# What do jazz composers do?



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

One of the great strands from the great flowering of variety in the music of the 20th Century is jazz. A whole genre of music, a genre of much sophistication and huge inventiveness, was created by a people who the world had excluded and abused. We keep it separate from our classical music but it is not clear to me that it is such a separate thing given the variety found in music we do recognise as classical. Anyway, my question is … well, its in the title: some noted jazz performers are also highly valued as composers, but do any of you know what exactly a jazz composer does?


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

They can do one or both of the following: (1) Create a song/tune using jazz chords which then can be performed as a selection that first presents the tune and then continues using the chords repeated so improvisation can take place (2) create a composition for an ensemble (from quartet to full big band) which will have a number of sections are notated completely for the players except for the places where improvisation will occur in spots during the piece's duration.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

They do the same things as most classical composers do except perhaps on a smaller scale. Look at the endless imaginative arrangements that Duke Ellington did year after year for his great band. Listen to the incredibly subtle arrangements, written arrangements, demanding arrangements, that Gil Evans did for Miles Davis. For those who don’t write for a band, they have their own original tunes or compositions that are often harmonized in an original way, such as what Thelonious Monk did with his quirky melodies and harmonies that I consider works of genius. Gerry Mulligan did tremendous arrangements for his own groups or for a big band like Stan Kenton (Contemporary Concepts album). So not only have they written many original types of the compositions that even somebody like Igor Stravinsky couldn’t do but tried (Stravinsky’s Ebony Concerto for Woody Herman), but they were able to improvise on them as another exceptional achievement.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Some write short heads as a jumping off point for improvisation. And others are more elaborate such as Gil Evans or Gunther Schuller. The mark of some jazz composers is unmistakable no matter who is playing the music. Monk is a good example.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

They compose music in the jazz idiom. People like Billy Strayhorn, who wrote and arranged a lot for Ellington's band.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Well, there you have it. A thread that argues that jazz is a part of the diversification of classical music in the 20th century and represents the classical impulse of an excluded and abused people ... is excluded from the classical area! I was hoping to go on the compare what noted jazz composers do compared to (included) contemporary composers who use all sorts of arrangements for improvisation and thought that, as we have a few members who understand their various methods very well but probably don't much visit the non-classical area, the classical area would be best for this thread.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

It's worth noting that there's been a certain "tension" in jazz going back a long ways between those who felt the genre's heart was improvisation and those who felt its full potential was in a more fully-composed classical style. Many explored a middle-ground between the polar extremes, and an entire quasi-genre called "third stream" was born from it. While I tend to gravitate more to jazz as an improvisational genre--I think that's what makes it unique from other genres--the best works from Ellington, Evans/Davis, and Mingus certainly show how much potential there is a more composed style. I think Mingus probably struck the best middle-ground between the two. Black Saint and the Sinner Lady is a truly stunning work in that tradition:


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

starthrower said:


> Some write short heads as a jumping off point for improvisation. And others are more elaborate such as Gil Evans or Gunther Schuller. The mark of some jazz composers is unmistakable no matter who is playing the music. Monk is a good example.


Just jumping in with an opportunity for an introduction, one jazz composer who was completely unique was Bob Graettinger. He's a local hero in my home town, where he was from (well, a hero amongst the jazz enthusiasts in Ontario, California, if there are any left). City of Glass had us all scratching our heads; it was jazz in its orchestration and feel, but it was also classical. He died too young.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> Anyway, my question is … well, its in the title: some noted jazz performers are also highly valued as composers, but do any of you know what exactly a jazz composer does?


They write notes and rhythms on paper to be played by specific ensembles. But obviously jazz composers leave more leeway for input and interpretation by the band members.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> Just jumping in with an opportunity for an introduction, one jazz composer who was completely unique was Bob Graettinger. He's a local hero in my home town, where he was from (well, a hero amongst the jazz enthusiasts in Ontario, California, if there are any left). City of Glass had us all scratching our heads; it was jazz in its orchestration and feel, but it was also classical. He died too young.


I have that album. His approach was much more elaborate that what many jazz writers do. But Kenton was into that kind of thing.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I originally moved this thread to the Non-classical forum since TC has generally viewed jazz as not classical. Enthusiast convinced me that the content really is or will be related to classical (i.e. from this post) so I have moved it back to the Classical Music Discussion.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

so orchestral film music is not classical and jazz should be? I bet that if picked same blind samples of both and showed them to random people and asked them what is classical, they would identify the film music as classical and jazz as not classical.


----------



## ManateeFL (Mar 9, 2017)

There are many examples in just about every genre of music that is inventive and sophisticated. If the argument is that those features constitute something as potentially being classical music, then just about anything can be classical.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Jacck said:


> so orchestral film music is not classical and jazz should be? I bet that if picked same blind samples of both and showed them to random people and asked them what is classical, they would identify the film music as classical and jazz as not classical.


I think that it depends, for instance here there's another long thread opened by a person who asked if he was the only one thinking that jazz is boring, and he probably is classical fan asking here to other persons who listen to classical music for their perspective, so I think he made the right decision putting it here.

Same for this thread, If the discussion was just about favorite jazz albums, or "what jazz album are you listening to?" I'd agree with you, but I think this one here is not out of place.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I think Mingus probably struck the best middle-ground between the two. Black Saint and the Sinner Lady is a truly stunning work in that tradition:]


Yes, I think that album is the single best introduction to jazz for classical fans, for that reason.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

isorhythm said:


> Yes, I think that album is the single best introduction to jazz for classical fans, for that reason.


though I prefer Let my children hear music. It is the best Mingus album for me.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

norman bates said:


> I think that it depends, for instance here there's another long thread opened by a person who asked if he was the only one thinking that jazz is boring, and he probably is classical fan asking here to other persons who listen to classical music for their perspective, so I think he made the right decision putting it here.
> 
> Same for this thread, If the discussion was just about favorite jazz albums, or "what jazz album are you listening to?" I'd agree with you, but I think this one here is not out of place.


I think you are missing the context and hence the point of my comment. I was refering to another thread, where Enthusiast did not want to recognize film music as part of classical music.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It's worth noting that there's been a certain "tension" in jazz going back a long ways between those who felt the genre's heart was improvisation and those who felt its full potential was in a more fully-composed classical style. Many explored a middle-ground between the polar extremes, and an entire quasi-genre called "third stream" was born from it. While I tend to gravitate more to jazz as an improvisational genre--I think that's what makes it unique from other genres--the best works from Ellington, Evans/Davis, and Mingus certainly show how much potential there is a more composed style. I think Mingus probably struck the best middle-ground between the two. Black Saint and the Sinner Lady is a truly stunning work in that tradition:


I love Mingus! I was wondering how composed such pieces/albums by Monk are? Arrangments, themes, structure, spaces for improvised solos?? And (you know me - I know nothing about what musicians do only what they do to me) how does that compare or fit with the range of techniques used by today's classical composers? And ... actually there is so much I would like to understand about all this ... including how what Mingus did compares with others who were more oriented to improvisation?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

starthrower said:


> They write notes and rhythms on paper to be played by specific ensembles. But obviously jazz composers leave more leeway for input and interpretation by the band members.


OK. Are there any classical composers that you know of who allow/encourage/harness similar amounts freedom? Sorry - I really know nothing about all this but I understood that some avant garde composers have wanted things to be very free, as well.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Jacck said:


> so orchestral film music is not classical and jazz should be? I bet that if picked same blind samples of both and showed them to random people and asked them what is classical, they would identify the film music as classical and jazz as not classical.


I am not sure if that is aimed at me? Probably not. There are regularly threads about film music. I participate in many of them and have never ever argued that film music cannot be classical. As for blind samples and the general population and their opinion about what is classical, phooey!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

ManateeFL said:


> There are many examples in just about every genre of music that is inventive and sophisticated. If the argument is that those features constitute something as potentially being classical music, then just about anything can be classical.


Yes, fair enough. But your sophisticated and mine probably differ. Taste _is_ subjective and those of us who love music are very attached to our tastes. It doesn't matter, at all, but make it difficult to discuss matters in abstract words and categories. For me, I will persist in feeling that there is a substantial amount of jazz that is profound in a way that we rarely encounter elsewhere other than with classical music. But, of course, we have had long threads about how classical some prog rock is and so on.

My interest here is to explore with those who might know what similarities and differences in composing methods there are between more recent classical and jazz. I think it is a legitimate subject but perhaps not one for you?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Jacck said:


> I think you are missing the context and hence the point of my comment. I was refering to another thread, where Enthusiast did not want to recognize film music as part of classical music.


Oh, show me where I said that! My only recent foray into film music on this forum concerned whether John Williams is a classical composer. I said in quite a few different ways that I didn't think so. That is my opinion on Williams not on film music!! In my posts I recognised (several times) that there is classical music that was written for films and at one point I even suggested a thread on the relationship between recognisably classical music and art films (or something like that). I always stressed that I thought Williams gained nothing from being considered as classical because his music comes over as poor quality classical music but is very effective film music.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Mingus is great but contemporary Jazz composition is alive and well. I recommend Tyshawn Sorey, Wadada Leo Smith, Anthony Braxton.


----------



## Vasks (Dec 9, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> OK. Are there any classical composers that you know of who allow/encourage/harness similar amounts freedom? Sorry - I really know nothing about all this but I understood that some avant garde composers have wanted things to be very free, as well.


Yes, classical composers with an avant-garde-ish bent have and still do allow for freedom easily since the 1950's. But freedom with what? Maybe just pitch or just rhythm or both. Or structure (player picks the order of pages), etc. I don't know of any that do what most jazzers would which is to lay down a chord progression and have the musicians improvise on the progression. However, there are such classical musicians that could easily do so.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

isorhythm said:


> Yes, I think that album is the single best introduction to jazz for classical fans, for that reason.


The only thing that would make me hesitate recommending Black Saint to classical fans is that it's also quite avant-garde. Many who prefer more traditional composition might prefer Ellington or Davis/Evans. My first (probably safer) recommendation to classical fans would probably be Davis's/Evans's Sketches of Spain or Porgy & Bess, both of which rework more familiar classical works and are masterpieces in their own right.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

The premise of this thread seems somewhat flawed to me, as though jazz has been discriminated against somehow because people don't consider it 'classical'. That idea in itself seems to suggest that an art form is not considered legitimate on it's own or that it immediately gains some kind of extra status by being allowed to be included in the classical tradition. 

Why can't the merits of jazz speak for themselves? The jazz artists I have met in the past generally have a lot of pride in relation to their art form, and many of them are turned off by classical music. Both forms of music are quite sophisticated, but they are not the same thing, no need to group them as such.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> I love Mingus! I was wondering how composed such pieces/albums by Monk are? Arrangments, themes, structure, spaces for improvised solos?? And (you know me - I know nothing about what musicians do only what they do to me) how does that compare or fit with the range of techniques used by today's classical composers? And ... actually there is so much I would like to understand about all this ... including how what Mingus did compares with others who were more oriented to improvisation?


Monk's biggest claim to fame was that so many of his compositions became Bebop standards, probably the most recorded composer that players loved to improvise over. So much so that I think it was Davis that said him and many others learned most of what they knew from Monk. I think one thing that made Monk attractive is that his melodies and progressions tended to be quite original and odd so they provided really new and fertile ground upon which to improvise.

Compared to Monk, Mingus's compositions were much thicker and richer. Much more of it was meant to be played "as-written" and usually features bigger bands. Now, Mingus still left room for improvisation, but compared to most recordings of Monk the improvisation isn't always the main focus. In fact, I often find myself listening to Mingus not entirely sure where the composition ends and the improvisation begins, while with recordings of Monk there's never a doubt. Basically, with Monk and most jazz, the structure is simple: ABA where the "A"s are the theme and the "B" is the improvisation, and in much jazz the B-section will often dwarf the A-section (especially live). It's not uncommon for an A theme to last a mere few seconds before players launch into improv. Listen to this Monk piece: 



 The A theme takes up about the first 55 seconds, then you get about 4 minutes of improvisation, and then the last 50-or-so seconds is the main theme repeating.

As for contemporary classical, I don't consider myself an expert, but I know some composers have explored improvisation and aleatory techniques, but I don't think this is similar to jazz. I think in classical these aleatory elements are usually within certain limited peramaters. In jazz, the performers are often considered as much the "composers" as the actual composers, because you'll often just get a brief melody that features some chord changes (or, in modal jazz, you may get a shorter motif and vamp on/around the tonic) and then players are free to play over that. Improvisation in jazz is basically a means of spur-of-the-moment composition in itself, so that you're basically hearing variations on the melody or even new things created from the underlying chords. I don't think most aleatory classical is improvisational to this extent, to where the elements left to the players form as much of a "new composition" as the parts written by the composer.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Grow prize-winning orchids?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Monk seemed to me a natural composer, he also wrote down his compositions, but often wouldn't allow the assembled musicians to have access to the score. He wanted them to hear him play it and for the arrangement to develop. I wouldn't call the wide recording of his 'standards' his 'greatest claim to fame'. He had an illustrious career as a performer, which is how most know him.

I don't find Mingus even half as interesting as Monk. The faux intellectual top layer is layered on way too thick. The compositions meander for no reason. Monk, as essentially a stride pianist, had a far better balance between the advances of bebop (which he helped form) and music that still bounces.

Cue: someone posts a long stream of Mingus you tube videos....


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Here's Igor Stravinsky's crossover into jazz or what he imagines to be jazz. He wrote this for the Woody Herman orchestra in the 1940s. Perhaps it shows why jazz composers and arrangers are needed instead of classical ones because it's rather unswinging and stiff but at least charming. It sounds somewhat like his score to Petrushka. However, it does represent a crossover of a classical composer into jazz. I would have not been bothered if this thread was in the non-classical section. Gershwin and Ravel were way ahead of him and far more authentic, in my opinion. Many classical composers have been attracted to the rhythms of jazz, but it's mainly the authentic jazz musicians themselves, and the composers, who get it right with its sense of freedom and swing. Still, I think Stravinsky's concerto is one of the most fun things he ever did:


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> Here's Igor Stravinsky's crossover into jazz or what he imagines to be jazz. He wrote this for the Woody Herman orchestra in the 1940s. Perhaps it shows why jazz composers and arrangers are needed instead of classical ones because it's rather unswinging and stiff but at least charming. It sounds somewhat like his score to Petrushka. However, it does represent a crossover of a classical composer into jazz. I would have not been bothered if this thread was in the non-classical section.


Sounds like Joseph somehow got lost on his way to Russia and ended up in Hollywood...


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Below a link to a jazz piece composed in 1822 by a certain Ludwig van Beethoven, to me this is the earliest example of jazz music. What do you think?






Personally, I don't believe in strict categories of music, just in good music and not so good music. Of a famous jazz solo (like John Coltrane on 'Someday my Prince will come' with Miles Davis), it makes no difference if it is was written on paper or it came straight from JC's brain. The music at least is not glued together from many loose digital recorded fragments, like any classical studio recording, but it is recorded in one take and will never be repeated in the exact same way. And what is the difference between a Cadenza in any classic concerto and a jazz solo? It would be great if a classic musician would just improvise his cadenza on the spot. Does anyone have an example of this? Would have been something for Friedrich Gulda!


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

The Beethoven is very ragtime.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Jazz composition gives a lot more freedom away to the performer, which can be very rewarding. In less capable hands, however, tunes can sound dull and uninspired (arguably more so than with inadequate classical musicians).


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Portamento said:


> Jazz composition gives a lot more freedom away to the performer, which can be very rewarding. In less capable hands, however, tunes can sound dull and uninspired (arguably more so than with inadequate classical musicians).


With solo or chamber music, I agree. With orchestral music, I experience that a top notch orchestra can sound dull and uninspired with one conductor and earthmoving with another.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

eugeneonagain said:


> Monk seemed to me a natural composer, he also wrote down his compositions, but often wouldn't allow the assembled musicians to have access to the score. He wanted them to hear him play it and for the arrangement to develop. *I wouldn't call the wide recording of his 'standards' his 'greatest claim to fame'. He had an illustrious career as a performer, which is how most know him.*


I was including Monk as a performer in my "claim to fame" comment. Monk was a fine performer too, but take away his compositions and he wouldn't be nearly as interesting, unlike Parker, Davis, Coltrane, etc.



eugeneonagain said:


> I don't find Mingus even half as interesting as Monk. The faux intellectual top layer is layered on way too thick. The compositions meander for no reason. Monk, as essentially a stride pianist, had a far better balance between the advances of bebop (which he helped form) and music that still bounces.
> 
> Cue: someone posts a long stream of Mingus you tube videos....


Different strokes, and no long stream of vids from me. I like Monk and Mingus about equally. I enjoy Mingus's thick layers (baby got back) and find his meanderings fascinating.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> Here's Igor Stravinsky's crossover into jazz or what he imagines to be jazz. He wrote this for the Woody Herman orchestra in the 1940s. Perhaps it shows why jazz composers and arrangers are needed instead of classical ones because it's rather unswinging and stiff but at least charming. It sounds somewhat like his score to Petrushka. However, it does represent a crossover of a classical composer into jazz. I would have not been bothered if this thread was in the non-classical section. Gershwin and Ravel were way ahead of him and far more authentic, in my opinion. Many classical composers have been attracted to the rhythms of jazz, but it's mainly the authentic jazz musicians themselves, and the composers, who get it right with its sense of freedom and swing.


It is true that classical musicians have often been poor jazz players (and vice versa - take Benny Goodman's Mozart) and, it seems, composers.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

NLAdriaan said:


> It would be great if a classic musician would just improvise his cadenza on the spot. Does anyone have an example of this? Would have been something for Friedrich Gulda!


I found this on the net:



> It's a great question. Robert Levin, a pianist who does improvise cadenzas postulates that it has to do with recording. All recordings are spliced together from multiple takes these days and that wouldn't be as easy if the performers were improvising and embellishing. He also notes the issue of familiarity. We have heard every work of Mozart many more times than Mozart himself. As such the audience is expecting the performance to be the same as what they know.
> 
> To this I would add that it's mainly about difficulty. When Mozart was improvising cadenzas, it was to pieces he knew and they were in the style contemporary to his time. Modern players not only need to be able to play Classical music, but Romantic, Baroque, and modern music. To be able to improvise a cadenza requires an intimate knowledge of the music that most players can't attain unless they specialize in the music of one era to the exclusion of the others. Levin himself is mainly known for his interpretations of Mozart. In today's music business, limiting to one style takes a certain amount of bravery, as it will limit performance opportunities.


Source:
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-concertos-cadenzas-no-longer-improvised


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

Most of the so called jazz "composers" were not really composers, their "arrangers" were doing all the composition and orchestration. I personally find improvisation very overrated, no good music can come out of collective improvisation without severe harmonic and rhythmical clashes; if everything sounds smooth - it's 100 % cliches and prepared structures.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

BabyGiraffe said:


> Most of the so called jazz "composers" were not really composers, their "arrangers" were doing all the composition and orchestration. I personally find improvisation very overrated, no good music can come out of collective improvisation without severe harmonic and rhythmical clashes; if everything sounds smooth - it's 100 % cliches and prepared structures.


Arrangers do not do the original compositions which consist of the melody and harmony. They don't do that or they would be composers themselves rather than arrangers. Some jazz composers arranged their own music and some didn't. Duke Ellington did, but he also had arrangements done by Billy Strayhorn... Collaborations have been known in every type of music, including classical. Joachim Raff and Franz Liszt. "After a period in Stuttgart where he became friends with the conductor Hans von Bülow, Raff worked as Liszt's assistant at Weimar from 1850 to 1853. During this time he helped Liszt in the orchestration of several of his works, claiming to have had a major part in orchestrating the symphonic poem Tasso." It happened because Liszt didn't know how to orchestrate some of his own works. Oliver Nelson, Gerry Mulligan, Gil Evans, Gerald Wilson, Duke Ellington, Gary McFarland, Thad Jones and others, were outstanding composer/arrangers in jazz with many composition credits to their names.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

BabyGiraffe said:


> Most of the so called jazz "composers" were not really composers, their "arrangers" were doing all the composition and orchestration. I personally find improvisation very overrated, no good music can come out of collective improvisation without severe harmonic and rhythmical clashes; if everything sounds smooth - it's 100 % cliches and prepared structures.


Fair enough. But aren't you just saying that you don't like most (or close to) jazz?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

BabyGiraffe said:


> Most of the so called jazz "composers" were not really composers, their "arrangers" were doing all the composition and orchestration.


Most of the most respected jazz composers were truly composers. Sure there were also big bands with brilliant arrangers and writers like Horace Henderson and Ralph Burns. 
But what you're saying is simply not true.
The most important composers of the swing era? Ellington and Strayhorn, Mary Lou Williams. The bop era? Monk, Herbie Nichols, Gillespie, Bud Powell, Tadd Dameron. The sixties? Wayne Shorter, Andrew Hill, Charles Mingus, Carla Bley, George Russell etc. (the list could be obviously be much longer).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

BabyGiraffe said:


> Most of the so called jazz "composers" were not really composers, their "arrangers" were doing all the composition and orchestration. I personally find improvisation very overrated, no good music can come out of collective improvisation without severe harmonic and rhythmical clashes; if everything sounds smooth - it's 100 % cliches and prepared structures.


Who "arranged" for Ellington and Mingus? I also think you're confused about jazz improvisation; except for some free jazz (Coleman, late Coltrane, eg), it's not collective improvisation, but singular improvisation over chord changes or modes. Players take turns while the others keep rhythm or comp. There's nearly unlimited room to be un-cliché while improvising in such a setting.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

norman bates said:


> Most of the most respected jazz composers were truly composers. Sure there were also big bands with brilliant arrangers and writers like Horace Henderson and Ralph Burns.
> But what you're saying is simply not true.
> The most important composers of the swing era? Ellington and Strayhorn, Mary Lou Williams. The bop era? Monk, Herbie Nichols, Gillespie, Bud Powell, Tadd Dameron. The sixties? Wayne Shorter, Andrew Hill, Charles Mingus, Carla Bley, George Russell etc. (the list could be obviously be much longer).


True. Pat Metheny and Lyle Mays didn't have arrangers for their complex compositions. They did it themselves.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Who "arranged" for Ellington and Mingus? I also think you're confused about jazz improvisation; except for some free jazz (Coleman, late Coltrane, eg), it's not collective improvisation, but singular improvisation over chord changes or modes. Players take turns while the others keep rhythm or comp. There's nearly unlimited room to be un-cliché while improvising in such a setting.


For Ellington, Billy Strayhorn, although composing is more like it!



tdc said:


> The premise of this thread seems somewhat flawed to me, as though jazz has been discriminated against somehow because people don't consider it 'classical'. That idea in itself seems to suggest that an art form is not considered legitimate on it's own or that it immediately gains some kind of extra status by being allowed to be included in the classical tradition.
> 
> Why can't the merits of jazz speak for themselves? The jazz artists I have met in the past generally have a lot of pride in relation to their art form, and many of them are turned off by classical music. Both forms of music are quite sophisticated, but they are not the same thing, no need to group them as such.


I agree completely. Institutional differences and definitions keep the worlds apart. Two distinguished forms of art music that flourish in different contexts.

I love the Mingus posted before.

Here is a jazz composition in sonata form, _Unknown Soldier_, by Josef Zawinul. Zawinul makes brilliant use of group improvisation in creating (facilitating?) a harrowing development section with obvious programmatic elements. I doubt any other method besides group improv could have produced a viable result.

It begins with the principal theme. The second theme (in the classical sense) is the one played by English Horn. The development begins at 2:42, the recap (dovetailed into the end of the development) begins at 4:40:






Of course, the fade out doesn't fit the classical mold …


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> For Ellington, Billy Strayhorn, although composing is more like it!


From what I've read their partnership was more fully collaborative than composer/arranger since, as you suggest, Strayhan composed many pieces too.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

tdc said:


> The premise of this thread seems somewhat flawed to me, as though jazz has been discriminated against somehow because people don't consider it 'classical'. That idea in itself seems to suggest that an art form is not considered legitimate on it's own or that it immediately gains some kind of extra status by being allowed to be included in the classical tradition.
> 
> Why can't the merits of jazz speak for themselves? The jazz artists I have met in the past generally have a lot of pride in relation to their art form, and many of them are turned off by classical music. Both forms of music are quite sophisticated, but they are not the same thing, no need to group them as such.


You actually misunderstand the "premise of the thread". It was not about discimination (although being the music of an excluded and discriminated against group is part of what defines jazz) and I was not suggesting that it is discrimination to deny jazz classical music status. I guess you read my sentence



> We keep it separate from our classical music but it is not clear to me that it is such a separate thing given the variety found in music we do recognise as classical.


as saying that and I agree I could have been clearer. I was referring partly to the number of threads we have that suggest that many of us consider all sorts of music "classical" and often on far less meaningful grounds. And partly I was wondering if our classications mean so much any more. But I agree 100% that jazz is jazz and doesn't need to be included in the classical tradition to be greatly respected. There are obvious differences between jazz music and any classical music that I know (although Larkenfield has given some examples of classical composers trying to use jazz sounds).

Jazz appeared at a time when classical music itself was diversifying widely ... so that a tradition that had been more or less linear for 200 years had become a hugely varied field (a process of diversifying that accelerated through the 20th Century) and I do think this is relevant because it is much more difficult to consider classical music as a single genre. Indeed, some have argued here that quite a lot of what generally passes as contemporary classical music is not classical at all! I also think that musically talented black people in the early days of jazz had little prospect to learn and thrive in the classical genres, a fact that puts the difference between the two genres in a slightly different light.

But none of that was really the premise of this thread and these arguments are more about whether the post and the questions I ask belong in this part of the forum. The premise - my reason for posting - is actually just about my ignorance and my interest in what it is that jazz composers do and how that is related to what modern and contemporary classical composers do. I was keen for that to be answered by people who know a fair bit about classical composing methods and, although I have had some interesting responses, I would still like to see my question getting more answers from the classical side. I'm interested in learning more about the methods used by classical composers who use, or give opportunity for, improvisation.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> From what I've read their partnership was more fully collaborative than composer/arranger since, as you suggest, Strayhan composed many pieces too.


Including the band's theme song, Take The A Train. Or for you Canadian members, Take The Train, A.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

I'll defend Mingus all day as a musician if not as a person. Pithecanthropus Erectus, Goodbye Porkpie Hat and Shoes of a Fisherman's Wife are three masterpiece compositions that are enough to rank Mingus among the greatest. 

I don't expect musicians to be smart about non-musical things, but I do expect them to be arrogant as can be. This is true of most creative people until they have to learn to code or haul manure either of which humbles the mightiest of egos.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

I love Monk but it's obvious to me that like many innovators his melodic material was limited or overshadowed by harmonic methods. Ornette is similar in that sense and he's perhaps my favorite jazz artist, they broke more boundaries in harmony than melody. Mingus was more balanced and though his hog-calling was one of his personal voices he also wrote some beautiful slow-tempo ballads. Altogether his tempo-shifting and doubling-up is one of the things that makes Mingus rock, sometimes to a fault (e.g. Nature Boy with Miles). 

To match his fiery temperament Mingus demanded that his horn players solo as wildly as the context would permit, resulting in some great passages of ensemble orgy. Then he would shift into that Ellingtonian mode that would be like the cigar after the orgy. Cecil Taylor, David Murray and others would take this formula even further with great success.


----------



## Byron (Mar 11, 2017)

The relationship between improvisation and composition is a complex one, even in classical music. In classical music, improvisation seems to be widely regarded as consisting of the first thoughts off the top of one's head, and it is taken for granted that coming back to these thoughts and crafting them with a high degree of sophistication improves them and is required in the process of composing great music. 

However, Wagner had some interesting thoughts on composition and improvistation in his essay "The Destiny of Opera". When he was composing his opera Tristan und Isolde, he was consummed by a white hot intensity of inspiration and there were points where the music came pouring out of him. And so assured was he during this process that he finished each act in full orchestral score and sent them off to publishers to be engraved on metal plates before starting the next act, leaving himself no room for even minor changes. 

Something that struck Wagner about this experience was that when music is coming to a composer like this, as fast as it can be put down on paper, is improvising. And the writing is "fixing" the improvisation. Many composers have worked like this at various times -- Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Schubert. Its the product of much learning and experience being so metabolized that the composer can move at a high rate of speed without having to think about it. The unconscious is fully informed by technique. Wagner goes on to point out in his essay the frequency with which the improvisations of lesser composers are often held to be superior by the audiences in attendance to their actual published compositions, and speculates that this may have even been true of a Bach or Beethoven, whose improvisations were agreed by all who heard them to be marvellous. Improvisation makes possible a degree of flexibilty and freshness withing existing forms that conscious adherence to form will not allow. So the most desirable thing, Wagner says, is for a work to partake in these qualities and fix them in permanent form.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Aside: I've found that contemporary classical musicans -- perhaps through exposure, perhaps by being more open minded -- are a lot more capable of "swinging" then those of older generations. I remember listening to radio broadcasts of the Boston Pops (basically the BSO) in my youth (this was near the end of Arthur Fiedler's tenure), and marveling at how rhythmically stiff and straight-laced the orchestra's playing of pop song arrangements was. No longer.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Who "arranged" for Ellington and Mingus? I also think you're confused about jazz improvisation; except for some free jazz (Coleman, late Coltrane, eg), it's not collective improvisation, but singular improvisation over chord changes or modes. Players take turns while the others keep rhythm or comp. There's nearly unlimited room to be un-cliché while improvising in such a setting.


No, you are the one misunderstanding. It is well known that early jazz was exactly collective improvisations. And it was considered by white people as being cacophonous and degenerate music. What you call improvisation is noodling, licks and embellishing stock melodies and formulas. Too bad that "allaboutjazz" forum went dysfunctional, there were many stories about how much unfair credit various jazz big names didn't deserve and how unappreciated and unknown are the arrangers. Being a good or famous player doesn't mean that you can compose anything. Anyone can probably improvise a short riff or melody, creating a whole composition out of it is the hard part.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*What do jazz composers do? *

Here are a couple of jazz composers' do's! (Frankly, I'm not sure I understand the question.)

Esperanza Spalding.









Bill Evans.









Another Bill Evans?









Or … is that the same dude? But with different do?

Chet Baker.









Chick Corea.









I suppose there are lots more, but you get the idea: I really _don't _understand this question!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Chick Corea is an immensely talented and skillful composer/arranger who can write and play just about anything for any type of ensemble. Any kind of jazz, classical, or jazz/rock configuration. He's pretty much done it all throughout his long and incredibly productive career.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Does anybody listen to the Jazz Suites by Shostakovich? They are mainly pieces in dance rhythm with a lot of brass wind and accordion. In some ways they swing more than Stravinsky's efforts regardless of how much Goodman's Herd thunders. But they also seem of a separate time and place, far from the jazz of Jellyroll, Duke and Basie. I've never been able to pin this down analytically, maybe someone else has a clue.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

There are differences. Western CP theory has major/minor scales, and does not recognize "modes" derived from those, or any, scales. To them, "modes" refers to some melodic formula used back in Gregorian times.

By contrast, jazz is based on whatever sounds good to the ear. This includes things like "modes of the harmonic minor scale" and things like that, which would never be recognized as even existing in CP tonal theory.

In jazz, a scale is used to complement the key. A C major seventh chord (which does not exist in CP tonal theory), functioning as a I chord in a major key, would be played-over with a C Lydian scale, because it reinforces C major better (to the ear) than a C major scale, which has the dissonance F, which sounds terrible over a C Maj7. 

So jazz is based on what sounds good, unlike Western CP tonality, which just "developed" into what it is, according to traditions, not the ear, and also as a denial and refusal to recognize jazz concepts.

The black players who invented jazz wanted to make music which sounded good to them, so they played by ear. That's why soloing and performance is a bigger part of jazz than CP classical; jazz developed not out of notation, but out of an oral/aural performance impetus. When these aural performances could be recorded (with the rise of recording technology), it became "the score" which this kind of ear-produced music had always lacked, and placed it on equal footing with notated CP music.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Jazz composers write things down just like classical composers. So many names have already been mentioned. The compositions are not all improvisational-based like it was in New Orleans in 1910. The music has evolved and become very sophisticated but still allows for improvisation and contributions from the members within the group who have the ability to improvise. I’ve played many such compositions and arrangements as a performing jazz musician. Some jazz musicians are section players and don’t improvise at all; they only play what’s written. I do not go along with the dismissive attitude toward jazz composers who have the ability for original compositions and to write things down, such as what Gil Evans did for Miles Davis on an album like Miles Ahead, or just about anything that Duke Ellington wrote. He was a jazz composer but with the ability to arrange. There is no difference between being a composer in jazz or in classical music. But jazz is a different idiom and has its own conventions related to spontaneous creativity within anything that ’s composed or arranged. Sometimes arrangements will evolve in a band without being written down, called “head” arrangements... Jazz musicians have kept the art of improvisation alive. While there are some exceptions, so much in classical music is nailed down to the page and it’s repetitive other than some different inflections from performance to performance. But it was the jazz musicians who kept the art of improvisation alive an art and they knew how to write things down and had the originality above and beyond the ability to simply arrange things.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> There are differences. Western CP theory has major/minor scales, and does not recognize "modes" derived from those, or any, scales. To them, "modes" refers to some melodic formula used back in Gregorian times.
> 
> By contrast, jazz is based on whatever sounds good to the ear. This includes things like "modes of the harmonic minor scale" and things like that, which would never be recognized as even existing in CP tonal theory.
> 
> ...


Why do you think it's relevant to compare CP theory with jazz? You're a century off! It makes more sense to compare jazz to the "classical" music those early jazz players were hearing in Paris during the 1920s and 30s! Lots of modal music, quartal music, music using octatonic and hexatonic scales, whole tone scales, extended tertian sonorities, polytonality, influence from Indonesia and North Africa. All the Russians passing through. Lee Morgan had a tune called The Procrastinator. You know why? It was a nod to the language he was using inspired by Prokofiev. And, obviously, the influence between jazz and classical went both ways.



millionrainbows said:


> So jazz is based on what sounds good, unlike Western CP tonality, which just "developed" into what it is, according to traditions, not the ear, and also as a denial and refusal to recognize jazz concepts.


Let me get this straight: "Western CP tonality … developed [in part] as a denial and refusal to recognize jazz concepts?", concepts that would not exist until anywhere from centuries to decades later? Can you explain how that makes sense?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Here's Gary Burton, one of the great jazz musicians in the world, explaining the fundamentals of jazz theory, and a fundamental understanding of scales and chords is essential:

"O Grande Amor"...






Jazz Theory and Improvisation... worth its weight in gold!


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Larkenfield said:


> Jazz composers write things down just like classical composers. So many names have already been mentioned. The compositions are not all improvisational-based like it was in New Orleans in 1910. The music has evolved and become very sophisticated but still allows for improvisation and contributions from the members within the group who have the ability to improvise. I've played many such compositions and arrangements as a performing jazz musician. Some jazz musicians are section players and don't improvise at all; they only play what's written. I do not go along with the dismissive attitude toward jazz composers who have the ability for original compositions and to write things down, such as what Gil Evans did for Miles Davis on an album like Miles Ahead, or just about anything that Duke Ellington wrote. He was a jazz composer but with the ability to arrange. There is no difference between being a composer in jazz or in classical music. But jazz is a different idiom and has its own conventions related to spontaneous creativity within anything that 's composed or arranged. Sometimes arrangements will evolve in a band without being written down, called "head" arrangements... *Jazz musicians have kept the art of improvisation alive.* While there are some exceptions, so much in classical music is nailed down to the page and it's repetitive other than some different inflections from performance to performance. *But it was the jazz musicians who kept the art of improvisation alive an art* and they knew how to write things down and had the originality above and beyond the ability to simply arrange things.


Jazz is a style of music, heavily focused on improvisation and which often features very advanced examples of improvisation. That said since the beginning of music, improvisation has been an aspect of it, it is inseparable. Improvisation is forever occurring in music regardless of whether or not jazz ever existed. It is not as much at the forefront of classical music performance (improvisation became less common in classical music performance post-Beethoven) but it still occurs and has always and will always occur within the context of 'classical' music.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

starthrower said:


> Chick Corea is an immensely talented and skillful composer/arranger who can write and play just about anything for any type of ensemble. Any kind of jazz, classical, or jazz/rock configuration. He's pretty much done it all throughout his long and incredibly productive career.


And still doing it: heard Chick Corea trio live in concert in open air at a square in Firenze, Italy, last summer.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

tdc said:


> Jazz is a style of music, heavily focused on improvisation and which often features very advanced examples of improvisation. That said since the beginning of music, improvisation has been an aspect of it, it is inseparable. Improvisation is forever occurring in music regardless of whether or not jazz ever existed. It is not as much at the forefront of classical music performance (improvisation became less common in classical music performance post-Beethoven) but it still occurs and has always and will always occur within the context of 'classical' music.


Fully agree, in baroque music impro was alive. Bach improvised on church organ, only to write down the notes later I guess. Church organ players to this day widely improvise, there even are competitions for it. I read yesterday on the net that Robert Levin explains the demise of improvised Cadenzas in classical music may have to do with the arrival of recorded music. Since then, the audience already knows the piece in detail and expects to hear exactly what they know. As if one wishes to judge the performance by checking if the musician played it without mistakes, instead of listening without prejudice.

If you look at it logically, each composition starts with improvisation. Of course, a composer needs to know about the instruments he applies and the musical language, but otherwise it all just comes from the brain.

In jazz, as in other music, the improvisation always stays within the structure of the song. It is not just some loose playing.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Can anyone recommend some Baroque improvisation recordings? I'd like to hear some of that.:lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> Why do you think it's relevant to compare CP theory with jazz? You're a century off! It makes more sense to compare jazz to the "classical" music those early jazz players were hearing in Paris during the 1920s and 30s! Lots of modal music, quartal music, music using octatonic and hexatonic scales, whole tone scales, extended tertian sonorities, polytonality, influence from Indonesia and North Africa. All the Russians passing through. Lee Morgan had a tune called The Procrastinator. You know why? It was a nod to the language he was using inspired by Prokofiev. And, obviously, the influence between jazz and classical went both ways.


That's not CP classical, that's 20th century modern thinking. I made a comparison with CP classical theory, not modern 20th century music.



> Let me get this straight: "Western CP tonality … developed [in part] as a denial and refusal to recognize jazz concepts?", concepts that would not exist until anywhere from centuries to decades later? Can you explain how that makes sense?


Yes, that's right, Western CP practice rejected *"jazz concepts",* not jazz as an idiom (it didn't exist yet). But thanks for pointing that out to us. :lol:



> Why do you think it's relevant to compare CP theory with jazz?


Well, you did the same thing when you took your CP stance against a jazz concept by George Russell in post #57 of "Decoding Beethoven." Frankly, I don't know if you accept or reject jazz theory idea, based on this.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Can anyone recommend some Baroque improvisation recordings? I'd like to hear some of that.:lol:


oh come on, you have seen that already


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

BabyGiraffe said:


> No, you are the one misunderstanding. It is well known that early jazz was exactly collective improvisations. And it was considered by white people as being cacophonous and degenerate music. What you call improvisation is noodling, licks and embellishing stock melodies and formulas. Too bad that "allaboutjazz" forum went dysfunctional, there were many stories about how much unfair credit various jazz big names didn't deserve and how unappreciated and unknown are the arrangers. Being a good or famous player doesn't mean that you can compose anything. Anyone can probably improvise a short riff or melody, creating a whole composition out of it is the hard part.


Well, yes, very early jazz, as in "most of it pre-recorded jazz" was about collective improvisation; but the jazz most people listen to and, I dare say, think of when the genre is mentioned is the singular improvisation popularized by Louis Armstrong and that thrived through most of the genre's recorded history, even after free jazz brought collective improvisation back. Yes, it was considered "cacophonous and degenerate music," as has much new music been considered such by older generations, but this time with a racial/cultural component attached to it. What you call "noodling" is what literally everyone else calls improvisation, and there's much more to it than embellishing stock melodies and "formulas." I also wasn't saying that many arrangers didn't get the credit they were due; the point was that many jazz composers did indeed arrange their own music, and some of the arrangers (like the aforementioned Billy Strayhorn) were composers themselves.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

In my view, the idea of "composing" is not completely suited to jazz, since jazz is more concerned with musical ideas which are in constant change, as opposed to "fixed" ideas.

Scoring music on paper was developed as way of "recording" musical ideas in fixed form, so they would remain consistent.
Jazz is "ear" music, which means performance from a player who retains the ideas by _memory._

Since memory is subject to change, it is not a good way of "fixing" an idea; that's done better as a _written_ score.

Now, by recording performances with a sound recording devices, ideas can fixed in unchanging form, as a written score does.

I see often that there are attempts to give "legitimacy" to jazz by pointing out that it can be "composed" by scoring it. Jazz doesn't need this legitimacy, since it emerged from an aural tradition.

Of course, "heads" can be written out, so that they can remain fixed, but most of the rest of it is done by chord symbols on a lead sheet, leaving the details up to the players. 
It can be completely scored, too, but that doesn't give it any more legitimacy than the "ear" method.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> That's not CP classical, that's 20th century modern thinking. *I made a comparison with CP classical theory,* not modern 20th century music.


Why? That's a particularly pointless kind of comparison to make. Jazz grew up in interaction with modern classical music. The two traditions are closely linked. What you're doing is like criticizing Great Britain for using steam powered trains while Japan has high speed bullet trains: "I was comparing 19thc British technology with 21stc Japanese technology" doesn't cut it.



millionrainbows said:


> Yes, that's right, Western CP practice rejected *"jazz concepts",* not jazz as an idiom (it didn't exist yet). But thanks for pointing that out to us.


Reject? That's an active verb requiring intention. You do understand that not doing a thing is quite different than rejecting something, right? So, if you do understand that: Who rejected what? - I mean specifically. Show me the words or actions of a theorist or musician of the time rejecting a "jazz concept." Or a significant matter of technique that indicates such an intentional rejection.

More important, are you sure they even "rejected" the concepts you are vaguely hinting at? Baroque and early classical composers wrote music in a shorthand requiring keyboard players or lutenists to realize chord voicings on the fly and to improvise melodic elements while they're at it, just like jazz guitarists and pianists. Bass lines were supported by a player in the rhythm section. Accomplished players had to know how to vary melodic material on repetitions with improvised ornaments and elaborations. It was taken for granted that one could improvise cadenzas on the themes of a concerto. Organists had to be proficient at improvising counterpoint and at the instant harmonization of melodies. Players were highly praised for their skill at spontaneous improvisation. They had duels to prove their prowess. The numerous parallels are obvious.



millionrainbows said:


> Well, you did the same thing when you took your CP stance against a jazz concept by George Russell in post #57 of "Decoding Beethoven." Frankly, I don't know if you accept or reject jazz theory idea, based on this.


You didn't answer the question.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I find lots of 'jazz compositions' in popular culture: 













also there is a classical pianist Gabriela Montero who improvises on classical music




some of her improvisations are actually written down on score, although I don't think there are any recordings of them,
probably because people wouldn't buy them.
https://www.allmusic.com/artist/gabriela-montero-mn0002052652/compositions


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Gabriela Montero... What a genius in the classical idiom. She’s been mentioned a number of times on the forum over the years and glad to see her mentioned again. There’s no one like her and I hope more people find out about her. Her improvisations are not written down or they wouldn’t be improvisations, and her CD Bach and Beyond is a good place to start. Anyone can check for her CDs on Amazon and there are a number of them. Someone else may have transcribed her improvisations but her improvisations are not written ahead of time and performed that way. She doesn’t need to do that and takes suggestions of themes to improvise on from her live audience.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

I hear enough excursions from triadic harmony in CM to believe that they are not rejected en masse but more likely by timid composers who might have been too unmusical or unskilled to exploit them. Jazz culture does not dedicate so much time to formalizing and testing each step of the education process - the stage is the exam room. Music has always been driven by combinations of the gifted and the learned working together as composers and performers and jazz artists are more comfortable with blurring that line to short-cut the process. The fact that modern jazz and CM share many of the same objectives now also supports the view that they don't reject each other at all, and if they ever did, it was only among the paranoid and disgruntled.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

philoctetes said:


> The fact that modern jazz and CM share many of the same objectives now also supports the view that they don't reject each other at all, and if they ever did, it was only among the paranoid and disgruntled.


Disgruntled academics, perhaps. But it's the 21st century now, and of course many composers have discarded many of the inflexible CP harmonic rigidities of the diatonic system, the C major scale in particular.

You are now allowed to use major seventh chords; aren't you excited? :lol:


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Disgruntled academics, perhaps. But it's the 21st century now, and of course many composers have *discarded many of the inflexible CP harmonic rigidities of the diatonic system*, the C major scale in particular.


What does this mean? What inflexible rigidities? Describe some, if there is actually any substance to this statement.



millionrainbows said:


> You are now allowed to use major seventh chords; aren't you excited?


They've been in use for centuries. Do you really not know that?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> What does this mean? What inflexible rigidities? Describe some, if there is actually any substance to this statement. They've been in use for centuries. Do you really not know that?


MR: "In CP, there is no major seventh chord."

_







Originally Posted by *Roger Knox* 
That is not true according to any harmony textbook I know, or any harmony course I've taken or taught. Regarding Common Practice Harmony (CP): it is a compilation, systematic but not rigidly consistent, of classical harmonic practice at least in the later 18th and earlier 19th centuries, if not more. Piston's Harmony is a well-known example.

_

"The seventh degree, leading-tone, for all its importance a an indicator of the tonic through its melodic tendency, has not been treated as a basic structural factor in tonality. It remains a significant melodic tone, common to both modes. It is seldom regarded as a generator of harmony, but is usually absorbed into the dominant chord. The progression, leading-tone to tonic, may be described as melodically VII-I and harmonically V-I." -Walter Piston, Harmony, p. 33

This treatment of the seventh degree supports what I am saying, as well as it weakens what you are saying.

"It follows that the tonal structure of music consists mainly of harmonies with tonal degrees as roots (I,IV,V, and II), with the modal degree chords (III and VI) used for variety." -Piston, p. 34

If the seventh degree cannot be used except melodically, as a leading-tone, or harmonically, as part of a V-I, this also supports my position that a C major seventh is not considered to be a chord unto itself.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

talking of pianists improvising in a classical idiom, check out this great video of Nahre Sol






And there's also the amazing Richard Grayson, who has a lot of funny videos that are also great display of his mastery


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> They've been in use for centuries. Do you really not know that?


Question of the day.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Originally Posted by *millionrainbows* 
_You are now allowed to use major seventh chords; aren't you excited?_



EdwardBast said:


> They've been in use for centuries. Do you really not know that?





drmdjones said:


> There are no major 7th chords in Bach (or Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Schubert, Brahms). 7th above the root is a non-chord tone that always resolves to a chord tone. Those of you who think otherwise do not understand dissonance and its treatment, in theory or practice. Others in this thread have tried to explain it to you but apparently some of you still don't get it.
> 
> If you can show me one instance of a major 7th in Bach that is not treated as a dissonance, that is to say that it doesn't resolve to a consonance, I will fully repent.
> 
> Now that I mention it, I think this thread has gone about as far as it can without examples. Show me some. I double dog dare you





EdwardBast said:


> What does this mean? What inflexible rigidities? Describe some, if there is actually any substance to this statement.


drmdjones just described it.

I agree with drmdjones.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I agree with drmdjones.


See this thread, https://www.talkclassical.com/60459-baroque-chord-progressions-2.html#post1607524

which you quote here, and in which drmdjones loses his double dog dare.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> Gabriela Montero... What a genius in the classical idiom. She's been mentioned a number of times on the forum over the years and glad to see her mentioned again. There's no one like her and I hope more people find out about her. Her improvisations are not written down or they wouldn't be improvisations, and her CD Bach and Beyond is a good place to start. Anyone can check for her CDs on Amazon and there are a number of them. Someone else may have transcribed her improvisations but her improvisations are not written ahead of time and performed that way. She doesn't need to do that and takes suggestions of themes to improvise on from her live audience.


Her brilliant improvisation on the Bach Chaconne:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

re: post 79:I'm afraid not. If it resolves melodically, it's not a chord. Poor example choice anyway.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

You know, I have a better question for this thread; what do jazz _soloists_ do? I mean, I play guitar, but not on a level where I feel comfortable enough trying to solo on the fly, so the ability of jazz players to do this has always fascinated me and I've often wondered what the general approach is. Specifically, I wonder how the approach to soloing in tonal jazz compares to that in modal jazz. It seems to me (though correct me if I'm wrong), that the latter offers a bit more freedom, perhaps because there are more notes/options available in any given mode compared to those that are in a series of chord changes?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> You know, I have a better question for this thread; what do jazz _soloists_ do? I mean, I play guitar, but not on a level where I feel comfortable enough trying to solo on the fly, so the ability of jazz players to do this has always fascinated me and I've often wondered what the general approach is. Specifically, I wonder how the approach to soloing in tonal jazz compares to that in modal jazz. It seems to me (though correct me if I'm wrong), that the latter offers a bit more freedom, perhaps because there are more notes/options available in any given mode compared to those that are in a series of chord changes?


That's a very good suggestion, since jazz evolved from a performance perspective.

I started making real progress when I knew all my major scale forms second-nature, and knew plenty of chords and chord-melody forms. I understood root movement, and where these roots were on the low E and A strings, which is where most of your chords are built.

Then my breakthrough in soloing came when I stopped thinking of scales and all that, and started playing by ear.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

To learn more about this stuff watch Rick Beato on YouTube. Rick is a great teacher and guitarist. He has tons of videos on all aspects of guitar study and theory. And he's very entertaining and enthusiastic about music.

I was at the Pat Metheny concert last night so I saw and heard how it's done by a master. Go see Pat this spring if you're on the east coast. He's got a bunch of shows booked.


----------

