# Why I don't like jazz (and improvisation in general)



## Ravellian

This is another one of those topics where I'm not trying to convince everybody that my opinion is right, I just want to state my perspective and learn from others'. Thankfully, it's something related to music this time. 

I've never really liked jazz, it comes across to me as sort of half-assed music. I'll make the following metaphor to aid my point. When building a house, you typically _plan_ where all the rooms are, where the bathrooms go, how many garages, what rooms are next to each other, etc. Now imagine trying to build a house by haphazardly throwing bricks and wood together without any prior planning. The results will look catastrophically different, and in a bad way - nothing will function correctly, and the rooms will all be a mess.

To me, the former example represents classical music, and the latter represents jazz. Classical music is ordered, always fulfilling a purpose, and has been conceived carefully over time using rational judgment with clear thought as to what the functional themes and structure are supposed to be. Jazz improvisation is a disorganized mess, rarely resulting in memorable melodies, and the only formal organization is in the same 16 or 32-bar structure repeated over and over.

I've taken two semesters of 'jazz theory' courses in college as an upper-division elective, and my teacher was this guy who loved to analyze improvisations. Throughout the class I couldn't help but laugh at the irony... how are you supposed to 'analyze' randomness?

rant over. Feel free to say I'm completely wrong, but I would appreciate thoughtful answers... please?


----------



## violadude

Most often, just because something is improvised doesn't mean it's random. Jazz artists practice improvisation. So instead of planning things out, as you said, behind the scenes beforehand, they're planning and creating right there on the spot. Besides, classical music has plenty of improvisation too (Baroque ornaments, classical cadenzas ect.)


----------



## HerlockSholmes

And that's why Jazz is elevator music that you only listen to while doing something else. And why classical is music that you listen to attentively while devoting your time and focus to nothing but the music itself.


----------



## Sid James

Interesting topic, Ravellian. I think your mention of the irony of analysing improvisations makes sense, but so does what violadude is saying. Maybe it's a better idea to actually improvise rather than analyse improvisation? Or at least do more and analyse less, which is I'd say kind of the point of jazz. I'd say that guys like Keith Jarrett and the late Thelonius Monk thought less about improvisation and just do/did it. Practice makes perfect (but maybe saying that about improv isn't so accurate, maybe it's also ironic? :lol: ).

*BTW, Ravellian*, do you like jazz that is less about improvisation (eg. no big long solos) & notated down? More controlled jazz? I'm thinking of Glenn Miller, Paul Whiteman, Dixieland jazz, & some European jazz done by classically trained musicians, eg. Andre Hodeir & also Jacques Louissier who's done arrangements for jazz trio of classical composers? Do you like these, or do you not like them same as you most likely don't like Jarrett, Monk, John Coltrane, Charlie Parker, etc...


----------



## clavichorder

You could think of improvisation as more like telling a campfire story or acting improv. Do you enjoy watching good improv actors? Similar principal. Or on a more day to day scale, do you plan out your sentences and gestures that you speak/convey in conversation? Music can be thought of as a language too, as opposed to materials in house construction. Even in building a house, even if things weren't written out in a plan, what if you depended on the knowledge of an skilled individual with the particular expertise in the _principles_ house construction? Its a little far fetched, but say it was a wilderness survival expert or a log cabin building pioneer? They wouldn't have anything to write on so they'd just have to know how to do it. Jazz pianists and general musical improvisations are not based on nothing, or raw materials as you implied, but a knowledge of what to do with the raw materials much as in classical, but without the process of writing it out on paper.

I improvised this paragraph. It probably shows. Did you write a detailed outline of your post? Okay, I admit I'm taking this a bit too far. But it all boils down to what you like in terms of chords, as what separates Jazz from classical is the chords and the structures, because classical sounding music can be improvised as well. Bach and many great composer pianists could improvise fugues! Beethoven could improvise wild things in theme and variations form and more. Have you ever heard of Gabriella Montero? She's a present day classical improvisationalist, who's so good, she can convincingly perform in symphony halls for an encore after she's done a concerto. Check her out.


----------



## violadude

HerlockSholmes said:


> And that's why Jazz is elevator music that you only listen to while doing something else. And why classical is music that you listen to attentively while devoting your time and focus to nothing but the music itself.


Wow, not necessarily at all.


----------



## clavichorder

To me, there is nothing more awesome than great musical theory being applied in action. Music is given its spontaneous voice.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I've never really liked jazz, it comes across to me as sort of half-assed music. I'll make the following metaphor to aid my point. When building a house, you typically plan where all the rooms are, where the bathrooms go, how many garages, what rooms are next to each other, etc. Now imagine trying to build a house by haphazardly throwing bricks and wood together without any prior planning.

The metaphor isn't quite accurate. Most jazz works are structured upon a firm foundation... a theme, if you will. In this sense a jazz tune might operate like a theme and variation in classical music... and remember Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven all improvised in such a manner. The difference was that they were unable to record these performances. They were, however, able to go back and rework them in such a manner as to "perfect" them. Of course, what was lost was the magic of the spontaneity... the tension and energy of on the spot improvisation... especially involving more than one musician. If you want a better analogy, you might think of painters such as Van Gogh, Monet, Renoir, Bonnard, John Singer Sargent, etc... each artist began with a firm idea... a foundation. Within this frame work they worked rapidly responding spontaneously to both what the subject and to what was happening in the painting. Their manner was far removed from that of an artist such as Ingres, Raphael, Vermeer, Holbein, etc... who worked out each an every detail carefully in preliminary drawings and then slowly built these up in paint. The skill involved in the more spontaneous approach to art is every bit as impressive, if not more so, than that demanded by the slow, polished, and deliberate approach. It demands an absolute grasp of form, anatomy, space, color, etc... and the ability to convey these rapidly in paint... just as improvisation in music demands the greatest skills... rooted in repeated practice.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

And that's why Jazz is elevator music that you only listen to while doing something else. And why classical is music that you listen to attentively while devoting your time and focus to nothing but the music itself.

Wow! Can I "dislike" this?


----------



## HerlockSholmes

clavichorder said:


> You could think of improvisation as more like telling a campfire story or acting improv. Do you enjoy watching good improv actors? Similar principal. Or on a more day to day scale, do you plan out your sentences and gestures that you speak/convey in conversation? Music can be thought of as a language too, as opposed to materials in house construction. Even in building a house, even if things weren't written out in a plan, what if you depended on the knowledge of an skilled individual with the particular expertise in the _principles_ house construction? Its a little far fetched, but say it was a wilderness survival expert or a log cabin building pioneer? They wouldn't have anything to write on so they'd just have to know how to do it. Jazz pianists and general musical improvisations are not based on nothing, or raw materials as you implied, but a knowledge of what to do with the raw materials much as in classical, but without the process of writing it out on paper.


Yes, I agree with many of the things you said; however, to build up on this whole "building" analogy:

Jazz is like this:









While classical is this:


----------



## Ravellian

violadude said:


> Most often, just because something is improvised doesn't mean it's random. Jazz artists practice improvisation. So instead of planning things out, as you said, behind the scenes beforehand, they're planning and creating right there on the spot. Besides, classical music has plenty of improvisation too (Baroque ornaments, classical cadenzas ect.)


Baroque ornamentation was actually very controlled for the most part (read Francois Couperin's treatise on playing the clavichord and you'll know what I mean), and cadenzas are a very frivolous, unnecessary part of the concerto form. Yes, Bach was a great improvisor, I know, but nevertheless he is known today for his compositions..

I understand that jazz artists do practice scales and improvisations on scales, but I still don't think they could achieve in spontaneity what they could in careful planning. The more effort and time you put into something, the more value you produce - that's a general fact of life.


----------



## clavichorder

HerlockSholmes said:


> Yes, I agree with many of the things you said; however, to build up on this whole "building" analogy:
> 
> Jazz is like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While classical is this:


The king of generalizations succeeds in his point by making me laugh, yet again.


----------



## HerlockSholmes

clavichorder said:


> The king of generalizations succeeds in his point by making me laugh, yet again.


When did I become the king of generalizations? :lol:


----------



## Sid James

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> ...Most jazz works are structured upon a firm foundation... a theme, if you will. In this sense a jazz tune might operate like a theme and variation in classical music... and remember Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven all improvised in such a manner. The difference was that they were unable to record these performances. They were, however, able to go back and rework them in such a manner as to "perfect" them. Of course, what was lost was the magic of the spontaneity... the tension and energy of on the spot improvisation... especially involving more than one musician. ...


I agree & I must add that in the modern era, Art Tatum's improvisations have been notated down and are now played by classical musicians. Tatum was a jazz pianist and one of the great improvisers of his day (mid c20th). He actually notated down his improvisations on various themes, both of others and his own, and published them under a false name. He was scared of being poo-pooed by the jazz establishment of doing something beyond the pale, eg. "locking down" improv, which was seen as a cardinal sin by some in the jazz fraternity. Now, about 50 years later, the likes of Marc-Andre Hamelin, classical pianist extraordinaire, has recorded them and even plays them as encores after concerto performances in his concerts...


----------



## Ravellian

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I've never really liked jazz, it comes across to me as sort of half-assed music. I'll make the following metaphor to aid my point. When building a house, you typically plan where all the rooms are, where the bathrooms go, how many garages, what rooms are next to each other, etc. Now imagine trying to build a house by haphazardly throwing bricks and wood together without any prior planning.
> 
> The metaphor isn't quite accurate. Most jazz works are structured upon a firm foundation... a theme, if you will. In this sense a jazz tune might operate like a theme and variation in classical music... and remember Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven all improvised in such a manner. The difference was that they were unable to record these performances. They were, however, able to go back and rework them in such a manner as to "perfect" them. Of course, what was lost was the magic of the spontaneity... the tension and energy of on the spot improvisation... especially involving more than one musician. If you want a better analogy, you might think of painters such as Van Gogh, Monet, Renoir, Bonnard, John Singer Sargent, etc... each artist began with a firm idea... a foundation. Within this frame work they worked rapidly responding spontaneously to both what the subject and to what was happening in the painting. Their manner was far removed from that of an artist such as Ingres, Raphael, Vermeer, Holbein, etc... who worked out each an every detail carefully in preliminary drawings and then slowly built these up in paint. The skill involved in the more spontaneous approach to art is every bit as impressive, if not more so, than that demanded by the slow, polished, and deliberate approach. It demands an absolute grasp of form, anatomy, space, color, etc... and the ability to convey these rapidly in paint... just as improvisation in music demands the greatest skills... rooted in repeated practice.


Interesting... do you have any examples of these paintings you could share?


----------



## Ukko

Building a piece of music, on paper or improvising, is not like building a house. If the house is going to survive a winter or a windstorm, the builder has built from a plan, even if it's all in his head. Every competent builder knows the basic things that work. When he gets those right, the devil will not be in the details.

The difference is that a musician/composer of any competence will build from the basics whether improvising or not - but the details can destroy the music.

:devil:


----------



## clavichorder

I wonder what style of music this represents?


----------



## violadude

Ravellian said:


> Baroque ornamentation was actually very controlled for the most part (read Francois Couperin's treatise on playing the clavichord and you'll know what I mean), and cadenzas are a very frivolous, unnecessary part of the concerto form. Yes, Bach was a great improvisor, I know, but nevertheless he is known today for his compositions..
> 
> I understand that jazz artists do practice scales and improvisations on scales, but I still don't think they could achieve in spontaneity what they could in careful planning. The more effort and time you put into something, the more value you produce - that's a general fact of life.


Art doesn't always play by the rules of life. Sometimes the most interesting things happen by accident.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

...do you like jazz that is less about improvisation (eg. no big long solos) & notated down? More controlled jazz? I'm thinking of Glenn Miller, Paul Whiteman, Dixieland jazz, & some European jazz done by classically trained musicians...

Remember, Andre, a large element of the origin of jazz was found in classically trained black musicians who after the Civil War were only able to find limited employment in dance halls, minstrel shows, vaudeville, and strip clubs where they were expected to stretch out popular tunes through improvisation. Benny Goodman, Lennie Tristano, Dave Brubeck, Keith Jarrett and many other jazz musicians were classically trained/educated.


----------



## Ukko

"classically trained black musicians who after the Civil War"

What?


----------



## violadude

clavichorder said:


> I wonder what style of music this represents?


Justin Bieber?


----------



## HerlockSholmes

clavichorder said:


> I wonder what style of music this represents?


That represents the pre-baroque composers (Sweelinck, Gibbons, Byrd etc.) who took from the sounds of nature and constructed what they were able to construct with what was available to them (not much).

And now, I'd like to post this picture, which represents the Second Viennese School:


----------



## Ravellian

Yes, the Theme and Variations is a fun improvisational exercise, but honestly, I place them at the low end of the artistic spectrum of classical music (notwithstanding a few excellent, well-thought out, planned exceptions).

Surely, you all can't argue that the monuments of classical music...

Mozart's, Wagner's, and Verdi's operas
Beethoven's symphonies
Mahler's symphonies
Tchaikovsky's ballets and symphonies
Bach's Mass in B minor and Passions
Brahms's Requiem and symphonies
Schubert's song cycles
etc...

...had _anything_ to do with improvisation? Classical music is capable of producing monumental works of art, jazz is not.


----------



## violadude

Ravellian said:


> Yes, the Theme and Variations is a fun improvisational exercise, but honestly, I place them at the low end of the artistic spectrum of classical music (notwithstanding a few excellent, well-thought out, planned exceptions).
> 
> Surely, you all can't argue that the monuments of classical music...
> 
> Mozart's, Wagner's, and Verdi's operas
> Beethoven's symphonies
> Mahler's symphonies
> Tchaikovsky's ballets and symphonies
> Bach's Mass in B minor and Passions
> Brahms's Requiem and symphonies
> Schubert's song cycles
> etc...
> 
> ...had _anything_ to do with improvisation? * Classical music is capable of producing monumental works of art, jazz is not.*


That's a pretty bold (and, imo untrue) generalization.


----------



## Sid James

violadude said:


> Art doesn't always play by the rules of life. Sometimes the most interesting things happen by accident.


I agree but I think that Ravellian is asking how one can study/analyse "accidents," or is it worth it when you can't really plan them in the first place, etc. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with him, I'm just trying to explain what I think is the gist of his opening post...


----------



## Ravellian

violadude said:


> That's a pretty bold (and, imo untrue) generalization.


Yes it is, especially after you bolded it.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

How is improvising "random"? That's just plain ignorance. They're not throwing darts and seeing which notes they hit. Man, what's it like to be you? When a waiter asks you what you want to drink and you only have a moment to decide, you freak out and jump off the nearest balcony?


----------



## clavichorder

Did anyone look at Gabriella Montero's video? And why are you discrediting the improvisational abilities of Beethoven, Bach and Mozart? And Liszt? It looks to me like you are shoving such talents under the carpet, minimizing them so your theory will hold true. Have you ever felt the excitement of hearing an ingenious improvisor live come up with their next thing? Its telling a musical story live, music is a beautiful language. Some of the most beautiful and interesting language to experience is not in 700 pages Dickensian prose or an article in a Scientific Journal(which can actually be pretty boring, maybe not the best example), but in a debate/conversation between people, live.


----------



## clavichorder

A side comment, I like how funny this thread has become despite the differing views.


----------



## Ravellian

regressivetransphobe said:


> How is improvising "random"? That's just plain ignorance. They're not throwing darts and seeing which notes they hit. Man, what's it like to be you? When a waiter asks you what you want to drink and you only have a moment to decide, you freak out and jump off the nearest balcony?


Why do you always have to be such an ******* in my topics? Is it because I proved you wrong about something and you can't get over it? Get a life. Meanwhile, you will be placed on my ignore list.


----------



## violadude

Ravellian said:


> Yes, the Theme and Variations is a fun improvisational exercise, but honestly, I place them at the low end of the artistic spectrum of classical music (notwithstanding a few excellent, well-thought out, planned exceptions).
> 
> Surely, you all can't argue that the monuments of classical music...
> 
> Mozart's, Wagner's, and Verdi's operas
> Beethoven's symphonies
> Mahler's symphonies
> Tchaikovsky's ballets and symphonies
> Bach's Mass in B minor and Passions
> Brahms's Requiem and symphonies
> Schubert's song cycles
> etc...
> 
> ...had _anything_ to do with improvisation? Classical music is capable of producing monumental works of art, jazz is not.


Actually, every single one of those pieces you listed started as improvisations at one point, so yes, they all did have something to do with improvisation.


----------



## HerlockSholmes

clavichorder said:


> Did anyone look at Gabriella Montero's video? And why are you discrediting the improvisational abilities of Beethoven, Bach and Mozart? And Liszt? It looks to me like you are shoving such talents under the carpet, minimizing them so your theory will hold true. Have you ever felt the excitement of hearing an ingenious improvisor live come up with their next thing? Its telling a musical story live, music is a beautiful language. Some of the most beautiful and interesting language to experience is not in 700 pages Dickensian prose or an article in a Scientific Journal(which can actually be pretty boring, maybe not the best example), but in a debate/conversation between people, live.


No one cares about musical stories. All I want to know is that the composer spent a very long time to craft his masterpiece and subsequently had a severe headache after finishing it. That's why I love fugues so much. Because I'm certain that they need a lot of planning and thinking to construct, and that they're not just crapped out from the composer's rear end.


----------



## clavichorder

violadude said:


> Justin Bieber?


 Here's Justin Bieber.


----------



## Ravellian

violadude said:


> Actually, every single one of those pieces you listed started as improvisations at one point, so yes, they all did have something to do with improvisation.


For the purposes of this discussion, an 'improvisation' is music conceived during the actual performance. 'Composition' is music conceived before a performance.


----------



## Ravellian

clavichorder said:


> Did anyone look at Gabriella Montero's video? And why are you discrediting the improvisational abilities of Beethoven, Bach and Mozart? And Liszt? It looks to me like you are shoving such talents under the carpet, minimizing them so your theory will hold true. Have you ever felt the excitement of hearing an ingenious improvisor live come up with their next thing? Its telling a musical story live, music is a beautiful language. Some of the most beautiful and interesting language to experience is not in 700 pages Dickensian prose or an article in a Scientific Journal(which can actually be pretty boring, maybe not the best example), but in a debate/conversation between people, live.


I'm not shoving their talents under the carpet, I'm just saying I'm not convinced that their improvisational talent has much to do with their large-scale important works like the piano sonatas, fugues and symphonies.

I should also mention that I find day-to-day conversations with people to be extremely boring. :devil: When it comes to controversies, scholarly articles are generally much more useful than one-on-one debates.


----------



## violadude

Ravellian said:


> I'm not shoving their talents under the carpet, I'm just saying I'm not convinced that their improvisational talent has much to do with their large-scale important works like the piano sonatas, fugues and symphonies.


What about all the great composers whos piano sonatas, fugues and symphonies were written UTI of the improvisational talents of Jazz artists?


----------



## Ravellian

Hilltroll72 said:


> Building a piece of music, on paper or improvising, is not like building a house. If the house is going to survive a winter or a windstorm, the builder has built from a plan, even if it's all in his head. Every competent builder knows the basic things that work. When he gets those right, the devil will not be in the details.
> 
> The difference is that a musician/composer of any competence will build from the basics whether improvising or not - but the details can destroy the music.
> 
> :devil:


I'm not sure I understand your point. Wouldn't the details have less chance of destroying the music if they were thought about and worked out beforehand?


----------



## Ravellian

violadude said:


> What about all the great composers whos piano sonatas, fugues and symphonies were written UTI of the improvisational talents of Jazz artists?


What do you mean by UTI? Not urinary tract infection, I hope.


----------



## violadude

Ravellian said:


> What do you mean by UTI? Not urinary tract infection, I hope.


Under the influence...


----------



## chee_zee

who've you been listening to that you think there are no memorable melodies? go listen to indian classical music, a classical music that has improv as it's very basis. shawn lane, allan holdsworth, charlie parker, art tatum, ravi shankar, bismillah allah khan, nusrat fateh, balamurali krishna, shivkumar sharma, jim hall, the list keeps going. these people have improvised literally the best melodies I've ever heard. 

go check out 'rice with the angels' from shawn lane at the ziggy's gig in 1996, see if you can find dat melody, it's the most beautiful thing ever. listen to ravi shankar's 'maestro's choice' the first track 'raga asa bhairav' there's an incredible variation of the melody. listen to bird gets the worm from parker, listen to any gig from holdsworth, coltrane's early stuff up til about giant steps, the list goes on man these are the best melodies ever. only bach mozart beethoven and rimsky korsakov wrote better melodies than these improvised lines, the luenegberg fugue and cantata 147, symphony 40 and rondo alla turca, quasi una fantasia and symphony 9, etc etc.


----------



## Ravellian

I don't think it has anything to do with however much composers were 'influenced' by jazz. What matters is whether or not they include improvisation in their music. Ligeti's etudes, for instance, are partially influenced by the sounds of jazz but do not include improvisation in any capacity.


----------



## violadude

Wait, what's the point of this thread? Are we supposed to be converting you into a jazz fan?


----------



## samurai

My understanding is that most jazz musicians go into the studio or on stage with charts to play from; they might wish to expand or adorn on what they have written before them, but very few jazz pieces are 100 per-cent pure improvisation. As one of the other members said, that is why "jam sessions" were often held, so as to figure out what might work best at performance time. The only exceptions of which I am aware--although I'm sure there are more--would be some of Keith Jarrett's work and an album by Herbie Hancock entitled "*Inventions* *and* *Dimensions*" from the early sixties. Supposedly Hancock and the other musicians went into the studio and produced this album with no charts whatsoever. I have this album, and I find it quite coherent and listenable. If I hadn't been informed that it was a complete improv, I never would have been able to discern the difference between this and "regular jazz". Now, something like--IMHO--the egotistical, self-indulgent noodlings of Sun Ra or at times Charles Lloyd which never seem to develop or end could well turn one off to the whole process of improvisation involved in jazz.
@ HerlockSholmes: If you are seriously equating jazz with "elevator music", I would most humbly suggest to you that you have been listening to the wrong artists, and I mean that quite sincerely. If you can listen to some works of Coltrane, Brubeck, Monk and Svensson--to name but a few of the stars in my universe--I'm sure your opinion would change. If you have the time and motivation, I would love for you to listen to some of their output which I have posted some of their works on the "Rating the Jazz Piece Above Me" Thread".


----------



## violadude

Also, try some Charles Mingus.


----------



## Sid James

Ravellian said:


> ...I'm not shoving their talents under the carpet, I'm just saying I'm not convinced that their improvisational talent has much to do with their large-scale important works like the piano sonatas, fugues and symphonies.
> ...


Well, improv can be part of concertos as you know, so there it is important, but it's just a part of the whole in that context, not a thing in itself.

I think Bruckner was revered as a great improviser on the organ, or a great organist full stop as a result of that as well as being able to play the standard rep of the instrument to a very high level. It's wierd though that he didn't write much for the organ. But of course, he did the masses which include organ accompaniment, as well as the symphonies which have been said to sound much like organ music in terms of their harmonies, etc. In any case, in his own time, he was seen initially as a great organist (touring Europe with his playing) & only later in his career - eg. 1870's with the _Symphony #7_ - as a major symphonic composer, one to rival Brahms.

Of course, not only older classical music includes improv, nor only is it confined to jazz. A lot of contemporary classical music includes improv, the boundaries between jazz & classical are breaking down. Indeed, some of the stuff Ornette Coleman recorded in the 1960's sounds much like experimental classical music. Actually, I'm not a huge fan of this type of jazz, the farthest I can go is John Coltrane (his 20 minute rendition of _My Favourite Things _is a favourite of mine, but not his over half an hour long improvisations, that's too much for my palate) or Keith Jarrett (but sometimes I find him a bit long-winded & irritating (just like I do longer pieces of classical music, esp. opera))...


----------



## Sid James

After reading *samurai's* interesting post, I remember reading about how *Duke Ellington *never played from a score, nothing was written down, or at least nothing of real substance comparable to a classical score. He was around in the inter-war period, so this kind of more improvisatory approach didn't only start after 1945 as some would maybe think...


----------



## Ravellian

violadude said:


> Wait, what's the point of this thread? Are we supposed to be converting you into a jazz fan?


No, the point of this thread is to reveal the truth: that jazz is stupid. :devil:

Actually, I have a couple Charles Mingus albums, and I kinda like it, especially _Black Saint_. I can live with third stream.


----------



## jalex

In a way I agree more generally with the premise of the OP if not the content. As I see it improvisation does have it's place in music (of any kind), and that is at live events where one can marvel at the technical skill and spontaneity of the performer etc etc. However it seems almost tautological to me that usually a planned composition is going to be better than an improvised one and this is what I'd prefer for any recording I want to listen to for personal use. I generally don't have much time for concertos but I agree that improvised cadenzas are pretty superfluous. I don't mind written out ones which act more as a coda and don't sound improvised.


----------



## Almaviva

Ravellian said:


> No, the point of this thread is to reveal the truth: that jazz is stupid. :devil:
> 
> Actually, I have a couple Charles Mingus albums, and I kinda like it, especially _Black Saint_. I can live with third stream.


Oh well, if jazz is stupid I'm in trouble, because it is pretty much the only genre that I *consistently* like besides classical (with some exceptions).
Improv or not, the end result is often very beautiful.


----------



## Ravellian

samurai said:


> My understanding is that most jazz musicians go into the studio or on stage with charts to play from; they might wish to expand or adorn on what they have written befor them, but very few jazz pieces are 100 per-cent pure improvisation. As one of the other members said, that is why "jam sessions" were often held, so as to figure out what might work best at performance time. The only exceptions of which I am aware--although I'm sure there are more--would be some of Keith Jarrett's work and an album by Herbie Hancock entitled "*Inventions* *and* *Dimensions*" from the early sixties. Supposedly Hancock and the other musicians went into the studio and produced this album with no charts whatsoever. I have this album, and I find it quite coherent and listenable. If I hadn't been informed that it was a complete improv, I never would have been able to discern the difference between this and "regular jazz". Now, something like--IMHO--the egotistical, self-indulgent noodlings of Sun Ra or at times Charles Lloyd which never seem to develop or end could well turn one off to the whole process of improvisation involved in jazz.
> @ HerlockSholmes: If you are seriously equating jazz with "elevator music", I would most humbly suggest to you that you have been listening to the wrong artists, and I mean that quite sincerely. If you can listen to some works of Coltrane, Brubeck, Monk and Svensson--to name but a few of the stars in my universe--I'm sure your opinion would change. If you have the time and motivation, I would love for you to listen to some of their output which I have posted some of their works on the "Rating the Jazz Piece Above Me" Thread".


I know that most jazz compositions are based on 16 or 32-bar forms, like I stated in my first post. There does exist a monstrosity called free jazz, however (Ornette Coleman and his ilk)... and I would rather listen to 4'33" than that crap. This conversation focuses on conventional jazz (Miles Davis, Art Tatum, John Coltrane, etc)


----------



## samurai

I really feel sorry for you if you can seriously make a blanket statement like that about one of the great gifts that America created and has given the world. Especially coming from a music student, that is very, very sad. IMHO, of course.


----------



## Ravellian

samurai said:


> I really feel sorry for you if you can seriously make a blanket statement like that about one of the great gifts that America created and has given the world. Especially coming from a music student, that is very, very sad. IMHO, of course.


I was being sarcastic. I don't hate jazz as much as I'm probably suggesting from this topic, I listen to it from time to time. I do think of it as a lesser art form, however..


----------



## Sid James

HerlockSholmes said:


> No one cares about musical stories. All I want to know is that the composer spent a very long time to craft his masterpiece and subsequently had a severe headache after finishing it. That's why I love fugues so much. Because I'm certain that they need a lot of planning and thinking to construct, and that they're not just crapped out from the composer's rear end.


...which explains how a lot of people devalue things like Schubert's art-songs, some of which he composed virtually on the spot after reading the freshly penned poems handed to him by his poet friends. I know (or hope you are) sending up this severly flawed & outdated "grand narrative" ideology, but personally to me as a music lover (not a composer of fugues or art-songs or whatever), I just go by what I like or music that does something for me at a particular moment in time. In any case, J.S. Bach wrote a number of his choral works used for mass in under a week, started on Monday and finished it ready for performance on Sunday (incl. composition, copying the score, rehearsing it). Regardless of this, these works are considered amongst the finest of their kind from that period and even just generally...


----------



## HerlockSholmes

Ravellian said:


> I was being sarcastic. I don't hate jazz as much as I'm probably suggesting from this topic, I listen to it from time to time. I do think of it as a lesser art form, however..


That's exactly how I see Jazz as well.
I was, by the way, also exaggerating throughout most of my posts.


----------



## HerlockSholmes

Sid James said:


> ...which explains how a lot of people devalue things like Schubert's art-songs, some of which he composed virtually on the spot after reading the freshly penned poems handed to him by his poet friends. I know (or hope you are) sending up this severly flawed & outdated "grand narrative" ideology, but personally to me as a music lover (not a composer of fugues or art-songs or whatever), I just go by what I like or music that does something for me at a particular moment in time. In any case, J.S. Bach wrote a number of his choral works used for mass in under a week, started on Monday and finished it ready for performance on Sunday (incl. composition, copying the score, rehearsing it). Regardless of this, these works are considered amongst the finest of their kind from that period and even just generally...


Read what I posted right below this reply of yours.


----------



## samurai

Ravellian said:


> I was being sarcastic. I don't hate jazz as much as I'm probably suggesting from this topic, I listen to it from time to time. I do think of it as a lesser art form, however..


Just to clarify, then: "lesser" in what sense and compared to what--classical music? BTW, I'm glad you were being sarcastic; there is so much beautiful and creative jazz out there that--as with classical music--one would need many, many lifetimes to sample and savor all of it.


----------



## Ravellian

samurai said:


> Just to clarify, then: "lesser" in what sense and compared to what--classical music? BTW, I'm glad you were being sarcastic; there is so much beautiful and creative jazz out there that--as with classical music--one would need many, many lifetimes to sample and savor all of it.


Lesser compared to classical music, superior compared to pop music.


----------



## samurai

Ravellian said:


> Lesser compared to classical music, superior compared to pop music.


I respect what you wrote, but to me, it's like comparing apples and oranges. Cest le Vie.


----------



## Meaghan

HerlockSholmes said:


> No one cares about musical stories. *All I want to know is that the composer spent a very long time to craft his masterpiece* and subsequently had a severe headache after finishing it. That's why I love fugues so much. Because I'm certain that they need a lot of planning and thinking to construct, and that they're not just crapped out from the composer's rear end.


So much for Mozart. 

(I know you are speaking partly tongue-in-cheek.)


----------



## Meaghan

HerlockSholmes said:


> And that's why Jazz is elevator music that you only listen to while doing something else. And why classical is music that you listen to attentively while devoting your time and focus to nothing but the music itself.


Interesting--I've heard jazz musicians say the very same thing, but with "jazz" and "classical" reversed. And of course each camp will say to the other "Ohmygosh, you're _so_ ignorant; you clearly know nothing about [x] music!" It's what I'm often tempted to say to these musicians, but also what they would undoubtedly say to me if I made such a statement. As I have sometimes wanted to do, but not recently.


----------



## starthrower

Ornette Coleman is not crap. Try listening to The Shape Of Jazz To Come. Listening to Ornette and Don Cherry playing together could never be described as random unless you're not really listening.

Aside from the improvisational aspect of jazz, there are hundreds of beautiful melodies that have been written by jazz musicians from Duke Ellington in the 1920s and 30s, to Pat Metheny in the 80s and 90s. This is something that the jazz naysayers are missing out on. Monk, Coltrane, Mingus, McCoy Tyner, Bill Evans, Wayne Shorter, Joe Zawinul, Thad Jones, Chick Corea, Keith Jarrett, Gerry Mulligan, Horace Silver, Herbie Hancock, and so many more wrote beautiful music as well as being great improvisers.


----------



## samurai

You Go, Starthrower!! :cheers:


----------



## HerlockSholmes

Meaghan said:


> So much for Mozart.
> 
> (I know you are speaking partly tongue-in-cheek.)


Wolferl's magical composition abilities are all myths, my dear Meaghan.


----------



## HerlockSholmes

Meaghan said:


> Interesting--I've heard jazz musicians say the very same thing, but with "jazz" and "classical" reversed. And of course each camp will say to the other "Ohmygosh, you're _so_ ignorant; you clearly know nothing about [x] music!" It's what I'm often tempted to say to these musicians, but also what they would undoubtedly say to me if I made such a statement. As I have sometimes wanted to do, but not recently.


For the love of dodecaphony, can't I make a sarcastic comment and dogmatically assert my Bachian superior intelligence for once?


----------



## Meaghan

clavichorder said:


> To me, there is nothing more awesome than great musical theory being applied in action. Music is given its spontaneous voice.


Whatta badass


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

_If you want a better analogy, you might think of painters such as Van Gogh, Monet, Renoir, Bonnard, John Singer Sargent, etc... each artist began with a firm idea... a foundation. Within this frame work they worked rapidly responding spontaneously to both what the subject and to what was happening in the painting. Their manner was far removed from that of an artist such as Ingres, Raphael, Vermeer, Holbein, etc... who worked out each an every detail carefully in preliminary drawings and then slowly built these up in paint. The skill involved in the more spontaneous approach to art is every bit as impressive, if not more so, than that demanded by the slow, polished, and deliberate approach. It demands an absolute grasp of form, anatomy, space, color, etc... and the ability to convey these rapidly in paint... just as improvisation in music demands the greatest skills... rooted in repeated practice._

Interesting... do you have any examples of these paintings you could share?

OK... let's look at Michelangelo. There is no way that someone could think to tackle something like the Sistine Ceiling without making a great many preliminary studies. He would have begun with little "thumbnail sketches" in which he simply toyed with various overall ideas for composition:










Few of these survive as they don't really have the greatest aesthetic value. This one already shows the artist working out ideas for the arms and hands of Adam from the Creation.

Once the general composition and idea of the poses are worked out, the artist would make detailed renderings from a live model:










These drawings would be enlarged, probably by assistants, using the grid method and a "cartoon" or drawing the size of the actual painting would be produced. This drawing would be commonly transferred to the wet plaster wall using a method called "pouncing" (although there were other methods). Pouncing involved tracing the lines of the cartoon with a pounce wheel. The teeth perforate the paper with 12 to 24 holes per inch. The master drawing is then placed on the permanent support (ie. the plaster) and charcoal powder is forced through the holes by dusting along the contours effectively transferring the drawing. These large cartoons would have been destroyed after use. The artist then would begin to paint directly on the plaster, although quite likely small color studies would have been made to experiment with the various color harmonies:










Even then, the artist might make spontaneous changes based upon how the actual painting looked.

Here, in perhaps the most famous study for the Sistine, we see the artist working out a variety of details on a single sheet of paper:










At this point in time, paper was quite expensive which explains why the artist would use ever square inch for working out various elements of the image.

In the final painting, the artist softened all the musculature in transforming the male model into a female Sybil:










************


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

An artist such as Ingres worked out the image in just as time-consuming a manner. He would begin with the simple thumbnail establishing the general idea:










As the artist settles on the composition he begins making more detailed drawings... focusing initially upon the face:










In later drawings he'll focus upon other details. Here he is looking at the dress in greater accuracy, even making notes as to light and color:










Ingres was famous for spending months... even years upon a single portrait, making hundreds of sketches... often dozens for a single detail such as the position of the hands (this sketch coming from a different painting):










The artist did not begin to paint until every slight nuance of the drawing had been worked out... then the painting was built up slowly in transparent layers... until the end result was acceptable:










***********


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The spontaneous or improvisational approach to painting began in the Renaissance with the Venetians. Because of the constant humidity and flooding the Venetians were not able to produce great fresco paintings like the Florentines and Romans. Of course they could paint using egg tempera or oil upon small panels like the Flemish, but the Venetians were ambitious to rival the grandiose achievements of Florence and Rome. Painting on large wooded panels was out of the question. The weight alone would have made such a project prohibitive. They struck upon the idea of painting in oils directly on canvas. Venice, after all, was a great sea power, and they had lots of canvas for ship sails. Such canvas was surely a lightweight support, and the artist need only prime the surface in the same manner as the wood panels were primed to keep the oil from rotting the canvas fibers.

The initial experiments in oil on canvas were timid... applied in thin layers in much the same manner employed by the Flemish on small panels. The artist were soon struck by how elastic oil paint was and how it held up on the canvas surface. They began to work boldly... painting directly on the canvas with little of no preliminary sketches. The impasto or textured brushwork revealed the spontaneity of their painting technique and soon Venetian painting of the late 1500's became known as the "golden age of painting"... perhaps never surpassed:










Already with Giorgione, the artist has abandoned the use of preliminary sketches. The painting is build up of loosely brushed layers of paint resulting in a warm atmospheric image with soft edges.



















Titian took this spontaneous "painterly" approach even further. He applied paint in a variety of manner... ranging from the lightest whisper to thick impasto, creating a painting surface of great diversity (something that can barely register in photographs, and must be seen in person).

Heirs of Titian such as Tintoretto:










and Veronese:










continued to construct their compositions from color and value as opposed to linear contour and sculptural form, resulting in some of the most audacious compositions.

**********


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The influence of the Venetians carried over into the Baroque. Peter Paul Rubens was probably the greatest virtuoso of the age. While Rubens could draw as well or better than anyone, he had little use for detailed studies for his paintings. Most of his drawings are finished art works in and of themselves or copies of favorite art works by others for personal use.










Like his idol Titian, he began his paintings by rapidly sketching in the major forms using a limited range of colors:










The entire painting was worked out on the final panel of canvas. Rubens was such a virtuoso that he rarely needed to make major changes, but in this case he did add on a strip of panel to both sides and the bottom enlarging the composition.










Rubens spontaneous manner of painting was seen as expressive of the sophistication and nonchalance... the studied or artful disarray... or "sprezzatura". This was seen as conveying an elegance and natural aristocracy as opposed to the carefully studied and rendered image.

Rembrandt would employ the same spontaneity and loose handling in his paintings...










... which explains, in part, his lack of popularity among the stolid, Protestant Dutch bourgeois.

The artists of the Rococo, working for the elegant French court, took this spontaneous, improvised manner of painting to the extreme. Fragonard bragged that he had completed this exquisite painting in but an hours time:










The sprezzatura of Rubens and the Rococo carried over into the work of the portraitists to the rich and famous of the fin de siecle...

Giovanni Boldini:










************


----------



## starthrower

The best analysis of the jazz art form I've ever read is by Ted Gioia in his book, The Imperfect Art:Reflections On Jazz And Modern Culture.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

John Singer Sargent:










Anders Zorn:










This spontaneous manner of painting was equally embraced by the Impressionists and Post-Impressionists who saw in this improvisation a means of suggesting the fleeting moment...

Monet:










Bonnard:










This would carry over into the brushwork of the Abstract Expressionists, who saw the gestural improvisational brushmark as a record of the artist's touch... and of his gesture... which could convey emotions in much the same way as the gesture of a dancer:










As an artist who has worked in both the most spontaneous and the most carefully pre-planned of manners, I can assure you that neither approach is superior... or easier than the other. They are certainly different... and the intentions and results are different... but not better or worse.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

HerlockSholmes said:


> That represents the pre-baroque composers (Sweelinck, Gibbons, Byrd etc.) who took from the sounds of nature and constructed what they were able to construct with what was available to them (not much).
> 
> And now, I'd like to post this picture, which represents the Second Viennese School:


Actually, this would be closer to the Second Viennese School, the work of Adolf Loos who stripped architecture of all ornament, proclaiming, "Ornament is Crime".



















His arch-rival was the great master of ornament, Gustav Klimt:


----------



## Ravellian

Thanks for the examples, St.Luke's! (I don't think I've ever seen so many naked women before on a single web page.) A case can certainly be made, therefore, for the validity of spontaneity in art at least.


----------



## violadude

I don't mean to sound immature here...but...

boobies


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

No one cares about musical stories. All I want to know is that the composer spent a very long time to craft his masterpiece and subsequently had a severe headache after finishing it.

So another words you hate the notion that Mozart could churn out a masterpiece in a couple of days, Bach could improvise a fugue on the spot, and Van Gogh could turn out an iconic painting in but a few hours? I understand the prejudice. It is actually very American and very working-class/bourgois. It is the old idea of the Protestant work ethic: genius is but endless hours of sweat and toil...

But then we have that ******* Mozart.


----------



## Sid James

*Re *the building posted by *HerlockSholmes*, with that twisted glass bit and cylindrical bit - I believe it is in Prague on the riverbank. I remember it being nicknamed "The Dancing House" or "The Dancing Couple" referring to dance duo Ginger Rodgers and Fred Astaire. Info HERE. So if anything, I think it to "resemble" something like the music of Gershwin (or Cole Porter or Irving Berlin, or other composers of Broadway shows?), rather than Schoenberg...


----------



## HerlockSholmes

StlukesguildOhio said:


> No one cares about musical stories. All I want to know is that the composer spent a very long time to craft his masterpiece and subsequently had a severe headache after finishing it.
> 
> So another words you hate the notion that Mozart could churn out a masterpiece in a couple of days, Bach could improvise a fugue on the spot, and Van Gogh could turn out an iconic painting in but a few hours? I understand the prejudice. It is actually very American and very working-class/bourgois. It is the old idea of the Protestant work ethic: genius is but endless hours of sweat and toil...
> 
> But then we have that ******* Mozart.


I'm not sure whether you're playing along or not, but read what I posted just a few minutes ago:



HerlockSholmes said:


> For the love of dodecaphony, can't I make a sarcastic comment and dogmatically assert my Bachian superior intelligence for once?


You see? I was kidding! I was joking! Leave poor Sherlock alone! :scold:


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

...the building posted by HerlockSholmes, with that twisted glass bit and cylindrical bit - I believe it is in Prague on the riverbank. I remember it being nicknamed "The Dancing House" or "The Dancing Couple" referring to dance duo Ginger Rodgers and Fred Astaire.

I actually quite like those buildings.


----------



## Meaghan

HerlockSholmes said:


> Wolferl's magical composition abilities are all myths, my dear Meaghan.


_We will never believe you_. Nor will we believe that he did not wear pink wigs and wasn't poisoned by Salieri. 

(Poor Salieri, the spellcheck thinks he's not a word. I'd poison Mozart too.)


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I don't mean to sound immature here...but...

boobies

What do you think the main motivation has long been for anybody to major in art? It's surely not the salaries. And then those damn Modernists came and ruined everything with their stupid abstract art.

As the poet and great Dante translator declared, "Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and persuade themselves that they have a better idea."

:lol:


----------



## Sid James

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> I actually quite like those buildings.




Yes, & I think Frank Gehry is one of the better "post-modern" architects around today. I think there's a building or two on the drawing board of his for Australia, they've been talking about it for yonks, like many things dependent on factors outside the quality or practicality of his design (eg. funding) it may well just end up being yet another unrealised pipe-dream...


----------



## HerlockSholmes

Meaghan said:


> _We will never believe you_. Nor will we believe that he did not wear pink wigs . . .












Wolfie never did anything until he was sufficiently glamorous. Amadeus was pretty accurate after all.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Folks, you know what? I honestly like jazz especially at nice restaurants, preferrably played live. It really, really adds to the relaxed and jovial atmosphere that I prefer when I dine out with family and friends. The funny thing is I don't like classical music, live or not, at restaurants because classical music to me is a very different type of music that won't go well with the mood that I'm generally in when I'm dining out.

So, stop bashing jazz. I'm sure you can find some circumstance where you can surely enjoy its merits. Me, in restaurants preferably live and improvised. Who cares? With a few glasses of wine (if I'm not driving afterwards), it really works!


----------



## Delicious Manager

Forgive me if this has been said already, but I didn't have the time or energy to read all six pages (at the time of writing) posts. Dear Ravellian, you are forgetting something: many great composers such as Buxtehude, JS Bach, Mozart and Beethoven were the 'jazz improvisers' of their time. All four of these composers were renowned for their phenomenal improvising skills. Due to his astonishing skills in the area and his outstanding musical memory, Mozart didn't even write-down the solo piano parts for many of his concertos until he needed to (for publication, to enable someone else to play it, etc etc). Much less the cadenzas! Many of Bach's organ works are, essentially, improvisations that he later wrote down as best he could.

While I agree with you about the sometimes seemingly endless noodlings indulged-in by some jazz musicians (I rather unkindly call it 'musical ma5turbat10n'!), the finest improvisers (some of whom I know have already been mentioned) stuck to rigorous structures within the improvisational context; nothing 'random' about it at all. I think this is a case of perhaps under-resourced generalisation that needs reassessing.

Jazz is almost as wide-ranging a genre as 'classical' is when you start to think about it. It (like all the other labels) is a convenient (and sometimes inaccurate or muddled) umbrella term under which a huge swathe of music is collected. Surely one can't assign one set of values to all of these?


----------



## starthrower

Delicious Manager said:


> While I agree with you about the sometimes seemingly endless noodlings indulged-in by some jazz musicians (I rather unkindly call it 'musical ma5turbat10n'!), the finest improvisers (some of whom I know have already been mentioned) stuck to rigorous structures within the improvisational context; nothing 'random' about it at all. I think this is a case of perhaps under-resourced generalisation that needs reassessing.
> 
> Jazz is almost as wide-ranging a genre as 'classical' is when you start to think about it. It (like all the other labels) is a convenient (and sometimes inaccurate or muddled) umbrella term under which a huge swathe of music is collected. Surely one can't assign one set of values to all of these?


To address the first point, although I've spent close to 30 years listening to all kinds of jazz music, I've never cared for those 20 minute Coltrane solos. The Bebop records of the 1940s are great listening if you want to hear a concise, disciplined approach.

I don't buy the viewpoint that improvisation is a lesser art form. I wonder how many classical musicians could get onstage with top flight jazzers and contribute something worthwhile without years of study and practice? I would say there have probably been a lot more jazz musicians with a knowledge of classical forms than the other way around. Many names come to mind such as Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, Gerry Mulligan, Keith Jarrett, Wynton Marsalis, Bill Evans, Don Byron, Gunther Schuller, Gil Evans, Wayne Shorter, etc.

Your last point should be obvious to any knowledgeable musician or listener. The jazz art form has been in existence for close to 100 years so yes, it's a huge world of diverse music.


----------



## HerlockSholmes

Delicious Manager said:


> Forgive me if this has been said already, but I didn't have the time or energy to read all six pages (at the time of writing) posts. Dear Ravellian, you are forgetting something: many great composers such as Buxtehude, JS Bach, Mozart and Beethoven were the 'jazz improvisers' of their time. All four of these composers were renowned for their phenomenal improvising skills. Due to his astonishing skills in the area and his outstanding musical memory, Mozart didn't even write-down the solo piano parts for many of his concertos until he needed to (for publication, to enable someone else to play it, etc etc). Much less the cadenzas! Many of Bach's organ works are, essentially, improvisations that he later wrote down as best he could.
> 
> While I agree with you about the sometimes seemingly endless noodlings indulged-in by some jazz musicians (I rather unkindly call it 'musical ma5turbat10n'!), the finest improvisers (some of whom I know have already been mentioned) stuck to rigorous structures within the improvisational context; nothing 'random' about it at all. I think this is a case of perhaps under-resourced generalisation that needs reassessing.
> 
> Jazz is almost as wide-ranging a genre as 'classical' is when you start to think about it. It (like all the other labels) is a convenient (and sometimes inaccurate or muddled) umbrella term under which a huge swathe of music is collected. Surely one can't assign one set of values to all of these?


Yes, it has already been mentioned and argued about. Thank you for sharing your concerns.
And by the way, this thread has become completely meaningless already.


----------



## starthrower

HerlockSholmes said:


> And by the way, this thread has become completely meaningless already.


The premise was bogus to begin with, but it was obvious (to some of us) that you and Ravellian were being facetious. Nevertheless, it was an excuse to get some discussion going, but I agree the subject has now been exhausted.


----------



## presto

I love Jazz but not when it gets “too clever” and sound’s like self indulgent rambling with drum solos that sound like and guy building a shed!
Pre-war jazz such as Duke Ellington and Bix Beiderbecke is just fantastic and dare I say, some smooth jazz! This can be extremely clever and rewarding to listen too and it isn‘t all bland! Fourplay and Acoustic alchemy have created some very memorable albums. 
These examples to me seem to get the improvisations just right and never go too far to out stay it's welcome.


----------



## tdc

starthrower said:


> I don't buy the viewpoint that improvisation is a lesser art form. I wonder how many classical musicians could get onstage with top flight jazzers and contribute something worthwhile without years of study and practice? I would say there have probably been a lot more jazz musicians with a knowledge of classical forms than the other way around. Many names come to mind such as Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, Gerry Mulligan, Keith Jarrett, Wynton Marsalis, Bill Evans, Don Byron, Gunther Schuller, Gil Evans, Wayne Shorter, etc.


Honestly, I think the best musicians, (and there are plenty) are knowledgeable in Classical and Jazz. The two are quite closely related actually. But your 'knowledge of classical forms' comment is fairly vague. A lot of the jazz guys you mentioned may have had 'knowledge of classical forms' but could they sit down and play a Bach fugue as well as someone like John Williams or Sviatoslav Richter? At the end of the day, a lot of the arguments for jazz musicians being the greatest focuses on what they know how to do, more so than the sounds and structures they are making. Which begs the question - is it more important to know how to play the hardest most complicated things, or to simply make the most pleasing sounds? I think music is a little bit of both which brings us back to my first point...For the record I've heard classically trained players who are very good in jazz as well - ie - Roland Dyens, Matthew Dunne etc. But until I hear some of these 'jazz guys' playing a classical piece, I'm skeptical as to how far their 'knowledge of classical forms' takes them as far as the actual performance of a classical piece. I'm sure this goes the other way too though, I'm just saying the best musicians aren't just one or the other.


----------



## Delicious Manager

starthrower said:


> To address the first point, although I've spent close to 30 years listening to all kinds of jazz music, I've never cared for those 20 minute Coltrane solos. The Bebop records of the 1940s are great listening if you want to hear a concise, disciplined approach.
> 
> I don't buy the viewpoint that improvisation is a lesser art form. I wonder how many classical musicians could get onstage with top flight jazzers and contribute something worthwhile without years of study and practice? I would say there have probably been a lot more jazz musicians with a knowledge of classical forms than the other way around. Many names come to mind such as Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, Gerry Mulligan, Keith Jarrett, Wynton Marsalis, Bill Evans, Don Byron, Gunther Schuller, Gil Evans, Wayne Shorter, etc.
> 
> Your last point should be obvious to any knowledgeable musician or listener. The jazz art form has been in existence for close to 100 years so yes, it's a huge world of diverse music.


Where did I suggest that improvisation was 'lesser'? In fact, I thought I'd made a case for the opposite. As a professional manager in the music business for 30 years, your last sentence would be offensive if I allowed myself to be 'offended' by someone who seems to have wantonly misunderstood my carefully considered post.


----------



## starthrower

Delicious Manager said:


> Where did I suggest that improvisation was 'lesser'? In fact, I thought I'd made a case for the opposite. As a professional manager in the music business for 30 years, your last sentence would be offensive if I allowed myself to be 'offended' by someone who seems to have wantonly misunderstood my carefully considered post.


I wasn't referring to you directly concerning this issue, but to some of the other members who expressed the viewpoint of jazz improv being a lesser art form. Sorry for the confusion. I agree with you concerning the multidisciplinary approach of many of today's accomplished musicians in both the jazz and classical worlds.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

How did I get two infractions for the same post here? One isn't really a bother, but if the mods can just arbitrarily pile them onto one post that's not really fair.


----------



## Vaneyes

Oscar Peterson Trio is about the extent of my jazz likings.


----------



## samurai

Vaneyes said:


> Oscar Peterson Trio is about the extent of my jazz likings.


@ Vaneyes, If you have access to *Spotify*, I'd highly recommend the Esbjorn Svensson Trio: 



. If not, a lot of their work may be found on *YouTube.*


----------



## samurai

Vaneyes said:


> Oscar Peterson Trio is about the extent of my jazz likings.


@ Vaneyes, If you have access to *Spotify*, I'd highly recommend the Esbjorn Svensson Trio: 



. If not, a lot of their work may be found on *YouTube.*


----------



## samurai

Sorry about the duplicate second post on the same topic, Vaneyes.


----------



## norman bates

HerlockSholmes said:


> Yes, I agree with many of the things you said; however, to build up on this whole "building" analogy:
> 
> Jazz is like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While classical is this:


 a more apt comparison:








[/QUOTE]
classical

jazz









if classical is about structure, jazz is about spontaneity and interaction. Classical is often structurally a lot more complex but often it inevitably sound stiff compared to the naturalness of a good jazz piece. Jazz musician also develop an original instrumental voice, while in classical music there's the target of an ideal sound


----------



## Ravellian

^^ You hit my soft spot - I love trees. I'll try to bear in mind that comparison next time I listen to jazz.


----------

