Yes. I have read your comment again. I confess I really do not know what your point is. Can you state it succinctly?
DA ----- Original Message ----- From: Allan Sutherland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Music and all that jazz -correction Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:56:21 +0900 > 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.
