# Is Jazz a Superior Live Act Than Classical Music?



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

That has been my personal experience. Classical shows feel too rehearsed and verbatim, I like Classical albums, but I don't NEED to hear it live.

Jazz has all the energy of spontaneity live and on albums, perhaps the only genre to make good albums and be good live.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

_...*to classical music_


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

For me it is. But I expect that will be a minority opinion here. (Ask this question on a jazz forum and you'll get an entirely different set of opinions, I assume.)

Going to a (good) jazz show is a completely unique experience that does not typically attempt to just recreate a work or prior performance. Obviously there are difference of interpretation in classical music too, but not anywhere near what it's like in jazz music where improvisation is so important.

My favorite jazz albums tend to be live albums too. They tend to have a certain vitality to them that studio recordings often lack.

That said, attending classical performances is very important to me too. There's something about the richness of sound and being-present-in-the-moment in a live concert that I never get from a recording.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I would leave out the descriptor "act" for starters. And it's kind of silly to say one of these musical genres is superior to the other. This discussion can only be relevant to specific performances. And even at that it's purely subjective.

If you can experience live music in a good venue with optimum seating it can be a great experience no matter what type of music it is. I've always found the live classical experience to be superior to sitting home listening to a record. Unfortunately, I haven't had a lot of opportunities to go hear top flight jazz musicians in a great venue. But the few times I have it's been very satisfying.

The live chamber music experience may be one of the most satisfying for this listener. Any time I've experienced high caliber musicians in an intimate venue it's always been a great experience.


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

I agree with Starthrower. Seeing either jazz or classical live is so much more rewarding (assuming it's a good performance in a good venue). But each has its own expectations so saying one experience is superior to another seems apples and oranges to me.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

I go to more jazz shows than classical concerts because I think the live experience is more important to the essence of what jazz is than the live experience is to classical. If you never went to a jazz show you'd be missing out on more than if you never went to a classical concert. (In my opinion, of course.)

Edited to add: I should mention that I'm not really talking about the popular conception of a bland-sounding piano trio tinkling in the background at some hotel restaurant, which seems to be what many people identify with jazz.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

apricissimus said:


> I go to more jazz shows than classical concerts because I think the live experience is more important to the essence of what jazz is than the live experience is to classical. If you never went to a jazz show you'd be missing out on more than if you never went to a classical concert. (In my opinion, of course.)
> 
> Edited to add: I should mention that I'm not really talking about the popular conception of a bland-sounding piano trio tinkling in the background at some hotel restaurant, which seems to be what many people identify with jazz.


I assume those around here have a better understanding of Jazz than that!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

starthrower said:


> I would leave out the descriptor "act" for starters. And it's kind of silly to say one of these musical genres is superior to the other. This discussion can only be relevant to specific performances. And even at that it's purely subjective.
> 
> If you can experience live music in a good venue with optimum seating it can be a great experience no matter what type of music it is. I've always found the live classical experience to be superior to sitting home listening to a record. Unfortunately, I haven't had a lot of opportunities to go hear top flight jazz musicians in a great venue. But the few times I have it's been very satisfying.
> 
> The live chamber music experience may be one of the most satisfying for this listener. Any time I've experienced high caliber musicians in an intimate venue it's always been a great experience.


I used act as a mere joke, just to mess with TCers! .


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I've always been attracted to improv in music live. My first favorite group was Dave Matthews Band, and then Phish; both jam. Now Jazz is taking over, and I'm working on my chops, I want to be a Jazz pianist!


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

I never mix the lower art with the highest art,,,so I wouldn't know


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

paulbest said:


> I never mix the lower art with the highest art,,,so I wouldn't know


Oooooo, right in the gut paul!


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

paulbest said:


> I never mix the lower art with the highest art,,,so I wouldn't know


Uri Caine has put out several albums of classical compositions set in a modern jazz-ish idiom. I think they're very interesting.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

apricissimus said:


> Uri Caine has put out several albums of classical compositions set in a modern jazz-ish idiom. I think they're very interesting.


Don't let him get you, he's playing defense.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

There is arguably more nuance to appreciate in terms of dynamics with Classical Music in a live setting.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Jazz is for a night out with drinks and a sexy girl. Classical is a deeply spiritual experience--you really can't compare the two. I still remember vividly hearing Mahler's 9th, every second of it, a truly eventual thing you remember forever.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

1996D said:


> Jazz is for a night out with drinks and a sexy girl. Classical is a deeply spiritual experience--you really can't compare the two. I still remember vividly hearing Mahler's 9th, every second of it, a truly eventual thing you remember forever.


Listen to Coltrane's Love Supreme album, very Spiritual. Both are very Spiritual genres and there is something to appreciate in both. I do like the spontaneity of a Jazz performance though and find it more stimulating than the highly calculated Classical performances.

But that is just my preference.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

1996D said:


> Jazz is for a night out with drinks and a sexy girl. Classical is a deeply spiritual experience...


Really? Damn. I've been doing it all backwards then.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

Classical fans here will just have to take it on faith that some people can get similarly moving and "spiritual" experiences from jazz (and other types of music) that you can get from classical music. (But I get why there would be a particular bias on a classical music forum, so I'm not really complaining.)


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

apricissimus said:


> Classical fans here will just have to take it on faith that some people can get similarly moving and "spiritual" experiences from jazz (and other types of music) that you can get from classical music. (But I get why there would be a particular bias on a classical music forum, so I'm not really complaining.)


I believe when music strikes your values you experience something spiritual. Such values can be having a song that is the expression of the loss of a loved one through the lyrics in a simple 4 chord song, or connecting with the value of musical complexity.

When music clicks with your values, it is a spiritual experience, imo, if this made any sense.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Listen to Coltrane's Love Supreme album, very Spiritual. Both are very Spiritual genres and there is something to appreciate in both. I do like the spontaneity of a Jazz performance though and find it more stimulating than the highly calculated Classical performances.
> 
> But that is just my preference.


Only someone with autism would refer of Love Supreme as spiritual, it's exactly the opposite, it massages the brain like doing math does, exciting and powerful but not emotional. Anyway, I wasn't referring to that, but more in the lines of a Ben Webster or Stan Getz.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Jazz has all the energy of spontaneity live and on albums


there's more to music than just "energy of spontaneity" of course.

jazz has nothing to say, hence its appeal to base instincts, since it has nothing to narrate.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

paulbest said:


> I never mix the lower art with the highest art,,,so I wouldn't know


You're right. Jazz is the higher art.  Fortunately I don't have a closed mind so I mix and match jazz, classical, country and rock with nary a care in the world. There's only two types of music - the stuff you like and the stuff you dont! I ask only one thing of music - that it excites me. Whether or not it's Coltrane, Shostakovich, Punch Brothers or White Stripes, it really doesn't matter. One genre is not a "higher" art than any other. Comparisons are pointless and odious.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Zhdanov said:


> there's more to music than just "energy of spontaneity" of course.
> 
> jazz has nothing to say, hence its appeal to base instincts, since it has nothing to narrate.


In your opinion. You clearly haven't listened to everything the jazz genre has to offer so your sweeping statement has no merit.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

1996D said:


> Only someone with autism would refer of Love Supreme as spiritual, it's exactly the opposite, it massages the brain like doing math does, exciting and powerful but not emotional. Anyway, I wasn't referring to that, but more in the lines of a Ben Webster or Stan Getz.


An appalling thing to say in your first phrase. A Love Supreme is Coltrane at his most emotional and least cerebral. For those that it appeals to, of course. The rest can listen to Webster or Getz with all the concentration they require! :lol:


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

1996D said:


> Jazz is for a night out with drinks and a sexy girl. Classical is a deeply spiritual experience--you really can't compare the two. I still remember vividly hearing Mahler's 9th, every second of it, a truly eventual thing you remember forever.


There's nonsense and then there's utter nonsense. Guess where the first sentence above belongs!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm completely with you Barbebleu!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

The question I'm in my head is, does something need to break routine (calculated action) to be inspired?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Zhdanov said:


> jazz has nothing to say, hence its appeal to base instincts, since it has nothing to narrate.


This is the kind of blatantly racist dismissal that was common 90 years ago by the Nazis.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Only if you like jazz more than classical.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Also, sorry if I offended anyone with my wording of the question, I didn't mean to.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Barbebleu said:


> You're right. Jazz is the higher art.  Fortunately I don't have a closed mind so I mix and match jazz, classical, country and rock with nary a care in the world. There's only two types of music - the stuff you like and the stuff you dont! I ask only one thing of music - that it excites me. Whether or not it's Coltrane, Shostakovich, Punch Brothers or White Stripes, it really doesn't matter. One genre is not a "higher" art than any other. Comparisons are pointless and odious.


I can't believe you wrote that. It's like saying that Einstein and Oppenheimer are the same, when one was a creative genius and the other wasn't.

It's the same with music, a select few composers created or discovered the world of music for others to then use. That's why it's called a culture, because men build on each others achievements. Jazz is an afterbirth of classical music and it owes everything to it, or better said to the genius of relatively few composers.


----------



## DBLee (Jan 8, 2018)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Only if you like jazz more than classical.


Not necessarily. I like the two about evenly, but with jazz you are witnessing spontaneous composition. You are witnessing musical occurrences that will never occur again because they *can* never occur again. All the freshness, spontaneity, and ephemerality of the event makes every jazz performance something special in a way that it is difficult for classical to achieve.

That said, live classical performances take place all the time that far surpass 99% of jazz performances. They can have their own magic and transcendence too, in a different sort of way.

So really, it is impossible to answer the question posed in the thread title with a blanket "yes" or "no."


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Also, sorry if I offended anyone with my wording of the question, I didn't mean to.


"I mean no disrespect, but . . . "


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

1996D said:


> Jazz is an afterbirth of classical music and it owes everything to it, or better said to the genius of relatively few composers.


The rhythmic aspects of jazz are not strictly derived from classical music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Listen to Coltrane's Love Supreme album, very Spiritual. Both are very Spiritual genres and there is something to appreciate in both. I do like the spontaneity of a Jazz performance though and find it more stimulating than the highly calculated Classical performances.
> 
> But that is just my preference.


Agree with the thread title overall. Here is an album with some great passagework to rival a lot of Classical, in my opinion. I absolutely abhor "A Love Supreme". Really didn't like the direction Coltrane took after Giant Steps.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

starthrower said:


> This is the kind of blatantly racist dismissal that was common 90 years ago by the Nazis.


so nazis were right?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

1996D said:


> I can't believe you wrote that. It's like saying that Einstein and Oppenheimer are the same, when one was a creative genius and the other wasn't.
> 
> It's the same with music, a select few composers created or discovered the world of music for others to then use. That's why it's called a culture, because men build on each others achievements. Jazz is an afterbirth of classical music and it owes everything to it, or better said to the genius of relatively few composers.


Jazz owes little or nothing to tight-a**ed classical music. It's rooted in American Black culture and the soil of this continent and not the music, soil and culture of Europe - this is basic cultural history - and it's accepted that way around the world by those who understand the spirit of spontaneous creativity that it represents. There is just no one type of jazz just like there's just no one type of European classical music. There are a million shades of color in both, from the worst to the best, and the genres are not mutually exclusive of each other because genius and great music can be found in both.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Larkenfield said:


> Jazz owes little or nothing to tight-a**ed classical music. It's rooted in American Black culture and the soil of this continent and not the music, soil and culture of Europe - this is basic cultural history - and it's accepted that way around the world by those who understand the spirit of spontaneous creativity behind it.


Well, yeah but . . . saxophone, trumpet, clarinet, piano, double bass . . .


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

My experience with jazz and classical concerts is, jazz concerts offer more chances to interact/react to what is happening. When something special happens, a good audience will respond. The musicians will also respond to the audience. In other words, there is a reason for me to be there. 

In the classical concerts I've been to, I sit in the dark, look at the back of the conductor and watch the orchestra stare at their music, and I am supposed to be completely silent until the baton drops. Then I politely clap and, at the end, do the expected standing ovation with the rest of the crowd. There are times I want to look around and see if anyone just got what happened, and all there is is a sea of stone faces. It doesn't really matter if I'm there or not. Since my wife can't attend these because of a chronic cough and I end up going alone, I've stopped going to classical concerts. I'd rather spend that money on a recording that I can possess and return to. 

I guess I'm a terrible person, and I really feel bad about it, but I'd rather go to a jazz concert than a classical concert.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

1996D said:


> Jazz is for a night out with drinks and a sexy girl.


an hour ago I was listening to this jazz album. This is is your idea for a night out with drinks and a sexy girl?





(and by the way, there's a whole subgenre called "spiritual jazz").

Back to the question of the topic, I hate to generalize. Sure jazz can be great live... and it can be awful for the very nature of improvisation.
With classical music since the music is written and reharsed it's more difficult to listen a truly terrible performance.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Zhdanov said:


> there's more to music than just "energy of spontaneity" of course.
> 
> jazz has nothing to say, hence its appeal to base instincts, since it has nothing to narrate.


good lord, it's since the thirties under fascism and nazists that I didn't read this kind of opinions.

edit: lol, I've read now the comment of Starthrower.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Zhdanov said:


> so nazis were right?


I'm not interested in any further discussion with you.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

Larkenfield said:


> Jazz owes little or nothing to tight-a**ed classical music. It's rooted in American Black culture and the soil of this continent and not the music, soil and culture of Europe - this is basic cultural history - and it's accepted that way around the world by those who understand the spirit of spontaneous creativity behind it.


I think that's an overexageration. The harmonies of jazz were rooted in Western/European traditions, and mostly still are. All American music (except possibly for Native American music, which I know nothing about) is greatly influenced by European music. That includes African-American music.

That doesn't take anything away from the creativity of jazz musicians though.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Aside from the music, it's interesting to compare the vibe at jazz vs classical events.

While CM audiences may have a rep for blue hair and stone faces, that's not the case with early music / baroque events, which can be as casual as jazz shows in my experience.

Even more interesting to compare the supporting cast - ticket sellers, doormen, ushers, etc. This is where jazz venues can be rudely unwelcoming at times. Meanwhile Davies Hall, where I attend CM events, always has an inclusive, accommodating atmosphere. 

Back to music, attending the same local orchestra / conductor offering can get rather bland on repetition. So one has to visit other cities or attend concerts featuring guest orchestras and conductors who come to your town. Not so true with jazz, or even chamber music, with venues featuring a variety of different artists on their calendars. Chamber events also tend to be more like jazz and EM events.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

In jazz there's a strong tradition of reinterpreting old "standards" that have been recorded and played a million times, but jazz still dwells less in the past than classical music does. Sometimes is feels like 3/4 of an orchestra's programming are the same old warhorses that get performed over and over. Classical concert halls are sometimes referred to as music museums. You're much more likely to hear something new and forward-looking at a jazz show.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I'll go listen to any good live music if the venue is comfortable. Unfortunately, one of the local clubs in my town that books a lot of interesting music probably wouldn't appeal to anyone over 30. The bathrooms make some garbage dumpsters look appealing. But any place I can sit comfortably and listen is fine by me. School and college performance Halls are great.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

apricissimus said:


> In jazz there's a strong tradition of reinterpreting old "standards" that have been recorded and played a million times, but jazz still dwells less in the past than classical music does. Sometimes is feels like 3/4 of an orchestra's programming are the same old warhorses that get performed over and over. Classical concert halls are sometimes referred to as music museums. You're much more likely to hear something new and forward-looking at a jazz show.


The jazz world is huge, and there are hundreds of groups playing new material. I tend to stick with chamber music as far as live classical. There's more interesting repertoire being performed.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Manxfeeder said:


> My experience with jazz and classical concerts is, jazz concerts offer more chances to interact/react to what is happening. When something special happens, a good audience will respond. The musicians will also respond to the audience. In other words, there is a reason for me to be there.
> 
> In the classical concerts I've been to, I sit in the dark, look at the back of the conductor and watch the orchestra stare at their music, and I am supposed to be completely silent until the baton drops. Then I politely clap and, at the end, do the expected standing ovation with the rest of the crowd. There are times I want to look around and see if anyone just got what happened, and all there is is a sea of stone faces. It doesn't really matter if I'm there or not. Since my wife can't attend these because of a chronic cough and I end up going alone, I've stopped going to classical concerts. I'd rather spend that money on a recording that I can possess and return to.
> 
> I guess I'm a terrible person, and I really feel bad about it, but I'd rather go to a jazz concert than a classical concert.


Occasional limited laughter at classical concerts is allowed, and welcome, if something is humorous. This and other audience reactions are more permissible in opera. But, no, cries of "Yeah!", foot-stomping, or other noisy reactions aren't welcome, they would ruin things. Audience participation does not enhance classical music.

This seems to fit classical music as being something that requires deep concentration. Maybe it's something more fragile than jazz or pop, which are more impervious. For one thing, the performers are often miked at non-classical concerts, giving them the advantage of power.

I concede that when you turn around it looks peculiar to see people withholding their reactions, not even moving to the beat - I allow myself to do this in a subtle way that I hope is not disturbing to my neighbors. Regardless of how they look, they must enjoy the experience since they keep coming back.

I disagree that your presence makes no difference at a live event just because you're not allowed to be more demonstrative. I think the performers can feel the audience's energy if they are connecting.

How would you like to see classical audiences behave instead?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Agree with the thread title overall. Here is an album with some great passagework to rival a lot of Classical, in my opinion. I absolutely abhor "A Love Supreme". Really didn't like the direction Coltrane took after Giant Steps.


Abhor Love Supreme??? To each their own, though.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Open Book said:


> How would you like to see classical audiences behave instead?


The classical hall is structured for the audience to be silent and passive, so the atmosphere puts you in that mindset. I would like to at least hear gasps, see heads turning in shock/revelation, just something to make the experience communal, to make it worth getting out at night and paying for parking and paying the ticket price and getting home later than I want to.

Chamber music has been mentioned, and I do admit smaller ensembles are interesting to watch, because the members interact with each other, and they usually know the music well enough to relax and be in the moment. I remember seeing the Kronos Quartet, and the cellist started her 200-bar minimalist ostinato by throwing her head back and closing her eyes while the others scrambled to keep their rhythms in sync. It gave me an appreciation for what the music was about.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Abhor Love Supreme??? To each their own, though.


Another thing I feel bad about: I've listened to A Love Supreme once a year for several decades, and it still hasn't clicked.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> The classical hall is structured for the audience to be silent and passive, so the atmosphere puts you in that mindset. I would like to at least hear gasps, see heads turning in shock/revelation, just something to make the experience communal


it must be said that you can hear more people coughing in a concert of classical music than in all other music genres combined.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

apricissimus said:


> Edited to add: I should mention that I'm not really talking about the popular conception of a bland-sounding piano trio tinkling in the background at some hotel restaurant, which seems to be what many people identify with jazz.





1996D said:


> Jazz is for a night out with drinks and a sexy girl. Classical is a deeply spiritual experience--you really can't compare the two. I still remember vividly hearing Mahler's 9th, every second of it, a truly eventual thing you remember forever.


It would seem that 1996D is one of those that believes jazz only fits the stereotype mentioned in your comment above.

And you are correct, the misconceptions about jazz on this forum is disappointing.

There are so many genres and subgenres in jazz, that encompass so much. They range from fiery (Post bop, fusion) to contemplative (chamber jazz) or laid back, from simple forms to extremely complex (fusion, jazz-metal, chamber jazz, M-BASS, contemporary big band), to highly composed to completely free, etc, etc, etc.

As with you, I see more live jazz performances than classical, and while I do not agree that they are superior to classical, there is a lot to be said about the "seat of the pants" experience of an improviser "composing" in the moment. As well as the improvised interplay between the different musicians.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Didn't say it in a negative way whatsoever, I absolutely love jazz nights, but they have to be social: never been to a live jazz performance without a date. With classical it's the exact opposite, a complete solitary experience, a connection with God and the composer.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

1996D said:


> Didn't say it in a negative way whatsoever, I absolutely love jazz nights, but they have to be social: never been to a live jazz performance without a date. With classical it's the exact opposite, a complete solitary experience, a connection with God and the composer.


Listen to Black Saint and sinner lady.


----------



## Minor Sixthist (Apr 21, 2017)

Classical performances might have the potential to be less "verbatim" than you suggest. Maybe it's easier to realize from within the orchestra itself, because you have the background of how every preceding rehearsal has gone, but there's never a performance that has exactly imitated one of its rehearsals. Even in the best of the best of orchestras, it's still an "anything can happen" scenario, and conductors can do a lot to make one single performance of one single piece much different from any other by putting essentially infinitely many of their own little spins on moments in the music. And imagine how many different combinations of entire performances there could possibly be if every moment depends on how every other moment has gone to that point. This is truly one of the things that makes performing so much fun.

Now obviously in classical the conductor can't literally start improvising, but there's a whole lot of breathing room with tempos, gestures, styles...any number of things.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Zhdanov said:


> there's more to music than just "energy of spontaneity" of course.
> 
> jazz has nothing to say, hence its appeal to base instincts, since it has nothing to narrate.


Nonsense. Fully improvised jazz can be great. One of my favorites live was Vyacheslav Ganelin's trio. I heard them in Pittsburgh. They could develop large scale structures improvising with the language of Prokofiev, Stravinsky and Shostakovich. Long term narrative over 30 minutes. For the super impatient, start at 23:00


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I prefer classical music to jazz, so for me the answer to the OP is no. That said something like this does look like a lot of fun to see live:


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


>


disgusting, outright disgusting, that.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Zhdanov said:


> disgusting, outright disgusting, that.


Kind of an extreme reaction, don't you think?  What do you find disgusting about it?


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> Kind of an extreme reaction, don't you think?  What do you find disgusting about it?


And here I was praying no one would ask . . .


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

These days I actually enjoy, moreso than Jazz or Classical, a certain genre I can't really find a name for.

It's similar to instrumental background music, where you might have natural symphonic instruments, or instead ethnic drums, flutes, woodwinds, but it's much more _detached_ in structure like a great thematic contemporary symphony -- emotionally-developed and thematically creative. It's the perfect genre for building a diversity of adventurous melodic developments without overbearing them like Classical does.

The best aspect it offers is a kind of 3-dimensional minimalism with a 4-dimensional complexity, whereas Jazz and Classical often get too muddled in the 3rd dimension, over-forcing the art of expression.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Manxfeeder said:


> My experience with jazz and classical concerts is, jazz concerts offer more chances to interact/react to what is happening. When something special happens, a good audience will respond. The musicians will also respond to the audience. In other words, there is a reason for me to be there.
> 
> In the classical concerts I've been to, I sit in the dark, look at the back of the conductor and watch the orchestra stare at their music, and I am supposed to be completely silent until the baton drops. Then I politely clap and, at the end, do the expected standing ovation with the rest of the crowd. There are times I want to look around and see if anyone just got what happened, and all there is is a sea of stone faces. It doesn't really matter if I'm there or not. Since my wife can't attend these because of a chronic cough and I end up going alone, I've stopped going to classical concerts. I'd rather spend that money on a recording that I can possess and return to.
> 
> I guess I'm a terrible person, and I really feel bad about it, but I'd rather go to a jazz concert than a classical concert.


I almost always get a connection with the conductor and the musicians without having to scream or anything... If you have something to add your energy will be felt and you'll influence the room.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Ethereality said:


> The best aspect it offers is a kind of 3-dimensional minimalism with a 4-dimensional complexity, whereas Jazz and Classical often get too muddled in the 3rd dimension, over-forcing the art of expression.


sorry but...


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

1996D said:


> I almost always get a connection with the conductor and the musicians without having to scream or anything... If you have something to add your energy will be felt and you'll influence the room.


I'm not sure how that works in a dark room with people sitting quietly, some bored, some attentive. Maybe I've just been to the wrong concerts.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Manxfeeder said:


> I'm not sure how that works in a dark room with people sitting quietly, some bored, some attentive. Maybe I've just been to the wrong concerts.


Some are bored, some are receptive, and some know the piece by heart and help direct it as they feel it--you're in a large room filled with conflicting emotions. It's metaphysical, like how you can sense someone's energy and emotions without looking at them.

I suppose only some people have the sensitivity but conductors and musicians very often do.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Manxfeeder said:


> I'm not sure how that works in a dark room with people sitting quietly, some bored, some attentive. Maybe I've just been to the wrong concerts.


You can't help feeling what you feel, I guess. I understand the desire for a communal reaction. I just don't know how audiences can be demonstrative during the concert without interfering with it. It doesn't work with classical music.

I attend the concert series of a suburban symphony orchestra and they have a solution. After the concerts refreshments are served and there is a question and answer session led by the music director with the instrumental soloist as guest. Questions from the audience are taken. People sit at large round tables to eat and conversation usually flows. Only about 10% of the audience stays for these things, but they are fun, informative, and involving.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Open Book said:


> I attend the concert series of a suburban symphony orchestra and they have a solution. After the concerts refreshments are served and there is a question and answer session led by the music director with the instrumental soloist as guest. Questions from the audience are taken. People sit at large round tables to eat and conversation usually flows. Only about 10% of the audience stays for these things, but they are fun, informative, and involving.


That sounds like an innovative way to get people involved. But doing it after the concert puts it pretty late in the evening, so I can see why people don't hang around. Our symphony used to have a 30-minute preconcert meeting like that where the conductor talked about what was about to be played. Maybe they still do.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Manxfeeder said:


> That sounds like an innovative way to get people involved. But doing it after the concert puts it pretty late in the evening, so I can see why people don't hang around. Our symphony used to have a 30-minute preconcert meeting like that where the conductor talked about what was about to be played. Maybe they still do.


Yeah, my region's orchestra has a pre-concert non-interactive talk as well - that music director works pretty hard. It pays off in a large and loyal audience. It is weird to be drinking coffee at 10 PM at the post-concert Q&A, I admit, but it's fun and the traffic is gone by the time it's over. People who don't stay probably just aren't interested.

It is great when a music experience is shared. Too bad your wife can't go, she is considerate to stay home with her cough. With classical music it's hard to find people to share it with because it's kind of a rare interest.

I agree with what you say about chamber music feeling more intimate and more shared just because the players listen to each other more and the smaller venue allows you to see that.


----------

