Apples/Oranges in teh "pure" sense that is. Each has unique characteristics that distinguishes it from the other. No one player is likely to be the best at the things that exemplify each.
The reality is that there are many "shades of grey" in-between that bridge the two, as well as other purer genres. Who is the best at each shade of grey? The plot thickens...
That's what makes the world go round and help keep it interesting along the way I suppose.
I'm still futilely trying to figure it all out. |
Probably the most interesting thing about music to me is that no matter how much I listen, I will probably never figure it all out. But it is fun to try. Not enough hours in the day though... |
Frogman, whether we agree or disagree, it will not affect your being second in command.
From the time we began to hear, our minds began the process in regard to what kind of music we would like. If you lived in the rural south, there's a good possibility you would like C & W. Take your pick of the musical possibilities you would prefer if you lived in a northern city; but my point is, we don't decide independently in regard to our musical preferences, they are programmed.
Right now my radio is tuned to 88.7, that's a jazz station, I can hear it quite clearly. If my radio was tuned to a classical station, regardless how clear the signal came in, I would not be able to hear it as well because my mind isn't programmed to receive classical music as well as it is jazz. We can only hear the music our mind is tuned to receive; consequently arguments in regard to different genres of music are pointless when it comes to which is the best.
Enjoy the music.
|
Schubert, have you thought about starting a new thread?
|
|
|
|
Acman,
Awesome. Thanks for that Bigard clip! |
The is the first time I ever put a plug in for a speaker in
a music thread, but as this where the music folks are I feel compelled to.
I've been in need of a small, but full range speakers that also can integrate drivers within 6ft for the small condo I've moved to.
Two weeks ago underwood wally put the Gallo Classico CL-3 's on here for $1199 shipped.
They are SUPERB jazz and classical speakers in all aspects .
Been running them 24/7 and they just keep getting better and better, very close to the Gallo 3.5's !
Anyone can PM here for more and just read the synopsis on them in the TAS 2015 which is spot !
And no , I have nothing to do with wally. |
Yes, but I don't have the energy. |
The old stuff ain't dead just yet!
From my local paper, byline New York, reporting on Brian Williams being replaced by Lester Holt. Reports that NBC won latest rating.
The Headline: 'NBC Nightly News' wins after Lester Leaps In.
Gotta Love it!1
Cheers |
Orpheus10,
I think you are generally correct about outside influences on musical choices.
But FWIW , I never heard a note of Classical music till I was 30, by chance I heard the great Swedish tenor Jussi Bjorling and was instantly converted by the most beautiful thing I had ever heard and have never looked back.
I was about 18-19 when rock started , everyone I knew went crazy about it, I hated it and thought it vastly inferior
to the big band, American song book music I had grown up on
which it displaced ,never looked back on that either.
I can't be the only one . |
Our roots certainly have an influence on how we are programmed to respond to things, but there is more to it than just that. You can teach a newer cat a few new tricks. more so usually than an older one, Usually only a few though.
I've "programmed" myself to just listen to the music and ignore "genre" or other labels that might be attached, except as a means of categorizing after the fact. I find new music I like a lot everyday in all different genres.
I am an older cat so not easy to teach metoo many new tricks but I have always been tuned into music, so that is not so hard. |
Rok, with all due respect you could not be more mistaken in both your assertions and your assumptions. No one has suggested that classical music is better than jazz. Both are serious music and each demands different disciplines. The truth is that classical puts a level of technical demands on the player that jazz does not. Even Wynton, accomplished as he is, would not be able to consistently do what the principal trumpet in a major symphony orchestra is required to do. Likewise, Duke playing Scriabin wouldn't sound any more credible than most orchestras playing Mingus. In your eagerness to run to the defense of jazz you fail to see what one of the beauties of jazz is: the fact that great music can be made by a player with RELATIVELY limited (by classical music standards) command of their instrument. It is a music that not only allows a less structured approach to playing, but in some ways requires it. It is not harder to play jazz than to play classical. You obviously don't know just how hard it is (to use one example) to play one single note perfectly in tune and control it all the way from a whisper to a roar. Improvising at a high level is also very difficult and to compare the two disciplines in an attempt to proclaim one to be "better" is silly and, frankly, sophomoric.
Once again, one of the many reasons why learning a little more about music is extremely valuable. Nothing wrong with simply enjoying it and relying on what one likes best, but once assertions l like that are made some facts to back them up are needed. |
Mapman, I think you have a great attitude about your choices for music. "Only two kinds, good and bad"
Acman3, I will offer some thoughts about old/new styles as you suggested when I have some time. Nice clip of Lockjaw and Griff, BTW. I first heard the two of them side by side as the two tenors in the Frany Boland/Kenny Clarke big band. Awesome players both. |
@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. |
Great post, Learsfool; and thanks for being more diplomatic than I was. Rok, I was frankly taken aback by your comment. (of course,THAT has never happened before :-) I didn't expect a proclamation about the superiority of jazz from you who have extolled the genius of great classical composers (the ones you like, anyway). I will try it one more time (time to plant some seeds :-) :
You are an avid music lover and should be commended for that, but you are denying yourself a deeper appreciation and enjoyment of music (both genres) by the tendency to be absolutist about some of this stuff. Just a suggestion. |
Food for thought:
I've known absolutely amazing players (instrumentalists) who are also terrible musicians. |
The soloing on Moanin' by Morgan and Timmons is just awesome! Those are the details we tend to forget. Morgan is one of my favorite trumpet players. I love the way he bends notes. My next favorite was Blues Walk. On most of my records, it's the aggregate contributions of the individuals that make the whole album. That's true on this record as well, except on the cut "Search For The New Land", it, the composition takes center stage, and the musicians become actors playing their parts in a play. This music was way ahead of it's time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfrJmye2jus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1CilMzT55MFrogman, A professional jazz musician lived in my apartment for 3 months and he never practiced. I wont mention his name because every time it's mentioned, some clown pops out of the woodwork with garbage. In regard to,"If I don't practice for a day, I know it. If I don't practice for two days, the critics know it. And if I don't practice for three days, the audience knows it". For an entire summer, I chauffeured him and his lady friend to gigs at least 3 times a week. We were only at the apartment long enough to take care of the necessities of life, the rest of the time we were on a set, or digin a set. What astounded me more than anything, was when we arrived an hour before show time, and he was introduced to musicians he had never played with before. They would talk this musical gibberish, that meant absolutely nothing to me, "All right Mac, when I come in on the... and hit a chord on the piano, point to the drummer who seemed to know what he was talking about and go "Wham bang". They would do this for an hour, while I watched in fear of every thing turning out lousy. When they played as if they had been together for years, I was all ways truly astonished. Those performances never failed to mesmerize yours truly. Each performance was uniquely different from the last one. I had surgery that summer, and he entertained me during my recuperation time, with stories about his life as a professional jazz musician; that was an unforgettable summer. Rok, Frogman is referring to the summer that my friend the professional musician lived in my apartment. He never practiced or expressed the desire to practice, not only that, but an organ would not have fitted in my apartment. (he played organ since childhood in church) Since he was playing three gigs a week of hard driving improvisational jazz, he didn't even know what he was going to play, it's for certain there was no need for him to practice. I drove him to every gig ( still had the infamous duece), and was mesmerized on each set. The intensity of the music (The dynamic range of live organ can never be recorded) was in stark contrast to him playing with his eyes closed and a sublime look on his face. As you stated, the "No practice" was a straw-man, it's for certain no one could get to that level of proficiency without practicing. I understand Frogmans wishes and desires in regard to old and new music, but it is what it is, although when it comes to live music, you have to like what you can get; that's your only option. Frogman, I'm saying the same thing in both posts; "he never practiced during the summer he lived in my apartment". These are posts from the past that I decided to revive. Enjoy the music. |
Try Errol Gardiner you couldn't even read music. |
|
Learsfool, no not really. I was just repeating what the only
pro musician I know around here, a percussionist, said.
Also, I have heard German musicians from the R.I.A.S orch, which was a hell of a band,say the blending talent you have was the hardest thing to master so I just thought you would be better yet.
At what they are best at, notably Sibelius, the Minnesota is
unbeatable right now. I only wish I could hear them in Havana in May !! |
Question for my learned betters to include Rok.
I just saw another dis comment on here on how terrible
Rod Steward is on his American Songbook Records, which seems to be the general opinion in all quarters.
I grew up on this music, its in my bones. I have all of them
and I think his love for this music is patently obvious and that he does a great job on them, more love in him for the tunes than many who made them famous .
Feel free to 'dis me. |
I almost always enjoy Rod Stewart's take on things. That makes him a good artist to me. Plus his voice is a unique instrument in of itself, especially in his prime. So he brings a lot of "it" factor to the table that most would be challenged to match. |
Schubert, BTW, I just answered the question, in no way would I consider my self your "learned better". More just another shmo whose heard a few things over the years and with an opinion. |
This person says it better than I could. http://bretpimentel.com/classical-musicians-and-jazz-music/The Jazz players are better. In Classical music, Mozart, Bach and Beethoven have already done the hard part. All the so-called highly proficient player has to do, is play what's on the paper. And they practice all their lives to play a well established and limited number of tunes, and their playing time on each tune can vary very greatly. I don't see a problem. Exhibit A: "Art Pepper Meets The Rhythm Section" They played together and met each I think, for the first time as the tapes was rolling. Amazing!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHuzH2FL1wwThe People Rest. Cheers |
Frogman, I must admit, that never practicing on the first post was misleading.
Enjoy the music.
|
Rod Stewart: My favorite Rocker. I posted some of his stuff a while back. Very unique voice. Songs made sense to me. Knew how to dress.
Cheers |
Rok, you have dug your heels in as you often do and are not hearing the message. That's fine. For anyone else who cares about the truth : No, jazz musicians are not "better". BTW, I read nothing in Pimentel's article that contradicts anything I said.
**** All the so-called highly proficient player has to do, is play what's on the paper. ****
This is so simplistic that it borders on the embarrassing; you really should aim for something higher than that.
Cheers. |
Things are getting more complicated by the minute. I recently bought a CD, "Kalenia" by Oran Etkin, he's a new musician whose music falls under the classification of jazz. I like this CD, but some may not consider it to be jazz, including Wynton Marsalis. I do not like current music that definitely fits the description of jazz. That's because it's too stereotypical and sounds counterfeit, like a rip off of old music. Since I'm not sure of what I'm debating, I'm going to temporarily recluse myself from this debate. In the meantime I'll submit music I like; "Barboletta" by Santana. He goes under the "Rock" genre, but I don't like rock. "Has anyone seen Alice"? The last time I saw her she was chasing that White Rabbit down a hole. This is one of those days. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIs4BppmMOs&list=PLniulnHY2D_ucgAooXFkfWDdEnWK9UEotEnjoy the music. |
I read it Rok, whoever this Pimentel dude is he should be nominated for the fool of the year award , give Rush L. some competition. |
Not being contrary just for the sake of it. I will try one more time.
We are talking about Professional players in both genres. Players at the top of their game. I will assume that the Classical players went thru some sort of selection process, that determined that the player was good enough to play in a top tier orchestra.
When they prepare for a performance of, say LvB's 5th, all the players have seen the score before, and have played the music before, at every stage of their career. The conductor does not have to teach or show the players how to play the music.
He will go thru the music and point out the points in the score where he wants certain things. This is his interpretation. The players then make notes on the score. He Assumes they can read the music and play it.
All they have to do is play whats on the paper, taking in consideration the conductor's wishes.
If they can't do that, they are not going to part of an orchestra in the first place.
So, they have been playing forever, he has had teachers at every step of his development, they have been playing the same music (the standard repertoire) that's been around for hundreds of years, the conductors guides them as what he wants in certain passages, and there are over 99 other people playing with him/her. Those 100+ players make wonderful music.
The Jazz Player? I am speaking of small group, not big band.
His entire career and his degree of success depends solely on how the public, the audience, sees and hears him. He must connect. No conductor to guide him or suggest how to play certain passages. No 100+ players to shield him. Can't make it playing just 'standards'. When he solos, he is out there alone. Does not receive a salary, no union, no public financial support, He creates the music as he plays it. He does not create, he does not eat.
Those two to Five players, small group, make music that is downright amazing given the number of players involved. Amazing!! My latest CD is proof of that. Kenny Barron and Dave Holland. Just Two players, making magic.
And if all that weren't enough, the genre is under attack by media and critic backed noise makers.
In my universe, that makes the Jazz players better. It is truly, a survival of fittest situation.
Cheers
BTW, both gurus said that the horn players in the French group (water/fireworks thingy) at The BBC Proms, were out of tune!! Huh??? How can that be?
I have read several reviews where the Berliners and Karajan were accused of being out of tune!! WTF!!!
Maybe these folks are not as "Highly Proficient" and "Masters of their instruments" as one might think.
I soldier on, because I know I am being tested.
Cheers |
Some sort of selection process ??
A classical player who wishes to be a soloist or a player in a top orchestra, goes through a "selection process" that lasts for years and years under pressure that causes many fine players to whither under.
It's like you got into med school, completed it and your internship, and then had to compete with a dozen other docs
in a hour oral exam where that decided which ONE of you
gets to practice medicine. |
|
Schubert given your affinity for and knowledge of Bach I'm interested to know your opinion of glen Gould as a Bach interpreter? |
First, @O-10 - I agree with you on Lee Morgan. One of my very favorite jazz trumpet players. Such a shame that he died so young.
Ok, @Rok - you still seem to have a fundamental misconception about how musicians work, despite our best efforts. There are many things incorrect about your post. Let's start with the classical side. There is indeed a "selection process" to get an orchestra job. The audition process is very grueling indeed, and that is a subject for an entirely different post, really, but to grossly abbreviate: in these auditions, we are indeed playing all by ourselves, with no one accompanying us, unless there is some playing with the section in the final round of auditions. We are all playing the same excerpts from the orchestral repertoire. Everyone is playing the same thing, and behind a screen, so it is anonymous.
Here is where your misunderstanding comes in. Despite the fact that we are all playing the same thing, no two of us will sound the same. No two people will play each excerpt exactly the same way - there will be individual interpretations, and every musician's sound will be different. There will be a wide range of skill level, unless it is an audition for the very top orchestras (top fifteen or twenty). In such a top level audition, everyone there is absolutely capable playing the job. The committee listening to the auditions are trying to pick the person that they will be most comfortable playing with, quite probably for the rest of their careers, which could be decades. A very important decision, indeed. Yes, everyone there must be able to "read the music and play the notes." That is just the bare beginning - you have to be a WHOLE lot better than that if you ever expect to get even the worst of orchestra jobs. This is not like some sort of reading test, or driving test! Your whole musical soul is bared in these auditions, and we are judged as players far more critically than a jazz musician is.
The same is true of our performance on the job, once we are lucky enough to win one. Learning the part before the first rehearsal is a must, yes! Again, that is just the bare beginning. And even this bare beginning often involves hours and hours of practicing weeks ahead of time before those rehearsals start, because that's how difficult the music is. It's not like everything we play we can play perfectly after we have done it once. A very great deal of the repertoire must be practiced very hard every single time - like an actor doing a role such as Hamlet. It isn't any easier the next time. And we have to maintain this extremely high technical standard - batting .300 may be great for baseball, but it doesn't cut it in any kind of music, especially not classical.
Every single time you play a piece, it is different, even if it is the exact same musicians and the exact same conductor, in the exact same three or four concerts that weekend. Though the conductor shapes the overall conception of the music, there is a tremendous amount of leeway for the individual musicians in the orchestra, especially when they have a solo, or the section has a unison solo passage. And I am not just speaking of concerto performances, I am speaking of any performance of any symphony in the rep. It is a myth that the conductor is controlling everything that happens, or that the musicians are playing everything exactly the same way every night. This would be incredibly boring, if true. We must connect with our audiences every bit as much as a jazz combo must connect with theirs, and in our case, the audience has many more expectations, both because many of them know the pieces very well themselves, and also the technical perfection expected is much higher. Recordings have made the standard even higher yet, really to an almost absurd level nowadays. There is so much more pressure on a classical musician in performance, precisely because the audience is usually at least somewhat, and often extremely familiar with the music being performed.
Now for the jazz side. You seem to think that a jazz combo is making up every single thing they are doing every single night, and that they do this magically with no training. Both these things are simply not true. Jazz musicians study their instruments and learn how to improvise in school, working just as hard with private teachers as classical musicians do. In jazz studies, there is less emphasis on sheer technique, however, as the emphasis is more on learning to improvise. But they take the same music theory courses, both written and aural, that we do. They take the same music history classes we do. They practice just as much as we do. They also practice the standards - just the same way we classical musicians do. In fact, they must do much more memorization than we do!
Which leads me to the other point about playing jazz. These musicians do know the tunes they are playing ahead of time, almost always. Very rarely is an entire set made up on the spot, and even then there is much talking about it ahead of time, and a little rehearsal first - Miles Davis KOB comes to mind. But the vast majority of jazz gigs consist of tunes that the musicians know and have played many, many times. There are huge volumes of what are called Fake Books, that have all of the standard tunes, the standard forms that are used in them, and the standard chord changes in those forms. This is what I meant when I said the jazz musician must have a tremendous amount of music memorized. Almost never is any of that ever made up on the spot, including the main tune in the song. What is being improvised is the solos based on that main tune, and the rhythm section will improvise variations on the basic rhythms of the tune. Jazz is much more highly (even rigidly) structured than you seem to think it is - this is exactly why people who have never played together before can get together in a small combo and make it work - they have memorized a common blueprint, similar to the scores we classical musicians are playing from. And these blueprints are known and studied by all jazz musicians. They are necessarily much more simple than the scores we are playing, because there has to be the freedom for improvising. This is why the technical demands are nowhere near as high as in classical. Often, especially if there is an unfamiliar musician in the group, there will be a Fake Book handy for quick consultation, to make sure everyone is on the same page (literally!). If you have ever seen a musician in a combo consult a piece of paper or a book, that's what they are doing.
When you hear an album of newly written jazz, the players were not making everything up on the spot in the recording sessions. The blueprints were worked out ahead of time, and yes, rehearsed! Even if a small combo really is trying to make something up on the spot, there is still a hurried discussion of a basic chordal and rhythmic framework before they start playing. Otherwise it simply wouldn't work. I am not trying to diminish the creativity of the best jazz artists, but you need to understand that everything they are doing is indeed done within a very strict framework, which they do not deviate from in the moment, unless they are playing with a very familiar group which could handle a sudden deviation because of that familiarity - and there will always be some sort of verbal or visual communication of the deviation. They would not do this is there was a new guy that night.
Ok, I think I have rambled enough, and I am sure Frogman will want to expand, if he has not had a heart attack from your post after reading it.... :) |
Well he was a highly talented musician that some call eccentric, others creative and some a nut job.
His sheer technical ability makes him astonishing to listen to even if you don't care for the end product.
In no way am I qualified to make any intelligent commentary
on Gould .
But to say what I think, which is ONLY what I think, I don't like that he skips all repeats, plays in a staccato manner with heavy accents no one else makes etc, its like he is trying to make an musical x-ray of Bach before he starts to operate.
I had his famous Goldberg Variation/s recordings I gave them away so I guess I did not care for them.To me he's a non-starter compared to the great Bach keyboardists like Hewitt, Tureck, Schiff and Perahia.
But it well may be I just lack the acumen and background to recognize the genius of Gold. |
Learsfool, as a Shakespeare buff(I assume) I wish you could have heard what I would call a "double suite "arranged by Vansca and played tonight by the Minnesota of Sibelius's "The Tempest" . Prospero lines were read
by the Guthrie Theatre Director in perfect Oxbridge with Heather Johnson singing the Ariel lines. Absolutely magnificent ! |
|
On the Christmas at Carnegie Hall concert DVD, I asked about the guy sitting the orchestra with headphones and no instrument. No one seemed to know his function. There is a guy just like that in the Proms piece. He also has a small camera. That's where we get the head on shots of the conductor.
So now we all know.
Cheers |
Has anyone considered how pointless this debate is? To begin with we all hear differently. If you go back to that analogy I made about the radio stations, we can only receive the music our minds are tuned to receive, at the time it's tuned to receive it. I can't hear classical music very well, the tuner in my mind is slightly off frequency.
There isn't much in regard to music that's not "subjective"; consequently there is no "objective" right or wrong. Has anyone heard of the "Tower of Babel"; that's what this debate has gotten to.
Enjoy the music.
|
Jazz has been called "America's Classical Music". Well, there you have it; as far as the fundamentals of music making go, there are far more similarities than differences. THAT is why I have been beating the drum about learning some fundamentals and building blocks of music. Still, there are obviously important differences.
Learsfool does a great job in his last post. A couple of further comments about his excellent points in response to Rok:
First of all, the idea that classical musicians play the same thing over and over again is nonsense. Yes, orchestras sometimes play the "warhorses" over and over again, but they also play a lot of new works; not to mention that there is a HUGE amount of lesser known (and unknown) works by the great composers that is programmed on a regular basis. Just last night I was part of a remarkable performance of a remarkable opera "Mona Lisa" (about the subject of the painting), composed in 1913 by Max Von Schilling. A beautiful work easily on a par with some of Richard Strauss' operas that received 1200 (!) performances during the years before WW1 and, incredibly, simply disappeared from the consciousness of the music world until last night's conductor found and purchased ($2 !) a score in a bookstore in Vienna. There are countless works that have met that fate.
Rok, you like the blues; or as the SNL character used to say: "You lika de blues". I lika de blues. Most of the jazz tunes that you post are based on the twelve bar blues form. To expound of Learsfool's excellent comments:
For the improviser, the "meat" of a jazz tune is not "the tune" (the melody), it is it's harmonic underpinnings; the chord progression. That is what the jazz player uses as his template (great term by Learsfool) for his improvisations, with, of course, references to the melody. The melody is often relatively simple, although there are tunes that are far more sophisticated both methodically and sophisticated. I would wager that close to half (or more) of all the tunes that you have posted use the same template of the twelve bar blues or some slight variation of that. Another common and standard chord progression is "Indiana changes" the harmonic underpinning of the tune "Back Home In Indiana" and "stolen" and used for many tunes, from Bird's "Donna Lee" to "The Flinstones" Theme. Have you any idea how many times the jazz player plays "the same " tune over and over again? They all had their "signature" tunes and their "set list". The point is, that miraculous as what a top improviser does is, it is not quite as mysterious and miraculous, as far as the challenges posed the player, compared to what a classical musician does when interpreting a classical work at the level heard in a top orchestra. There is a reason that jazz players almost always go and take lessons from top classical players when they want to learn to be better instrumentalists. There is no point in trying to make one discipline out to be "better" or "harder" than another; it's simply not the case. THEY ARE EACH HARDER IN DIFFERENT WAYS. The jazz player's challenge is in the spontaneous creation of music to fit a pre-established or familiar template. Analogy using your preferred twelve bar blues:
Imagine twelve people in a room standing in a circle. The catch is that each of them speak a different language (different chord change). Now, the challenge is to run around that circle a few times while making up a story about what O-10 would REALLY like to do to Pannonica, and every time you go past one of those people you have to switch to that person's language in a way that the story ends up being coherent and makes sense. There is a lot of latitude because if your voice cracks or you burp, or you sound out of breath while you speak, the message still gets across. Some of those people speak the same language which makes it a little easier; but hopefully you get the point. I think everyone would agree that it's a daunting task. The often mentioned and great Lee Morgan missed a note here and there, cracked a note here and there, and while playing with that amazing swagger of his was not perfectly in tune all the time.
The classical player from a top ensemble cannot falter, burp, fart, sound out of breath, or let his voice crack while he, instead of having to make up a great story about O-10, has to read the text of a familiar novel. He has to read it with absolutely perfect diction, rhythm, intelligibility and in the case of a solo artist, solo line in an orchestra, or section soli make it SOUND (and this is a point that is often missed) with the musical personality of the individual soloist or section leader within the confines of what the particular piece demands. The orchestral player who lets tiny little imperfections creep into his solo (or ensemble) lines with the frequency that even great jazz players do would not have his job for very long. Again, this is not because they are "better" musicians than jazz player's; it's that the demands are different.
Fess up, O-10 :-) |
Typo alert:
****both methodically and sophisticated**** should be:
melodically and harmonically.
Hate this spellchecker. |
Schubert given your affinity for and knowledge of Bach I'm interested to know your opinion of glen Gould as a Bach interpreter? |
I already answered you Map. |
Well, I think it's unfortunate that you consider it pointless. If by pointless you mean that there is not going to be concensus, then you are probably correct. However, I am not debating; I, (and Learsfool) am trying offer a musician's perspective, and one that we know to be the truth. So, I would hope that, given the fact that we are talking about music, there is some value for some in, at least, learning a little bit about that perspective. Perhaps that is of no value to some.
****There isn't much in regard to music that's not "subjective";****
I am glad to see that there has been a bit of "softening" of your stance. It used to be that you used to say that music was purely subjective, or that there was nothing that was subjective; that there is no right or wrong. That is simply not true. Even in jazz, where there is much more latitude allowed for expression and individuality there is often a right and wrong:
- a wrong note in a solo is still a wrong note. How does one know it is a wrong note as opposed to the players choice? The more one understands the rudiments the more it becomes obvious.
- out of tune is wrong. How does one know it is as opposed to a players choice of "color"? Listen to the piano behind the player; it doesn't lie.
- the tenor and trumpet not being together when the "head" is wrong.
I could go on and there is just as long a list (probably longer) for classical.
IMO, knowledge is always a good thing. I believe that some listeners have a predisposition to feel that knowledge will detract from the emotional experience. I suppose we then get into the issue of personality types, but that concern clearly does not apply to all. And none of this impacts on an individual's preferences.
I still want to know about Pannonica :-) |
Yes thanks Schubert.
Not sure why that posted twice. Agon glitch. I suppose.
Btw did you ever get to try the ohms in your setup? They would seem a reasonable option to try. I saw a pair of used micro washes here the other day for 900 a pair. Lots of competition at that price point. Prices have gone up a it I the last year or so. |
To The Oracles:
The gurus need to get it out of their heads that "some folks" think Jazz musicians don't need to know the fundamentals of music, or don't have to practice, or that folks think knowing the technical side, (Lord, I almost said the dreaded Nuts and Bolts)of music takes away from the emotion of it all. As if "some people" are just mindless morons that operate on pure emotion. "Some people"didn't just fall off the turnip truck yesterday. All these assumptions(strawmen) you throw out are just plain wrong. Trust me, we get it.
All that the gurus said is true. I don't dispute any of it. I just think that what a Coltrane or Monk had to do when playing in a Jazz club, was / is harder than what the principal player in a Symphony Orchestra has to do.
Now, WE MIGHT THINK, that playing a violin is difficult, but it's not that difficult to the principal players. WE MIGHT THINK playing what Coltrane played was difficult, and IT WAS, for Coltrane. That's the difference.
It's not easy to play what's in your head. Much easier to play what's on paper. WE are speaking of top notch players, where being able to play the horn is a given
Don't believe me, read Nica's book.
O-10: Any exchange of information is worthwhile.
Cheers |
Rok, if Jesus came back tomorrow with all manner of never heard or dreamt of signs, miracles and wonders and an Angelic Choir of fifty million announcing him, you'd ask to see his birth certificate. |
|
