Popular Music

[Don]

How many classical musicians could improvise something coherent over the Giant Steps changes?

How many can phrase like Miles or Louis?

Jazz is by no means inferior to classical.  It is just different, fully composed and improvised music offer different things - its apples and oranges.

Totally agree.  Also, I've never thought of jazz as popular music if for no other reason than its lack of popularity.

[George]

How many classical musicians could improvise something coherent over the Giant Steps changes?

Horowitz?

[karlhenning]

How many classical musicians could improvise something coherent over the Giant Steps changes?

Camille Saint-Saëns
Sergei Prokofiev (maybe)
Rued Langgaard
Olivier Messiaen

My answer is speculative in the extreme, of course.

How many jazz musicians could improvise something coherent over the Giant Steps changes?

[Don]

the end result is the music, that's the bottomline. whether it's improvised or composed, or labelled as such - is immaterial. the great composers were also stellar improvisors they weren't just mere interpretors but masters of not only their instruments but of music first and foremost....and with the knowledge and genius those guys had of composition, harmony, melody, rhythm, orchestration, timbre etc. Noodling through some chords sequences would be a piece of cake. All you have to do is listen and examine their own compositions to see how jazz dwarfs in comparison.

with regards to phrasing etc...no contest...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 my 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 I read somewhere, I think it was Branford Marsalis who said that the changes for Trane's Giant Steps were in fact heavily based on something that a european composer quickly jotted down and gave to him as a challenge for his soloing. I'll see if I can dig up the source...

Does this mean you wouldn't take kindly to jazz being played on the harpsichord?

[bwv 1080]

Camille Saint-Saëns
Sergei Prokofiev (maybe)
Rued Langgaard
Olivier Messiaen

My answer is speculative in the extreme, of course.

How many jazz musicians could improvise something coherent over the Giant Steps changes?

My point exactly.  It is a small list of composers.  Your typical 1st chair violinist would be lost.  Of course if people want to compare Mozart to some lounge player, classical comes off very well.  What if we compare Monk to Meyerbeer, or Shorter to Salieri?

And to James point, how much of the classical repetoire is " some 'great moments' and loads forgetable compositions"?  I would venture 90% of what has been published over the last 1000 years falls into this category.

Both Jazz and Classical qualify as "Art" music by any reasonable sense of the term.  

[karlhenning]

My point exactly.  It is a small list of composers.  Your typical 1st chair violinist would be lost.  Of course if people want to compare Mozart to some lounge player, classical comes off very well.  What if we compare Monk to Meyerbeer, or Shorter to Salieri?

Yes, but how large is the list of jazzmen who can improvise to "Giant Steps" at a level of excellence?  (I ask for rough information, I'm not being rhetorical.)

Sure, comparing any classical musician to Kenny G is shooting fish in a barrel . . . .

[Robert]

My point exactly.  It is a small list of composers.  Your typical 1st chair violinist would be lost.  Of course if people want to compare Mozart to some lounge player, classical comes off very well.  What if we compare Monk to Meyerbeer, or Shorter to Salieri?

And to James point, how much of the classical repetoire is " some 'great moments' and loads forgetable compositions"?  I would venture 90% of what has been published over the last 1000 years falls into this category.

Both Jazz and Classical qualify as "Art" music by any reasonable sense of the term. 

Cecil Taylor 

[bwv 1080]

the end result is the music, that's the bottomline. whether it's improvised or composed, or labelled as such - is immaterial. the great composers were also stellar improvisors they weren't just mere interpretors but masters of not only their instruments but of music first and foremost....and with the knowledge and genius those guys had of composition, harmony, melody, rhythm, orchestration, timbre etc. Noodling through some chords sequences would be a piece of cake. All you have to do is listen and examine their own compositions to see how jazz dwarfs in comparison.

You can say the same thing about the development section of any classical sonata - it is just noodling over chord changes with lots of stock licks and arpeggios.  Classical music by and large does not meet the standards you are setting for it.   Here's a challenge: name a real composer or classical musician who has expressed the same contempt for Jazz that you express here.

with regards to phrasing etc...no contest...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 my 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.

The same is true in reverse, most classical musicians struggle trying to crossover.  There are different emphasis in the training.

And I read somewhere, I think it was Branford Marsalis who said that the changes for Trane's Giant Steps were in fact heavily based on something that a european composer quickly jotted down and gave to him as a challenge for his soloing. I'll see if I can dig up the source...

There is precedent in the Classical repertoire for most any jazz harmony.  By moving keys by thirds, he was retreading ground largely broke by Beethoven, but that is beside the point.

[bwv 1080]

Most music isn't that good i agree but... certainly nowhere near the same amount, as time has already proven, art (read: classical) music is built to last...and i dont think much jazz will be resurrected & serviced quite so well in terms of recordings.

Time has proven every great Jazz musician.  Louis Armstrong is lasting just as well, if not better than any Classical composer from the 20's or 30's.  You also have no basis for your contention that somehow the percentage of quality classical music is higher than the percentage of quality jazz

[Robert]

see: Arnold Schoenberg. (for starts)

you might have something there but, I have been listening to Schoenberg a long time and Taylor never popped into my mind..ASMF the only time classical pops into my mind when listening to Jazz is when I listen to MJQ.

[bwv 1080]

you might have something there but, I have been listening to Schoenberg a long time and Taylor never popped into my mind..ASMF the only time classical pops into my mind when listening to Jazz is when I listen to MJQ.

But Schoenberg used atonality before Taylor, therefore Taylor is a merely a second rate imitation.  See the logic?  The existence of a classical precedent automatically trenders any Jazz composition as derivative crap.  

[bwv 1080]

hahaha...not really my friend its a little more thought out than mere estimation or guess work, those composers knew what they were doing...

As do good Jazz players.

[bwv 1080]

sure, within the narrow constraints of what they do but i have yet to hear similar musical results, sorry...

Well I do and who is to say that your judgement is superior to mine?

[bwv 1080]

yeah, well name me some of these things? i must hear them...

Sure   

How about naming those real classical musicians and composers who think Jazz is inferior crap? And then rebuting every counter example I can provide?

[bwv 1080]

name me some of that great music found in jazz you were referring to. i'd like to hear it please.

Whats the point?  You claim to have heard it all, so the only purpose for the requests seems to be for meaningless argumentation.

[dtwilbanks]

No, i wanted to hear and see where you are coming from.

I didn't think it would have been such an issue, in fact, i was expecting you to just easily list things, surprisingly not the case though...

Heck, jazz lists are easy to find. Just google.

[bwv 1080]

No, i wanted to hear and see where you are coming from.

I didn't think it would have been such an issue, in fact, i was expecting you to just easily list things, surprisingly not the case though...

OK here are a few, not an attempt at an authoritative list, just personal favorites:

Louis Armstrong: Hot Fives and Sevens
Coltrane: A Love Supreme
Wayne Shorter: Speak no Evil
Miles Davis: In a Silent Way / Bitches Brew (shh / peaceful really has a quite sophisticated development well outside traditional song forms)
John Zorn: Naked City (although Zorn is also widely recognized as a classical composer)
John Scofield: UberJam
Sonny Sharrock: Sieze the Rainbow
Pat Metheny / Ornette Coleman: Song X
Weather Report: Sweetnighter (again Boogie Woogie Waltz, aside from likely being the only 3/4 funk tune in existence, has a sophisticated long development)
Thelonius Monk: Underground

[dtwilbanks]

I have it on good authority that it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing.

[Robert]

I have it on good authority that it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing.

chill baby chill

[Robert]

But Schoenberg used atonality before Taylor, therefore Taylor is a merely a second rate imitation.  See the logic?  The existence of a classical precedent automatically trenders any Jazz composition as derivative crap. 

  OH