Improvised vs. composed music

[Grazioso]

Ranking jazz and classical music is a bit like ranking poetry and prose, two significantly different ways of employing a lot of the same words. Poets admire novelists, therefore the novel is superior? As long as you're going to ascribe primacy in life or art to the intellectual, the deliberate, the considered, the Apollonian, you won't be able to appreciate jazz on its own merits.

Btw, the bit about rhythm appealing to our animal side is an interesting assertion. For one thing, it smacks of the racist condescension that used to be levelled at jazz, though I certainly don't accuse you of the same. Also, as Jochanaan notes, rhythm or drumming plays a key part in spiritual practices worldwide (in addition to the examples he offers, consider the rhythm of breathing in Zen meditation or the chanting in Tibetan Buddhism). And do not certain sounds, melodies, and harmonic resolutions create positive physical sensations in us, raising goosebumps or bringing tears to our eyes? Are not those sensations "animal"? If so, is that a weakness or problem?

[Haffner]

I'm aiming to get my Bach complete, but only because every note he wrote is worthwhile.

I'm not sure that applies to any composer.

[sonic1]

Ranking jazz and classical music is a bit like ranking poetry and prose, two significantly different ways of employing a lot of the same words. Poets admire novelists, therefore the novel is superior? As long as you're going to ascribe primacy in life or art to the intellectual, the deliberate, the considered, the Apollonian, you won't be able to appreciate jazz on its own merits.

Btw, the bit about rhythm appealing to our animal side is an interesting assertion. For one thing, it smacks of the racist condescension that used to be levelled at jazz, though I certainly don't accuse you of the same. Also, as Jochanaan notes, rhythm or drumming plays a key part in spiritual practices worldwide (in addition to the examples he offers, consider the rhythm of breathing in Zen meditation or the chanting in Tibetan Buddhism). And do not certain sounds, melodies, and harmonic resolutions create positive physical sensations in us, raising goosebumps or bringing tears to our eyes? Are not those sensations "animal"? If so, is that a weakness or problem?

Yeah, I sort of wanted to react to that statement too. And I certainly don't agree in the least. Besides, this assumes all jazz is hot burning and propulsive. A lot of jazz is contemplative and heavy, nothing along the lines of being animalistic.

[Haffner]

Yeah, I sort of wanted to react to that statement too. And I certainly don't agree in the least. Besides, this assumes all jazz is hot burning and propulsive. A lot of jazz is contemplative and heavy, nothing along the lines of being animalistic.

Even a person like myself, whom doesn't care too much for Jazz, can hear that.

[Grazioso]

I was referring to intense listening of a wide exposure...

But have you seriously studied jazz and/or played it? You descriptions of jazz harmony seem to imply not.

[DavidW]

But have you seriously studied jazz and/or played it? You descriptions of jazz harmony seem to imply not.

It probably would have been better to point that he must be (tautologically speaking)
(a) into buying lots and lots of albums of music that he doesn't appreciate, or
(b) into lying about how much jazz he's heard to gain an edge in a silly internet argument,

either way it reflects poorly on him.  That would be better than raising the bar on qualifications for discussing jazz on this thread.  Not only is it so not right, but obviously if James was posting (b), then he would have no problem upping the ante and saying that he has studied jazz seriously even if he hasn't!

[Hector]

Bringing this thread briefly back on topic, my wife has just paid for me to acquire the complete works of Beethoven on Brilliant. So, next stop, Sibelius ...

Does your wife know her Beethoven money is being spent on Sibelius?

[sonic1]

I believe that there are different degrees of empathy toward particular arts. And James, I would characterize you as moderately empathetic to jazz, and much more empathetic toward classical music. I do not accept that jazz is a lesser form of music than classical music, that classical music is somehow more ingenious and great than jazz. Jazz expresses as wide a range of emotion and idea as classical does. While jazz is dominated by maybe a certain mood at times (depending on which era of jazz one refers to), so does classical music. You can argue that maybe classical music TENDS to be more complicated in nature, that does not equal greater or more ingenious. My jazz collection ranges from pre-jazz ragtime, to early jazz, new orleans jazz, classical jazz, bebop, post bop, third stream, avant-guard, energy jazz, avant-ensemble, chamber jazz, fusion, loft-scene, cool, popular big band, etc. etc. (I can't even list all the varieties) and including the many anomalies that defy genre, all express as wide a range as does classical. What is more, jazz developed within approximately a century's time (plus a few decades, if you go beyond what is recorded). Jazz harmony is just as complex as most classical music, and for those incredibly complicated harmonized compositions in classical music, there are just as many lesser known jazz compositions that, if not equal, approach the complexity of, say, Shostakovitch. What is more, much of that harmonization was done on the spot, in the moment, rather than behind pencil and eraser and time.

So for all the places where jazz might not exactly equal classical music, jazz surpasses classical music in other areas.

I think it silly to compare the two to assess which is a better form. I see them as two distinct forms both deserving respect. The suggestion that classical is somehow a greater form of art because of either its longer history, or its complexity is not only pointless, it is just wrong.

[sonic1]

The end result is the music. Whether it's improvised or composed, or labelled as such - is immaterial.

If you listen to the music intensely enough it's easy enough to hear what I have been saying,
it's as simple as that...

It's pretty obvious stuff unless you don't get out enough.
But then most people don't get out enough do they?
A historical fact.

Jazz dwarfs in comparison. Jazz doesn't achieve the results found in classical music.
It's rather crude and unskilled in comparison actually.

Most jazzers that swing playing fiery passages of virtuosity, making the impossible sound easy with their jazz buddies would still feel very much ill-at-ease surrounded by classical musicians and playing that music. Most don't have the technical equipment to handle the music in the first place. Plenty who have tried to cross-over can attest to that verbally themselves.

And the fact still remains, that many jazzers or any highly competent musician, if not most, regardless of genre "title", still remain very much in total AWE of "classical" music. It's very easy to hear why this is the case.

And most jazz afficianados? - Traditionally narrow & tribal.
That has changed a bit recently though, as they catch up with shit that happened 100 years ago.

You are entitled to your opinion, but just be aware that many people don't see jazz as you do. I also think your view of jazz afficianados as narrow: if that is your only experience of jazz afficianados, then it is not us who need to get out more.

[Grazioso]

The end result is the music. Whether it's improvised or composed, or labelled as such - is immaterial.

If you listen to the music intensely enough it's easy enough to hear what I have been saying,
it's as simple as that...

It's pretty obvious stuff unless you don't get out enough.
But then most people don't get out enough do they?
A historical fact.

Jazz dwarfs in comparison. Jazz doesn't achieve the results found in classical music.
It's rather crude and unskilled in comparison actually.

Most jazzers that swing playing fiery passages of virtuosity, making the impossible sound easy with their jazz buddies would still feel very much ill-at-ease surrounded by classical musicians and playing that music. Most don't have the technical equipment to handle the music in the first place. Plenty who have tried to cross-over can attest to that verbally themselves.

And the fact still remains, that many jazzers or any highly competent musician, if not most, regardless of genre "title", still remain very much in total AWE of "classical" music. It's very easy to hear why this is the case.

And most jazz afficianados? - Traditionally narrow & tribal.
That has changed a bit recently though, as they catch up with shit that happened 100 years ago.

Actually, a lot of good jazz is not "pretty obvious stuff", which is why I suggest you take the time to seriously study or play it instead of just relying on your (apparently biased or untrained) ears.

Secondly, who are the specific jazz musicians who are "in awe" of classical music, and have they also said that classical music is therefore inherently superior--or even comparable--to jazz?

The assertion that some jazzers have had a hard time playing classical music means little. Ask your typical classical pianist or violinist to sit in with a top-flight jazz group and see how far they get The fact that a football player can't play baseball doesn't make baseball better.

[Ten thumbs]

The assertion that some jazzers have had a hard time playing classical music means little. Ask your typical classical pianist or violinist to sit in with a top-flight jazz group and see how far they get The fact that a football player can't play baseball doesn't make baseball better.

Agreed in general although I think exceptional artists such as Liszt would have had great fun. I'm not a great fan of jazz, I admit, but I do appreciate its merits. Would your painting be an Atkinson Grimshaw by any chance? He's part of my family tree.

[Florestan]

Intellectual trolling... Interesting. 

[Grazioso]

I have probably listened to more jazz than you ever have...I can pick out the good stuff, but there isn't a lot of it...with jazz, it's really hit & miss, that's the nature of it though, as it's done on the spot....it's either really good, or really awful....but usually it's a bit of both combined

Interesting indeed James has somehow "probably listened to more jazz than" I--even though he has no idea how much that is--yet he seems to dislike and dismiss jazz and seems to have never studied it in depth. Why on earth has he wasted thousands of hours and/or dollars on music he so deplores?

[bhodges]

(The original thread poster requested that this be spun off into a different thread.)

Please continue! 

--Bruce

[Josquin des Prez]

Composed music is just improvised music with the boring part taken out of it.

BTW, a lot of Jazz artists are actually composers themselves. Art Tatum for instance was known to be a 'perfectionist', and kept improving and honing all of his music (which he kept stored in his wonderful head) until he got it 'just right'. He still left some room for variation, but only in a superficial sense. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of difference between that and say, Chopin.

Still, Jazz is undoubtedly limited by the restricting element of human ability. Try to get a Jazz 'ensemble' to improvise a Mahler symphony and you may get a bit of a problem going.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I have roughly 1000 jazz LPS and cds,
And have listened to it in great depth...
I'm not deploring it, but it comes nowhere near, you know...

Can you explain to me what a person is doing with a thousand recordings of music he doesn't really care for...??

[Shrunk]

Composed music is just improvised music with the boring part taken out of it.

BTW, a lot of Jazz artists are actually composers themselves. Art Tatum for instance was known to be a 'perfectionist', and kept improving and honing all of his music (which he kept stored in his wonderful head) until he got it 'just right'. He still left some room for variation, but only in a superficial sense. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of difference between that and say, Chopin.

Still, Jazz is undoubtedly limited by the restricting element of human ability. Try to get a Jazz 'ensemble' to improvise a Mahler symphony and you may get a bit of a problem going.

The fact that jazz musicians hold classical composers in awe proves little.  In my experience, classical musicians are no less awestruck by jazz musicians' ability to improvise.  Just as a couple examples:  I have friend who plays jazz guitar.  He's just an amateur, not at a professional level.  He attended a music camp that included musicians from various genres.  At one point, he was improvising on Autumn Leaves (a very elementary  tune for a jazzer), and several classical musicians were standing around him slack-jawed, asking how he did this.  Another friend is a classical violinist.  Once I was bemoaning the lack of progress I was making in studying jazz guitar, and this friend replied, "Well, you're trying to learn jazz.  That's a lot more difficult than classical."  Not that the musicians I encounter share your perception of a hierarchical "food chain" of various musical genres.  Rather, their attitude is more one of mutual admiration of the different disciplines required in each genre.

I think your comments reflect a preconception that improvisation is inherently at a lower artistic level than composition, and this preconception in turn stems from an assumption that both disciplines share the same goals.  That is incorrect.  It's true no one could improvise a Mahler symphony.  But at the same time, no one individual could "compose" a performance by the Louis Armstrong's Hot Seven, the Duke Ellington Orchestra, or the John Coltrane Quartet.  This is because those performances result from a spontaneous, collaborative process between all the individual musicians in the ensemble, and creates music that can only result from improvisation.

It is not uncommmon to hear people refer to improvisation as "spontaneous composition", but that term is actually incorrect IMHO.  Spontaneous composition actually exists, and is a distinct entity from improvisation.

For more thoughts on this topic, I recommend the book Improvisation:  It's Nature and Practice in Music by Derek Bailey, which covers many musical genres, not just jazz.

[jochanaan]

Composed music is just improvised music with the boring part taken out of it.

Ya coulda fooled me!  I've heard lots of composed music with boring parts.

Duke Ellington, Thelonious Monk, Charles Mingus, Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, Benny Goodman, Coltrane, Ornette, Marsalis, Corea, Jarrett, Evans etc etc etc etc etc

On the other hand, it was the Duke who said, "Only two kinds of music: good and bad."

[Josquin des Prez]

Not that the musicians I encounter share your perception of a hierarchical "food chain" of various musical genres.  Rather, their attitude is more one of mutual admiration of the different disciplines required in each genre.

How exquisitely feminine of them.

I think your comments reflect a preconception that improvisation is inherently at a lower artistic level than composition

I don't think improvisation and composition are such distinct phenomenas as you seem to imply, which is why i find the entire notion of Jazz a bit silly. My problem isn't even with improvisation per-se, but the limitations Jazz artists impose on themselves by eschewing composition while still arrogantly arguing on the 'superiority' of their method. Everything in Jazz happens in performance, which means that unless you are a first class virtuoso there is no chance in hell you'll ever make it to the top, reguardless of how much great music you have stuck in your head. Likewise, in the world of Jazz, there would have never been a 'late' Beethoven (can't play in a band if you're deaf).

It is not uncommmon to hear people refer to improvisation as "spontaneous composition", but that term is actually incorrect IMHO.  Spontaneous composition actually exists, and is a distinct entity from improvisation.

Spontaneous composition is just improvisation gone well. As a westerner, i have no use for African or Oriental ideals of musical aimlessness. I like my art when it's strictly goal oriented, thank you very much. 

[lukeottevanger]

....it's either really good, or really awful....but usually it's a bit of both combined

Am I the only one who senses a degree of confusion here (original elipses retained)?