# Should improvisation have a bigger role in classical training and performance?



## Oxygen (Jun 11, 2019)

> Loved it. I find this to be both entertaining and highly informative. Of what I know in the old days of Liszt classical piano music was much like this. Performances during that time didn't have the standardization and formalistic detachment we have in many concert halls today. And people LOVED the music. It manifested their sentiments. Music was not just "appreciated", it was really experienced. And you can see how Mr. Katsaris simulates the master - a performance by music of a great composer (Beethoven) followed by his own exciting variations/improvisations on a familiar tune. Today all classical music is objective and everybody already knows how it's gonna sound like. I prefer it like this. The setting isn't too big, there is someone to dedicate the music to as an act of friendship, and there is REALLY a connection to the audience. This is why I like even Liberace, despite his over-the-top grandiosity. In the past music was A THING OF THE PEOPLE. Now it's just FOR STUDY. The only flaw in the past is that classical music was highly exclusive, listened to large only by the elite few (aristocracy, clergy, etc.). But if we could somehow emulate the way music was seen and felt before - coupled with today's accessibility to any form of music - then that would be awesome. That's just what I think.


-A comment on this video

What do you think? Improvisation isn't really part of the standard teaching regimen anymore and the line between a composer and performer is far less blurred. Some people think classical music doesn't have any room for spontaneity, unlike jazz, but that absolutely doesn't have to be true.


----------



## Swosh (Feb 25, 2018)

Hell yea it should!!!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

*Yes!* (with emphasis, to make up for the illegally short post)


----------



## DBLee (Jan 8, 2018)

I've always seen this as a rather obvious "yes." Watch earlier interviews of (late jazz pianist) Bill Evans, and he portrays himself as trying to recapture the lost art of classical piano improvisation of Bach. The obvious questions are "why is it still a lost art?" and "why aren't classical musicians enthusiastically jumping on this bandwagon?"


----------



## Oxygen (Jun 11, 2019)

I've talked to a soviet trained musician about this. The biggest reason has to do with shifting prorities and demographics. It's for the same reason more recent composers aren't performed as much: wanting to play it safe. Classical isn't big enough and performances aren't cheap enough to do anything which might compromise the bottom line. Playing it so safe ends up lessening audience interest. The people organising concerts are so afraid the shrinking audiences will stop showing up, they're shooting themself in the foot. I wonder if performers as good as Kissin are even capable of improvisation.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

In jazz music it is fine, but with classical music I generally like hearing music the way it was composed, so my answer to the OP is: 

In training, yes a bigger role. In performance, not really. At least not much more. Too much improvisation in performance is not my thing. It too quickly can become just an avenue for showing off. A dab of improvisation goes a long way for me, just a little bit here and there in individual works where the style calls for it (and here the improvisation should be barely perceptible). Aside from that one highly improvised piece in a recital is ok. More than that for me is too much improvisation.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Sometimes it is better to be faithful to the score, sometimes a liberty might be taken with a great effect. There should be a choice.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Fabulin said:


> Sometimes it is better to be faithful to the score, sometimes a liberty might be taken with a great effect. There should be a choice.





tdc said:


> In jazz music it is fine, but with classical music I generally like hearing music the way it was composed, so my answer to the OP is: .


Can you explain to me how being faithful to the score, or playing it the way it was composed, is different from a midi performance? I mean obviously the sound of the real instruments is different, but what else?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

A long time ago, performers DID take liberties with music that purists today abhor. Adding unmarked ornamentation for example. Cadenzas in concerto performances. Listen to the Zinman set of Beethoven symphonies - the winds do a lot of improvising, supposedly in a style that was common in that era - that at least is editor's Del Mar opinion. There used to be great organists (Franck, Widor, Bruckner...) who were famous for improvising complex and lengthy works on the spot, and needless to say, lost to history. I don't know if it can be taught anymore. Any player who wants to learn jazz style improv can take classes in it - and it's a great stress reliever for some. Me...I really don't like jazz and the primary reason is --- I can't stand the improv. I like structured, composed music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A major miscue: "It is true that Mr. B. might be able to improvise, but he cannot write variations very well." --AMZ, 1799

Another data point: "Beethoven...shows himself to best advantage in free improvisation. And here the lightness and at the same time firmness in the sequence of his ideas is really quite extraordinary. B. instantly varies every theme, and not only in its figures. Since the death of Mozart who will always remain the non plus ultra in this, I have never found this kind of pleasure to the degree with which B. provides it." --AMZ, 1799​


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I suspect that there are classically trained musicians who excel at improvisation (which might prove handy when tackling a cadenza in a concerto or to utilize for an encore or interlude piece) and those who don't, or even can't.

We think of several great composer/performers (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt) as being masters of improvisation, and I suppose these same players, in a contemporary jazz venue, would account themselves quite well. I say this supposing also that it's quite likely not every jazz musician is accomplished at improvisation -- that level of which will allow for continually interesting variations, timbres, etc.

It doesn't seem surprising, either, that those adept at improvisation will also be adept at composition, since both are creative processes. Some folks are more artistically creative than others. Talent and genius are not gifts bestowed upon all, alas.

Can one _teach_ improvisation? It is likely something again that some students would excel at and others achieve with lesser results. It it can be "learned" at all. I would imagine that those of limited imaginations will soon bog down into repetitive patternings that would present themselves again and again whatever the source of the improv, while those with true gifts of less limitless creativity will continually find new avenues opening as musical idea leads to musical idea. I again imagine that many an instrumentalist toys in private settings with improvisational attempts, possibly with a goal of seeking compositional material, possibly with a goal of simple self amusement for the moment.

Skill levels, too, will play much role in improvisational abilities and results. Masters at their instruments will accomplish more improvisationally than those with limited means. Yet, I suspect that a player of exceptional creativity, even with modest skills, will assert perhaps as much as a well-practiced player with limited imagination. Perhaps you experiences instrumentalists out there will know better than do I, but … are there not well-trained, skillful,music reading instrumentalists who seem simply blind without a written score to play from? And are there not self-taught musicians who can hear a lick and take off in all sorts of directions without ever having had opportunity to learn to read a "C" from an "F#"?

I enjoy great improvisation; I enjoy much jazz music as well as classical. I also enjoy that classical music which is performed with such a skill level that it sounds as though the performer is creating the piece on the spot, in an improvisational manner.

That which we liken to "soul" in music, that quality of human warmth and "livingness" that is the opposite of metronomic, mechanical, stilted, "academic" performance, is likely due to a sort of improvisation that adds rubato-like depth to music and makes it breathe with life.

One might wonder how much of our greatest music, whatever the genre, is an end result of a process that began with improvisation. I suspect that quite a bit of it fits that bill.

Play on.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> Can you explain to me how being faithful to the score, or playing it the way it was composed, is different from a midi performance? I mean obviously the sound of the real instruments is different, but what else?


To be honest I'm not that knowledgeable about midi. I would guess that human performers are likely able to achieve more expressivity through more subtle use of dynamics, phrasing, changes of tempo etc.

Being 'faithful to the score' still leaves a lot of leeway for interpretation by the performer(s), of course. This is related to but not exactly the same topic as improvisation. It seems like maybe you want to make a point about something?


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

SONNET CLV said:


> And are there not self-taught musicians who can hear a lick and take off in all sorts of directions without ever having had opportunity to learn to read a "C" from an "F#"?


Django Reinhardt!


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

wefwsefwsefewsvf


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

As a composer, improvisation is an essential skill for me, but for a performer/ instrumentalist, seeing that it's hard enough to master an instrument regardless of having to worry about the theory too much, and considering that the music they have to learn is set in stone pretty much, I can understand why improvisation is not a priority early on. That said, I do feel that improvisation _should_ be encouraged for a learning classical musician because of the freedom of expression it can encourage, as well as the fun of it. 
Besides, all those scales and arpeggios can make for a dull time....a jam session now and again might keep one or two away from the booze too...maybe not.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

What I want to say is that the difference between embellishment of a score through phrasing, tempo rubato, ornamentation, diminutions, suspensions, vibrato, loud and soft, different types of portato and note attacks, the alignment of voices, flattening and sharpening notes (_musica ficta_) etc on the one hand, and improvisation on the other, is a fluid, porous one.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> What I want to say is that the difference between embellishment of a score through phrasing, tempo rubato, ornamentation, diminutions, suspensions, vibrato, loud and soft, different types of portato and note attacks, the alignment of voices, *flattening and sharpening notes (musica ficta)* etc on the one hand, and improvisation on the other, is a fluid, porous one.


As far as the part in bold, in some early music practice as you've described with the flattening and sharpening of notes, yes I would agree here the distinction becomes a little blurry.

From common practice forward I think people generally understand the difference between interpretation and improvisation.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

In truth, I’ve never really understood what “common practice” includes and excludes, or why people think it’s a useful idea. Have you heard, for example, the sorts of diminutions that Gnassi advocated, recently the subject of an experimental recording by William Dongois called La Fontegara, where he applies Gnassi’s ideas to music by Josquin, Gombert etc? And have you heard the sort of improvisatory separation of voices that Leila Schayegh and Jan Schultsz have applied to the Brahms violin sonatas? They themselves argue that it’s just what the composer wanted performers to do. Not to mention Wolfgang Rubsam’s improvisatory experiments with the polyphony in The Goldberg Variations, or Claudio Crismani interpretation of John Cage’s Piano Etudes?

All these things blur the line between improvisation and interpretation IMO. All done by serious musicians, musicians who are trying to reflect the meaning of the compositions they’re playing.


----------



## robin4 (Jun 9, 2019)

No. How to interpret what has already been composed is what is important.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Organists in modern conservatories are expected to be fluent improvisers. It's part of most any gig organists will land. Anyone specializing in Baroque music should be able to improvise new ornaments and diminutions when passages are literally repeated in the score, as in binary dance forms and the like. I believe this sort of thing is also taught in conservatories. Where current pedagogy seems most deficient to me is in the failure to teach soloists to improvise cadenzas in Classical Era concertos.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> In truth, I've never really understood what "common practice" includes and excludes, or why people think it's a useful idea. Have you heard, for example, the sorts of diminutions that Gnassi advocated, recently the subject of an experimental recording by William Dongois called La Fontegara, where he applies Gnassi's ideas to music by Josquin, Gombert etc? And have you heard the sort of improvisatory separation of voices that Leila Schayegh and Jan Schultsz have applied to the Brahms violin sonatas? They themselves argue that it's just what the composer wanted performers to do. Not to mention Wolfgang Rubsam's improvisatory experiments with the polyphony in The Goldberg Variations, or Claudio Crismani interpretation of John Cage's Piano Etudes?
> 
> All these things blur the line between improvisation and interpretation IMO. All done by serious musicians, musicians who are trying to reflect the meaning of the compositions they're playing.


Early music practice requires more decision making from performers. From what I understand improvisation is acceptable in some Baroque music in ornamentation, and in some pieces where only figured bass is notated for some parts.

Rosen suggests that with J.S. Bach's music the role of improvisation was diminished. In the Classical era I think it is for the most part only cadenzas that require improvisation. After Beethoven the role of improvisation was lessened further. As far as I know the Romantic repertoire does not require much (if any) improvisation outside of cadenzas. From the modern era on music has gone in so many different directions it is bound to be used in some of this repertoire, although its role in music from the first half of the 20th century at least I think is not very substantial.


----------



## Oxygen (Jun 11, 2019)

Apart from how pieces other people wrote are played, I'm more interested in hearing improvisation on its own during a concert, as an addition to the program. Some variations on a theme picked by the performer or something.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Oxygen said:


>


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

I think student musical literacy is reading and writing . Let improvising be equal to composing .


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

It seems to me, that there is now so much emphasis on virtuosity, there may not be any 'room' to improvise. If the musician is concentrating so much on being accurate and clean, they may not be able to use a different part of their brain in order to improvise.

Wynton Marsalis once played with his jazz group and played Mozart's trumpet concerto in D minor in the same night. He said he'd never do it again. He commented on how he had to use such different parts of his brain, his performances weren't great in either discipline that night.



Fabulin said:


> Django Reinhardt!


Frank Zappa, Thelonious Monk, Louis Armstrong, Allan Holdsworth (one of the most sophisticated improvisors of all time), Dizzy Gillespie, Ornette Coleman, and plenty of others.



SONNET CLV said:


> I suspect that there are classically trained musicians who excel at improvisation


Seems most of these people switched to jazz. Herbie Hancock, Keith Jarrett, Ralph Towner, Terje Rypdal, and plenty others.

Jarrett is a unique case. He switches between classical and jazz on a somewhat regular basis. He composes contemporary classical (tonal) and plays classical, too. About a decade ago, he released a CD of his performances of Bartok's piano concertos 1 and 2, with pretty convincing levels of skill (for a lowly jazz musician ).


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

Brain theories are suspiciously incoherent . What sort of brain makes them up ?


----------



## R3PL4Y (Jan 21, 2016)

I would at least like to see a comeback of cadenzas with improvisation. This was the case in the classical era, why not bring it back?


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Brain theories are suspiciously incoherent . What sort of brain makes them up ?


Except when it comes to music improvisation, there was a study using FMRI that demonstrated that there are regions of the brain that light up with activity that are not active during the periods when there is no improvisation. It happens everytime, with every musician studied.

https://www.technologynetworks.com/neuroscience/news/making-it-up-as-you-go-how-jazz-improvisation-affects-the-brain-326436


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

Now , says the Doctor - improvise now , then do not improvise , improvise , do not improvise , improvise ... now do both together for love of the light and the glory .


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

You don't really learn improvisation, it's something that is a talent. Those that lack composing talent will never be good at it unless they follow a cookie cutter technique like the Jazz players do. The best of them do have some composing talent but most do not.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

Mostly , improvisation is a private affair . Unless I am your teacher , yours is none of my business . We can be gentle with the naturalness of personal songs and first songs .


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

1996D said:


> You don't really learn improvisation, it's something that is a talent. Those that lack composing talent will never be good at it unless they follow a cookie cutter technique like the Jazz players do. The best of them do have some composing talent but most do not.


Wow...

I am going to have to vehemently disagree with this.

1. Compositional skill in jazz is more or less, unrelated to compositional skills. There have been many jazz players that are brilliant improvisors that are not great at writing an entire piece.

2. Unless you are talking about a jazz group at a local bar and grill, or a club, playing a bunch of 'standards' with only moderate skills, great jazz improvisers hardly use 'cookie cutter' techniques. Sure, these local jazz bands at local bars or clubs are pretty predictable.

I can easily recognise the difference between pianists, Chic Corea, or Herbie Hancock, or Kenny Kirkland, or Gonzalo Rubalcaba, Hiromi, etc. If they were utilizing cookie cutter techniques, that should not be so easy. However, they all have their own (rhythmic, harmonic, chordal) vocabularies, and thus, pretty big differences between their improvisation.

And jazz guitarists, trumpet players, saxophonists, violinists, etc, all have different vocabularies.

Then there are even differences in jazz improvisation techniques among the different subgenres of jazz. Fusion players, avant-garde players, post bop players, chamber jazz players, etc, all have different vocabularies and techniques, none are cookie cutter.

3. Jazz players are composing on the spot, when they improvise. So, in some ways, even if they are not great at composing or arranging an entire jazz piece, a great improviser is still great composer.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Simon Moon said:


> 1. Compositional skill in jazz is more or less, unrelated to compositional skills. There have been many jazz players that are brilliant improvisors that are not great at writing an entire piece.


Correction!

I meant "*Improvisational* skill in jazz is more or less, unrelated to compositional skills. "


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

Perhaps improve shall not be considered a rigorous discipline . It can be fooling around adventurously until every pitch is intuitively known .


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Simon Moon said:


> Wow...
> 
> I am going to have to vehemently disagree with this.
> 
> ...


But it's still a technique, you don't create out of thin air which composers will do. Improvisation is the main way to compose anything, you do it in your head, the ideas come one after the other--there is no technique, they come already complete with the counterpoint and structure.

Jazz players use pre-planned techniques when they 'improvise', this the definition of cookie cutter.

Cookies do come in different shapes, this is basically all the points you made.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

1996D said:


> But it's still a technique, you don't create out of thin air which composers will do. Improvisation is the main way to compose anything, you do it in your head, the ideas come one after the other--*there is no technique, they come already complete with the counterpoint and structure.
> *
> Jazz players use pre-planned techniques when they 'improvise', this the definition of cookie cutter.
> 
> Cookies do come in different shapes, this is basically all the points you made.


I don't think so. If what is in bold is true then why would any classical composers bother studying harmony or counterpoint, when everything is already "complete in their head"?

The truth is both jazz and classical composers rely on some skills and techniques in their craft. Some more than others. Some jazz improvisors are mostly self taught and play by ear, and are very inspired. They aren't just relying on cookie cutter techniques. You will find some of the 'cookie cutter' approach in any style of music. The mediocre composers in any genre will often show an over reliance on formulas, (or be imbalanced on the other side of the spectrum and rely too much on novelty) the best composers usually strike a balance between originality and convention.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

tdc said:


> I don't think so. *If what is in bold is true then why would any classical composers bother studying harmony or counterpoint, when everything is already "complete in their head"*?
> 
> The truth is both jazz and classical composers rely on some skills and techniques in their craft. Some more than others. Some jazz improvisors are mostly self taught and play by ear, and are very inspired. They aren't just relying on cookie cutter techniques. You will find some of the 'cookie cutter' approach in any style of music. The mediocre composers in any genre will often show an over reliance on formulas, (or be imbalanced on the other side of the spectrum and rely too much on novelty) the best composers usually strike a balance between originality and convention.


I did exaggerate somewhat, but they do often come complete, study of course initially refines any imperfections, but after awhile it becomes nature and your creativity adapts to the form.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

Let a well-disciplined classical pianist improvise on the wildly out-of-tune piano . What happens ?


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

*Fantasies of Improvisation: Free Playing in Nineteenth-Century Music *

Dana Gooley (author)

Print publication date: 2018

Chapter 5 ..... Unlike Schumann's more linear development, Liszt's relationship with improvisation vacillated. Free improvisations were central to his reputation as a child prodigy, yet the more he sought recognition as a composer, the more compelled he felt to rein it in for fear of being judged as superficial. At the same time, George Sand and Heinrich Heine were advancing a positive new vision of improvisation as a privileged, elevated mode of artistic utterance, and Liszt was one of their main exhibits. To an extent matched only by Chopin and Paganini, Liszt gave the impression he was blurring the line between playing a prepared piece and improvising. He thus played a key role in linking improvisational practice with the emerging imaginary ideal of improvisation, while submitting himself to the new order of "works" and "interpreters."


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Why Don't Classical Musicians Improvise?

Right on topic.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

Come on , don't be lazy . What's that woman saying ? Got a caption ?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Simon Moon said:


> Why Don't Classical Musicians Improvise?
> 
> Right on topic.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

An architecture of the air can be improvised moment to moment . If unsuccessful , at least its not like the stones of a cathedral falling crushingly upon the innocent .


----------



## TMHeimer (Dec 19, 2019)

Classical music and improvisation are two different things. If you are a performer it obviously depends on what you want to play.
If you are serious about jazz you must learn improv. That is, all versions of scales, modal, etc. and ability to play appropriate rhythms while following the chord changes. In other words, to be a real player of jazz--not someone like me who can at times sound like I know what I'm doing (particularly if I know the tune, chord changes, and chord changes in a relatively easy key. Someone who plays "at" jazz. 
A classical musician needs no improv training. You play what's written. Though learning to do a good glissando, such as in the Rhapsody in Blue clarinet opening solo is a must. But that is not improv, it is technique.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Having been trained in performance by a number of different teachers, I have never found any role for improvisation in training. That isn't to say its level of imagination is unwelcome but, when one is being trained, it has never been clear to me that is a time for improvisation. You need to learn how to do it first, then improvise.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

1996D said:


> Jazz players use pre-planned techniques when they 'improvise', this the definition of cookie cutter.


no different than the 'pre-planned' techniques used by Mozart or Beethoven when they developed material or wrote variations


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Being able to improvise is basic musicianship


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

larold said:


> Having been trained in performance by a number of different teachers, I have never found any role for improvisation in training. That isn't to say its level of imagination is unwelcome but, when one is being trained, it has never been clear to me that is a time for improvisation. You need to learn how to do it first, then improvise.


As you get old it's very good therapy to sit at the piano and let the note patterns flow out. Circle of fourths, circle of fifths, major ninths. The little melodies often even surprise me. Family members say, what was that? I say, I don't know. I can usually remember it somewhat, but the drudgery of writing it down is just too much!

I can really admire the dedication of scribbling it all down - with primitive writing tools by candle light and a very limited amount of staff paper.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Being able to improvise is basic musicianship


I don't know if you mean it as "it's something that every musician worth of the term should be able to do" or "it's quite simple" (and obviously it's not) but I've personally seen with disbelief classical musicians with a phenomenal technique who sounded as complete beginners when improvising.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

larold said:


> You need to learn how to do it first, then improvise.


Learning how to do something grand can be accomplished in Lesson 1 at the piano . With this as true , by Lesson 7 the student may realize an appreciation for what a master's symphony has accomplished . The lotus unfolds . Little fingers get educated with the universe of possibilities in mind .


----------

