Hi everyone - I can't resist commenting on the Carmen. One of the very finest recordings of this, both from a musical and an audiophile standpoint, is the live recording done at the Met with Leonard Bernstein conducting and Marilyn Horne singing Carmen. There is not a better recording out there. Horne is one of the greatest singers ever, and the sonics on it are incredible. On the DG label. One of the truly rare times when the greatest performance was also given the incredible recording it deserved.
Rok, the snare drummer is often placed at the front of the stage in performances of Bolero. It is actually an incredibly difficult thing to do, to keep exact time for the entire duration of that piece, and it is physically very exhausting as well. So although it usually makes them much more nervous being placed in the front and center, they do appreciate the recognition that they have by miles the most difficult task in that piece.
Rok, I think tonight I'll answer your second question, are people ever fired. The very short answer would be yes, it can happen. First off, after winning an audition to get a position in an orchestra, there is a probationary period. In many orchestras this is one year, though in some, it is two years. If the musician is not up to scratch, they are let go at the end of this probationary period. This happens from time to time. Once a musician is tenured, however, it becomes much more difficult to fire them for artistic reasons. Basically, there is a peer review process, much like doctors and lawyers have. It works much the same pretty much everywhere. If the music director wants to fire someone for artistic reasons, they have to first inform the musician of what the problems are, by a certain date in the season. Then the musician has some time to fix the issues. If they have not, in the music director's opinion, then it goes to a peer review board. This is the committee you definitely hope you don't get elected to every season. :) Usually the musician has the option to play for this committee, and they certainly have the opportunity to state their case. The music director states his/her case. Then there is a secret ballot vote. It takes a certain number of votes to overturn the music directors decision - usually, almost the entire committee would have to vote against the conductor to actually overturn it. In many situations, if the committee is very split, then there is another period of time that goes by, after which it is usually the music director's sole decision. This part of the CBA is by miles the most carefully spelled out, as you might imagine.
Usually, though, things don't get that far. Often, the person in question might be asked to "retire", and offered some sort of financial incentive to do so. Another example might be a person who is in a principal position, and they don't want to deal with the stress of that anymore; they may step down into a section position some years before they actually retire.
It is more common for someone to get fired for cause. For instance, someone in the LA Phil calling in sick, but then going to work a lucrative film recording session. Several members of the LA Phil have been fired for this in the last few decades. Musicians have been fired for alcohol/drug problems that affected their performance, in some cases even after being sent to rehab by the orchestra. I know a musician this happened to after he relapsed. Though the orchestra had paid for his rehab the first time, and had tried to help him, they did not do so a second time, and he was fired. He has since cleaned himself up, and is still earning a living free-lancing and teaching. |
Acman3, I don't really understand your question? Van Sweden was a former concertmaster of the Concertgebouw Orchestra in Amsterdam, one of the best in the world, so he was a world class violinist who put it down and took up the baton. In a very real sense, he was better prepared to be a conductor than most who went to school specifically for it. It is always better if one actually has orchestral performance experience, and almost all of the really great conductors did have at least some. Jaap is exceptional in that he was actually a world class performer on the violin. Another example would be Anshel Brusilow, who, interestingly, also was music director of the Dallas Symphony early in his conducting career. There are also a few famous pianists who became decent conductors, like Ashkenazy, but that is more rare. Very rare indeed are conductors who didn't really play any instrument, and even these can pick at the piano a little. |
Hi Rok - I will now try to answer that third question, about orchestral vacancies, turnover, etc.
This depends a great deal on the level of orchestra. if it is what I called a "destination" orchestra, like the Chicago Symphony and the like, then once one got a job in one of those, you would never leave, until you retired, unless you happened to win a position in another equivalent one. Or say you had a section job in one, but wanted to be a principal player somewhere. That is the only reason one might make a step down the ladder. These orchestras have the fewest openings, so it is a big deal when they do, especially in sections with not very many people (woodwinds, brass, percussion). String sections have more openings, simply because there are many more people in them. So even the very largest and best orchestras still usually have at least one string opening per season. But there may be literally decades between one say principal oboe opening and the next time there is one in that same orchestra.
At the other end of the spectrum, the "gig" orchestra made up of local free-lancers, turnover can be very high. They always have several openings each season.
For those third or fourth tier orchestras, such as say Charleston, or Knoxville, or places like that, they will have more openings than the larger orchestras do, but still much fewer than a "gig" orchestra that only does six or eight concert sets in a year.
So a musician can almost never wait for an opening in an orchestra he/she really wants to be in. There may never be one in his/her audition lifetime! In general, aspiring orchestral musicians don't get to pick where they live - they have to go take the auditions where the openings are.
When an orchestra has an opening, they advertise it in the musician's union paper (and nowadays usually on their website as well). Applicants send in resumes, and the audition committee goes over them, accepting some and rejecting most. Or they may have some candidates make preliminary recordings first, to help judge whether it will be worth their time to hear them. It is very difficult just to get an invitation to some of the very biggest orchestras - often, you already have to have a full time job playing in some other orchestra before they will give you the time of day. Other orchestras, though, including a couple of the very biggest, will have what we call "cattle call" auditions - they will let almost anyone show up. It just depends on the audition committee of the orchestra in question. Basically, the only other profession as difficult and competitive, or more, to actually get a good job in would be professional athletics, or acting. And we don't get paid nearly as much as the athletes do, even though we are just as talented, and in fact use much weaker muscle groups that have to last for much longer careers.
I realize that this post may bring up many more questions than it already answered - if so, I would be happy to elaborate. But I think it does answer your basic question. |
HI Rok - as far as conductors go, the first thing to be understood is that this works quite differently nowadays than it did in the past. In the late 19th through say the middle of the 20th century, there were many little orchestras and opera houses all throughout Europe, especially in Italy (opera) and Germany (both). There were many places that conductors could go and sort of apprentice with someone, and learn on the job. This is how all of those famous conductors learned their trade. The last few decades, they just haven't had the opportunities to get that sort of training, with very rare exceptions. Every big orchestra does have an assistant conductor, but they rarely get to actually do much, mostly just kiddie shows. If they are lucky, the music director will work with them quite a bit, and be a good teacher.
They do go to music school, just like instrumentalists, but even there, they rarely get to step in front of the orchestra and actually conduct live musicians. So unlike instrumentalists, they rarely get to actually practice what they do. All they can do is study (often at the keyboard), learn scores, practice beat patterns, etc. Then when they get thrown to the wolves in the real world, they also have to deal with fund raising, etc., things they are not really taught in school. It is no wonder, given all this, that there are not many very good ones. It is a very strange set of skills required, almost none of which are easily taught.
And frankly, it is almost always a drag for the professional orchestra when a young conductor gets on the podium. All of us have much more experience with whatever piece is being played than the conductor does. So not only do they rarely get opportunities, when they do, the attitude of the group is not very good, normally, unless it is an unusually talented individual who is actually pretty good. It is usually very intimidating for them, and most don't handle that well, since they are of course supposed to be the leader.
A very interesting book to read is Norman Lebrecht's The Maestro Myth, by the way. Some very good bios in there of some of the really famous conductors through the years, too. |
@Acman - did not mean to imply at all that it was a stupid question! I just wasn't sure what you meant, and I wanted to explain that I would actually consider Van Sweden to be MORE qualified, not less, than many others, because of his extensive orchestral performing experience. He knows what gestures the musicians really need, and which ones they don't, and that sort of conductor in general also knows what sorts of gestures he can make for the audience's benefit and understanding that do not disrupt what the musicians are doing.
Frogman's post is an excellent elaboration of mine.
Rok, last I heard Levine is unable to conduct at all right now. My understanding is that it is uncertain whether he ever will again, but Frogman may know more? I will just add that conducting is more physically demanding than it appears to be - Levine is currently unable to make it through a concert physically. His musical ability of course remains.
Orpheus, I would disagree that one must have a megabucks rig for classical. What I would say is that classical music makes more demands on a system. For me and for many musicians, old school systems are better for classical - very efficient speakers, driven by low powered electronics. Horns and tubes are my personal favorite, and such a system can be put together relatively inexpensively compared to the rest of high end audio (which is good, otherwise musicians like me would be priced out of it!). But I don't want this thread to turn in to that type of discussion, that has been done over and over elsewhere on this site. By the way, just about all movie theaters still use horn speaker systems. |
Lee Morgan is a great trumpet player! Another one that died young, if I remember right. |
Hello Rok and Frogman - I have been away from this board again for a few days, and just read your recent exchanges with great interest, especially since they concern one of my favorite jazz artists, Wynton. As a fellow professional musician, I agree with all of what Frogman says about Rok's attitude, etc. A long post I made on the subject (imploring someone who loves music so much to please learn more about it) a few weeks ago now was completely ignored, which was a very depressing experience for me. I just don't get how someone who is so passionate about music is so resistant to learning more about it. As Frogman says, Rok, the music will wash over you that much more, and your enjoyment of it will vastly increase if you take the time and effort to learn more about it.
However, on the subject of Wynton, while I must say right up front that Frogman has infinitely more authority on jazz than I - I do not pretend to have any knowledge/experience on the same level as he does, as he is truly an artist in both the classical and jazz worlds, and I am only in the classical world professionally - as a listener, I would still respectfully disagree with him on Wynton, and I would go so far as to say that I agree with Rok's comment that Wynton is doing more for jazz than anyone else right now, and it's not even close. I fully understand all of Frogman's "museum" comments (though I would argue that this is very important and necessary work), and I understand that you do not feel that he is as emotional as some other performers. There are many who agree with you on that. Frankly, this has always baffled me and many other fellow musicians, especially other brass players. There is certainly no question that he is a far better trumpet player than any other in the jazz world from a technical standpoint, but that is not really what we are talking about here, I hasten to add. We are talking about musical expression, and Wynton's musical expression is not always overt - it is often of a more subtle, introverted nature. For me this does not make it not as expressive - in fact, one could argue that it is more personal, in a way. It demands more focus and thought from the listener, and I do not consider this a bad thing. He is an experimenter, and not all of his experiments work. I happen to think his interpretations of standards are very relevant, and often as good or better than people before him, and I like much of his original experiments as well. My point, however, is not to argue with you, I know where you are coming from and respect your opinion, but to point out that the subject is arguable and is argued among musicians (your post reads like it implies otherwise). I liken him to Alfred Brendel in the classical piano world, another one of my personal favorites who nevertheless is very polarizing, and is often criticized in many of the same ways Wynton is. I might argue that Wynton is sort of the Richard Strauss of the jazz world, which I can't believe I just typed, but I'll let it stand. I think Frogman will know what I mean by it. I'm too tired, but...
The main reason I would argue that Wynton is doing more for jazz than anyone, though, has to do with his teaching ability, whatever our disagreement on his actual playing. I just caught an episode of that show where he is teaching some ARTS competition winners, and he is simply amazing at what he brings out of them, teaching them to listen to each other and play off each other, and give each other what is needed in the moment, never intruding his own opinions/style on them, but teaching them to be themselves, in the way only the best teachers know how to do - he was born to teach. It is guys like him that will keep jazz alive, in every sense of the word. I have very rarely seen something equally good in the classical world as far as a clinic in how to play and make music together with others, whatever you think of the actual ideas being explored at the time. It was a very inspiring program, and the brief clips from the concert were great. Brendel is the same way, by the way - an absolutely amazing and inspiring teacher. OK, I'll go to bed now. Sorry for the rambling late night randomness of some of this. Frogman is definitely a superior writer in these here forums. I'm out for now. |
Hi Frogman (and others following this) - wow, we are really getting down to it now! This last post of yours is very thought provoking indeed.
First, I agree that there is no substantive disagreement, and really didn't think there was in the first place. Your changing view of "substance" is something I glanced at when I mentioned aesthetics a couple of posts back. You choose an excellent example in discussing rap. What I find fascinating about rap is that what gives it substance, I think you will agree, has absolutely nothing to do with music. It is the words being spoken, and the message they contain. Rap is much closer to poetry than music. Of course the argument about whether the music or the lyrics of a song are more important is hundreds of years old now - clearly rap chooses the latter. As a performing musician (non-vocalist!), I used to be very puzzled by people who clearly only listened to certain groups/artists because they liked the lyrics of their songs, and in fact did not actually care much for the music. But they would listen over and over and over anyway because they liked "the message." I have always felt conflicted when talking with such people about music (and listening to the argument that such and such a song is good BECAUSE of the lyrics).
Speaking of the avant-garde and whether or not an artist or an institution is furthering the art form, another conflict I have that is relevant to this discussion is about the whole museum-piece thing. As in, are orchestras (this discussion can be applied to jazz equally well, of course) museum pieces (is jazz dead)? Many want orchestras to be forward thinking and come up with new ideas, etc. Same in jazz, as has been discussed in this thread. However, with the deplorable state of music education especially here in the US now, if orchestras are NOT talking about composers to young kids, if they never hear the names Mozart and Beethoven from us - who the hell are they going to hear them from? I wonder about this more and more, as orchestras move towards more multi-media presentations and play more film music, even in education concerts, where not a single composers name is mentioned....
Bear with me now as I quote one of my teachers, Greg Hustis, the former principal horn of the Dallas Symphony. Again, they would apply equally to the jazz world. These comments were made in the liner notes of one of his recordings (Lyrical Gems For The Horn, on the Crystal label): "The works on this CD were chosen simply because they are beautiful music...There is no unifying musical or stylistic "theme"...pieces were selected without regard to marketing strategies...well-intentioned promoters seem obsessed with the notion that only "new" or "different" gimmicks will aid the ailing recording industry. All too often we see the production of substandard works by obscure, untalented composers, arrangements of arrangements, bizarre orchestrations, and a rush of "crossover" recordings, usually lame attempts to give classical musicians the glitzy luster of pop stars...maybe we should work harder to present music that more listeners might enjoy. We cannot completely understand why great music stirs the soul. Nevertheless, perhaps by emphasizing the beauty, not the marketing of classical music will lead more of us to experience its mysterious and powerful force."
What does everyone think about this? Of course feel free to respond in terms of the jazz world, as this is ultimately a jazz thread. The same topics apply. Frogman is of course uniquely qualified to speak about both worlds, so? One comment I might throw out for discussion is that in the jazz world, Wynton seems to be trying BOTH approaches. |
Very nice post, Frogman! I see exactly where you are coming from now, and would agree. We are indeed drawing slightly different lines, and what you said about "clear and unique" stylistic voice makes more sense than anything else I have heard about why some don't dig him as much. He definitely has a more homogenous sound, as do more and more brass players nowadays, in the classical world as well. Regional differences in sound, even on my instrument, are becoming less and less, which is really kind of sad. Everyone is sounding more and more the same. It's a great sound, but there is much less variety. This issue has affected my own career negatively.
For those of you who are not musicians reading the above, a brief explanation in layman's terms - I used to sub regularly with one of the very finest orchestras in the country, when my former teacher was the principal. Well, when he took a sabbatical near the end of his career, suddenly the calls for me stopped. The younger guys in the section preferred to use a guy who was not as experienced as me, and who they had to correct more ensemble-type problems with than they did with me, simply because they preferred the horn he played on to mine (he sounded exactly like they did, whereas I had a slightly different sound, even though I was able to blend perfectly well). While the calls started again, once my former teacher came back, I saw the writing on the wall for working there once my teacher retired, but luckily I got the job I have now anyway, so it didn't matter in the end. I have also had the satisfaction of hearing my former teacher publicly criticize his former colleagues for how they operate now in their close minded fashion since his retirement. I'm not going to say anymore about who and where or anything like that - I like to maintain relative anonymity here to feel free to make comments I would otherwise be uncomfortable making. |
Hi Rok - can't answer your question without hearing the takes. A "take" is one time through the piece straight through while recording. So what you have there are two different takes of the exact same piece from the same session, probably done back to back. |
Hi guys - I would like your opinions on this, especially Frogman's. I don't agree with everything in it, but it is definitely food for thought.
http://dyske.com/paper/778 |
Rok, several Minnesota orchestra players left to go to other positions during that very lengthy lockout they had, so they now need to be replaced, including more than one principal player, if I remember right. Certainly the principal clarinet left, one of the most high profile ones to do so - he took a position in the LA Phil. I assume that is what this probably refers to - it may not be an increase in the actual number of positions, just filling the open ones they have now. I can look it up fairly easily if you really want to know, though, just let me know. FYI, some of the very largest orchestras in the carry have over 90 musicians. |
I have just spent a very interesting hour reading the posts from yesterday and today and listening to the clips of Bowie, and thinking about all of it. I had never heard of Bowie, believe it or not, and quite frankly, don't care to ever again. As Frogman said, comparison of the actual trumpet playing is pointless - he is not in the class of Davis, Hubbard, Morgan, etc., let alone Marsalis. This is an aesthetic thing, but I personally have a big problem, no matter what the genre of music, with performers who just cannot produce a truly good sound. And yes, I fully realize that he is playing bad on purpose in that first clip - BUT he doesn't really ever produce anything resembling a pure tone in any of those clips - I personally found them almost unlistenable. Based on these posted clips, I must agree with Marsalis that Bowie is just "another guy who could never REALLY play." My emphasis, though I would suspect it was Wynton's as well.
Frogman's posts are as usual excellent; I pretty much agree with almost everything thing in them in general. I do want to ask, however, if you are arguing that Bowie as a musician (as opposed to as a trumpet player) is "original" or if he is really "pushing the boundaries of the art forward." And if so, how? |
OK, after the distractions, are there any comments on my previous post? |
Hi Rok - answers to your questions will vary widely according to the conductor involved. They control what happens in rehearsals. Ideally, a dress rehearsal of an opera is indeed a complete run-through, though depending on how close to the performance it is, the lead singers may be "marking," in other words, not singing full out. This depends on the rehearsal and performance schedules, and the individual singers.
Ideally, a dress rehearsal of a symphonic performance is also a complete run-through, though if it is on the same day as the first performance, as it so often is, the brass section in particular will not be playing full out. I personally hate dress rehearsals on performance days, but that is almost always when they are. This is actually normally due to the soloist's schedule. Usually they don't come in until the day before, for the second to last rehearsal, then there is the dress the morning of the first show.
As for the orchestra not meeting expectations, again this depends on the conductor and the ensemble. No one is perfect - many mistakes are made in almost every performance, though the vast majority of them will go completely unnoticed by almost the entire audience. One of my teachers said once - batting .300 is great for baseball, but doesn't cut it in music, which is hilarious. But absolutely no one is note perfect all the time. In my opinion, far too much emphasis today is placed on not making any mistakes, rather than really making music. This is due to a couple of different factors - the greatly increasing technical proficiency of young musicians coming out of school - already far, far higher than when I came out of school in the late 80's - and also the availability of so many recordings now where mistakes have been digitally edited out. This has increased pressure on live performers greatly, again leading to players just trying not to make any mistakes rather than really getting into the music.
Often the very first rehearsal of a symphony will be a complete run-through, too, by the way. The players usually like this very much, as they see the conductor's tempi, etc. right off the bat, and get a feel for how the piece is going to go. Not all conductors will do this, however, again every one is different. Some have great time management but are not musically very good, others have horrible time management in rehearsals, which usually leads to sections of the music feeling very uncomfortable in the first performance. Very rarely are great musicianship and great time management present in the same conductor. As far as a conductor's expectations, it is their job to show this as much as possible with their conducting (which is all they can do in a performance), though of course they stop and talk a lot in rehearsals, too. Again, the quality and effectiveness of what they have to offer varies quite a bit. Some conductors have much better ears and are better at fixing certain kinds of issues than others, etc. Bad conductors will also often try to micro-manage everything, instead of letting us do what we do. Young conductors often fall into this trap, even though most of the orchestra knows the pieces way better than they do. Other times many conductors think they have to re-invent the wheel in an often played work, and will do stupid things that don't make much sense. Or they might make a horrible mistake themselves in a performance. In almost every case, the orchestra will save their butts, unless they really don't like the guy. There is a very famous story about the Boston Symphony letting a performance of Ein Heldenleben come to a screeching halt because they really hated the conductor, who was sky high on coke on the night, as he often was. The conductor in question is a VERY big name, and is indeed a good musician, though. Bottom line is - don't assume the conductor always knows what they are doing. Another kind, by the way, is one who may know exactly how they want something to sound - perhaps they are a great rehearsal pianist, for instance, but they can't actually conduct to save their lives. They have no physical ability to communicate to a large ensemble what they actually want to happen musically (or even time-wise, in the worst cases). There are many ballet and opera conductors like this out there.
I believe some time ago in this same thread we discussed job security issues - all union orchestras have a peer-review board type of system in place, so conductors can't just fire someone for no real reason, much like lawyers and doctors have. Normally, though, the process doesn't actually get that far - something is usually worked out to where the musician "retires" early. There is also a tenure process in all orchestras, usually one, sometimes two years in length. If at the end of that period the recently hired musician is deemed not up to snuff, they are not tenured in the first place.
Hope this answers your questions reasonably. |
Rok, I think you may find that you have indeed heard the Soldier's Tale before. Many people have, without realizing it was Stravinsky they were listening to. It is a fantastic little work. Very difficult trumpet and violin parts in particular. |
I didn't want to be the first to say it, but Schubert is absolutely correct. |
Hi Rok - I would add to Frogman's comments a funny story about a professor at a famous music school who taught a class for non-musicians on music appreciation. The course was also required for graduate level music ed students. She famously would begin this course every year by being a little bit late to the first class, slowly walking to the lectern, and announcing - "Beethoven Sucks!" After some stunned silence, someone would finally ask her to repeat it, which she would do. After more stunned silence, she would launch into her first lecture, which was about how most non-musicians only pay attention to melody when they listen to music. And if music was only judged by that standard alone, Beethoven would be nowhere to be found on the list of all time greats. Which would be absurd, of course. He is a great example of being great about pretty much all other aspects of music, though he struggled to write beautiful melodies, as Frogman said. She would use this humorous opening to get people's attention and make them think about all of the other aspects of music that they don't normally pay attention to. |
I agree with everything Frogman has posted lately about Stravinsky, especially the suggestion to listen to a wide variety of his music. He was truly a musical chameleon, with the ability to write pretty much anything in any style. Mozart is really the only other major composer who was the same in that regard.
Stravinsky was much like his good friend Pablo Picasso in this respect. The two were close, and are often compared to each other. |
Rok, you are correct that Stravinsky is often murder on trumpet and horn players. It is good hard, though - we love to play it! |
Glad to hear from you, O-10, and glad to know you are still reading, if not posting! |
Rok, those Louis Armstrong Hot Five and Hot Seven albums are fantastic, I've got them on LP, pretty good copies. |
Acman3, unfortunately musicians ARE being replaced by computers - have you heard of the new Virtual Orchestra? Absurd? Yes. Unfortunately, it is now a reality. Let us hope most audiences will not accept it in the future, right now that remains to be seen. It is a crying shame that most ballet companies in the US now dance to recordings rather than a live ensemble. Musicians everywhere have been protesting this, usually with the help of the dancers, but so far to very little effect.
Society, especially here in the US, values the arts less and less. Let's make a comparison to athletics. Musicians in the professional orchestras of this country have worked just as long and hard in their training, beginning at just as early of an age, as the professional athletes have, with odds as long of actual success in the field. We also use much weaker muscle groups that have to last for much longer careers. Yet the top athletes make many, many times what the top musicians do. I am a fairly big sports fan (soccer, basketball, tennis, swimming especially), so this is not said to denigrate athletes at all - I just wish that the arts were as appreciated in our society. |
Rok, I must agree 100% with Frogman - your comments in your latest post are way off base. Laughable, even. Are you trying to troll us? Seriously?! |
Rok, on the off chance that you are actually being serious (which I still cannot really believe) - Haven't you ever heard of someone being called "ahead of his time?" Pick any art form you wish, and a very large percentage of the truly greats in that form were not "popular" during their time. Their art survived anyway because it was great art. Music history is full of such composers - to name just one, the symphonies of Gustav Mahler are now very often played, but during his lifetime, almost not at all. Some of them he never heard himself, except at his piano when writing them. There are many writers (James Joyce, to name one in English) and visual artists one can say the same of - folks who barely scraped by in relative obscurity during their lifetimes, but are now considered one of the all time greats. No one goes into the arts to make money - this would be an idiotic goal. In fact, huge numbers of very talented students majoring in the arts even at the very best schools end up dropping out (if not dropping out of school, at least abandoning it as a career goal), because they decided they didn't want to work as hard as is necessary, since it was not going to bring them the income level they wanted, even if they attained the very highest level in their art.
I look forward to your question on abstract art. |
Wow, lots of posts since I was last able to check in! Sorry guys, but I am in the very busiest part of my season right now and simply don't have time to listen to all these links. In a couple of weeks, I could go back and do so, but right now I just can't.
Rok, I pretty much agree with everything Frogman has said. I actually had a music theory major in my undergrad as well as my horn major, so I am qualified to teach it, and have privately. Triads are the basic building blocks of pretty much all Western music, until you get into the 20th century avant garde composers. Triads continue to be the basis of all popular music, including even most jazz, though it is much more experimental. Frogman's suggestion of buying a keyboard is a good one, however I would also suggest a set of books written by a guy named Paul Harder. They are "programmed" courses - meant to be taken at your own pace. You cover up half the page that has the answers as you work through. There is an accompanying CD. He has one for Fundamentals of Music that would be great for you, and then there are others that reach the equivalence of freshman and sophomore college music theory, much more than you would probably want to know, unless you really got into it.
Now for the abstract art stuff. Basically, yes, I agree with the author of your book. As to your questions - yes, music is more abstract than painting. As the author says, painting is two dimensional - you can see and even touch it, and can look at it over and over again. Music is only heard, and then it doesn't exist anymore, at least that particular performance, unless it was recorded (Richard Strauss and other composers and conductors and performers were horrified at the very idea of recorded music when the possibility first arose, by the way - recordings have fundamentally altered the way people think about music compared to even just 100 years ago). This is much more abstract.
if someone had never heard Don't Cry For Me Argentina before and did not know that it had words, it would be purely abstract for that person.
The other questions are more interesting - you are getting into aesthetics now. Someone putting words to an established tune definitely gives a meaning to the result that is not abstract anymore. However, you could also make up a completely different set of words and seemingly (or really) giving the music a totally different meaning. Which one would be correct? Would either be at all close to what the composer may have been thinking/feeling? He/she may be completely horrified. These questions do not have a simple answer.
Another fantastic performance of the Water Music, by the way, is the English Baroque Soloists, conducted by John Eliot Gardiner, who is my favorite period instrument group conductor. The natural horn playing is superb, far better than any other I have ever heard, including the one Frogman mentioned, which is a good one indeed.
Didn't see the video in question, but Frogman is probably correct that they were coached. Video has also fundamentally altered the way people think about music, especially performing, in mostly negative ways. Now there are huge numbers of people that think if you aren't wildly moving around or making funny faces, you can't possibly be emotionally involved. That's a load of crap.
Hope that decently answers your questions. Need to get to bed now. I promise I will go back and listen to some of these clips you guys have posted when I get time. |
Hi Rok - as the resident horn player, allow me to clarify Frogman's answers (which were good). The period instruments (what we now call "natural" horns), had no valves. So they could only get the notes of the natural harmonic series of the key that the instrument was pitched in. To change the key of the instrument, tubing had to be added or subtracted to it, pieces of tubing called "crooks." To fill in the notes of the scale, the players used a hand technique, which is much easier demonstrated than described - they would "close" the bell of the instrument with their hand, which bends the pitch to the correct note they want. These "stopped" notes have a much more metallic sound - we still do this today, actually, for the sound effect - Mahler in particular wrote a great deal of "stopped horn" notes. With the invention of the valves, this allowed the horn to play chromatically and get any notes needed without hand stopping them, with an even tone quality. I hope this is a decently satisfactory explanation - feel free to ask any questions this brings up, and I will try to clarify.
Most modern players do not have training in the specialized hand technique required to play the period instruments well anymore, only the people who actually play these early instruments would need to learn it. The technique can be demonstrated roughly on a modern instrument, however, which I often do at educational concerts, but I am not really a "natural horn" player.
It is no surprise at all to me, by the way, that the horn players on your Gardiner recording sound much better than the others. The guys in his group are pretty much the best in the world at it, as far as orchestral playing goes, anyway. The French groups are not nearly so well regarded as far as horn playing goes, and this actually goes for the modern instrument as well.
One thing to bear in mind is that in those Handel pieces, there aren't that many "stopped" notes anyway - hence, they will sound much more like modern instruments than they would if they were playing say Mozart or Beethoven, who wrote much more difficult and complicated parts for the horn. If you listen carefully, however, to that Gardiner recording, you will hear the difference between the "stopped" and open tones. Part of the technique is to make the "stopped" notes sound as much like the open ones as is possible, and those guys are really good at it. So they won't sound so metallic, they might sound more "covered" instead. That is a great recording, in fact the best I know of for the natural horn playing. |
Hi Schubert - I am really not very familiar with Musica Antiqua Köln. I don't believe the group is actually in existence any more, I think they disbanded several years ago. If I remember correctly, they are the ones who specialized in the lesser known composers of the 17th and 18th centuries, and when they did perform say Bach or Handel, it was lesser known works.
I have always had an interest in the natural horn, but I never did pull the trigger on buying one and really learning the technique, I have only just messed around on one for a few minutes in a horn shop before. There is an active early music group in my area who tried to talk me into it, and would still probably hire me and program some stuff with horn were I to decide to do it, as there is only one guy in the area who does, and he doesn't do it very well anymore (he is nearing retirement), but I haven't yet. It is quite a bit different from what I normally do, so it would involve much time and work in my off-season, when I normally take some rest from playing. Not to mention the money involved in buying one and traveling to take some lessons to learn the special hand techniques involved. I would be lucky at this point to ever break even on that, as there wouldn't be a whole lot of opportunities to perform with it, there being only the one group in my area. So I would just be doing it for fun, which it no doubt would be. |
Schubert, and also Rok, Herman Baumann's recording of the Mozart Horn Concerti on natural horn, conducted by Nicolas Harnoncourt, with the Concentus Musicus Wien, on the Telefunken label, is the finest natural horn playing I know of. Truly astounding. There are a few other good ones out there, but none of them better that one, which was I believe the first time they had been recorded on natural horn, in 1974. |
Rok, which episode? I don't see Tube Amps listed on any of them for tonight. |
Hi guys - just caught up to all the posts today. Rok, I guess you now want to move on, but before we do, I honestly, along with Frogman, am even more confused about what you think you are talking about with your "nuts and bolts" comment. I grant you the use of your term as you want to use it - that's not the issue - the issue is it is not at all clear. I know of no musician who would say "playing music in accordance with some musical theory, and that alone, can make a player great." This is absurd on the face of it, no musician would ever say that. What we do not understand is that you really do seem to think that many do?? Could you give us a specific example?? I am not trying to attack your position, I am honestly trying to understand it, as it seems to make no sense.
Far be it from me to diss Central Texas, by the way. I am very familiar with it, having grown up there. I was merely describing the classical music scene as compared to the country/alternative rock scene down there. |
Rok, I am flabbergasted. I was directly quoting you, not Frogman. Everything Frogman has said is indeed perfectly clear, and what you have said about "nuts and bolts" does not in any way resemble anything he has said. Assuming that you are being serious, clearly you have misunderstood him, but I cannot figure out how, so I guess we will have to drop the subject.
Acman, I don't recall that quote from the Narnia books, but it has been a very long time since I read them, so you are probably right. |
Rok, I agree 100% on the Ella/Ellington thing. All of Ella's songbook recordings are fantastic. Which Ella and Basie album are you listening to? If it is On the Sunny Side of the Street, it is one of my very favorites. Another favorite of hers would be the 40th Birthday concert, from Rome. If you haven't heard that, you need to! |
O-10 and Rok - I'm sorry, but I have to call you guys out again, if Frogman won't. Your comments on musicians not caring about audio are way out of line, and frankly insulting. As both Frogman and I have stated many times in these forums, there are more musicians who are audiophiles, by percentage, than in any other profession you care to name. O-10, I believe you when you say the guy you live with didn't listen to music when he was off, but I assure you he is an exception. Almost every professional musician listens to more music in their off hours than the typical audiophile does. Granted, much of that is for work and study purposes, but it is very often also for pleasure. When you have such a well respected jazz musician as Frogman (and there are several others in these forums who participate on a fairly regular basis, though some of them don't identify themselves as such), who are willing to engage in serious dialogue with you about the music you love, why you do persist in making these type of statements? Or poking fun because they don't have as expensive a system as you? They probably don't have near the income you do, either. Let's please keep this about the music - this is one of the very best threads that any audiophile forum has ever had. |
Frogman is correct about my intended meaning - when I said musicians, I meant all types of musicians, not just classical. Of course, O-10, there are exceptions to every rule. There are many classical musicians who aren't into great reproduction, too, even though they can hear the difference. As Rok said, we hear what we NEED to hear on a boom box if we have to. But as a percentage, yes, there are many more musicians with better quality playback systems than the averages in other professions. They certainly don't all have five figure systems, it might be good mid-fi stuff, like what I started with after college - a Technics turntable, Harmon Kardon receiver, and Cerwin Vega speakers (and there are a great many audiophiles who would argue that the Technics was not a mid-fi piece, but that's another argument). Back in the day, that system cost me three figures. The average musician is more likely to own such equipment than the average non-musician.
Rok, I can see how my comment you quoted could easily be misinterpreted to be condescending, but I think you know it was not intended that way. I will certainly admit that there is a reason I am a musician and not a writer....not the best choice of words. Frogman is much better at writing clearly than I, that's for sure. |
Hi Rok - those are some good questions. As far as the LSO situation, that is always a complicated issue. First of all, if he even asked to be moved down to third, that probably means that there was already a third trumpet opening, or there was about to be. Otherwise, there would already be someone playing that job, and it wouldn't be available to him. That would be my guess. And yes, if he moved down, then they would be auditioning for a new principal.
There is probably no implication in your article you mentioned that "there is no rhyme or reason" for the cuts - there would have to be some rhyme and reason for it, as is not simply a matter of cutting out part of it, the result has to make musical sense. There could be any number of reasons for making cuts - length being one (for fitting it onto the recording); the artist feels that part of the piece is not as good as the rest, and so cuts it out; the artist cuts out a part that is particularly difficult for them (though this would not be the case with Michael Rabin, who was world class), or other reasons. Sometimes composers give options, too, I believe those Paganini caprices have optional sections in them. Other times there are different versions of the same work by the composer, for instance there are at least three different revisions of Stravinsky's ballet, the Firebird. Often conductors will put together a suite consisting of parts of each version. This happens often with Bruckner symphonies.
As far as differences between the principal and other members of their sections, this of course will vary greatly from orchestra to orchestra, because of several reasons - age, experience, actual ability, etc. There are many factors - for example, in the horn section, different positions require different skills. For instance, the first and third horn players are "high horn" players, and the second and fourth horn are "low horn" players (think of the horn section as two pairs, first and second are a high/low pair, third and fourth are a high/low pair - in the days before valves were invented, these two pairs would have been in different keys, to give the composer more note options). The fourth horn player in particular is not expected to have as good of a high register as the first and third horns, but is definitely required to have a very good low register, much better than the high players. The differences are not quite as great in the trumpet section, though they also exist there as well. The principals are paid more, as they are the leaders and do play most of the solos. But as far as actually being better, while they are much of the time, this is not always true. When I first joined my orchestra twenty years ago, it just so happened that several of the second players in the woodwind and brass sections were actually better overall players than their principals, though this is not the case any more, with turnover over the last two decades.
In any orchestra, there is a probationary period of one or two years. Anyone winning an audition that turns out not to be up to the required level is let go after this period. If they are up to the level, then they are tenured. So the main point I would actually like to emphasize in answering this question is that anyone in a major orchestra, no matter what part they are playing, is a damn good player. It is the most competitive field to get into there is, barring professional athletics and perhaps singing and acting. And in every major city, there are many free-lance musicians who are just as good as the people who actually have positions in the major orchestra in town. Knowing he will not toot his own horn, so to speak, I will go ahead and mention that the Frogman most definitely is one of these in New York, as evidenced by the fact that he gets hired to play substitute/extra with the top groups on a regular basis. He is also unique in that he has a lot of work in the jazz scene there as well - that is relatively rare nowadays. |
Frogman has written another excellent post!
@Schubert - I'm pretty sure that Mozart never actually said that. That line comes from the play/film Amadeus, and in my opinion that attitude (promoted by the character of Salieri, mainly) is one of the worst things in it (I love the film, despite it's major historical inaccuracies, and the soundtrack is great). Yes, Mozart was unbelievably talented; but he worked damn hard at his craft, and THAT is why his music is so great. There are SO many talented music students that get by for a while on their natural talent, but once they figure out how hard they really have to work to actually have a career, they fall by the wayside. No matter how much talent you may have, you still have to put in the work if you want to be truly great, and a VERY great deal of that work is very mundane indeed, as Frogman pointed out. And it is daily work, and continues throughout your entire career. Some people don't like athletic analogies to music, but they are very apropos here - just like an athlete must do their daily exercises and stretches, etc., the musician must do the same. And we work with much weaker muscle groups (especially the wind players like Frogman and myself) that have to last for much longer careers. |
Hi Rok - actually, for once the music director of the ASO has come out firmly in support of the musicians. And yes, it is almost worse than the Minnesota situation, if you have read some of the unbelievable comments made by the guy that runs that arts center that owns the ASO. We are unfortunately in a period of spectacularly bad arts management right now. I hasten to add, however, that there are a great many success stories happening in the orchestral scene right now, too, though those almost never get reported. Do you know of any other business that actually trashes itself? No, I didn't think so.... |
Hi Rok - I am in an extremely busy stretch at work right now, so sorry for the slow response. The short answer to your question is that my orchestra has never programmed that piece, nor have I yet had the opportunity to participate in a professional performance of it.
However, I am of course very familiar with the work, and I did play it once in grad school with the student orchestra. I have worked on it again very recently, too - our principal horn was hired as a guest soloist for a much smaller orchestra to play the first part on it, and in his preparation for that, I read it in practice sessions with he and two other local players. In both cases, I was playing the lowest, fourth part, which is what I do normally professionally.
This piece is another great example of how pieces are often revised/edited, as we were talking about a few months ago here. Almost never is it done anymore the way Schumann wrote the solo parts. There are several different versions out there where the solo parts have been re-written (by horn players) so that first horn part is not so murderous to play. Some of the really high parts are given to the second and third horns, so the workload is spread around a little more. In all these different versions, the orchestral parts are unchanged, I am merely referring to the four solo horn parts. In fact, I am not sure I have ever heard a performance with the solo parts exactly as Schumann originally wrote them - that is a very murderous first horn part, indeed. Schumann didn't really understand that when he wrote it - he was not the best orchestrator (the term refers to deciding which instrument actually plays what once the writing of the composition is finished - another term used is scoring). The piece is a real oddity, but it is a good piece, and is always popular when performed. It is very fun to play, and really shows off what a quartet of horns can do. |
Rok, there are quite a lot of recordings of the piece out there. One of the relatively recent ones that is great is with conductor John Eliot Gardiner's period instrument group.
A slightly older one from the 80s, on DG, with the Chicago Symphony section is also really famous among those audiophiles who love to listen for extraneous noises on recordings. The principal cellist, Frank Miller, grunts very audibly in the second movement. I think Barenboim conducted that recording, but don't remember and don't have my file in front of me. |
Schubert, while I am not actually the biggest Sinatra fan either, I don't think very many would agree that Mel Torme was much better. While he did have a pleasant voice, that was about as far as it went, IMO. I would certainly stop short of calling him a great artist. He may have had a great voice, but for me, what little I have heard of him, he hasn't ever seemed much more than a crooner. IOW, he wasn't ever doing any thing very difficult or taxing with it, so that is why it kept sound good for his lengthy career. Johnny Mathis is a different type of crooner entirely, but same sort of concept vocally speaking.
I would be interested to hear what Frogman and Rok and Orpheus have to say, however, perhaps they will think me off base on this one? |
Lots of interesting posts here lately, sorry I have not been able to respond sooner!
Frogman - clearly, I have not been listening to much Mel Torme. Your comments that he could swing his ass off and scat almost like Ella blew me away - I have never heard him do anything of the sort, and wouldn't have believed him capable of it, based on the little I have heard. Clearly, I am ignorant of much of his work, which I will remedy at some point (I haven't yet listened to your link - I'm actually in the process of figuring out setting up a new computer based audio chain for my digital listening).
Frogman's Sinatra comments are dead on for me - very well described.
Schubert - Wagner always sets off controversy - I am somewhat of an expert on the subject of Wagner, actually. Mapman is correct when he says Wagner was used for political purposes later by the Nazis, though you are also correct to say that his views are horrid - many people think he just hated the Jews, but he hated pretty much everything that wasn't German. These views are indeed despicable.
That said - there has been some interesting discussion here about an artist's personality influencing one's views of his/her work. Another of my favorites, from the literary world, James Joyce, believed very firmly in the total separation of the artist from his work (in this sense we are speaking of, that is). In the case of Wagner in particular (someone who Joyce was artistically heavily influenced by), this is an obvious necessity. I do understand why someone subjected to it in a death camp would never want to hear it again. I had many distant relatives die in more than one of those camps. However, as an artist, one simply cannot ignore Wagner. This is a man who I would (and have, formally) argue influenced music more than any other artist has ever influenced his or her art form. For decades afterwards, composers had very strong artistic reactions to what he did - music after Wagner fundamentally changed forever in many, many ways, splintering off in all kinds of directions, all of them in some way a reaction (positive or negative) to what he had done (and not in the way he himself predicted, either). It is only in the last few decades that this has not been true anymore. I must stop myself here, or I will type an insanely long post. I will conclude this one by imploring you and everyone else to give his art, his music, a chance. If you do not listen to Wagner, you are denying yourself some of the greatest and also some of the most beautiful music ever composed. As abhorrent a human being as he was, he was also undeniably an artist of the foremost rank and genius, matched by very, very few others, in any art form. |
Schubert, I must protest that you go a little too far in your latest posts. Wagner never carried his anti-Semitism nearly so far as Hitler and the Nazis did. And yes, Hitler DID use Wagner's music at both his public rallies, and in the death camps (both well documented), thereby giving Wagner's anti-Semitism an even more horrific, exaggerated spin. Wagner would have been horrified by their death camps. This is of course NOT to justify or excuse or diminish Wagner's terribly racist views, but merely to say they did not go so far as the Nazis - he did not advocate actually killing/exterminating the Jews, even though he wished they didn't exist - those two things are NOT the same; Wagner never killed anyone, and his music certainly hasn't either.
Much of the anti-Semitism of Bayreuth over the years came actually from Cosima, after Richard's death, whose views were more extreme than her husband's; if you have read her diaries (which were only published in the 1980s), this is made quite clear. And it was a couple of their grandchildren who were cozy with the Nazis, against the wishes of some of the rest of the family, who were appalled, and distanced themselves, though they did not go public. There is an interesting book on the subject by one of his great grandsons, Siegfried, who has been ostracized from Bayreuth for finally bringing out in public some of the embarrassing Nazi associations of his family - at least as of a couple of years ago he is still an outsider. Unlike his successors, Wagner himself had no problem hiring Jews who were the best musicians, including Franz Strauss, the greatest horn player of his day (and father of the composer Richard Strauss). He premiered quite a few of Wagner's operas, in Munich and at Bayreuth. A Jewish conductor, Hermann Levi, premiered Parsifal at Bayreuth. Wagner did not like the fact these musicians were Jewish, but it did not prevent his artistic judgment from prevailing (despite his earlier views expressed in his bizarre pamphlet about the supposed reasons Jews could never be top rank artists).
I won't argue with your statement that it is more important to be a good man than a good artist - but that is not really the issue here. No one is arguing that Wagner was not a horrible person, and no one is trying to justify his racist views. I certainly hope you were not referring to me - I prefer to assume you were not, since I would find that highly offensive, having as I said lost many distant cousins in those Nazi death camps. Again, I believe one must separate the art from the man. And there are a great many Jews and artists who agree - Daniel Barenboim has done much great work uniting young Israeli and Palestinian musicians, in part with the music of Wagner! Controversial, yes. Effective, unquestionably. Music should heal; it should not foster more hatred.
Allow me to frame the argument in another way - should the world completely disregard one of its greatest artistic geniuses because he had some appalling personal views? Are you seriously advocating this? Are you not in fact therefore advocating censorship? Where does this line of thought stop? Is this type of reasoning any different from say someone who decides they don't want to hear Tchaikovsky, or Schubert, for that matter, because they liked young teenage boys? Or to hear Bruckner since he was supposedly a necrophiliac? Should we not listen to Gesualdo since he was a murderer? Should we not listen to Miles Davis because he used drugs? We could continue this indefinitely to complete absurdity; but to not listen to Wagner's music because he was racist does not make any more logical sense to me than any of these other examples. |
Schubert, I can't resist one more question - please explain to us how Wagner's music (or anyone else's, for that matter) can possibly be construed as EVIL (aside from the evil of using it torture Jews in the Nazi death camps by blasting it incessantly, but this is NOT the music's evil, nor was it the wildest intentions of the composer for it to be used in such a manner). Who is really making the sophomoric posts here? OK, that was two questions, sorry folks. Adam is right to pull this thread back to jazz.
I have a suggestion for Frogman. If you were to suggest several albums to showcase/illustrate the development of jazz improvisation, which would you pick, and why? To clarify, I am not asking for a favorite list, or a top ten list, but a selection of albums for the study of improvisation and how it is done and how it has developed at the highest levels in jazz. Would others also be interested in this as a topic for this thread? |
So is no one interested in the topic I proposed? |
Schubert, I agree with you that Shaham is one of the best I have ever heard live as well. I have played with most of the really famous ones of the past twenty years now. Another favorite of mine, though very different, is Perlman. He did one of the best solo recitals I have ever heard on any instrument when I was in college, and my orchestra got to accompany him about 15 years ago for our annual gala fundraiser. Very nice guy, too. |
Rok, Faddis is actually much better known for his "screech" playing, his lead trumpet playing in big bands. That Peterson record he did is a rare opportunity to hear him in that sort of setting.
Another recording he sounds fantastic on is Leonard Bernstein's recording of West Side Story that he did in the 80s with the opera singers singing the leads. It is worth listening to just to hear Faddis play the dance band stuff. |
Frogman said "where I have a problem in this shortsightedness is in how it can influence the young minds of young students and artists and stifle their growth." I agree 100%, and this is one of the many reasons why Branford has always puzzled me - he is the polar opposite of his brother in this respect. Wynton is a great educator. It's almost like Branford is an evil twin.... |
Frogman, that is one of the best posts I have ever seen on this site, where you explain differences between jazz and classical musicians to the layman. I was very tempted to chime in first when I read that question, but refrained, as I knew you would give a much better written reply. Kudos!
I want to emphasize one point Frogman makes - he states that in jazz, individuality is paramount, and that this is one reason why jazz players are not so great at playing classical. This hits the nail on the head. What I want to elaborate is that, for instance, as a section horn player, my job is to blend my sound as much as possible with my principal, articulate exactly the same way he/she does, play exactly together rhythmically with him/her, play exactly in tune with him/her, so much that we sound like one player. This is actually my greatest strength as a player/musician, my ability to match others in this way, hence why I have the job I do as opposed to a principal job - I make the principal's job much easier. It is seldom that I have a solo of my own, where I can express some individuality appropriately, though I do get the occasional opportunity. I get to actually play principal probably only once or twice a season.
Classical players are much better at this sort of blending/matching than jazz players are - this is one thing Frogman is referring to when he speaks of ultimate command of the instrument, especially in respect to tonal nuance and finesse. You wouldn't want to hear Miles Davis play the Haydn Concerto, or John Coltrane play the transcription of the Hindemith Alto Horn Sonata (which, believe it or not, is actually performed much more by classical saxophonists than it is by horn players). |
@Schubert - Since the Minnesota Orchestra does not currently have any horn openings, at least that I am aware of, can I assume that you meant your comment to be a critical one on the quality of the current section??
@Rok - Frogman's reply to your post is absolutely correct. Again, I will try elaborating. As he said, classical music requires the very highest degree of technical proficiency on a consistent basis, far more than is required in jazz. This is NOT to say that classical players are necessarily better musicians, however - only that the ones at the highest level are far better players of their instruments, technically speaking. As Frogman said, even Wynton would not quite be able to cut the job of principal trumpet in a full time symphony orchestra, though he perhaps could have if he had gone that route when he was much younger, as he certainly had the talent.
Let me give an example. Sometimes there are French horn parts in big bands, and I am called upon at least a couple of times a season, usually more, to play that style of music in pops shows. Can I swing as easily as a full time big band trumpet player? No. But after a rehearsal (and there is usually only one), I can follow and pick up the style of the lead trumpet player to the point where only my fellow musicians onstage could tell that I don't do it all the time. Remember, the music itself is nowhere near as complicated as a large majority of what I play on a daily basis - the notes are no problem for me, it is simply a matter of getting the style down. Now - could one of those big band trumpet players perform a difficult trumpet part in say a Mahler symphony after one rehearsal? No way in hell, and you and everyone else in the audience would clearly hear it if the attempt was made.
I could even sit in with a big band, sight reading a horn part, and you could come to the concert, and I bet that you would not be able to tell that I didn't play with them all the time (though Frogman certainly could, LOL). I would just blend in with my colleagues, and you wouldn't notice (like you would if a big band trumpeter tried sitting in with an orchestral trumpet section).
Now one thing I could not do in the jazz setting would be to improvise a solo, so that big band would not have me take one. Well, I could try, I would certainly understand the chord changes, etc., it just wouldn't be very good, I'd be faking my way through. I could sight -read one that had been written out for me; but I couldn't improvise in that idiom on the spot. That's not something I am trained to do. But that is the only aspect of jazz playing that I would not be able to do, and I could actually learn to do it if I applied myself to it for a while (and I mean a long while, not a short time). There are a handful of jazz horn players out there that do it for a living, though, both currently and in the past. If you are curious, look up Julius Watkins, a great from the past. One of the best jazz hornists right now is a Russian guy whose name is Arkady Shilkloper; another is Tom Varner, who has been around longer.
Jazz is not inherently any more or less musical than classical is - it is a different type of music making, a different type of expression. |
