I had a super long PM that I was writing to you (because I didn't want to prolong this thread much longer) however Mozilla crashed and I lost it all. (Raises arms in angst) So instead of trying to re-write all of that I'm going to reply publicly very briefly:
Quote:
|
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.
|
Nobody is questioning the validity of improvisation. Where did you get that? Why do you feel the need to defend it? As far as I can tell the entire debate has been about
where in music does improvisation appear? Who uses it more? What musical genres are more identified by improvisation? This is what this "debate" is more about if you look through the posts. The two styles at war: classical vs. jazz. So your comment about validity doesn't really seem to fit or be needed. It also doesn't fit the debate about today's classical musicians improvising as much as jazz musicians because your examples are long and gone. RIP.
Quote:
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...
|
I had a SUPER long response to this before I lost everything so here is the cliff notes version:
First off regarding the classical label: It would take much longer to write out each genre that wasn't:
A) Jazz Music
B) International Music
C) Other (besides classical)
I'm not intentionally lumping all of "classical" music into classical. I know there are differences and other genres. However, like it or not, in today's society the common labels (used by non-musicians) is traditionally "classical" which covers a whole slew of genres usually played by a symphony or orchestra. Listing all of the possible genres would take up a good deal of time and make posts much longer. So, do you understand what I and other posters are doing? Or do you really want to see this kind of sentence all of the time in these forums:
Quote:
|
I don't think jazz is just like pieces in the baroque, classical, romantic, neo-classical, neo-romantic, minimalism, serialism, film scores, ballet, opera.....voice trails off
|
I know I don't. Too wordy and would take so much longer to read people's posts and get to the point of the matter. Sometimes there is value in being
concise.
In fact you seem to be getting all hot and bothered by me labeling something as "classical" but raising no objection at all to the label "jazz". There are all kinds of genres of jazz that each have their own flavor and identity, just like classical music. So for the sake of keeping posts somewhat shorter and easier to manage through- let's stop the pointing figures about labels. If you really want to see each genre listed, read a music history-theory text book.
There are definite genres in music. Period. Deal with it. Each genre has it's own set of rules and expectations. Now, do pieces sometimes break these rules or expectations? Yes. Do some pieces smear the lines between genres? Yes. However, it doesn't change that there are genres in music. Just because it is all music doesn't mean there isn't lines. An action flick vs. a girlie movie are not the same experience but they're both films. Noodles and salad are both food items sold in stores, but they're hardly the same. Football and baseball are both sports but they're not identical. A murder mystery and a biography are both books, but serve very different purposes. Point made? Yes music is music- but there are very different styles of music, each with it's own identity and rules. To ignore that seems foolish.
Also, I didn't define jazz completely (but thanks for telling me I did so poorly). Since this thread is super long and many folks before had already explained what jazz was- I didn't feel the need to be redundant. If you want a definition of jazz, I can give you a great one. I didn't feel it was needed on the 11th, 12th or 13th page of a thread solely about jazz and it's comparison to classical. Perhaps I was mistaken.
Quote:
|
I shouldn't have posted this.
|
Agree completely.
Final point and I don't mean this as an insult
(but I have the feeling you'll take it that way): You're 18. You still have a whole slew of life experiences and lessons to go through and learn from. Consider the fact that you may not know everything about music, history and life just yet. Heck, I'm 29 and still feel I have so much to learn about many things. I don't know much about your education background, but I have two degrees in music: a bachelors and masters. I've also played professionally as both a classical and jazz musician and am currently a professional composer working in indie films and triple AAA ranked video games. While much of what I've said may be my opinion, it is important to realize those opinions are based on my experiences and what I've been taught. There is some foundation there. Will my opinions change in ten years? Probably to some degree. After all, most people's stances and opinions change somewhat over a long period of time. The one thing I do know is that I try my hardest to be unbiased and fair. To consider other's points of view and to realize first off: that I don't know everything. Do you?