Your thoughts on musical improvisation
Lawrence Lanahan
Why do you like (or dislike) improvisation?
If you enjoy improvisation, how did you get into it in the first
place?
What larger meaning does it have for your life outside of the music?
I am writing a master's thesis on the social aspects of musical
improvisation, and I'd like to hear your answers to these questions.
You can post a reply here, but I'd appreciate it if you could also
e-mail your thoughts to impro...@yahoo.com. All correspondence
will be held strictly confidential.
Thanks!
Lawrence Lanahan
impro...@yahoo.com
David McKay
think.
I think this is why some people relate it to masturbation.
I reckon a little improvising goes a long way.
David McKay
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~musicke
paramucho
Lanahan) wrote:
>Do you like or dislike musical groups that improvise a great deal?
I like improvisation when it is constrained to short sections or minor
elements, or when it is done very well -- and that happens very rarely
in the Western world. I can think of only three people who have given
me the feeling that they were able to directly express their fancy and
their fantasy (Fats Waller, Jimi Hendrix and the African pianist
Dollar Brand), although I'm sure there are others that I haven't
heard.
Most people just run up and down scales, and that drives me nuts, no
matter how well they do it.
>Why do you like (or dislike) improvisation?
I largely improvise at home, but that's just because I tend to noodle
at the keyboard on guitar while I'm thinking of other things. I like
it because it's immediately accessible. I dislike it as a performance
art because of the reasons given above.
These days I usually find myself playing quasi-baroque sounding
things, although recently I've found myself trying to improvise pieces
in sonata form -- I find it very difficult and the pieces are usually
pretty bland. That brings up my major objection to improvisation as a
stand-alone art -- the "form" of an improvisation is usually based on
an utterly predictable recipe. The three people I mentioned above
somehow escape that restriction. In his solo improvisations, Fats
Waller simply launches off into his own world. Jimi Hendrix has a
neutral backing which allows his fancy to flow.
>If you enjoy improvisation, how did you get into it in the first
>place?
Playing in bands as a kid, playing some (psuedo) jazz, and because I
tend to write at the keyboard, so extemporisation is a natural.
>What larger meaning does it have for your life outside of the music?
Little, but it does help me explore ideas quickly and broadly. On a
good day, or a very, very bad day, I can really capture my mood in an
improvisation. I love the ephemeral nature of an improvisation -- that
once played, its forgotten and gone.
Ian
Nicholas Delonas
sent to the cited author.]
In article <1ea476ef.01061...@posting.google.com>,
impro...@yahoo.com says...
> Do you like or dislike musical groups that improvise a great deal?
I like it.
> Why do you like (or dislike) improvisation?
There is no "why."
> If you enjoy improvisation, how did you get into it in the first
> place?
I think it was by way of Eric Clapton and Cream.
> What larger meaning does it have for your life outside of the music?
Life is likely a meaningless accident and all human effort is mere
vanity. Music, though, is rather fun.
--
Nick Delonas
My band: http://ironia.net
My cult: http://cultv.com
Bob
<del...@cultv.com> wrote:
>Life is likely a meaningless accident and all human effort is mere
>vanity.
Aha!
A Lucid Man. You don't find many of those around any more.
>Music, though, is rather fun.
Then life is not so meaningless after all.
Existentialists find Absurdity in life because they are looking for
it. If you spend your entire life staring at a turd, then you will
conclude that life is nothing but a piece of shit.
There is another approach to life, and that is to avoid absurdity.
Shit stinks for a good reason. But then there is no accounting for the
incredible poor taste of most of the human race. So enjoy your shit.
For the rest of us, we are going to enjoy our music. It smells better.
Bob
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
--Benjamin Franklin
Andrew Lee
Lanahan) wrote:
>Do you like or dislike musical groups that improvise a great deal?
Depends. As was mentioned here, sometimes improv is just wanking.
But sometimes it is done well.
>
>Why do you like (or dislike) improvisation?
>
I really don't like hearing the same tune done the same way again and
again. Also, I really enjoy hearing a good solo .... Take Ella
Fitzgerald ... the way she could turn a tune inside out was just
brilliant! I doubt there is a singer alive who could touch that level
of vocal improvisation.
>If you enjoy improvisation, how did you get into it in the first
>place?
>
Listening to rock music from the 60's ... Jimi Hendix, Eric Clapton,
Jeff Beck, Paul Butterfield, etc
>What larger meaning does it have for your life outside of the music?
>
I think a lot of human interaction in this society is impovised.
Conversation, humor, flirting, dancing, what you say to the judge in
Podunk after you got arrested for public intoxication ....
>I am writing a master's thesis on the social aspects of musical
>improvisation, and I'd like to hear your answers to these questions.
>You can post a reply here, but I'd appreciate it if you could also
>e-mail your thoughts to impro...@yahoo.com. All correspondence
>will be held strictly confidential.
>
>Thanks!
>Lawrence Lanahan
>impro...@yahoo.com
Here's a thought -- try to talk to very serious Jazz musicians about
something as common as the weather and watch them squirm. People who
are full of ideas (or themselves) are not comfortable with cookie
cutter conversation. I had the honor of meeting Dizzy Gillespie once.
There was no way he could just stand there and sign autographs and not
turn it into this funny game.
kaetae
Lawrence Lanahan wrote:
> Do you like or dislike musical groups that improvise a great deal?
I do because I am a musician and I try to understand what they are
playing and why.
>
>
> Why do you like (or dislike) improvisation?
Again because I am a musician I enjoy playing what I feel rather than
playing the written notes all the time. But this depends on the music
being played. Some music should be played exactly as written to
recreate the composers feelings.
>
>
> If you enjoy improvisation, how did you get into it in the first
> place?
I have enjoyed improvisation from the first day I played a piano at age
5.
I suppose that I just enjoyed playing what I felt.
>
>
> What larger meaning does it have for your life outside of the music?
Never thought of it that way. But I never really followed all the rules
to life.
Maybe sometimes it's more fun to break some rules.
Pt
Nordwell, Kurt [NC1:GW22:EXCH]
>
> Do you like or dislike musical groups that improvise a great deal?
Yes.
>
> Why do you like (or dislike) improvisation?
I like performance variance. I like surprises.
>
> If you enjoy improvisation, how did you get into it in the first
> place?
Frank Zappa. New recordings of older material were different. Performances
from the same year had variations in content, delivery, and composition.
>
> What larger meaning does it have for your life outside of the music?
Improvisation implies more than one way to achieve a musical end. Not all
improv results in a satisfactory result. Variation in approach can be applied
to all aspects of life - running a different trail, cooking, work, travel, etc.
Luke Kaven
existentialist literature in itself is supposed to be a *reductio ad
absurdam* -- it is supposed to motivate commitment, not apathy.
Existentialism is a form of humanism, not a denial of it. Read Sartre's
"Existentialism is Humanism" for his attempt to answer to misreadings of his
work.
Bob <r...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3b281f89...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 22:10:39 -0400, Nicholas Delonas
> <del...@cultv.com> wrote:
[...]
you...@net.com
Existentialism has a wide range of meanings, and can include thinkers as
diverse as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Jaspers, and a host of
epigones. Camus' Stranger (L'Etranger) would fit fairly well into the
negative meaning of Existentialism; as would Sartre's own Roquentin from
Nausea. Any philosophy can be used in opposed ways. I'm not really
taking sides here; I just felt like posting something on this topic. I
think your point is correct; however, the absurdist and quiescent
aspects of Existentialism were definitely a part of that movement, even
if it was not specifically stated in those terms by Sartre in his main
Existentialist text, Being and Nothingness. The title itself reveals
some polemical idea of absurdity (Satre might have called his tome,
"Being and Commitment" instead). Also, Sartre never wrote, at that
time, "Man is a useful passion," but "Man is a useless passion." Again,
there's a polemical absurdist subtext there that can not easily be
gainsaid. True, there were more humanist Existentialists, even
religious Existentialists (Kierkegaard, as I mentioned above, among
others). But there was definitely a darker shade to the movement, right
down to the Beatniks, who fused it with other, Eastern elements; and
Pinter and Albee, among others. The humanism of Albee, like that of
Sartre, emerged much later; and Sartre really had to adopt Marxism to
fully realize his brand of secular and materialist humanism in the
collective. Perhaps when all is said and done, to paraphrase, and pun
on, Sartre: Man is a useless fashion.
Bob
<ka...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>This is yet another misreading of existentialism.
It is a reading of Camus' Myth of Sisyphus.
There are those who claim, including Camus himself, that Camus is not
an existentialist. That is likely correct if you are thinking of
Kirkegaardian existentialism. But if you are thinking of Sartrean
Phenomenological Psychoanalysis as French Existentialism, then Camus
certainly fits in to that description.
>Absurdism as deployed in
>existentialist literature in itself is supposed to be a *reductio ad
>absurdam* -- it is supposed to motivate commitment, not apathy.
>Existentialism is a form of humanism, not a denial of it. Read Sartre's
>"Existentialism is Humanism" for his attempt to answer to misreadings of his
>work.
Sorry, but that is all just atheistic nihilism.
Al
tricky question. To answer that I have to split off improvisation into
two distinct sects:
1) Sh*t
2) awesome expression of personal feeling in response to music
1) Sh*t improvisation is generally egotistical, technically proficient
but musically crap, and generally just two damn self centred. This type
of improvisation I don't enjoy because it is not music in the sense that
it is not self expression.
2) nuff said... this is the stuff which is beautiful, the stuff that
comes from the soul, from the humanity, and most of all from the music.
You don't get it very often, but when you do, it is the most beautiful
thing you hear.
>
> Why do you like (or dislike) improvisation?
too much crap... that said you have to do a lot of crap impro before you
can interface sufficiently well with the instrument to produce good
impro. Real impro is something I love because a musician is sharing a
little part of themselves with me, and I feel honoured to experience
that with them.
>
> If you enjoy improvisation, how did you get into it in the first
> place?
I'm still at the crap stage apart from one or two moments when I've got
up from the piano bench physically emotionally echausted by the music I
have just created because I was doing "true" impro. I got into it
through playing the piano without music, playing what comes straight
into my head, interfacing with the instrument not a sheet of music... if
that makes any sense...
>
> What larger meaning does it have for your life outside of the music?
i use it generally as a stress reliever, or just for pure pleasure... I
also use it when my brain's not in use, I impro in my head, that's where
I source my song ideas, getting something in my head, trying to recreate
that on the keyboard and liking the resultant fusion of my thoughts and
my attempts to interface with the keyboard... or something... what are
these drugs they put me on? ;-p
>
> I am writing a master's thesis on the social aspects of musical
> improvisation, and I'd like to hear your answers to these questions.
the internet has made it far too easy for students ;-) now you can stay
permanently drunk :( oh well.. that'll be me in 2 years :)
> You can post a reply here, but I'd appreciate it if you could also
> e-mail your thoughts to impro...@yahoo.com. All correspondence
> will be held strictly confidential.
is it *that* hard to check the newsgroups?
Al
Adam Bravo
tends to be hung up on on motif that gets really boring after a while.
Of course, there is nothing worse than a bad improvser, but I don't listen
to them.
"Lawrence Lanahan" <impro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1ea476ef.01061...@posting.google.com...
john.fryer
* No mention of the nature of the improvisation;
* Liking or disliking are subjective responses which are prone to change
in various environments and according to the temperament of the
listener/participant;
* What is meant by "larger meaning" is unclear.
That's just a few responses OTTOMH.
Marcel-Franck Simon
: Do you like or dislike musical groups that improvise a great deal?
Improvisation is not important, a distinct, well-defined musical
personality is. Multiple cookie-cutter-similar improvisers are very
boring, a sharply defined non- or rarely-improvising musical
personality (late Ben Webster, Aretha Franklin, Mahalia Jackson
[and her pianist Mildred Falls], Yo-Yo Ma, ...) is pure pleasure.
An improvising sharply defined musical personality (Coltrane, Mingus,
Davis, ...) is beyond like or dislike, it's mainlined pleasure.
: Why do you like (or dislike) improvisation?
See above.
: If you enjoy improvisation, how did you get into it in the first
: place?
The usual rock'n'roll guitar heroes, veering off into blues masters,
introduced to jazz through a revelatory college course, 20 years
and counting spent investigating Great Black Music, have led me to
the above conclusions.
: What larger meaning does it have for your life outside of the music?
Most people live lives of quiet desperation. With religion, Music is
the pleasure antidote to existential despair that is physically and
spiritually healthy, unlike most/all forms of hedonism or other
pleasure-seeking lifestyles. I believe the only true "sin" is to
refuse joy, and I find music to be mainlined joy.
: I am writing a master's thesis on the social aspects of musical
: improvisation, and I'd like to hear your answers to these questions.
: You can post a reply here, but I'd appreciate it if you could also
: e-mail your thoughts to impro...@yahoo.com. All correspondence
: will be held strictly confidential.
Hope this helps.
--
Marcel-Franck Simon Hewlett Packard
"Papa Loko, ou se' van, wa pouse'-n ale' Florham Park, NJ
Nou se' papiyon, n'a pote' nouvel bay Agwe'" min...@fpk.hp.com
the rmb troll faq is at http://liquid2k.net/rmbtroll. spread the word!
Bob
wrote:
>Jazz is all I listen to. If there is no improvisation, most music (not all)
>tends to be hung up on on motif that gets really boring after a while.
>Of course, there is nothing worse than a bad improvser, but I don't listen
>to them.
If you ever want to explore other musical forms, then I suggest
listening to Franz Liszt's piano transcriptions of Beethoven's
symphonies. I would also include many of his Hungarian Rhapsodies and
some of his poetic symphonies, in particular Don Juan. I believe most
of these are still on Napster.
Although Liszt cannot be characterized as a true jazz performer, he
does incorporate many of the elements of jazz into his works in subtle
ways. What is lacking is the African influence which distinguishes
jazz from other kinds of music., althjough he comes close to
incorporating syncopation in a jazz-like manner.
If Liszt had picked up on African music, I can imagine that he would
have been an inventor of jazz in the sense of a precursor of the whole
jazz movement in the 19th century.
As Gunther Schuller, in his book "Early Jazz", points out, jazz music
is the unique integration of African rhythmic structures and European
(classical) harmonic structures, so it is not at all unexpected to
discover some of the precursors to jazz already present in the
Romantic music of the 19th C.
Debussy is another Romantic artist who anticipated jazz to some
extent. Keith Jarrett, for example, is said to have incorporated some
of Debussy's style of composition into his. If you listen carefully to
the Koln Concert, you will swear that there are Debussy constructs
present, albeit in very subtle form.
My point is that if you love jazz you will also love certain classical
music, for after all, classical music is one of the two major musical
forms that went into the making of jazz.
Jon Riley
Like.
> Why do you like (or dislike) improvisation?
It's fundamental. Music without improvisation holds very little appeal
for me.
> If you enjoy improvisation, how did you get into it in the first
> place?
Blues, folk and jazz (listening and playing).
> What larger meaning does it have for your life outside of the music?
As I understand it, improvisation is and was an essential part of all
forms of music, world-wide and throughout history - with the bizarre
exception of the European classical tradition of the last 200 years or
so.
It's more interesting IMO to ask why that culture should have sought
to outlaw improvisation, rather than approach it as if were some
optional add-on.
Of course, it's a subtle art, and demands perfect knowledge of the
forms and rules of the genre in which you're improvising. Good
improvisation, in any kind of music, is an interplay between the given
(the understood) and the possible. "I hear that - but what if this..."
> I am writing a master's thesis on the social aspects of musical
> improvisation
If you haven't already, I suggest you read some of Christopher Small's
work, either "Music of the Common Tongue", or "Musicking". He deals
with the social functions of music, particularly the roles of
improvisation and of audiences.
JonR
Josh Dougherty
"Jon Riley" <j...@jonriley.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9gd2mm$3gm$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> As I understand it, improvisation is and was an essential part of all
> forms of music, world-wide and throughout history - with the bizarre
> exception of the European classical tradition of the last 200 years or
> so.
> It's more interesting IMO to ask why that culture should have sought
> to outlaw improvisation, rather than approach it as if were some
> optional add-on.
>
developed into strictly a *composer's* music first and foremost. This
became more and more the case as years went on. Composers became
increasingly more serious about the finer details of their music and the
musicians themselves became more interested in reproducing the composer's
"intent" in the compositions. Also, I think composers tend to be into
control and became less and less likely to allow *their* music, or parts of
*their* music to be left up to the discretion of whoever happened to be
playing it. There is a subtlety and a coherence of individuality that can
come from strict composition, and this can produce music that is unlike
anything that may be left up to improvisation. The same is true of
improvisation. No amount of diligent composition will ever produce the same
result as a great jazz improvisation. Certain elements can come out of each
that don't tend to appear naturally in the other.
Josh
Stephen Lavele
I think that the most difficult thing to do when improvising is to remember
the themes that I played and repeat them. I came across a cool technique
though, which involves recording lots of small snippits of piano
improvisation and messing with them (well, more complex than just messing,
but you sould get the idea), and then I can repeat and mix themes as much as
I like.
I know that that isn't "proper" improvisation, but it can produce some
amazing results (almost everyone seems to sound like a variation on one of
Debussy's Arabesques, but that's down to my style). And in addition to
that, i think that it is genuinely usefull for brainstorming melodies (just
record a right-hand improv, a left-hand one, and play them back over
eachother. You get a result just like a "both-hand" imrov, only it's much
easier : ) ).
Sorry for getting off track, but that's how I both improvise and compose.
As for what I think of improvisation? It depends completely on the skill
and style of the performer. Variations on themes can sound very nice, but
wild scales and mad chords can, more often than not, sound very boring.
Still, it's fun for the performer, and that's all that counts : )
-Stephen Lavelle aka Adiamante aka Erde-
-Stephen-
Steven D. Harris
piss-ant nihilists...take it somewhere else, would you!
Stephen Lavele
>refuse joy, and I find music to be mainlined joy.
funny, that's the main belief of modern satinists (quite a fun seeming bunch
of people until you examine their work more closely) : )
Stephen Lavele
true-to-self impressionist style stuff (like "Estampes")) sounds improvised
on every level, and really is very penetrating and introspective stuffnews:3b29feeb...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
Bob
<sha...@noyuckinmybox.nullspace.com> wrote:
>piss-ant nihilists...take it somewhere else, would you!
They don't have anywhere to go. That's why they have to pester us.
Bob
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty -
nothing will preserve it but downright force.
Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."
--Patrick Henry
Bob
wrote:
>I have to say that to a large extent, Debussy music (his "proper",
>true-to-self impressionist style stuff (like "Estampes")) sounds improvised
>on every level, and really is very penetrating and introspective stuff.
Thank you for confirming what I have always believed.
There are clear instances of syncopation in his works, e.g.,
Golliwog's Cakewalk. He had to have been exposed to African music.
Just as African music was trying to accomodate classical music, I
believe classical music was trying to accomodate African music. They
met somewhere in the middle and the result is what we call jazz.
paramucho
>On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 23:47:08 +0100, "Stephen Lavele" <er...@eircom.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I have to say that to a large extent, Debussy music (his "proper",
>>true-to-self impressionist style stuff (like "Estampes")) sounds improvised
>>on every level, and really is very penetrating and introspective stuff.
>
>Thank you for confirming what I have always believed.
>
>There are clear instances of syncopation in his works, e.g.,
>Golliwog's Cakewalk. He had to have been exposed to African music.
African music, or American adaptations of African music? A "Cakewalk"
is an American idiom, I believe.
Ian
Top Catt
to play mainly acoustic instruments--piano, alto sax, and drums--but
lately I've been exploring MIDI instruments, and I kind of like the
results, even though I only sort of half-know what I'm doing (which is
part of the fun). Sampling is a remarkably flexible medium; if you like,
you can compose a piece for barrel organ, sampled sax notes from your
favorite jazz soloists, a choice yowl from your house cat, and brake
drums.
John Cage did something along these lines back in the 40's, but he had to
use *actual* brake drums...
There's still nothing like a fine acoustic piano for "touch," though.
With wood and strings, your music becomes "tactile" in a way that
electronic instruments haven't learned to convey yet.
T.C.
Adam Bravo
classical composer. After Liszt, it's Debussy.
What don't you know about me?
"Bob" <r...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3b29feeb...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
Bob Russell
er...@eircom.net wrote on 6/15/01 6:42 PM:
> funny, that's the main belief of modern satinists (quite a fun seeming bunch
> of people until you examine their work more closely) : )
Yeah, you gotta watch those "satinists", especially when they whip out those
dolls with the cigarette holders...
-- Bob R.
Jim Curtis
David McKay <mus...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:NNUV6.4355$qJ4.1...@ozemail.com.au...
> Improvising can be fun for the participant, but boring for the audience, I
> think.
> I think this is why some people relate it to masturbation.
Only a jack'off would say that. I spose it's to do an impression of someone
jacking off to do otherwise.
Luke Kaven
disproportionately harsh -- more in the way of personal violation than
anything we did in our innocent sidebar thread.
Steven D. Harris <sha...@noyuckinmybox.nullspace.com> wrote in message
news:3B2A7E31...@noyuckinmybox.nullspace.com...
Jon Parker
> Improvising can be fun for the participant, but boring for the audience, I
> think.
I think this depends on the audience.
With a good group (and I mean the improvisation isn't bad):
1) A room full of blue collar B flatters call it noise.
2) A room full of upper middle class to upper class B flatters will spend
lots of money to hire a jazz group, or go to a bar and pay extraordinary
prices to pretend to listen to one but they are really trying to score at
the end of the night.
3) A room full of broke jazz musicians call it music and love it.
In Denver, we don't have the biggest or best jazz scene, but it is there.
We have hot spots in town like LoDo (lower downtown) where just about every
bar or restaurant has live jazz at least on the weekends, with many that
employ jazz musicians every night of the week. When a big act comes to town
(Roy Haynes or Herbie Hancock for instance) the room is full of local jazz
musicians. So many in fact that I often wonder how all the gigs get played
on these nights.
--
Jon Parker
Jazz Pianist and Tubist
Piano Instructor, Denver Musician's Institute
Denver Colorado USA
Read the FAQ http://www.ptg.org/rmmp/
--
Jon Parker
> Do you like or dislike musical groups that improvise a great deal?
Like just about everyone else, it depends on the group. I don't like the
Grateful Dead, but I like Chick Corea. The improvisation needs to be up to
a certain level for me to like it. There is a lot of jazz that I dislike
because it just isn't any good.
> Why do you like (or dislike) improvisation?
See above for part of this question. If the improvisers are just running up
and down pentatonic scales it gets boring. When good sonorities are used
with creative lines it is fun to listen to.
> If you enjoy improvisation, how did you get into it in the first
> place?
I started playing by ear at a very young age. I was always into improvised
music, but it really hit me when I was around 11 years old. That is when I
started listening to a lot of jazz and decided I wanted to be a jazz
pianist.
> What larger meaning does it have for your life outside of the music?
Karma dude, Karma.
> I am writing a master's thesis on the social aspects of musical
> improvisation, and I'd like to hear your answers to these questions.
> You can post a reply here, but I'd appreciate it if you could also
> e-mail your thoughts to impro...@yahoo.com. All correspondence
> will be held strictly confidential.
Ok, if I give you the answers and you are keeping them confidential, then
how are you supposed to use them in your thesis?
Top Catt
mra...@home.com says...
> Strange you should mention Liszt, because after Chopin, he's my favorite
> classical composer. After Liszt, it's Debussy.
>
> What don't you know about me?
Everything, since you've got an un-Liszted number (rim shot).
T.C.
thomas
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 23:47:08 +0100, "Stephen Lavele" <er...@eircom.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I have to say that to a large extent, Debussy music (his "proper",
> >true-to-self impressionist style stuff (like "Estampes")) sounds improvised
> >on every level, and really is very penetrating and introspective stuff.
>
> Thank you for confirming what I have always believed.
>
> There are clear instances of syncopation in his works, e.g.,
> Golliwog's Cakewalk. He had to have been exposed to African music.
> Just as African music was trying to accomodate classical music, I
> believe classical music was trying to accomodate African music. They
> met somewhere in the middle and the result is what we call jazz.
This is one of the most bizarre conceptions of jazz history I've ever
heard. Could you elaborate or give some examples?
Also, the influence you're hearing in Debussy is from American
ragtime, not African music. Debussy was very interested in Indonesian
music, and would probably have been interested in African music if he
had ever heard any. But the cakewalk is taken from an American idiom.
you...@net.com
Not really that strange, making allowances for difference of
expression.
1. Classical music almost certainly influenced jazz from its
inception. Many proto-jazz numbers are really marches or derived from
Anglo-European marche tunes. Opera was at least as pervasive in New
Orleans jazz as was the blues. Bechet, for example, speaks of his
familiarity with the more famous opera numbers in his autobiogaphy; and
he incorporates one opera melody in I HAD IT BUT IT'S ALL GONE NOW.
2. The reference to "African" music is of course presumably a
reference to the African form of music disseminated in the Afro-American
tradiiton. This is an acceptable rhetorical trope by any stretch of the
linguistic imagination. I think one is taking greater liberties with
language saying that the cakewalk is NOT African than saying it IS.
3. As is well known, jazz, properly speaking, is a fusion of African
rhythms and rhythmic accents with European harmony. The variation
method itself is more familiar in the concert or so-called "classical"
tradition of Anglo-European music than in other forms. Hence to cite
the concert tradition as a significant influence in jazz improvs is not
an outrageous hyperbole by any means. True, there were doubtless other
influences, chief among which are the blues and, later, more syncopated
pop tunes. I've already mentioned march tunes, which must have been a
significant influence on early Orleans musicians.
Dr.Matt
I saw a painting of Elvis on satin once.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
"Is there a theorbo in the house?"
robertandrews
>There is another approach to life, and that is to avoid absurdity.
I don't mean to shove it in your face, but that's absurd.
robertandrews
>Do you like or dislike musical groups that improvise a great deal?
All music played by people & animals is "improvised." Even the wind is
improvised. It would help if you could describe what you mean by
improvisation.
>Why do you like (or dislike) improvisation?
It beats computer loops.
>If you enjoy improvisation, how did you get into it in the first place?
It's a way of feeling free, expressing my emotions & challenging my
intellect.
>What larger meaning does it have for your life outside of the music?
Music is a big part of my life.
>I am writing a master's thesis on the social aspects of musical
improvisation, and I'd like to hear your answers to these questions.
There are various approaches to music, from those who play each note on the
page, to those who (seemingly?) play without any structure at all. I don't
know what you mean by social aspects of improvisation, as opposed to the
social aspects of musicians playing together or playing for an audience.
Bob
>African music, or American adaptations of African music?
Yes, see Gunther Schuller, "Early Jazz".
>A "Cakewalk" is an American idiom, I believe.
Yes, it came from the minstrel shows IIRC.
Bob
wrote:
>Strange you should mention Liszt, because after Chopin, he's my favorite
>classical composer. After Liszt, it's Debussy.
I used to like Chopin but after Liszt and Debussy, he is a bit too
classical. Otherwise, I rank them Liszt, Debussy, Chopin.
There are several biographies of Liszt on the Internet which are quite
expressive about his life. For example, Wagner married his daughter.
Liszt himself never mind that Liszt never married.
He was the heart-throb of European musical circles. His performances
were always "sold out". He would leave his handkerchief behind on the
piano to watch the women fight over it.
But the thing that blows my mind is that he had three pianos on stage,
because he would break two of them during the performance.
Of all his works, I rate the Beethoven transcriptions highest and
selected Hungarian Rhapsodies second. My favorites are
1,2,3,4,6,9,12,14,15,19. Most are composed from gypsy music but 15 is
stolen straight from Berloiz's Damnation of Faust.
The poetic symphony Don Juan is also a favorite.
>What don't you know about me?
Whether you think Miles Davis is the greatest jazz artist of all time.
Bob
<NOjonathon_p...@ORhotmail.comSPAM> wrote:
>> I am writing a master's thesis on the social aspects of musical
>> improvisation, and I'd like to hear your answers to these questions.
>> You can post a reply here, but I'd appreciate it if you could also
>> e-mail your thoughts to impro...@yahoo.com. All correspondence
>> will be held strictly confidential.
>Ok, if I give you the answers and you are keeping them confidential, then
>how are you supposed to use them in your thesis?
Haven't you ever heard of plagiarism?
Bob
>This is one of the most bizarre conceptions of jazz history I've ever
>heard. Could you elaborate or give some examples?
The only reason you consider what I wrote bizzare is that you have
been brainwashed into thinking incorrectly. Obviously you have not
read Gunther Schuller's classic book, "Early Jazz".
But don't feel bad - brainwashing is all pervasive. For example, most
of the world still believes that Abraham Lincoln fought the War Of
Northern Aggression to emancipate the slaves. What a blatant lie.
>Also, the influence you're hearing in Debussy is from American
>ragtime, not African music.
Ragtime is taken from jazz, which is taken from African music.
Therefore ragtime has its roots in African music. Schuller clears all
this up.
>Debussy was very interested in Indonesian
>music, and would probably have been interested in African music if he
>had ever heard any.
Jazz was very popular in Europe by the time Debussy came on the scene.
It would have been impossible for him not to hear it.
>But the cakewalk is taken from an American idiom.
Cakewalk is taken from Negro minstrel shows IIRC.
Bob
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty -
nothing will preserve it but downright force.
Bob
<robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>There is another approach to life, and that is to avoid absurdity.
>I don't mean to shove it in your face, but that's absurd.
Then avoid it.
Michael Fitzgerald
>On 16 Jun 2001 00:17:32 -0700, tomb...@jhu.edu (thomas) wrote:
>>This is one of the most bizarre conceptions of jazz history I've ever
>>heard. Could you elaborate or give some examples?
>
>The only reason you consider what I wrote bizzare is that you have
>been brainwashed into thinking incorrectly. Obviously you have not
>read Gunther Schuller's classic book, "Early Jazz".
And you seem to have read it with absolutely no knowledge of the
subject nor of the terms and genres it discusses. You misunderstand
and twist the words to create - one of the most bizarre conceptions of
jazz history I've ever heard. Yes, I completely agree with Mr. Brown.
>Ragtime is taken from jazz, which is taken from African music.
>Therefore ragtime has its roots in African music. Schuller clears all
>this up.
So now ragtime is taken from jazz. Interesting.
>Jazz was very popular in Europe by the time Debussy came on the scene.
>It would have been impossible for him not to hear it.
What evidence do you have that jazz was "popular in Europe by the time
Debussy came on the scene"??
Debussy was born in 1862, died in 1918 (one year after the first jazz
recordings were made). He was writing great pieces like "Afternoon of
a Faun" in 1894.
What jazz was he hearing then?
Mike
Bob
<fitz...@eclipse.net> wrote:
>And you seem to have read it with absolutely no knowledge of the
>subject nor of the terms and genres it discusses. You misunderstand
>and twist the words to create - one of the most bizarre conceptions of
>jazz history I've ever heard. Yes, I completely agree with Mr. Brown.
You need to read Schuller's book before you go running off at the
mouth. Everything I have commented on here I took verbatim from his
book.
>So now ragtime is taken from jazz. Interesting.
That's what Schuller says. Whether he is correct is another matter.
Here are some excerpts from Schuller:
"The blues structure, like ragtime, was an admixture of African
influence (the call-and-response pattern) and European harmonically
derived functional form." --p. 38
"In other parts of Feather's chapter, jazz is frequently equated with
ragtime." --p. 66
Schuller is willing to present the other side too:
"The excellent 'They All Played Ragtime' by Rudi Blesh and the late
Harriot Janis attempts to prove that ragtime was a distinct music
separate from jazz." p. 67
>What evidence do you have that jazz was "popular in Europe by the time
>Debussy came on the scene"??
Again I am quoting Schuller. I cannot put my finger on the exact
citation right now, but I do remember Schuller emphasizing that jazz
music in some form was popular in Europe before the end of the 19th C.
You are going to have to read the book for details.
>Debussy was born in 1862, died in 1918 (one year after the first jazz
>recordings were made). He was writing great pieces like "Afternoon of
>a Faun" in 1894.
>What jazz was he hearing then?
Beats me.
paramucho
>On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 02:45:19 GMT, i...@beathoven.com (paramucho) wrote:
>
>>African music, or American adaptations of African music?
>
>Yes, see Gunther Schuller, "Early Jazz".
That's a fantastic book. I really had the feeling I was "learning"
something when reading that small volume -- particularly his treatment
of rhythm. That book, and a 1950's book by Andre Hodier have been on
my repeated reading selection for the last four months or so.
Ian
Bob
>>Yes, see Gunther Schuller, "Early Jazz".
>That's a fantastic book. I really had the feeling I was "learning"
>something when reading that small volume -- particularly his treatment
>of rhythm. That book, and a 1950's book by Andre Hodier have been on
>my repeated reading selection for the last four months or so.
Too bad the self-proclaimed around here know-it-all "experts" haven't
read it. Then they would not make such fools of themselves in front of
everyone.
Richard Thurston
Personally I think one can have read the book AND be foolish.
Richard Thurston
Stephen Lavele
Cakewalk is also structured like an improvision.
Stephen
Bob <r...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3b2ab727...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
Tom Shaw
over the place in European classical music.
TS
Mike C.
thread.
"Richard Thurston" <rcthu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:fk2nitgthbqn3mp9v...@4ax.com...
Mike C.
it's contents out of context, for their own interpretations. I'm sure that's
not what Schuller had in mind. And it would probably be best not to
crosspost this stuff all over the net, either.
"Bob" <r...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3b2b8006...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
Mike C.
rec.music.bluenote can tell you that, as you have a twisted version of jazz
history running there. Your version of what Schuller says is questionable at
best. For example, on the subject of ragtime being taken from jazz:
> Here are some excerpts from Schuller:
>
> "The blues structure, like ragtime, was an admixture of African
> influence (the call-and-response pattern) and European harmonically
> derived functional form." --p. 38
>
> "In other parts of Feather's chapter, jazz is frequently equated with
> ragtime." --p. 66
>
> Schuller is willing to present the other side too:
>
> "The excellent 'They All Played Ragtime' by Rudi Blesh and the late
> Harriot Janis attempts to prove that ragtime was a distinct music
> separate from jazz." p. 67
Nowhere does this say anything about the birthplace of either of these
musics.
Michael Fitzgerald is, as was Mr. Brown before him, right on the money. You
sir, are far over interpreting Schuller's words and twisting them to make up
your own jazz history. You are not likely to find anyone to say that jazz
existed before 1900, which is when the majority of Debussy's life and
compositions existed. Debussy may have taken influence from the same places
that jazz did(although highly doubtful), but he certainly did not compose
"Afternoon Of A Faun" with jazz influence in mind.
"Bob" <r...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3b2b7685...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
Bob
<rcthu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Personally I think one can have read the book AND be foolish.
If you don't agree with Schuller why don't you present your opinions
in calm terms?
The fact that you did not tells me that you have a different agenda
than promoting the truth.
Bob
wrote:
>Personally, I think that we've seen a terrific example of that right in this
>thread.
Obviously you and the others like you do not agree with Schuller. But
he was represented as the defining authority by the experts here.
You guys can't make up your minds. Music is too subjective to allow
such careful analysis. Even when Schuller makes a scholarly
contribution you consider it wrong.
Never mind that you didn't bother to read his book.
Bob
wrote:
>Too bad that those who have read the book feel that it is the bible and take
>it's contents out of context, for their own interpretations. I'm sure that's
>not what Schuller had in mind.
How would you know what Schuller had in mind - you haven't even read
his book. Yet you somehow want us to believe that you are one of these
so-called "experts". HA!
> And it would probably be best not to
>crosspost this stuff all over the net, either.
I did not start this thread, nor am I going to go against the wishes
of the person who did by trimming newsgroups.
Ulf Åbjörnsson
Bob skrev
> Obviously you and the others like you do not agree with Schuller. But
> he was represented as the defining authority by the experts here.
>
Ulf
Bob
wrote:
>Give me a break. Syncopation wasn't invented by Africans. It appears all
>over the place in European classical music.
Give me a break!
That was my original thesis when I started a thread on r.m.b. called
"Classical Influences on Jazz". Immediately the experts pounced on me
claiming that I needed to read Schuller's book "Early Jazz", and so I
did just that.
I then discovered that Schuller claimed that syncopation was not
invented by the Europeans. Here is an excerpt from his book:
"We have been certain for many years that jazz inflection and
syncopation did not come from Europe, because there is no precedent
for them in European 'art music'. In fact, the few examples of
syncopation that we do encounter - and then only in the most
rudimentary, if not primitive forms, as in Dvorak's 'New World'
Symphony or Debussy's 'Golliwog's Cakewalk' - were borrowed from
simplifications of this very same African influence as found in
American popular music in the late nineteenth century. But until now
we have lacked musically documented proof of the fact that the
syncopation of jazz is no more than an idiomatic corruption, a
flattened-out mutation of what was once the true polyrhythmic
character of African music." -- pp. 13-15.
That is a verbatim quote.
Bob
wrote:
>Your examples have not come verbatim from Schuller's book, and anyone at
>rec.music.bluenote can tell you that, as you have a twisted version of jazz
>history running there.
I have quoted Schuller faithfully.
And don't give me this "anyone" crap - most people on rmb haven't even
heard of Schuller before this thread.
As far as who has the "twisted version of jazz" we are all waiting for
yours.
But you are obviously very reluctant to offer it, because you are
rightfully concerned that it will be you who gets jumped if you do.
>Your version of what Schuller says is questionable at best.
How can verbatim quotes be questionable?
You are not making any sense, man. Don't tell me you are one of those
morons with an IQ under 100 who voted for Gore.
>For example, on the subject of ragtime being taken from jazz:
>> Here are some excerpts from Schuller:
>> "The blues structure, like ragtime, was an admixture of African
>> influence (the call-and-response pattern) and European harmonically
>> derived functional form." --p. 38
>> "In other parts of Feather's chapter, jazz is frequently equated with
>> ragtime." --p. 66
>> Schuller is willing to present the other side too:
>> "The excellent 'They All Played Ragtime' by Rudi Blesh and the late
>> Harriot Janis attempts to prove that ragtime was a distinct music
>> separate from jazz." p. 67
>Nowhere does this say anything about the birthplace of either of these
>musics.
OK, then *YOU* tell us about the birthplace of these musics, Mr.
Expert.
Until you do, Schuller's comments stand.
>Michael Fitzgerald is, as was Mr. Brown before him, right on the money.
Neither of whom have read Schuller lately.
>You are not likely to find anyone to say that jazz
>existed before 1900,
Schuller says it does.
READ THE BOOK BEFORE YOU MAKE A COMPLETE IDIOT OF YOURSELF!
Bob
>By whom?
By the real jazz experts who hang out on rmb. You can tell a real jazz
expert by their offering their advice and not sitting on the sidelines
to pounce on someone later.
You will have to go back in the archives to find out exactly who they
are - I am not familiar enough with the personalities to recall.
Michael Fitzgerald
>READ THE BOOK BEFORE YOU MAKE A COMPLETE IDIOT OF YOURSELF!
Everyone may not want to duplicate the two-step procedure you
followed.
Mike
Bob
<fitz...@eclipse.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:56:03 GMT, r...@houston.rr.com (Bob) wrote:
>>READ THE BOOK BEFORE YOU MAKE A COMPLETE IDIOT OF YOURSELF!
>
>Everyone may not want to duplicate the two-step procedure you
>followed.
That is their prerogative. But then they are in no position to
criticize others.
robertandrews
Tom Shaw
the Europeans "invented"
syncopation but I do say they used it long before any African influences
would be involved. For all I know the cave men invented syncopation. My
point is that your book is just another pile of crap trying to support the
cause of afrocentrism, ie the notion that you need ti raise up the self
esteem of blacks and that one way to do it is by claiming that they
invented everything under the sun. We are hearing that same bs about the
pyramids of Egypt, mathematics, etc. etc. One thing they dont claim tho is
that they invented slavery...not much.
TS
"Bob" <r...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3b2bb741...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
Dr.Matt
At the time Schuller wrote that, Schuller was ignorant of Ars Nova
and similar trends of rhythmic complexity from medieval Europe that
have only been matched today by the likes of Babbitt.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
"Is there a theorbo in the house?"
Stephen Lavele
(but too fast to be too realistic)
Stephen
Adam Bravo <mra...@home.com> wrote in message
news:e%AW6.31109$0e3.29...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com...
> Strange you should mention Liszt, because after Chopin, he's my favorite
> classical composer. After Liszt, it's Debussy.
>
> What don't you know about me?
>
> "Bob" <r...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3b29feeb...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 04:01:02 GMT, "Adam Bravo" <mra...@home.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Jazz is all I listen to. If there is no improvisation, most music (not
> all)
> > >tends to be hung up on on motif that gets really boring after a while.
> >
> > >Of course, there is nothing worse than a bad improvser, but I don't
> listen
> > >to them.
> >
> > If you ever want to explore other musical forms, then I suggest
> > listening to Franz Liszt's piano transcriptions of Beethoven's
> > symphonies. I would also include many of his Hungarian Rhapsodies and
> > some of his poetic symphonies, in particular Don Juan. I believe most
> > of these are still on Napster.
> >
> > Although Liszt cannot be characterized as a true jazz performer, he
> > does incorporate many of the elements of jazz into his works in subtle
> > ways. What is lacking is the African influence which distinguishes
> > jazz from other kinds of music., althjough he comes close to
> > incorporating syncopation in a jazz-like manner.
> >
> > If Liszt had picked up on African music, I can imagine that he would
> > have been an inventor of jazz in the sense of a precursor of the whole
> > jazz movement in the 19th century.
> >
> > As Gunther Schuller, in his book "Early Jazz", points out, jazz music
> > is the unique integration of African rhythmic structures and European
> > (classical) harmonic structures, so it is not at all unexpected to
> > discover some of the precursors to jazz already present in the
> > Romantic music of the 19th C.
> >
> > Debussy is another Romantic artist who anticipated jazz to some
> > extent. Keith Jarrett, for example, is said to have incorporated some
> > of Debussy's style of composition into his. If you listen carefully to
> > the Koln Concert, you will swear that there are Debussy constructs
> > present, albeit in very subtle form.
> >
> > My point is that if you love jazz you will also love certain classical
> > music, for after all, classical music is one of the two major musical
> > forms that went into the making of jazz.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
> > --Benjamin Franklin
>
>
Tom Shaw
TS
"Dr.Matt" <fie...@login.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:XkQW6.758$yE1....@news.itd.umich.edu...
Bob
wrote:
>Hey man, I dont care about what you read in some damn book
And I don't care about what you *didn't* read in some damn book.
>and I didn't say
>the Europeans "invented"
> syncopation but I do say they used it long before any African influences
>would be involved.
This is all so funny. I started off with the thesis that the
constructs we hear in jazz music are archetypal and can be heard in
other music as well, including classical music.
I gave examples of improvisation, syncopation and dissonance in
classical selections. I even posted music clips to my web site.
The experts on rmb then told me I was wrong and needed to read
Schuller's book. So I did just that and I am now converted to their
point of view.
Now along comes you and the other laggards jumping all over me for
doing exactly what the experts on rmb said I needed to do in order to
know the truth about jazz music.
Where were you when I needed some help defending my original thesis?
>For all I know the cave men invented syncopation.
That was exactly my original point - that the musical constructs we
associate with jazz are actually archetypal asa evidenced by their
presence in other musical forms, including classical music.
>My
>point is that your book is just another pile of crap trying to support the
>cause of afrocentrism, ie the notion that you need ti raise up the self
>esteem of blacks and that one way to do it is by claiming that they
>invented everything under the sun.
I do not want to get in the middle of some bigoted diatribe. I grew up
around the blacks in E. St. Louis in the 1940s and 1950s and was
exposed to their gospel and jazz influences at an early age.
But Schuller does defend his position with some pretty detailed data.
>We are hearing that same bs about the
>pyramids of Egypt, mathematics, etc. etc. One thing they dont claim tho is
>that they invented slavery...not much.
This discussion is intended to be about the musicology of jazz, not
racial prejudice.
Bob
<robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Then avoid it.
>That's just as absurd & unavoidable.
So is what you just said.
Bob
wrote:
>It's funny, but even some of chopin's presto's can sound slightly improvised
>(but too fast to be too realistic)
Liszt's works appear to be improvised. But according to the purist
definition of improvisation, anything that is composed on a prior
basis, especially if it is notated, cannot be improvisation.
Who am I to argue with the experts? Even Schuller maintains that the
proper definition of improvisation is extemporaneous composition. The
problem with that is then much of contemporary jazz is not improvised.
Bob
wrote:
>At the time Schuller wrote that, Schuller was ignorant of Ars Nova
>and similar trends of rhythmic complexity from medieval Europe that
>have only been matched today by the likes of Babbitt.
Are you saying that Schuller is *NOT* the definitive work in jazz
musicology? Are there any two people on this forum who can agree on
anything? <jeez>
Do you have a definitive work on this Ars Nova stuff? If so, please
let me know - I may just go back to my original thesis that the
constructs we hear in jazz are archetypal and are present in other
forms of music including classical music.
Tom Shaw
original premise. I would have supported you. But as you say I got in too
late. Unfortunately the blockade you ran into parallels a massive ongoing
effort which I mentioned in a previous post to reinvent history. I agree
that this is not the right place to discuss racism but the argument you ran
into sounds like it came right out of the same package. I dont know who
Schuller is but I strongly suspect his is not the definitive work in jazz
musicology. In fact I think jazz musicology is an oxymoron. But that is
another story.
TS
"Bob" <r...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3b2bd48c...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
Richard Thurston
wrote:
>Personally, I think that we've seen a terrific example of that right in this
>thread.
Bingo.
Richard Thurston
>
Bob
wrote:
>That wont cut any ice with these guys.
If you mean the racial bigots on this forum, then I don't care what
ice gets cut.
Bob
wrote:
>In response to this and a previous post. You should go back to your
>original premise. I would have supported you. But as you say I got in too
>late.
Then why don't you pick up where I left off.
>Unfortunately the blockade you ran into parallels a massive ongoing
>effort which I mentioned in a previous post to reinvent history. I agree
>that this is not the right place to discuss racism but the argument you ran
>into sounds like it came right out of the same package. I dont know who
>Schuller is but I strongly suspect his is not the definitive work in jazz
>musicology. In fact I think jazz musicology is an oxymoron. But that is
>another story.
Indeed it is.
When I first joined rmb and proposed my thesis that jazz constructs
are archetypal because they appear in other music, including classical
music, I had absolutely no clue that I was posting to a forum full of
racist rednecks.
I refuse to be dragged into anything that even smacks of racism. I
have far too much respect and admiration for blacks and their manifest
accomplishments, including their contributions to jazz.
Bob Knauer
Bob
<rcthu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Personally, I think that we've seen a terrific example of that right in this
>>thread.
>Bingo.
Very profound. Now I suppose everyone on rmb is supposed to bow down
to your self-proclaimed authority.
I am not that stupid. You will have to get your racist buddies to
worship at your bigoted altar.
Richard Thurston
>On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 23:58:51 GMT, Richard Thurston
><rcthu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>>Personally, I think that we've seen a terrific example of that right in this
>>>thread.
>
>>Bingo.
>
>Very profound. Now I suppose everyone on rmb is supposed to bow down
>to your self-proclaimed authority.
>
>I am not that stupid. You will have to get your racist buddies to
>worship at your bigoted altar.
>
>Bob
>
I think you're losing it Bob.
Following (in their entirety) are the two posts I have made to this
thread.
1.) Personally I think one can have read the book AND be foolish.
2.) Bingo.
How you get from either one of them to a discussion of "your (my)
bigoted altar." is an amazing feat. but then it does underscore my
original post about foolishness.
Richard Thurston
Bob
<rcthu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I think you're losing it Bob.
No, it is you who lost it a long time ago in your indulgence in racial
bigotry.
Bugger off, racist.
Michael Fitzgerald
>On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:59:58 +0200, "Ulf Åbjörnsson"
><aabj...@algonet.se> wrote:
>>> Obviously you and the others like you do not agree with Schuller. But
>>> he was represented as the defining authority by the experts here.
>
>>By whom?
>
>By the real jazz experts who hang out on rmb. You can tell a real jazz
>expert by their offering their advice and not sitting on the sidelines
>to pounce on someone later.
>
>You will have to go back in the archives to find out exactly who they
>are - I am not familiar enough with the personalities to recall.
Well, it seems the first person to mention Schuller and "Early Jazz"
to you was Dirk Ludigkeit (all of two weeks ago). However, you may
remember him better as the object of your recent abuse - such as:
>This is my thread - I started it, and if you don't like it you can go
>bugger off.
or -
>Bugger off, willya - you are not contributing anything valuable with
>your sick projections.
or finally -
>The only lesson to be learned is that there are assholes like you who
>butt into other people's conversations.
(I especially like that last one - "it's incredibly ironic," as Dabney
Coleman once said.)
Mike
Michael Fitzgerald
>On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 02:14:08 GMT, Richard Thurston
><rcthu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>I think you're losing it Bob.
>
>No, it is you who lost it a long time ago in your indulgence in racial
>bigotry.
>
>Bugger off, racist.
Mea culpa.
I now deeply regret pointing Mr. Bob in the direction of
rec.music.bluenote.
When he first made his appearance in jazz newsgroups six months ago,
if I had simply answered his Ahmad Jamal question with no additional
comments then maybe we wouldn't have this problem.
My apologies to all who have had to endure the irrational attacks.
Mike
robertandrews
>So is what you just said.
Absurdity is unavoidable? I'm glad we agree.
Tom Shaw
invention is racist. You say you dont want to get dragged in to a racist
discussion. The fact that you infer that I am a racist redneck is proof of
where your ass is coming from. If you think that racism is a one way street
you are living in a dream world. Hear what Al Sharpton and Elijah Mohammed
say, or for that matter, Jesse Jackson. You cannot avoid the conflict
except by total withdrawal into an ivory tower. Enjoy.news:3b2c0516...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
Tom Shaw
And I am not a racist bigot but I will be goddammed if I think the blacks
make a monumental contribution to any society. If you dont believe me take
a look at what is going on in Afica right now to see what the black
community can do if left to itself. FWIW I am sick of being called a
redneck or a racist for telling it like it is.news:3b2c0516...@news-server.houston.rr.com...
robertandrews
>And I am not a racist bigot but I will be goddammed if I think the blacks
make a monumental contribution to any society.
As this is a music group, I'd say that the contribution of black people to
American music has been monumental. They have also been at the forefront in
many other fields, while suffering much discrimination. It's only been
about 35 years since the landmark Supreme Court decisions on voting
rights -- not a lot of time considering the history of America & the
prejudice that still persists.
I don't know what other contributions to society you mean. Certainly many
black folks have raised families & contributed greatly to their communities.
Some hold public office & others run businesses. To me, the differences
between blacks & whites are rooted in history & culture, not skin color.
If we say the blacks haven't made a monumental contribution to American
society, we'd have to say the same about every other ethnic group or race.
Dirk Ludigkeit
>On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:59:58 +0200, "Ulf Åbjörnsson"
><aabj...@algonet.se> wrote:
>
>>> Obviously you and the others like you do not agree with Schuller. But
>>> he was represented as the defining authority by the experts here.
>
>>By whom?
>
>By the real jazz experts who hang out on rmb. You can tell a real jazz
>expert by their offering their advice and not sitting on the sidelines
>to pounce on someone later.
>
>You will have to go back in the archives to find out exactly who they
>are - I am not familiar enough with the personalities to recall.
>
>Bob
Schuller's book was meant to indicate a point of departure, not the
final destination.
Dirk =
(1) not an expert, real or otherwise (unreal?)
(2) quite happy on the sidelines; you get a better view of the field
from there
(3) so sorry to ever have bothered.
Ulf Åbjörnsson
> Ulf Åbjörnsson wrote:
> >> Obviously you and the others like you do not agree with Schuller. But
> >> he was represented as the defining authority by the experts here.
> >By whom?
> By the real jazz experts who hang out on rmb. You can tell a real jazz
> expert by their offering their advice and not sitting on the sidelines
> to pounce on someone later.
Who are the "real" jazz experts? Who are "not so real"?
Are the "real" expertsthose who agree with you?
That's the way it usually works in this ng.
Ulf
thomas
> On 16 Jun 2001 00:17:32 -0700, tomb...@jhu.edu (thomas) wrote:
>
> >This is one of the most bizarre conceptions of jazz history I've ever
> >heard. Could you elaborate or give some examples?
>
> The only reason you consider what I wrote bizzare is that you have
> been brainwashed into thinking incorrectly. Obviously you have not
> read Gunther Schuller's classic book, "Early Jazz".
Yes, I've read that book, but I don't think it supports your thesis.
> >Also, the influence you're hearing in Debussy is from American
> >ragtime, not African music.
>
> Ragtime is taken from jazz, which is taken from African music.
> Therefore ragtime has its roots in African music. Schuller clears all
> this up.
You have it backwards. Ragtime preceded jazz. Both derive in part from
African American music. Jazz derives also from blues, marching band music,
popular and show songs, etc. There is some "classical" influence on jazz
in the realm of harmony, but this doesn't really begin to reveal itself
until the late 1920s and 1930s.
> Jazz was very popular in Europe by the time Debussy came on the scene.
> It would have been impossible for him not to hear it.
Can you provide some evidence of jazz being popular in Europe during
Debussy's career? I doubt if Debussy ever even had a chance to hear
any jazz.
Debussy may well have had access to some ragtime sheet music, and perhaps
even some WC Handy, but I don't know what jazz he could have ever heard or
been influenced by, given that he died during WWI. It's possible that he could
have heard James Reese Europe's military band during the War, but this would
have been long after he'd composed the piece in question.
> >But the cakewalk is taken from an American idiom.
>
> Cakewalk is taken from Negro minstrel shows IIRC.
The cakewalk was an African American dance form in which couples
would strut or promenade slowly. I've never heard of any African
origin for this dance. I've never heard of Debussy ever hearing
or being influenced by African music.
I think if you want to make these kinds of claims, you should
be able to cite some evidence. Schuller's book on early jazz
doesn't support your conception of jazz history. I don't
know of any "classical" composers who reveal any jazz influence
before the 1920s. Who were they? Where did they hear jazz or
African music?
I don't hear much "classical" influence on early jazz, aside
from some whole tone and parallel harmonies, and even this isn't
apparent much before the late 1920s. Can you cite any earlier examples?
Josh Dougherty
> Are you saying that Schuller is *NOT* the definitive work in jazz
> musicology? Are there any two people on this forum who can agree on
> anything? <jeez>
>
towards all that comes from the jazz idiom, he's still a person born and
bred on European classical tradition and he sees things from *that* point of
view, at least to a certain degree. Other musicians that don't have this
background might see the same things differently. Even if Schuller is
sympathetic to their concerns, some of these musicians might think that the
appropriate view requires no "sympathy" from a different musical tradition
for validation of their own tradition.
Josh
--
Joshua Dougherty
http://trax.to/joshuadoughertytrio
Josh Dougherty
news:C9A4DFE3BD579944.24821C66...@lp.airnews.net...
> The very fact that you that proposed that syncopation was an African
> invention is racist.
Hogwash!!!
That assumption of yours may or MAY NOT be correct but syncopation is much
more developed in traditional African music than in European music and it is
NOT "rasicst" to assume that it's derivation was in Africa rather than
Europe. I believe that it is quite a logical hypothesis. I think you would
have to be racist to assume otherwise. The rythms of Mozart are basically
child-like if compared with the rhythms of African music of that time or
long before.
Dr.Matt
Josh Dougherty <jbd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Tom Shaw" <a000...@airmail.net> wrote in message
>news:C9A4DFE3BD579944.24821C66...@lp.airnews.net...
>> The very fact that you that proposed that syncopation was an African
>> invention is racist.
>
>
>Hogwash!!!
>
>That assumption of yours may or MAY NOT be correct but syncopation is much
>more developed in traditional African music than in European music and it is
This dude needs to get out more and listen to some Janequin and Sermisy,
to name some later composers.
John Sheehy
Bob Russell <bobrus...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>in article r1xW6.8442$Fk7....@news.indigo.ie, Stephen Lavele at
>er...@eircom.net wrote on 6/15/01 6:42 PM:
>
>> funny, that's the main belief of modern satinists (quite a fun seeming bunch
>> of people until you examine their work more closely) : )
>Yeah, you gotta watch those "satinists", especially when they whip out those
>dolls with the cigarette holders...
I'm, a flannelist. Satinism is just too smooth for me.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Bob
<fitz...@eclipse.net> wrote:
>My apologies to all who have had to endure the irrational attacks.
They would not have to if you stopped posting.
Bob
wrote:
>The very fact that you that proposed that syncopation was an African
>invention is racist.
The fact that you cannot read the English written word is pathetic.
I never proposed that syncopation was an African invention - Schuller
did. I was merely repeating his statement.
>or for that matter, Jesse Jackson.
LOL
Now I know you are a moron.
Bob
<jbd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The very fact that you that proposed that syncopation was an African
>> invention is racist.
>Hogwash!!!
>That assumption of yours may or MAY NOT be correct but syncopation is much
>more developed in traditional African music than in European music and it is
>NOT "rasicst" to assume that it's derivation was in Africa rather than
>Europe. I believe that it is quite a logical hypothesis. I think you would
>have to be racist to assume otherwise. The rythms of Mozart are basically
>child-like if compared with the rhythms of African music of that time or
>long before.
You will absolutely love Schuller's exposition of African music in
musicological terms.
He takes you thru a detailed analysis of an actual piece of African
music that he gets from that Englisman Jones who recorded African
music live.
He concludes that African music is the most complex form of music on
Earth.
Bob
wrote:
>Tell me about the blacks' manifest accomplishments.
Gladly.
Are you following the NBA palyoffs? If so, then you are experiencing
black athletic ballet at its finest.
I know - there are many great Caucasian basketball players, from Bob
Cousey to Larry Bird. But they did not have the same "rhythm" or
"inflection" - the same "tonality" - that these black athletes have.
Black athletes like these basketball players are performing to an
implicit musicality that is shared by their collective
consciousnesses. There are subtle rhythms at work in their actions.
You can see that most obviously when they do a hand off.
They know the receiver is going to be there to get the ball because
they are all sync'd up rhythmically. Just as the fourth drummer knows
when to hit his beat because he is sync'd up with the rest of the
drummers, these basketball players are also rhythmically sync'd up.
Watch the playoffs and if the game starts to get in a vibrant groove,
use your experience with jazz music to observe the rhythms on the
court.
>And I am not a racist bigot but I will be goddammed if I think the blacks
>make a monumental contribution to any society.
Do you seriously believe that we would have gospel music without the
blacks? How about the blues? I cannot imagine either gospel or blues
without the blacks.
As Schuller points out, the Negro treats African music as a part of
his life. It is not a separate art form - it is part of his
communications, his speech, his emotional expression. Gospel and blues
are an example of that expressiveness coming out in explicit musical
form, a form that was adapted to European classical harmonic forms.
>If you dont believe me take
>a look at what is going on in Afica right now to see what the black
>community can do if left to itself.
That's the result of communism - godless collectivism. And if we don't
get off the path we are on in America, we are going to end up like
Africa.
>FWIW I am sick of being called a
>redneck or a racist for telling it like it is.
And I am tired of being jumped all over just because I tell it like it
is.
Damon Short
great parody of Philip Glass....
John Sheehy wrote:
--
Damon Short
damon...@compuserve.com
www.damonshort.com
Bob
<robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Absurdity is unavoidable? I'm glad we agree.
Of course absurdity is unavoidable. We have to live under the
oppression of the federal govt, don't we?
How much more absurd can that be?
Bob
>Yes, I've read that book, but I don't think it supports your thesis.
Which thesis is that? I have offered several theses here.
>You have it backwards. Ragtime preceded jazz. Both derive in part from
>African American music. Jazz derives also from blues, marching band music,
>popular and show songs, etc. There is some "classical" influence on jazz
>in the realm of harmony, but this doesn't really begin to reveal itself
>until the late 1920s and 1930s.
OK.
>Can you provide some evidence of jazz being popular in Europe during
>Debussy's career? I doubt if Debussy ever even had a chance to hear
>any jazz.
As I said earlier I read that in Schuller but I cannot put my finger
on it. I am re-reading Schuller now, and assuming that statement comes
after the place I am now, I should run across it again.
According to Schuller, the first beginnings of jazz were in the field
song and other slave singing - like river boat rowing. That IIRC was
early 19th C. By the mid-late 19th C. this primitive form of very
early jazz music had become popular in America, so it would not be
unexpected that it made its way to Europe.
I did not put as much emphasis on the history as the musical analysis
in reading Schuller.
>I think if you want to make these kinds of claims, you should
>be able to cite some evidence. Schuller's book on early jazz
>doesn't support your conception of jazz history.
It looks like I am going to have to pay more attention to the
historical elements when I re-read Schuller.
BTW, I did quote Schuller verbatim on this matter of Debussy.
Unfortunately Usenet is not a good forum for cross-thread
communications.
>I don't hear much "classical" influence on early jazz, aside
>from some whole tone and parallel harmonies, and even this isn't
>apparent much before the late 1920s. Can you cite any earlier examples?
You have just attacked the central theis of Schuller's book.
I must defer to him to defend his position.
Bob
<jbd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>You know, as much as Schuller is "jazz friendly" and very open minded
>towards all that comes from the jazz idiom, he's still a person born and
>bred on European classical tradition and he sees things from *that* point of
>view, at least to a certain degree. Other musicians that don't have this
>background might see the same things differently. Even if Schuller is
>sympathetic to their concerns, some of these musicians might think that the
>appropriate view requires no "sympathy" from a different musical tradition
>for validation of their own tradition.
Schuller offers more than just another opinion. He offers concrete
musicological analysis, derived primarily from the monumental work of
an Englishman named Jones who recorded African music and then
published an analysis.
If Schuller is wrong in his presentation, then it is going to take
someone with an equal amount of scholarly expertise to make the case.
Bob
<aabj...@algonet.se> wrote:
>Who are the "real" jazz experts?
That's easy to answer. Just ask a "real" jazz expert and he will tell
you he is.
>Who are "not so real"?
People who have better sense than to pontificate.
>Are the "real" experts - those who agree with you?
I agree with those who make sense.
Remember that I started out with a theis that the real experts said
was not correct. They recommended I read Schuller, which I did. And
now I am in agreement with them.
Of course, since I am in agreement with them, they agree with me.
>That's the way it usually works in this ng.
Would you rather I agree with people who do not make any sense?