Thoughts on Improvisation in Classical Music

[atardecer]

I occasionally come across people who suggest there is not enough improvisation in classical music performance today. While I consider improvisation a valuable tool in composition I do not enjoy excessive improvisation in performance (some is good). I think there is a certain connection between audience and performer when both are familiar with the music being performed, this connection is weakened in improvised performance. Improvisation can be entertaining, sometimes very good but it is not what I am most drawn to in music. If one compares classical music to jazz something that stands out is that the jazz format invariably leads into a series of solos. The irony is that in trying to create more freedom for the musician, jazz musicians have created an approach to music making that has become boxed-in, predictable and monotonous. It is a paradox in music that Stravinsky noticed - too much freedom can lead to limitations, and limitations can be freeing.

I do not consider improvisation and composition to be the same thing. For me a composition is something that has been thought about, reflected on and created with a kind of conscious intention.

"Artistic improvisation ranks low in comparison with seriously and laboriously chosen artistic thoughts." - Nietzsche, 'Human, All Too Human'

Thoughts?

[steve ridgway]

Yes, I am most impressed by a classical piece being the product of a single composer.

[AnotherSpin]

To express yourself within a fixed text — that's true mastery. Improvisation is just the starting point.

[ritter]

I can only think of a few instances in which improvisation can be compatible with classical music as we know it. i) the soloists' cadenzas in concertos, ii) variations in solo lines —particularly in operatic arias—, and iii) the aleatoric components that post-WWII avant-garde composers introduced into their scores.

But, in general, complaining that classical music does not have enough improvisation is like complaining that it is classical music. The written score is the centrepiece of this genre...

[Jo498]

Improvisation was an important part of classical music until the early/mid-19th century.
But there are obviously good musical & historical reasons why it became restricted/separated already in the 18th century (cf. Bach writing out all ornaments, even Handel whose music usually does expect a lot of ornamentation etc. restricting singers in specific arias) and pushed ever more to margins, like cadenzas and encores (and organists). That's neither good nor bad in itself, I think.

It's both true that even for Beethoven improvisation was still an important skill (supposedly the specialty he was most famous for in his first decade in Vienna) and that the high level of meticulous organization in ever more aspects that makes classical music special required to push improvisation to the margins. Beethoven would very probably be abhorred if a violinist covered the intentionally "semplice" melodies in his concerto with trills and fioritura not in the score.

I think it's not bad to maintain these niches and there's nothing wrong with people doing their own cadenzas etc (but neither with sticking to "standard cadenzas" by the composer or Joachim, Kreisler etc. for violin concerti) but some improvisational elements can also appear silly or gimmicky fairly soon. In baroque performance practice there seems to have been an ebb and flow and some recordings from 50 years with lots of additional ornaments seem a bit strange today.

[Mandryka]

But, in general, complaining that classical music does not have enough improvisation is like complaining that it is classical music. The written score is the centrepiece of this genre...

The written score may have been the result of writing down an improvisation. Where I'm coming from is that in there's no "intrinsic" difference between improvisation and composition, nothing that the ear can hear or the eye can see.

[Mandryka]

I think there is a certain connection between audience and performer when both are familiar with the music being performed, this connection is weakened in improvised performance. Improvisation can be entertaining, sometimes very good but it is not what I am most drawn to in music.

Well we know that 18th and 19th century composers provided a very simple framework for improvisation when they wrote concertos with places for cadenzas. The audience are familiar with the composed music and inspired and thrilled by the improvisations, and the ritual of the classical concert is preserved and indeed enhanced.

A composer may well wish to develop this beyond the simple concerto with cadenza form, and to create different frameworks for improvisation. Delius may have been one. There were renaissance and baroque ways of music making like this - Partimento and Cantare super Librum.

https://bl.linkedmusic.org/

[AnotherSpin]

The written score may have been the result of writing down an improvisation. Where I'm coming from is that in there's no "intrinsic" difference between improvisation and composition, nothing that the ear can hear or the eye can see.

So what's stopping a performer from just turning up and playing their own improvisation, instead of sticking to the classical piece? Keith Jarrett did that — he kept his classical concerts separate from his solo improvisations.

[Florestan]

Mozart extemporized for extensive periods of time and left his audience spellbound. Ditto Beethoven. Liszt extemporized at length on themes suggested by members of the audience. I wonder how many pianists, even among the greatest, can do that today.

[atardecer]

The written score may have been the result of writing down an improvisation. Where I'm coming from is that in there's no "intrinsic" difference between improvisation and composition, nothing that the ear can hear or the eye can see.

It does intrinsically change once it has been written down. When it has been written down it is now the composers intention that the piece be performed as notated, it ceases to be an improvisation at that moment. The score will be the version performers and audience become familiar with. In the process of notating a work a composer has time to reflect on the music and make any revisions they feel necessary, in this way it also ceases to be an improvisation. I suspect it rare for the full potential of a musical idea to be realized spontaneously in improvisation, usually there will be parts (even seemingly minor things) that will be adjusted or corrected in some way during notation. 

[atardecer]

Mozart extemporized for extensive periods of time and left his audience spellbound. Ditto Beethoven. Liszt extemporized at length on themes suggested by members of the audience. I wonder how many pianists, even among the greatest, can do that today.

There are many classical musicians that can do this today, and I'm not against some of that in performance. It can be fun, it is a great skill for musicians to have, but for me it is less compelling than a composition in performance. I'm more interested in hearing something that has been thought about, with a conscious reason for creating rather than be dazzled for the fact that something is being made up on the spot.

[Mandryka]

I suspect it rare for the full potential of a musical idea to be realized spontaneously in improvisation, usually there will be parts (even seemingly minor things) that will be adjusted or corrected in some way during notation.

Maybe, maybe not - it could be that some of the the best music is spontaneous music. I'll check later to see how Wolf and Schubert worked  - who both wrote an enormous number of major songs in a short space of time, anni mirabiles. There's Bach and Wolfgang Rihm too. 

Yesterday I went to a course on Gerard Manley Hopkins's poem The Windhover - it's short, but very complicated. One person there, a professor of literature, said that either the poem was worked up and polished over a very long period, or it was a night's spontaneous outpouring. No one knows.

[ritter]

The thing is, yes, a soloist may be able to improvise, so can a duo, perhaps even a quintet (à la jazz ensemble), but... a symphony orchestra? An opera? A huge choral piece? Unless it's cadenzas, variations or ornamentations of individual solo lines, the room for improvisation appears very limited in such settings.

Why would the best music necessarily have to be spontaneous? What's spontaneous about the Monteverdi Vespers? The Saint Matthew Passion? Don Giovanni? The Eroica? Parsifal? Les Noces?

[Jo498]

Mozart extemporized for extensive periods of time and left his audience spellbound. Ditto Beethoven. Liszt extemporized at length on themes suggested by members of the audience.

This was even then quite separate from their "serious" composition.
We have a few pieces or passages that might be written down improvisations, such as cadenzas or the beginning of Beethoven's choral fantasy or his fantasy op.77. It's a tiny part of their oeuvre, both in quantity and quality and almost everything that is still admired and was historically innovative and seminal in their compositions is quite far from improvisation.
And at least in Beethoven we see a tendency to restrict improvisation with the written out cadenzas in the 5th piano concerto.

[Florestan]

This was even then quite separate from their "serious" composition.

True, but improvisation was an art in itself in which few excelled.

Actually, I don't quite understand the topic: are we talking about that kind of improvisation, or about limited improvisation in the context of performing a written score? The former is irretrievably lost, the latter is on its way out as well.

[DavidW]

It is a paradox in music that Stravinsky noticed - too much freedom can lead to limitations, and limitations can be freeing.

Stravinsky's attitude has led to an ossification of performance practice. He wanted to stamp out any and all departures from the score. That is what made the Dutch Baroque performance style such a breath of fresh air.

There is a spectrum between rigidly adhering to a score and long winded jazz solos. I welcome performances that bring personality and spontaneity to music making.

[Karl Henning]

I occasionally come across people who suggest there is not enough improvisation in classical music performance today. While I consider improvisation a valuable tool in composition I do not enjoy excessive improvisation in performance (some is good). I think there is a certain connection between audience and performer when both are familiar with the music being performed, this connection is weakened in improvised performance. Improvisation can be entertaining, sometimes very good but it is not what I am most drawn to in music. If one compares classical music to jazz something that stands out is that the jazz format invariably leads into a series of solos. The irony is that in trying to create more freedom for the musician, jazz musicians have created an approach to music making that has become boxed-in, predictable and monotonous. It is a paradox in music that Stravinsky noticed - too much freedom can lead to limitations, and limitations can be freeing.

I do not consider improvisation and composition to be the same thing. For me a composition is something that has been thought about, reflected on and created with a kind of conscious intention.

"Artistic improvisation ranks low in comparison with seriously and laboriously chosen artistic thoughts." - Nietzsche, 'Human, All Too Human'

Thoughts?

I think Nietzsche's pronouncement uninformed even for his day. Bach was renowned as an improviser, e g. But then, Nietzsche is speaking out of his bromance with Wagner, and some proprietary need to regard Liszt & al. as "inferior." I have organist friends who are excellent at improvisation. And when I think of Zappa, his various bands, and any number of jazz greats, there is no question in my mind that improvisation (no less than composition proper) can be supremely excellent artistic expression.
A couple of composer friends are more open than I have historically been, to incorporating improvisatory elements. I find the results artistically variable. Personally I've generally been shy of improv. Partly something of a hangup springing from negative experience as a high school saxophonist (definitely "my baggage," which it is just possible I have entirely shed by now.) Also (nor can I completely discount downstream effect here) I soon settled into feeling that I want to compose good notes, good enough that the performer no less than I should wish to honor the notes. Could write more, but fear to make myself tedious.

Maybe, maybe not - it could be that some of the the best music is spontaneous music. I'll check later to see how Wolf and Schubert worked  - who both wrote an enormous number of major songs in a short space of time, anni mirabiles. There's Bach and Wolfgang Rihm too. 

Yesterday I went to a course on Gerard Manley Hopkins's poem The Windhover - it's short, but very complicated. One person there, a professor of literature, said that either the poem was worked up and polished over a very long period, or it was a night's spontaneous outpouring. No one knows.

My compositional "vibe" for many pieces I've written in the past (say) ten years has been a species of improvising. Little or no prior "architectural" thought.
If I can do so, how much more the historical greats. The experienced artist with a supple mindset is capable of spontaneous creation of astonishing subtlety and complexity.

Why would the best music necessarily have to be spontaneous? What's spontaneous about the Monteverdi Vespers? The Saint Matthew Passion? Don Giovanni? The Eroica? Parsifal? Les Noces?

Great point. Not that there was no spontaneity involved, but it must lie in the background process, and is "baked into" the final score.

[Mandryka]

The thing is, yes, a soloist may be able to improvise, so can a duo, perhaps even a quintet (à la jazz ensemble), but... a symphony orchestra? An opera? A huge choral piece? Unless it's cadenzas, variations or ornamentations of individual solo lines, the room for improvisation appears very limited in such settings.

Why would the best music necessarily have to be spontaneous? What's spontaneous about the Monteverdi Vespers? The Saint Matthew Passion? Don Giovanni? The Eroica? Parsifal? Les Noces?

Yes. Do you know Pauline Oliveros's Mediations and Sound Geometries

https://paulineoliveros2.bandcamp.com/album/four-meditations-sound-geometrics

Clearly no-one would say that the best musical "works"  must be spontaneously created.

[Szykneij]

But, in general, complaining that classical music does not have enough improvisation is like complaining that it is classical music. The written score is the centrepiece of this genre...

Yes, especially concerning symphonic pieces and other large ensemble works.

I play bass in a jazz quartet as well as a swing band. The jazz quartet uses lead sheets with chord changes resulting in lots of improvisation. The swing band, with 20+ players, reads charts that are played true to the composer/arranger's intent with only occasional areas to improvise. They're two different syles with distinctly different performance practices.

An HIP Baroque ensemble would likely make use of improvisation appropriate to the repertoire of the period, but certainly not a symphony orchestra playing classical period music and beyond.

[ritter]

Do you know Pauline Oliveros's Mediations and Sound Geometries

https://paulineoliveros2.bandcamp.com/album/four-meditations-sound-geometrics

....

No. Thanks for the link! Will listen.