# is Classical Music more "complex" than Jazz?



## MusicFree

or is that just some type of intellectual stereotype that classical music is considered more "complex" than jazz..or is their some truth to that?


----------



## Ukko

That_ intellectual stereotype_ thingy needs quotation marks somewhere; the "complex" doesn't. Both _classical music_ and _jazz_ need a _some_ before them.

Amid all that pickiness I have answered your question. Damn I'm good.


----------



## arpeggio

NO......................................


----------



## SixFootScowl

All else equal and focusing on orchestral works, i would say that classical, having far more instruments involved, could tend to be more complex, but we would need to analyze a representative set of musical works from each category to make some kind of determination as to which is more complex. A computer program could evaluate the actual musical notes and you would have to determine critera for complexity.


----------



## MrTortoise

No truth in that whatsoever. So don't worry about it and listen to what you want to.


----------



## norman bates

Formally classical music is certainly more complex than jazz. Even if there are exceptions, the usual form in jazz is a very simple head-improvisation-head. Harmonically I'd say that jazz is as complex as classical music and it offers things that it's not possible to find in classical music.


----------



## Heliogabo

That depends on what jazz and what classical music.


----------



## Weston

Classical music is no more complex than any other genre, depending on your definition of complexity. Listen to Return to Forever's _Duel of the Jester & the Tyrant_  and convince me it's not as complex as classical.


----------



## MrTortoise

In many respects what we consider 'classical music' much simpler than other types and traditions of music, especially when rhythm is considered.


----------



## SONNET CLV

The definition of "complexity" as it pertains to music certainly changes throughout history. What is classically "complex" today -- say, Boulez and Ligeti -- is certainly quite unlike Beethoven's music, much of which was considered complex in the early 1800s. Yet, Bach is "complex" in a way different from, say, Boulez, Ligeti, and Beethoven.

Jazz, of course, ranges as well, from quite a bit of complexity on the Black Saint label (I've been collecting the box sets of the Remastered Black Saint and Soul Note jazz recordings) to stuff I can play on guitar. Thelonious Monk is complex in a way different from the Black Saint improvisers. And so is Bill Evans.

And, according to how you define "complex", some rock music (and perhaps even nursery rhymes) may be considered _more complex_ than another type of music....

The more I consider the question "is Classical Music more 'complex' than Jazz?" the more I'm convinced the question itself is absurd. Sorry.


----------



## Albert7

Ornette Coleman confuses me more than Mozart but not as much as Murail. toss up like salad.


----------



## Markbridge

I've always felt jazz was chaos and classical music was ordered chaos. Just my take.


----------



## D Smith

Markbridge said:


> I've always felt jazz was chaos and classical music was ordered chaos. Just my take.


Sorry but this is just wrong. Whether it be classical, jazz or otherwise, music is the ordering of sounds in real time to produce a composition that has form. Hardly chaos. 4'33" may be another kettle of fish but that has its own never-ending thread!


----------



## Manxfeeder

MusicFree said:


> or is that just some type of intellectual stereotype that classical music is considered more "complex" than jazz..or is their some truth to that?


Let me think out loud.

As a rule, classical requires better sight-reading skills; jazz requires more memorization of patterns and progressions. Both jazz and classical require ensemble skills and sympathetic listening in the performers. As a rule, jazz requires more spontaneity, but to a degree; jazz players usually have an idea where they're going before they start improvising. Classical as a rule requires precision; jazz can require precision but can survive on looseness. Both require a lifetime of progressive skill and experience.

It seems like they both have their own degrees of complexity. And anymore, both genres overlap. I've heard completely notated jazz pieces and have heard concertos where the cadenzas are improvised. And there are classical pieces infused with jazz elements. So I'm generally confused.


----------



## Proms Fanatic

There used to be a full-length clip on YouTube of Herbie Hancock playing Rhapsody in Blue with Gustavo Dudamel, although this seems to have been deleted.

It was very interesting to see a jazz/blues artist try to tackle a Classical piece. Herbie was technically quite imprecise compared to the standards of most concert pianists. However he really understood the syncopations and "jazzy" elements that Gershwin included in the work and I really enjoyed his cadenza.

I agree with Manxfeeder's post in this regard.


----------



## Albert7

Ironically I prefer jazz over classical music but listen to more classical music lately. Strange irony.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Albert7 said:


> Ironically I prefer jazz over classical music but listen to more classical music lately. Strange irony.


Yep. I love jazz, but I like classical. The trouble with jazz is, when I listen to it too much, it's all I can think about, and I'm no good for anybody. At least with classical, I can listen to it and still retain my social life.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Is classical music more complex than jazz?

If I can decide what genre this video displays, I'll have a better answer for the question.






But if you want complexity ... maybe this is it!


----------



## Skilmarilion

I don't know what "complex" means here.

But -- generally speaking, composing classical music requires *sonic imagination* in a way that you won't find in most other genres. Jazz is just one of those other genres.

Case in point being something like Mahler's 9th symphony. That piece, which is of epic proportions, was conceived entirely in Mahler's head. In fact he never even heard it. And I imagine that it wouldn't be incorrect to call it a pretty complex piece.

So should we be saying that in rock or jazz or pop or reggae or whatever, there exists even the potential for music to be created in such a *superhuman* way?

I don't think so, and I don't see the point in pretending otherwise in a classical music forum.


----------



## norman bates

Skilmarilion said:


> I don't know what "complex" means here.
> 
> But -- generally speaking, composing classical music requires *sonic imagination* in a way that you won't find in most other genres. Jazz is just one of those other genres.
> 
> Case in point being something like Mahler's 9th symphony. That piece, which is of epic proportions, was conceived entirely in Mahler's head. In fact he never even heard it. And I imagine that it wouldn't be incorrect to call it a pretty complex piece.
> 
> So should we be saying that in rock or jazz or pop or reggae or whatever, there exists even the potential for music to be created in such a *superhuman* way?


I don't get what you mean with superhuman or sonic imagination. The lenght of the piece or what? A lot of musicians (even rock musicians, at least those who have a good knowledge of music theory) can compose music even without a instrument, but I'm not sure it's what you mean.


----------



## Musicophile

While I agree with most of my predecessors that the actual answer to the OP's question is pretty much "it depends" (depending on which parameter you measure, be it e.g. tonal complexity, level of polyphony, rhythmical complexity) the entire question around complexity in music intrigues me, as I personally require a certain level of complexity to really enjoy music. Anything that is "too simple" for me usually bores me quickly, (e.g. typical three chord classic rock), and so I'm still looking for ways to better "measure" this complexity. 

A typical examples of highly complex music outside of the classical arena is the early 1970s art rock scene, e.g. Genesis "The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway", which certainly beats quite a number of classical works on complexity, and is something I really appreciate.


----------



## Skilmarilion

norman bates said:


> I don't get what you mean with superhuman or sonic imagination. The length of the piece or what?


"Superhuman" I admit probably reads like some pretentious hyperbolic BS so apologies there!

By "sonic imagination" I'm referring to the ability to conceive music purely in the mind. But in my example of Mahler's 9th, it's not just any music, but a piece written for an enormous number of instruments, full of counterpoint and rich in rhythm and harmony.



> A lot of musicians (even rock musicians, at least those who have a good knowledge of music theory) can compose music even without a instrument, but I'm not sure it's what you mean.


Really? Like who? How many musicians belonging to a non-classical tradition could compose a "complex" (whatever you want this to mean) piece of music purely with pen and paper at hand?


----------



## norman bates

Skilmarilion said:


> Really? Like who? How many musicians belonging to a non-classical tradition could compose a "complex" (whatever you want this to mean) piece of music purely with pen and paper at hand?


yes. I know that in rock Steve Vai can do that, but I guess is more common than I've believed for a long time in many genres. In jazz music many musicians have often serious studies of classical music (for instance, Brubeck studied with Milhaud, Andrew Hill with Hindemith, Gigi Gryce and Quincy Jones were pupils of Nadia Boulanger, just to mention few names) and so they can do that sort of things.
This is an example I've seen posted here, Hermeto Pascoal composing in the chaos of place full of people playing and talking


----------



## BrokenFingers

It is more aesthetically pleasing, more dense, more beautiful and worth of respect. Jazz is often nothing but organized, pretentious noise.


----------



## norman bates

BrokenFingers said:


> It is more aesthetically pleasing, more dense, more beautiful and worth of respect. Jazz is often nothing but organized, pretentious noise.


or more probably you don't know a lot about the genre.


----------



## Morimur

I like Jazz, but I certainly don't listen to it as much as (western) Classical. As for complexity, both are generally very complex and rewarding forms of music. I'd recommend also listening to the classical music of India, Persia, Japan, Indonesia, Burma, Vietnam, and China.


----------



## Guest

BrokenFingers said:


> noise


...says the metal guitar player.

Excellent!


----------



## Albert7

Anyone looking at Maria Schneider's lead sheets for her big bands will be blown away. Kinda like the Mahler of today's world.


----------



## BrokenFingers

dogen said:


> ...says the metal guitar player.
> 
> Excellent!


In all fairness, not all jazz is like *that*, just as not all metal is noisy and random.


----------



## Guest

BrokenFingers said:


> In all fairness, not all jazz is like *that*, just as not all metal is noisy and random.


I agree; sweeping statements can be rather misleading.


----------



## Orfeo

Albert7 said:


> Ornette Coleman confuses me more than Mozart but not as much as Murail. toss up like salad.


and Marion Brown (and to some extent Rollins).


----------



## Dr Johnson

Markbridge said:


> I've always felt *jazz was chaos* and classical music was ordered chaos. Just my take.


Even (e.g.) this?


----------



## PlaySalieri

I dont know jazz that well - but from what I have heard it tends to be quite repetitive and limited compared with much of what classical has to offer - and usually consists of an ensemble of a few to maybe half a dozen players - and the pieces which do last more than 6 minutes dont really develop in the expansive and intellectual way - for example - a Mahler or Beethoven symphony would. 

I would have thought there are few works of art more complex than a wagner opera - requiring considerable orchestral forces and singers - plus an intellect behind the libretto etc - and there is as far as I know - nothing like that in any other musical genre.


----------



## Celloman

BrokenFingers said:


> It is more aesthetically pleasing, more dense, more beautiful and worth of respect. Jazz is often nothing but organized, pretentious noise.


I just _love_ blanket statements! As norman bates said, you probably don't listen to much jazz. It takes years for a jazz performer to master the craft. Jazz improvisation is, in fact, highly structured and fits into very clear parameters. The best jazz performers (Miles Davis, for example) painstakingly honed their craft. When they broke a rule, they knew exactly where to break it and they always came back to the structure of what they were doing.


----------



## Couchie

_"The jazz musician speaks of an infinite deal of nothing, more than any in all Venice: his melodies are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff; you shall seek all day ere you find them; and when you have them they are not worth the search."_ - Shakespeare


----------



## Woodduck

I enjoy jazz in small amounts, but often find it tiresome because its complexity seems largely on the surface: fistfulls of notes, but a basic repetitiveness underneath. Jazz pieces often seem to come to an end just because the player gets tired of finding new ways to make his meager material unrecognizable. There are lovely exceptions, though, which hold my interest from start to finish.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Woodduck said:


> I enjoy jazz in small amounts, but often find it tiresome because its complexity seems largely on the surface: fistfulls of notes, but a basic repetitiveness underneath. Jazz pieces often seem to come to an end just because the player gets tired of finding new ways to make his meager material unrecognizable. *There are lovely exceptions, though, which hold my interest from start to finish.*


I suppose people into Jazz may say the same about classical

But otherwise - I agree with your sentiments about jazz.

did you see that film with tim roth playing the part of a pianist born on a ship - and the competition he had with a famous jazz musician - I like what he shouted to that defeated jazz player as he disembarked - "F**! Jazz!" - i think that about sums it up for many classical devotees.


----------



## Guest

MusicFree said:


> or is that just some type of intellectual stereotype that classical music is considered more "complex" than jazz..or is their some truth to that?


Taking the question at face value - that is, putting my interpretation on it since none is offered - I'd say, "No."

Other than that, ukko's answer gets my vote.


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> _"The jazz musician speaks of an infinite deal of nothing, more than any in all Venice: his melodies are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff; you shall seek all day ere you find them; and when you have them they are not worth the search."_ - Shakespeare


Man, Shakespeare sure was ahead of his time. But had he listened to any compositions by Anthony Braxton?


----------



## norman bates

Woodduck said:


> I enjoy jazz in small amounts, but often find it tiresome because its complexity seems largely on the surface: fistfulls of notes, but a basic repetitiveness underneath.


Well the basic repetitiveness underneath is true, after all a lot of jazz is based on the chorus, with a the repetition of chord progression (at least in the traditional forms). I'm very interested in jazz that uses more complex forms but to judge the genre only on terms of lack of development is to miss the most interesting part of it. The naturalness of the improvisation, the different harmonies, the individuality of the tone, the rhythm, the interaction. That is not surface.


----------



## Woodduck

norman bates said:


> Well the basic repetitiveness underneath is true, after all a lot of jazz is based on the chorus, with a the repetition of chord progression (at least in the traditional forms). I'm very interested in jazz that uses more complex forms but to judge the genre only on terms of lack of development is to miss the most interesting part of it. *The naturalness of the improvisation, the different harmonies, the individuality of the tone, the rhythm, the interaction. That is not surface.*


I don't disagree about what jazz can offer. But I think the qualities you mention show that jazz is primarily a performer's art, while classical music is primarily a composer's. In that respect it's futile to compare them.


----------



## norman bates

Woodduck said:


> I don't disagree about what jazz can offer. But I think the qualities you mention show that jazz is primarily a performer's art, while classical music is primarily a composer's. In that respect it's futile to compare them.


in part it's true, but I've always paid a lot of attention to jazz composition, and while as I've said there's no comparison in terms of development I think that the best jazz composers (Ellington, Strayhorn, Monk, Nichols, Shorter, Hill etc) have produced great things especially from an harmonic perspective. While in the classical world there's been the rethoric of "tonality/modality has nothing to say anymore" musicians like them have demonstrated that it was still possible to produce music of great originality and intellectual depth.


----------



## GreenMamba

I don't really care whether Jazz is as "complex" as Classical. Music can be too simple to be of interest to me, but I don't think that applies to much Jazz.

It seems like _within_ Classical, a lot of people don't seem to think more complex is better, especially with regard to Modern music. So why use it as a bludgeon to beat Jazz with?


----------



## EdwardBast

I like things that confuse boundaries. Here is a jazz piece in sonata form (Joe Zawinul's "Unknown Soldier" from Weather Report's _I Sing the Body Electric_). The chaos of the development, leading to a climactic retransition (~4:20) could only have been done with improvisation (by three accomplished composers and pals):

1st theme group - 
2nd theme - 1:31 (English Horn)
closing - 2:07
development - 2:42
recap - 4:30


----------



## D Smith

stomanek said:


> "F**! Jazz!" - i think that about sums it up for many classical devotees.


It certainly doesn't sum it up for me, nor, I suspect many people here. I've heard as many live jazz performances as I have classical and managed to enjoy them for their own merits. They are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## PlaySalieri

D Smith said:


> *It certainly doesn't sum it up for me, nor, I suspect many people here. * I've heard as many live jazz performances as I have classical and managed to enjoy them for their own merits. They are not mutually exclusive.


which is why I qualified my statement

it would be interesting to do a poll - how many listen to jazz


----------



## mtmailey

Classical music is more complexed than jazz because classical music has been out longer than jazz there are forms that is not present in jazz like canons,fugues & so forth.


----------



## Heliogabo

Clarinet's almost disparition in modern jazz is a good issue. The clarinet is very difficult to play, as it is said, and with the arrival of the be bop era, just a few clarinet players had survived, because be bop language was too complex for been played in the instrument. That can make an idea about the complexities and technical demands that implies some kind of jazz.


----------



## EDaddy

They are both complex in different ways. If you take the sheet music away from Classically trained musicians, many if not all of them have no idea what to play, unless they have certain scores memorized. World-class Jazz musicians cannot only read music but have serious improvisational skills. They can "blow" over complex changes and create some pretty amazing results. Try getting a Classical musician to play a tune like Giant Steps (which changes keys every 2 quarter note beats and is played at approximately 286 beats per minute). I guarantee 99% of them will be completely stumped and fall on their face, unless they are players like Herbie Hancock or Bill Evens, who were Classically trained well before getting into Jazz.

On the flip side, most Jazz players - like piano players for instance - simply don't have the extreme "chops" (within a Classical setting) that the Classical virtuoso acquires from countless years and thousands upon thousands of hours of hard disciplined training. Even the ones who _can_ play Classical (like Keith Jarrett, Herbie Hancock, etc.) rarely can do so with the same incredible degree of finesse and control (dynamics, articulation, and the like) that the great Classical pianists can as a result of such intense, rigorous study and practice. Classical players have to be able to play some of the most complex, challenging music ever created (Rachmaninoff, Liszt, Chopin, etc.). Even though there is a degree of overlap, the two require very different skill sets. Hard to compare the two. Both very complex, requiring much ability from the musician.

*An after thought for perspective*:

Jazz musicians play Classical better than Classical musicians play Jazz. Generally speaking.


----------



## PlaySalieri

EDaddy said:


> They are both complex in different ways. If you take the sheet music away from Classically trained musicians, many if not all of them have no idea what to play, unless they have certain scores memorized. World-class Jazz musicians cannot only read music but have serious improvisational skills. They can "blow" over complex changes and create some pretty amazing results. Try getting a Classical musician to play a tune like Giant Steps (which changes keys every 2 quarter note beats and is played at approximately 286 beats per minute). I guarantee 99% of them will be completely stumped and fall on their face, unless they are players like Herbie Hancock or Bill Evens, who were Classically trained well before getting into Jazz.
> 
> On the flip side, most Jazz players - like piano players for instance - simply don't have the extreme "chops" (within a Classical setting) that the Classical virtuoso acquires from countless years and thousands upon thousands of hours of hard disciplined training. Even the ones who _can_ play Classical (like Keith Jarrett, Herbie Hancock, etc.) rarely can do so with the same incredible degree of finesse and control (dynamics, articulation, and the like) that the great Classical pianists can as a result of such intense, rigorous study and practice. Classical players have to be able to play some of the most complex, challenging music ever created (Rachmaninoff, Liszt, Chopin, etc.). Even though there is a degree of overlap, the two require very different skill sets. Hard to compare the two. Both very complex, requiring much ability from the musician.
> 
> *An after thought for perspective*:
> 
> Jazz musicians play Classical better than Classical musicians play Jazz. Generally speaking.


Interesting though how many jazz players dabble in classical - but few classical players have any interest in jazz - I can only think of nigel kennedy (players of note)

I believe that talented classical players could adapt well to jazz if they bothered to study it - but I also believe hardly any jazz players could achieve the finesse required to be a top classical perofmrer


----------



## Tedski

stomanek said:


> "F**! Jazz!" - i think that about sums it up for many classical devotees.





D Smith said:


> It certainly doesn't sum it up for me, nor, I suspect many people here. I've heard as many live jazz performances as I have classical and managed to enjoy them for their own merits. They are not mutually exclusive.


Nor does it sum it up for me. I have played in, both, orchestras and jazz bands, and I continue to enjoy listening to both.


----------



## Heliogabo

stomanek said:


> Interesting though how many jazz players dabble in classical - but few classical players have any interest in jazz - I can only think of nigel kennedy (players of note)
> 
> I believe that talented classical players could adapt well to jazz if they bothered to study it - but I also believe hardly any jazz players could achieve the finesse required to be a top classical perofmrer


Between classical pianists that has played (and even recorded) jazz I remember:
Friedrich Gulda (great in both genres); Daniel Barenboim, Jean Ives Thibaudet, Alfred Brendel (one of my favourite pianists, but with terrible results in his jazz playing).


----------



## norman bates

mtmailey said:


> Classical music is more complexed than jazz because classical music has been out longer than jazz there are forms that is not present in jazz like canons,fugues & so forth.


----------



## norman bates

Heliogabo said:


> Clarinet's almost disparition in modern jazz is a good issue. The clarinet is very difficult to play, as it is said, and with the arrival of the be bop era, just a few clarinet players had survived, because be bop language was too complex for been played in the instrument. That can make an idea about the complexities and technical demands that implies some kind of jazz.


I don't think it's a matter of difficulty in that case. After all there were musicians like Jimmy Giuffre, Buddy De Franco, Tony Scott or Eric Dolphy. But even if it could sound as an absurdity I feel that it was one of those instruments seen by many as a "instruments for white persons", like the violin. So even if there were some great players those instruments were marginalized by black musicians. But that it's just a supposition.


----------



## norman bates

stomanek said:


> Interesting though how many jazz players dabble in classical - but few classical players have any interest in jazz - I can only think of nigel kennedy (players of note)
> 
> I believe that talented classical players could adapt well to jazz if they bothered to study it - but I also believe hardly any jazz players could achieve the finesse required to be a top classical perofmrer


well, in this case in your post BELIEVE is the key word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Peiffer

Is as EDaddy said, different kind of abilities. But in jazz there are incredible virtuosos (not that music can be reduced to that, after all players like Monk, Pee Wee Russell, Miles Davis or Louis Armstrong didn't have incredible chops but they were some of the best jazz musicians ever).
But it's true that generally there's a minor care for dynamics.


----------



## papsrus

Complexity, although an imprecise or vague term, can be argued either way, as EDaddy did quite well above.

I don't pretend to understand it, but in the realm of free jazz (another imprecise term) Anthony Braxton developed a method of composition designed to allow broad improvisational freedom within a sort of overarching superstructure. Multiple paths are available to each member of the ensemble at many points within the compositional structure. Complex. 

On the other hand, some jazz is based on fairly rote improvisation around simple chord changes. Not so complex.

A perhaps more interesting question to me is how each music -- jazz and classical -- has developed and changed over the years, a measure of each music's willingness to embrace "complexity" or add new ingredients to the mix. 

In classical the changes seem to be measured over much longer periods of time. It is a well-considered, thoughtful art. 

In jazz, which arose alongside the industrial revolution and the accompanying rapid change in society overall, the music seems to have changed at a breakneck pace since it was birthed from the field chants of the American South -- from the music of New Orleans bordellos, to big band swing, to bebop, to the modal jazz introduced by Miles Davis and Coltrane, to free jazz, to jazz that reaches out to different cultures, such as klezmer and Middle Eastern musics -- the one constant in jazz is its thrust for change. 

I can't speak to the modern art music that has growth from the "classical" tree. Perhaps there's fertile ground there to make some comparisons. The two genres may have some overlap.


----------



## Heliogabo

norman bates said:


> I don't think it's a matter of difficulty in that case. After all there were musicians like Jimmy Giuffre, Buddy De Franco, Tony Scott or Eric Dolphy. But even if it could sound as an absurdity I feel that it was one of those instruments seen by many as a "instruments for white persons", like the violin. So even if there were some great players those instruments were marginalized by black musicians. But that it's just a supposition.


Of course, that´s for what I said: "almost disparition". There are very fine clarinet players in modern and avant-garde jazz (not in be-bop I think, only de Franco, Jimmy hamilton and maybe Scott), aside those you mentioned, Eddie Daniels as well. I´ve read the argument about difficulty in some jazz history book (perhaps Gioia). Maybe it is true what you said, because the golden era of the instrument was that of Swing; among black musicians performing this instrument I only remeber greats Sidney Bechet and Barney Bigard.


----------



## Heliogabo

From Shostakovich to Bernstein, from Milhaud to Boulez, jazz is an undeniable influence in XXth century classical music. Beyond this, jazz is part of the modern culture in its own right. Jazz is a still alive and transforming artmusic form.


----------



## GreenMamba

stomanek said:


> Interesting though how many jazz players dabble in classical - but few classical players have any interest in jazz - I can only think of nigel kennedy (players of note)
> 
> I believe that talented classical players could adapt well to jazz if they bothered to study it - but I also believe hardly any jazz players could achieve the finesse required to be a top classical perofmrer


Andre Previn is one who did both.

But I don't think complexity is simply an issue of difficulty in performing. A work can be structurally simple, but still virtuosic (e.g. a lot of arias).


----------



## Balthazar

Marc-André Hamelin's album _In a State of Jazz_ includes pieces by Friedrich Gulda, Alexis Weissenberg, Nikolai Kapustin, George Antheil, and others.

These straddle the genres of jazz and classical, rendering distinction between the two difficult if not irrelevant. And if they're complex enough for Hamelin, they're complex enough for me.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jazz is more complex rhythmically. For example, there is is no way to simply and clearly indicate the pulse of a common jazz "shuffle" beat with a conventional time signature, unless it is needlessly written as 12/8, which still does not indicate the main four pulses. Western music cannot divide a 'pulse' or beat into three parts and write this in a time signature. This 'three' division came from Africa.

Jazz is less encumbered by tradition and procedure. Jazz players are "working theorists" who use whatever method will do the job, which is to create sound. They have a practical, working approach to music and theory.

Jazz players have to develop an approach to improvising, which will work in many different harmonic situations, and must be able to call on this instantly, and express it through the instrument.

Jazz players have to be able to "think musically," unlike orchestral players. In classical, "thinking" is left up to composers and conductors.

Jazz is of the aural world of the ear, and the performer as composer; classical is from the world of the eye, as recorded on scores, and separates the composer from the performer.


----------



## EDaddy

norman bates said:


> well, in this case in your post BELIEVE is the key word.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Peiffer
> 
> But in jazz there are incredible virtuosos (not that music can be reduced to that, after all players like Monk, Pee Wee Russell, Miles Davis or Louis Armstrong didn't have incredible chops but they were some of the best jazz musicians ever).


Very good point, Norm


----------



## EDaddy

millionrainbows said:


> Jazz is more complex rhythmically. For example, there is is no way to simply and clearly indicate the pulse of a common jazz "shuffle" beat with a conventional time signature, unless it is needlessly written as 12/8, which still does not indicate the main four pulses. Western music cannot divide a 'pulse' or beat into three parts and write this in a time signature. This 'three' division came from Africa.
> 
> Jazz is less encumbered by tradition and procedure. Jazz players are "working theorists" who use whatever method will do the job, which is to create sound. They have a practical, working approach to music and theory.
> 
> Jazz players have to develop an approach to improvising, which will work in many different harmonic situations, and must be able to call on this instantly, and express it through the instrument.
> 
> Jazz players have to be able to "think musically," unlike orchestral players. In classical, "thinking" is left up to composers and conductors.
> 
> Jazz is of the aural world of the ear, and the performer as composer; classical is from the world of the eye, as recorded on scores, and separates the composer from the performer.


I might just add that a lot of jazz, especially more traditional Jazz (Swing, Bop, Hard Bob, Post Bop, etc.), has a required element called _swing_. Swing to is the heartbeat or pulse of Jazz; taking away the swing element would be akin to taking away the conductor from the Classical music making process (That is not to say that all Jazz compositions are shuffles requiring musicians to "swing the groove"; but it's a key ingredient in becoming a true Jazz player). And not every musician can swing, as it is an art form all of its own, and something that has to be mastered before one can even be able to him/herself a Jazz musician. Berkeley School of Music, for example, has entire semester classes devoted to this and they can be quite brutal on the students because, as the inimitable Duke Ellington once said, "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing". If you can't swing it, you ain't got it!

I suspect very few Classical players could swing correctly if their lives depended on it. That is not to say that many -_ if_ any - Jazz players can play Mozart's more challenging piano concertos properly. Or Beethoven or Liszt or Chopin or... (take your pick).

Which takes us back to my original thought that both Classical and Jazz are complex and difficult art forms to master, requiring great skill from the musicians who play them. It's just apples and oranges.


----------



## Blake

Of course I love them both, but Classical will never have the spontaneity of Jazz. Virtually every performance will differ according to how the players ~feel~ the moment. There's a freshness like no other genre. Which alludes to a complexity that can't simply be scored on paper.


----------



## tdc

millionrainbows said:


> Jazz players have to be able to "think musically," *unlike orchestral players*. In classical, "thinking" is left up to composers and conductors.
> 
> Jazz is of the aural world of the ear, and the performer as composer; classical is from the world of the eye, as recorded on scores, and separates the composer from the performer.


I think you bring up some good points, however (I don't know exactly how much thinking is involved for orchestral players), but classical soloists have to do a _lot_ of musical thinking - I've heard teachers stress that after hours of practice the student should feel mentally tired, more so than physically tired as a result of the interpretive process. There are also many classical soloists who improvise. The majority of jazz musicians use musical charts to some extent, so their playing isn't just solely by ear and memory.

I remember reading about Hungarian folk music that has rhythmic qualities that Bartok could not notate using traditional notation - Western notation is actually pretty limited in this area (as are jazz charts). There are in fact many different styles of music where the rhythms cannot be precisely notated (including I would argue many of the rhythmic subtleties classical soloists use).


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> I think you bring up some good points, however (I don't know exactly how much thinking is involved for orchestral players), but classical soloists have to do a _lot_ of musical thinking - I've heard teachers stress that after hours of practice the student should feel mentally tired, more so than physically tired as a result of the interpretive process. There are also many classical soloists who improvise. The majority of jazz musicians use musical charts to some extent, so their playing isn't just solely by ear and memory.
> 
> I remember reading about Hungarian folk music that has rhythmic qualities that Bartok could not notate using traditional notation - Western notation is actually pretty limited in this area (as are jazz charts). *There are in fact many different styles of music where the rhythms cannot be precisely notated (including I would argue many of the rhythmic subtleties classical soloists use).*


That's an important point. Classical music looks metrical on paper, and in ensemble playing rhythmic freedom is limited by the necessity of staying together. But one of the marks of a good classical musician is the ability to employ a controlled, purposeful, expressive rubato. To a great extent rubato is at the heart of interpretation, but the interpreter's rhythmic freedom must be cognizant of the structure and style of the work; the "looseness" of jazz is not generally appropriate - you don't just "take it" and do more or less as you please, except in something like a Baroque cadenza - and striking the right balance between self-expression and respect for the nature of the work as written is an extremely complex and subtle art involving a specific and cultivated "emotional intelligence."

Playing with rhythm is playing with time, and understanding (feeling) how timing interacts with the tensions of harmonic progression and how it serves to communicate a work's structure is central to good music-making. Robert Schumann wrote that the most important thing in performing music is not getting the notes but how you get from one note to another.


----------



## Morimur

millionrainbows said:


> Jazz is more complex rhythmically. For example, there is is no way to simply and clearly indicate the pulse of a common jazz "shuffle" beat with a conventional time signature, unless it is needlessly written as 12/8, which still does not indicate the main four pulses. Western music cannot divide a 'pulse' or beat into three parts and write this in a time signature. This 'three' division came from Africa.
> 
> Jazz is less encumbered by tradition and procedure. Jazz players are "working theorists" who use whatever method will do the job, which is to create sound. They have a practical, working approach to music and theory.
> 
> Jazz players have to develop an approach to improvising, which will work in many different harmonic situations, and must be able to call on this instantly, and express it through the instrument.
> 
> Jazz players have to be able to "think musically," unlike orchestral players. In classical, "thinking" is left up to composers and conductors.
> 
> Jazz is of the aural world of the ear, and the performer as composer; classical is from the world of the eye, as recorded on scores, and separates the composer from the performer.


You give Jazz way too much credit. Classical has developed (and continues to do so) like no other music in the world. Up until the 20th century, rhythm-as understood in Jazz was not a major focal point of the classical tradition. However, who could now possibly argue that western classical music hasn't pushed the envelope in every conceivable facet of composition and musicianship? Modern classical remains at the cutting edge of musical innovation, and this includes rhythm. No other music in the world prizes innovation and complexity as western classical does.


----------



## DaveM

Well, there's jazz and there's jazz isn't there? With more 'traditional' jazz which tends to follow at least somewhat of a thematic format, I can see how it could have its attraction. But improvisational jazz? For the most part I don't get it. It hits me as being repetitive and largely nonsensical with the emphasis on the band players thoroughly enjoying themselves as the priority, not to mention trying to outdo each other with pseudo ultra coolness. That's my story and I'm sticking to it so sue me!


----------



## PlaySalieri

EDaddy said:


> I might just add that a lot of jazz, especially more traditional Jazz (Swing, Bop, Hard Bob, Post Bop, etc.), has a required element called _swing_. Swing to is the heartbeat or pulse of Jazz; taking away the swing element would be akin to taking away the conductor from the Classical music making process (That is not to say that all Jazz compositions are shuffles requiring musicians to "swing the groove"; but it's a key ingredient in becoming a true Jazz player). And not every musician can swing, as it is an art form all of its own, and something that has to be mastered before one can even be able to him/herself a Jazz musician. Berkeley School of Music, for example, has entire semester classes devoted to this and they can be quite brutal on the students because, as the inimitable Duke Ellington once said, "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing". If you can't swing it, you ain't got it!
> 
> *I suspect very few Classical players could swing correctly if their lives depended on it. That is not to say that many - if any - Jazz players can play Mozart's more challenging piano concertos properly. Or Beethoven or Liszt or Chopin or... (take your pick).*
> 
> Which takes us back to my original thought that both Classical and Jazz are complex and difficult art forms to master, requiring great skill from the musicians who play them. It's just apples and oranges.


I think they could play them technically - but they would be lost with interpretation. If a talented pianist like Lang Lang needs consultations with Barenboim - as I understand he has done - to find some way of developing his understanding of Beethoven's piano works - I hardly think a non classical trained but good jazz pianist is going to be up to convincing mature listeners he understands what he is playing.


----------



## norman bates

stomanek said:


> I think they could play them technically - but they would be lost with interpretation. If a talented pianist like Lang Lang needs consultations with Barenboim - as I understand he has done - to find some way of developing his understanding of Beethoven's piano works - I hardly think a non classical trained but good jazz pianist is going to be up to convincing mature listeners *he understands what he is playing.*


good lord do you think that Lang Lang is better or has a better understanding of music of any jazz musician? You must really hate the genre!


----------



## Musicophile

DaveM said:


> Well, there's jazz and there's jazz isn't there? With more 'traditional' jazz which tends to follow at least somewhat of a thematic format, I can see how it could have its attraction. But improvisational jazz? For the most part I don't get it. It hits me as being repetitive and largely nonsensical with the emphasis on the band players thoroughly enjoying themselves as the priority, not to mention trying to outdo each other with pseudo ultra coolness. That's my story and I'm sticking to it so sue me!


What do you call "improvisational" Jazz? Any Jazz worth its name has some element of improvisation to it, otherwise it's called Glenn Miller 

Honestly, I think you're missing out a lot, but probably some people would tell me the same with regards to atonal music (sorry for using the a-word).


----------



## Morimur

norman bates said:


> good lord do you think that Lang Lang is better or has a better understanding of music of any jazz musician? You must really hate the genre!


Yeah, Lang Lang is a horrible example. Howabout Hilary Hahn? She's popular (at least around these parts) and a truly exceptional musician.


----------



## Mahlerian

Musicophile said:


> Honestly, I think you're missing out a lot, but probably some people would tell me the same with regards to atonal music (sorry for using the a-word).


Yep, my reaction to people saying modernist music is "all noise" or "just for the sake of musicians showing off" is _exactly_ the same as others' reactions to people saying similar things about Jazz.


----------



## clavichorder

I am just not as tuned in to jazz as I am to classical on an intellectual level. So I really can't say whether its more complex but I do have a bias geared in that direction, whether true or not.


----------



## PlaySalieri

norman bates said:


> good lord do you think that Lang Lang is better or has a better understanding of music of any jazz musician? You must really hate the genre!


Classical music - most probably - if we are talking about jazz players who havent been classically trained. I dont see why a jazz musician who has spent his life playing jazz would have any idea how to present a mature interpretation of a classical piece. It requires more than ability to play - and not least careful guidance from a classical tutor over the years of developing mastery.


----------



## norman bates

stomanek said:


> Classical music - most probably - if we are talking about jazz players who havent been classically trained. I dont see why a jazz musician who has spent his life playing jazz would have any idea how to present a mature interpretation of a classical piece. It requires more than ability to play - and not least careful guidance from a classical tutor over the years of developing mastery.


to play a classical piece is a thing, to understand it's another. Anyway many jazz musicians have studied classical music (many were pupils of classical composers).
By the way, there are certain jazz players who are noted as classical performers. Richard Davis is a jazz bass player who worked also in pop music but performerd also with Stravinsky and Boulez; Bernard Peiffer played both jazz and classical music (he won the 1st in piano at the Paris conservatory). Eddie Daniels is both a jazz and classical musician. Wynton Marsalis too is known as a performer of classical music, just to make the first examples that I can think of.
I could mention even persons I know personally who have started as classical musicians and then they have made a career playing jazz.


----------



## PlaySalieri

norman bates said:


> to play a classical piece is a thing, to understand it's another. Anyway many jazz musicians have studied classical music (many were pupils of classical composers).
> By the way, there are certain jazz players who are noted as classical performers. Richard Davis is a jazz bass player who worked also in pop music but performerd also with Stravinsky and Boulez; Bernard Peiffer played both jazz and classical music (he won the 1st in piano at the Paris conservatory). Eddie Daniels is both a jazz and classical musician. Wynton Marsalis too is known as a performer of classical music, just to make the first examples that I can think of.
> I could mention even persons I know personally who have started as classical musicians and then they have made a career playing jazz.


never heard of any of those.

as a footnote - I spent 10 years of my life as a classical LP dealer. In all the 100s of collections of classical LPs I saw - at least serious collection of say 500+ - I very rarely saw any jazz LPs in those collections. It was typically 99.8% classical and perhaps one or two that were out of character compared to the rest (possibly bought for the collection owner as a gift)


----------



## norman bates

stomanek said:


> never heard of any of those.


If you've never heard even the name of Wynton Marsalis I wonder how can you can made a comparison between a genre that you love and a genre that you clearly know not very well. Marsalis is probably one of the two or three most famous jazz musicians of the last thirty years. 
Peiffer and Daniels are less famous. Richard Davis is one of the greatest jazz bassists ever (but he recorded also with Frank Sinatra, Van Morrison and Stokowski).



stomanek said:


> as a footnote - I spent 10 years of my life as a classical LP dealer. In all the 100s of collections of classical LPs I saw - at least serious collection of say 500+ - I very rarely saw any jazz LPs in those collections. It was typically 99.8% classical and perhaps one or two that were out of character compared to the rest (possibly bought for the collection owner as a gift)


I believe that, there's a lot of people who use to listen only one thing. There are those who listen pop music and they listen only pop. There are those who listen only metal. There are jazz fans who listen only jazz, and classical music lovers who listen only classical. There are even those who love opera but don't like to listen symphonies, concertos and instrumental music in general. I'm not sure what your point is saying that.


----------



## EDaddy

stomanek said:


> I think they could play them technically - but they would be lost with interpretation. If a talented pianist like Lang Lang needs consultations with Barenboim - as I understand he has done - to find some way of developing his understanding of Beethoven's piano works - I hardly think a non classical trained but good jazz pianist is going to be up to convincing mature listeners he understands what he is playing.


The average classical musician would not know the nuances of the swing feel. They would play it too deliberately, which is not the same as the real deal. However, I agree with everything else you said.


----------



## starthrower

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is? But stomanek doesn't know any jazz musicians, so why make assumptions about their inability to play classical music. Some of us know about Keith Jarrett, Chick Corea, Willie Ruff, and Richard Davis.

The main difference between jazz and classical is that in jazz, the composition is secondary. It's what the performer does with it that is important. Improvisation is the substance of jazz. That's why someone like Louis Armstrong could take any stupid song and turn it into gold. That wouldn't work with classical music. The performer needs a good composition to start with.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Looking at the career of Benny Goodman - who studied 2 years with a classically trained clarinettist - the question of whether jazz musicians can play classical as well must depend on their formative years as musicians - what they studied - and with whom.
The same would go for classical players making forays into Jazz.


----------



## PlaySalieri

starthrower said:


> I'm not sure what the point of this thread is? But stomanek doesn't know any jazz musicians, so why make assumptions about their inability to play classical music. Some of us know about Keith Jarrett, Chick Corea, Willie Ruff, and Richard Davis.
> 
> The main difference between jazz and classical is that in jazz, the composition is secondary. *It's what the performer does with it that is important.* Improvisation is the substance of jazz. That's why someone like Louis Armstrong could take any stupid song and turn it into gold. That wouldn't work with classical music. The performer needs a good composition to start with.


That statement also applies to classical music - though of course the composition is primary.


----------



## PlaySalieri

norman bates said:


> If you've never heard even the name of Wynton Marsalis I wonder how can you can made a comparison between a genre that you love and a genre that you clearly know not very well. Marsalis is probably one of the two or three most famous jazz musicians of the last thirty years.
> Peiffer and Daniels are less famous. Richard Davis is one of the greatest jazz bassists ever (but he recorded also with Frank Sinatra, Van Morrison and Stokowski).
> 
> I believe that, there's a lot of people who use to listen only one thing. There are those who listen pop music and they listen only pop. There are those who listen only metal. There are jazz fans who listen only jazz, and classical music lovers who listen only classical. There are even those who love opera but don't like to listen symphonies, concertos and instrumental music in general. I'm not sure what your point is saying that.


That only a small percentage of serious classical music listeners have any interest in jazz - that's what I'm saying. I also note that sales of jazz (downloads plus album sales) are in long term decline

http://thejazzline.com/news/2015/03/jazz-least-popular-music-genre/

there are some useful comments here too

http://www.jazz.com/jazz-blog/2009/7/7/ugly-news-on-the-jazz-audience


----------



## Guest

I thought this thread was about comparing 'complexity', not about popularity?

(Go elsewhere for _that _argument!)


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> I thought this thread was about comparing 'complexity', not about popularity?
> 
> (Go elsewhere for _that _argument!)


yes well when jazz eventually is listened to no one at all - the complexity argument will become irrelevant


----------



## papsrus

I once read the comment that Miles Davis had awful technique, terrible form. To which the answer came: you don't need good technique or form to play great music.


----------



## norman bates

stomanek said:


> yes well when jazz eventually is listened to no one at all - the complexity argument will become irrelevant


do you think that classical music is listened by more persons?
This is from the article you've posted:

jazz is continuing to fall out of favor with American listeners and *has tied with classical music as the least-consumed music in the U.S*

nothing that I didn't know, it's quite sad for me because I love both genres, but it seems that you have a perception of jazz today as a very little niche (and it's true) while a huge amout people are listening to classical music. I think that we are living in a world where Justin Bieber and Taylor Swift have ten times more listeners that all jazz and classical combined.


----------



## PlaySalieri

norman bates said:


> do you think that classical music is listened by more persons?
> This is from the article you've posted:
> 
> jazz is continuing to fall out of favor with American listeners and *has tied with classical music as the least-consumed music in the U.S*
> 
> nothing that I didn't know, it's quite sad for me because I love both genres, but it seems that you have a perception of jazz today as a very little niche (and it's true) while a huge amout people are listening to classical music. I think that we are living in a world where Justin Bieber and Taylor Swift have ten times more listeners that all jazz and classical combined.


I know that but I believe that jazz will eventually die and classical music will prevail.


----------



## Morimur

norman bates said:


> I think that we are living in a world where Justin Bieber and Taylor Swift have ten times more listeners that all jazz and classical combined.


We're living in hell. No doubt about it.


----------



## PlaySalieri

papsrus said:


> I once read the comment that Miles Davis had awful technique, terrible form. To which the answer came: you don't need good technique or form to play great music.


I agree - you should hear my rendition of beethoven's waldstein sonata


----------



## norman bates

stomanek said:


> I know that but I believe that jazz will eventually die and classical music will prevail.


A lot of great music and art in general has been forgotten in the past, it will happen also in the future.


----------



## Morimur

papsrus said:


> I once read the comment that Miles Davis had awful technique, terrible form.


Really? I don't know anything about playing the trumpet (or any other instrument) but Miles had some great teachers-one would think he, at the very least, had solid technique.


----------



## Morimur

norman bates said:


> A lot of great music and art in general has been forgotten in the past, it will happen also in the future.


I tend to think that truly great art survives and not so great art is forgotten-forever. If classical and jazz do die out, we'll likely be long gone by that time as well.


----------



## norman bates

Morimur said:


> I tend to think that truly great art survives and not so great art is forgotten-forever


I'm not so optimistic about that because I can think of a lot of amazing musicians who are better than the most famous ones and are known by very few persons.
If in the future people thinking of jazz will remember only Miles Davis and Coltrane (and we are already not very far from that) I know that it will be absolutely unfair. As I don't think that the classical period can be reduced to Mozart and Haydn and few other minor figures (and again the perception in not very far from that).
Quality is just one factor in the "durability" of art. Promotion is another one and sometime even more important. Then sometimes it happen that a forgotten giant is rediscovered (a Bach in the classical field, a Herbie Nichols in the jazz field) but I wonder how many Bach and Nichols of the past we don't know anymore.


----------



## papsrus

Morimur said:


> Really? I don't know anything about playing the trumpet (or any other instrument) but Miles had some great teachers-one would think he, at the very least, had solid technique.


I can't say, but judging by some photos of him playing (elbows tight, horn pointed to the floor) I'd guess Miles' form wasn't that great. Listening to his sort of airy tone might lead one to a similar conclusion. Dizzy is another player who "had it all wrong" when it came to technique. But he had something else, for sure.

I suppose the comment was more about how jazz comes from a more raw, earthier, bluesier, certainly less refined place than classical, so comparing the relative chops or skill or "complexity" of classical vs jazz is a bit of an apples to oranges argument.

Jazz doesn't reflect a refined history with a reliance on precision and form. And classical doesn't contain echoes of the field holler or bawdiness of New Orleans bordellos, where the rules of refinement and form were thrown out the window (along with the occasional patron).


----------



## starthrower

Morimur said:


> Really? I don't know anything about playing the trumpet (or any other instrument) but Miles had some great teachers-one would think he, at the very least, had solid technique.


Of course he did. You don't get accepted at Julliard, and then start playing with Charlie Parker before the age of 20 if you have lousy technique.


----------



## PlaySalieri

norman bates said:


> *I'm not so optimistic about that because I can think of a lot of amazing musicians who are better than the most famous ones and are known by very few persons.*
> If in the future people thinking of jazz will remember only Miles Davis and Coltrane (and we are already not very far from that) I know that it will be absolutely unfair. As I don't think that the classical period can be reduced to Mozart and Haydn and few other minor figures (and again the perception in not very far from that).
> Quality is just one factor in the "durability" of art. Promotion is another one and sometime even more important. Then sometimes it happen that a forgotten giant is rediscovered (a Bach in the classical field, a Herbie Nichols in the jazz field) but I wonder how many Bach and Nichols of the past we don't know anymore.


I agree with you there - big names hit the headlines - Vengerov was handed competition wins by his teacher - who had enormous influence over those competitions - and in my view he became unjustly famous - a good violinist at his best with a poor technique but not in the top league - Benedetti gets bookings and signs contracts because she won the bbc comp AND she looks good on a CD cover - same story with lang lang and many others (Nigel Kennedy had Menuhin behind him) who have been in the limelight while better musicians quietly get on with their art in their own way.

But I also think most obscure music is obscure for good reason.


----------



## Guest

stomanek said:


> I know that but I believe that jazz will eventually die and classical music will prevail.


What gives you reason to believe that?


----------



## PlaySalieri

MacLeod said:


> What gives you reason to believe that?


A gut feeling - plus classical music has been going for centuries and jazz is still relatively new - yet interest is on the wane.

Skiffle died - and so will jazz.


----------



## MusicFree

if you took the most complex classical work and most complex work of jazz

what would be the more technical piece


----------



## Mahlerian

MusicFree said:


> if you took the most complex classical work and most complex work of jazz
> 
> what would be the more technical piece


I think it would be difficult to judge.

The term "technical" is generally not used to refer to complexity in classical works, and I'm not sure whether you're referring to complexity in structure, level of difficulty for performance, or some other aspect.

Jazz and classical music are composed in different ways, so I can't imagine a very good and meaningful way of comparing the results.


----------

