Improvised vs. composed music

[Kullervo]

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

Perhaps he is one of those rare souls who, like the philosopher that takes to teaching philosophy for the sole purpose of illustrating that philosophy is indeed impossible to teach, devotes an entire lifetime to proving that something can't be done...

...or maybe he's just a great posturing phony.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Perhaps he is one of those rare souls who, like the philosopher that takes to teaching philosophy for the sole purpose of illustrating that philosophy is indeed impossible to teach, devotes an entire lifetime to proving that something can't be done...

[lukeottevanger]

There is no confusion...what I ment by that is,hat it's either going to be really good from start to finish, or awful from start to finish...but in most cases it's a bit of both

Still seems confused to me - this is the same line. I'd have thought that if  X = either entirely A or entirely B, it can't be both A and B in most cases.

Anyway:

meaning; in the course of a improvisation (a tune, or live concert event etc) you'll get more often than not, great moments as opposed to the sort of thing you'll find in great classical music where it's rigorously thought through all the way with a higher degree of consciousness from beginning to end. So in the course of say, 1000s of bars of something that's improvised on any given tune or night you'll most likely get moments, a mixture of bad and good...this comes with the territory & challenge of improvising (as I'm sure you know)...as it's done on the fly, that it's extremely rare that the musical results are excellent and that it's wildly inconsistent. (as most jazzers will attest, and i have heard attest with honesty). And if you have been exposed to enough of it, you can hear that too.

This is true, no one denies it, least of all jazzers. But to decry it is really to miss the point of jazz, to judge it by the aesthetic of classical perfection which is (aesthetically) only one valid way to go. Jazz offers another way - one which puts the inherent imperfection of the artist on the line, so that the music is on the edge, and is truly human. In this it is a reflection of life - sometimes mundane, sometimes self-indulgent, sometimes white-hot, always new (even if only in small ways) and always individual

[Josquin des Prez]

to judge it by the aesthetic of classical perfection which is (aesthetically) only one valid way to go.

It may not be the only valid way to go, but it's the best one there is.

[Ten thumbs]

There has been much talk of jazz here but there is a huge difference between improvisation by a band and by a single performer who has the freedom to go off into any flight of harmonic fancy he or she chooses. It is interesting to note that notable improvisors of the past, e.g. Liszt and Mendelssohn, did not rush off and write down their spontaneous creations (even though Mendelssohn for one was quite capable of doing so). It was all treated as fun.

[12tone.]

It is in the nature of improvised music that it will not "travel" as well though,
so it isn't of the same quality to begin with as pure music (or high consciousness music as I like to call it).

I agree with this.  The difference between jazz and classical?  Both are good but one is done on the basis of the 'here and now'.  A lot of jazz, because of it's improvisation, is done on the now.  On the instant.  That kind of thinking and playing, that kind of 'musical idea' is what will not make it good for recordings or lasting listening like a composed symphony will.  Composed music is meant to stay and improvised music is meant to entertain at a particular point in time. 

Are jazz recordings good?  Sure.  I'm not saying they're bad.  But they aren't grounded like something composed.  Something you know that what you are hearing is close to %100 of what you should be expecting. 

[Dancing Divertimentian]

It may not be the only valid way to go, but it's the best one there is.

And, so, you see yourself as one of a rarefied breed who can recognize such things as 'best in art' and who feels duty-bound to point this out to all us blind/unenlightened folk? Weeding out for us every polluting wannabee artist/musician? All for the good of art? All for the good of humanity? Sound familiar??!???

How fortunate that we have you as such a shining beacon of rationality. Level-headed, good-hearted barometer of all that is good in art. Yes, and believe me I'm so impressed by your credentials that I'm prepared to blindly hang on your every whisper. Whisper to me so that I should know what to do next...



How nauseating can you get??

(Wait, you're spiking my testosterone levels!!!! )

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Yes, diversity in art is reality.
Again, I own and love quite a bit of jazz btw, but broad comparisons on the basis of cogency/meaningfulness, quality & integrity etc. are the bread & butter of artistic discourse and can be made. We will compare, and we will judge by comparison. That's reality ... human truth ... we can never let words run away with themselves and re-define reality.

Just who is this "we" you keep referring to??

[bwv 1080]

What Jazz and other improvised music offers the listener that classical lacks is the opportunity to know and experience, direct and firsthand, some great musical personalities.  You never get to know, say Anton Rubenstein, the way you experience the musical personality of a Monk or Louis Armstrong, let alone someone like Roland Kirk.  There are other aspects to music than simply how the notes fall on the page and classical performance practice cannot accommodate the concept of a personal sound to the degree with which Jazz musicians develop theirs.

To leave aside Jazz for a moment, the thought that a composed North Indian music would be superior to the current improvised practice is ridiculous - all the performance, down to the last cent of intonation should be composed?

In reality any musical genre will leave a set of decisions up to the performer and not preset in the form.  The range is narrower in classical than Jazz, but there still remains a wide set of aspects for the performer to realize with only the guidance of tradition and his or her musical judgement.  Would the 4th Ballade be better and "more perfect" if Chopin had notated all the rubati to the millisecond?  The distinction that would allow all the personal and potentially spontaneous decisions of the performer in 19th century chamber music but draw the line at the additional freedoms of Bebop is rather arbitrary.

The argument that seems to be made is given that improvisation is just a form of composition and any improvisation, no matter how good it is, can be made better by submitting it to a formal compositional process therefore classical music will always be superior to Jazz.  In an anal retentive sort of way and granting a whole lot of debatable assumptions on what makes something "better" this may be correct, but who cares?   Certainly there is nothing any composer could improve in any way, say Coltrane's solo in Impressions. 

Secondly the supposed "perfection" of classical music is an illusion.  If Mozart or Beethoven had thrown some different licks or arpeggios in the development sections of their sonatas then everyone would believe those to have been the "perfect" compositions.  Perhaps the works would even be better?  Who knows, all we have is the final version the composer decided upon - but it was the work of a person not something handed down from the heavens on a stone tablet.

[lukeottevanger]

...There are other aspects to music than simply how the notes fall on the page and classical performance practice cannot accommodate the concept of a personal sound to the degree with which Jazz musicians develop theirs...

The argument that seems to be made is given that improvisation is just a form of composition and any improvisation, no matter how good it is, can be made better by submitting it to a formal compositional process therefore classical music will always be superior to Jazz.  In an anal retentive sort of way and granting a whole lot of debatable assumptions on what makes something "better" this may be correct, but who cares?   Certainly there is nothing any composer could improve in any way, say Coltrane's solo in Impressions. 

The whole post is very fine, but these two passages - on the uselessness of trying to judge A by the standards developed for B - particularly strikes home.

[Grazioso]

What Jazz and other improvised music offers the listener that classical lacks is the opportunity to know and experience, direct and firsthand, some great musical personalities.  You never get to know, say Anton Rubenstein, the way you experience the musical personality of a Monk or Louis Armstrong, let alone someone like Roland Kirk.  There are other aspects to music than simply how the notes fall on the page and classical performance practice cannot accommodate the concept of a personal sound to the degree with which Jazz musicians develop theirs.

And that's one fundamental, core element of jazz that seems to totally pass by James: it's not just what you say, but how you say it. Jazz is a hugely personal idiom that is not just about the intellectual abstraction of notes on a page, but about all the subtle nuances of tone and attack and rhythm (as well as the more easily notated and analyzed elements of harmonic and melodic choices). Listen to the first few notes of Miles Davis on "Blue in Green" on the classic Kind of Blue, for an easy example: on paper, no big deal, but listen to how he plays them in context, and it's a big deal indeed.

Secondly the supposed "perfection" of classical music is an illusion.  If Mozart or Beethoven had thrown some different licks or arpeggios in the development sections of their sonatas then everyone would believe those to have been the "perfect" compositions.  Perhaps the works would even be better?  Who knows, all we have is the final version the composer decided upon - but it was the work of a person not something handed down from the heavens on a stone tablet.

Agreed. There are lots of boring passages (and pieces) in classical music. It's silly to assume that because they're written out, they're somehow inherently superior. It's also foolish to imply that jazz improvisers are just randomly noodling and hitting on something good if they're lucky: it takes a lifetime of study and practice to play jazz competently--let alone well--and jazzers think ahead and work on ideas they want to incorporate into solos, in the cases of the greats spending countless hours every day studying and playing as they explore new ideas. They just refuse to sacrifice the power of the moment, the spontaneous interaction with other musicians, and the serendipitous opportunities that abound in truly live music-making for the safety net of fully notated composition. (Though that offers other opportunities which jazzers have taken advantage of: Brubeck, for instance, is also a classical composer who studied with Milhaud.)

[Cato]

I will admit to finding a good deal of jazz improvisation tedious, and so I do not often bother listening to it. 

I was once trapped at a Peter Nero concert where his improvisation at the piano went on for a 20-minute eternity.    0:)

On the other hand Ohio's Art Tatum is a grand exception! And that classical music contains notated tedium is irrelevant I would think: tedious, repetitious music remains tedious and repetitious, improvised or composed.

Anton Bruckner was famous for his organ improvisations, and for his playing in general.  It is interesting that he has left very little organ music for posterity.   Would we "know" Bruckner better if we could have recorded his organ improvisations? 

I am not so sure what it means "to know a composer" better through his works anyway!

Sounds like another topic could be started!   

[Shrunk]

bwv 1080's post expresses my own thought on this issue perfectly.  There's only thing other point I would like to add.

Many of the comments from the "anti-jazz" side of this thread seem to be based on an assumption that the harmonic and melodic aspects of music are the proper criteria to use in judging its worth.

It is true that the Western European musical tradition's development of the diatonic system of harmony is a singular achievement, one unmatched by the music of any other culture.  However, that achievement has been attained at the price of neglecting the rhythmic aspects of music.  Take any composer, I don't care how great, Bach, or Beethoven, or Mahler, or Stravinsky, anyone.  Compare the rhythmic complexity of their music to that of the traditional musics of Africa or India or Latin America.  You'll find that classical music, when judged by these standards, is rudimentary.

[Cato]

bwv 1080's post expresses my own thought on this issue perfectly.  There's only thing other point I would like to add.

Many of the comments from the "anti-jazz" side of this thread seem to be based on an assumption that the harmonic and melodic aspects of music are the proper criteria to use in judging its worth.

It is true that the Western European musical tradition's development of the diatonic system of harmony is a singular achievement, one unmatched by the music of any other culture.  However, that achievement has been attained at the price of neglecting the rhythmic aspects of music.  Take any composer, I don't care how great, Bach, or Beethoven, or Mahler, or Stravinsky, anyone.  Compare the rhythmic complexity of their music to that of the traditional musics of Africa or India or Latin America.  You'll find that classical music, when judged by these standards, is rudimentary.

But that works both ways: the "harmonic complexity" or the polyphonic/contrapuntal nature of traditional music is rudimentary.

Polyrhythms may not have been Bach's sphere of interest to be sure, but have you ever seen the score to Stravinsky's The Flood or the scores to the Fourth Symphony or the Robert Browning Overture of Charles Ives?  Messiaen's Chronochromie?

I am not "anti-jazz" necessarily: the ultimate question is: can you find something of value in improvised music, no matter what the genre, e.g. Art Tatum or Bruckner?

Sure!    

And I assume that by "cogency" James find some improvisations too long-winded?   

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Nor is talking about how much a musician studies or practices, it's granted all serious musicians do this irregardless of idiom. What is important is... what piece of music have they done that distills all of this preparation into a truly profound or maybe even beautiful musical statement? when the jazz-dust settles you can ask: would I want to hear that again ... how does it compare to the best composed music ... etc

Why are you so hung up on comparisons?

Take care: 'fanaticism' is just a few letters removed from 'fascism'...

Yes, different social, spiritual & intellectual uses of music are valued within their context.

So classical has no context and thus should be considered all-pervasive?

But I don't see how this changes the blindingly obvious and simple point, that with respect to aesthetic value cogency is the measure of quality and is used to compare All Musics, regardless of idiom.

So you're going to just box up aesthetics into this petty little box? And then what? Cart it off to this ubiquitous "we" you keep referring to for analysis??

Sorry, but you're living in an artistic vacuum...

[lukeottevanger]

when the jazz-dust settles you can ask: would I want to hear that again ... how does it compare to the best composed music ... etc

'the best' - of course, but this is a selective sample: take any old piece of jazz and compare it to 'the best' composed music and naturally the latter comes off favourably. But that isn't because it is composed music, it is because it is high quality compared to (presumably) mediocre quality. Take any old functional piece of composed music - not all composed music is Bach, Mozart or Stravinsky, there is plenty of dross too - and compare it to the best jazz, and your result will be flipped.

In any case, I think it wisest not to compare whole bodies of music whose aesthetic roots are diametrically opposed, as in this case. That's not to say that one can't perfectly well say, for instance, that as a musician, regardless of the area of music he worked in, Bach > Coltrane. But then one can also say that, by the same criteria, Coltrane is probably > Telemann.

Take care: 'fanaticism' is just a few letters removed from 'fascism'...

...and so is the fanatical fetishisation of 'perfection' and the denigration of anything which contains that seen as flawed from this perspective.

So you're just going to just box up aesthetics into this petty little box? And then what? Cart it off to this ubiquitous "we" you keep referring to for analysis??

Sorry, but you're living in an artistic vacuum...

Exactly.

[bwv 1080]

A considered, insightful, judgement that one piece is transparently more profound than another is not a "fanaticism" or "living in a vacuum" etc

No, but it is merely an expression of personal taste and valueing some parameters over others

[Dancing Divertimentian]

...and so is the fanatical fetishisation of 'perfection' and the denigration of anything which contains that seen as flawed from this perspective.

Yes, this is where things get spooky...

[Dancing Divertimentian]

A considered, insightful, judgement that one piece is transparently more profound than another is not a "fanaticism" or "living in a vacuum" etc ... Such considered judgements happen every day in life. That we are able to conclusively make these judgements by majority concensus of the literate/initiated distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom (as far as I know). All within the obvious conditions & parameters that listeners need to be culturally initiated/sensitised to have a chance of getting it. Yes some people will like things of a similar quality to varying degrees, there will be discussion and disagreement up to a point, but if those conditions are met we can say some fuzzy sort of absolute quality exists. lol

And nowhere in any of this am I trying to argue for a small minded view of music or art. I have a big collection of music ... quite a lot of rock, jazz & Indian, but yes ... mainly western classical because I think it is a treasure of unparallelled richness, for many of the very real and sound reasons I have previously mentioned.

You're going nowhere...all you're doing is repeating yourself...and repeating yourself... 

At this point you either bow out or come up with something new.

[jochanaan]

... what piece of music have they done that distills all of this preparation into a truly profound or maybe even beautiful musical statement?...

The great ones--Ellington, Chick Corea, Coltrane, even Miles Davis at his best--do it almost every time they play.  With no advance notice.  And they don't have to write it down!