bilbo230763

I used to look at my book shelves and close my eyes. I would walk towards the shelves with my finger held out and, whichever book I pointed at, I would use to name the composition in question. I am about to record 'Regional Italian Cookery' for string quartet.

There is little doubt that the harmonic knowledge and idiomatic insights required to excel at jazz piano are not going to be gained whilst the teacher is but one step ahead of the student but having classical technique lessons and spending some time listening to, watching and talking to jazz pianists may allow for some progress. THe problem with affordabilty re: lessons is a very real one. Music lessons of

Does anyone know where I can get the 6 Samuel Adler Orchestration workbook cds?

Marvellous thread, people. I needed to get some books and didn't know where to start. Your collective thoughts have been most helpful.

I have used the Russo book myself and agree that the straight jacket he imposes is what forces the creativity out. I have a million tools in my compositionaly 'arsenal' but everytime I try to write anything, I can't see the wood for the trees. Infintie choice is ultimately unhelpful. Boundaries force you to focus on the importance of each note and what it is you are trying to achieve as a composer. As a learner, my earliest problems were that I wanted to write 'The Firebird Suite' before I could string two bars together. Russo taught me humility and restraint.

There is a book available that features the full score to the large ensemble. Recommended listening and study. (It is not easy to locate but I have a copy so I know it exists - sorry, not at home so ISBN not available)

I think there needs to be a little more understanding of nature of the mental process required to achieve a high standard of improvised music, particularly when it is sustained over prolonged periods. A short cadenza improvised ordinarily as a form of musical solilioquy in most popular classical music is completely different to a 45 minute improvised performance by the John Coltrane Quintet. The intensity of concentration required to interact on that level for that amount of time would be exhausting; the polite noodlings of a slightly iffy cocktail trio knocking out another version of 'Girl From Ipaneama' are not in the same league. As I said with my last post, I was generalising. I know that there are obscure pieces of classical music where improvisation and rhythmic sophistication are important but these are rare and exceptional. A massive percentage of classical music requires significant sections of the orchestra to sit there counting bars for most of the time. A lot of jazz is be-bop derived for all sorts of reasons - the absence of the funding subsidies like those that underwrite orchestras in most major cities, for instance, militates against effective rehearsal time for jazz ensembles of any size. This means most jazz is run on a lowest common denominator basis - turn up with your fake books and do what you can! But it is not reasonable to compare these sorts of performances with those of a properly funded orchestra with a highly paid soloist? A properly funded, well rehearsed ensemble that bases its performances around an improvised music like jazz can enchant, excite and enthrall as easilt and as effectively as any orchestra/classical performer. The levels of complexity in each is different but comparable.

Daniel - hi there. Apologies for the intrusion but I am new here and this is my first post! Your perspectives on the complexity of classical vs. jazz suffer from being eurocentric if not ethnocentric. Because your background is (I assume) 'classical', the variables on which you assess jazz are essentially 'classical' - conventional harmony, melody, rhythm. The issues are far more complicated, however, when one is looking at different genres of music such as jazz. Tone and timbre become more important, for instance. A jazz musician, for instance, strives to sound different to his peers, searching for a voice s/he can call her/his own. Classical musicians are generally moulded a certain way and fit into a pre-determined model of what a player should be i.e. a 'right' way to perform. So sounding like Coltrane is not a good thing!! Jazz compositions tend to modulate more than classical music and tend to exist on more than one rhythmic plain at a time. Jazz players tend to use polyrhythms a lot more - in some ways a single jazz drummer is more rhythmically sophisticated than a whole orchestra, even one playing Stravinsky (and, for the record, that same drummer is considerably less sophisticated than a 10-year old Indian tabla student :O). The hardest thing for an uninformed listener to 'get' is the concept of building a solo, using different techniques to create tension and release that takes the listener on a journey or, to quote Lester Young 'tells a story'. In order to do this creatively and in real time, the skills required of the player are far greater than those required of the much rehearsed motor skills of, say, a classical pianist. Classical musicians play a note and sometimes add vibrato or a relatively small number of other 'effects'. Jazz musicians can grab a single note by the scruff of the neck and rip its head off, use it to sooth the savage beast, slur it, overblow, add too much breath, hold back, attack it hard - the choices for a single note tend to be wider and more reactive. Jazz players sometimes paint is broad brush strokes, where the notes matter less than the effect (Evan Parker is a great example, as was Coltrane. Noone will ever approach Coltrane and say 'you missed that Eb in the fourth bar of your 27th chorus' :P) Classical musicians operate in a pre-determined setting (i.e if you are playing the eight bar of the second movement of Bach's Double Violin Concerto you will know exactly what the other people in the room are doing). A jazz musician is listening and reacting all of the time - what is the drummer doing, where is the bass player going, is the pianist playing the fifth?). Its the difference between reading a speech and holding a conversation. Most significantly, the range of many jazz horn players is generally a lot greater than that of most classical players (Sibelius goes into the red along way short of most competent saxophonists, trombonists or trumpet players). The arguments relating to drug use are complex and I will not revisit them here but, sufficie to say, drugs are NEVER going to make anyone play better. Ever. These are all generalisations I know but I am only trying to illustrate the point. If you look at jazz from the perspective your are, you will miss a lot of what is happening. Can I recommend Christopher Small's 'Music Of The Common Tongue', a great, intelligent read that explains my point much more eloquently?