Apologies, I looked at my own email again, and can see how it is possible to read my comments as following upon this. I intended to comment of Brian's mail section by section, but ended by commenting on his email and cutting all of his email out. I should have then cut out the quote from you below, but forgot to do so. Sorry.
And no I am not suggesting there is improvisation in classical performance, but interpretation, which is not the same thing at all. I was also making a larger and more significant point than that, this is what I asked you to read again. Sorry for unintentionally misleading. Toodle-pip, Allan. On 15/4/08 18:35, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, this was my comment, not Brian's, though Brian > seemed to agree at least in part. Actually this is your comment, >>> "I find it very repetitive. In fact I suspect one >>> learns to play jazz partly through learning a series of >>> rather standard routines." >>> >>> I was not addressing this comment. I engaged with what Brian wrote. You have misread me. And no, I am not suggesting what you are trying to insert into my words regarding improvisation. Please read again. Toodle-pip, Allan >> Brian, >> >> I understand what you are saying about teaching and >> learning jazz but disagree with you on point of precision. >> There is not so much difference from classical performance >> in what you say. Many musicians can produce a passable, if >> not laudable, rendition of many pieces, but few do this >> masterfully. Few musicians are capable of the sensitive >> virtuosity demanded to recreate a composed piece. This is >> a difference between average craftsmanship in performance >> and virtuosic, artistic performance; it may be significant >> or slight in the act, but can immensely so in the outcome >> in performance. >> >> To take your one of your examples, yes Beethoven's Op. 111 >> can be performed masterfully, it can also be performed >> atrociously and also with any variation in quality of >> rendition in between the sublime and the awful, ambiguity >> intended here as a play of humour. To say the same without >> doubt, the performance can be any variation between the >> utterly superb and the utterly atrocious. Some works were >> completely unplayable when they were written, musical >> pedagogy and other improvements in technique have made >> them playable. Many, if not all renditions of classical >> pieces are marked by error of some sort, wrong notes, >> incorrectly struck keys, or the likes. Thus Glen Gould >> spent so much time patching together his best performances >> of pieces of a sonata or other pieces to make the best >> example he could produce. He could not achieve those in >> real time, thus did he not give up on live performance >> altogether. >> >> Learning the craft is the first step for jazz and >> improvising musicians, it is then requisite on the >> musician to go beyond that individually and in ensemble >> performances. Some musicians do, some don't, some can, >> some cannot, transcend their learned practices. The very >> fact that you found it impossible to do satisfactorily, is >> a measure of the effort required to achieve that >> transcendence from the routine to the creative. Yes, some >> may be fully satisfied with a mundane performance, but >> that is also true of classical performances. A good many >> prefer the Blue Danube over Beethoven's Op. 111 or >> Mahler's 5th symphony, but that does not make Blue Danube >> better music, which you know. >> >> Free jazz can often sound like chaos, and sometimes chaos >> is a sought goal. Or to say the same in another way, lack >> of structure and repetition can be a striven goal, just as >> abstract artists attempt to escape all traces of >> representation, either intentional put there or >> perceivable by an observer. But that attempt to escape any >> structure or form is mostly not the intention. As most >> other forms of music, free improvisation usually strive to >> create and present a conceptualised idea, for example, >> through the musical practice of musicians in ensembles. >> >> Let me make one point clear, I am not arguing that jazz >> and improvised music, improvised within or outwith the >> basic jazz bebop form and harmonies, are spontaneous >> reproduction of music. This is quite in error, just as the >> performance of Beethoven's Op. 111 is not quite the same >> on each occasion. It is not, this is why Cage sought to >> introduce elements of chance and criticised jazz. Yes, it >> is the creation of music usually be ensembles of musicians >> in performance, but it is nonsense to think this could be >> done in any less a structured, or structuring manner, on >> the spot by musicians. Must music making practices are in >> some ways structured, jazz and improvised music included. >> It is whether that produces music which is adventurous and >> refreshing, rather than rote and tedium that is the point. >> The best jazz and improvised music is not rote and tedium, >> the worst can be and sometimes is; I have listened to >> both. >> >> I do not consider that appreciating jazz makes the >> appreciation of other music impossible. I would hope that >> jazz and improvised music can be understood to add to the >> sound materials available to humanity, and that it creates >> a world of sound anew. Sorry, I do not hear what I hear in >> the best of jazz and improvised music in Bartok or anyone >> else. >> >> I always find it odd when, as did Adorno, discussion of >> value in music, or in any other art form, leads one to the >> last great composer or painter or whatever being someone >> who is either dead or in decline. For Adorno it was >> Schvnberg, and Schvnberg before serialism, which Adorno >> thought mechanised the process of composition. Thankfully, >> the composers and musicians did not take Adorno's >> assessments to heart and continued on to create fresh, >> engaging and great music which did not supplant the music >> of the past. >> >> Thank you for engaging, >> >> Allan.
