Your views on improvisation.

Unless, a stroke of luck, a melody invented on the stop [sic], will not be as delightful as something where a composer spends ages making perfect. It will never be developed to it's full extent either.

And, improv IS composition there is no different [sic]. One however, involved quick thinking, one involves making the piece a perfect [sic] as the composer can.

You've not taken anything 'a step further'....we're back to square one.

...now, since any good player knows when to take the horn out of his mouth, I'm going to bow out of this mess.

:whistling: ;)

So long, suckers!!

One problem with your point, ArcticWind, is that if you take that a bit further, we'd have to conclude that composers should only write electronic music for tape. This is the only form of composition where a composer can control every aspect in detail. If we assume an "infinitely great composer" (who is also "infinitely great" at programming) that would surely produce the best possible music, right? Every other form of music has performers who, to some degree, "improvise". Admittedly, degree of "improvisation" varies a lot, from almost inexistent when you play a serialist piece, to more when you play Beethoven, to significantly more when you play a baroque solo concerto, to Jazz, and ultimately to Cage etc. But if you think anything that is thought through by a composer is inherently better than something that is made up on the spot, you -should- be consistent and ask for music in which the composer decides on even the tiniest aspect of sound, i.e. electronic music.

The masterpieces you mentioned are of course no electronic music, which certainly wasn't available back then. What -would- have been available however was a much stricter notation: Notating even the slightest dynamic change, even the slightest rubato, notating every tempo precicely with metronome markings, writing a specific articulation over every single note etc. Yet, those composers chose to leave such things to the performers, to be "made up on the spot". I've never felt this music was impaired by that. Quite in contrary.

One problem with your point, ArcticWind, is that if you take that a bit further, we'd have to conclude that composers should only write electronic music for tape. This is the only form of composition where a composer can control every aspect in detail. If we assume an "infinitely great composer" (who is also "infinitely great" at programming) that would surely produce the best possible music, right? Every other form of music has performers who, to some degree, "improvise". Admittedly, degree of "improvisation" varies a lot, from almost inexistent when you play a serialist piece, to more when you play Beethoven, to significantly more when you play a baroque solo concerto, to Jazz, and ultimately to Cage etc. But if you think anything that is thought through by a composer is inherently better than something that is made up on the spot, you -should- be consistent and ask for music in which the composer decides on even the tiniest aspect of sound, i.e. electronic music.

"made up on the spot".

Personally I perfer a composition to improvisation, but that's only a general rule and it's more than likely I just havn't heard any fantastic improvisations. I wouldn't go so far as to say one is "better" than the other, although improvisation is probably a more difficult skill to master as you don't have the benefit of "tweaking" your music at any point.

I like the sound of a violin. Achieving that sound on a computer is nigh on impossible.

But that's only due to the knowledge and skills of the person programming the computer, not the possibilities a computer has. If we're taking our "infinitely great composer" who has mastered all technical elements of composing, synthesising a perfect violin sound would be no problem. Of course there is no such composer. Likewise, there is no composer who could notate all the finest intricacies of a superb performance of a composed piece, and no composer who could catch all the intricacies of an improvised piece of music. A good live performance will always add something to the music, and a well improvised piece of music will have aspects that no composer could have written down. That's why ideas of aleatorics and improvisation have found their way into contemporary music again. Lutoslawski, for example, who wrote things in an open way that creates, when performed, incredibly complex sound constellations which only work because they weren't notated strictly.

Bowing made up on the spot!?

Bowing may not be made up on the spot, but tons of smaller details are.

Bowing may not be made up on the spot, but tons of smaller details are.

So read what I said. You ignored a great deal.

There's quite a bit more to music than mere notes. To suggest otherwise would profess ignorance to an extreme degree. Certainly, to dismiss any facet of music requires either an other-worldly proficiency in everything or an other-worldly arrogance which no rational argument can cure. I find it discouraging that there are viewpoints such as yours which attempt to disregard and put down the aspects of music that you don't understand or can't do.

My opinion is not merely limited to you, nor just to your thoughts in this thread. It's a general observation of musicians who feel that what they do or understand is better.

There's quite a bit more to music than mere notes.

you don't understand or can't do.

Haha. Read it again.

I do understand. You aren't reading.

Perhaps if you could enlighten us lesser beings with a dumbed down version of your magnificent views on music it would help, because for some reason rereading every post of yours in this thread has produced no startling revelations. The only thing I've gotten from your posts is "Music is the notes, not the performance," which is obviously false, as music is the entire process, from the notes, to the volume the notes are played, to the specific and often barely different inflections different performer give to the notes, to the intensity of the performer his/her-self. One cannot separate these elements, and say THAT is what makes music good.

Perhaps a great improvisation may never be as well-thought out or complex as a through-composed piece. That does not in any way diminish its value. Music is music. Improvisation speaks to some people more than others. A great improviser is easily as talent as a great composer. The only difference is that a great improvisation is not exactly performed over and over again; instead, it is heard and subconsciously replicated in various forms

It would be greatly appreciated if, instead of belittling others for not reading your posts (which, after having read them, I see you obviously are not being clear enough in them) you would attempt to ameliorate the situation by clarifying what exactly you are trying to say, perhaps even in a non-confrontational way. While I have no personal bias against you, I do find your responses in this thread to be somewhat childish.

There's quite a bit more to music than mere notes. To suggest otherwise would profess ignorance to an extreme degree.

"And you are also assuming that I don't want ANY variation. That assumption is wrong. Too much is spent on the sports of music in improvisation than actual music. I don't particularly like showy compositions, that to is admiring the sport, not the music (which again with those pieces is considerably less quality)."

I don't want mere notes.

Perhaps a great improvisation may never be as well-thought out or complex as a through-composed piece. That does not in any way diminish its value. Music is music.

While I have no personal bias against you, I do find your responses in this thread to be somewhat childish.

Certainly, to dismiss any facet of music requires

Read:

"And you are also assuming that I don't want ANY variation. That assumption is wrong. Too much is spent on the sports of music in improvisation than actual music. I don't particularly like showy compositions, that to is admiring the sport, not the music (which again with those pieces is considerably less quality)."

I don't want mere notes.

You are not appreciating the music for the music sake. You are appreciating the skill, and ability and sport of the performer/composer.

The word is different. ;)

Never dismissed it. Sorry!

I like how you presume to know what I am appreciating and how I listen to music. Considering you know very little about me, I will forgive you for being quite off the mark. I feel that music is music; it's all part of one big package. I listen to Shostakovich 10 and go "Wow that was really awesome." I don't separate the performance of the orchestra from the sound that is produced; it's all wrapped up in the experience. Therefore, nothing you've said has any relevance to me. Music is music. In fact, I'm listening to Coltrane improving on "Afro Blue" and I think his improv sounds really cool. I enjoy listening to his improvisation, and am certainly not sitting here thinking "My, that run must have been rather hard to pull off. Talented chap, that Coltrane." No, I'm like "Wow, that run sounded cool. I like how it goes from that to this fragmented triplety type thing. Sweet. I'm really enjoying this music for what it is." Make sense?

I would also like you to note that I did not say that your viewpoint was childish (in which case your response might be applicable,) but that your responses were, and still are, very childish. I am not trying to pick a fight, nor cavel at your faults, but I do not think laughing at people and maintaining a condescending attitude is the right way to discuss anything. I have been somewhat more harsh than usual in my posts in this thread, but perhaps if you were to try to see things from another point of view, this thread may progress.

I like how you presume to know what I am appreciating and how I listen to music. Considering you know very little about me, I will forgive you for being quite off the mark.

I listen to Shostakovich 10 and go "Wow that was really awesome." I don't separate the performance of the orchestra from the sound that is produced; it's all wrapped up in the experience.

I have been somewhat more harsh than usual in my posts in this thread, but perhaps if you were to try to see things from another point of view, this thread may progress.

"My, that run must have been rather hard to pull off. Talented chap, that Coltrane." No, I'm like "Wow, that run sounded cool. I like how it goes from that to this fragmented triplety type thing. Sweet. I'm really enjoying this music for what it is."

What I am saying, is the there is far more emphasise put on the performance rather than the strictly musical side of it in improv.

*Plays afro blue* Great piece, but for me the improv sections (some) are (now this is me personally, and subjective) too scalic. It's what puts me off Beethoven Piano Concerto (especially No.5). Too many super fast scales just to show off.

*Plays afro blue* Great piece, but for me the improv sections (some) are (now this is me personally, and subjective) too scalic. It's what puts me off Beethoven Piano Concerto (especially No.5). Too many super fast scales just to show off.

He's got a point

Now please. I enjoy improv, it is composition, Same with atonal music (and my argument about tonalism), just because I say tonal music is natural, doens't take anything from atonal music. You are the people doing that.

You are not appreciating the music for the music sake. You are appreciating the skill, and ability and sport of the performer/composer.

You keep repeating this as though repetition will make it true. It's not; not for me anyway and certainly not for Robin and some of the others who've contributed to this thread.

Sure, I appreciate the skill of the musician, but I also appreciate the notes and yes, I do appreciate the music for the music's sake. How could I not?

Your point, and the one you made in the pop music thread ("There is "pop" music that is good, and there is pop music that is social interaction. One is music, one isn't.") makes me wonder what exactly you consider as music.

I appreciate effort put into the music. I do appreciate a performer, but like I appreciate Federer.

I like to improvise. As my teacher says it gives you an orgasm(a mental one :) ) if you put your feelings in the instrument. Its just like whistling only with a lot of feelin'. Anybody can do it only some of as are stubern enough to believe that they can't. For it's a manifestation of the soul. I just let my mind loose and the rest its keeping the fingers on my guitar. I don't use nothing that I learn like licks or pieces of melodies, maybe just simple ideas. I even record this things and listen and get new idees how to improve my singing... and maybe in the future my composing :sadtears:.

After a while I mange to go in high speeds and even improvise anytime I want from what I memorised.

In conclusion for me improvisation is a way to manifest yourself as freely as possible... and get an orgasm... :whistling: ... or a girl :D

You have to differentiate between social exercise, and the scientific art of music.

Oh wow. This guy is just gold, once again.

But I digress, I love to improvise, I love hearing people improvise, and I think it's awesome both as an exercise and as a way to work the creativity muscle. It's just fun too. Jam sessions, be it blues, bossa, tango, etc, are awesome and I love doing stuff like that when I have the chance.

So yeah, rock on.

Arctic Wind, you say that improvising is more of a sport than music.....what about slow improvising :huh:?

In this case it's completely obvious that it is the music which is what we listen for, not any technical skills. You might say that we are listening for a skill of improvising, musical skill, I suppose, but that argument fails when you consider that we do the same of written music (or could). Of course, the music will be different from that which is written down; the fact that it's not written down should be a clear indication of that :huh:.

Improvisation is about our previous experiences, in music and life and whatever, all coming out at once in the improvisation. It's a spontaneous process, and we (that is to say, I, because that's all I know :P) enjoy it because of that. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but don't try to force it on others, especially in the bad manner you're trying right now....

I've been away for a couple of weeks, and it's amusing to read the discussions now I'm back.

There's a "truth" in music - don't ask classical musicians/composers to talk about improvisation, let alone do it, because mostly they don't have any idea what it really is.

I suggest you all first admit that you're totally ignorant about it.

Then listen to some music where improv is a way of life rather than just something extra to do because you're bored with following the notes. Start with Jazz - Diana Krall, Art Tatum etc, etc ..... Then try some Blues - Bessie Smith, B. B. King, Eric Clapton ('Rock me Baby' on the album Deuces Wild), Ben Harper, etc, etc ...... Follow that with some Gospel - Mahalia Jackson, Aretha Franklin etc, etc.

Then talk to some good Jazz/Blues musicians about improv.

Then come back and have your discussion, based on knowledge rather than ignorance.

My views on Improvisation is that it's fun, but I suck at it.

There's a "truth" in music - don't ask classical musicians/composers to talk about improvisation, let alone do it, because mostly they don't have any idea what it really is.

Most classical players, maybe.....but some, like me, improvise a lot, and through experience know about it. Don't assume it's just jazz players that know about improvisation....or that jazz improv is the only kind. Hell, improvising was around since the 17th century, long before jazz was existent. Of course, now there's barely any classical improvisation around. Which, I suppose, is advantageous for those who do do it, since there's less competition :musicwhistle:....

Improvisation is the sole method by which I compose my piano music. Over the years, I've developed both the ability to create music with thematic form and development on the spot, as well as totally organic music with little or no thematic development. I find both to be equally vital paths for creating good and enjoyable music. I don't believe that pieces with carefully worked out architectural form are necessarily better than improvisations just because they are carefully worked out and architectural. I've heard some improvisations I like better than compositions and vice versa..It is the final sound that matters, and how it moves me, not the means by which the music was created.

Here are some examples of totally improvised piano music:

Michael Solomont

check out mine also if you haven't already downloaded them here on youngcomposers.com

Derek Andrews

I definitely don't consider improvisation mere virtuosic show off bravura. Many do use it for that, but I certainly don't...it is THE method I use to create and express myself through music.

Here's a thought: All compositions start out as... improvisations.

Here's another: All improvisations end up as compositions.