A thread to politely discuss the merits of jazz

[robinjessome]

See, I disagree here. I think Harmelodics is a really deeply thought-out system. How in the world could Ornette still be playing the same way after 40 years? Not only that, but his followers, like James Blood Ulmer, have extraordinarily similar styles. Song X sounds like Ornette, regardless of Pat Metheny's major involvement.

I agree - Ornette's approach (and his harmoloical followers) is certainly an advanced system, but I don't feel it focuses on advanced concepts with rhythm or melody or harmony; but instead is a devious system to combine and intertwine all of them...

It neat, eh!

And - aw crap that's Evan Parker, not Derek Bailey. Well, I can't go on a rant about someone I've heard pretty little of, but I find the British Free Improv scene to be a lot of talk concerning freedom from style, and not nearly enough innovation. Again, leading to a highly developed style.

And that's as good to me as composition, especially in a genre that regards improv so highly.

But yeah, Those guys ARE better examples. :nod:

:P I think my sweeping generalization applies to any heavy improvisors...they (I'm also assuming we) aren't approaching anything from a theoretical or academic perspective; nor from any solidified musical standpoint. Interaction/reaction blah blah blah in the moment blah blah spontaneous blah blah...I dunno. ;)

I can kindof see where you're coming at with the Brit-improv angle...but I think the same can be said of ANY creative music scene, Brit/Euro/Downtown...once they let it congeal into a 'STYLE' then the heavies move on, and the rest stay mired in their own self-imposed methods. ;)

That said, I think Evan Parker was one Brit who certainly does push and innovate - dig his Electro-Acoustic ensemble records, they're fabulous! Also, cats like Kenny Wheeler/John Surman/Paul Rutherford certainly did their share of innovating somewhere along the line ...

but ANYWAY!!

[Keerakh Kal]

As far as improvisation goes, how can a solo be as complex as premeditated composed music if it is composed on the spot? ...

Simple. An awesome melody written over a chord progression can be pure genious. Look at, say, Schubert. Of coursethese guys spend days/weeks/months on end tweaking and poishing these melodies and harmonies to make it just right.

Now, good jazz musicians do just that, only in a matter of seconds.:whistling:

Oh, and go listen to some Fusion.

Or lounge, lol.

or Acid Jazz.

Or *shudder* Smooth Jazz.

Or Steely Dan.

~Kal

Besides, jazz musicians get all the girls!;)

[Ferkungamabooboo]

Yeah, just from Derek Bailey's writings, though, I assume that he's coing at it with instant intentions - that at that moment, he decides to play that odd-metrical part

::shudders at the Bailey-Jamaldeen Turner album:: Sorry, bad memories.

[robinjessome]

Yeah, just from Derek Bailey's writings, though, I assume that he's coing at it with instant intentions - that at that moment, he decides to play that odd-metrical part

Aha...I see what you're getting at, and fair enough - tools (such as uncommon-tuplet-groupings, or multi-metrical-musics [ha!]) are (in my opinion) a product of the interaction-stimulus/response of the moment, as opposed to true premeditation...I think... I could be, and likely am WAY wrong.

;)

[it's great having someone else around with whom to actually discuss this scraggy!!]

[SSC]

Besides, jazz musicians get all the girls!;)

But sadly not all the girls get jazz musicians. :>

[Ferkungamabooboo]

But sadly not all the girls get jazz musicians. :>

Knowing the jazz musicians here in New Orleans? You can take em :P

[Nigel]

Well, I can say I like jazz, but more on the written side of things. For an example, I totally dig Bill Evans' Very Early the first time I heard it. But as the piece goes on, here comes the improvisational part, which is just something I can't appreciate. Maybe the notes are too complex for me to hear any kind of feeling inside it.

Another example by the same composer:

Waltz for Debby

I felt that the piece started to lose its charm at around 2:05 or so. It's just too, erm, complex (can't find a better word right now). Sure the harmonies are great, it's great music, I understand that. But I just can't seem to get what's so great about it. Anyone care to shed some light? Another thing, IMO it gets its charm back at 3:33 or so, since I can hold back on to the main melody again.

That being said, I like improvising. I can't do it properly, just memorizing some scales and the such and playing it out. It's fun :P

EDIT: After having some thought about my problem, I think it may just be that during the improvised parts, I just don't know what to listen! Should I listen to the bass? The piano? The drums? Or all at once? All those don't make much sense to me when the musician is improvising. Anyone can recommend some pieces with improvised part that aren't so steep (for lack of a better word, again)?

[KylePoehling]

I apologize if this has already been said....because I didn't really have time to read the entire 8 pages....but....

To an extent Jazz has become classical music in regards to the way it's been studied over the past 20 years. The essence of jazz is truly improvisation. Over analyzing what someone has to say on his/her instrument (for instance Eric Dolphy....who played some seriously "heady" stuff but it was all from his "gut") has lead to some of the worst "jazz" out there.

Don't get me wrong...understanding the language is BASIC to playing ANY style of music, but once you start getting too far into analysis and away from the "heart" of it you're playing classical music and not jazz.

This is the main and basic reason Mr. Dan is so lost in a sea of musical mis-information.

All I can say to Dan is get over yourself and listen to some of the greats without your misinformation (Monk an uneducated druggie???? really????? What about Coltrane's "A Love Supreme"?????? He wasn't on a single substance at that time and it's one of the most powerful pieces of all time!!!)

3.5 cents,

Kyle

[Ferkungamabooboo]

See, but I think that all of the greats of Jazz KNEW and wholly understood the compositional/theoretical side of what they were doing.

Miles Davis, for example, was constantly criticized in his time for his soloing; the reason why he is so well known is because he understood composition (and he surrounded himself with the MOST KILLER musicians and composers: Bill Evans, Coltrane, Taceo Macero, Wayne Shorter, Tony Williams, Ron Carter... the list is too long)

And a lot of the Jazz vs. Classical "problem" come in to misunderstanding the role of a classical musician. It's easy to say that they're just reading what's on the page, but its a bit silly to assume they put nothing of themselves into the piece. There's even a concept of "groove" - ie rubato, or an intentional lack of it - in much of it.

I think this ties in with the discussion of "magic" in the craft of music...

[KylePoehling]

See, but I think that all of the greats of Jazz KNEW and wholly understood the compositional/theoretical side of what they were doing.

Miles Davis, for example, was constantly criticized in his time for his soloing; the reason why he is so well known is because he understood composition (and he surrounded himself with the MOST KILLER musicians and composers: Bill Evans, Coltrane, Taceo Macero, Wayne Shorter, Tony Williams, Ron Carter... the list is too long)

And a lot of the Jazz vs. Classical "problem" come in to misunderstanding the role of a classical musician. It's easy to say that they're just reading what's on the page, but its a bit silly to assume they put nothing of themselves into the piece. There's even a concept of "groove" - ie rubato, or an intentional lack of it - in much of it.

I think this ties in with the discussion of "magic" in the craft of music...

Couldn't agree more:D

The intellectuals that get caught up in the over-analyzing of classical music don't understand that

in spite of all the knowledge and intellectual genius of someone like Bach or Mozart they were still playing/writing what they heard (ie..."the magic")

It is unfortunate that Jazz has ventured head first down this hallway......

-Kyle

[Ferkungamabooboo]

Well, my point was that I don't think you CAN over-analyze it. The same tools are valid for both, since they're fundamentally the same - they're art music (for the most part), involving at least a modicum of interpretation, that were both at one time highly successful commercial music, but have lost favour and are now aficionado music. I mean, Stockhausen and Miles Davis did an album together - never got released - but the ties are the same. Compare the style of On The Corner with the concepts from Stockhausen, excepting the regular pulse and whatnot...

[KylePoehling]

Well, my point was that I don't think you CAN over-analyze it. The same tools are valid for both, since they're fundamentally the same - they're art music (for the most part), involving at least a modicum of interpretation, that were both at one time highly successful commercial music, but have lost favour and are now aficionado music. I mean, Stockhausen and Miles Davis did an album together - never got released - but the ties are the same. Compare the style of On The Corner with the concepts from Stockhausen, excepting the regular pulse and whatnot...

Well I guess I misunderstood you. I'm not against analyzing music it is essential to the understanding the artform, but you did make a very valid point in the fact that at one point this music WAS commercially successful, as in....most folks could relate and were open to listening to it. The fact that these forms of music have become so intellectual is sad to me because when you boil it all down it's JUST SOUND. Maybe highly organized sound, but that's all it is. Who is to say that someone without a formal education should have any less an experience with the art than someone who has a formal education.

Here's an anecdote I like to use about popular culture's "fear of music (or fear of non-mainstream music). Try to give the average joe or jane a violin and ask them to use it.

Usually they'll freak out and not even want to touch the instrument exclaiming "I CAN'T use that!!!!"

Are you kidding me? It is precisely the over-analyzing and "put it on a pedestal" mentality that has developed the average jane or joe's severe "fear of music."

14 more cents,

kyle

[Ferkungamabooboo]

true, there's a cool documentary on improvised music with one section featuring max roach's music school where he talks about that, and how to reduce it.

I'm very wary of equating academic and non-academic experience, though. There are some things that you just have to be taught (or teach yourself via books and the like) - counterpoint is one of them. On the other hand, you can't diminish the role of "just being able to play." My feeling is that you need both - especially since academia will never teach adequately about things it can't categorize easily, like jazz (though its now more of a free jazz type thing,,, but whatever).

[robinjessome]

...To an extent Jazz has become classical music in regards to the way it's been studied over the past 20 years. ...Over analyzing what someone has to say on his/her instrument has lead to some of the worst "jazz" out there.

Well, my point was that I don't think you CAN over-analyze it. The same tools are valid for both, since they're fundamentally the same

It's not the analysis that's the problem...it's the kind of analysis. The Jazz education system has gotten too academic and cerebral for its own good.

[KylePoehling]

Poehling sounds to close to Poehler

What exactly does this mean?????

I went to school with someone named "Poehler":)

Can you clarify??

-Kyle

......sorry should have done a search first......seems there was someone with the last name Poehler that was banned. I can honestly say that this is the FIRST time my last name has EVER been subject to confusion :)

[Nathan Madsen]

This thread is still going on? Wow- I thought the issue was pretty much addressed pages ago. :)

[bilbo230763]

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?

[Franzman]

Great post Bilbo! :w00t:

And welcome to the forum. :thumbsup:

[oboeducky]

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.

Don't kid yourself.

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!!

Ever heard a french, german, italian, japanese, canadian, american, and brazilian oboist lined up in a row? Or six professional violinists? Or even 3 pianists?

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).

oversimplification. The key here is "in some ways"

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.

Ok. This is simply not true. And any good classical player can improvise. Likewise, any good jazz pianist can sit down and play a piano concerto.

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)

You need to get out more. Listen to some minimalists, some concrete music, some polystylists.

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.

I think you're trying to make too much divide between classical and jazz. All of this is true when I (personally) play classical, jazz, pop, and rock.

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).

Irrelevant. A good classical performer takes full advantage of their instrument, just like a good jazz player. And I guarantee you that you won't hear a double-high f by an oboist, but that doesn't mean we can't play them or that we won't.

There are a lot more similarities between classical and jazz than you are making out, and yes, you made some huge generalizations. But all in all, what you mentioned is somewhat true, to an extent. Just not the extent you're making it out to be.

[Voce]

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).

Guess what you won't know know if you're playing Riley's "In C," or Lutoslawski's 3rd Symphony?

Yeah, what the other people are doing. There's a great deal of chance music out there, and there's also a great deal of modern music in which the concepts of rhythm and speed, time, beat, etc. are entirely distorted- you get different sections of the orchestra doing their own thing and improvising while the others play a notated section, you get one half of the orchestra slowing down while the other speeds up, you get people playing the same phrase over and over but starting at different times, you get people playing in two different time signatures and/or keys, and you also get pieces where some instruments of the orchestra are tuned differently from the rest of their section.

[Ferkungamabooboo]

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' )

This line of thought is exactly what I mean when I say that there isn't enough analysis in jazz, too much of it gets caught up in "magic" and "soul" - not enough taking a look and realizing that, yeah, he blew that Eb.

But he does make a great point in that Jazz cannot be looked at as a classical piece, just as a Romantic piece cannot be looked at the same way as folk(indigenous European) music

[Nathan Madsen]

Ok. This is simply not true. And any good classical player can improvise. Likewise, any good jazz pianist can sit down and play a piano concerto.

I need to meet the classical players you're referring to because a majority of the ones I know (many of whom have PhD and are professional players) cannot improvise in the manner a jazz professional can. This is not because of any lack of talent or intelligence on the part of the classical player. The two are just drastically different- and arguing which one is or isn't more complex or important is frankly.... retarded. They are both important and complex in their own rights. They are both very, very different, so why compare? It's like holding an intense debate on which animal is better: a giraffe or a penguin. Is there a point? They're both important to our eco-system and they're both very different animals with pros and cons. I digress, on to your statement: Improvising in the sense of a jazz solo setting just isn't something found that often in classical music settings. Sure you have some sections are the improvisation but they're often shorter than what you can find in a typical jazz combo setting. Improvising for 32 choruses (or even as short as 8, 12 choruses) is a exercise in pacing and development on the spot.

I do know some musicians that are equally great at both jazz and classical- but I've seen far too many classical-only players fail when asked to improvise 16 bars. I cannot accept your comment. Other points you've made are more up for question and debate, but from my experience, this one isn't. This statement also assumes that any jazz pianist will have the same technical reading ability that a classical pianist will have. Being both- I can tell you this is incredibly off the mark. Some great jazz pianist I know cannot read classical piano music and some classical pianist I know cannot voice chords effectively while comping. Your statement seems to be assuming a great deal on both the jazz and classical fronts.

[Voce]

I need to meet the classical players you're referring to

I need to meet some classical players that can't improvise! Improvisation is a HUGE part of most serious classical musicians' study.

[Nathan Madsen]

I guess I wasn't taught by serious classical musicians then in both my undergraduate and graduate degrees. Both degrees forced saxophonists to study both classical and jazz rep and take private lessons and all of the profs I studied under had PhDs or DMAs in music and were highly accomplished musicians as well as teachers. Aside from the occasional cadenza that would feature improvisation, most of my classical work was written out for me. Of course I had a say in musical interpretation and performance, but not much straight improv.

Where do some of these classical players you're referring to study and perform? I'm questioning you- I'm interested because I think more classical studies should feature more improv. From what I've seen in the three states that I've lived, performed and studied in (Colorado, Texas and Oklahoma) most classical musicians cannot improvise on the same level as a jazz musician.

[Ferkungamabooboo]

Its a different kind of improvisation; you're also in states that have short jazz lineages.

When you deal with jazz improv (for the most part), its a stylistic to bebop or one of the kissing cousins of it. The world of "classical" improv is significantly more variant, especially across styles.