Improvised vs. composed music

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Nah...bullocks, it's supposed to be about the ART, not them as performers, mucking about in a self-indulgent manor...
....most of it is homophonic block chord fumbling in comparison...

If a composer/performer is good at what they do it's not "self-indulgent" to partake in improvisation. It's simply a natural extension of their gifts/abilities.

And trying to make a distinction between what is and isn't "artistic" in improv would require a herculean effort. "Too many notes, sir? Which ones?"

There's more music in 3 bars of great writing than 30,000 bars of rambling improv (with the odd great moment).
I don't care WHO it is.

So what? If the music is GOOD who cares about the note-per-bar count??

[DavidW]

Bringing this thread briefly back on topic, my wife has just paid for me to acquire the complete works of Beethoven on Brilliant. So, next stop, Sibelius ...

Please post a review when you've received the set and had time to listen to everything.

[Catison]

Bringing this thread briefly back on topic, my wife has just paid for me to acquire the complete works of Beethoven on Brilliant. So, next stop, Sibelius ...

Is this Beethoven box new?  I didn't know they had one.

[Don]

Is this Beethoven box new?  I didn't know they had one.

It's brand new to the USA.  At ArkivMusic, it's still an advance order.  Just happened to notice that although Brilliant has the complete Beethoven Symphonies by Blomstedt, the new 85-disc box has Masur at the helm.

[Bogey]

I want Bogey to brush me.

Sorry Don, I am too busy going through these 250+ Bach Cantatas. 

[jurajjak]

I generally spread myself thin (or eclectically), but I have just about everything by Prokofiev, including MIDI versions of some unpublished works.  One of the more interesting of the unpublished pieces is the Music for Gymnastic Exercises (1936), which was never performed--not great, obviously, but a lot of energetic tunes (and one of the melodies from Alexander Nevsky's "Battle on the Ice" originates from the unused Gymnastic Exercises).


andrew

[Grazioso]

Nah...bullocks, it's supposed to be about the ART, not them as performers, mucking about in a self-indulgent manor...
....most of it is homophonic block chord fumbling in comparison...

There's more music in 3 bars of great writing than 30,000 bars of rambling improv (with the odd great moment).
I don't care WHO it is.

Funny, but Romanticism in classical music is very much about personal self-expression, about the artist himself.

Of course bad improv ("mucking about in a self-indulgent manner") stinks, just as bad composing ("mucking about in a self-indulgent manner") does.

As for transitoriness: all things are ultimately transitory, and many of the most beautiful, powerful experiences are the most fleeting. If anything, the constant repetition engendered by scores, records/CD's, radio, etc. can sap the life out of music through over-exposure.

[DavidW]

... Not to mention it's practically all homophonic 

It's usually polyphonic.

[sonic1]

I believe I have a complete Bach collection, actually probably double or triple most works.

I probably have a pretty complete collection of Shostakovich collection too, though not by intention.

[Don]

Sorry Don, I am too busy going through these 250+ Bach Cantatas. 

You're one good looking gorilla, but you might want to rethink the nipple exposure.

[jochanaan]

Jazz is a musical backwater ...
... Not to mention it's practically all homophonic 

Say that to Chick Corea or Ornette Coleman and see what kind of response you get.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Chick & Ornette, as do most deep musicians with intellegence, stand in complete awe of great classical music. Believe me.

You speak as if this is something unknown! In fact, if you knew your jazz even remotely you'd know that jazz is FULL of musicians who greatly admire classical and sometimes even take their cues from it.

Bach is to music, what Isaac Newton is to science. Equal genius...nothing in jazz comes remotely close. believe it...

False.

[Bogey]

Bach is to music, what Isaac Newton is to science. Equal genius...nothing in jazz comes remotely close. believe it...

We disagree.

[sonic1]

I see the same old arguments still occur here. If some folk don't want to understand the value of jazz composers, screw them. Their loss. As someone who doesn't need to prove his love of Bach, I propose that some of you look a little forward. I mean, I guess you can just keep listening to the same old stuff, and yes, spend an entire life appreciating the genius of a smaller range of composers. The time is probably not wasted. But some of us like to enjoy a wider palette, and appreciate the genius in some artists who don't fall, generally, under the same influences. Jazz is a fresh break from classical music at times for me. I am not going to get into another endless justification of jazz innovation; if you don't agree after all this time, you never will most likely. But for me, it is nice to spice up my listening. The orchestrations, the tonality, the rhythms all under an incredible breadth of repertoire falling under the umbrella of jazz...it's good shit.

[Bogey]

I see the same old arguments still occur here. If some folk don't want to understand the value of jazz composers, screw them. Their loss. As someone who doesn't need to prove his love of Bach, I propose that some of you look a little forward. I mean, I guess you can just keep listening to the same old stuff, and yes, spend an entire life appreciating the genius of a smaller range of composers. The time is probably not wasted. But some of us like to enjoy a wider palette, and appreciate the genius in some artists who don't fall, generally, under the same influences. Jazz is a fresh break from classical music at times for me. I am not going to get into another endless justification of jazz innovation; if you don't agree after all this time, you never will most likely. But for me, it is nice to spice up my listening. The orchestrations, the tonality, the rhythms all under an incredible breadth of repertoire falling under the umbrella of jazz...it's good shit.

We agree.

[Florestan]

There is only one God: Joh. Sebast. Bach, and James is His prophet.

[sonic1]

I own LOTS of jazz, probably more than most on this board. I like quite a lot of it, it can be fun,
but I can see it's place on the food chain so to speak. The are different degrees of innovation, remember that...
The greatest of great jazz artists stand in awe of great classical music, literally stand in awe...im not making this up.
Any well listened musician with a deep understanding and musical intelligence will tell you, that thee greatest, highest and deepest
musical achievement in the western world (if not the world) is found in the rich classical tradition.

You will not find a jazz player or composer of Bach's significance, depth or calibre.
Heck, most jazz, harmonically speaking doesn't come remotely close to Shostakovich...let alone Bach.
To give you an idea...

James, I understand where you are coming from, but I would not measure significance by just those standards. I wonder how much of the classical audience we would even have today had it not been for jazz greats, yes, idolizing and promoting them. That does not suggest they lack innovation. It just highlights their respect for good music. They also worship Duke Ellington or Coltrane in the same manner. Jazz carried serious music into the 20th century, arguably because it linked a large population from popular music to the classics. Plus, I still argue that rhythmically jazz gave a lot of innovation. Every time someone suggests that classical music has done all the rhythms jazz has done, I laugh. I know classical music and I also know jazz, because I listen extensively to both. Jazz definitely innovates rhythmically in a way that classical not only DOES not but CANNOT because its own style forbids such. It takes more than using the same strict rhythms. It takes the context in which those rhythms exists, and the combination of the melodic rhythms and background rhythms that in classical music would be looked down on, at least formally. If classical music were really to have done what jazz has done, it would sound like, well, jazz-but it doesn't. I also wager that an ingenious reworking of a standard song formula can be as genius, if not more, than a totally new invention. But this also assumes that only jazz reworks standard song formulas when in fact we all know that most of classical music, including the greats, are often just putting a new spin on an old formula.

You will have to work much harder to convince me that jazz has not added significant innovation to music as a whole. I think it not only significant, but indispensable.

[sonic1]

I have lots of recordings of all those artists, LOTS, check my history if you don't believe me. Most of them are contemporaries of jazz artists too and you might be proving rather that jazz influenced classical music.

[jochanaan]

Jazz brought forth a type of swing, a relationship with the bass which is derived from Africa...

And rhythm only speaks to a part of us, primarily the animal side...

Uh, tribal folks all over the world, from Native Americans to "primitive" Africans and (I believe) Pacific Islanders, use drumming to increase their own spiritual awareness.  They would definitely take issue with your statements.

And how many of the 20th-century composers you mentioned, or that you didn't (like Ravel), found inspiration in jazz?  The admiration between "classical" and "jazz" musicians was, and is, nothing if not mutual.

However (back to the original topic), I have no desire to own the complete recordings of Louis Armstrong or any other jazz musician, simply because I'd much rather hear the real thing in clubs or halls.  Improvisations by their very nature are best experienced at the white-hot moment of creation; recordings are at best just that, records of events that once existed and left memories that will endure as long as people love music.

[DavidW]

I own LOTS of jazz,

We are talking about knowledge and wisdom, not possession.