus. The improvisation seems to be for those who are too unsure or fearful to really try to make an artistic statement. Excessive improvisation seems to flaunt a lack of care. If the music suffers they also have this excuse - it was just an improvisation.

[Szykneij]

I think when it comes down to it I respect artists who make conscious decisions (influenced by the unconscious). There is something I find gutless about certain aspects of improvisation in this sense. If a performer is improvising there is like this unspoken concept that they shouldn't be held too accountable for what happens, after all it is just an improvisation. Also the mere fact it is improvised some seem to feel should elevate the performer in itself somehow, it becomes like a conceptual spectacle that is not entirely about the music itself, but the physical ability, like one is at a circus. The improvisation seems to be for those who are too unsure or fearful to really try to make an artistic statement. Excessive improvisation seems to flaunt a lack of care. If the music suffers they also have this excuse - it was just an improvisation.

Improvising requires a strong knowledge of musical theory and form combined with the creative ability to "compose" on the fly over a basic structure. To me, this is more of an artistic statement than playing exactly what another has indicated should be played. Both are difficult skills to master, and being able do both is admirable.
  If you truly believe improvisation is only a physical ability and shows a lack of accountability, it's clear you don't understand it. You don't have to like it, but I find your derogatory statements about it way off base.

[DavidW]

I think when it comes down to it I respect artists who make conscious decisions (influenced by the unconscious). There is something I find gutless about certain aspects of improvisation in this sense. If a performer is improvising there is like this unspoken concept that they shouldn't be held too accountable for what happens, after all it is just an improvisation. Also the mere fact it is improvised some seem to feel should elevate the performer in itself somehow, it becomes like a conceptual spectacle that is not entirely about the music itself, but the physical ability, like one is at a circus. The improvisation seems to be for those who are too unsure or fearful to really try to make an artistic statement. Excessive improvisation seems to flaunt a lack of care. If the music suffers they also have this excuse - it was just an improvisation.

There is nothing gutless about going on stage to perform a complex masterpiece before an audience whether they improvise a cadenza or just play it straight.

[atardecer]

Improvising requires a strong knowledge of musical theory and form combined with the creative ability to "compose" on the fly over a basic structure. To me, this is more of an artistic statement than playing exactly what another has indicated should be played. Both are difficult skills to master, and being able do both is admirable.
  If you truly believe improvisation is only a physical ability and shows a lack of accountability, it's clear you don't understand it. You don't have to like it, but I find your derogatory statements about it way off base.

There is nothing gutless about going on stage to perform a complex masterpiece before an audience whether they improvise a cadenza or just play it straight.

I see what you both are saying and I don't disagree. I don't think you really get what I'm saying. For one thing in the above post I'm not comparing improvisational performers to classical performers. I'm comparing improvisational performers (who nowadays are regarded by many as 'spontaneous composers') to classical composers.

There is where I don't agree, that their improvisation constitutes composition. My 'gutless' comment (in which I said only in certain aspects) is related to this. I think it takes a certain amount of courage and belief in one self as a creator to say 'this is how the piece goes' and commit to that decision. Not just play whatever on any given performance. It seems to me that by doing that one can really just obscure the fact that they do not have much to say as a creator.

I've already stated that I see improvisation as an important aspect in creation, just not something I like at the forefront of performance. In referring to it as a physical skill, I understand there is a mental component and a tremendous amount of musical knowledge and ability involved, but it is the kind of skill that almost anyone can be taught, composition I don't think is teachable to the same degree.

I think there is something aside from the music itself that is attractive in the improvisational performance. The audience is reacting to the fact the music is being spontaneously created, this can become a kind of distraction I think, to the music itself, and the improvisor can hide behind this to an extent. Look how much they can do spontaneously! I'm not that interested in how fast something was created, I'm more interested in the substance of the content.

I like debating these topics, but try to grasp my underlying points, and not just the surface words that seem disagreeable to you which you then exploit to misrepresent my position.

I will also state here I am in awe of the musicianship of many improvisational musicians. I consider some of them outstanding artists such as Duke Ellington and Miles Davis, who I think were geniuses. Even though I don't like the format I admire the musical abilities of many jazz artists.

[Karl Henning]

[snip] ... improvisational performers (who nowadays are regarded by many as 'spontaneous composers') to classical composers.

There is where I don't agree, that their improvisation constitutes composition.

I see your point, but I don't see the border as impermeable. Remember that the Ricercar a 3 from The Musical Offering began its existence extemporaneously.

[atardecer]

I see your point, but I don't see the border as impermeable. Remember that the Ricercar a 3 from The Musical Offering began its existence extemporaneously.

Yes, I would imagine this is likely true for a number of Bach works, but in notating them he shows a conscious decision to make them permanent in that form. He also notated more precisely than most composers of the time leaving less room for improvisation. He was known to come back to works and revise them, some pieces he spent a long time on. His process indicates reflection.


 

[Karl Henning]

Yes, I would imagine this is likely true for a number of Bach works, but in notating them he shows a conscious decision to make them permanent in that form. He also notated more precisely than most composers of the time leaving less room for improvisation. He was known to come back to works and revise them, some pieces he spent a long time on. His process indicates reflection.


 

No argument, there.

[DavidW]

I like debating these topics, but try to grasp my underlying points, and not just the surface words that seem disagreeable to you which you then exploit to misrepresent my position.

But that is on you. You took a non-controversial topic that everyone would have agreed with you but then expressed yourself in such a disagreeable manner that people argue with you or ignore the thread entirely.

Please consider rephrasing your argument in a way that is neither hostile towards the performer or the audience. Avoid using such words as excuse, distraction, and gutless.

Please reread your posts for tone. Your posts sound angry, contemptuous and condescending over something that should be fun to discuss instead of unpleasant.

I should not be to blame for reacting to the words you chose to use. Nor should I be made to feel stupid or illiterate either.

[Mandryka]

I see what you both are saying and I don't disagree. I don't think you really get what I'm saying. For one thing in the above post I'm not comparing improvisational performers to classical performers. I'm comparing improvisational performers (who nowadays are regarded by many as 'spontaneous composers') to classical composers.

There is where I don't agree, that their improvisation constitutes composition. My 'gutless' comment (in which I said only in certain aspects) is related to this. I think it takes a certain amount of courage and belief in one self as a creator to say 'this is how the piece goes' and commit to that decision. Not just play whatever on any given performance. It seems to me that by doing that one can really just obscure the fact that they do not have much to say as a creator.

I've already stated that I see improvisation as an important aspect in creation, just not something I like at the forefront of performance. In referring to it as a physical skill, I understand there is a mental component and a tremendous amount of musical knowledge and ability involved, but it is the kind of skill that almost anyone can be taught, composition I don't think is teachable to the same degree.

I think there is something aside from the music itself that is attractive in the improvisational performance. The audience is reacting to the fact the music is being spontaneously created, this can become a kind of distraction I think, to the music itself, and the improvisor can hide behind this to an extent. Look how much they can do spontaneously! I'm not that interested in how fast something was created, I'm more interested in the substance of the content.

I like debating these topics, but try to grasp my underlying points, and not just the surface words that seem disagreeable to you which you then exploit to misrepresent my position.

I will also state here I am in awe of the musicianship of many improvisational musicians. I consider some of them outstanding artists such as Duke Ellington and Miles Davis, who I think were geniuses. Even though I don't like the format I admire the musical abilities of many jazz artists.

I don't think that the composer says "this is how it goes." A score is not code for a mental image of a performance in the composer's head. It can't be because scores underdetermine performance. In standard western classical musical culture, pretty well the only thing scores specify unambiguously is relative pitch. So the musician will have to "improvise" all sorts of things when s/he turns the score into sounds.

I remember once looking at a score of Boulez's second piano sonata with a friend, who said he thought the music was soulless. My response was that it's the job of the performer to embellish it with colour and rubato to give it a soul, that this is what is expected of musicians and Boulez would have known this when he published the score. A score is a limited framework for improvisation really, like a graphic or text score, but different.

[atardecer]

But that is on you. You took a non-controversial topic that everyone would have agreed with you but then expressed yourself in such a disagreeable manner that people argue with you or ignore the thread entirely.

Please consider rephrasing your argument in a way that is neither hostile towards the performer or the audience. Avoid using such words as excuse, distraction, and gutless.

Please reread your posts for tone. Your posts sound angry, contemptuous and condescending over something that should be fun to discuss instead of unpleasant.

I should not be to blame for reacting to the words you chose to use. Nor should I be made to feel stupid or illiterate either.

To me, the differences of opinion are the things that are interesting to discuss. I understand that in some respects my view is subjective, and I think there are some virtues in the jazz approach too. My post welcomes those other points of view to be discussed. I don't need or want everyone to agree with me. I don't think it is a good thing when everyone thinks similarly, it means people aren't really thinking.

I didn't intend for anyone to feel stupid. I feel that way too sometimes, it happened just the other day when I was watching a video by the classical nerd. Sometimes he talks about complex things so quickly it takes me a while to grasp what he is saying. I don't think you were being stupid but reacting emotionally. I think we live in a time where people have been made to get offended easily. It can cause people to take on certain views simply because they are inoffensive and politically correct. I just find that mode of being inauthentic. I'm not talking about you specifically, just in general.

[atardecer]

I don't think that the composer says "this is how it goes." A score is not code for a mental image of a performance in the composer's head. It can't be because scores underdetermine performance. In standard western classical musical culture, pretty well the only thing scores specify unambiguously is relative pitch. So the musician will have to "improvise" all sorts of things when s/he turns the score into sounds.

I remember once looking at a score of Boulez's second piano sonata with a friend, who said he thought the music was soulless. My response was that it's the job of the performer to embellish it with colour and rubato to give it a soul, that this is what is expected of musicians and Boulez would have known this when he published the score. A score is a limited framework for improvisation really, like a graphic or text score, but different.

Good points. I think the score is usually an attempt by the composer to be as precise as he can in the recreation of the work. But I think it is a good thing it can be interpreted in different ways, and in some styles areas notated for improvisation works very well.

I like some creativity and improvisation in performance. I want to stress this. I just think an excess of improvisation leads to limitations, too little and things get too rigid. Essentially, I like the amount of improvisation there is in the classical music world right now.

[Mandryka]

Here's a couple of things for you to think about

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCov7qji9vg&list=RDjCov7qji9vg&start_radio=1

[Karl Henning]

Great idea for a thread, BTW.