Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan Madsen
I don't understand why you're featuring composers that lived hundreds of years ago and using that as an argument for the classical music scene today. It doesn't apply. Most people know how talented each of those composers were at improvising, so no one should be debating or fighting you on this. However, it does very little to support the debate that today's classical players all improvise just as much or more than today's jazz musicians.
I know there are composers today that improvise and are classical musicians, but what I think some here are forgetting is we're talking about the entire classical music scene vs. the entire jazz music scene. If you were line up all of the classical players and jazz players and test who can improvise and who cannot- I would be willing to bet that the jazz side would come out ahead. How much? Not sure. But from all of my experiences, I would highly doubt that it would be even and definitely not a "win" for classical players.
But hold on for a second- let me be clear. None of this means that classical music is below jazz. None of this means that jazz is the better art form. I don't agree with comparing classical music vs. jazz music like some on here insist on doing. I find that debate to be silly and not useful. What I'm replying to are the assertions made that classical musicians improvise just as much as jazz musicians.
|
This is way after the fact, but I just looked at this thread again and need to respond to this.
The reason I cited composers from
hundreds of years ago is because I wasn't using that as an arguement for whatever the hell you're talking about; I was using it as an example of the validity of improvisation in general, specifically against those who presume that improvisation holds no place in earlier or "classical" music.
Secondly, what the hell are you talking about? Are you actually saying that "classical" music (which, apparently for you, is anything western from Parallel Organum to Avro Part) is somehow fundamentally juxtaposed with "Jazz" (also poorly defined by you) in any way what-so-ever?
Some "Jazz" music is classical, and some "Classical" music was very much like Jazz (if you only really define jazz by the fact that it's focused on improvisation and comparatively expansive musical elements). In fact,
most music is very much linked in the same fundamental ways, and jazz is no exception. So I don't quite get what your saying...
If you're talking about the institutionally seperate disciplines of studying "classical" or "jazz" music, then stop, because that definition sucks and has little relevancy regarding the whole spectrum of musical evolution.
I shouldn't have posted this.
Also, people seem to have this whole issue with discerning the difference between the medium through which something is recorded and the thing itself. MUSICAL NOTATION IS NOT MUSIC. It is a method by which we can preserve music for the future. Therefore, music cannot be considered music/ not music (or "high"/ "low" music) on the basis that it's recorded or not.