Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Gilbert
A couple quick, possibly irrelevant points comparing classical music to Jazz:
- A much greater percentage of great jazz artists have been notoriously doped up, in which condition your intellectual capabilities to process complex thought are severely hindered.
|
Yes, it's true that some are doped out but if you had the statistics for that then much more people will believe you. You can also note that some classical composers have been under the influence of a drug of some sort (it is thought that Berlioz had an opium trip prior to writing Symphonie Fantastique, Mussorgsky was an alcoholic; alcohol in a technical/medical context is a drug).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Gilbert
- The progression of Classical music has been in the hands of the smartest elites in society. Jazz is derived from the various musical stylings of poor, uneducated people.
|
As said by some of us here, intellectual capacity has nothing to do with a person's economic situation. Though wealth and status may bring about more opportunities for intellectual growth, sometimes it's within the low economic classes that some of the greatest minds emerge. Would you think that Franz Joseph Haydn, who was always hungry during his childhood, had a low intellectual capacity just because he came from a poor family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Gilbert
- How can something which is improvised by nature be as complex as something which is highly premeditated and worked on for a very long period of time?
|
If you have studied music carefully, you'll know that much of classical music valued improvisation. Allow me to provide examples:
> Baroque music had avenues for improvisation (e.g. Basso Continuo).
> Bach was known during his time as a great improviser
> The Cadenza
> Chopin wrote most of his pieces out of improvisation.
> Indian classical music (and much of music from Asia) is highly improvisational in nature, yet it has complexities and intricacies (e.g. the Raga)
I hope that could enlighten you.