Czarivey,
what about Jazz? I love classical music, but I find musicality in many other forms and cultures as well and I donĀ“t think, that I am alone in this.
Menahem Pressler, world famous pianist and leader of the Beaux Arts Trio had the highest respect for Oscar Peterson for example. Friedrich Gulda loved and played jazz, just to name two who were classical musicians. |
Detlof, I mostly listen to jazz, but nevertheless, in general, classically trained musician is able to retrieve the best possibilities of instrument one plays. There are lots of classically trained musicians in jazz with improvisational talents and there are also pure talents in jazz who started just playing(Joey DeFrancesco), but still seeking the ways to improve either taking lessons or enrolling into the higher musical education which mostly not the case with garage and rock(XSmall to Small in terms of musicality:-)) |
While reasonably good technical command of the instrument is necessary in order to be musical, musicality is not dependent on having the very best technical command. Priorities are different for jazz and classical players. While a top classical musician may work at developing a tone with ultimate purity and control, and the kind of flawless technique that is required to execute ever-more-difficult material composed for his instrument, the jazz player puts the emphasis on developing a tone that is highly individualistic and rhythmic flexibility that not only is what is needed for jazz, but would be inappropriate for most classical music. While classical players may in many cases have an exceptional technical command of the instrument, they are not, as a group, more musical than jazz players. |
Frogman,
I fully agree. I would even go as far as to say, that technical perfection, both in classical as well as in jazz music is the prerequisit of a great artist. This alone does not necessarily makes his playing "musical". There are performes in both fields with stupendous technicality, whose performances are "dead", without life, do not take you in and in the end just bore you. They do not "live" their music but just use their score or theme to show off how good they are. |
Detlof and Frogman,
I don't think that Thelonious Monk was at a level of "technical perfection" -- which is what Oscar Peterson alludes to in his comments about Monk. Nevertheless, I feel Monk was a very great artist. He was technically good whereas Peterson was technically great. Which did not make Peterson a greater artist than Monk, in my books. They were both great in their own individual ways. IMHO. |
They do not "live" their music but just use their score or theme to show off how good they are.
Ingwie Malmsteen is known for that(dare to say)... No musicality there either. In fact hardly anyone(no matter classical jazz or even rocker) who live their music just to show off was ever successful. Public knowledge or apearances would also often put little to no weight in terms of musician's success or musicality. Success in business often in conflict with success in music or musicality as well. According to my judgements on musicality in terms of musician's qualities, the classical music and jazz requires substantially more training efforts as well as studyings vs. pop or rock, hence the end product certainly values substantially more in terms of music. |
Frogman, just the way it seems to me as a non musician.
Only thing I THINK I've seen is both a jazz quartet
and a 90 member symphony can have somebody SO good the whole group seems to "ride on" them at times
As an example the great Chicago SO oboist Ray Stills
seemed to be the conductor at times. From Jazz i don't know. |
Schubert, you're exactly right. And what a great example of what you talk about! Ray Still was one of, perhaps THE, defining voice of that orchestra; aside from the brass section, of course. Anyone interested in what you talk about should listen to their recording of Rossini Overtures on RCA; Ray Still was a monster player. In the jazz world a great example is Sonny Rollins, a player with such a strong musical stamp that the rhythm section always seemed to be subservient to HIS rhythmic core. |
It doesn't matter how technically proficient a musician is, if their soul isn't intertwined with what they're doing there is no ĀmusicalityĀ, which is also why recording music is such a challenge in the first place, i.e. getting musicians to reproduce the magic after twenty five takes caused by technical issues, and by which time they're bored and hungry and officially over it, or if there was no soul-intertwining possible from the outset, as is the case with, say, The Dave Matthews Band, who have an extremely high level of technical proficiency but are impossible to listen to without intuiting that they'd rather be at home cleaning out their golf bags because that's the only place their lost sweater could possibly be. Assuming there's musicality in the source, then, the next challenge is to reproduce that through a stereo in such a way that there is involuntary toe-tapping, head/torso-swaying etc, symptomatic of musicality in both live and recorded music, and the reproduction of which probably has something to do with a fast attack and a slow decay, a lively but lush sound that doesn't skimp on the mid-bass rhythm section and is so crucial to an amplifier that it's dumbfounding why so many high end products don't possess them. Are they doing it on purpose? It's possible that the nimble, bone dry sound of a fast attack/fast decay is necessary for the spec sheet, or is a sound that some people associate (incorrectly) with neutrality. |
Uberdine, very insightfull about the mid-bass rhythm.
My Van Alstine Synergy 450 amp has that in spades, first
time in 40 years I'm not looking for a different amp.
Its just as important for Classical Music . |
Couldn't agree more. Any piano teacher would cringe watching Monk play with his "wrong" finger position and lack of conventional technique. And yet.... |
Schubert, agreed, the mid bass is crucial for classical music. I mainly listen to alternative rock/ska/punk but love your namesake's first and second piano trios, as well as Mahler and St Saens' cello concertos. With live classical the cellos both envelop and lift up the other instruments, which our systems should be able to replicate.
Can you recommend any other cello-based music I might like based on the above? I like Beethoven's cello concertos as well but not as much as Mahler's or St Saens'. My knowledge of classical is however VERY limited, so I'm open to suggestions. |
Sabai,
REgarding those two artists you mention, I could not agree more. Not to forget, that Monk was also a composer and a great teacher in his own way. All the jazz greats of his time came to him, seeking his advice. His genius was behind and formed the way jazz music was being played then. At least that's what I have been told...... |
Uberdine, first and foremost the Bach solo cello suites.
Dvorak and Elgar Cello concertos. One of the most haunting pieces in all music is the Solo Cello Suite Opus 8, by one of the greatest of modern composers, Zoltan Kodaly. There is s good performance on Naxos but IMO the one by Janos Starker, a Hungarian like Kodaly is one of the greatest recordings ever made.Came out on Delos.
Haydn wrote 2 enjoyable cello concertos , as did Max Reger.
One of Yo-Yo Ma's finest efforts was the Robert Schumann's Cello Concerto on Sony.
Beyond all doubt one of the finest works in all of music is Schubert' Quintet in C which uses two cellos, many fine recordings of this. |
Detlof and Frogman,
Monk created a unique style -- according to his wife, due to his small fingers (especially his baby finger which was nearly half the length of his middle finger). His compositions became classics. Peterson composed very little. He had a huge reach. His command of the keyboard, his virtuosity and his beautiful arrangements and renditions of the "classics" were breathtaking. Monk and Peterson are two of my favorite jazz pianists. |
Excellent recommendations by Schubert. I would add Heitor Villa Lobos' "Bachianas Brazileiras" No. 1 for eight cellos and No. 5 for orchestra of cellos and soprano. Villa-Lobos was the greatest of the Latin-American composers to, like Kodaly, blend the native music of his country (Brazil) with European Classical tradition. In this case, "Bachiana" refers to the influence of Bach; subtle, but easily heard in these pieces particularly in the fugue. The EMI recording of these pieces with the glorious Victoria De Los Angeles singing No. 5 is the one to have. Music not quite of the depth of Schubert's recs, but beautiful by any standard and showcases the cello. |
I don't know long his fingers were, but I love to listen to Lenny Tristano, who seems a great musician to me. |
Schubert,
If you look up Monk's Youtubes you can have a look.The explanation about how he developed his unique style came from his wife -- related to his short fingers. On the other hand, some people who witnessed Monk playing say he was capable of playing with lightning speed. |
Uberdine, to the excellent recommendations by Schubert and Frogman, I would add the Haydn concerti, and there are great sonatas for cello and piano by Beethoven and Brahms. |
Schubert,
Yes! And not to forget Art Tatum. |
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me, that Monk was more interested in chord structure and chord changes, which he hammered out with aplomb, whereby his timing often made for a desired tension between his playing and his rythm section. An effect which to me always seemed an essential part of his "musicality".
Yes, he could be very fast indeed, but when he was, to me he did not seem to care much for his phrasing usually. As I said, to my understanding his emphasys were on his timing and his chords, which he put beneath the melodic lines provided by his co-players. |
Detlof,
Monk was most interested in composition and the spontaneous interplay of musicians afforded by live performances. He allowed the creative process to take care of things. |
I have seen many clips of Monk, saw him live once, though I had no idea what I was seeing .
Art Tatum was great, I just think Tristano must of went to school on Bach because he had that same quality of balance is which first thing I notice, or try to, in musicianship.
It seems to me, as lowly listener, music is like most things in life, talent is great but for most of us its a question of whether you do/did your homework or not. |
Monk was a true genius. A true original; and like many geniuses, he was eccentric and this was reflected in his music. Underneath the eccentricism was a bipolar disorder that would eventually lead to his withdrawal from performance altogether. The genius of Monk's playing was in his ability to somehow make so many of the usual "musical taboos" swing and be musical. Like Detlof said, he often hammered chords on the piano instead of aiming for tasteful and well balanced voicings. The voicings he used were often very dissonant and he loved to lace his improvised melodic lines with dissonant major and minor seconds. Rhythmically, he didn't play with the usual smooth and suave sense of swing of many players and instead played with a rather "square", angular and fragmented rhythmic sense with accents in unexpected and unusual places in a phrase. Yet, it all swung like mad somehow. The subject of his technical ability was equally eccentric. He studied classical piano and could play Liszt and Chopin so one can assume that he had some real chops in spite of whatever physical limitations he may have had. He loved Stravinsky and Bartok and I think this influence was reflected in his playing. However, his musical vision was not about technical flash. His musical compositions are unquestionably some of the greatest in the "Standards" repertoire and like his playing it is easy to recognize them as Monk tunes for their originality and individualistic stamp. Oh, and like his music, he was original in the way he dressed :-) http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xAz_t2Ybvmc |
I never get tired of listening to Monk. He was so creative, he always keeps me interested. |
Hello Frogman,
I completely agree with your take on T. Monk,"swung like mad somehow" absolutely right! When I first developed an interest in jazz, Oscar Peterson was a major portion of my listening.As my exposure.knowledge and involvement grew ever deeper into jazz, my admiration for Monk increased. I find Monk far more interesting,emotional enjoyable and engaging than Peterson. This is by no means a knock on Peterson but Monk's playing(and compositions) just move me to a higher degree. Pure subjectivity I realize.
Charles, |
My apology for the double post. |
|
Frogman,
That was beautiful, thanks. I have a 1959 recording of Wes playing this tune with Melvin Rhyne on the Hammond b3 and it's also beautiful. |
Glad you liked it, Charles1dad; and thanks for the rec. I am not familiar with his recording with Melvin Rhyne, but will check it out. |
Frogman,
The recording is "The Wes Montgomery Trio". Wes and Melvin along with drummer Paul Parker formed this trio in Wes's hometown of Indianapolis, IN.
Frogman I'd suggest the recording "Bags meets Wes". Bags is Milt Jackson(vibraphone) and this is also a Riverside label recording.
Sabai, sorry for briefly straying from your original topic.
Charles, |
|
Wes was great, especially his small group recordings.
Here is another "high-musicality" selection:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N48-K9z-HA4
Beautiful! |
