A thread to politely discuss the merits of jazz

oh, and Bach's inventions?
He came up with the idea through the baroque tradition of improvising contrapuntal music on the harpsichord.

Bach, Mozart and Beethoven were all very famous for their ability to improvise....

I think there needs to be a little more understanding of nature of the mental process required to achieve a high standard of improvised music, particularly when it is sustained over prolonged periods. A short cadenza improvised ordinarily as a form of musical solilioquy in most popular classical music is completely different to a 45 minute improvised performance by the John Coltrane Quintet. The intensity of concentration required to interact on that level for that amount of time would be exhausting; the polite noodlings of a slightly iffy cocktail trio knocking out another version of 'Girl From Ipaneama' are not in the same league.

As I said with my last post, I was generalising. I know that there are obscure pieces of classical music where improvisation and rhythmic sophistication are important but these are rare and exceptional. A massive percentage of classical music requires significant sections of the orchestra to sit there counting bars for most of the time.

A lot of jazz is be-bop derived for all sorts of reasons - the absence of the funding subsidies like those that underwrite orchestras in most major cities, for instance, militates against effective rehearsal time for jazz ensembles of any size. This means most jazz is run on a lowest common denominator basis - turn up with your fake books and do what you can! But it is not reasonable to compare these sorts of performances with those of a properly funded orchestra with a highly paid soloist?

A properly funded, well rehearsed ensemble that bases its performances around an improvised music like jazz can enchant, excite and enthrall as easilt and as effectively as any orchestra/classical performer. The levels of complexity in each is different but comparable.

Originally Posted by Nik Mikas

Bach, Mozart and Beethoven were all very famous for their ability to improvise....

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.

It's well known that many classical music performers can't improvise worth a shit ;/ (they usually even admit it)

The main goal tends to be different. Jazz is almost completely improvise oriented. (One starts to improvise almost immediately)

Classical music is more about performance(to a level of perfection) and little to do with improvising.

Those that compose and perform classical music would naturally tend to be much better improvisers but those that just perform and do not compose tend to have little understanding of ability. They mainly are recorders that memorize a piece of music and play it back. (I'm not talking about the extremes here but the average)

Musicians are musicians, I make no distinction. Everyone that calls themselves that, be it "jazz" or "classical" musicians should be able to sit down and just play their fucking instrument and feel things.

It doesn't matter if it's an improv whipped up on the spot or it's the result of years of study and something written by a dead guy, the point is that playing the instrument is ALWAYS going to be something uncertain. It'll always be venturing into the unknown.

No two performances are alike.

So why even bother making the distinction? It's just superficial and pointless in my opinion.

SSC- certain distinctions are needed however. If I'm needing to hire a musician, then I need to know what kinds of music they specialize in. This is why people label what kind of musician they are. I don't go out and land polka gigs because I'm not a polka musician. Likewise, I need to know if the musician I'm hiring can play classical or if he is just a power chord rocker. Each genre of music require a certain skill set and having everyone just being label as "musician" doesn't show if they have those needed skill sets or not. Aside from that comment, I agree with your other points.

Oh, I don't mind labeling when it's something practical or at least understandable like what you're saying. I also think that you should be able to describe your abilities to some degree without resorting to "Here I'll show you." However, the labeling in THAT case and what's going on here is something quite different, which is what I'm opposed to.

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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?