Improvised vs. composed music

[lukeottevanger]

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

That's not what you're doing though. You're not talking about one piece 'v.' another*, you're talking about aesthetic v. aesthetic. And I don't think such a thing is viable; indeed, I often doubt, in one-tracked views such as yours, there is an appreciation of what the existence of different aesthetics actually entails. Part of it means that the music must be judged by different standards - what we listen for in jazz is not what we listen for in classical and vice versa, unless one wants to have a skewed view of one half of the equation (and remember, there are jazzers as unable to understand the classical aesthetic as you are to see the jazz one, despite your 1000s of discs, and who would therefore give the opposite judgement to yours, and just as vehemently). Of course we can go over and above this, to discern differing values from one piece within aesthetic A to another within aesthetic B, even one composer to another, but we can't go so far as to say 'aesthetic a > aesthetic B'


*except recently, where you make the obvious statement that a piece of 'the best' classical is better than a piece of (by implication) 'ordinary' jazz.

[Ten thumbs]

I don't think rhythm is particularly relevant to this argument although some of the highly complex rhythmic periods in classical music (say over 17 or 26 bars) would be very difficult to replicate on the hoof - indeed some contributors appear not even to be aware of them.

[Grazioso]

Nor is talking about how much a musician studies or practices, it's granted all serious musicians do this regardless 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

Music needn't be profound or beautiful (e.g., Bartok's string quartets aren't always "pretty") to be enjoyed or to properly serve a functional purpose (supporting dance, meditation, religious ceremonies, state celebrations, etc.).

When the jazz-dust settles, I do indeed want to hear a lot of it again. How it compares to the best composed classical music generally doesn't matter to me and vice versa. As others have noted, aesthetic criteria vary. Good jazz and good classical music don't necessarily embody the same kind of "goodness." If you want to get the most out of an art form, it's probably best to approach it on its own terms and not force it onto your portable Procrustean bed. Are Impressionist painters bad because they don't employ the same techniques, subjects, and ideals as the Neoclassicists before them?

[Shrunk]

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

That's my point exactly.  If you judge either form of music by a narrow criteria, then one or the other will be found "inferior".  However, you have to make an arbitrary assumption in valuing one criteria (harmony/polyphony/counterpoint) over another (rhythm).

It's like trying to argue whether a sprinter is a superior athlete to a weightlifter.  If speed is your criteria, then the sprinter wins; if strength, then the weightlifter.

[Shrunk]

I think you should read your own sig line....

[маразм1]

Most improv is garbage.  Unless it's a classic solo like "pop goes the Weasel". 

When I improv, I try to come up with a melody instead of just a stream of scales, and noises.

[jochanaan]

Most improv is garbage.  Unless it's a classic solo like "pop goes the Weasel". 

When I improv, I try to come up with a melody instead of just a stream of scales, and noises.

I do the same, but sometimes the melody I come up with INCLUDES scales and noises.

[Haffner]

Alot of times I say f- it and throw on Ac/Dc's "Flick of the Switch". Long ago I accepted that Ac/Dc were all about hyper-amped Little- Richard-meets-Led Zeppelin/Deep Purple, and from that point on I was able to shift from J.S. Bach to their stuff with practically no difficulty at all.

What I mean is, it's often how you set your mind on something beforehand that can make even the outwardly strangest transitions a reality.

[jochanaan]

...What I mean is, it's often how you set your mind on something beforehand that can make even the outwardly strangest transitions a reality.

Indeed.  Assume it's garbage, and often it sounds like garbage.  But performers are trained to respect good playing no matter where it happens.

[Haffner]

  But performers are trained to respect good playing no matter where it happens.

I see that as a profoundly healthy attitude.

[Shrunk]

I'm not sure if it's a good idea to resurrect this thread.  However, I just posted a message in another thread, saying that jazz is a performer's music, and classical is a composer's.  That got me thinking:  Is classical music unique in asserting the primacy of the composer over the performer?  I can't think of any other genre in which the music is felt to exist in a written or otherwise abstract form, independent of its performance.

Put another way:  Classical music is able to exist as a continuous tradition going back over five centuries because it can be "captured" in a written form.  Jazz, on the other hand and to take just one example, could not exist as ongoing developing art form if recording had not been invented.  A musician today could not study and learn from the music of Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, etc. if recordings of their performances did not exist.  I recall reading a claim somewhere that the most important figure in the history of jazz was Thomas Edison.  That may actually be correct.

I suppose other forms of "folk" music have been handed down by oral/aural tradition, but in those cases how do we know how the music might have changed over time, and whether current performance practices reflect the original ones?

Anyway, it got me thinking.  I don't know if anyone else has any thoughts.

[bwv 1080]

I'm not sure if it's a good idea to resurrect this thread.  However, I just posted a message in another thread, saying that jazz is a performer's music, and classical is a composer's.  That got me thinking:  Is classical music unique in asserting the primacy of the composer over the performer?  I can't think of any other genre in which the music is felt to exist in a written or otherwise abstract form, independent of its performance.

Put another way:  Classical music is able to exist as a continuous tradition going back over five centuries because it can be "captured" in a written form.  Jazz, on the other hand and to take just one example, could not exist as ongoing developing art form if recording had not been invented.  A musician today could not study and learn from the music of Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, etc. if recordings of their performances did not exist.  I recall reading a claim somewhere that the most important figure in the history of jazz was Thomas Edison.  That may actually be correct.

I suppose other forms of "folk" music have been handed down by oral/aural tradition, but in those cases how do we know how the music might have changed over time, and whether current performance practices reflect the original ones?

Anyway, it got me thinking.  I don't know if anyone else has any thoughts.

What you lose in the absence of recording is the historical record, not the music itself.  North Indian music has developed since its orgins in the middle ages.   There are much older musical traditions than classical obviously, Vedic Chant, Morrocan Joujouka and Pygmy musics all date back thousands of years.  ISTM more reasonable to suppose that the traditions have changed very little rather than think there was some Western-style progressive development at play. 

[Ten thumbs]

Improvisation was an important element of the classical tradition. Perhaps the advent of recording has wiped it out(?).

[jochanaan]

Improvisation was an important element of the classical tradition. Perhaps the advent of recording has wiped it out(?).

It seems to have been on its way down even earlier.  And recording didn't wipe out jazz improv...

I think some of us may have forgotten the importance of teachers.  The performing tradition was passed down from student to teacher for many, many generations.  In the 18th century, improvisation was a part of that; Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach wrote a table of suggested ways to elaborate simple note progressions.  But sometime around the late 19th or early 20th centuries, teachers stopped teaching improvisation.  Musicians gained great technical proficiency from being forced to play all the notes, but the "only the note" approach has probably stifled many gifted performers who might have also become great improvisers.  And to be sure, having to play note-perfectly for the microphones hasn't helped.

But I see hope in the HIP movement that encourages improvisations.

[Shrunk]

What you lose in the absence of recording is the historical record, not the music itself.  North Indian music has developed since its orgins in the middle ages.   There are much older musical traditions than classical obviously, Vedic Chant, Morrocan Joujouka and Pygmy musics all date back thousands of years.  ISTM more reasonable to suppose that the traditions have changed very little rather than think there was some Western-style progressive development at play. 

Good points.  It's an interesting thought experiment to imagine whether jazz might have developed differently if recording did not exist.

I'm not sure I stated my first point very clearly re: classical music.  To me, it seems the only major form of music where composition exists as an act distinct from performance, and this is because of its development of a very specific and detailed form of written documentation.  I'm not saying that there is not still room for individual interpretation in performance.  However, there remains the idea that the exact notes have been set down by the composer, and role of the performer is to realize the composer's intention, rather than use the piece as a springboard for the performer to create something uniquely his (in terms of the actual notes played, not just the way they are interpreted).

[Grazioso]

Good points.  It's an interesting thought experiment to imagine whether jazz might have developed differently if recording did not exist.

I'm not sure I stated my first point very clearly re: classical music.  To me, it seems the only major form of music where composition exists as an act distinct from performance, and this is because of its development of a very specific and detailed form of written documentation.  I'm not saying that there is not still room for individual interpretation in performance.  However, there remains the idea that the exact notes have been set down by the composer, and role of the performer is to realize the composer's intention, rather than use the piece as a springboard for the performer to create something uniquely his (in terms of the actual notes played, not just the way they are interpreted).

Which is to me what makes Classical music so quintessentially Western: prioritizing authorial intent, sanctifying the preserved written page, endowing the abstract (or the idea) with greater authority than the concrete.

[Ten thumbs]

Which is to me what makes Classical music so quintessentially Western: prioritizing authorial intent, sanctifying the preserved written page, endowing the abstract (or the idea) with greater authority than the concrete.

One reason for this is that thematic development became so complex that deviating from the written score always risks losing something. On the other hand, we are always complaining that such and such a piece is boring, so why shouldn't we liven it up a bit?

[jochanaan]

I'm not sure I stated my first point very clearly re: classical music.  To me, it seems the only major form of music where composition exists as an act distinct from performance, and this is because of its development of a very specific and detailed form of written documentation.  I'm not saying that there is not still room for individual interpretation in performance.  However, there remains the idea that the exact notes have been set down by the composer, and role of the performer is to realize the composer's intention, rather than use the piece as a springboard for the performer to create something uniquely his (in terms of the actual notes played, not just the way they are interpreted).

That is a unique situation in world music, and it took a long time to develop.  The earliest written music was written mostly to aid the composer/performer's memory.  Even until about the beginning of the 19th century, the composers were mostly the performers, at least at the higher levels.   Folk tunes, hymn tunes and popular songs were performed by others, of course, and there was published music, but composers often saved their best stuff for themselves to play.  Then, gradually, the art of composition and the art of performance began to diverge, mostly (I'm guessing here) because both arts had become so complex it was hard to be a true master of both.  Sergei Rachmaninoff was one of the last who was truly world-class as both performer and composer, until Leonard Bernstein and Esa-Pekka Salonen--at least, in the "classical" realm.  (Benjamin Britten was a very fine pianist and conductor, but somehow never got known as a performer.  Same with Dmitri Shostakovich--at least, very few in the West heard samples of Shostakovich's world-class piano abilities.  I have a wonderful LP of Shostakovich playing piano for his own Quintet in G minor.)

Although the art of music has gained greatly in depth and complexity, I cannot help but feel that something precious has been lost by this divergence.  I am happy that Salonen has brought the two arts of performing and composition back together on a high level, and would love to see more like him.

[Ten thumbs]

There are problems with applying performers' licence. What is to remain inviolable? We are not simply varying a tune here. For instance, supposing there is a twelve bar period with a bass rhythm running over five bars followed by an extension over seven. Should it be retained? It is arguably essential to the composer's intention.

[jochanaan]

There are problems with applying performers' licence...

Well, of course!  I'm not talking about changing the written notes; I"m talking about improvising when there's room for it, for example in solo concertos with a "cadenza" indication.