# Vocal Classical music, Vocal Non-Classical music?



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Which do you prefer?

The results of the previous poll are (so far) quite one-sided. Let's see if restricting to vocal music (music where the human voice is a prominent feature) changes anything.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Vocal classical music because of the great masses and oratorios.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

I'm still voting for classical, and without any regrets. I'm yet to listen to something in non-classical that (to me) can even come close to a Bach's Mass in B minor, a Beethoven's Ninth Symphony or a Wagner's Parsifal.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Give me Blues over opera any day and twice on Sunday.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> Give me Blues over opera any day and twice on Sunday.


I don't know much of Blues yet. Could you please recommend me something from the genre that in your opinion is as good for you as the best operas?


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

I like a lot of easy-listening and popular country songs. Lounge singers like Frank Sinatra and Dean 
Martin have wonderful phrasing. Country singers such as Juice Newton and Emmylou Harris sing those sad country songs 
with a lot of heart.

That being said, there is vocal music in classical that (for me) just can't be matched by any other genre, such as:

Barber's "Knoxville: Summer of 1915" (Leontyne Price or Eleanor Stebber); Barber's "Dover Beach" (Dietrich Fischer-Diskau, Samuel Barber himself a good singer, also made his own version); Britten's "Serenade for Tenor, Horn, & Strings" (Peter Pears), Mahler's "Song of the Wayfarer" (Many great versions); and Richard Strauss' "Four Last Songs" (Leontyne Price)

That's just for openers...


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Allerius said:


> I don't know much of Blues yet. Could you please recommend me something from the genre that in your opinion is as good for you as the best operas?


These for a start:

Robert Johnson - King of the Delta Blues Singers
Muddy Waters - Folk Blues
Blind Willie Johnson - The Complete Recordings
Skip James - Complete Early Recordings


----------



## Dick Johnson (Apr 14, 2020)

Easy choice. Voted for classical because of a love of opera, masses, and (to a lesser extent) oratorios. My listening is 90% opera, 5% classical non-vocal, 5% popular/rock. I was one of the one’s that had voted for Pet Sounds in the prior thread - that was mostly due to a greater appreciation specifically for Brian Wilson compared to Schubert’s songs. As much as I love both opera and Schubert’s instrumental work, I just have never learned to appreciate the German Romantic lieder.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Allerius said:


> I'm yet to listen to something in non-classical that (to me) can even come close to a Bach's Mass in B minor, a Beethoven's Ninth Symphony or a Wagner's Parsifal.


And you will never hear ANY non-classical come remotely close to ANY classical...light years apart...and that goes for instrumental music too.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Both, no question about it .


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Haydn70 said:


> And you will never hear ANY non-classical come remotely close to ANY classical...light years apart...and that goes for instrumental music too.


Um... there's a lot of bad classical out there...

Are you really trying to say Keith Emerson's Piano Concerto is "light years" ahead of _Tarkus_?


----------



## ManuelMozart95 (Sep 29, 2018)

I agree that as a whole the best of Classical music is unmatched by popular music. But I wouldn't say any Classical music is better than any non Classical music, that's nonsense.
I don't even consider someone like Rossini being necessarily superior to someone like Miles Davis or even Paul Mccartney. They're more or less on the same level and I say this as an Opera fan.

If we talk about the best of Classical music like Bach, Beethoven, Schubert or even the best of Verdi, Puccini, etc then yes, I have yet to listen to something non Classical that is better.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Looking at the highlights (say 10-20 favourites in each genre), I'd go for classical here. Looking at the complete body of works I'd go for non-classical here.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

I probably prefer vocal classical music, altough there are masterpieces in non classical music too.

Duke Ellington - Come Sunday





Lucy Reed - Lazy Afternoon





Nat King Cole - Stardust





Robert Wyatt - Sea song





Odetta - Sometimes I feel like a motherless child





Lonnie Johnson - Dark was the night





Tim Buckley - Love from room 109 at the Islander (On Pacific Coast Highway)





Dorival Caymmi - A lenda do Abaetè


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Again, as a human being, I enjoy hearing other human beings sing (to me) through the widest possible aperture and range of vocal types, accents, languages, genres. Hence I vote in this strictly binary poll for non-classical. Thus I can hear Paul Robeson singing _Jerusalem_ and _Deep River_; all of Rock and Pop's essentially all-vocal oeuvre; the Blues (Luther Allison singing _Watching You_); the musics of Africa, the Islamic world, Israel's unique Shoshana Damari in song; shape-note singing; and of course my beloved cante flamenco. And we've hardly begun......


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Haydn70 said:


> And you will never hear ANY non-classical come remotely close to ANY classical...light years apart...and that goes for instrumental music too.


Like my own post (and everybody else's) the essence and quintessence of subjectivity in esthetics.........


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Haydn70 said:


> And you will never hear ANY non-classical come remotely close to ANY classical...light years apart...and that goes for instrumental music too.


you're so incredibly wrong about it.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

norman bates said:


> you're so incredibly wrong about it.


Wrong about what, exactly? I've come to learn that Classical is the most advanced in terms of composition, and is light years apart from other stuff. Jazz is equivalent in terms of instrumental technique. I tend to view stuff like Rock and other genres as a form of minimalism compared to Classical, but still find a lot to enjoy about it, especially Blues. I feel Hip Hop is undeservedly bashed compared to other forms of Popular Music. It's above a lot of Pop.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> Wrong about what, exactly? I've come to learn that Classical is the most advanced in terms of composition, and is light years apart from other stuff. Jazz is equivalent in terms of instrumental technique. I tend to view stuff like Rock and other genres as a form of minimalism compared to Classical, but still find a lot to enjoy about it, especially Blues. I feel Hip Hop is undeservedly bashed compared to other forms of Popular Music. It's above a lot of Pop.


he's incredibly wrong exactly about what he wrote: "And you will never hear ANY non-classical come remotely close to ANY classical...light years apart...and that goes for instrumental music too." There's classical music that is just not that great (or even terrible classical music) or interesting, and non classical music that is very creative and sophisticated.
And to say that "jazz is equivalent in terms of instrumental technique" is basically reducing a genre that produced incredible music to just showpiece of virtuosism, which is not (by the way, in terms of technique a lot of metal, country, flamenco, brazilian music and other genres are extremely hard to play, but technique does not say anything about the value of music).


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> Again, as a human being, I enjoy hearing other human beings sing (to me) through the widest possible aperture and range of vocal types, accents, languages, genres. Hence I vote in this strictly binary poll for non-classical. Thus I can hear Paul Robeson singing _Jerusalem_ and _Deep River_; all of Rock and Pop's essentially all-vocal oeuvre; the Blues (Luther Allison singing _Watching You_); the musics of Africa, the Islamic world, Israel's unique Shoshana Damari in song; shape-note singing; and of course my beloved cante flamenco. And we've hardly begun......


I really enjoy Paul Robeson and his prolific repertoire of Gospel, Opera, Broadway, and international folk songs (sung is English, Russian, Yiddish, Chinese, etc.). Robeson's deep-bass rendition of lullaby songs _Cradle Song_ and _All Through the Night_; both come across as super-masculine, but also very tender, nurturing, and heart-felt.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

norman bates said:


> he's incredibly wrong exactly about what he wrote: "And you will never hear ANY non-classical come remotely close to ANY classical...light years apart...and that goes for instrumental music too." There's classical music that is just not that great (or even terrible classical music) or interesting, and non classical music that is very creative and sophisticated.
> And to say that "jazz is equivalent in terms of instrumental technique" is basically reducing a genre that produced incredible music to just showpiece of virtuosism, which is not (by the way, in terms of technique a lot of metal, country, flamenco, brazilian music and other genres are extremely hard to play, but technique does not say anything about the value of music).


But how do you know he was putting Classical on a pedestal on that quote alone? It could mean the aesthetics, or instrumentation are light years apart. Or that Classical sucks compared to the other stuff (ok, that could be ruled out). I wasn't really judging the quality of Jazz other than the instrumental technique in my post.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

These cross-genre polls are silly, especially on a classical music forum. Obviously, if the same poll were put on a non-classical forum, classical would not win and the opinions would be just as dismissive towards it by the non-classical fans.

So, vent all you want - it's silly to argue over. We like what we like. And the arguments that present themselves as "objective" are the silliest of all. Silly.

Of course, YMMV.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> But how do you know he was putting Classical on a pedestal on that quote alone? It could mean the aesthetics, or instrumentation are light years apart. Or that Classical sucks compared to the other stuff (ok, that could be ruled out). I wasn't really judging the quality of Jazz other than the instrumental technique in my post.


Phil why are you doing the lawyer? I think it's pretty obvious what he meant. Even because aesthetics and instrumentation of classical music have been largely used in non classical music too.

This is a bossanova song (and this version is a masterpiece by the way):





and many of the examples I posted in the previous page too shows the influence of classical music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

norman bates said:


> Phil why are you doing the lawyer? I think it's pretty obvious what he meant. Even because aesthetics and instrumentation of classical music have been largely used in non classical music too.


Because it wasn't clear (still not to me) what exactly you were disagreeing to. I suspect he means apart as in degree of composition and I think there is no doubt that it's true. If he took that further to mean overall quality then that's pretty arguable.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> Because it wasn't clear (still not to me) what exactly you were disagreeing to. I suspect he means apart as in degree of composition and I think there is no doubt that it's true. If he took that further to mean overall quality then that's pretty arguable.


it depends what you mean with "degree of composition". If we're talking about form and development probably it's true (altough my knowledge of gagaku, gamelan, carnatic music, maqam and other genres is extremely limited so I should not express an opinion about it), in terms of harmonic or rhythmic sophistication, or in creativity of arrangements non classical music can be extremely sophisticated, and in those terms there are non classical songs that are way more complex than classical arias or lieder (especially looking at classical music composed before the twentieth century).
And I don't know how you don't understand what I was disagreeing with: "You will never hear ANY non-classical come remotely close to ANY classical...light years apart" means that even the best non classical music is way worse in quality than even the worst classical music piece ever composed. 
Which is exactly what I think is so wrong that I don't even know where to start.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

norman bates said:


> This is a bossanova song (and this version is a masterpiece by the way):


That clip is fantastic! I remember finding it a while back and then forgetting about it. Thanks for reminding me of it. Btw, the influence has gone both ways, especially with Brazilian music: Villa-Lobos, for example, used many Brazilian folk idioms in his music. As did Bartok, Dvorak, Copland, and many others.

But for my money, Classical music presents only one aspect of the music human beings create and have created. It is one small corner of a very large and many-colored tapestry, one in which I find more variety and sophistication than the Western European Classical music tradition.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

I voted vocal non classical. If the question was about music in general, I would vote classical, but for VOCAL music, I think non-classical sounds way more natural, more pleasant, with more freedom of emotional expression, and perhaps most importantly it's often authentic artistic expression of performer, who in many cases is the author of the song... it's their true voice.

Of course this is true for GOOD non-classical music, not mass produced hits.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> That clip is fantastic! I remember finding it a while back and then forgetting about it. Thanks for reminding me of it. Btw, the influence has gone both ways, especially with Brazilian music: Villa-Lobos, for example, used many Brazilian folk idioms in his music. As did Bartok, Dvorak, Copland, and many others.


not to mention that certain classical composers wrote also non classical music (like Kurt Weill, Vernon Duke, Gerswhin, Toru Takemitsu, Radames Gnattali, many film composers from Bernard Herrman to Morricone)


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

ZJovicic said:


> I voted vocal non classical. If the question was about music in general, I would vote classical, but for VOCAL music, I think non-classical sounds way more natural, more pleasant, with more freedom of emotional expression, and perhaps most importantly it's often authentic artistic expression of performer, who in many cases is the author of the song... it's their true voice.
> 
> Of course this is true for GOOD non-classical music, not mass produced hits.


Well, yeah. I don't include music written purely for commercial reasons when I talk about non-classical music.

Flamenco, Fado, Romani, American folk forms, jazz, African, Indian peninsula, Middle Eastern and the Arabic peninsula, eastern European, klezmer, Slavic, Baltic, Mediterranean, Asian. All these regions have vernacular musics that are diverse, expressive, and sophisticated.

Now, what is interesting is most vernacular world music is create by colored skinned people whereas European classical music is created by white people. Is it any coincidence that the white classical music community thinks its music is better than the rest?


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> Now, what is interesting is most vernacular world music is create by colored skinned people whereas European classical music is created by white people. Is it any coincidence that the white classical music community thinks its music is better than the rest?


It was only a matter of time until that card was played.


----------



## 8j1010 (Aug 29, 2020)

I had to choose classical because of, like ORigel said, the masses and oratorios. Even genres like Lieder I enjoy more than non-classical music.


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

These cross-genre polls don't make much sense to me, but I will say that non-classical vocalists make much of my favorite non-classical music. I really enjoy Frank Sinatra, Nat King Cole, Andy Williams, Johnny Mathis, Mel Torme, Billie Holiday, Dionne Warwick, Sara Vaughan, Dinah Washington, Dusty Springfield, and a few other jazz and lounge singers. I also like a lot of singers of Mongolian and Vietnamese folk and popular music (whom I won't name as the names probably wouldn't be known to many). I do like many instrumentalists in the jazz/lounge and world folk/pop genres as well, but I have to say that non-classical vocalists hold their own against my favorite classical vocalists. I love how my favorite non-classical vocalists' personal interpretations of songs come across, how much they put their hearts into it and how their personalities pervade the music.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

I would would rather listen to Schubert’s or Brahms’ Lieder for the rest of my life than any non-classical music.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Waldesnacht said:


> I would would rather listen to Schubert's or Brahms' Lieder for the rest of my life than any non-classical music.


With a name like "Waldesnacht" that's very understandable.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I came to classical only after I had significant experience with non-classical musics: blues, jazz, country and r&b. I grew up in Louisiana and this was the music all around and any working musician knew these styles like the back of his hand. I also grew up in a area with a majority black population. I learned most of my musical skills playing with black musicians, and creole and cajun bands. The music was transmitted orally, hardly ever written down. A musician couldn't make it without having a good ear and able to pick up complicated music after hearing it one or two times.

When I got into music school I found out that the classes which were difficult for the students with only a classical background like ear training and harmonic analysis were easy for me. After years of learning by ear, I was able to complete the exercises quickly and accurately since they were much easier than the kind of music I had been playing for years.

I did come to respect classical music compositions, but I also came to know of the bias against non-classical music by most of the teachers and students. I thought this arrogant of them since the musicians I knew from jazz, and other genres, were overall better musicians than the average classical musician.

I don't rate non-classical better than classical, but I know that classical is certainly not better than non-classical. 

They come from different traditions is all. Classical music also has an advantage of having been written down, so we have a long history of works form previous periods. I am sure there was vernacular music from early periods as well, but because there is no written record, much of it has been lost - or through transmission, changed into what we know as folk forms.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

norman bates said:


> it depends what you mean with "degree of composition". If we're talking about form and development probably it's true (altough my knowledge of gagaku, gamelan, carnatic music, maqam and other genres is extremely limited so I should not express an opinion about it), in terms of harmonic or rhythmic sophistication, or in creativity of arrangements non classical music can be extremely sophisticated, and in those terms there are non classical songs that are way more complex than classical arias or lieder (especially looking at classical music composed before the twentieth century).
> And I don't know how you don't understand what I was disagreeing with: "You will never hear ANY non-classical come remotely close to ANY classical...light years apart" means that even the best non classical music is way worse in quality than even the worst classical music piece ever composed.
> Which is exactly what I think is so wrong that I don't even know where to start.


Yup, I agree Jazz has harmonic sophistication, though not necessarily complexity.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I had to vote not classical in this poll. The world of non classical music is simply much more vast and varied. We have a fairy tale in my country about a king, who prohibited the inhabitans of his realm to sing. It was a sad kingdom. And the best classical music is derived from folk tunes anyway


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Waldesnacht said:


> I would would rather listen to Schubert's or Brahms' Lieder for the rest of my life than any non-classical music.


Chants d'Auvergne might be better than any tunes by Schubert and Brahms, and it is just a collection of folk tunes from one small region in France.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Jacck said:


> And the best classical music is derived from folk tunes anyway


Thanks Jacck...I needed a good laugh and this ridiculous statement provided it.

Amazing, just amazing...where do you get this stuff?????


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> Yup, I agree Jazz has harmonic sophistication, though not necessarily complexity.


Sophistication is already a way to say complexity.
Actually one of the best ways to make something complex in my opinion because I think it implies also an ability for subtraction, instead of just adding things over things like in rococò (or New complexity talking of music, that could be even called New rococò now that I think about it).
By the way, I'm not sure why you mentioned that video but I'm not a big fan of Giant steps. I've always thought that it sounds more like a clever exercise made to learn to play fast over difficult changes than a beautiful composition. As a tune I think it's way overrated.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> I came to classical only after I had significant experience with non-classical musics: blues, jazz, country and r&b. I grew up in Louisiana and this was the music all around and any working musician knew these styles like the back of his hand. I also grew up in a area with a majority black population. I leanred much of my musical skills playing with black musicians, and creole and cajun bands.


Just the opposite for me. I grew up with all-classical. My dad was a violinist and singer; he often got together with other musicians who came to our home to play chamber music. Then I switched to rock and other genres. Finally, in my 30's, I left all of it and went back to my musical roots. No regrets at all.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Haydn70 said:


> Thanks Jacck...I needed a good laugh and this ridiculous statement provided it.
> 
> Amazing, just amazing...where do you get this stuff?????


Much of this comes from books on music, musicology, history of music, and listening to both classical and non-classical music. Where does your stuff come from?:lol:


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Very close but I chose vocal non-classical for me because I listen to pure instrumental classical music 99% of the time (I guess I'll have to skip through the vocal parts of the 9th symphony  ). And most of the non-classical I like, with some notable exceptions like jazz or ragtime, has vocals.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

norman bates said:


> Sophistication is already a way to say complexity.
> Actually one of the best ways to make something complex in my opinion because I think it implies also an ability for subtraction, instead of just adding things over things like in rococò (or New complexity talking of music, that could be even called New rococò now that I think about it).
> By the way, I'm not sure why you mentioned that video but I'm not a big fan of Giant steps. I've always thought that it sounds more like a clever exercise made to learn to play fast over difficult changes than a beautiful composition. As a tune I think it's way overrated.


The way I see complexity is in the way something is put together or organized. Jazz seems obviously sophisticated in traditional harmony (especially modal Jazz), but I believe the way it's actually put together is not quite as complex as Classical in general. Ie. You can't improvise Schoenberg or Mozart, although their stylistic mannerisms can be imitated in improvisation I've heard. There are some that can play any well known tune in the style of a certain composer like Schumann. But it's not the same thing as something Schumann would compose.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> The way I see complexity is in the way something is put together or organized. Jazz seems obviously sophisticated in traditional harmony (especially modal Jazz), but I believe the way it's actually put together is not quite as complex as Classical in general. Ie. You can't improvise Schoenberg or Mozart, although their stylistic mannerisms can be imitated in improvisation I've heard. There are some that can play any well known tune in the style of a certain composer like Schumann. But it's not the same thing as something Schumann would compose.


There's not just harmony. There's rhytmic sophistication (even an experienced composer like Gunther Schuller says that it's almost impossible to notate the swing in rhytmic terms), there are all the inflexions of the instrument that are complex in their own way. There's a story about Pee Wee Russell, who was mainly a dixieland player (and one of the greatest musicians in the history of jazz, but that's another story) a day met a young guy who was a student of classical music and he had transcribed one of his solos. And on his paper it looked incredibly complex, to the point that Pee Wee said that he would have never been able to play that score, which was basically what he had played.
The funny thing is that what Pee Russell or in more modern genres guys like Cecil Taylor or Derek Bailey were playing improvising could sound very close to the kind of things one hear in the music of Ferneyhough or Jean Barraque and similar composers.
Then sure, there are limitations to an improvisation. It's basically impossible to play serialist improvisations, and even larger forms than the usual head-improvisation-head are difficult (altough there are many good experiments). It's a different style with different disadvantages but also advantages. But that doesn't mean that there's no complexity.

By the way, since you mentioned improvisations on classical music styles:


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

I'm still with CM. I don't want to lose those legendary cantatas, oratorios, masses, requiems, operas, choral symphonies etc. that only classical has, even if I acknowledge that there's a lot of great music in non-classical as well.

No other genre moves me as profoundly as classical music, at least from what I know at the moment.


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

Personally, I enjoy both. Reality is I listen to a lot more vocal classical music than vocal non-classical, but I don't believe one is 'better' than the other. Good music is good music, and a good voice is a good voice regardless of the genre of the music being sung. Depending upon my mood, I enjoy Carly Simon every bit as much as I do Dawn Upshaw or Dianna Krall. It's all good.
However, vocal classical music does bump out non-vocal classical music for me in the realm of multiple voices, i.e., choirs, which I've become fascinated and mildly obsessed with in the last decade. The musical effects achievable with multiple voices puts me in a state of awe.
I would never try to argue the merits of classical music over non-classical music, or vice versa. I can say my CD collection contains more classical than jazz, and more jazz than rock. But this is strictly a personal preference.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

norman bates said:


> There's not just harmony. There's rhytmic sophistication (even an experienced composer like Gunther Schuller says that it's almost impossible to notate the swing in rhytmic terms), there are all the inflexions of the instrument that are complex in their own way. There's a story about Pee Wee Russell, who was mainly a dixieland player (and one of the greatest musicians in the history of jazz, but that's another story) a day met a young guy who was a student of classical music and he had transcribed one of his solos. And on his paper it looked incredibly complex, to the point that Pee Wee said that he would have never been able to play that score, which was basically what he had played.
> The funny thing is that what Pee Russell or in more modern genres guys like Cecil Taylor or Derek Bailey were playing improvising could sound very close to the kind of things one hear in the music of Ferneyhough or Jean Barraque and similar composers.
> Then sure, there are limitations to an improvisation. It's basically impossible to play serialist improvisations, and even larger forms than the usual head-improvisation-head are difficult (altough there are many good experiments). It's a different style with different disadvantages but also advantages. But that doesn't mean that there's no complexity.
> 
> By the way, since you mentioned improvisations on classical music styles:


I had that discussion with SanAntone in some thread under Music Theory. Looking at Gunther Schuller scores, they are nothing like Ferneyhough's. With Ferneyhough it's easier to write than to play. There was a study done, that showed the discrepancies between the players and actual written music. It's not to say that music with complex rhythms with changing beat durations are any better than simpler rhythms (I prefer the latter). But in Jazz you can't change the beat duration during improvisation with other players, when you can on written music. You probably know the story. Monk's Brilliant Corners was so hard to play for the soloists, that they couldn't do one complete take in like 23 tries or something, but had to splice some parts together. On paper the score is dead simple. It's the syncopation of the accents that is difficult for Jazz players to play since it goes against what they're used to.









Ferneyhough:


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> I had that discussion with SanAntone in some thread under Music Theory. Looking at Gunther Schuller scores, they are nothing like Ferneyhough's.


and why they should be similar? Also, Schuller was a classical composer who often wrote serialist music. 
That wasn't the comparison I made.



Phil loves classical said:


> With Ferneyhough it's easier to write than to play. There was a study done, that showed the discrepancies between the players and actual written music. It's not to say that music with complex rhythms with changing beat durations are any better than simpler rhythms (I prefer the latter). But in Jazz you can't change the beat duration during improvisation with other players, when you can on written music.


rhythm isn't just the signature. A super complex signature is not necessarily more complex than a 4/4. It's what happen in the signature that makes the complexity.



Phil loves classical said:


> You probably know the story. Monk's Brilliant Corners was so hard to play for the soloists, that they couldn't do one complete take in like 23 tries or something, but had to splice some parts together. On paper the score is dead simple. It's the syncopation of the accents that is difficult for Jazz players to play since it goes against what they're used to.
> 
> View attachment 144190
> 
> ...


you're comparing to the score of Ferneyhough the head of a tune. I was talking of improvisations. If you try to notate many improvisations, with all their rhytmic subtleties and nuances of tones and dynamics, you will have often scores that could be compared to new complexity stuff (but that at the same time sound often more organic)


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

norman bates said:


> and why they should be similar? Also, Schuller was a classical composer who often wrote serialist music.
> That wasn't the comparison I made.
> 
> rhythm isn't just the signature. A super complex signature is not necessarily more complex than a 4/4. It's what happen in the signature that makes the complexity.
> ...


The point with Schuller, is it may be hard for him to notate a complex rhythm, but not for others. Could you post an example of a rhythmically complex passage in Jazz? I've yet to hear one that approaches New Complexity. If it sounds organic, then it can't be a wildly changing meter like Ferneyhough. BTW, I made the same arguments you've made with someone on this forum before on Jazz vs Classical, and lost. I later did more digging and realized he was right.

Cecil Taylor's Unit Structures may be the most complex for ensemble, but is not comparable to New Complexity. Here is another work by Cecil.

http://www.kajadraksler.com/Taylor.pdf


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream (Jan 3, 2020)

Well this is a classical music form. Preaching to the choir, you might say??


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> The point with Schuller, is it may be hard for him to notate a complex rhythm, but not for others.


It's not for him. Schuller, beside being a composer of modern classical music, was one of the most important historians of jazz of all times (his books are some of the best things written on the genre - he also wrote an important book on classical conductors). He was also known for having legendary good ears (I remember a story told by Wynton Marsalis who was playing an modern orchestral piece conducted by Schuller and he played a wrong note on purpose during a passage with a cluster with tons of notes together and Schuller spotted him immediately) It's because the subtleties of the rhythm. Musicians playing a bit behind or before the beat and similar things like that.



Phil loves classical said:


> Could you post an example of a rhythmically complex passage in Jazz?


Even without going far with avant-jazz or wild improvisations, Schuller talked a lot about West end blues of Louis Armstrong. Check out the intro.
Or since I mentioned Pee Wee Russell, here's him playing a simple blues (he's the guy on the clarinet):






look at all the subtleties in the rhythm, tone, pitch, dynamics in his solos. And this is supposed to be a quite basic form of of jazz. All the details and nuances that a composer like Ferneyhough would painstakingly try to write on paper and nobody would be even able to play correctly come natural to an improviser that uses an intrument expressively like a voice, where a lot of classical music treats melodic lines just like sequence of notes with an ideal pure tone and some dynamics here and there. That's what I'm talking about, not super weird time signatures.
And that's what I meant with organic: if in all its complexity classical is like a cathedral, jazz is more like a tree. Different kind of complexities.



Phil loves classical said:


> I've yet to hear one that approaches New Complexity. If it sounds organic, then it can't be a wildly changing meter like Ferneyhough.


I think I said already that the complexity of a rhyhtm are not necessarily tied to the meter, but also to what happen into the meter. Also, I'm talking of subtleties in terms of dynamics and tone (and Pitch, since a huge amount of jazz and blues includes use of microtones), not wild signatures like Conlon Nancarrow.
But in any case, listen for instance the wild "It is forbidden" by Sun Ra (live at Ann Arbor blues & jazz festival 1974) and try to notate that.



Phil loves classical said:


> Cecil Taylor's Unit Structures may be the most complex for ensemble, but is not comparable to New Complexity. Here is another work by Cecil.


I was comparing his work more to the piano sonata of Jean Barraque, that sounds a lot like Cecil Taylor music.
By the way, I'm not a fan of new complexity, if it wasn't clear.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

norman bates said:


> It's not for him. Schuller, beside being a composer of modern classical music, was one of the most important historians of jazz of all times (his books are some of the best things written on the genre - he also wrote an important book on classical conductors). He was also known for having legendary good ears (I remember a story told by Wynton Marsalis who was playing an modern orchestral piece conducted by Schuller and he played a wrong note on purpose during a passage with a cluster with tons of notes together and Schuller spotted him immediately) It's because the subtleties of the rhythm. Musicians playing a bit behind or before the beat and similar things like that.


Ok, got it. I agree there is stuff in performance especially rubato that could never be captured on paper adequately, but that goes for any kind of music, even Christina Aguilera. Especially in Debussy, there is a lot of rubato in performance that isn't spelled out, and shouldn't be, since it only clutters up what should be a simple passage, and up to interpretation.

Here is an infamous performance that can't be captured on paper, so is Green's reaction.






If you liked that, you'd love this:


----------

