Jupiter Images
I was very interesetd in Barenboim's apparent distinction between the creativity of improvisation [jazz] and the art of the orchestra[classical] While absolutely agreeing with him about the integrating possibility of music in life, my question is this; why is it that different forms of music appeal to different people.Partly it has to be about developing an 'ear', which would depend upon education, however defined, but also to do with the listener's association with the piece of music's meaning.
Why is it certain forms of music evoke emotion and visual imagery, while others do not? Everything he said in his first lecture applies to the best jazz [whatever that is] For me the biggest criticism I have of classical, is its predictability. It acts as a 'security blanket', and because of this it does lack creative spontaneity.
![Polling Station signage [Image: kagey b under CC-BY-NC-ND licence]](/openlearn/files/ole/ole_images/places/general-urban-scenes/polling-station-sign/polling station sign_0_0.jpg)
Login or Register to post comments
Jazz versus Classical
I was very interesetd in Barenboim's apparent distinction between the creativity of improvisation [jazz] and the art of the orchestra[classical] While absolutely agreeing with him about the integrating possibility of music in life, my question is this; why is it that different forms of music appeal to different people.Partly it has to be about developing an 'ear', which would depend upon education, however defined, but also to do with the listener's association with the piece of music's meaning.Why is it certain forms of music evoke emotion and visual imagery, while others do not? Everything he said in his first lecture applies to the best jazz [whatever that is] For me the biggest criticism I have of classical, is its predictability. It acts as a 'security blanket', and because of this it does lack creative spontaneity.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
I would like to make a late contribution to this debate. I may be slightly out of my depth with my knowledge here but I would like to give my view of the difference between classical and jazz.
Simply put classical music has it's birth and foundation in melody and harmony. Jazz has it's roots in rhythm.
I know that these three elements have been important parts of both stlyes. But I can't see that melody has ever been a significant element to jazz where it has been the very building blocks of classical music.
I know my view might sound far too simplistic but I'm sure the use of drums have always been so fundamental to jazz from it's very beginning.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
I can't let that pass!No melody or harmony in jazz! Have you ever listened to the some of Dave Brubeck's music with Paul Desmond. Part of the quartet. Dave B. was a classically trained musician who crossed over, and PD while not going to music college, had an extensive musical education wherever he could,including the army. If you listen say to, 'Jazz at Oberlin'there are both elements there. Take Perdido, which happens also to be my pseudonym[!]as well as that being harmonious and melodious, towards the end of that there is extensive counterpoint between the two of them. Absolutely stunning and exciting improvisation. I recommend it.
Also some of the Norwegian jazzers incorporate melody and harmony.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
Be fair.
If I may make so bold,
Classical music COULD BE SAID to have emerged from the pre-Copernican world of the Pythagorean solids, the Harmony of The Spheres - all that.
Jazz was different in that it used rythm as a narrative as well as melody.
How's that?
Re: Jazz versus Classical
I have to admit I'm only familiar with a handful of jazz artists and their recordings so I really can't make accurate comments about it.
Is there really a jazz writer who has had any of the melodic artistry of Mozart et al?
I have such a love for great classical music that I see other music styles such as jazz as so pale and stifled in comparison.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
[rabid outburst of outraged rage etc.]
I think the best antidote - no, keep it unemotive - the most productive direction to look would be to something like Koko, by Charlie Parker, who has often been compared to Mozart.
I would defy any serious devotee of music to listen to that and be able to honestly say 'it's just Jazz'.
There are many other examples, of course. And the general comparison of the 'classic' jazz combo with classical chamber music formats is fairly obvious.
And then there are the composers...
Perhaps its time to get rhapsodic about personal favourites.
Thelonious Sphere Monk.
This is a composer who provides, simultaneously, a vison of an Alice Through The Looking Glass world, where nothing makes ordinary sense, but also the same kind of hotline to the infinite you get in a Mozart mass. But in a very modern voice.
And then there is his totally and utterly unique interpretation of the pianist's art. And then his constant tight-rope act with rhythm...
You local record library is calling out to you as a brand to be plucked from the burning. I can hear it calling.
Come to me. here I am. Come to me...
Which, by the way, is one of the great arias. And without jazz, no Rogers & Hammerstein.
Sorry to conduct your education in public so fulsomely, but this is a matter of life and death. I'm sure you understand. But just two more quick things without even mentioning Duke and Pops as the great geniuses they were.
1) The great jazz musicians didn't really appreciate the term Jazz. The origins of the word are fairly squalid and prejudicial. They thought of themselves as musicians and saw no material difference between genres that mattered. Except possibly one..
2) The blues. I mentioned this upthread and stupidly forgot to name the post. Possibly out of panic. But there is a case for saying that without The blues form within it, Jazz would be something else entirely, or may not have happened at all... which brings us back to the social origins of jazz and all that jazz.
So in this voyage of discovery you might like to take on some John Lee Hooker or yes.. Nina Simone, There's a version she does of 'You'd be so nice to come Home to' which is a blues in the form of a fugue.. It is a 'key text' to this whole thread, come to think of it.
enough hectoring. I just hate to see a person suffer.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
Recommendations and suggestions for jazz listening are appreciated and many thanks.
The reference to Bali Ha'i 'aria' is interesting. I recently enjoyed a performance of South Pacific and I kept thinking of the obvious similarities between the musical and classical opera.
I can probably give the same reason as most classical music enthusiasts do when I choose not to appreciate other music styles such as jazz.
Simply put, classical music has everything!
Great classical work can reflect and evoke more range of feelings and demonstate artistic prowess more than any other music form. It is the music of emotion and expertise.
A small selection of pieces can illustrate the incredible range of this art form. It's ability to stimulate the senses aswell as reflect the outside world is unsurpassed.
Beethoven Symphony No.5, Chopin Polonaise-fantaisie, Tchaikovsky Symphony no.6, Verdi Requiem.
I cannot see that Jazz music can genuinely rival works like these when it comes to dynamics, diversity, grandeur, beauty, honesty, suffering, intensity and passion.
Classical music is the ultimate music.
I think when Duke Ellington passed away and went to that music concert in the sky he was immediately looking for the 'A' train out of there. There is only one piano in heaven, and Chopin's playing it!
Re: Jazz versus Classical
Why is 'O Mio Babbino caro' better than 'Bali Hai' again?
Re: Jazz versus Classical
You can't explain why one piece is better than another: you have to hear it for yourself.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
Did Mozart term his music 'classical' - are we lumping music together in the same way that all centuries of music is decided upon and played on 'Classic' FM?
If it's said to be predictable - then perhaps it's because our magno and parvocellular cells can relax and work on the sounds and symmetry.
I can bet Emma Kirkby can sing 'Jazz' anytime she likes and put emotion into any music she wishes.
I am interested in 'Early Music' - and want to sing with a small group of instrumentalists (Lancashire area) - I also like jazz - I don't think I would sing Punk because I know my vocal cords would end up tethered and ruined for life - do you know many 'pop' singers who have really long careers without needing somekind of ENT specialist help?
Re: Jazz versus Classical
I accept that the improvisation element to jazz has been a clear contribution to music. I would love to think that it had been as significant a part of classical music as it has jazz, but I think otherwise.
It of course did have a part in many soloist's performances and I think that Beethoven, Liszt and Paginini are probably genuine forerunners of jazz's improvisation. Also many classical composers wrote variations on a theme, which I think has become common to jazz.
In terms of the Bali Hai 'aria' I think that musicals became 20th century opera and I really feel that the great musicals and their arias are every bit as good as the great operas. Am I wrong to think that musicals are more a continuance of opera than a by product of jazz?
I know this is irrelevant, but my recording of South Pacific features Jose Carreras, Kiri Te Kanawa and the LSO.
A jazz fan I know has lent me some recordings in the past in a bid to try and convert me. Sketches of Spain by Miles Davis was intended as a good way to introduce me to this particular artist. Alas these works have never really fuelled my enthusiasm. Also my local music library has a vast collection of jazz cds (most kindly donated by a jazz enthusiast before he died). So in regards to the orchestral palette that a classical composer has to work with, I would gladly like to know any recommendations for solo piano jazz. Considering my argument is that classical music gives the listener everything, much more than any other music form then I would like to hear jazz solo piano music that can rival Chopin's for expression, intimacy, beauty and craft. No orchestra to assist or enhance, just the composer's feelings and genius on show.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
Where to start.
There are, for instance, all the jazz workings of classical pieces.
Errol Garner's 'Way Back Blues', which if I remember is based on a piece by Rachmaninoff.
Then there's Mccoy tyner's interpretation of Chopin's E Minor Prelude and the Sonata in C.
There is also Jacques Loussier. (We haven't discussed the concept of 'swing' by the way, which is something else classical music traditionally doesn't do and which is an entire musical dimension of its own.)
But in terms of pure jazz.
Classical variations on a theme are different from jazz improvisation, by the way. The object is more narrative, and the instrumentalisation more vocal.
You talk about classical as if it were different from jazz now. I see no essential difference now that the class differences have been erased.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
Little richardjohn,
I think you raise a very interesting point re. 'swing'. I have no formal musical education, and would be interested in your view. It intrigues me how a jazz musician can take a piece and transform it into something new and exciting by changing the rhythm. How's it done? Paul Desmond has said for example, 'strings don't swing'. But they can! But they don't evoke that wow factor, like the piano, sax or trumpet.
Also you mentioned Jacques Louissier. He's a brilliant pianist but I note I don't play him over and over. Maybe he comes across as ultimately like a classical pianist. Just a little predictable.
Swing
Now you're really asking me to put my neck on the line.
For what it's worth, I like to think of swing as having emerged when musically illiterate ex-slaves found themselves on hte same bandstand as classically trained Creole musicians who had recently been dispossed of their previous status in New Orleans. Until that point creoles had a full classical music industry, run for their own profit.
The untrained musicians would have had to use a certain about of bluff in order to eat. They would have had to improvise their CV's a little, if you like.
So when the inevitable difficulties arose, this would have effected the timing, and the rhythm. The overriding imperative of the performer would be to carry on regardless, resulting in either instant dismissal OR a growing realisation in the musicians undergoing this ordeal, that in fact, this tinkering with the rhythm could be fun. The underlying deception can't have done any harm wither, oroviding the frisson of irreverence and the sense of a little battle against authority won by a community which had lost so much.
And when it was further discovered that the resulting effect was not undisssimilar to the rhythms of wedded bliss.. that things really began to take off. Add then add the entire African heritage plus everything else which came together in New Orleans, and you have true, modern jazz swing.
I'm probably totally mistaken.
But I can see how swing could be the child of mistakes. And mistakes are there to be learnt from my old granny used to say.
When a jazz musician says 'is swings' he isn't just talking about the microscopic deviations from metronomic time.
I would like to know what a hardened classical cat, a Bach Fan ideally, would make of something like 'Epistrophy' by Thelonious Monk. If we're talking about swing, we have to talk about Monk.
Re: Swing
I really can't believe that swing came out of a 'mistake'!There must be more to it than that. It evokes a different mood for example. Maybe it has something to do with what Little richardjohn spoke of, a few postings ago. How jazz expresses a mood or a high. The example he gave was that of heroin, though from what I read heroin is a soporific. Therefore no zap there. Swing is lively and upbeat, and in the groove.
Re: Swing
Sorry about the anonymity.
I keep forgetting you have to 'sign' these posts.
No, that was me, going on about mistakes.
It's not just that, but swing is a reflection of much of the precariousness of the African American experience. It is playing a game with time. Stretching it. It is interesting (and probably totally irrelevant) that the jAzz age began not long after Einstein discovered Relativity, and achieved what many regard as its ultimate triumphs during the heights of Cold war existentialism.
Swing isn't just the 'Allegro' of big band dance music, it is also in the most pensive or unsettling jazz. And in the blues, of course.
Billie Holiday's swung partly by hanging off the beat. In 'Please Don't Talk About Me When I'm Gone' she seems to be on the brink of falling off the song entirely. She will not be made to obey a clock. That seems to be the message.
Obedience in any form, even to the dictates of strict time and harmony, was not carried easily by the nation whose grandparents had been slaves. When asked why his music was 'discordant', Duke Ellington famously said: "Because our lives are."
Re: Swing
Little Richardjohn,
Absolutely love your answer. Worth copying! Makes perfect sense. Thanks. Now to work!
Re: Swing
What is 'relative time', by the way?
I've heard the term, but it bounced off somewhere.
Is it a fancy approximation for 'swing'?
There must be an Italianate construction for musical 'flexi-time'.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
If you listen to contemporary classical music now, it's true that some of it is indistigishable from Jazz (although there is the difference that it is not improvised) but most of it is still very different from Jazz. Try James Macmillan, who is often talked about at the moment. Also, if you listen to Hear and Now on radio 3, and I do occacionally, not much of it sounds like jazz.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
I accept that the improvisation element to jazz has been a clear contribution to music. I would love to think that it had been as significant a part of classical music as it has jazz, but I think otherwise.
It of course did have a part in many soloist's performances and I think that Beethoven, Liszt and Paginini are probably genuine forerunners of jazz's improvisation. Also many classical composers wrote variations on a theme, which I think has become common to jazz.
In terms of the Bali Hai 'aria' I think that musicals became 20th century opera and I really feel that the great musicals and their arias are every bit as good as the great operas. Am I wrong to think that musicals are more a continuance of opera than a by product of jazz?
I know this is irrelevant, but my recording of South Pacific features Jose Carreras, Kiri Te Kanawa and the LSO.
A jazz fan I know has lent me some recordings in the past in a bid to try and convert me. Sketches of Spain by Miles Davis was intended as a good way to introduce me to this particular artist. Alas these works have never really fuelled my enthusiasm. Also my local music library has a vast collection of jazz cds (most kindly donated by a jazz enthusiast before he died). So in regards to the orchestral palette that a classical composer has to work with, I would gladly like to know any recommendations for solo piano jazz. Considering my argument is that classical music gives the listener everything, much more than any other music form then I would like to hear jazz solo piano music that can rival Chopin's for expression, intimacy, beauty and craft. No orchestra to assist or enhance, just the composer's feelings and genius on show.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
Rossmaninov,
I suggest you listen to Keith Jarrett, a American pianist who did and still does play classical. All the elements you admire and desire in classical are here. Here's the difference: he swings and improvises. He is regarded as a pre-eminent jazz pianist-quite simply he's brilliant. As I write this I'm listening to 'You don't know what love is',incredibly dramatic and moving. Try Keith Jarrett at 'The Blue Note'.
For a very cool, introspective and melancholy sound, Tord Gustavesen Trio 'The Ground' and 'Changing Places'. His work is, as with Keith Jarrett, tightly structured and musically sophisticated. The latter is Norwegian. Both play with double bassists and drums. You can hear clips on Amazon.
At the risk of offence,British jazz doesn't have the tradition of the Americans. However it's intriguing that Norwegian jazz also doesn't, but they are creating something unique. Maybe it's the long dark nights that lead to creativity.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
With respect, classical really does not have everything.
The whole notion of improvisation is different, for a start.
What an orchestra has is an almost infinite palatte. But that's not a function of the genre, merely the resources available to the composer.
And as we've seen, telling a modern jazz orchestral composition from a modern classical one is now largely a matter of guesswork.
"Suffering intensity and passion?"
Considering what produced jazz?
Re: Jazz versus Classical
Melody in jazz is the basis of improvisation. That is the contrariness of jazz. And improvisation is the other key element, and just as culturally radical to the form as rythm.
It would be interesting to know who was first to experiment with discord though, Schoenberg or Buddy Bolden.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
I am not a musician but I am a psychotherapist who has been involved in the organisation of an international jazz festival in New Zealand for the last 12 years I feel that there is a parallel between the improvisation of jazz and psychotherapy which is obviously about communication. The two main similarities are the 'attunement' and 'timing' and are of the utmost of importance. Being a psychotherapist we need to have an attunement with our client/clients,to be able to communicate, also the timing of when we say something or don't say anything is of the utmost of importance. If we approach the clients unconscious before the client is "ready" to hear what we have to say we can send them into a crisis or even suicide I believe that improvisation is the most intelligent form of communication, and if we used these skills instead of talking so much we would maybe get along better. With jazz verses classical music I can only say that,the parallels I have mentioned apply to both except the improvisation in jazz is often more subtle than in classical music playing.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
Psychotherapist eh? Well you won't have any trouble from me.
I remember seeing a report on Newsnight ages ago about two fascinating seperate pieces of research into the effects of music. In both cases using Mozart.
broadly they went like this.
1) One academic was using Mozart on children with ADD and (I think) Tourette's. His theory was was there was range of higher notes which Mozart used which had a physically calming effect on disrupted young minds.
2) And more interesting to me, another programme was achieving similar results, but the theory in that case was not related to the frequency of the sound and any neuro-chemical effects of it as vibrations.
The rather mind-boggling hypothesis, if I remember it rightly, was that by writing down the music in his head, Mozart was ordering his own consciousness, bringing himself, as an artist and a man, some peace and a resolution of the dilemmas which he and all of us face, and that when that music was played, it recreated that process of ordering in the minds of the subjects of the experiment.
That by slaying his own demons with music, Mozart can slay all our demons. Or rather the vibrations he willed us can.
Which means, if true, that listening to music is not only reading the mind of the musician, but actually sharing the essence of their experience.
Just to quickly illustrate this to destruction.
Many jazz musicians after 1940 were addicted to heroin. Some of the heroin high is therefore transmitted in the music. When you listen to it, you are sharing the high.
The theory is that music is not just a vibration in the air but digitally coded emotion and experience. When you listen, you are the reciever, and because of your individualty, the interpreter.
The only personal substantiation I can provide for this theory is that I found that jazz produced by heroin addicts was the strongest palliative when I was giving up smoking. And I got through a lot of palliatives.
William Boroughs, among others, recommends jazz as a way of kicking heroin itself.
It's as if the essence of the chemical is transubstantiated (compressed' in modern terms) and transmitted directly into our nervous systems. It is only the pharmo-kinesis which is different.
And people do get addicted to music.
Are you familiar with this area of research?
Re: Jazz versus Classical
I was really interested in your reply, Gail. I too am a psychotherapist and have thought in a similar way. I have worked with musicians and with one, we would talk about sessions being like a good gig ie we sparked each other and got into a creative dialogue, producing something new.
Attunement and sensitivity to the other is essential in the work: the atmosphere,the metaphors, the mood and the choice of language. All these must be reproduced within the best of jazz. Going into a session [jazz or psychotherapy] with a pre-ordained script wouldn't work. It's all of the moment.
As Bion said, 'no memory, and no desire' just go with the flow, and listen to the other and respond...from the heart.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
Perdido,I agree,with your example of referring to Bions example which I believed he called... 'negative capabilities' to not be attached to the sensuous..this explains very well what I am attempting to say. The topic of jazz vs classical, is not about better/worse,good/bad/right/wrong,however it is about the differences and similarities. The ability to improvise with jazz became very clear to me when I visited the Jazz Cafe in Camden Town London one Sunday, where young jazz musicians turned up, to jam, and when the leader wanted a new pianist, drummer etc he called out for one. A young musician I spoke to said "I am always so nervous because we don't know one another and have never played together however once I got up I became at one with the other musicians and the music comes. I believe this is a difference between jazz and classical music. This is the same with a therapist who has this ability which Bion spoke about, 'to not be attached to the sensuous'. This is not something you gain through learning a theory, it is about a change within oneself,the ability to be , 'at one with the client/audience', however to also to maintain ones sense of self/the musician maintains their own ability to stay separate to the other players, and hopefully the therapist does the same. One of the most talented jazz pianists I know can't read a note of music, he goes into 'a state of reverie the same as the skills therapist does.
One Word.
OK. Here goes. Over the top.
The difference between classical music and jazz is...
The Blues.
I'll get me coat.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
You mean the values the different forms embody?
Whatever they may be.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
Well, hey, you can take a metaphor too far....
In my view, the practice of psychotherapy is not really like a free improvisation - there is a tension between structure and freedom. Much of the psychotherapy literature is about boundaries, technique, ethics, and much of supervision is about how to understand things and how to phrase things.
Total creativity and improvisation can be destructive and damaging and lead to the assertion that "anything goes". The wild analysis of Freud, perhaps.
Is there an idealisation of improvisation here?
In my experience, psychotherapy is often like a score unfolding with familiar landmarks, dialogues, and processes.
We must acknowledge, I thing, that there are pros and cons of written-out music vs. improvisation. improvisation can lead to chaos. A written score allows a level of complexity of scoring and the development of a musical argument that would not be possible otherwise - that is why it was developed.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
Improvisation is life.
The people who invented Jazz lived at the edge of life, where improvisation was a matter of life and death, not the decorative improvisation of the Baroque.
This is why jazz and life became synonymous to millions.
You can riff in any field of activity, but when improvisation means survival, as it did to our evolutionary ancestors as well as our musical ones, it is not only a defining human feature, but something central to existence itself. And Jazz is nothing else if not the music of existence. The music of now. Now's The Time, as the man says.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
I take it as read that improvisation takes place within a structure, otherwise as antimuzak says, there'd be chaos. I heard an interview with Keith Jarrett a while ago talking about trying to throw off the constraints of classical playing. He said that it caused him pain to move into playing jazz, and I guess this is why on some tracks he has such a long lead in, while Garry Peacock and Jack deJonette [?]wait so patiently. He also said that he had to get used to the culture of jazz:in classical, practicing 24 hours a day wasn't enough cf.jazz where the musicians sometimes forgot their instrument. Maybe extreme examples, but kind of ties in with Little Richardjohn's comments about living on the edge.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
I think you miss the point of music.
Music is to be enjoyed.
I enjoy both jazz and classical. Sponteineity etc. is unimportant. What matters more is the enjoyment
Re: Jazz versus Classical
> I think you miss the point of music.
>
> Music is to be enjoyed.
>
> I enjoy both jazz and classical. Sponteineity etc. is
> unimportant. What matters more is the enjoyment
Are we given emotions merely for enjoyment?
Music is codified emotion - enjoyable or not as the case may be.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
Absolutely to be enjoyed!
What strikes me about this discussion is the way in which music seems to be a powerful evoker of projections and prejudices - almost as good as politics. Ask any activist of a political party about the other side and you will hear a range of distortions, prejudices, projections, projective identifications, almost to the point of declaring the supporters of the other political party sub-human, dangerous neanderthals who are half crazy. Presumably they do this to prop up their own sense of self and group identity, and perhaps to deny these thoughts, wishes and impulses in themselves, but it is a distortion nonetheless and avoids the complexity and nuances of the issues.
Can we get away from name-calling the other side?
Re: Jazz versus Classical
I've come late to this discussion but would like to comment on the idea that classical music lacks creativity. I did study music but I don't make my living through music. I sing in a choir and at the moment we are preparing for a performance of Brahms' "Ein Deutsches Requiem" next week in Dublin. There are so many variables that come together in the performance of a work like this that I am constantly amazed, thrilled and moved when we give a concert, whatever the programme. When everything works, and sometimes it doesn't, the electric charge that runs through the musicians and the audience during a live performance is a dynamic, fluid, constantly challenging creative experience. The realisation of a score is only constrained by the abilities of those that interpret the music. And it doesn't come down to musical niceties. Theatre works in a similar way (the analogy is not exact). You begin with a prescribed text but everything else is down to the performers, director, lighting, staging etc. Even texts as specific and detailed as a Beckett play don't stifle creativity, why should a score?
There is no lack of spontaneity. If there is, it's a bad performance. The audience has a huge part to play in this. Musicians react to audience reaction. Conductors react to atmosphere too. Every music performance is dynamic by its nature, constantly evolving no matter how much rehearsal is involved (something Barenboim addresses when asked the question about improvisation-a skill not confined to jazz as any organist will tell you!).
Another aspect to consider too is the setting of text. The Brahms "Requiem" is a good example of this, from the choice of texts (he chose not to set the Latin text but chose vernacular settings of biblical texts that explore mourning and consolation, not judgement) to their setting. The conjunction of music and words is incredibly powerful and one doesn't need to be religious to be moved by this work.
My last point is the conjunction of amateurs and professionals. The choir I sing in is a symphony chorus made up of amatuer singers who rehearse once a week and perform with a professional symphony orchestra. There are 150 people who give up three hours every week from busy lives to participate in this creative process. We work hard, learn a great deal (about technique, the music we sing, harmony, rhythm, music structures etc) and make music.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
Jazz is the natural C20 classical music. It's simply that the academies didn't realise it until far, far too late.
There is no significant difference now between advanced orchestral jazz and advanced orchestral works calling themselves classical.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
b- about the difference between advanced classical and advanced jazz. Advanced classical has such a wide spectrum and so does advanced Jazz. They meet occasionally but retain their differences.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
> B- about the difference between advanced
> classical and advanced jazz. Advanced classical has
> such a wide spectrum and so does advanced Jazz. They
> meet occasionally but retain their differences.
What are the differences that make one 'Classical' and the other 'Jazz' - today?
Re: Jazz versus Classical
Richard L-S
B- and No! No! No! weren't good enough to refute an argument when I studied music appreciation, I must be really behind the times.
So Mr Richard L-S, any news about how you can mistake The Beatles for 'Levitas'?
Re: Jazz versus Classical
Edward
Only just picked up this! I don't actually do the transcripts but do listen and comment. I missed this one and will listen again. Thanks for the advice.
As for 'No no no' you'll see that DB has done this with more 'nos' than me. Just a response. The nature of replies in print on the internet is called into question. I meant it very mildly, like replying to someone across a pub table in a friendly way. But next morning on the internet it looked dismissive.
As for this not being relevant to music appreciation, yes, yes , yes! Friendly argument is central!
Re: Jazz versus Classical
One gets Richard's drift....
Re: Jazz versus Classical
Is the LSO performing an Ornette Coleman symphony Classical or Jazz?
Re: Jazz versus Classical
I think the whole debate about the 'elitism'of classical music has significance here.
What 'classical music' is about is class. I believe that early classical musicians were paid for by the rich ie 'patronised'. This by definition implies their music was designed to please their master and to demonstrate learning, culture, and leisure. Who but the rich has the time and opportunity to engage in so many years of expensive learning. Who but the rich has the necessary contacts to make their voice heard on a world stage.
I know that this might be a generalisation, but compare the audience of a classical concert with that of a jazz group. The one affluent and establishment,the other marginal and an outsider. This is why a jazz musician is, in the last analysis far more creative. He/she is not to be constrained by the norm or the expectations of a privileged elite.
B. said it himself! I don't have a transcript in front of me, but from memory he said something along the lines of, the conductor is king...and then joked 'for nine bars' He expresses the authoritarian truth.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
Whilst I agree about the origins of classical music in a system of patronage (where the church by the way was just as influential as the aristocracy) I don't think that persists today. Have you been to any so-called 'classical' concerts lately? Try going to a Prom or to a venue like the Warehouse in London or to a festival like Huddersfield. These aren't necessarily establishment or even particularly affluent audiences. I just don't recognise the kind of delineations that you make between classical and jazz audiences though I agree they may have existed in the past. Indeed, you might say that jazz has attracted its own establishment. Doesn't a one-time contender for the Conservative Party leadership consider himself a jazz enthusiast? Can you get more establishment than that? In fact, if you extend the argument to performers then you'll surely agree that the Marsalis family now represents a kind of establishment of their own. Performers with record contracts with major labels are hardly marginal or outsiders. I believe that we need to move away from these blanket assumptions about genres and recognise transcendence and creativity wherever we find them and whoever we're sitting (or standing or dancing) next to.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
> Whilst I agree about the origins of classical music
> in a system of patronage (where the church by the way
> was just as influential as the aristocracy) I don't
> think that persists today. Have you been to any
> so-called 'classical' concerts lately? Try going to a
> Prom or to a venue like the Warehouse in London or to
> a festival like Huddersfield. These aren't
> necessarily establishment or even particularly
> affluent audiences. I just don't recognise the kind
> of delineations that you make between classical and
> jazz audiences though I agree they may have existed
> in the past. Indeed, you might say that jazz has
> attracted its own establishment. Doesn't a one-time
> contender for the Conservative Party leadership
> consider himself a jazz enthusiast? Can you get more
> establishment than that? In fact, if you extend the
> argument to performers then you'll surely agree that
> the Marsalis family now represents a kind of
> establishment of their own. Performers with record
> contracts with major labels are hardly marginal or
> outsiders. I believe that we need to move away from
> these blanket assumptions about genres and recognise
> transcendence and creativity wherever we find them
> and whoever we're sitting (or standing or dancing)
> next to.
As Charlie Parker said: "It's just about playing clean and looking for the pretty notes."
Re: Jazz versus Classical
No! No! No! Classical music's enjoyment doesn't consist in being wrapped in a security blanket! Yes, we know the pieces - such as those that Barenboim plays - but we look for (and delight in) new details, and new conceptions of the overall form. He speeds up her; he plays that moment beautifully. Now I'm a Jazz lover too, especially of contemporary. I love John Taylor's playing for example. But lot's of Jazz is highly predicatable, based on a song standard, or a chord sequence. All music has the tension between what is fixed and what is added. No difference for me between classical and jazz.
Richard Langham Smith
Re: Jazz versus Classical
Maybe, but the differences are so infinitesimal they're open only to a privileged few.And it raises in my mind, so what?
I agree that contempoary jazz has the edge in terms of sophistication, and complexity. It's also of interest that many of the best modern jazzers were ex classical players.eg Keith Jarrett who says he feels constrained by classical.
Do you ever hear a jazz musician having a burning desire to become a classical musician? No, and there's a reason for that.
The creativity of classical music is with the composer, whereas in jazz it lies with the composer, the musician, and an appreciative audience who can deal with the unexpected.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
Why then has Jarrett recorded classical music? It's true that few musicians cross between jazz and classical, in either direction. But that's because each is a lifetime's work. And because being gifted in one doesn't necessarily mean you're going to be good in the other. Evgeny Kissin, the Russian classical pianist, loves Oscar Peterson, who listens to a lot of classical music (among other things). Barenboim has recorded tango music. Yo Yo Ma the classical cellist has done a lot of World Music. I love classical and jazz, as well as some pop, folk, world, etc. You don't need to choose one over another. Or try to "prove" one is better by saying that because jazz is, you claim, less predictable, that somehow makes it better. All music is "constrained" by a certain number of harmonic, rhythmic and other rules. Including jazz, with its well-defined patterns and segues and progressions etc.
Re: Jazz versus Classical
Couldn't agree more. You've hit the nail on the head I'd say.
Dick (Currently hooked on a day of English Music on Radio 3)