GMG Classical Music Forum

Here's a topic that hopefully will be interesting for everybody.

In this thread, I would like us all to get to the very essence of what we enjoy about this music and what has led us from one composer to the next.

I guess I'm a unique listener in the respect that I didn't start off with the composers everybody seems to worship like Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart, I started off with the music of Bartok, Ravel, and Ives as my cataylst. Their music was interesting enough that I started to explore other composers. I remember being floored when I first heard Berlioz's Requiem for the first time. I also recall a very early experience with Janacek's Sinfonietta and Dukas' The Sorcerer's Apprentice. For a year or so, I seemed to bounce back and forth between Romantic and early 20th Century. Now, most of listening is the entire 20th Century. I don't listen to Romantic composers as much as I used to. I still love Mahler, Bruckner, Brahms, Rimsky-Korsakov, and Tchaikovsky though. Nothing will change my love for their music, but the 20th Century is where I found the music that I enjoy. Vaughan Williams was a wonderful discovery. My appreciation for the Second Viennese School has finally cemented. I found Dutilleux this year and have found so much beauty in his music. Some composers I gave another chance to this year and who I've really become enthralled with now have been Milhaud, Bloch, Martinu, and Villa-Lobos.

There's still so much music that I want to hear and explore, but I've been grateful for all the music I have heard whether it has been a positive or negative experience. I never stop learning about classical music and it's really encouraging to meet people on this forum who have been listening alot longer than I have who still have an unwavering passion for this music. This keeps my hope alive for younger generations who have yet to experience how this music can change their lives.

Please share your classical evolution with the members of the forum.

I came to listen to CM though an interest in Film - I got my first 3 classical recordings of Part's Speigel Im Speigel, Holst's Planets and Mozart's Gran Partita after seeing and enjoying the soundtracks to the films Gerry, The Right Stuff and Amadeus.
I listened to those first 3 Discs a lot for a few years in-between listening to Rock and Folk Music - about 3 years ago I had begun to tire of Rock and thought I would like to give Classical a go so I bought a few more recordings by Bach, Beethoven, Chopin and Mozart just stuff from Composers that I had heard of before. My first choices were best of's of these composers and from there I branched out to getting and listening to entire works such as Goldberg Variations, Symphony No. 9 and The Nocturnes.
Pretty much from there it was just Branching out slowly and getting more works by the same composers and new works from the other big-name composers from books on Classical.
Ive enjoyed keyboard works since first starting out and that has continued, I find I now enjoy Chamber music a bit more than orchestral and have added quite a bit of this music to my modest collection over the last couple of years.
I have been trying to broaden my appreciation along the way by investigating some more modern works and this year, by listening to Opera chestnuts.
That's where I'm at pretty much :) - I still like the same composers as when I started (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc.) although my appreciation of their work has become deeper.

A Clockwork Orange > A Clockwork Orange Soundtrack > Beethoven > The rest of it.

Quote from: MN Dave on September 29, 2010, 04:52:58 AM
A Clockwork Orange > A Clockwork Orange Soundtrack > Beethoven > The rest of it.

Cool and awesome film! :D - just looking at the soundtrack for the film, I didnt realise there was so much other Classical in it besides Beethoven's 9th :):

Track listing

   1. "The Funeral of Queen Mary" - Wendy Carlos [7]
   2. "The Thieving Magpie (Rossini, Abridged)" - A Deutsche Grammophon Recording
   3. "Theme from A Clockwork Orange (Beethoviana)" - Wendy Carlos
   4. "Ninth Symphony, Second Movement (Abridged)" - A Deutsche Grammophon Recording conducted by Ferenc Fricsay.
   5. "March from A Clockwork Orange (Ninth Symphony, Fourth Movement, Abridged)" - Wendy Carlos and Rachel Elkind
   6. "William Tell Overture (Rossini, Abridged)" - Wendy Carlos
   7. "Pomp and Circumstance March No. 1" - Sir Edward Elgar
   8. "Pomp and Circumstance March No. IV (Abridged)" - Sir Edward Elgar
   9. "Timesteps (Excerpt)" - Wendy Carlos
  10. "Overture to the Sun" - Terry Tucker (instrumental from Sound of Sunforest [1969] album of the group, Sunforest)
  11. "I Want to Marry a Lighthouse Keeper" - Erika Eigen (from Sound of Sunforest, the 1969 album of her group, Sunforest - the film version is different to the soundtrack version)
  12. "William Tell Overture (Abridged)" - A Deutsche Grammophon Recording
  13. "Suicide Scherzo (Ninth Symphony, Second Movement, Abridged)" - Wendy Carlos
  14. "Ninth Symphony, Fourth Movement, (Abridged)" - A Deutsche Grammophon Recording (Von Karajan, 1963, uncredited)
  15. "Singin' in the Rain" - Gene Kelly, lyrics by Arthur Freed, music by Nacio Herb Brown.

Quote from: Conor71 on September 29, 2010, 05:01:19 AM
Cool and awesome film! :D - just looking at the soundtrack for the film, I didnt realise there was so much other Classical in it besides Beethoven's 9th :):

Track listing

   1. "The Funeral of Queen Mary" - Wendy Carlos [7]
   

Yep. And that one is by Henry Purcell. Another of my favorites.

Quote from: MN Dave on September 29, 2010, 05:04:56 AM
Yep. And that one is by Henry Purcell. Another of my favorites.

Nice - I havent heard any Purcell before, will check that one out at some stage :).

Quote from: Conor71 on September 29, 2010, 05:09:07 AM
Nice - I havent heard any Purcell before, will check that one out at some stage :).

No pressure, Conor, but I like this:

http://www.naxos.com/catalogue/item.asp?item_code=8.553129

Quote from: MN Dave on September 29, 2010, 05:11:09 AM
No pressure, Conor, but I like this:

http://www.naxos.com/catalogue/item.asp?item_code=8.553129

Checked out a few samples on Amazon - sounds nice!. Cheers for the recommendation :).

Quote from: MN Dave on September 29, 2010, 04:52:58 AM
A Clockwork Orange > A Clockwork Orange Soundtrack > Beethoven > The rest of it.

This is a carbon copy for me as well.  Almost exactly how it all trinkled down in my case!  :)

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 13, 2010, 08:17:53 PM

I guess I'm a unique listener in the respect that I didn't start off with the composers everybody seems to worship like Bach, Beethoven, or Mozart, I started off with the music of Bartok, Ravel, and Ives as my cataylst. Their music was interesting enough that I started to explore other composers.

I wouldn't say you were that unique. My entry into to classical music (as in, the point where I started adoring it) was also through a few 20th century giants - Ives and Bartok (Ravel came much later for me), also Barber, Shostakovich and Messiaen. Also Finzi was a key figure in my early listening. From these few my passion expanded and grew to encompass many others, though these figures still mean a lot, if not the most to me. (Certainly with Ives and Barber).

I was exposed to Beethoven, Paganini, and Tchaikovsky at an early age through my neopolitan Grandfather. My father was more into popular music, so I had that mix through most of my early years. I got interested in J.S. Bach when I first heard songs like Deep Purple's Burn. But most of this was as a supplement to my main love at the time: rock/metal music.

In 2005 I saw Amadeus the movie and was motivated by the likable (though mostly fictional) portrayal of "Wolfie" to dig deeper into Mozart and Haydn. I look back on that period as a great gateway into Art music.

In 2007 I was inspired by one of my favorite heavy metal bands, Manowar, to investigate Richard Wagner's Ring Des Nibelungen. From there I became a raving Wagnerite, and became more and more immersed in the music of Mahler, Bruckner, Richard Strauss, Schoenberg, and most recently Bartok from there.

My parents were interested in classical music - they collected records and went to concerts. Classical music was often played around the house as long back as I can remember. These were the classics like J. S. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Vivaldi, Wagner, Brahms, Liszt & it was mainly orchestral. As a teenager, I began to go to some concerts with them, started listening to classical radio & collected some tapes and cd's.

In my 20's I was less interested in music generally, but I still went to classical concerts - mainly chamber - and also got into jazz a bit. Now in my 30's I have again started collecting classical & going to concerts in the past 2 years. My favourite period is the C20th, but I also like the music of other periods, going right back to the Renaissance. My favourite genres are chamber, solo instrumental, choral, orchestral, and art songs & my least favourite is opera.

The reason I like classical music is that it's so diverse. There's much good stuff out there to explore & experience. I have a number of people in my life that also like classical music, some can read scores & play (or have played)  instruments. A composer friend of mine has introduced me to a number of lesser-known composers, like Harry Partch. I am currently highly into solo piano music & have recently discovered electronica. The thing with me is that I'm a deep listener, I like to kind of figure out what the composer is doing, whether I like the music initially or not. But as one of my colleagues said, you have to listen to a cd more than once to find out if you really like it or not - first impressions can be highly misleading. That's the basis I try to work from. Usually, I like innovative composers, no matter what era they are from. I don't like regurgitation and repetition of old styles. I like to be startled at bit and put out of my comfort zone (or at least challenged to think in some way?)...

Quote from: Sid on September 29, 2010, 07:33:58 PM...my least favourite is opera.

Same here. I could never get into that much. There are a few operas that I have heard and enjoy:

Delius: A Village Romeo & Juliet, Fennimore and Gerda...I have not heard Koanga yet and the recording I want is out-of-print and quite expensive

I'm coming around to Szymanowski's King Roger. I just ordered the classic Kertesz recording of Bartok's Duke Bluebeard's Castle, and if all goes well with it, I will probably take the plunge into Mackerras' Janacek opera box set on Decca.

We shall see how it goes.

When I was young, I was forced into it, in that I was a typical teenager (perhaps a tad more extreme), I reacted against this, and went in the 'opposing' direction (it's opposed only in this example), and then as I grew older, I began to come back to it, and brought it more into the fold, and now it is usually my first choice, although for certain activities I find it quite lacking.

My first favorite compose was Satie, and even now, he's still my favorite. It's fun, short music. I say, if you can't dig him, watch out.

My twin introductions to CM came in the mid 1980s. They were music used as entrance music in my high school's planetarium(!), like Holst and Respighi, and film scores, like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Trek. From there I got into the Romantic Era warhorses like Tchaikovsky and Dvorak, and gradually grew to like more and more recent music -- from Mahler to Martinu to Shostakovich to Holmboe -- and eventually earlier music (my knowledge of 18th-century music and before is no longer just JS Bach, Handel and Vivaldi, though it's nowhere near as widespread as the centuries since.

I still hold to a dictum I arrived at pretty early on in my listening career: If at first you don't understand a piece, give it several more listens. I can grow to like and follow many things that at first seems opaque.

-J

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 29, 2010, 07:39:06 PM

Same here. I could never get into that much. There are a few operas that I have heard and enjoy...We shall see how it goes.

I also tend to like C20th operas - eg. Berg & Schoenberg. I especially want to get Debussy, Ligeti & maybe Ravel & Janacek.

Quote from: Philoctetes on September 29, 2010, 08:15:58 PM
When I was young, I was forced into it, in that I was a typical teenager (perhaps a tad more extreme), I reacted against this, and went in the 'opposing' direction (it's opposed only in this example), and then as I grew older, I began to come back to it, and brought it more into the fold, and now it is usually my first choice, although for certain activities I find it quite lacking.

My first favorite compose was Satie, and even now, he's still my favorite. It's fun, short music. I say, if you can't dig him, watch out.

It has been classical with me all the way, with a short foray into jazz (which I ocassionally enjoy now and then). I have felt a it out of touch with my own generation, most of whom don't seem that interested in classical. In school, it was considered a "nerdy" type of thing, one that I learned to kind of hide from the critical ignorant buffoons.

As for Satie, I plan to get some of his piano works, as I am currently in a piano phase. I have not heard much of his music, piano or otherwise, but I have read about his huge influence on later composers.

Quote from: jimmosk on September 29, 2010, 08:21:05 PM
...I still hold to a dictum I arrived at pretty early on in my listening career: If at first you don't understand a piece, give it several more listens. I can grow to like and follow many things that at first seems opaque.

I agree with this statement 100%, although sometimes I have been quick to judge late Romantic composers in particular (couldn't stand Langgaard, but now I'm beginning to get into guys like Mahler and Zemlinsky - will even go to see the former's 9th symphony live next year, I want to scale that peak for sure!)...

Quote from: Philoctetes on September 29, 2010, 08:15:58 PMMy first favorite compose was Satie, and even now, he's still my favorite. It's fun, short music. I say, if you can't dig him, watch out.

I dislike Satie as do so many others I've spoken with over the years. Totally lame composer. Was that too harsh? :D

Quote from: Sid on September 29, 2010, 08:43:11 PMI also tend to like C20th operas - eg. Berg & Schoenberg. I especially want to get Debussy, Ligeti & maybe Ravel & Janacek.

I need to go back and listen to Berg's operas. I remember running for my life when I heard the opening measures of Wozzeck. :)

Hopefully, now that I've digested so much from the Second Viennese School, I can listen to Schoenberg's Moses und Aron, which I heard his one of his masterpieces.

Again, we shall see...

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 29, 2010, 08:47:37 PM

I dislike Satie as do so many others I've spoken with over the years. Totally lame composer.

Sounds like you have some evolving ahead of you.

Quote from: Bulldog on September 29, 2010, 09:37:10 PM
Sounds like you have some evolving ahead of you.

That's pretty funny. I was about to say something similar.  ;D

Quote from: Bulldog on September 29, 2010, 09:37:10 PM
Sounds like you have some evolving ahead of you.

No, I don't think so. A person can dislike a composer if they find their music unappealing and, most importantly, emotionally/intellectually stale. Satie is a terrible composer. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 30, 2010, 06:54:38 AM

No, I don't think so. A person can dislike a composer if they find their music unappealing and, most importantly, emotionally/intellectually stale. Satie is a terrible composer. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

It's one of the cool things about being an individual. I don't happen to like alot of the "atonal" composers of the 20th century.

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 30, 2010, 06:54:38 AM

No, I don't think so. A person can dislike a composer if they find their music unappealing and, most importantly, emotionally/intellectually stale. Satie is a terrible composer. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

A classic example of the I don't like = the composer is terrible school of thought that I hoped only Saul and Teresa subscribed to round here.

FWIW IMO the composer of as sophisticated, affecting and unique a masterpiece as Socrate could never be classified as emotionally or intellectually stale; if one found that particular piece to be either of those things the fact would tell us more about the listener than the composer, I suspect.

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 30, 2010, 06:54:38 AM
A person can dislike a composer if they find their music unappealing and, most importantly, emotionally/intellectually stale. Satie is a terrible composer. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

This is a discussion which resurges from time to time. But really, not liking a composer does not make that composer "a terrible composer," in the first place (and generally). In the second (and in particular) Satie as a composer is admired by (to name but two other composers) Luke and myself.

Quote from: Luke on September 30, 2010, 07:24:04 AM
A classic example of the I don't like = the composer is terrible school of thought that I hoped only Saul and Teresa subscribed to round here.

FWIW IMO the composer of as sophisticated, affecting and unique a masterpiece as Socrate could never be classified as emotionally or intellectually stale; if one found that particular piece to be either of those things the fact would tell us more about the listener than the composer, I suspect.

I should have known that Luke would preempt me here!

At the very least, on the basis of Socrate. And there's Billy Wilder's maxim: You're as good as the best thing you've done.

Satie has earned several spins from me. Not my favorite composer, but worth checking out. There are so many composers, it's hard to keep up with them at times, and often we have to be reminded to give somebody another go. Look at Copland, an extra fine composer, whom apparently got a bit forgotten on the What are You Listening To thread.

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 30, 2010, 06:54:38 AM

No, I don't think so. A person can dislike a composer if they find their music unappealing and, most importantly, emotionally/intellectually stale. Satie is a terrible composer. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Its jejune posts like these that make you hard to take seriously as a listener.

Well if we're done discussing Satie :D I started off with Beethoven and Bach.  They were best of tapes.  I like the major composers then and I like them now.  I'm pretty boring that way. :)

I've evolved to hearing more but the only way that my tastes have significantly changed is that in the past several years I've embraced more chamber and vocal music when I used to be orchestral only.  I can think some gmg posters for that. >:( ;D :D

Nothing wrong with those major composers. As Jeeves would say, I believe they have given satisfaction ; )

Thread duty:

Most of my misspent youth I knew hardly anything of the classical literature.  Almost the first of this music I got to know, was in transcription for symphonic band: last movement of the Dvořák New World Symphony, the first movement of the Schubert Unfinished, a curiously edited (as I only pieced out years later) version of the final movement of the Beethoven c minor symphony, op. 67, Rossini's overture to La gazza ladra, the Haydn Trumpet Concerto (really; we had an amazing trumpeter in my high school); heck, even a clarinet choir arrangement of Barber's famous Adagio.  Participation in All-State Bands (and, one year, the All-State Orchestra) really expanded my knowledge: the finale of the Shostakovich Fifth Symphony, his Festive Overture, the first two of Debussy's Nocturnes, Rimsky-Korsakov's Procession of the Nobles from Mlada, the Marche au supplice from the Symphonie fantastique.  That's not quite a complete list, but it gives you an idea.

When I got to Wooster expressly to study music, my classical music world exploded beyond any possible boundary.  I think, though, that even that astoundingly expanded musical universe then became, unwittingly, The Known World, and I didn't know (much of) what I didn't know.  And (largely with the assistance of GMGers) my musical horizons have expanded about as much, again, in the past couple of years, as they did back when I was in Wooster.

Karl, I don't think I saw Stravinsky anywhere in that post. :o ;D

I grew up in a home that had exactly three classical music records.  The 1812 overture (Dorati, Mercury Living Presence)  The Tchaikovsky 1/Rachmaninoff 2 (van Cliburn, RCA) and a Beethoven 5 (later I realized it was the EMI Furtwangler).  The first two I now have on CD, not the Furtwangler.

My interest came when I took an advanced class in music in high school, and started checking lps out of the library, then purchasing them.  As I recall, the first classical lps owned were Mozart Symphony No 41, Krips, Concertgebouw (Philips) and Mozart PC 27, Gilels/Bohm (DG).

Quote from: DavidW on September 30, 2010, 11:15:39 AM
Karl, I don't think I saw Stravinsky anywhere in that post. :o ;D

He loomed large at Wooster, Davey : )

I was mostly listening to rock, country rock, and acoustic stuff and only had a couple of classical CDs. It took a proper classical turn when I listened to the Four Seasons on a newly acquired set of high end headphones about 5 years ago and that was a revelation detail-wise.

From there it's just been discoveries after discoveries (mostly hits, a few misses too). Sort of :

- bit of everything to find out about genres
- then mostly symphonies and choral works
- then mahler
- then more mahler
- then more mahler
- and then some more
- and for the last year solo piano
- more solo piano
- and a fair bit of piano too

all fun  ;D

Quote from: Luke on September 30, 2010, 07:24:04 AM
A classic example of the I don't like = the composer is terrible school of thought that I hoped only Saul and Teresa subscribed to round here.

FWIW IMO the composer of as sophisticated, affecting and unique a masterpiece as Socrate could never be classified as emotionally or intellectually stale; if one found that particular piece to be either of those things the fact would tell us more about the listener than the composer, I suspect.

Not to jump off, but...

http://www.good-music-guide.com/forum/index.php/topic,2996.0.html (http://www.good-music-guide.com/forum/index.php/topic,2996.0.html)

and...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryons_dess%C3%A9ch%C3%A9s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryons_dess%C3%A9ch%C3%A9s)

etc.

I listened to the Beatles as a child (saw them twice live - heard only screaming) I also saw, but didn't hear The Monkees live in London  :o - then I got into American jazz-rock (Chicago/BST etcetc) - also I loved the music of Jimi Hendrix. My seven year older brother loved Bruckner and Brahms and tried to get me interested in their music - as long as he tried I resisted and then when he gave up trying - I became interested. My first classical LP was Rimsky's Scheherazade (Reiner) and I started collected some Bruckner. Then one day on my way home from school (I was about 16/17) I was browsing through the classical LPs at W H Smith's and noticed some by Vaughan Williams - I asked my brother about him and my brother said he was a bit like an English Copland (I loved Copland's Third Symphony which my brother had on LP). I bought an LP of Vaughan Williams's Symphony No 6 (Boult/LPO/Decca Eclipse). The rest is history.

Quote from: AndyD. on September 30, 2010, 07:01:24 AM

It's one of the cool things about being an individual. I don't happen to like alot of the "atonal" composers of the 20th century.

Perhaps you're not into the atonal composers, but you obviously relish in dissonance since you enjoy Bartok so much. Bartok's SQs are incredibly dissonant works. I think it's all a matter of how open you are.

My dislike for Satie stems from listening to his music and just being disappointed. It didn't strike me as original or creative. These are my opinions of course and everybody has right to voice their own opinion.

Quote from: Luke on September 30, 2010, 07:24:04 AM
A classic example of the I don't like = the composer is terrible school of thought that I hoped only Saul and Teresa subscribed to round here.

FWIW IMO the composer of as sophisticated, affecting and unique a masterpiece as Socrate could never be classified as emotionally or intellectually stale; if one found that particular piece to be either of those things the fact would tell us more about the listener than the composer, I suspect.

So anybody who shares a different opinion than you do is wrong? There is no right or wrong in music, Luke. It's all subjective, but if I look at Satie objectively, then history tells us of his influence on Les Six and other French composers at that time, but I don't care for his music.

If you enjoy Satie, then that is your right, but not everybody enjoys the same composers. I've heard people say terrible things about Bruckner, Shostakovich, and Berg, but you don't see me throwing a temper tantrum because they said something negative about a composer I enjoy.

Quote from: Guido on September 30, 2010, 09:18:25 AM
Its jejune posts like these that make you hard to take seriously as a listener.

Oh jeez....get over it! Why would I care if you took me seriously as a listener or not? All I did was express an opinion.

I had a conversation with my Grandfather a few weeks ago and he was giving me hell for liking Bartok and Stravinsky, but I didn't whine about it. I told him that everybody likes different things. I didn't get all bent out of shape about it, because his opinion or anybody else's opinion will never change how I feel about either of these composers.

If you disagree with my opinion, then great, but don't pull the "I don't think I can take you seriously now" crap with me. That's so juvenile and just, for lack of a better word, stupid.

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 30, 2010, 06:44:35 PM

So anybody who shares a different opinion than you do is wrong? There is no right or wrong in music, Luke. It's all subjective, but if I look at Satie objectively, then history tells us of his influence on Les Six and other French composers at that time, but I don't care for his music.

If you enjoy Satie, then that is your right, but not everybody enjoys the same composers. I've heard people say terrible things about Bruckner, Shostakovich, and Berg, but you don't see me throwing a temper tantrum because they said something negative about a composer I enjoy.

That isn't what he said. Perhaps you should read what you said.

Quote from: Philoctetes on September 30, 2010, 07:39:32 PM
That isn't what he said. Perhaps you should read what you said.

No, he didn't come out and say it, but the implication he made from what I read is that if I don't like this work by Satie, then I don't have good taste in music and that I have no idea what I'm talking about as if I'm some ignorant, fly-by-night classical listener.

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 30, 2010, 08:20:47 PM

No, he didn't come out and say it, but the implication he made from what I read is that if I don't like this work by Satie, then I don't have good taste in music and that I have no idea what I'm talking about as if I'm some ignorant, fly-by-night classical listener.

Nah, you brought this on yourself - "totally lame" and "terrible". 

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 30, 2010, 08:20:47 PM

No, he didn't come out and say it, but the implication he made from what I read is that if I don't like this work by Satie, then I don't have good taste in music and that I have no idea what I'm talking about as if I'm some ignorant, fly-by-night classical listener.

I read no such implication.  As I read it, he said just what he mean't, that it is not necessary to draw the conclusion that Satie is objectively "a terrible composer" because his works don't make a favorable impression on you.

Quote from: Bulldog on September 30, 2010, 08:36:46 PM
Nah, you brought this on yourself - "totally lame" and "terrible".

You're right I brought this on myself by expressing my opinion, which you guys can't except.  ::)

Quote from: Bulldog on September 30, 2010, 08:36:46 PM
Nah, you brought this on yourself - "totally lame" and "terrible".

Quote from: Scarpia on September 30, 2010, 08:39:52 PM
I read no such implication.  As I read it, he said just what he mean't, that it is not necessary to draw the conclusion that Satie is objectively "a terrible composer" because his works don't make a favorable impression on you.

It's really no fun when you simply point out the obvious.

For instance, I dislike Haydn. I just find his shit to be the most boring stuff ever. (Not that I don't give him many listenings, to try and find the combo that will make him click for me), but I would never say he is a terrible composer. I'm arrogant, but not that arrogant.

As Scarpia, Philo, Bulldog said - exactly. You're pulling a similar stunt to the one you did re. composers who offer completions of e.g Mahler 10. There, you said you don't like them (which is cool) and then offered up a pretty defamatory opinion in addition (the idea that completions of Mahler 10 etc are written with bad intentions). And then, being called on that, you spent quite a few posts on your who-me? 'it's all a matter of opinion' line whilst conveniently forgetting the part of what you wrote which causes the actual gripe. As there, so here too. You're still doing it - 'you guys can't except [sic] me expressing my opinion'. No, your taste-as-opinion isn't at issue, don't think that it is; nobody really cares much what others like or don't like. It's the opinions that you present as fact - Satie's terrible; Cooke had bad intentions - that are argued over. It's exactly what Teresa did re Mozart - Mozart is the worst composer ever; Schoenberg was scamming - and you really don't want to get lumped in with her!  ;D

Spelling it out - it's fine not to like Satie (just as it's fine not to like Cooke's Mahler 10 job). No one argues with that, though they might feel sad that you're missing out on some pretty amazing stuff (as I said, or implied, Socrate is surely one of the great masterpieces of the 20th century) But it doesn't follow from your not liking him that Satie is therefore a terrible composer, and you are wrong to make that implication (as you have indeed backtracked on it since, correctly saying that Satie wasn't seen as a terrible composer by many thousands of listeners, musicologists, cultural historians and composers on whom he exterted a strong influence such as Debussy, Ravel, Les Six and many others since, the most prominent being Cage, probably - so perhaps he's not so terrible after all, even if you can't hear what the fuss is about).

Quote from: Luke on September 30, 2010, 09:10:50 PM
As Scarpia, Philo, Bulldog said - exactly. You're pulling a similar stunt to the one you did re. composers who offer completions of e.g Mahler 10. There, you said you don't like them (which is cool) and then offered up a pretty defamatory opinion in addition (the idea that completions of Mahler 10 etc are written with bad intentions). And then, being called on that, you spent quite a few posts on your who-me? 'it's all a matter of opinion' line whilst conveniently forgetting the part of what you wrote which causes the actual gripe. As there, so here too. You're still doing it - 'you guys can't except [sic] me expressing my opinion'. No, your taste-as-opinion isn't at issue, don't think that it is; nobody really cares much what others like or don't like. It's the opinions that you present as fact - Satie's terrible; Cooke had bad intentions - that are argued over. It's exactly what Teresa did re Mozart - Mozart is the worst composer ever; Schoenberg was scamming - and you really don't want to get lumped in with her!  ;D

Spelling it out - it's fine not to like Satie (just as it's fine not to like Cooke's Mahler 10 job). No one argues with that, though they might feel sad that you're missing out on some pretty amazing stuff (as I said, or implied, Socrate is surely one of the great masterpieces of the 20th century) But it doesn't follow from your not liking him that Satie is therefore a terrible composer, and you are wrong to make that implication (as you have indeed backtracked on it since, correctly saying that Satie wasn't seen as a terrible composer by many thousands of listeners, musicologists, cultural historians and composers on whom he exterted a strong influence such as Debussy, Ravel, Les Six and many others since, the most prominent being Cage, probably - so perhaps he's not so terrible after all, even if you can't hear what the fuss is about).

Maybe calling Satie a terrible composer was a poor choice of words and a hasty judgement to make. How about this: I dislike Satie's music but understand his influence on other composers in Paris during his lifetime? I think this is a more logical point-of-view and nobody gets hurt in the process.

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 30, 2010, 09:20:58 PM

Maybe calling Satie a terrible composer was a poor choice of words and a hasty judgement to make. How about this: I dislike Satie's music but understand his influence on other composers in Paris during his lifetime? I think this is more logical and nobody gets hurt in the process.

No one got hurt.

And perhaps you should think twice and post once.

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 30, 2010, 09:20:58 PM

Maybe calling Satie a terrible composer was a poor choice of words and a hasty judgement to make. How about this: I dislike Satie's music but understand his influence on other composers in Paris during his lifetime? I think this is more logical and nobody gets hurt in the process.

Who could argue with that?

Quote from: Philoctetes on September 30, 2010, 09:22:08 PM
No one got hurt.

And perhaps you should think twice and post once.

And perhaps you should learn to accept that not everybody likes Satie's music even if you feel that deep down inside that they're missing out on something.

I'm not a terrible person because I dislike his music. Do you know how many people hate the Second Viennese School of Music? More than you can count. This doesn't stop me though from enjoying their music as my opinion should never make any difference to you how you feel about Satie.

We all love classical music here and that is what's important.

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 30, 2010, 09:29:41 PM

And perhaps you should learn to accept that not everybody likes Satie's music even if you feel that deep down inside that they're missing out on something.

I'm not a terrible person because I dislike his music. Do you know how many people hate the Second Viennese School of Music? More than you can count. This doesn't stop me though from enjoying their music as my opinion should never make any difference to you how you feel about Satie.

We all love classical music here and that is what's important.

What exactly are you responding too? Perhaps you should reread my post, and then read the posts it was a response too, and then read my post again.

I mean, fuck, seriously.

Quote from: Philoctetes on September 30, 2010, 09:32:27 PM
What exactly are you responding too? Perhaps you should reread my post, and then read the posts it was a response too, and then read my post again.

I mean, fuck, seriously.

I am actually responding to this post you made earlier:

Quote from: Philoctetes on September 29, 2010, 08:15:58 PMMy first favorite compose was Satie, and even now, he's still my favorite. It's fun, short music. I say, if you can't dig him, watch out.

Now, what exactly should I "watch out" for?

What's the matter cat got your tongue?

(http://scribbles.stephaniesmith.com/__oneclick_uploads/2007/08/cat_got-yer_tongue_web.jpg)

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 30, 2010, 09:37:30 PM

I am actually responding to this post you made earlier:
 
Now, what exactly should I "watch out" for?

Then you should have made that clear.

And that sentence, from which 'watch out' was plucked, was left hopelessly ambiguous, simply as a device. Hopefully, you'd watch out for new, fresh, and exciting recordings.

What did you take it to mean?

Quote from: Philoctetes on September 30, 2010, 10:04:58 PM
Then you should have made that clear.

And that sentence, from which 'watch out' was plucked, was left hopelessly ambiguous, simply as a device. Hopefully, you'd watch out for new, fresh, and exciting recordings.

What did you take it to mean?

You need to make yourself clear too. I took watch out to mean that you were going to get nasty with anybody who couldn't "dig" Satie.

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 30, 2010, 06:38:23 PM

Perhaps you're not into the atonal composers, but you obviously relish in dissonance since you enjoy Bartok so much. Bartok's SQs are incredibly dissonant works. I think it's all a matter of how open you are.

My dislike for Satie stems from listening to his music and just being disappointed. It didn't strike me as original or creative. These are my opinions of course and everybody has right to voice their own opinion.

I agree, music is there for everyone.

Maybe I should have written that I don't like alot of tone row and serial composition.

And we all like dissonance. Without it there's no consonance, right? Just being a smart alec. Most people that are into the extreme end of heavy metal are into dissonant compositions. Slayer is a good example.

Oh, I didn't realise that I was posting into the middle of the Battle of the Somme! Anyway, opera has always been a bit of a blind spot for me, although I love Boris Godunov, and 'Riders to the Sea' and 'Pilgrim's Progress' by Vaughan Williams.  In recent years I have come to appreciate chamber music more than before - although what I listen to is still predominantly orchestral. As for Satie ( :o :-[ :-X :-\) I do like the Gymnopedies 1-3 (either in piano or orchestral garb) but am not so keen on his other music.

Quote from: vandermolen on October 01, 2010, 03:17:22 AM
Oh, I didn't realise that I was posting into the middle of the Battle of the Somme!

Yeah, I'm having flashbacks to Route 9 and Khe Sanh ;D

QuoteAs for Satie ( :o :-[ :-X :-\) I do like the Gymnopedies 1-3 (either in piano or orchestral garb) but am not so keen on his other music.

I'm listening to the orchestrations right now. Lovely stuff...I'm surprised MI can't enjoy this. And I think Parade would be right up his alley. Oh well...  Me, I love Satie; own three box sets plus dozens of individual discs.

Sarge

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 30, 2010, 10:42:00 PM

You need to make yourself clear too. I took watch out to mean that you were going to get nasty with anybody who couldn't "dig" Satie.

It's not my fault you took it in such a manner, but you can't really compare our two situations. I didn't make a stupid and foolhardy pronouncement.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 30, 2010, 09:58:16 AM
Almost the first of this music I got to know, was in transcription for symphonic band: last movement of the Dvořák New World Symphony,

I wonder if every high school band in the late 60s and 70s played that? Mine did...in fact, we marched to it. Quite thrilling. Other classical works we played: Wagner Siegfried's Funeral Music (prepared for a competition); the Andante con moto from Schubert's Fifth Symphony; Grieg's Piano Concerto and Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue (we had a very talented pianist...and gorgeous too; she lived directly across an open field from my house).

Anyway, back to Dvorak. My girlfriend at the time wanted to hear how it really sounded; her folks had a recording (Bernstein, I think, but it might have been Szell--that seems more logical actually, considering our proximity to Cleveland and the fact it was one of the few classical recordings they owned). She played partially through the first side but didn't hear the tune she knew from playing it in the band. She thought there was something wrong with the recording and asked me to check it out. Her real problem was ADD, of course. She simply didn't have the capacity to listen for more than 20 minutes  :D  That should have warned me against marrying her...but I did anyway five years later. Really dumb move  ;D

Sarge

Quote from: DavidW on September 30, 2010, 11:15:39 AM
Karl, I don't think I saw Stravinsky anywhere in that post. :o ;D

To follow up here . . .

I don't remember actually listening to any Stravinsky before I got to Wooster. I remember a great friend of mine in the St Michael's choir mentioning the Symphony of Psalms, but I think it remained nothing more than a name until I got to Wooster.

Once I was in the music program, though . . . I won't get the sequence strictly accurate, but . . . .

My freshman year, I played the Soldier in a Theatre Dept/Music Dept collaborative performance of L'histoire du soldat. We played the Suite from L'oiseau de feu in the college orchestra.

The summer after my freshman year, I went to Blossom to hear the Cleveland Orchestra play the Symphony in Three Movements, with choreography danced by the San Francisco Ballet.

It may not have been until my sophomore year that I had my first exposure to Petrushka, Le sacre, the Symphony of Psalms.  Between the last quarter of the Music History sequence for music majors, and the last quarter of Theory, which was essentially a survey of 20th-c. music, that sophomore year must have been the time of at least partial exposure to (e.g.) the Symphonies of Wind Instruments, Pulcinella, the Dumbarton Oaks Concerto, Agon, the Requiem Canticles.  And with each piece of Stravinsky's which I heard, his position as Probably My Favorite Composer Ever trended firmer.

My junior year I played the Three Pieces for clarinet solo on one or two recitals. I think it was likely my junior year that I went to Severance Hall to hear the Cleveland Orchestra play Le sacre live.

At UVa one of the courses I took while pursuing my Master's was a survey of Stravinsky taught by composer Walter Ross.  So my awareness of the catalogue grew by further leaps and bounds . . . I particularly remember Le baiser de la fée, Threni, the Three Japanese Lyrics, Zvezdoliki, and The Owl and the Pussycat.  Composer Judith Shatin also (in another class) had us investigate Petrushka in more depth for a week or two.

At Buffalo, I took advantage of yet another course entirely devoted to Stravinsky (taught, I think I recall, by John Clough).  Again, got to know yet more of the music;  I particularly remember the Concerto for Two Pianos, the Violin Concerto, Orpheus, Renard.  Another theory class, taught by Martha Hyde, focused on 12-tone music; that was a great opportunity to dig more into Agon; I think it was the first I heard the Variations in memoriam Aldous Huxley;  and I wrote a paper on the Requiem Canticles (not a great paper, but a great opportunity to get to know the piece better).  The Winter break while I was studying for my qualifying exams at Buffalo, I heard the Pittsburgh Symphony play Petrushka live at Heinz Hall.

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on October 01, 2010, 04:53:06 AM
I wonder if every high school band in the late 60s and 70s played that? Mine did...in fact, we marched to it. Quite thrilling. Other classical works we played: Wagner Siegfried's Funeral Music (prepared for a competition); the Andante con moto from Schubert's Fifth Symphony; Grieg's Piano Concerto and Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue (we had a very talented pianist...and gorgeous too; she lived directly across an open field from my house).

Gosh, Sarge, you remind me that we once read in rehearsal a transcription of the Good Friday music from Parsifal . . . which I didn't take to, particularly.  But I remember too we played a transcription of the Prelude to Die Meistersinger, which has always been a favorite.

Quote from: Philoctetes on October 01, 2010, 04:31:01 AM
I didn't make a stupid and foolhardy pronouncement.

rofl

A typical example of a confirming negation.

Quote from: Philoctetes on October 01, 2010, 04:31:01 AM
It's not my fault you took it in such a manner, but you can't really compare our two situations. I didn't make a stupid and foolhardy pronouncement.

You said:

Quote from: Philoctetes on September 29, 2010, 08:15:58 PMI say, if you can't dig him, watch out.

How exactly is somebody supposed to take this? Look, don't make excuses, which you are doing, just accept the fact that you can't stand anybody else to dislike Satie's music and speak out against him.

Bartok > Ligeti > Beethoven > Bach > Mozart > Brahms > Webern > Mahler > Wagner > Early Music > Jazz.

Some progression indeed.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 01, 2010, 05:35:43 AM
Bartok > Ligeti > Beethoven > Bach > Mozart > Brahms > Webern > Mahler > Wagner > Early Music > Jazz.

Some progression indeed.

Since when have you started to like jazz?

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 05:39:08 AM
Since when have you started to like jazz?

I believe he's an Ellington fan, as am I.

You know I think that several posters misread the tone of MI's post.  You took him to be trolling, when that emoticon (which is why we have and should use them) clearly indicated that he was just expressing his opinion and having a laugh at how contrary it sounded.  Seriously lighten up you guys, the world won't fall apart if one poster doesn't like Satie. :D

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 01, 2010, 04:59:56 AM
which was essentially a survey of 20th-c. music, that sophomore year must have been the time of at least partial exposure to (e.g.) the Symphonies of Wind Instruments, Pulcinella, the Dumbarton Oaks Concerto, Agon, the Requiem Canticles.  And with each piece of Stravinsky's which I heard, his position as Probably My Favorite Composer Ever trended firmer.

I'm tickled to see that Dumbarton Oaks played a roll in your Stravinsky experience, since you know I love that work! :)

Quote from: MN Dave on October 01, 2010, 05:44:04 AM
I believe he's an Ellington fan, as am I.

Take the A kayak . . . .

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 01, 2010, 05:35:43 AM
Bartok > Ligeti > Beethoven > Bach > Mozart > Brahms > Webern > Mahler > Wagner > Early Music > Jazz.

Some progression indeed.

You call that progression? From Brahms on it went wrong with you, except the step Early Music $:).

Let me say something on jazz.

Jazz musicians don't have any relation with their instrument. They don't play it, they use it only. Jazz musicians aren't creative, but have a good memory for schemes.

The result can't be music. It only sounds rhythmic and you hear a sequence of harmonics and dissonants.

Jazz musicians though want to make music, but as they perform in fact they give away a show. But they don't want to make a show, because they want to make music. As a visitor I can't form an attitude to that.

Henk

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 05:53:14 AM
Jazz musicians don't have any relation with their instrument. They don't play it, they use it only. Jazz musicians aren't creative, but have a good memory for schemes.

Oh, I think I disagree. How can you say that Coltrane "had no relation" with his saxophone? Django with his guitar? Mingus with his bass? Miles with his trumpet? Dolphy with . . . any of his sundry woodwinds? And they were all highly creative musicians.

And yes, the result certainly is music.

Quote from: DavidW on October 01, 2010, 05:46:34 AM
You know I think that several posters misread the tone of MI's post.  You took him to be trolling, when that emoticon (which is why we have and should use them) clearly indicated that he was just expressing his opinion and having a laugh at how contrary it sounded.  Seriously lighten up you guys, the world won't fall apart if one poster doesn't like Satie. :D

Thank you DavidW. I'm not a troll. I love this music like everybody else here. Why would I spend so much time here if I didn't like classical music? I realize that my opinion was pretty harsh, so I rectified that by restating my opinion in a more objective manner.

I can only hope that we all can just move on from here.

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 05:53:14 AM
You call that progression? From Brahms on it went wrong with you, except the step Early Music $:).

Let me say something on jazz.

I knew I should have stopped there... ;D

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 01, 2010, 06:00:22 AM
Thank you DavidW. I'm not a troll. I love this music like everybody else here. Why would I spend so much time here if I didn't like classical music? I realize that my opinion was pretty harsh, so I rectified that by restating my opinion in a more objective manner.

I can only hope that we all can just move on from here.

Aye, I am sure that nor Luke nor I took your remark as trolling at all! No one could reasonably argue with your not liking Satie.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 01, 2010, 05:59:13 AM
Oh, I think I disagree. How can you say that Coltrane "had no relation" with his saxophone? Django with his guitar? Mingus with his bass? Miles with his trumpet? Dolphy with . . . any of his sundry woodwinds? And they were all highly creative musicians.

And yes, the result certainly is music.

I strongly doubt it. It's part of their show, but they were quite naive and still had the believe they made real music, as the crowd did. Monk only repeated himself, Coltrane could only progress to go in extremes as his "schemes" allowed.

Miles was a star, and he knew it, and this speaks in favor of him.

Why do you think music of Kind of Blue nowadays is used in funny tv shows?

Curiously, my ears didn't really open much to jazz, until my classical horizons had expanded . . . even more.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 01, 2010, 05:59:13 AM
Oh, I think I disagree. How can you say that Coltrane "had no relation" with his saxophone? Django with his guitar? Mingus with his bass? Miles with his trumpet? Dolphy with . . . any of his sundry woodwinds? And they were all highly creative musicians.

And yes, the result certainly is music.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Henk has a right to his opinion of course, but I think to say that jazz musicians don't have any kind of relation to their instrument or that they're not creative is an interesting comment to make since a jazz musician's art relies on nothing but spontaneous creativity and in order to be creative, the jazz musician must know their instrument incredibly well.

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 06:06:57 AM
I strongly doubt it. It's part of their show, but they were quite naive and still had the believe they made real music, as the crowd did. Monk only repeated himself, Coltrane could only progress to go in extremes as his "schemes" allowed.

Before I could much discuss this with you, you would have to explain to me how "real music" is distinguished from jazz. You see, in this composer's naïveté, I consider a lot of jazz to be a subset of Real Music™

Quote from: HenkWhy do you think music of Kind of Blue nowadays is used in funny tv shows?

Dunno; same reason that Rossini, Liszt & Wagner were used in Looney Tunes? The use in pop culture doesn't de-legitimize the source Art.

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 01, 2010, 06:10:23 AM
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Henk has a right to his opinion of course, but I think to say that jazz musicians don't have any kind of relation to their instrument or that they're not creative is an interesting comment to make since a jazz musician's art relies on nothing but spontaneous creativity and in order to be creative, the jazz musician must know their instrument incredibly well.

Exactly; I am in awe of their command. I don't believe for an instant that I know my clarinet so well as Dolphy knew his bass clarinet.  And I've lived with my clarinet for 32 years . . . .

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 01, 2010, 06:15:19 AM
Exactly; I am in awe of their command. I don't believe for an instant that I know my clarinet so well as Dolphy knew his bass clarinet.  And I've lived with my clarinet for 32 years . . . .

Precisely, Karl. For Dolphy was his clarinet something he knew very well. But only in a very superficial way. You, in contrary, as I imagine, have a relation with it.

For a jazz musician, it's all about expressing oneself in an honest way. Jazz is music. It has rhythm, melody, harmony, and structure. But jazz gets beyond these confines in the use of improvisation, which many classical listeners don't understand. Improvisation is what makes jazz what it is. It's completely fine if Henk doesn't understand it.

I think Henk has to retHenk his opinion on jazz.  8)

my story as a listener

For hearing classical music, 2 environments were important: home and school. At home, my parents had a basic but high-quality record collection, including standards like the Beethoven symphonies (I remember the 5th and 7th under Steinberg, the 6th under Klemperer, the 9th under Munch), Tchaikovsky ballets, the Bach Brandenburgs (Casals recording), some Schubert, Grieg, Wagner, some of those "[composer]'s greatest hits" compilations, and bits of light music. In other words, standard stuff in solid performances.

My high school featured a standard "clapping for credit" (music appreciation) course which everyone had to go through. It is easy to disparage such courses, since they basically involve sitting around and listening to recordings while the teacher has a smoke and a coffee in the next room. But I have to admit that course gave me a lot. I learned all the basic forms (symphony, concerto, etc.) and got a decent historical overview of Western music.

Another very important factor was classical radio. As a teenager in the Chicago area in the 1980s, I had access to 2 all-classical stations, WFMT and WNIB. The first was (maybe still is) one of the best classical stations in the country, maybe the world. They played everything: not just the standards, but chronologically everything, from Machaut to Xenakis. Thanks to WFMT, I first heard the Bruckner and Mahler symphonies (my companions through life) complete. And every Sunday, they broadcast the Chicago Symphony's concert of that week. The other station, WNIB, was not quite as outstanding as WFMT, but still played plenty of good stuff, without dumbing down. Years ago however, they switched over to a pop format.

I suppose I could list live concerts, but they were an infrequent activity for me at the time. I did manage to attend the Ravinia Festival more than a few times, though, and heard some concerts that are still sharp in my memory (this was during the Levine years).

As to the actual music, it went basically: standard classics and romantics, plus Bach -> standard early moderns (Stravinsky, Bartok, Prokofiev) -> more modern moderns (Ligeti, Lutoslawski, Schnittke, Carter, Xenakis) -> byways of the 20th c. (UK/Nordic symphonists, Americans, etc.) -> Baroque and Early music.


Thinking back on this, it strikes me that I was extraordinarily lucky to have all these avenues for discovering good music.

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 06:18:51 AM
Precisely, Karl. For Dolphy was his clarinet something he knew very well. But only in a very superficial way. You, in contrary, as I imagine, have a relation with it.

How can you reconcile this preposterous theory to the fact that there have been musicians who performed both Jazz music and Classical music?

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 06:18:51 AM
Precisely, Karl. For Dolphy was his clarinet something he knew very well. But only in a very superficial way. You, in contrary, as I imagine, have a relation with it.

But I'm puzzled, Henk; how could I possibly aver that my relation to the clarinet is less superficial than Dolphy's to his bass clarinet?

I'm kind of freaking out about hearing how great jazz players aren't creative, repeat themselves,etc. I'm hoping that I read that wrong.

Mozart and Bach repeated themselves, quite a bit in fact.

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 01, 2010, 06:20:21 AM
For a jazz musician, it's all about expressing oneself in honest way. Jazz is music. It has rhythm, melody, harmony, and structure. But jazz gets beyond these confines in the use of improvisation, which many classical listeners don't understand. Improvisation is what makes jazz what it is. It's completely fine if Henk doesn't understand it.

Well, I have listened to jazz very much. It's only later that I started to listen to classical music. And I attended concerts much and had contact with artists. But somehow I felt strange being an attender of concerts. As I said, jazz musicians want to make music, but they give away a show, but they don't want to give away a show but make music. In earlier times of jazz this wasn't apparent already, but it has always been that way. But I can't form an attitude more as an attender. The artists make a fool of themselves these days performing and improvising on stage. Improvising isn't cool anymore. Of course the crowd have respect for the playing skills of the musicians, but seeing them perform (and seeing them make a fool of themselves) is an underestimated part of the fun.

You can divide jazz artitst in two categories: the ones that show that improvising takes a lot of effort and the ones that show that it goes easily. Both make a fool of themselves in my opinion because they both represent the same idea I have of jazz.

Henk

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 01, 2010, 06:23:44 AM
But I'm puzzled, Henk; how could I possibly aver that my relation to the clarinet is less superficial than Dolphy's to his bass clarinet?

Dolphy has more status as a performer, because for jazz being creative (which I see as applying schemes) and perform goes together.

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 05:39:08 AM
Since when have you started to like jazz?

Since a couple of years actually. Why would that be surprising?

Quote from: MN Dave on October 01, 2010, 05:44:04 AM
I believe he's an Ellington fan, as am I.

Coltrane is my favored Jazz musician, if that means anything. And yes, i do in fact admire Ellington.

Quote from: Bulldog on September 29, 2010, 09:37:10 PM
Sounds like you have some evolving ahead of you.

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 30, 2010, 06:54:38 AM
No, I don't think so.

So you're an evolutionary dead end? Sorry to hear that, MI  ;)  but at least you can be proud of the fact that you join a long line of extinct species that litter history  ;D

But to answer this thread's topic seriously: my evolution began early. I recall hearing opera in the 50s on The Bell Telephone Hour and The Voice of Firestone when I was five, six. Mom was an accomplished pianist and I often sat next to her on the bench while she played Schumann, Chopin, Rachmaninoff (the only piece that made a lasting impression, however, was Rach's famous C sharp minor Prelude).

Although we had no classical recordings in the house until I was old enough to pay for them myself, my father always tuned into the classical fare on television, including ballets and Lenny's Young People's Concerts (that's where I discovered Ives, Berlioz and Vaughan Williams). Hearing at age 13 The Ride of the Valkyries on the radio turned me into an instant Wagernite. I heard my first live opera at age 17: Lohengrin (the Met came to Cleveand every year for a week's worth of performances). By the time I was 16/17 my best friend and I had a joint classical LP collection, small but interesting that included: Ives 2, Vaughan Williams 2 and 8; Elgar Enigma, Stokowski's Wagner, Brahms 4, Rachmaninoff PC2 (Richter, of course), Robert Craft's collection of "Pieces" by the Twelve Tone boys; Janacek's Sinfonietta, the Bernstein Tchaikovsky LP (1812, etc), Dvorak 9. There was no Bach, Beethoven or Mozart though (see, you weren't so unique ;) ) A love for those composers came much later--with few exceptions, I didn't "get" the Classical era until I read Charles Rosen's The Classical Style in the mid 70s. Mahler was an early love too: Klemperer's M2, borrowed from the library when I was 17, was a revelation.

I had the good fortune to attend quite a few Cleveland Orchestra concerts when I was in my teens and early twenties. Saw George Szell on numberous occasions (Mahler, Brahms, Mozart, Wagner, Sibelius, Strauss, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky). Sibelius didn't really do anything for me, though, until I heard Maazel's first concert in Cleveland after he'd been named Music Director in 1971: he conducted the Fifth and I was blown away. It's still one of my three favorite symphonies.

Bruckner also wasn't an instant love. In fact, I found him unappealing and boring when I was in high school. I guess that's because he's a terrible composer (I keed, I keed  ;) )  My best army buddy turned me on to Bruckner finally, during a very trying time in my life (I'd been severely wounded)...and an even more trying time in my friend's life. Turns out I just needed a little evolutionary push to fully appreciate that delightful and utterly profound Austrian.

The only music that took an even longer time to appreciate was French...almost anything French actually save Berlioz and Satie. I was in my late thirties, early forties before Ravel and Debussy finally clicked. Poulenc was easier.

I think I've evolved into a highly developed listener, with a collection, and appreciation for, over three hundred composers.

Sarge

Edit: I was going to correct my spelling of numerous but you what? I like the typo: maybe it will catch on  8)

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 01, 2010, 05:24:15 AM

You said:
 
How exactly is somebody supposed to take this? Look, don't make excuses, which you are doing, just accept the fact that you can't stand anybody else to dislike Satie's music and speak out against him.

You're a moron if you think that. I don't even know how you came to surmise that. Perhaps you are like Teresa and Saul, imagining things to make up for the shortcomes of your own 'argument'.

Quote from: DavidW on October 01, 2010, 05:46:34 AM
You know I think that several posters misread the tone of MI's post.  You took him to be trolling, when that emoticon (which is why we have and should use them) clearly indicated that he was just expressing his opinion and having a laugh at how contrary it sounded.  Seriously lighten up you guys, the world won't fall apart if one poster doesn't like Satie. :D

Not at all. I don't think that was our complaint at all. Our complaint was his designating Satie to the category of 'terrible composers. I honestly don't give two shits if someone likes or dislikes him.

Perhaps you should follow his lead and actaully read his posts and the ones following it, because it was quite clear what the directionality of the discourse was.

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 06:34:18 AM
Well, I have listened to jazz very much. It's only later that I started to listen to classical music. And I attended concerts much and had contact with artists. But somehow I felt strange being an attender of concerts. As I said, jazz musicians want to make music, but they give away a show, but they don't want to give away a show but make music. In earlier times of jazz this wasn't apparent already, but it has always been that way. But I can't form an attitude more as an attender. The artists make a fool of themselves these days performing and improvising on stage. Improvising isn't cool anymore. Of course the crowd have respect for the playing skills of the musicians, but seeing them perform (and seeing them make a fool of themselves) is an underestimated part of the fun.

You can divide jazz artitst in two categories: the ones that show that improvising takes a lot of effort and the ones that show that it goes easily. Both make a fool of themselves in my opinion because they both represent the same idea I have of jazz.

Henk

Improvisation isn't about "being cool" it's about honest, human communication, if you think that it is then I highly doubt you've actually sat down and seriously listened to a jazz musician as you claim you have.

The only person making a fool of themselves is you I think and everybody else who doesn't necessarily enjoy jazz music would probably agree. You continue living in your bubble.

Quote from: Philoctetes on October 01, 2010, 06:47:08 AM
You're a moron if you think that. I don't even know how you came to surmise that. Perhaps you are like Teresa and Saul, imagining things to make up for the shortcomes of your own 'argument'.

I see that you're still on the topic of Satie and more importantly my opinion.  ::)  Can we move on now? Everybody else has.

Improvisation is a skill; one to which I am largely a stranger.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 01, 2010, 06:54:21 AM
Improvisation is a skill; one to which I am largely a stranger.

I improvise a lot. Sometimes I will workout a solo, but most of the time I like to play totally off the cuff or on the edge if you will. :)  I never felt more freer when I improvise.

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 01, 2010, 06:50:25 AM

Improvisation isn't about "being cool" it's about honest, human communication, if you think that it is then I highly doubt you've actually sat down and seriously listened to a jazz musician as you claim you have.

The only person making a fool of themselves is you I think and everybody else who doesn't necessarily enjoy jazz music would probably agree. You continue living in your bubble.

Well, do you listen to modern jazz? I have lots of cd's and really listened to them with lots of honesty. But there's a point when you loose interest. I only try to figure out why.

Henk

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 06:59:25 AM
Well, do you listen to modern jazz? I have lots of cd's and really listened to them with lots of honesty. But there's a point when you loose interest. I only try to figure out why.

Henk

I listen to jazz from all periods and found lots to enjoy in it all. Next question.

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 01, 2010, 06:56:47 AM
I improvise a lot. Sometimes I will workout a solo, but most of the time I like to play totally off the cuff or on the edge if you will. :)  I never felt more freer when I improvise.

It's funny . . . I feel that I can hardly improvise at all on my clarinet.  When composing, though, mot of the time I feel that I am liberally improvising.  i don't know if it's the right terminology, though, to claim to be improvising with pen & paper : )

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 06:59:25 AM
Well, do you listen to modern jazz? I have lots of cd's and really listened to them with lots of honesty. But there's a point when you loose interest. I only try to figure out why.

You interest in Jazz decreased, therefore Jazz is defective?  Blaming others for own weakness is not a successful life strategy. 

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 01, 2010, 07:01:08 AM
I listen to jazz from all periods and found lots to enjoy in it all. Next question.

If anything, my own listening trends to a preference for modern jazz. (Just a parenthesis, really.)

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on October 01, 2010, 07:01:49 AM
It's funny . . . I feel that I can hardly improvise at all on my clarinet.  When composing, though, mot of the time I feel that I am liberally improvising.  i don't know if it's the right terminology, though, to claim to be improvising with pen & paper : )

Well I look at composing as instant improvising because you're writing your musical thoughts down in a very flowing way. One idea comes to you, then another idea comes to you, essentially this is improvising.

Live, on-the-spot improvisation, though, is a different animal altogether as you can't really stop and think so much, you just have to roll with the punches. In this situation, you're going to make mistakes, whereas, in composition, you can go back later and correct mistakes or ideas through revision.

Quote from: Scarpia on October 01, 2010, 07:02:28 AM
You interest in Jazz decreased, therefore Jazz is defective?  Blaming others for own weakness is not a successful life strategy.

I already expected such reaction.

Mirror Image began to doubt my honesty, by presupposing the honesty of jazz.

I have given my reasons for not liking jazz. If someone feels attacked, that's not my problem.

Henk

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 07:15:24 AM
I already expected such reaction.

Mirror Image began to doubt my honesty, by presupposing the honesty of jazz.

I have given my reasons for not liking jazz. If someone feels attacked, that's not my problem.

Henk

Look, you liking or not liking jazz isn't the problem, the problem is you said that jazz wasn't music and then continued to make ridiculous claims about how jazz musicians aren't creative and how they don't know their instruments well.

You're putting down a whole genre of music based on some crazy, pre-conceived notions that aren't true at all.

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 07:15:24 AMI have given my reasons for not liking jazz. If someone feels attacked, that's not my problem.

I don't feel attacked.  I am concerned for you and for the people who come in contact with you.

Quote from: Scarpia on October 01, 2010, 07:20:41 AM
I don't feel attacked.  I am concerned for you and for the people who come in contact with you.

ROFL..... :P

Quote from: Scarpia on October 01, 2010, 07:20:41 AM
I don't feel attacked.  I am concerned for you and for the people who come in contact with you.

Well, maybe I should avoid talking in a negative, confronting way. That's something to reflect about.

Anyway, this are things that keep me busy, should I keep it solemnly to myself?

Henk

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 01, 2010, 07:03:48 AM
Well I look at composing as instant improvising because you're writing your musical thoughts down in a very flowing way. One idea comes to you, then another idea comes to you, essentially this is improvising.

Live, on-the-spot improvisation, though, is a different animal altogether as you can't really stop and think so much, you just have to roll with the punches. In this situation, you're going to make mistakes, whereas, in composition, you can go back later and correct mistakes or ideas through revision.

Yes, just so. And while there are certainly composers who improvise as performers . . . maybe it's partly my own temperament as a composer which "interferes" with my ability to improvise as a performer.

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 05:53:14 AM
You call that progression? From Brahms on it went wrong with you, except the step Early Music $:).

Henk

I hope that was an attempt at a joke.

I think so . . . anyway, there's a smiley, so . . . .

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 06:59:25 AM
Well, do you listen to modern jazz? I have lots of cd's and really listened to them with lots of honesty. But there's a point when you loose interest. I only try to figure out why.

Henk

You simply misspoke in your post. You mean 'you' as in the singular you, not in the 'you' that is applicable to all of us. It's a common mistake.

Quote from: ChamberNut on October 01, 2010, 08:06:57 AM
I hope that was an attempt at a joke.

I just wish people experience the true beauty of music, of art in general and of life (if one can speak of beauty here).

I know people can only discover it by themselves, as I have to discover yet a lot.

Henk

Henk, you are certainly entitled to your negative opinions regarding Wagner and late-Romantic composers.

We all know how much you loathe them, as you make sure you mention it pretty much anytime Wagner's name comes up.

We get you do not like a lot of the music of that era, and really, no one has a problem with that.

However, everyone here knows the reasons for you not liking the music are completely delusional.  I even think you are aware of this.

Well, taste develops. I find it hard to discard some music, but when I find reasons it's less hard. There's obvious an interference between reasons and taste (in a way that reason supports feeling about some music rather then taste), but I don't discard music only on the ground of reasons, but always on taste.

Therefor I want to listen to Wagner again. Do I really don't like it?

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 08:50:16 AM
<...>  There's obvious an interference between reasons and taste (in a way that reason supports feeling about some music rather then taste) <...>

This makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever.

Quote from: Philoctetes on October 01, 2010, 09:07:40 AM
This makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever.

Well, let me explain.

You have some feeling about music, somewhat hidden so it doesn't affect taste. When some reason supports feeling, the feeling begins to affect taste.

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 08:50:16 AM
Well, taste develops. I find it hard to discard some music, but when I find reasons it's less hard. There's obvious an interference between reasons and taste (in a way that reason supports feeling about some music rather then taste), but I don't discard music only on the ground of reasons, but always on taste.

Then what point is there in inventing imaginary reasons why music is inferior, just because you don't like it?  Why not accept, "this music has clearly recognized merit, although it does not appeal to me."  That would make too much sense?

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 09:10:46 AM
Well, let me explain.

You have some feeling about music, somewhat hidden so it doesn't affect taste. When some reason supports feeling, the feeling begins to affect taste.

You'd be much better simply saying nothing. The ability to string together words does not a coherent thought make.

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 09:28:40 AM

Well, what do you think it makes it coherent and where do I fail?

Seemingly my Kantian sentimentalities. Reason and taste are quite tied together (I'm with you there.), the problem arises in regards to that 'feeling', which is itself based on reason (just because you cannot voice its exactness, does not negate that the reason is an actuality), and all if it leads to the buildup of taste.

Although, this is all quite bullshittish, to give formulation to something as subjective and fickle as taste, is barely thought, in my opinion.

Quote from: Scarpia on October 01, 2010, 09:11:51 AM
Then what point is there in inventing imaginary reasons why music is inferior, just because you don't like it?  Why not accept, "this music has clearly recognized merit, although it does not appeal to me."  That would make too much sense?

That I discard music on reasons and taste is to check if my taste develops in the right way and to check if my reasons are right. :D :P

What remains is more feeling for art. :) 0:)

I think I would lose interest in a lot of music if it didn't have some sort of edge to it. That falling-down-the-stairs-hoping-to-land-on-your-feet sound is one of the most exciting, exhilirating sounds in music. Improvisation is a common denominator in that kind of sound.

This where interpretations, both live and in the studio, can be so interesting.

Maybe it's just me, but I grew up believing improvisation and free interpretation to be absolutely vital in music; it occurs in most genres of music.

Improvisation often entails playing from the heart, with little to no head involvement. Without heart, music sucks.

I feel a little like an alien, talking about this. It's like I entered a conversation with with someone I think is secretly joking.

Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe that's just my opinion.

Quote from: AndyD. on October 01, 2010, 09:55:01 AM
I think I would lose interest in a lot of music if it didn't have some sort of edge to it. That falling-down-the-stairs-hoping-to-land-on-your-feet sound is one of the most exciting, exhilirating sounds in music. Improvisation is a common denominator in that kind of sound.

This where interpretations, both live and in the studio, can be so interesting.

Maybe it's just me, but I grew up believing improvisation and free interpretation to be absolutely vital in music; it occurs in most genres of music.

Improvisation often entails playing from the heart, with little to no head involvement. Without heart, music sucks.

I feel a little like an alien, talking about this. It's like I entered a conversation with with someone I think is secretly joking.

Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe that's just my opinion.

In jazz it's the locus. Jazz is all about schemes. It's where the Apollonistic gets independent from the Dionysistic and gets Socratic.

In most pop and rock (and metal) music and classical music this is less (not) the case and improvisation can be of added value. Pop and rock are about show much more then about art and I find nothing wrong with it. Jazz though holds itself for more artistic, it's not clear whether it's about show or art.

Also Andy just my opinion and perception and based on my readings.

Henk

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 05:53:14 AM
You call that progression? From Brahms on it went wrong with you, except the step Early Music $:).

I didn't say the progression went upwards or downwards, that's just the path of my exploration throughout the years, curiosity being my main guide.

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 05:53:14 AM
Jazz musicians don't have any relation with their instrument. They don't play it, they use it only.

That is just absurd. Its actually the other way around. It is classical composers who often have little to no relation with their instrument of choice, assuming that they even play an instrument. Many composers of course do have a special relationship with their instrument, but for many it just isn't an imperative.

For a Jazz musician however, the instrument means everything. Because his creativity is tied to improvisation, his entire musicianship and expressiveness hang on his understanding and familiarity with the instrument. For some this relationship was so intense to be almost symbiotic. Tatum for instance, who experienced waves of anxiety at the mere though of separating himself from the piano for the few days necessary to reach New York, or Coltrane, who's spent almost every waking hour of his life trying improving his horn abilities, to the point he started studying practice text books meant for the piano once he had ran out of study material for the Saxophone. There are things Jazz musicians are able to do with their instruments that can make some of the accomplishments of renowned classical performers sound like child play in comparison.

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 05:53:14 AM
Jazz musicians aren't creative, but have a good memory for schemes. The result can't be music. It only sounds rhythmic and you hear a sequence of harmonics and dissonants.

I don't think you really understand Jazz improvisation. The idea is based on the assumption that intuition supersedes consciousness. That there are things a performer is able to do on the fly that simply aren't possible to plan or rationalize. The thing that makes Jazz different from composed music (or even improvised, spontaneous composition) is that improvisation is a way of playing a composition rather then creating one, which is where comments like yours, that improvisation is somehow "imperfect", make very little sense. Jazz improvisation is not about composing music on the fly, its about adding individual touches to an already existing melody or harmony which depending on the performer can achieve incredible levels of complexity and sophistication. Its a form of improvised variation where everything, and i mean everything is used to add to the melody, from the most subtle rhythmic change to the most extreme harmony. Here's an example given my Marsalis when speaking of the breakthrough Duddy Bolden introduced when he allegedly invented Jazz music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9BVe1JH4Ow&feature=related

The secret of understanding Jazz then is to understand what individual touches are being applied to the melody in the first place. Most people do not tend to have that type of profound insight into the individual player, at least not at first, so that Jazz soloing end up sounding like a bunch of notes which may be pleasant in a superficial way but which make no real sense. At the highest levels, i think Jazz improvisation is one of the greatest art forms ever conceived precisely because it is often so excruciatingly difficoult to understand.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 01, 2010, 01:00:06 PM
I didn't say the progression went upwards or downwards, that's just the path of my exploration through out the year, curiosity being my main guide.

That is just absurd. Its actually the other way around. It is classical composers who often have little to no relation with their instrument of choice, assuming that they even play an instrument. Many composers of course do have a special relationship with their instrument, but for many it just isn't an imperative.

Jazz musicians like Mengelberg use their instrument, a piano, as a table. He just puts his cup of coffee on it. Willem Breuker almost blows up the bargel organ, steam coming out of it and he thinks it's fun. That's exemplifying for all jazz musicians.

Performers (not composers) of classical music have a much more deeper, stranger maybe, relation, as I can imagine, with their instrument. They can love it, but they also can hate it.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 01, 2010, 01:00:06 PM
For a Jazz musician however, the instrument means everything. Because his creativity is tied to improvisation, his entire musicianship and expressiveness hang on his understanding and familiarity with the instrument. For some this relationship was so intense to be almost symbiotic. Tatum for instance, who experienced waves of anxiety at the mere though of separating himself from the piano for the few days necessary to reach New York, or Coltrane, who's spent almost every waking hour of his life trying improving his horn abilities, to the point he started studying practice text books meant for the piano once he had ran out of study material for the Saxophone. There are things Jazz musicians are able to do with their instruments that can make the some accomplishments of renowned classical performers sound like child play in comparison.

I don't think you really understand Jazz improvisation. The idea is based on the assumption that intuition supersedes consciousness. That there are things a performer is able to do on the fly that simply aren't possible to plan or rationalize. The thing that makes Jazz different from composed music (or even improvised, spontaneous composition) is that improvisation is a way of playing a composition rather then creating one, which is where comments like yours, that improvisation is somehow "imperfect", make very little sense. Jazz improvisation is not about composing music on the fly, its about adding individual touches to an already existing melody or harmony which depending on the performer can achieve incredible levels of complexity and sophistication. Its a form of improvised variation where everything, and i mean everything is used to add to the melody, from the most subtle rhythmic change to the most extreme harmony. Here's an example given my Marsalis when speaking of the breakthrough Duddy Bolden introduced when he allegedly invented Jazz music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9BVe1JH4Ow&feature=related

The secret of understanding Jazz then is to understand what individual touches are being applied to the melody in the first place. Most people do not tend to have that type of profound insight into the individual player, at least not at first, so that Jazz soloing end up sounding like a bunch of notes which may be pleasant in a superficial way but which make no real sense. At the highest levels, i think Jazz improvisation is one of the greatest art forms ever conceived precisely because it is often so excruciatingly difficoult to understand.

In the days of Tatum and Coltrane jazz was quite popular and improvising cool. It's not surprising that Tatum and Coltrane were always busy with making music. It was their talent and it was rewarding. 

But how can improvising in jazz be so intuitive? You don't have an answer to that. I think it's because jazz musicians apply schemes. They just play some combinations of notes and if it sounds nice, they memorize them and apply them. That could possibly be the trick that demystifies the intuitiveness of improvising by jazz musicians. The rhythm does the rest or rather the rhythm makes it sound like music. That's possibly why they like their own playing and get technical very skilled. I've tried to play some jazz myself and that was what made it attractive to me.

Henk

Another aspect of improvising is just listen to what you play and use it as feedback so play the following note slower, faster, softer or harder so that it sounds nice again and put your feeling in it (expression). It has not so much to do with creativity or ("instant") composing.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 01, 2010, 01:00:06 PM
I didn't say the progression went upwards or downwards, that's just the path of my exploration through out the year, curiosity being my main guide.

That is just absurd. Its actually the other way around. It is classical composers who often have little to no relation with their instrument of choice, assuming that they even play an instrument. Many composers of course do have a special relationship with their instrument, but for many it just isn't an imperative.

For a Jazz musician however, the instrument means everything. Because his creativity is tied to improvisation, his entire musicianship and expressiveness hang on his understanding and familiarity with the instrument. For some this relationship was so intense to be almost symbiotic. Tatum for instance, who experienced waves of anxiety at the mere though of separating himself from the piano for the few days necessary to reach New York, or Coltrane, who's spent almost every waking hour of his life trying improving his horn abilities, to the point he started studying practice text books meant for the piano once he had ran out of study material for the Saxophone. There are things Jazz musicians are able to do with their instruments that can make the some accomplishments of renowned classical performers sound like child play in comparison.

I don't think you really understand Jazz improvisation. The idea is based on the assumption that intuition supersedes consciousness. That there are things a performer is able to do on the fly that simply aren't possible to plan or rationalize. The thing that makes Jazz different from composed music (or even improvised, spontaneous composition) is that improvisation is a way of playing a composition rather then creating one, which is where comments like yours, that improvisation is somehow "imperfect", make very little sense. Jazz improvisation is not about composing music on the fly, its about adding individual touches to an already existing melody or harmony which depending on the performer can achieve incredible levels of complexity and sophistication. Its a form of improvised variation where everything, and i mean everything is used to add to the melody, from the most subtle rhythmic change to the most extreme harmony. Here's an example given my Marsalis when speaking of the breakthrough Duddy Bolden introduced when he allegedly invented Jazz music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9BVe1JH4Ow&feature=related

The secret of understanding Jazz then is to understand what individual touches are being applied to the melody in the first place. Most people do not tend to have that type of profound insight into the individual player, at least not at first, so that Jazz soloing end up sounding like a bunch of notes which may be pleasant in a superficial way but which make no real sense. At the highest levels, i think Jazz improvisation is one of the greatest art forms ever conceived precisely because it is often so excruciatingly difficoult to understand.

Post of the month.

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 02:08:32 PM
Another aspect of improvising is just listen to what you play and use it as feedback so play the following note slower, faster, softer or harder so that it sounds nice again. It has not so much to do with creativity or ("instant") composing.

What a bunch of BS. Just go home already. Nobody agrees with you.

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 01, 2010, 02:11:54 PM
What a bunch of BS. Just go home already. Nobody agrees with you.

I speak out of my own experience.

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 02:14:37 PM
I speak out of my own experience.

Fucking christ, dude. Must these threads always be derailed into utter morocity. Is there a way to lock Henk in a single thread? So that he can be fully deluded by his lomesome furthering the delusion?

Quote from: Philoctetes on October 01, 2010, 02:20:43 PM
Fucking christ, dude. Must these threads always be derailed into utter morocity. Is there a way to lock Henk in a single thread? So that he can be fully deluded by his lomesome furthering the delusion?

I just explain the basics of (free) jazz. By just giving another explanation one doesn't give arguments against my supposed delusion.

I can see that I irritate people, but I can't help that.

Henk

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 02:08:32 PM
Another aspect of improvising is just listen to what you play and use it as feedback so play the following note slower, faster, softer or harder so that it sounds nice again and put your feeling in it (expression). It has not so much to do with creativity or ("instant") composing.

This is simply nonsense.  Improvisation is the same essential process as composition.  It is composition on the fly so there is less potential for planning very elaborate structures, but it involves interaction with other musicians and the audience, so it has the potential to be more dynamic and complex in a different way.  But good composers can be interactive, and good improvisers can build remarkably intricate structures.  It is a matter of degree.

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 02:31:01 PM
I just explain the basics of (free) jazz. By just giving another explanation one doesn't give arguments against my supposed delusion.

I can see that I irritate people, but I can't help that.

Henk

Actually you weren't describing 'free' jazz at all. You were just explaining your delusion of it.


You wouldn't irritate people if you weren't so <...>. I'm actually missing Teresa. I mean she was fucking retarded, but she at least had some thought.

Quote from: Scarpia on October 01, 2010, 02:31:54 PM
This is simply nonsense.  Improvisation is the same essential process as composition.  It is composition on the fly so there is less potential for planning very elaborate structures, but it involves interaction with other musicians and the audience, so it has the potential to be more dynamic and complex in a different way.  But good composers can be interactive, and good improvisers can build remarkably intricate structures.  It is a matter of degree.

Then I bring in my second point that for a jazz artists applying schemes is a guiding principle, a good composer doesn't use schemes.

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 02:40:25 PM
Then I bring in my second point that for a jazz artists applying schemes is a guiding principle, a good composer doesn't use schemes.

I created a thread, built especially for your particular nature.

Quote from: Philoctetes on October 01, 2010, 02:37:10 PM
Actually you weren't describing 'free' jazz at all. You were just explaining your delusion of it.


You wouldn't irritate people if you weren't so fucktarded. I'm actually missing Teresa. I mean she was fucking retarded, but she at least had some thought.

You play on the man, Philoctetes. You don't use any arguments. You're just frustrated. Calling me a christ? On what grounds?

Henk

It's not neccessarily that you're being irritating, Henk. It's just...there are so few accomplished musicians that would agree with the points you're making. Improvisation in jazz, by experienced players, is just as musically valid as any other music. Without it, music overall wouldn't have been the same today. The great musicians, like Marsalis, Davis, Wes Montgomery, Joe Pass, and so many others are brilliant on a level that's so far beyond the average person...

I again can't help but wonder whether you're just speculating/playing the devil's advocate.

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 02:40:25 PM
Then I bring in my second point that for a jazz artists applying schemes is a guiding principle, a good composer doesn't use schemes.

I'm flabbergasted now. Speechless.

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 02:44:23 PM
You play on the man, Philoctetes. You don't use any arguments. You're just frustrated. Calling me a christ? On what grounds?

Henk

You misunderstand. I'm simply not as nice as the other posters in this thread. Call it tough love. I also don't think one should placate people who are either completely ignorant and/or stupid, or are simply acting as trolls.

Quote from: Philoctetes on October 01, 2010, 02:37:10 PM
Actually you weren't describing 'free' jazz at all. You were just explaining your delusion of it.


You wouldn't irritate people if you weren't so fucktarded. I'm actually missing Teresa. I mean she was fucking retarded, but she at least had some thought.

Let's not push it too hard, Philo. Teresa did NOT have any thought. Also, it is prohibited to call people fucktards. Please don't do it any more else I will have to whack you, and I don't feel like it right now. Kindly be self-moderating.

8)

Quote from: AndyD. on October 01, 2010, 02:44:40 PM
It's not neccessarily that you're being irritating, Henk. It's just...there are so few accomplished musicians that would agree with the points you're making. Improvisation in jazz, by experienced players, is just as musically valid as any other music. Without it, music overall wouldn't have been the same today. The great musicians, like Marsalis, Davis, Wes Montgomery, Joe Pass, and so many others are brilliant on a level that's so far beyond the average person...

I again can't help but wonder whether you're just speculating/playing the devil's advocate.


I'm flabbergasted now. Speechless.

Well I heard it from a classical trained musician, and then I started to think about it in fact. Many classical trained musicians would confirm it I think.

I don't say these jazz musicians aren't talented. They are.

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on October 01, 2010, 02:56:52 PM
Let's not push it too hard, Philo. Teresa did NOT have any thought. Also, it is prohibited to call people fucktards. Please don't do it any more else I will have to whack you, and I don't feel like it right now. Kindly be self-moderating.

8)

Well I'll disagree with you on Teresa, she was a bit of a kook, but her posts always seemed planned out, and she did know about the music she enjoyed.

Self-moderating begun.

Quote from: AndyD. on October 01, 2010, 02:44:40 PM
. The great musicians, like Marsalis, Davis, Wes Montgomery, Joe Pass, and so many others are brilliant on a level that's so far beyond the average person...

If you are talking about great improvisers, you can add Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.   ;D

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 02:58:45 PM
Well I heard it from a classical trained musician, and then I started to think about it in fact. Many classical trained musicians would confirm it I think.

Many classically trained musicians would also say the opposite.   And since classically trained musicians do not necessarily have any experience, training or skill in improvisation, it is not clear that their views would be more informed than the average web site poseur anyway.

Quote from: Scarpia on October 01, 2010, 03:01:38 PM
If you are talking about great improvisers, you can add Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.   ;D

In the biography I read I learned that some of Bach's well known improv moments were actually previously scored, memorized and rehearsed performances!! :D  Clever devil... ;D

Quote from: Philoctetes on October 01, 2010, 02:47:36 PM
You misunderstand. I'm simply not as nice as the other posters in this thread. Call it tough love. I also don't think one should placate people who are either completely ignorant and/or stupid, or are simply acting as trolls.

I don't expect people to be nice. But it might be better if I avoid confrontations with people like you. I wonder what you think gives you authority to bring in things like this in our, let's say, battle. Not your own reason-ability I suspect.

Quote from: DavidW on October 01, 2010, 03:04:22 PM
In the biography I read I learned that some of Bach's well known improv moments were actually previously scored, memorized and rehearsed performances!! :D  Clever devil... ;D

That may be so, I don't really know.  But for the musical offering, Bach was given the theme on the spot, or so I have read (he improvised a 3 voice fugue, the 6 voice fugue was written out later).

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 02:58:45 PM
Well I heard it from a classical trained musician, and then I started to think about it in fact. Many classical trained musicians would confirm it I think.

I don't say these jazz musicians aren't talented. They are.

All respect, but may I have a name? Has this person released any performances with worldwide distribution?

Quote from: AndyD. on October 01, 2010, 03:10:54 PM
All respect, but may I have a name? Has this person released any performances with worldwide distribution?

Must have been Boulez. dork!   ;D

Quote from: Scarpia on October 01, 2010, 03:01:38 PM
If you are talking about great improvisers, you can add Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.   ;D

Absolutely.

Quote from: Scarpia on October 01, 2010, 03:12:50 PM
Must have been Boulez. dork!   ;D

I resemble that remark.

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 01:45:49 PM
Jazz musicians like Mengelberg use their instrument, a piano, as a table. He just puts his cup of coffee on it. Willem Breuker almost blows up the bargel organ, steam coming out of it and he thinks it's fun. That's exemplifying for all jazz musicians.

No, this is exemplifying of Jazz music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DadXI5R7Td4

Complex enough for you?

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 01:45:49 PM
Performers (not composers) of classical music have a much more deeper, stranger maybe, relation, as I can imagine, with their instrument. They can love it, but they also can hate it.

Classical music allows for a much wider range of non-musicians to excel and achieve fame based solely on training and technique. Jazz music is a lot less forgiving for those without real musical talent. So while of course greatness is relative to the individual more then the type of music one chooses to play, Jazz musicians who do not posses real insight into the music do not get far, while classical musicians of dubious musical ability can achieve fame and commercial success despite the insipidness of their music making. Ever wondered why for instance there are so few female Jazz musicians of real stature? (http://wow.incgamers.com/forums/images/smilies/large/smiley_smug.gif)

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 01:45:49 PM
In the days of Tatum and Coltrane jazz was quite popular and improvising cool. It's not surprising that Tatum and Coltrane were always busy with making music. It was their talent and it was rewarding. 

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that Tatum and Coltrane played only because it was popular, and had no deeper relationship to the music as artists? Are you really that deluded?

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 01:45:49 PM
But how can improvising in jazz be so intuitive?

Sometimes it isn't intuitive at all. It depends on the musician. I think a lot of the music of Keith Jarret for instance is really artificial. As to how they do it, who knows? Because some of them are great musicians? How did Bach improvise the giant three part ricercare from the Musical Offerings? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw2IKi2rGlY

It seems impossible, but hey, its Bach. We are supposed to gape in awe. Same with Coltrane and the other great of Jazz.

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 01:45:49 PM
I think it's because jazz musicians apply schemes. They just play some combinations of notes and if it sounds nice, they memorize them and apply them. That could possibly be the trick that demystifies the intuitiveness of improvising by jazz musicians. The rhythm does the rest or rather the rhythm makes it sound like music. That's possibly why they like their own playing and get technical very skilled. I've tried to play some jazz myself and that was what made it attractive to me.

Of course they use techniques in their music, much like Bach used contrapuntal techniques to improvise his fugues. You don't think you can just practice scales and chords until you can just hack your way into producing music out of thin air, do you? You have to learn techniques, styles, form your own habits, and so forth. This does not mean however that Jazz improvisation is easy. If that was the case, why doesn't everybody sound like the great? You have guys like Quinichette who spend most of his career emulating Lester Young to the point he could imitate the style of the latter to perfection, and yet he still wasn't anywhere near as great as his idol. It takes real musicianship to be a great Jazz improviser. The reason why modern Jazz musicians focus so much on technique this days, as you say, its because most of them aren't really that great. It took real genius to play the way Coltrane played.

Quote from: AndyD. on October 01, 2010, 03:13:30 PM

Absolutely.
I resemble that remark.

I assumed you'd get that Boulez was the dork, not you!

I think we should all stop fueling the fire. It's obviously Henk doesn't like jazz music or understand the logic behind it.

He'll continue to spew out one ridiculous statement after another and there's no reasoning with him. You might as well be talking to a....

(http://static.open.salon.com/files/brick_wall11254935255.jpg)

Quote from: Scarpia on October 01, 2010, 03:28:34 PM
I assumed you'd get that Boulez was the dork, not you!

But I like being a dork  ;D.

Quote from: AndyD. on October 01, 2010, 03:33:50 PM

But I like being a dork  ;D.

Ok, dorkster!

Quote from: AndyD. on October 01, 2010, 03:33:50 PM

But I like being a dork  ;D .

Me too, but I think nerd is more appropriate.  :P

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 01, 2010, 03:38:29 PM

Me too, but I think nerd is more appropriate.  :P

How about nork? :D

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 03:07:34 PM
I don't expect people to be nice. But it might be better if I avoid confrontations with people like you.

If you continue making idiotic statements, many confrontations are ahead of you.

Quote from: ChamberNut on October 01, 2010, 03:39:05 PM
How about nork? :D

Yes, nork sounds great! I'll take two to go!  8)

Quote from: AndyD. on October 01, 2010, 03:10:54 PM
All respect, but may I have a name? Has this person released any performances with worldwide distribution?

That implies I just making it up ::).

Two names for you, Ralph van Raat and Bram van Sambeek, both very good performers. They tried in fact hard to defend jazz, but they had to admit the following:

van Raat: Jazz consist either of rather predictable harmonic structures or on the opposite, regarding free jazz, misses form. He mentions the word "schemes" which he finds obvious hard to speak out.
van Sambeek: speaks of "tight schemes" in jazz.

They both admire jazz musicians and are fascinated by jazz. Van Raat talks about them being able to create musical universums.

Notice that this are performers of classical music, a composer would not admire jazz musicians, at least not for the reasons these performers do, one can imagine.

In the interview with van Raat Ravel's Piano Concerto in G comes to speak. Ravel in that Concerto combined the harmonics of jazz with the freedom of Free Jazz without loosing form and that before jazz was invented.

I tried to explain when a scheme is formed at least in my view and brought in Nietzsche's philosophy regarding it and when art becomes Socratic.

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 03:54:22 PM
That implies I just making it up ::).

I asked with respect, Henk.

I will respect your unique position and move on.

Hey guys, do you know that Henk is Dutch? Just in case you didn't notice...

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 03:54:22 PM
a composer would not admire jazz musicians

Kapustin would have a word with you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn9fTO7zp5Q

Notice that this is a composer and performer of considerably greater talent and ability then your average classical musician selling albums today.

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 03:54:22 PMIn the interview with van Raat Ravel's Piano Concerto in G comes to speak. Ravel in that Concerto combined the harmonics of jazz with the freedom of Free Jazz without loosing form and that before jazz was invented.

Delius was using jazz harmonies way before Ravel or Gershwin were using them, so it's obvious Raat didn't do his homework.

Quote from: AndyD. on October 01, 2010, 04:01:09 PM
I asked with respect, Henk.

I will respect your unique position and move on.

It's easy to talk about respect, when you use it for your own advantage.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 01, 2010, 04:05:33 PM
Kapustin would have a word with you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn9fTO7zp5Q

Notice that this is a composer and performer of considerably greater talent and ability then your average classical musician selling albums today.

Kapustin views himself as a composer rather than a jazz musician. He has said, "I was never a jazz musician. I never tried to be a real jazz pianist, but I had to do it because of the composing. I'm not interested in improvisation – and what is a jazz musician without improvisation? All my improvisation is written, of course, and they became much better; it improved them."

I was influenced by Kapustin's music in my ideas of jazz. I invented the term "improved music" in the same sense Kapustin uses it I see now. Nice to notice.

I think a composer as Parra does the same.

Henk

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 01, 2010, 03:32:19 PM
I think we should all stop fueling the fire. It's obviously Henk doesn't like jazz music or understand the logic behind it.

He'll continue to spew out one ridiculous statement after another and there's no reasoning with him. You might as well be talking to a....

(http://static.open.salon.com/files/brick_wall11254935255.jpg)

Haha. I just try to eliminate some hard misconceptions. ;D

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 04:09:16 PM
It's easy to talk about respect, when you use it for your own advantage.

Now you're attacking me? What are you thinking? Have you had a nap today?

All this fuss over someone off his medication.  ::)

I suppose everyone has a different kind of "evolution." For some, it may include Satie &/or jazz, which has been a bone of contention here. For others, the three B's. For others yet again, more experimental stuff. Everyone has a unique makeup as a listener, and there are different paths to developing one's perception(s)...

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 04:18:24 PM
Kapustin views himself as a composer rather than a jazz musician.

Yes, of course. But he still respected Jazz enough to adopt the idiom. His music is so contrapuntally dense it obviously couldn't possibly be improvised, hence, why it is "improved" according to the musical aims of the composer. I'm sure in your limited brain this is an indictment that Kapustin sees something wrong with improvisation, even though the composer himself obviously makes no such allusion.

Quote from: Henk on October 01, 2010, 04:21:42 PM
Haha. I just try to eliminate some hard misconceptions. ;D

There aren't any misconceptions just you making very irrational statements which put your own credibility on very shaky ground.

Quote from: AndyD. on October 01, 2010, 04:25:16 PM

Now you're attacking me? What are you thinking? Have you had a nap today?

It's true what I said, Andy. And I just don't like the "cold distance" you created with it. So I'm rather pleased to get this reaction from you.

Quote from: Henk on October 04, 2010, 01:03:32 AM
It's true what I said, Andy. And I just don't like the "cold distance" you created with it. So I'm rather pleased to get this reaction from you.

Ah.

Quote from: Mirror Image on October 01, 2010, 08:00:51 PM
There aren't any misconceptions just you making very irrational statements which put your own credibility on very shaky ground.

As I said, hard misconceptions.

Like many middle class children, I was "made" to have piano lessons. Luckily, the teacher was good, and I really enjoyed playing (at modest level, I remember looking at Chopin's Revolutionary and thinking "Good God, how on earth is one supposed to play that?!") I particularly enjoyed four-hands piano, and my teacher and I would tear up Dvorak's Slavonic Dances!

But both physically (very small hands) and in musicianship terms I was never going to cut it, although I did get some insight into the technicalities as well as the music.

This was at a time (showing my age!) when the Beatles were first on the scene, and all my contemporaries were well into that, but I never really got hold of it! My Dad was into musicals, and I can still sing from memory some of the numbers from Carousel, Kismet, Oklahoma, South Pacific, The King and I and so on.

On to University. Joined the choir (Mozart, Haydn, Bach, Henze). Accompanied one of our singers who was into Lieder. Then went to Russia - Bolshoi, Kirov and opera, opera, opera!! Also had an abonnement (season ticket) to the Tchaikovskii Hall.

Since then, anything and everything really (I remember seeing a staged version of Moses and Aaron at the Proms, astonishing!) Had about 3 Proms seasons going to almost all the concerts. So a pretty general classical "education". Joined the student group at Covent Garden and went to lots of opera when at home in UK. Also played bass guitar in a punk band......(vocals too!)

Now I am open to all sorts (in a manner of speaking!) From Katy Perry to Prokofiev...., you name it. I have just signed on with the Professor of Singing at Sarajevo Conservatoire, so for the first time (at the age of 60+!) I will get some vocal training.

Music is wonderful, in that it can be everything to everyone.

Quote from: Henk on October 04, 2010, 01:15:25 AM
As I said, hard misconceptions.

Adding a modifier does not aid rectitude.

I agree with bosniajenny, one of the big steps in my "classical evolution" was beginning to go to concerts early on. My interest waned a bit in my 20's, but now in my 30's, I can't get enough live music! It's like really great therapy for me, food for the soul. Love it...