On 15/4/08 22:21, "Chris Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks like I'm the only one here who likes Jazz --- but doesn't care so much > for improvisation. > The difference between most jazz and improvisation, or more precisely free improvisation, in respect of preparation is way too much exaggerated. In other words both rely on predetermined structures and practice, and both work through a conceptual idea within a piece, simply different ones. It is not particularly possible for an ensemble, or even a solo performer, to create a cohesive piece mutually or individually over time without some form of preparation and planning. Usually, just as it is possible to identify a Beethoven piece on hearing it, it is possible to identify particular free improvising musicians on hearing them; they have developed an approach and working together usually requires sensitivity to the approach of each other and working to produce a cohesive outcome. > I.e. -- I think the effects that grab me have been worked out way > ahead-of-time ---- first by the song writer -- and then by the arranger -- and > finally by the musicians who practice together until they feel they got it > right. (though, sometimes, the same person, like Thelonious Monk, excels at > all three) Yes, and he also frequently worked in aural preparation with musicians who became members of his group, though not always. He and Coltrane spent many days working through his compositions and approach to performance, meaning also the expectations of musicians in performance, prior to Coltrane joining Monks ensemble in the late 1950s, of which some live recordings exist. Charles Mingus had a similar approach, he worked musicians through his composed work until they could play this impeccably. But, as soon as the ensemble were on stage that prior achievement was considered the starting point, not the end point of preparation for performance; the musicians were expected to collectively develop the piece with each musician adding something more. The approach of Monk and Mingus is quite the norm for many excellent ensembles. I once asked an accomplished large improvising ensemble (12 - 16 member ensemble) leader how she dealt with this situation; her response was that she respected the musicianship of all of the members and sought engagement with their ideas as they developed in performance. > > What I really like -- might be called a representational musical image -- > where I get to share some extraordinary moment of a human soul -- and I have > no interest in whatever musical structures were used to get me to that moment. > (that's the musician's job -- not mine) > Good point, my interest is in how the music is organised and develops over time within ensembles and across different ensembles. I am interested in these issues for research reasons, but listen to the music in more in mind than that. > So -- after listening to Benny Goodman's "Sing, Sing, Sing" -- I would never > refer to that as an "impoverished form of music" -- especially on noting that > it gives me a kind of ecstatic, joyful feeling that I've never gotten from any > other song. > > > To modify Brian's statement -- I would say that Jazz's artistic potential is > invested in the realm of musical imagery -- and it's a community of > performers, arrangers, and songwriters.(and let's not forget the producers) > I think the music of some types of jazz and free improvisation is a collective adventure in the exploration of sounds. Examples of the same harmonic patterns, the same rhythmic variation may be found in some classical compositions or the works of classical composers; however, the textures and colouring, for example, of the presentation in jazz and improvised music is often quite novel and at a least significantly different and creative. Thank you, Toodle-pip, Allan. > Just like European Classical music.
