Contradictions Of Musical Genres

First of all, I'm curious just how many classical musicians and composers are members of this website.

I love classical music but I hate how it is taught. The theory is strict with rules for everything and the musicians breath no life of their own into the pieces their playing. It has always been a theory of mine that if classical musicians used improvisation more, then the pieces they played would become more of what music is supposed to be.

Not all classical music abides to these rules. 20th century classical started to stray from the path of rules more but the system is still the most ridiculous. There is no other genre of music out there, that I'm aware of, that is as strict.

I'd like to know what the classical community thinks of this as well as if anyone of another musical background agrees or disagrees with me.

Those are some pretty broad generalizations there. I wouldn't call the theory "strict". There are some rules but they are meant to help you. Things like always having complete chords and good voice leading are tricky to learn but help you create a consistent sound. Once you learn the "rules", you break 'em.

And if the system pisses you off so much then there's a simple solution:

Don't write classical music. Do your own thing.

Classical music is hundreds of years old. Take what you can and leave it alone.

Your right, these are generalizations. I'm commenting more on things like species counterpoint (which is great theory to know) being very strict. If were to write a fugue and break the rules, then it wouldn't be a fugue.

The system really doesn't piss me off that much because there was a lot I took away from all the theory I learned that has helped me with my playing and composition.

What really strikes me as odd is that most (not all) classical musicians learn to play only what is written on the page and if they don't its wrong. Is there a reason why you wouldn't try to interpret a Beethoven piece a different way then what was previously recorded? Glenn Gould is a good example of what more classical musicians could be like (again a generalization).

What do you think about improvisation in classical music?

Aleatoric music? Jazz?

That's... like mandatory improvisation. Of course, it's arguable whether you can consider it "classical music", but yeah.

Your right, these are generalizations. I'm commenting more on things like species counterpoint (which is great theory to know) being very strict. If were to write a fugue and break the rules, then it wouldn't be a fugue.

The system really doesn't piss me off that much because there was a lot I took away from all the theory I learned that has helped me with my playing and composition.

What really strikes me as odd is that most (not all) classical musicians learn to play only what is written on the page and if they don't its wrong. Is there a reason why you wouldn't try to interpret a Beethoven piece a different way then what was previously recorded? Glenn Gould is a good example of what more classical musicians could be like (again a generalization).

What do you think about improvisation in classical music?

I think one of classical music's greatest strengths is that it isn't improvised. Improvisation typically lessens the amount of structure in a piece and structure is extremely key to classical music.

Classical music has a lot of history, and a lot of rules which were there to make what was deemed pleasant music during each era. Of course these rules evolved and we now have fairly different ones then say, Mozart and Haydn used. But if you want to write music, you have to understand all the rules before you can break them. Otherwise you won't have a strong understanding of what you're doing, why it works and you won't be able to take anything from past composers which is also key.

A big part of classical music is discipline and if you don't like it, play jazz or something else. Classical music unlike almost all other types of music, is not "music of the people". It's an educated art form and requires much work of its students, composers and performers alike. But the results are worth it.

I'm not talking about a specific style of music. I'm talking more about improvisation as a technique to be integrated into your music as a player.

Bach was a great composer but he was also a master improviser. Most of his inventions for organ were improvised on the spot. I'm sure that great composers like him of classical music or any other style never played/conducted their own pieces exactly the same every time.

So what is stopping most conductors and musicians from not playing a Mozart symphony the way it's "always played". This doesn't mean to change the piece but if you feel the piece at a slower tempo then written, why not slow the tempo down? I think this is true for other aspects of any piece as well.

I'm not talking about a specific style of music. I'm talking more about improvisation as a technique to be integrated into your music as a player.

Bach was a great composer but he was also a master improviser. Most of his inventions for organ were improvised on the spot. I'm sure that great composers like him of classical music or any other style never played/conducted their own pieces exactly the same every time.

So what is stopping most conductors and musicians from not playing a Mozart symphony the way it's "always played". This doesn't mean to change the piece but if you feel the piece at a slower tempo then written, why not slow the tempo down? I think this is true for other aspects of any piece as well.

What it sounds to me like you're refering to are creative liberties. Its a change in the dynamics, tempos.....the fundemental basics of the music. Improvisation is the act of changing/creating the actual notes on the spot, which is much differant.

Yes, Bach was an amazing improvisationalist, but pretty much every composer uses some sort of improv when writing music, no matter what kind of music it is.

I personally believe that the main reason we play classical music exactly the way its written is to, in a way, respect and protect the music which was written hundreds of years ago by musical masterminds. They knew what they were doing, and when one of us comes along and tries to throw in some random improv section it takes away from the sheer brilliance of the piece.

If you want some sort of basic improv in your music however, Mozart, and many other classical period composers left a little bit of room for just that. Cadenzas (short flurries around the written note, like a trill or a turn, usually toward the end of a piece), though often written into romantic and contemporary music, were usually left out (score wise) in classical period music and left to the interpritation of the performer. It is suggested that, when performing music from this time period, cadenzas are to be improvised on the spot at the performers discretion. So, find some classical classical music and have fun improvising cadenzas! :w00t:

So what is stopping most conductors and musicians from not playing a Mozart symphony the way it's "always played". This doesn't mean to change the piece but if you feel the piece at a slower tempo then written, why not slow the tempo down? I think this is true for other aspects of any piece as well.

this comment is the strangest yet I've read...

have you actually listened to much classical music?

I have 5 recordings of the B minor Mass of Bach.. no two of them are the same.

I have multiple recordings of MANY pieces of standard repertoire.. and again, rarely are two of them the same - tempo, dynamics, expression.

4 separate recordings of Strawinski's Symphony of Psalms.. and they are so different they almost sound like different pieces.

Why do you think music lovers chat about "this interpretation" or "that interpretation" by different artists? because each artist/performer puts his unique stamp on the pieces they perform.

Sorry to sound harsh, but your comments above sound as though they simply come from someone who has no clue about classical music.

WaxyD: What I sense as a bit of a problem in your thinking, is this: You bring an example of Bach. Bahc has been dead for 257 years (unless I screwed up the math or his DOD)...

Why take example of someone SO old? and not live in your own time?

'Classical' music is taught like this, because people in this age of 2007, need to "follow" certain rules to abide aesthetically with something SO old. In order to sound "like" Bach, you need to know counterpoint as it was practiced 100s of years ago. And this is being taught with rules.

Composing has very little to do with that. you take the rules, shove them down your *ahem* and do what you please. Of course the knowledge of all those rules has been integraded with your *ahem* so the final result should be a mixture of things and ideas, plus the filter of a man living in 2007.

I'm going with QC and pianoman216, I think the OP is confusing creative license or interpretation with actual improvisation.

have you actually listened to much classical music?

Sorry to sound harsh, but your comments above sound as though they simply come from someone who has no clue about classical music.

I have been playing classical music for ten years and have been taught by the premier timpanist of LA. I have also been through a lot theory and compositional training. What I have said is not a shot at the music or the musicians.

I find it funny how upset people can get from just an opinion. Again this is just my opinion:

I have found that most classical musicians do not have a sound of their own. I have listened to the best of the best but I wouldn't be able to pick out one professional violinist from the next. I think improvisation, not soloing, can be best used for practicing to find ones unique style. Especially now a days when there are so many people doing the same thing and the music can be anything you want it to be.

(Prove me wrong)

I have found that most classical musicians do not have a sound of their own. I have listened to the best of the best but I wouldn't be able to pick out one professional violinist from the next.

I've been active both on the classical and jazz side of the business and I can tell you without a doubt that this is not solely a "problem" for classical musicians. One only has to take a quick look at the hordes of jazz musicians who are nothing but sound-alikes to see that. Check out the saxophonists who obsess over what mouthpiece, what horn, what reeds a particular professional uses. Check out the trumpeters passing off licks as their own. Or the bassists with basement shrines to Jaco.

I've heard this argument too many times and frankly it's tiresome. Classical is not Jazz is not Classical. Neither is superior to the other, they are simply different animals. Classical is built around the concrete, Jazz is built for improvisation... and that's the point.

I think improvisation, not soloing, can be best used for practicing to find ones unique style. Especially now a days when there are so many people doing the same thing and the music can be anything you want it to be.

(Prove me wrong)

Proof requires that you make a testable assertion and defend it with supporting facts.

In your own words, you've said "I think...", which is an opinion, not a fact. It's no different than if I said "I hate the color blue, prove me wrong."

I just wanted someone put up an argument to what I'm saying. I wasn't trying to make anything I say a fact.

I've been active both on the classical and jazz side of the business and I can tell you without a doubt that this is not solely a "problem" for classical musicians. One only has to take a quick look at the hordes of jazz musicians who are nothing but sound-alikes to see that. Check out the saxophonists who obsess over what mouthpiece, what horn, what reeds a particular professional uses. Check out the trumpeters passing off licks as their own. Or the bassists with basement shrines to Jaco.

I completely agree with you but I think that mainly applies to students and to professionals who don't get much work. I too am active in the jazz business as it is my profession now but here is where I see the difference. Classical musicians seem to have more success and are discovered more quickly if they sound like the next great musician (name your favorite). This happens a lot for jazz musicians as well but you don't see them having as long of careers. You just don't often hear, "this one is going far because he is the next John Coltrane".

Also, I think there are certain sub genres are music where sounding like everyone else is unavoidable. Minimalist Music and Nu Jazz are examples were all the artists and composers start to bleed together except for a select few.

I just wanted someone put up an argument to what I'm saying. I wasn't trying to make anything I say a fact.

In any debate or discussion, it is up to the person making the unsupported claim to provide the evidence, facts, and references.

Classical musicians seem to have more success and are discovered more quickly if they sound like the next great musician (name your favorite).

No... the reason classical musicians sound alike is that in classical music, there is a minimally flexible range of timbre that is acceptable for each instrument. Hence, one classical musician tends to sound closely like another on the same instrument.

As an example, classical saxophonists tend to use mouthpieces with a small chamber for a secure, even, and more easily controlled sound, while jazz saxophonists use large chamber mouthpieces with high baffles to get maximum volume and "edge". The classical saxophonist wants to blend in with the ensemble and produce an easily recognizable and pleasantly acceptable tone quality; the jazz saxophonist wants to stick out. Since the jazz saxophonist is playing with more effort and energy, his/her tone is generally more individual and noticeable. That's what he/she is going for!

Your telling me that if I listened to a classical pianist play a solo piece and a jazz pianist play a solo piece that I would be able to recognize who was playing the jazz piece and not the classical piece because of the style of music?

If your playing in an orchestra or a jazz big band when everyone is playing together then yes, everyone is going to sound the same.

No... the reason classical musicians sound alike is that in classical music, there is a minimally flexible range of timbre that is acceptable for each instrument.

...Is there?

If you want to work, yes, there is. If you don't produce an acceptable timbre, you're not going to be hired for a classical music gig. Period.

Ugh.... instead of us proving you wrong, maybe you could do as flint suggested and prove yourself right.

What I think you have forgotten, and what Nikolas mentioned a bit about, is that you are the composer, you don't have to abide to any rules, you have soo much liberty that, really you can't complain. The problem is that you have too much liberty and that is why music theory exists, to structure music, make rules to keep it balanced and consistent; who said that rules have to be followed? once again you are the composer, and ultimately you have 100% power to do whatever you want with your music.

If you want to work, yes, there is. If you don't produce an acceptable timbre, you're not going to be hired for a classical music gig. Period.

How is this different from any other genre? That's my point.

Ugh.... instead of us proving you wrong, maybe you could do as flint suggested and prove yourself right.

If that's directed at me (I really can't tell), then... I don't really see the need for epistemology in matters of opinion, which this largely is, but if we want to go all scientific method on this issue, what places the burden of evidence with me?

It was directed at Waxy.

How is this different from any other genre? That's my point.

There is much more leeway in Jazz regarding a musician's timbre. In a big band saxophone section for example, you'll likely have 5 completely different approaches to sound production.

That leeway is not present in classical music. Hence, classical musicians tend to sound alike.

it's pretty comparable to classical ballet - in a corp de ballet, you WANT the ballerinas to look alike, and dance alike. You don't want any of them to stick out like sore thumbs.

In contemporary dance (ie: modern, jazz, etc...) dancers have a lot more leeway for expressing individuality.

It's two different worlds, but one isn't in any way "better" than the other.

There's no inate superiority to "sounding unique". Not sounding like the person next to you when you are working in an ensemble setting is not an advantage.. it's a liability.

I'm still not sure if I buy it as a difference between classical music and whatever other music we're talking about. There's a difference between solo and ensemble music (or dancing, as I agree with in Qccowboy's post), in that a soloist has more leeway for personal variation, and that variation might actually be encouraged, while ensemble musicians prefer to blend well with eachother. This is definitely a solo versus ensemble thing (I'm sure we all agree), but I'm not so sure it's also a that musical idiom versus this other musical idiom thing.