# Classical Standard



## Guest (Jun 10, 2007)

I heard Yesterday, on the radio, something that fascinated me. A pianist (Jazzman of course) improvised on Faure’s requiem, during more than 10 minutes. The interpretation was dignified (it didn’t swing, thank you), and moving.
It’s not the first time I’ve heard that kind of improvisation on a Faure’s “standard”. And as for me, it proves that classical music is still alive. 

What do you think of such improvisations?


----------



## zlya (Apr 9, 2007)

Well, I don't think it proves that classical music is still alive, I think performances of classical music prove that classical music is still alive. I think the performance you mention proves that performers today are creatively and effectively using existing material, which is a fine thing, in the grand old tradition of jazz.


----------



## cato (Dec 2, 2006)

I agree with Zlya, but I would go further, in that if a Jazz proformer takes a classical work, and "jazzs it up" he has not only altered the original work, but in my opinion, he has disrespected both the composer and the work.

For years now, I have heard musicans take Bach and Mozart and set them to rock or jazz music, and then say that they are "helping" to keep classical music alive.  

I don't buy it.  

And if "modern" music lovers are "bored" with classical music, and the only way they can "listen" to Bach or Mozart, or Faure, is to "jazz them up" or set them to a rock beat, then classical music, and western culture are doomed.


----------



## rojo (May 26, 2006)

I agree with zlya, but not with cato.

Through time, even classical composers have stolen, borrowed and/or used themes and melodies from other composers. Think of all the 'Variations on a theme by...' works there are. Does that mean they are disrepecting them? I figure they borrow the stuff because they admire it. Same with jazz artists who use classical themes. As for the cross-over phenomenon, composers such as Ravel and Stravinsky even used jazz influences in their works. One genre often influences the other, and composers get their inspiration from all sorts of music. Music evolves, and doesn`t exist in a vacuum. So I say western culture is pretty much same old same old.  

As to listening to a 'jazzified' version of a classical theme, I say why not, but of course, I still prefer the original...


----------



## Frasier (Mar 10, 2007)

That makes sense. Jazz musicians work with "standards" most of the time be they popular, classical or somewhere in between, as with Gershwin. 

It's how it is and good that they give credit to the composer at least. Some classical composers have borrowed pop tunes.....like "I'm always chasing rainbows", borrowed by Chopin for his Fantasie Impromptu.....


----------



## Guest (Jun 17, 2007)

Being an arch-conservative, I agree with Cato. I don't like anyone messing about with the almost "sacred" achievements of composers like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert etc. I don't like jazz or pop much, so I'm not losing out guess. I do quite like occasionally one or two other modern genres, but only if it is entirely original material performed by the very best artists. All this modern "fusion" stuff I think is awful. Classical music ended about 1950 for me, and even then it was only a shadow of its former late 18th/ early 19th C glory. Bring back Mozart, Beethoven, and oh yes please: Schubert.


----------



## cato (Dec 2, 2006)

All I can add is that you guys make some good points......

..... but Mango...... AMEN BROTHER!!!!!  

I couldn't have said it better myself!  

Thanks Mango!


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2007)

I don’t think that improvisation is jazzmen’s bad habit.

The great composers of the Baroque and classical era were also known as great improvisers.
A good organist of this days, for instance, had to be elementally trained as a composer in order to perform successfully since much of his printed music was marked ad libitum (at liberty). It was expected of a keyboard performer that he could play variations on a theme at will .

Nowadays, Improvisation is not used at all, except in jazz performances. I regret it.


----------



## Leporello87 (Mar 25, 2007)

Alnitak said:


> I don't think that improvisation is jazzmen's bad habit.
> 
> The great composers of the Baroque and classical era were also known as great improvisers.
> A good organist of this days, for instance, had to be elementally trained as a composer in order to perform successfully since much of his printed music was marked ad libitum (at liberty). It was expected of a keyboard performer that he could play variations on a theme at will .
> ...


I couldn't agree more, and I think that the part about Mozart, Beethoven et al being "sacred" is very misleading, even from a historical perspective. These composers didn't view their own notes as sacred -- adding and changing parts in performance, within reason, of course. In fact, sometimes whole parts were left out of or written more simply in the score, under the assumption that a performer would improvise at the concert. Examples can be found all over the Mozart piano concerti, and in fact, all over 18th century music -- not just in the cadenzas, but even during tutti sections of concertos, to say nothing of solo music.

Like Alnitak, I, too, lament the way classical music practice so much seems "frozen" in time, and exhibits an unwillingness to delight in the living, breathing music. I don't care if it's "accepted" or not, I love to improvise classical music on the piano, and I will continue to do so regularly. I only wish this was a more prevalent part of classical music culture today.


----------



## gp4rts (Jun 19, 2007)

Borrowing from other composers is a long and respected tradition. Are we to criticize Brahms for borrowing a theme of Haydn for his variations, or Rachmaninoff for his appropriation of Paganini's music (or Liszt for that matter). Are we saying that such borrowing is the prerogative of serious classical composers only, and jazz and pop artists should stay away? Stravinsky got into some trouble when he used the well-known "Happy Birthday to You" melody in one of his pieces--he thought is was "traditional" and in the public domain--until he got sued. By the way, there is a great adaptation of Brahm's 3rd symphony, 3rd movement on Santana's "Supernatural" record. I like it, but I also like the original--is there some law that says I can't appreciate both?


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2007)

I'd like everyone on this thread to give a listen to Pierre Henry's _Comme une symphonie, envoi a Jules Verne._

But I don't see any listing of it online (after an admittedly cursory search). So "oh, well."

Otherwise, the world of classical music is not limited to "straight" versions of classics and "jazzed up" or "crossover" versions. There are composers writing right now, alive and well. And doing really interesting and original stuff. And improvisation is a big part of it, too. Keith Rowe, Lionel Marchetti, Jerome Noetinger, GOL, Kochen and Uchihashi (who are truly outrageously good), Isohata and Dubost.... So much of new "classical" music is improvisers like these that I feel I can't begin to keep up with it all. (Far as I can tell, the noise scene is largely improv.)

Classical music certainly didn't die off in 1900. Or in 1950. It just keeps on going. It doesn't sound like Schubert, of course, but neither do Saint-Saens or Debussy or Lachenmann. And why should they? Schubert sounds like Schubert, and that's just fine.


----------



## zlya (Apr 9, 2007)

I think the problem starts when you start thinking of performances by Santana and other pop or jazz musicians as "versions" of classical pieces. These are not versions of classics, these are new and different performances influenced by classical pieces. Unfortunately, many people hear these pop, rock, and jazz performances and think they are listening to Classical music.


----------



## gp4rts (Jun 19, 2007)

zlya said:


> These are not versions of classics, these are new and different performances influenced by classical pieces. Unfortunately, many people hear these pop, rock, and jazz performances and think they are listening to Classical music.


I agree completely, these are "new pieces"; they may use themes from classical music, but they remain pop. rock, and jazz. I think most people are not aware of the source of the melodies in these pop songs and rock and jazz pieces, so they are not likely to think they are listening to "classical". However, if by chance someone who is familiar with the pop/rock/jazz pieces then hears the original, the familiarity of the melody may give them a "way into" the original, hopefully with more acceptance.

I am reminded of the situation in the wine industry in the late fifties. Wine was not a popular beverage with the average American. Then Gallo introduced the "pop" wines such as Thunderbird. Real wine drinkers wouldn't even call these "wines", but many people developed a taste for real wine from these drinks (there was enough of a wine flavor left in them) and "graduated" eventually to "real wine". Many believe that this was the beginning of the the wine boom in this country. Perhaps it is too much to hope that the same thing can happen to classical music.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

any material is fair game for improv. whether or not that is successful is up to whomever the improvising.

dj


----------

