rapid P-M-I in Leyenda
Jon Boyes
Leyenda, where MI are playing the open 2nd string?
I don't have a problem with the other arpeggio patterns in the piece but
for some reasons this section slows me down.
--
Jon Boyes
Larry Deack
> Any tips on how to improve the speed of PMI from measure 25 onwards in
> Leyenda, where MI are playing the open 2nd string?
I do triplet scales using pmi as a habit. The pattern I found most fun was
alternating 3rds like:
do do do me me me re re re fa fa fa me me me sol sol sol etc...
Up and back with turn arounds using re on top and ti below in the key of G
major (2nd position). Learn to control 1 string like this and then the
arpeggio should become easier.
I also like Pujol's Abejero (sp?) which is a study that uses pimi ( I use
it to work on many other RH patterns also). You can use the pmi pattern for
RDLA also.
I did all these RH patterns compulsively on the seam of my pants, the
edges of books, and the steering wheel of my car until I felt that I could
play the pattern without thinking like riding a bike or juggling or skipping
rope. It didn't take too long really but I like submersion learning. I also
did rasqueados at the same time and feel they work synergistically with
tremolo, arpeggios and scales. All these RH techniques are related and can
help each other. I separate patterns into 2 basic types - 1) pima 2) pami.
Some patterns have elements of both. Not sure if this makes sense to others.
Remember that once you can play it well it's like any of the above named
activities. Who here would ask how to learn to ride a bike and keep it from
falling? How did you learn that? Also think of a boxing bag where you get
into the rhythm and the energy you put in is diminished but not lost and the
energy of the next stroke can either crash into the previous one halting the
rhythm or it can be timed such that it replaces the energy lost because of
the bounce. Another analogy is pushing someone in a swing.
Lutemann
ma...@jonboyes.co.uknospam (Jon Boyes) writes:
>Any tips on how to improve the speed of PMI from measure 25 onwards in
>Leyenda, where MI are playing the open 2nd string?
>
>I don't have a problem with the other arpeggio patterns in the piece but
>for some reasons this section slows me down.
>--
>Jon Boyes
Play 'P', let i and m extend together, flex m, then flex i, repeat. It's a
completely sympathetic motion. There is a tendency to alternate i and m in this
movement. Make sure that m, a and c move as one finger.
Kent Murdick
-----------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail me for a free catalog...
New! CD video demonstrating Shearer technique.
Free Guitar Music: http://members.aol.com/lutemann/guitar.html
Jon Boyes
Lutemann wrote in message <20000210221900...@nso-cs.aol.com>...
>Play 'P', let i and m extend together, flex m, then flex i, repeat. It's a
>completely sympathetic motion. There is a tendency to alternate i and m in
this
>movement.
Yes, I'd figured it was an alternation slowing me down. I've been trying to
get I and M to move sypathetically (and having some success, although I do
feel I'm fighting the opposed motion - particularly as I speed it up).
Strangely, I don't have the problem playing the PMI arpeggio rapidly
(sypathetically) on different strings. Maybe its psychological.
>Make sure that m, a and c move as one finger.
Now this I *do* find tricky. I understand the importance of it, but in
quite a few of my rh arpeggio movements I'm not moving the 'unused' fingers
sypathetically. Its going to be a bit of a slog to try and re-train my
fingers.
Jon
Sean Winkler
>
> Any tips on how to improve the speed of PMI from measure 25 onwards in
> Leyenda, where MI are playing the open 2nd string?
>
> I don't have a problem with the other arpeggio patterns in the piece but
> for some reasons this section slows me down.
> --
> Jon Boyes
In the original piano score, these are not triplets, but remain straight
sixteenth notes. See Stanley Yates's transcription in his Albeniz
collection (published by Mel Bay) for a realization of this. He also
gives the triplet realization as an alternative.
I played the triplets for a long time, but my current teacher suggested
maintaining the duple pattern. It's really grown on me, and that's how
I play it these days. For most guitarists accustomed to the triplet
pattern, it takes a while to adjust the ears so that this doesn't sound
wrong. I personally think Albeniz knew what he was doing--he could have
easily written these as triplets if he wanted triplets--but the
relentless duple pattern is really quite effective. Listen to a
recording of the piano original and see what you think.
SW
Peter Riley
slowly and in time speesing it up gradually rather than going at it hammer
and tongs.
Hope this helps
Xav
Jon Boyes
>In the original piano score, these are not triplets, but remain straight
>sixteenth notes.
Thats interesting. One of my copies of the piece does it this way - i
assumed it was a simplication on the part of the transcriber.
>For most guitarists accustomed to the triplet
>pattern, it takes a while to adjust the ears so that this doesn't sound
>wrong.
I think that's part of the problem - if I play it this way people will say
I'm doing it wrong, or will assume I can't play the triplets.
Anyway, I couldn't possibly dump the triplets simply because I can't get
them to the same speed as the arpeggios yet.
>I personally think Albeniz knew what he was doing--he could have
>easily written these as triplets if he wanted triplets--but the
>relentless duple pattern is really quite effective.
..but don't you think the triplets help build the drama of the piece?
Together with the gradual accelerando that some players put in (that also
isn't in the score - at least not in any versions I've seen) I think the
whole section builds to a climax more effectively.
Jon Boyes
DC
embellishments. Surely the original composers of ALL music allow for the
fact of artistic license in their pieces. Musicians, particularly
performers, are EXPECTED to interpret the music according to their own
perspective. I am of the opinion that if Albeniz were asked, he would say,
"Triplets aren't what I intended for the overall color of the piece, but
they are just as aurally effective in their own way. Let us explore this
variation a little further."
But, when is a performer's artistic license revoked? Where do we draw
the line? Do we change the meter or notation and still call it the same
piece with our interpretation, or does that, in fact, make the change a new
piece? "Variations on a theme by Albeniz" perhaps. Where do we say that we
can remain true to the composer's original idea and maintain the integrity
of the WRITTEN work, and where can we say that the changes we make are
simply the result of interpretation?
I have been fascinated by this for some time. In Baroque music, the
ornamentation and improvisation were actually DEMANDED in the pieces. Can
we say we have the same freedom in a piece from a different era that is
specifically composed with certain themes in mind?
Anyone have any opinions? This is an interesting topic.
DC
Jon Boyes <j...@nospamteigncvs.org.uk> wrote in message
news:38a7f...@news.netdirect.net.uk...
Sean Winkler
> >I personally think Albeniz knew what he was doing--he could have
> >easily written these as triplets if he wanted triplets--but the
> >relentless duple pattern is really quite effective.
>
> ..but don't you think the triplets help build the drama of the piece?
> Together with the gradual accelerando that some players put in (that also
> isn't in the score - at least not in any versions I've seen) I think the
> whole section builds to a climax more effectively.
>
> Jon Boyes
I think this is a case of personal preference. To me, there is
something inconsistent in the triplets. The piece begins with duplets,
then we switch to triplets, presumably to add drama to the piece and
embellish the otherwise monotonous duple pattern. Most transcriptions
then return to the duplet pattern in m 49 with the altered restatement
of the opening motif, then shift again to the triplets at m 53.
Finally, this section of the piece ends with that ascending Bmaj
arpeggio that is most commonly played with the duplet feel again. For
me, the preceding triplets make the arpeggio anticlimactic, and it seems
a little out of place.
All this alternation between duplet and triplet seems unnecessary and
distracting to me. I think the punctuated chords on the downbeats that
begin in measure 25 are enough to add interest to this section without
altering the duple rhythm, and as I said previously, I like the effect
created by maintaining this rhythm.
Compare it to Ravel's "Bolero." We have this incessant rhythmic
monotony, and we must find some way to make it interesting. In
"Bolero," the sonorities of the different instruments add interest, and
the increasing dynamics lead to that final burst that ends the piece.
In "Leyenda," we have those downbeat chords in the middle of the A
section, we tone color and dynamics, and we have the natural tensions
and releases derived from the harmonies. It all leads to that Bmaj
arpeggio that ends the A section. I find this most effective with the
duplet rhythm.
Many will disagree, and few will actually want to try it with the
duplets for the reasons you stated in your post. Guitarists have come
to expect the triplets, and we are afraid of people thinking we are
playing it wrong if we don't use them. I personally think it is more
technically challenging to play the duplets, as it requires perfect
coordination of the fingers playing the upbeat diads. I also find it
more rewarding musically.
SW
Sean Winkler
>
> This VERY interesting post started me thinking about variations and
> embellishments. Surely the original composers of ALL music allow for the
> fact of artistic license in their pieces. Musicians, particularly
> performers, are EXPECTED to interpret the music according to their own
> perspective. I am of the opinion that if Albeniz were asked, he would say,
> "Triplets aren't what I intended for the overall color of the piece, but
> they are just as aurally effective in their own way. Let us explore this
> variation a little further."
> But, when is a performer's artistic license revoked? Where do we draw
> the line? Do we change the meter or notation and still call it the same
> piece with our interpretation, or does that, in fact, make the change a new
> piece? "Variations on a theme by Albeniz" perhaps. Where do we say that we
> can remain true to the composer's original idea and maintain the integrity
> of the WRITTEN work, and where can we say that the changes we make are
> simply the result of interpretation?
> I have been fascinated by this for some time. In Baroque music, the
> ornamentation and improvisation were actually DEMANDED in the pieces. Can
> we say we have the same freedom in a piece from a different era that is
> specifically composed with certain themes in mind?
> Anyone have any opinions? This is an interesting topic.
>
> DC
I think an artist can do whatever he or she pleases with the music. The
ultimate question is whether you can convince the audience that your
interpretation serves the music. I don't have anything against the
triplets in "Leyenda," I just prefer the duplets. It's not about
artistic license for me--I just feel that I can personally serve the
music better using the duplet pattern. It makes more musical sense to
me that way, and so for me to play it any other way would probably make
it sound forced or contrived. Other artists hear the music with the
triplets, so for them, playing the duplets would not sound convincing.
SW
Vivienne McLaughlin
>
>Yes, I'd figured it was an alternation slowing me down. I've been trying
to
>get I and M to move sypathetically (and having some success, although I do
>feel I'm fighting the opposed motion - particularly as I speed it up).
When I was studying this one, I had already had some practice with pmi
"tremolos". The key is to get accustomed to playing it slowly, and to let
your fingers firmly understand the rule of execution - that is, which finger
goes first, second, and third, and in what motion, like Lutey says. This all
becomes awkward if you go too fast too soon. So play it slow and control the
motion. It should take only a short while to get accustomed to this if you
practice it enough. After a while, it will get faster.
One secret is to not think about it, or focus on it so much, but to do it
naturally (ha!). By this, I mean the less you fret over the execution, the
more you will be free to execute it at faster speeds. Obviously, the
confound is the more you fret about fretting about execution, and the more
you try to play it freely, the more you will fret and not play it freely.
There is a "knack" to it, is all I can say, but that is the best way to
learn it. The harder you will try is the less you will succeed. It should be
done easily and naturally. Otherwise, the fingers won't listen to the laws
of physics (which they know about more than your brain) and instead listen
to the voice telling them to speed it up.
For me, the hard part with Leyenda always was that damn C7 chord and me wee
ittle fingers.
V.
Thomas F Brown
>This VERY interesting post started me thinking about variations and
>embellishments. Surely the original composers of ALL music allow for the
>fact of artistic license in their pieces. Musicians, particularly
>performers, are EXPECTED to interpret the music according to their own
>perspective. I am of the opinion that if Albeniz were asked, he would say,
> "Triplets aren't what I intended for the overall color of the piece, but
>they are just as aurally effective in their own way. Let us explore this
>variation a little further."
> But, when is a performer's artistic license revoked? Where do we draw
>the line? Do we change the meter or notation and still call it the same
>piece with our interpretation, or does that, in fact, make the change a new
>piece? "Variations on a theme by Albeniz" perhaps. Where do we say that we
>can remain true to the composer's original idea and maintain the integrity
>of the WRITTEN work, and where can we say that the changes we make are
>simply the result of interpretation?
Why does it matter? Why draw the line? I play whatever I want
however I want. The composer's intentions are only rough guidelines
for me. I consider them, retain what I like, discard the rest, and
even rewrite sections if I want. I'm not a reproduction machine.
The composer can get a computer for that.
Larry Deack
> Why does it matter? Why draw the line? I play whatever I want
> however I want.
Most of us like to work with the composer. You don't, that's your choice.
> The composer's intentions are only rough guidelines
> for me.
Yes, for you. Others have a different way of looking at things. Why is that
a problem for you?
> I consider them, retain what I like, discard the rest, and
> even rewrite sections if I want. I'm not a reproduction machine.
Neither am I. I like to play music and work with composers to do this. It's
obvious that one has to pay attention to the music if one is in a orchestra
so we can't all play music like you do and deviate from those we are playing
with at any point we feel like it.
> The composer can get a computer for that.
Most composers like real people and are very flexible with interpretation.
I remember Bill Kanengiser remarking on how liberal Rodrigo was when the
LAGQ worked with him. My friend P.Q. Phan did not try to impose his view on
me when I worked on a piece of his with one of my students. The Kronos
Quartet talked with us after a performance of theirs and told how open most
of the composers they had worked with were toward changes in the way the
play the music. This is a synergistic relationship not a dictatorial one as
you seem to be saying.
Again your attitude is one of superiority of jazz to CG. Why do you post
here if this is your feeling? It seems as if you are always pretending to
not care but your posts are all about how terrible CG is and how great jazz
is. This may well be true for you but there are many ways to enjoy our own
music and your choice is not for all of us. I prefer to play more from the
score and make all my own statements in the way I choose to play the music.
For you this seems too confining. This is about what choices one makes not
about how jazz is better than classical.
git...@webtv.net
changing everything.
It's called arranging. As in arranged for guitar,
or arranged for piano. Look at Bach's cello prelude, it's quite
different from the original.
Often an arrangement isn't even in the original key, therefore it can
be said that all of the notes have been changed. Even publications
which claim to be accurate can be found to differ from the original
manuscript.(Rule #5 research your music). It all depends on what your
audience is willing to hear and what you are trying to represent.
People are often open for new suggestions to pieces that have been
overplayed. A whole concert or cd could be dedicated to re-working run
into the ground music. The opposite approach could be to display a
piece in an historical aspect, staying as close to the orginal
manuscript as possible.
Different strokes(no pun intended) for different folks.
City Slicker
DC
write variations ona theme I wrote. My opinion is not about transcriptions,
arrangements, transpositions, etc. My opposition is only to the fundamental
changing of a piece that would make it not recognizable in its riginal
intent. Case in point is the discussion earlier about the triplets vs.
duples in the writing of Albeniz. That difference is significant if the
composer MEANT to have a certain "feel" in the music. If we change the
metering or the rhythmic composition(infinitely as important as the melodic
or harmonic composition), we have changed his creation. A variation is
fine. A variation would be your own composition in HIS theme. But to play
HIS piece with a changed rhythmic structure is not acceptible to my
conservative tastes. I am highly respectful of Mozart's skillful use of
variations on SEVERAL themes by countless other composers. BUT, he wrote
these pieces to be HIS compositions. And if performed they are intended as
such, not the original titled theme upon which they were composed.
I agree with you, City Slicker. There are many approaches to the same
themes. I brought up this discussion for this very reason. I am glad to
learn your and others' opinions about where the line is drawn.
DC
<git...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21730-38...@storefull-254.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Jon Boyes
>The key is to get accustomed to playing it slowly, and to let
>your fingers firmly understand the rule of execution - that is, which
finger
>goes first, second, and third, and in what motion, like Lutey says. This
all
>becomes awkward if you go too fast too soon. So play it slow and control
the
>motion.
(snip)
>One secret is to not think about it, or focus on it so much, but to do it
>naturally (ha!). By this, I mean the less you fret over the execution, the
>more you will be free to execute it at faster speeds.
I know what you mean. I don't have to think about the other arpeggio
movements in the piece now, but I remember a time when I would watch
Williams playing it and almost scream with frustration. I haven't really
worked on Leyenda as I would other pieces and its been a bit of a long term
project - I pick out chunks of it now and again and get them up to speed. I
guess I'm too eager to get that last motion (PMI) under the fingers and I'll
have the piece sorted.
>For me, the hard part with Leyenda always was that damn C7 chord and me wee
>ittle fingers.
Yes, the most difficult shift in the piece to execute smoothly. Personally I
prefer the 10th position C7 followed by 7th position arpeggio, but its all
down to whether you want to work on the position shift or whether you have a
bionic pinky and can do everything from 8th position.
I think my pinky would need steroids to play the latter version.
JB
Vivienne McLaughlin
>I haven't really
>worked on Leyenda as I would other pieces and its been a bit of a long term
>project - I pick out chunks of it now and again and get them up to speed. I
>guess I'm too eager to get that last motion (PMI) under the fingers and
I'll
>have the piece sorted.
I've found that the pmi is much easier than the arpeggios, in the overall
scope of it. It is much easier to play since it is more of an automatic
procedure, so by comparison you should have it in no time. All you have to
do is get it "going" and it is quite simple. I have found the hard parts
with pmi to be the arpeggios throughout the piece, since my fingers used to
get tired during the second part (repeat) of that whole war horse. But in
retrospect, Leyenda is a pretty simple piece compared to the rest of the
major concert repertoire out there to study. There are not many complex
maneuvers, fast scale runs or anything. The tricky part is in tackling the
RH problems.
A couple years ago I did exactly what you did. I played bits and pieces
because I *really* wanted to get that one down. But it took too long, and I
ended up wasting too much time and hurting my technique. So I put it down
for a year or so. When I picked it up the second time, I learned the whole
piece front to back in less than 2 weeks. Same thing with Koyunbaba 4.
Sometimes we ain't ready for it, I suppose, so patience is also important to
learning it. It is amazing how fingers adapt quickly without attempting to
put them to too much strain.
V.
Klaus Heim
news:38a3e...@news.netdirect.net.uk...
>
> Lutemann wrote in message
<20000210221900...@nso-cs.aol.com>...
> >Play 'P', let i and m extend together, flex m, then flex i, repeat. It's
a
> >completely sympathetic motion. There is a tendency to alternate i and m
in
> this
> >movement.
>
to
> get I and M to move sypathetically (and having some success, although I
do
> feel I'm fighting the opposed motion - particularly as I speed it up).
> (sypathetically) on different strings. Maybe its psychological.
>
> >Make sure that m, a and c move as one finger.
>
> Now this I *do* find tricky. I understand the importance of it, but in
> quite a few of my rh arpeggio movements I'm not moving the 'unused'
fingers
> sypathetically. Its going to be a bit of a slog to try and re-train my
> fingers.
>
> Jon
>
1. Practice the pattern with easier chords, not the ones from Asturias. For
my RH studies I use a simple Am chord which I slide up to the 12th fret and
back.
2. Start out extremely slow. That means very slow, about one note per second
or less. Look at your fingers move, watch each joint flex and unflex. Then
put the guitar away and picture this motion in your mind. Imagine your
fingers moving, doing exactly the right thing, and then speed up this motion
in your mind. If the pattern gets mixed up in your mind, slow it down again.
Pick up the guitar again, still playing slow. Fit what your mind learned to
the guitar.
3. Only play fast when you can do it. Doing it before will only ruin your
technique. Use a metronome. I know this takes a lot of discipline, because
you want to test your limits, but try sticking to a strict regime.
4. Turn the pattern around. Play pim a while.
5. Practice in front of the TV. Once you've got the pattern down, commit it
to your subconscious. It has to function automatically. Continually keep
going faster, when you hit a barrier go back a notch. Try not to think what
your fingers are doing, let them work by themselves. Concentrate on the TV.
This has worked for me with all RH patterns, up to tremolo and Villa-Lobos
etude #1.
Good luck,
Klaus
Thomas F Brown
>You seem to have omitted the part about me NOT minding if someone wanted to
>write variations ona theme I wrote. My opinion is not about transcriptions,
>arrangements, transpositions, etc. My opposition is only to the fundamental
>changing of a piece that would make it not recognizable in its riginal
>intent. Case in point is the discussion earlier about the triplets vs.
>duples in the writing of Albeniz. That difference is significant if the
>composer MEANT to have a certain "feel" in the music. If we change the
>metering or the rhythmic composition(infinitely as important as the melodic
>or harmonic composition), we have changed his creation. A variation is
>fine. A variation would be your own composition in HIS theme. But to play
>HIS piece with a changed rhythmic structure is not acceptible to my
>conservative tastes. I am highly respectful of Mozart's skillful use of
>variations on SEVERAL themes by countless other composers. BUT, he wrote
>these pieces to be HIS compositions. And if performed they are intended as
>such, not the original titled theme upon which they were composed.
So, if I change the rhythmic structure of Leyenda, do I get to claim part
of the royalties? Since it's no longer Albeniz's composition, but my
own variation on it?
DC
Thomas F Brown <tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> wrote in message
news:88co40$72a0i$1...@news.jhu.edu...
> >metering or the rhythmic composition(infinitely as important as the
melodic
> >or harmonic composition), we have changed his creation. A variation is
> >fine. A variation would be your own composition in HIS theme. But to
play
> >HIS piece with a changed rhythmic structure is not acceptible to my
> >conservative tastes. I am highly respectful of Mozart's skillful use of
> >variations on SEVERAL themes by countless other composers. BUT, he wrote
> >these pieces to be HIS compositions. And if performed they are intended
as
> >such, not the original titled theme upon which they were composed.
>
> So, if I change the rhythmic structure of Leyenda, do I get to claim part
> of the royalties? Since it's no longer Albeniz's composition, but my
> own variation on it?
>
>
>
I clearly frowned upon making changes to the original score to pass it off
in the same "style" as his composition. That is being untrue to the
composer's work. If you change the meter and make adjustments in the piece
to "flesh out" the work around the meter change and edit it with the
appropriate references to the original composition, it IS your composition.
If, however, we perform the original score, to a tee, and then change the
meter in a certain motif or a certain phrase or passage, then we have
violated the original piece. If it is a new variation, say so. If it is a
performance of the original composition, stay true to the composer's
intentions.
I don't mean to sound antagonistic, but my feathers get a little ruffled
when someone doesn't read my words carefully or misrepresents them.
DC
Larry Deack
> I don't mean to sound antagonistic, but my feathers get a little ruffled
> when someone doesn't read my words carefully or misrepresents them.
Welcome to the barnyard. DC, we seem to do this all the time here.
Perhaps I can help clear one thing up for you when posting to Mr. Brown. He
seems to view most topics in RMCG as if we were talking about jazz rather
than classical. His take on this current topic falls squarely into that
category. Most classical people view the written score as more or less
sacrosanct. Some are fanatical about this as in the HIP movement that seems
to have lost steam theses days (thank God). I think Mr. Brown is reacting to
such "classical snobs" in virtually all his posts. He offers an alternative
model in his own approach. There is something to be said for the idea that a
score is not immutable but I fear Mr. Brown goes beyond this and assumes we
all should adopt his ideas all the time.
#1 Put your conversation in a context like the desire to win a competition
and Mr. Brown's position seems to be on the extreme end of what one would
expect from a competitor playing a required piece. In the classical world
there does seem to be much less room to "do you own thing" in terms of the
actual notes played and even in the interpretation when compared to jazz.
Ivo Pogorelich caught some major flack because of his unusual
interpretations so one could only imagine entering a competition and playing
the score any old way you want to. I doubt that you could win this way, if
that's your goal.
#2 In another context, your person home and for you alone. Now you can play
any old way you want and nobody will say squat. Maybe even for your friends.
they may like how you play it "your way" over the composer's original. Heck,
in some cases the composer might enjoy it with your modifications better
than her original. In private there are no rules. Rules are more about our
public self than the private self.
I think Mr. Brown starts from position #2 with almost every post so if you
are coming from position #1 it may be impossible for you 2 to have any kind
of meaningful exchange of ideas. Good luck in this barnyard and if you
figure it all out let us know because I'm still having lots of fun trying to
communicate in this NG :-)
DC
Larry Deack <lar...@zeno.com> wrote in message
news:aDnq4.1335$B96....@nuq-read.news.verio.net...
Hehehe... I think you're right... The fun here seems to never end!
DC
Larry Deack
> Hehehe... I think you're right... The fun here seems to never end!
Not so sure it fun after a while.
DC
> In article <38a97f8d$1...@news.shreve.net>, DC <noe...@thisaddress.com>
wrote:
> >Well, let's see... If you do not retain the original quality of the
piece,
> >you aren't playing the composer's piece. You are playing your own. If
that
> >is your desire, I recommend studying composition and becoming a composer.
>
> Yes, thank you. I have studied composition and composed a lot of
> music. I'd give more detail, but imy practice is to refrain from
> participating in dick-measuring contests.
>
> >The fact of the matter is this: MOST classical composers wrote their
music
> >to be played the way they created it.
>
> And your basis for this statement is what? Because it doesn't really
> jive with my understanding of music history, in which composers and
> conductors are always modifying other people's compositions for their
> own ends. The notion that a written score has to be reproduced
> faithfully, precisely as written, is a rather recent innovation.
>
> >If they intended for someone to
> >change it at will, they would have "ad libitum" across every phrase or
> >passage.
>
> I think you've invented this factoid.
>
> >I do not feel that one should be "robotic" in their performance of
> >music. I DO, however, respect composers and their creative processes. I
> >have composed some choral pieces that I am very fond of. If someone
wanted
> >to make variations, I would not be opposed to that. I WOULD be opposed
to a
> >school of thought that allowed individuals to run around changing
everything
> >I wrote, willy-nilly, until the piece was no longer the one I wrote.
>
> Then it would be a piece the arranger wrote, and your objections
> would be irrelevant, no?
>
>
You have an uncanny knack for distorting statements and points of view.
How can you compare the composition of a variational piece with the
responsibility of a performer to faithfully extract a composer's work? My
comments about composition are just that - comments about composition. If,
however, you READ my comments, you will see that I refer to changing
original compositions in PERFORMANCE. If you want to go pull a melody from
Chopin and muck it up with your name on the result, please feel free. I
respect that freedom, AND I feel that such activity is VERY valuable to the
musical world. But - and the rest of the readers must forgive me for
repeating myself - when performing a composer's work, if a performer does
NOT play what is written, he or she has damaged the integrity of the
composer's creation. I do feel that there is room for all musicians to
INTERPRET pieces. And where it is appropriate, applicable, and in good
taste, I can condone liberties that do not CHANGE the writings, but possibly
CONTRIBUTE to the piece without departing from the original composer's
imagination.
As for all this talk about jazz, let me just add this: I am not a jazz
musician and never have tried to be. I played trumpet in a little college
jazz ensemble that turned out to be fairly entertaining for the crowds. I
never learned the art of playing jazz, and someday I would like to learn
more about it. By the same token, I feel that therein lies the differences
in our philosophies. I concede the value in interpreting classical themes
in jazz, swing, new age, and other genres of music. The application of that
kind of freedom of thought is what gave us the beauty of the Baroque era.
However, I must reiterate that such work is a separate composition from the
original, and as such, it is not held to the performance responsibility to
be faithful to the original composition. But, If I get on stage to play
Bach's "Air in G", it had better sound like Bach and not DC. If it sounds
like DC, it should be titled appropriately and referenced to the original
theme's composer. "Variations on a Bach Theme by DC" is a completely
different animal than "Air in G" played any old way DC wants to play it. If
you can't see that, then perhaps your perception is a little flawed. I
would recommend some logic or reality of perception classes at your local
school of philosophy.
DC
Thomas F Brown
Larry Deack <lar...@zeno.com> wrote:
>Thomas F Brown wrote
>> Why does it matter? Why draw the line? I play whatever I want
>> however I want.
>
>Most of us like to work with the composer. You don't, that's your choice.
>
>> The composer's intentions are only rough guidelines
>> for me.
>
>Yes, for you. Others have a different way of looking at things. Why is that
>a problem for you?
Who said it's a problem? Vive la difference. I understand why
someone might want to try to reproduce the composer's intentions.
What I don't understand is the pedantic perspective holding
that the composer's intentions should somehow restrict the
performer, or that the performer should even consider the
composer's intentions beyond the degree he finds useful.
> Most composers like real people and are very flexible with interpretation.
>I remember Bill Kanengiser remarking on how liberal Rodrigo was when the
>LAGQ worked with him. My friend P.Q. Phan did not try to impose his view on
>me when I worked on a piece of his with one of my students. The Kronos
>Quartet talked with us after a performance of theirs and told how open most
>of the composers they had worked with were toward changes in the way the
>play the music. This is a synergistic relationship not a dictatorial one as
>you seem to be saying.
I'm not asking about the composer being dictatorial. I'm asking why
performers construe a score as a limiting mechanism.
> Again your attitude is one of superiority of jazz to CG. Why do you post
>here if this is your feeling? It seems as if you are always pretending to
>not care but your posts are all about how terrible CG is and how great jazz
>is.
This is an absurd straw man. I have never made these ridiculous
statements you attribute to me. I rarely even distinguish
between jazz and classical. These categorizations are mainly
useful for knowing where to find a certain artists in the
record store, and not much else.
This post of mine you're responding to doesn't even mention
musical styles. Where did you get this nonsense?
Thomas F Brown
>
>Thomas F Brown <tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> wrote in message
>when someone doesn't read my words carefully or misrepresents them.
My understanding is that if I made such a minor change and then
represented the piece as my own variation, I would be open to
legal charges of plagiarism.
Thomas F Brown
Thomas F Brown
Larry Deack <lar...@zeno.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps I can help clear one thing up for you when posting to Mr. Brown. He
>seems to view most topics in RMCG as if we were talking about jazz rather
>than classical.
My opinions would be considered commonplace in almost every art music
world that has ever existed, not only in jazz. The notion that a
written score is sacrosanct is quite rare. My understanding is that
this perspective exists only in the Western classical tradition of
the 20th century, or perhaps a bit earlier. What is its function?
What purpose does it serve? What good is it?
These are crucial questions. You appear to want to side-step them
by relegating me to the "jazz category", thereby mooting my
dissent by making me an outsider. That won't fly. Either you
can make a case for your position or you can't. Let's see what
you've got.
>#2 In another context, your person home and for you alone. Now you can play
>any old way you want and nobody will say squat. Maybe even for your friends.
>they may like how you play it "your way" over the composer's original. Heck,
>in some cases the composer might enjoy it with your modifications better
>than her original. In private there are no rules. Rules are more about our
>public self than the private self.
Why is it okay to modify a score at home but not in public?
Konstantin Litovsky
Well, of course this is nonsense. The immediate thing coming to my
mind
is Pepe Romero's rendition of none other than Capriccio Arabe.
Heck, he goes "berserk" here - completely rewriting the opening his own
way.
Well, the gates of hell are yet to be opened for him. So what?
J.W. - changing some essential notes in El Ultima Tremolo, some of which
I don't like, and one of which I like so much, that I play it myself.
He goes on to change the prelude to La Cathedral the same way.
Lemme see...Segovia playing the Prelude from the Cello Suite -
using an unknown (Duarte's?) version (I haven't been able to locate this
version anywhere),
adding bass lines, notes left and right - hell, I won't ever be able to
play that, but it sounds good.
Should I go on? (With Segovia its anything by Bach - guitar offered many
interesting
possiblities, and he explored many of them). The idea that original
works are set in stone is that of "purists" --
maybe for some modern compositions it holds true - where the notes where
*placed* in
a certian way, to produce a certain effect. But for composers like
Albeniz,
Bach, and so on, the guitar opens many possibilities, esp. for Bach's
music.
And who said the scores are correct to begin with? I bet every
guitarist
has his own pet version of every piece they play, modified in every way
imaginable.
At least this seems to be true for classical guitar.
Konstantin
Thomas F Brown
Matanya Ophee <m.o...@orphee.com> wrote:
>tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Thomas F Brown) wrote:
>>>The fact of the matter is this: MOST classical composers wrote their music
>>>to be played the way they created it.
>>
>>And your basis for this statement is what? Because it doesn't really
>>jive with my understanding of music history, in which composers and
>>conductors are always modifying other people's compositions for their
>>own ends. The notion that a written score has to be reproduced
>>faithfully, precisely as written, is a rather recent innovation.
>
>often, so blatantly? How recent is your understanding of recent?
Past few hundred years or so. My understanding, as I said in another
post, is that the popular conception of a written score as sancrosanct
dates back not too much before the 20th century.
>would
>Beethoven's outrage at the arrangement of his Serenade op. 8 dating
>from 1796 and its publication as a viola and piano duet by Hoffmeister
>in about 1810 is what you conclude as recent? Do you want even some
>older examples?
I'm sure you can come up with a few more anecdotal examples. However,
anecdotes don't necessarily indicate how the art world of a particular
era conceptualized this issue. It would be trivial to come up with
counterexamples of Beethoven's contemporaries making radical changes
to other people's scores, and you know it.
If you are serious about demolishing my contention, you would need to
show that there was widespread disapproval in the classical music
art world of the early 19th century or before when it came to rearranging
other people's compositions. Isolated instances of outrage are insufficient
to make the case you seem to want to make.
>or do you think a creator's rights to his own creation
>is an invention of 20th century capitalism?
Non sequitur, my friend. We're not talking about intellectual
property rights, or at least we weren't until you brought it
up. But now that the issue's in play:
What conception of "creator's rights" are you referring to?
Apparently it's one that disallows any divergence from a
composer's "intentions". Where is this enshrined in statute?
On another note: Intellectual property rights are not an invention
of 20th century capitalism, I agree. But they are a product of
early capitalism, and enforcement of them is also a rather recent
phenomenon--again, less than three or four centuries old, I
believe.
>Your thoughts on this issue are stupid, irrelevant, misleading and
>entirely unnecessary.
And yet you just can't keep from reading them and responding, can you?
>Just read, for one example, the basic literature
>on Stravinsky to find out how deeply, irreparably wrong you are.
Stravinsky obviously qualifies as a "recent" composer according
to the time depth standard I used.
Thomas F Brown
>
> You have an uncanny knack for distorting statements and points of view.
>How can you compare the composition of a variational piece with the
>responsibility of a performer to faithfully extract a composer's work?
Where did that responsibility come from? What is it useful for?
My
>comments about composition are just that - comments about composition. If,
>however, you READ my comments, you will see that I refer to changing
>original compositions in PERFORMANCE. If you want to go pull a melody from
>Chopin and muck it up with your name on the result, please feel free. I
>respect that freedom, AND I feel that such activity is VERY valuable to the
>musical world. But - and the rest of the readers must forgive me for
>repeating myself - when performing a composer's work, if a performer does
>NOT play what is written, he or she has damaged the integrity of the
>composer's creation.
What's wrong with that? What if the performer changes the piece and
improves it?
>But, If I get on stage to play
>Bach's "Air in G", it had better sound like Bach and not DC. If it sounds
>like DC, it should be titled appropriately and referenced to the original
>theme's composer. "Variations on a Bach Theme by DC" is a completely
>different animal than "Air in G" played any old way DC wants to play it.
You're allowing for only two possibilities:
1) I compose a set of variations on someone else's piece and
claim it as my own.
2) I play his piece exactly as he wrote it.
You're not allowing for anything in between, such as making slight
modifications on someone's piece, or perhaps playing it as he wrote
it and then improvising variations on it, or any number of other
scenarios.
>If
>you can't see that, then perhaps your perception is a little flawed. I
>would recommend some logic or reality of perception classes at your local
>school of philosophy.
What would that teach me about your conception of musical responsibility?
Thomas F Brown
Larry Deack <lar...@zeno.com> wrote:
>Thomas F Brown wrote
>
>> What I don't understand is the pedantic perspective holding
>> that the composer's intentions should somehow restrict the
>> performer, or that the performer should even consider the
>> composer's intentions beyond the degree he finds useful.
>
The poster who calls himself DC.
>Most CGist find it instructive to
>try to follow the composer's intentions.
As do I, but I don't stop there.
>I learned a lot from Bach and all
>the other great composers who's music I play. What you see as pedantic is
>just another's choice so why is that a problem for you? I choose to follow
>the score, you don't. Great, what's the mystery here? You seem to be
>implying some fault on the part of those who choose to follow the score.
>Why? Why can't other people choose to do what they want? Why do you assume
>that others want to dork around with what Bach wrote as opposed to learning
>what Bach has to teach?
Uhh, I'm the one asking those questions in this thread. E.g., why shouldn't
players play what they want? Why shouldn't people take as many "liberties"
as they want with a piece?
>> I'm not asking about the composer being dictatorial.
>> I'm asking why
>> performers construe a score as a limiting mechanism.
>
> Because the composers like it that way? Perhaps they play classical music
>differently in your part of this world. Do you listen to classical music? I
>can only assume that you are not an active CG player since I don't know how
>you could get bookings playing CG repertoire without regard for the
>composer's intensions, unless you play only your own music.
This may be one reason why the CG audience is so tiny, and composed
in such a large part of other classical guitarists.
>> > Again your attitude is one of superiority of jazz to CG.
>>
>> This is an absurd straw man.
>
> Is it? You didn't write this?
>
>"I got my butt in gear when I started playing with jazz musicians.
>You have to know what you're doing to hang with those guys, and
>when you try to play with them it's immediately apparent what
>you don't know and what you have to do to get it. "
Yes, I wrote that in response to someone who asked when people
got their practicing discipline together. It happened for me
when I was a teenager, and I was inspired by jazz musicians
at that point in my life to get practicing. That says nothing
about the relative superiority of jazz vs. classical. It's
something you've inferred, and incorrectly so.
> This is how it appears to me from this quote and many others you've posted
>here I could list. Do you play CG? Do you play jazz? Which do you prefer and
>which are you better at? You can set the record straight for this NG if you
>care to share your background in music with us. As it is with your constant
>focus on improvisation and inability to understand why most CGists respect
>the composer's score it sure sounds like a jazzer's perspective.
The problem is not my perspective. The problem is that no one has bothered
to explain *why* the composer's intentions should take precedence above
all other musical considerations. It seems to be taken for granted by
many folks, who apparently haven't given the matter much thought.
>> I have never made these ridiculous
>> statements you attribute to me. I rarely even distinguish
>> between jazz and classical.
>
> Do you really want more quotes from your postings in the past?
>
>"For me, it was realizing that my musicianship was not adequate to
>play with the musicians I most respected as instrumentalists. And
>those guys were all jazz players."
>
> Am I wrong to conclude from this that you have a preference for jazz
>musicians?
See above. That was a response to a very specific question about a single
moment in my life.
Of course your posts have references to jazz and improvisation
>just as in this thread. Why are you so upset by my observation of your jazz
>preference? Jazz is great and that's where I started to got serious about
>music too, with lessons with Ron Eschete then on to college where I fell in
>love with CG. In the classical world nobody asks why people adhere to the
>score because we have done it for so long it's just accepted as normal. It's
>nice to see that's changing and more performers are getting away from things
>like HIP. How can anybody who knows classical music seriously ask why we
>adhere to the score when the answer is all around you?
The only answer you've given is because "we have done it for so long".
>> This post of mine you're responding to doesn't even mention
>> musical styles. Where did you get this nonsense?
>
> Again from your posts to this NG. If I am incorrect then please let me
>know. I found it useful to view your posts from this perspective rather than
>that of a CGist since you have said very little that relates directly to CG.
My perspective certainly does relate to playing music. You don't seem
to want to deal with it directly. Easier for you to paint me as some
weird outsider--a jazz player--who's challenging the way it's always
been done.
Well, it hasn't always been done this way, and my hunch is that it
won't continue being done this way for much longer. There might be
some value in interrogating your preconceptions of what a music
score can be used for.
> I still don't understand why you got upset with my observation of your jazz
>POV since it seems to resolve many questions like the present one where you
>seem to have difficulty understanding a common approach to classical music
>which is to respect the composer's wishes and play music in public with the
>proper respect for the composer, arranger, transcriber by listing them in
>the program. It's what happens at virtually every classical concert and what
>their audiences expect. Jazz audiences would be horrified to go to a concert
>where there was no attempt by the performers to deviate from the score (or
>chart). The 2 styles start from opposing perspectives in regard to
>improvisation and their respective fans expect them to conform to those
>standards because that's what they paid for.
I don't think you're correct. I don't think most jazz fans would even be
able to tell with any certainly if a musician or group were improvising or
playing something rehearsed. I'm an experienced jazz listener, and I
can't always tell. I think this would also hold true for your average
classical music fan. You could probably recompose their favorite pieces
to a significant extent without even arousing any suspicion, much less
dissent.
> Since you can't seem to understand common practice in the classical world
>and you made a number of posts mentioning your high regard for jazz
>musicians without a corresponding statement about classical musicians why
>are you so surprised that I assume you are a jazz guitarist? If I am wrong
>then please let me know that you are a CGist who has been to many concerts
>like me but you still just don't understand why CGist play the music as
>written. Please also explain how it is that you got to this point because
>even my beginning students know that the score should be followed as much as
>one can. None of my students ever felt they could write as well as the
>composers who wrote the music, so for many it was a shock to hear me play
>around with the music. Some students even ask if it's "legal" to play around
>with classical music, the complete opposite view from yours. I had to
>convince them it was OK but that in public performance it was best to stick
>to the score since that was the way classical was normally presented.
Again, you fall back on one stock answer that doesn't really address
the question, or even take it seriously.
John Philip Dimick
>Chill, bro. Different strokes, ya know? I mean, I can dig the fidelity
>trip and all that, but what gets me is the way some folks have a cow
>about nothing. I mean, I'm like just totally wow. Whatever, dude.
Oh, that's NOT what you said, Tom? But, why should I be restricted to exactly
what you said? Are your exact words sacrosanct? Why should I even consider
what you said, beyond the degree I find useful?
Your answer, Tom, might be: "Because I object to being misrepresented." Or,
more accurately, you might say, "Because you are lying about me!"
I happen to love the music of John Dowland. When someone misrepresents it, it
saddens me. If someone jacks around with Dowland's music and then offers it as
"the music of John Dowland," it's not fair to the memory of Dowland and it's
not fair to the audience. If someone wants to play an "unrestricted" version
of a Dowland piece, then let him say, "Here is an almain after John Dowland."
If the free-spirited version is any good, then let the free spirit take the
credit; and if it sounds like hell, then let it also redound to the credit of
the free-spirit. Why ruin the idea and memory of John Dowland with it?
If you want to play "unrestricted" music, I'm sure no one really minds -- but
don't you think you ought to label it honestly? Sure, there are degrees
individuality in any performance, no matter how faithful the performer intends
to be -- and of course, the mere fact of playing Bach or Dowland or Chopin on
the guitar opens the door to a world of difficult questions -- but that
doesn't seem to be what you are talking about.
And actually, I think I know what you are talking about. If I wanted to
illustrate your argument, I might say something like this: "I like to sing
Hank Williams' songs, but no one is ever going to mistake me for Hank! Still,
I don't think Hank would be much bothered by my renditions. Do I need to
restrict myself to singing every note the way he sang them, strumming every
chord the way he strummed them? I don't think so."
And oh by the way, here's the "restricted" version of what you actually wrote,
Tom.. ;-)
>Who said it's a problem? Vive la difference. I understand why
>someone might want to try to reproduce the composer's intentions.
>What I don't understand is the pedantic perspective holding
>that the composer's intentions should somehow restrict the
>performer, or that the performer should even consider the
>composer's intentions beyond the degree he finds useful.
--
John Philip Dimick
j...@guitarist.com
www.guitarist.com
Vivienne McLaughlin
Thomas F Brown wrote in message <88d2s5$764il$1...@news.jhu.edu>...
>My opinions would be considered commonplace in almost every art music
>world that has ever existed, not only in jazz. The notion that a
>written score is sacrosanct is quite rare. My understanding is that
>this perspective exists only in the Western classical tradition of
>the 20th century, or perhaps a bit earlier. What is its function?
>What purpose does it serve? What good is it?
Perhaps if Mr. Brown gave an example of what *exactly* he is taking
liberties with in specific compositions, we could determine if he is just
playing semantic games or if he really thinks classical compositions are
meant for free and spontaneous improvisation, the kind found in jazz mostly,
and classical not mostly.
For instance, a good example being talked about lately is Koyunaba. I have
heard Lily Ashfar, Antigoni Goni, Will Kanengiser, David Russell and John
Williams all play it differently. John seems to have an entirely different
*arrangement* than Lily and Antigoni altogether. I have heard some play it
with trills that ring until tommorow, and others play it with hardly any at
all. And there are very few performers who play it all alike. Plus, each
player plays the tempo at a very personal pace.
Now, if there is any piece of accepted classical guitar music which stems
from folk and improvisational influences, this one is it. The whole piece
was composed by Domeniconi in a loose, flowing, seemingly improvised manner
(look at many of the arpeggios - they can be rearranged without loosing any
effect). So the ability to improvise is given - but to an extent. The
character, themes, and interpretation must remain sound in order to express
the genius of the piece, unless this fellow is saying his genius in
*arranging* is greater than the composer's gift for composing, which is
suspect.
So the notion of improvisation must be defined. Is this debate merely this
fellow talking about the type of improvisation already obviously evident in
CG, or is he talking about the type of jazz and blues improvisation which is
used for the "common language" needed for musicians to play with each other
in *jazz* sessions. There is a large difference, and an important
distinction, since appreciation of the classical music comes from
appreciating the genius of its composition.
The composer has already taken the liberty of improvising his own work
during the process of drafting it, and has found the final course outlined
in the published composition to be the most satisfying to their genius.
Changing a note or three won't hurt, but running off into spontaneous solos
over improvised and on-the-spot fabrications is usually counterproductive.
So which is it? No one cares if you change the order of arpeggios or notes
in them during Koyunbaba if the overall flavor of the piece adheres to the
many themes and sub-themes which give it character. But I have often found
improvisational works of the jazz type, of classical works like Bach, etc.,
unflattering. Which is why I, and I assume most here, love and play
classical guitar and not jazz guitar, nor do we subscribe to the jazz
newsgroups, as this is not. They are different styles, and trying to
convince us that we should allow jazz-styled improvisations is about as
useless as trying to convince us to buy a steel guitar with f-holes and play
chords with long names.
I am all for liberties, but not when they are at the expense of the
character of the piece. There is something about allowing for the genius of
others which makes playing their music satisfying.
V.
Klaus Heim
news:88dh6l$7bk2i$1...@news.jhu.edu...
>
> What's wrong with that? What if the performer changes the piece and
> improves it?
Improving a piece would always only be your own subjective improvements.
Improving a Bach piece, if you could find one which objectively needs
improving, would call for decades of intimate study of Bach's work, methods
of composition, a consultation of his manuscripts, which is impossible
because most are locked away in Berlin. Maybe you play the wrong repertoire,
that you constantly see a need for improvement. Or maybe you are the genius
who can take composition beyond where Beethoven, Bach or Chopin left off.
> You're not allowing for anything in between, such as making slight
> modifications on someone's piece, or perhaps playing it as he wrote
> it and then improvising variations on it, or any number of other
> scenarios.
What are "slight modifications". Would you overpaint Mona Lisa's hair to
blonde, because you like it better that way?
CG has a few possibilities for improvising/improving. The easiest are the
cadenzas in concerts. Here it is possible to play the original one, add
another or do your own. Another one, which I personally like, is playing
modern pieces, especially those which use aleatorical methods. Maybe you
should take a look at the concepts behind serial and aleatoric music. Some
pieces I can recommend: Brouwer "La Espiral Eterna", Ginastera "Sonata",
Gismonti "Central Guitar", MacCombie "Nightshade Rounds", Petrassi "Nunc".
These pieces leave enough room for your own ideas and interpretations. Try
them out!
Klaus
Matanya Ophee
>In article <qq7kas0atj8l1pqe6...@4ax.com>,
>Matanya Ophee <m.o...@orphee.com> wrote:
>>tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Thomas F Brown) wrote:
>>Why do insist on parading your utter ignorance of music history so
>>often, so blatantly? How recent is your understanding of recent?
>
>Past few hundred years or so. My understanding, as I said in another
>post, is that the popular conception of a written score as sancrosanct
>dates back not too much before the 20th century.
Thank you for confirming my hypothesis that you are a total ignorant
when it comes to the history of music. When you consider the past few
hundred years as recent history, and comparing it to the age of the
universe it is indeed, you fail to recognize that the entire history
of art music, the subject we are discussing, is also not more than a
few hundred years old. So by qualifying "recent history" as the entire
spectrum of art music as we know it, you try to insinuate a specific
attitude towards other people's creation as something new. It isn't.
The main misconception you have is about what you think of as "popular
conception."
It is nothing of the sort. It is a _legal_ concept and if you are not
familiar with, it is time you did some in depth study of the history
of copyright law, or else, surrender your law degree and bar
membership. A written score which is under copyright protection, is
sacrosanct. You make any use whatsoever of it without permission of
the copyright owner, whoever he, she or they happen to be, you are
liable for prosecution. You do anything of the sort to material of
which I am the copyright owner, not only will I sue you, I will also
make sure that as an Officer of The Court, you will be known to all to
have a disgusting disregard for the laws which you are sworn to
uphold.
As for music which is in the public domain, that is another issue. You
can do to it whatever you want, in the privacy of your own home. I am,
without any shadow of a possible doubt, the best guitarist that ever
lived, when no one is listening. But once you go out in the public
arena, you must recognize that if you want to be considered by an
audience, you have to understand that if they do not accept the
violence you choose to do to music created by others, then whatever
you do is meaningless dribble.
>>would
>>Beethoven's outrage at the arrangement of his Serenade op. 8 dating
>>from 1796 and its publication as a viola and piano duet by Hoffmeister
>>in about 1810 is what you conclude as recent? Do you want even some
>>older examples?
>
>I'm sure you can come up with a few more anecdotal examples. However,
>anecdotes don't necessarily indicate how the art world of a particular
>era conceptualized this issue. It would be trivial to come up with
>counterexamples of Beethoven's contemporaries making radical changes
>to other people's scores, and you know it.
Of course I know, and I can supply all the counter arguments,
anecdotal or otherwise. But there is a basic difference here, one
which must have eluded you. When Fernando Sor writes variations on Nel
Cor Piu and gives the work his own Op. 16, without also mentioning
that the tune comes from the opera La Molinara by Giovanni Paisiello,
he is perfectly in tune with the practice of the time. He did not have
to give credit to Paisiello, because everybody knew where the tune
came from. There was no copyright protection at the time to popular
tunes. But when a publisher re-issues a given composition _under the
name of the original composer_ and applies to it whatever
modifications he sees fit, without permission of the composer, that
was grounds for grand mischief, and the number of law suits that
ensued are an integral part of music history. Apparently, they are not
part of legal history.
>What conception of "creator's rights" are you referring to?
>Apparently it's one that disallows any divergence from a
>composer's "intentions". Where is this enshrined in statute?
You try to make an arrangement of anything under copyright without
permission and you will find out, if they catch you. I would strongly
advise you to get yourself a good copyright attorney before embarking
on anything of the sort in public.
>On another note: Intellectual property rights are not an invention
>of 20th century capitalism, I agree. But they are a product of
>early capitalism, and enforcement of them is also a rather recent
>phenomenon--again, less than three or four centuries old, I
>believe.
And how old is the concept of classical music, the one we are talking
about?
>>Your thoughts on this issue are stupid, irrelevant, misleading and
>>entirely unnecessary.
>
>And yet you just can't keep from reading them and responding, can you?
Obviously not. I declared here once before that I need a reason to
ignore you. That reason, your alleged assumed screen name, turned out
to be invalid. As a matter of policy, I ignore posters who hide behind
a screen name, unless I happen to know who they are. I know who is
Trahd, I know who is John E Dove. Someone did know of a jazz guitarist
named Tom Brown and assumed it is you. Perhaps. But what I cannot
ignore, and would not allow to go unchallenged, is the spectre of an
attorney, an Officer of the Court, spewing here ideas which would earn
you an immediate Contempt of Court citation if they were expressed in
open court, and at the very least, are a despicable display of
disregard for the law, encouraging all the newbies around here to
engage in mass violations of composers' intellectual property. You
should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking this way.
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphée, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH, 43235-1226
Phone: 614-846-9517
Fax: 614-846-9794
Check out the Orphée Catalogue at:
http://www.orphee.com
Including the on-line guitar magazine titled: Guitar And Lute Issues
Thomas F Brown
John Philip Dimick <j...@guitarist.com> wrote:
>
>I happen to love the music of John Dowland. When someone misrepresents it, it
>saddens me. If someone jacks around with Dowland's music and then offers it as
>"the music of John Dowland," it's not fair to the memory of Dowland and it's
>not fair to the audience. If someone wants to play an "unrestricted" version
>of a Dowland piece, then let him say, "Here is an almain after John Dowland."
>If the free-spirited version is any good, then let the free spirit take the
>credit; and if it sounds like hell, then let it also redound to the credit of
>the free-spirit. Why ruin the idea and memory of John Dowland with it?
Thank you for taking my argument seriously and addressing it directly.
Your argument is the point where the question of "taking liberties"
begins to intersect with intellectual property rights, or "creators'
rights" as MO put it.
But why should our artistic conception be limited by such restrictions?
Only because if I rearrange Dowland and call it my own composition, no
one is going to sue me. But if I rearrange Villa Lobos and call it my own,
I'm open to legal action. Again, this intersection of musical aesthetics
with the legal process is a fairly recent innovation. Certainly the
musicians of Dowland's era would hardly have thought in such terms.
Why should we?
>If you want to play "unrestricted" music, I'm sure no one really minds -- but
>don't you think you ought to label it honestly?
Sure. But here we're talking about a stream of philosophy that is driven
by capitalistic conceptions of intellectual property rights. Do we
really want our musical aesthetics driven by such extraneous influences?
Is that sort of influence conducive to a healthy art world?
I don't think legal constraints on artistic creativity are a positive
influence, on balance. They may be functional to the extent they
encourage entry into the market, but they cannot be conducive to
creativity or artistic growth, can they?
DC
> In article <kcilas0gbbi4l5r05...@4ax.com>,
> Yes, I'm sure your lawyers are muy macho. I'm duly impressed.
> But I've been addressing performance practices in this thread.
> You're the one who's dragging in intellectual property law.
> Certainly the two domains are interrelated, but they are not
> the same topic, and should not be conflated.
>
> The fact remains that performers of the 19th century routinely
> rearranged and/or reorchestrated the compositions of Bach,
> Beethoven, and many other notables. Their performance editions
> did not demonstrate the respect for the composer's intentions
> that manifests in contemporary common practice.
The The contradiction here is so blatant that I could not let it slip by.
In one paragraph you say that you are referring to performance issues, and
in the other, you pick up the argument from an arranging or reorchestration
aspect. That lack of clarity in your argument is the root of why you cannot
avoid attacks upon your position. All of the posts AGAINST you are because
you cannot differentiate between performance and compositional
responsibilities. Performance of an original work, by ethical standards,
should reflect the composer's creation. Rearranging or reorchestrating that
work is not performance, and is thereby a different composition. It is at
that point that MANY possibilities exist for variation on the original
piece that neither the composer nor the listener would likely object to.
This is precisely the reason I recommended logic study to assist in
clarifying the points that you are arguing. These two paragraphs from you
are the "missing link" we needed to demonstrate, through your own words,
that our position is correct. The same statements that your position is
also correct, IF you could remain clear on which topic you are discussing.
I think most of us would agree that performing a piece by another composer s
hould remain faithful to the composer. And I believe that most of us would
agree that arrangements, variations, or reorchestrations of an original
piece leave the resulting work in a state that would allow room for
improvisation, liberal exploration and interpretation, and even a little
experimentation. You have the right idea, and so do we. Let's just make
sure that we are all on the same page while we argue.
On the whole, Mr. Brown, I feel that your posts are quite insightful.
Now that you have given us a better understanding of why you argue what you
do, perhaps we can come to a mutual agreement.
Bottom line, is that performance, by necessity, requires some restraint
to the piece being performed. In the realm of composition, many freedoms
exist that allow the application of imagination, individuality, and personal
expression, through the changing of the piece.
DC
William Jennings
Klaus Heim wrote:
Robotics
Stefan Dill
"Vivienne McLaughlin" <vah...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
> So the notion of improvisation must be defined. Is this debate merely
this
> fellow talking about the type of improvisation already obviously
evident in
> CG, or is he talking about the type of jazz and blues improvisation
which is
> used for the "common language" needed for musicians to play with each
other
> in *jazz* sessions. There is a large difference, and an important
> distinction, since appreciation of the classical music comes from
> appreciating the genius of its composition.
>
> The composer has already taken the liberty of improvising his own work
> during the process of drafting it, and has found the final course
outlined
> in the published composition to be the most satisfying to their
genius.
> Changing a note or three won't hurt, but running off into spontaneous
solos
> over improvised and on-the-spot fabrications is usually
counterproductive.
>
And yet weren't most cadenzas in classical-era concertos (and some solo
piano pieces too, if Im not mistaken)actually improvised? Here clearly
is a case where the score wasnt sacrosanct; the performer's liberties
were not only encouraged but in fact required. I would dearly love to
see this ability resurface by current artists of any instrument playing
those pieces.
I concur with you that performer's liberties could be allowed up to the
confines of the original context/themes/ideas of a piece. However this
places an extra demand upon the performer for they have to know how to
improvise physically and more importantly should have a well grounded
study in composition as well ( compositional concepts/techniques
being , IMO, the best way to approach improvisation, as composition is
only at its core drafted improvisation as you point out - and therefore
we take the apparent obverse, that improvisation is spontaneous
composition).
So how much is too much? that depends on the skill and taste of the
performer and as i said its a whole other skill to develop. I have no
problem with it being done, it just has to be done WELL, and I dont
think that too many CGs feel they can devote their time to this area to
do it properly. But for me personally, I wish they would ( see a new
thread I started on recordings/rep/live/dead...)
(BTW, most of the pieces I write are extremely open form. It puts the
onus of really making MUSIC fully on the performer, where it should be;
the compositions are merely a (hopefully well-)constructed shell to
allow the performer to realize his/her intrepretive skills).
--
Carry Joy - Build Hope - Offer Love
Stefan Dill, at:
http://www.norumba.com (schedules, reviews, audio samples)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Matanya Ophee
>Thank you for taking my argument seriously and addressing it directly.
>Your argument is the point where the question of "taking liberties"
>begins to intersect with intellectual property rights, or "creators'
>rights" as MO put it.
>
>But why should our artistic conception be limited by such restrictions?
>Only because if I rearrange Dowland and call it my own composition, no
>one is going to sue me. But if I rearrange Villa Lobos and call it my own,
>I'm open to legal action. Again, this intersection of musical aesthetics
>with the legal process is a fairly recent innovation. Certainly the
>musicians of Dowland's era would hardly have thought in such terms.
>Why should we?
Because we live today. And today, that's the law. You are free to
lobby the government to change the law, you are free to launch a
political campaign to change the law, and you are also free to launch
such a campaign in any other jurisdictions which have similar laws,
which, with the exception of China and Russia, seems to be this entire
human planet. But as long as the law is on the books, you, a lawyer of
all people, should respect it and abide by it.
I see. You are in effect lobbying this group for a change of attitude
that will cause the law to be changed. Wrong crowd, counselor, because
changing the law which will give you free license to rip off the work
of others, will deeply hurt not a small number of people in this here
group. Go someplace else. Washington DC will be a good place for you.
>>If you want to play "unrestricted" music, I'm sure no one really minds -- but
>>don't you think you ought to label it honestly?
>
>Sure. But here we're talking about a stream of philosophy that is driven
>by capitalistic conceptions of intellectual property rights. Do we
>really want our musical aesthetics driven by such extraneous influences?
>Is that sort of influence conducive to a healthy art world?
Absolutely. We have come a long way in our efforts to rid us of
parasites and blood suckers like you, and we are not going to sit
there quietly watching you benefit from the work of others. We have
also seen what happens to an art world where capitalistic conceptions
of property rights did not exist, the Soviet Union. To this day, a man
like Nikita Koshkin is trying, without much success, to repair the
damage done to him and his music by the VAAP, the Soviet state agency
in charge of copyrights. They sold him down the street to unscrupulous
dealers in various countries, and now that the entire structure
collapsed, he does not get a dime of royalties for sales of his Soviet
era music, and not a dime for performance mechanicals for things like
the Usher Walse. (Neither do I, BTW. The money goes to the VAAP
agent).
>I don't think legal constraints on artistic creativity are a positive
>influence, on balance. They may be functional to the extent they
>encourage entry into the market, but they cannot be conducive to
>creativity or artistic growth, can they?
Irrelevant question. Legal constraints have nothing to do with
creativity. If you have something to contribute, if you have the
inspiration, the imagination and the knowledge, you can create your
own art. If all you want to do is to induce creativity and artistic
growth on the body of already existing art, there is a medical word to
describe the phenomenon. It is called cancer.
Thomas F Brown
Matanya Ophee <m.o...@orphee.com> wrote:
>Thank you for confirming my hypothesis that you are a total ignorant
>when it comes to the history of music.
You still haven't demonstrated that I've said anything incorrect.
>When you consider the past few
>hundred years as recent history, and comparing it to the age of the
>universe it is indeed, you fail to recognize that the entire history
>of art music, the subject we are discussing, is also not more than a
>few hundred years old.
So we're working with different time depths. Let's not quibble over
that, because it's irrelevant to the question at hand:
I'm arguing that the common conception among performers that
a composer's score, or "intentions", should be considered sacrosanct
is something that developed during the 19th century, and became
solidified as "common practice" not much before the 20th century
at the earliest.
I don't claim to be an expert on classical or romantic music history.
I make the above observation on the basis of nothing more than the
music history courses I took during my years at the Indiana University
School of Music, and a bit of reading on my own. It's possible that
19th century music historiography has changed in the decades since I
studied it, but probably not that much. I don't think my argument
is at all off the wall or revisionist or iconoclastic. It's what
I learned at a venerable and conservative school of music,
and it seemed to be a commonplace opinion when I first
encountered it.
If my argument is incorrect, then point out the flaws. Hurling
insults and whacking straw men does not substitute for
intellectual debate.
>So by qualifying "recent history" as the entire
>spectrum of art music as we know it, you try to insinuate a specific
>attitude towards other people's creation as something new. It isn't.
>The main misconception you have is about what you think of as "popular
>conception."
>
>It is nothing of the sort. It is a _legal_ concept and if you are not
>familiar with, it is time you did some in depth study of the history
>of copyright law, or else, surrender your law degree and bar
>membership. A written score which is under copyright protection, is
>sacrosanct. You make any use whatsoever of it without permission of
>the copyright owner, whoever he, she or they happen to be, you are
>liable for prosecution. You do anything of the sort to material of
>which I am the copyright owner, not only will I sue you, I will also
>make sure that as an Officer of The Court, you will be known to all to
>have a disgusting disregard for the laws which you are sworn to
>uphold.
Yes, I'm sure your lawyers are muy macho. I'm duly impressed.
But I've been addressing performance practices in this thread.
You're the one who's dragging in intellectual property law.
Certainly the two domains are interrelated, but they are not
the same topic, and should not be conflated.
The fact remains that performers of the 19th century routinely
rearranged and/or reorchestrated the compositions of Bach,
Beethoven, and many other notables. Their performance editions
did not demonstrate the respect for the composer's intentions
that manifests in contemporary common practice.
Again, I'm not speaking to questions of publication, about
which I know nothing and couldn't care less.
>Of course I know, and I can supply all the counter arguments,
>anecdotal or otherwise. But there is a basic difference here, one
>which must have eluded you. When Fernando Sor writes variations on Nel
>Cor Piu and gives the work his own Op. 16, without also mentioning
>that the tune comes from the opera La Molinara by Giovanni Paisiello,
>he is perfectly in tune with the practice of the time. He did not have
>to give credit to Paisiello, because everybody knew where the tune
>came from. There was no copyright protection at the time to popular
>tunes. But when a publisher re-issues a given composition _under the
>name of the original composer_ and applies to it whatever
>modifications he sees fit, without permission of the composer, that
>was grounds for grand mischief, and the number of law suits that
>ensued are an integral part of music history. Apparently, they are not
>part of legal history.
Again, this thread until now has been about performance practices,
not publication. That's something you've dragged in on your own.
>>What conception of "creator's rights" are you referring to?
>>Apparently it's one that disallows any divergence from a
>>composer's "intentions". Where is this enshrined in statute?
>
>You try to make an arrangement of anything under copyright without
>permission and you will find out, if they catch you. I would strongly
>advise you to get yourself a good copyright attorney before embarking
>on anything of the sort in public.
Are you talking about performance or publication? About representing
someone else's composition as my work or theirs? What do you mean
by an "arrangement" in this paragraph? You've changed the domain
of the thread so radically that it's difficult to follow the
logic of your argument.
>Obviously not. I declared here once before that I need a reason to
>ignore you. That reason, your alleged assumed screen name, turned out
>to be invalid. As a matter of policy, I ignore posters who hide behind
>a screen name, unless I happen to know who they are. I know who is
>Trahd, I know who is John E Dove. Someone did know of a jazz guitarist
>named Tom Brown and assumed it is you. Perhaps. But what I cannot
>ignore, and would not allow to go unchallenged, is the spectre of an
>attorney, an Officer of the Court, spewing here ideas which would earn
>you an immediate Contempt of Court citation if they were expressed in
>open court, and at the very least, are a despicable display of
>disregard for the law, encouraging all the newbies around here to
>engage in mass violations of composers' intellectual property. You
>should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking this way.
You cannot cite a single instance of my making any such remarks.
You're attacking a straw man of your own creation. Whack that
baby good and hard, Matanya. You can be secure in the knowledge
that it won't hit back.
PS: What attorney are you talking about? I'm not an attorney, and
I've never claimed to be one. I do conduct legal research in my
professional capacity as a scholar, but that's hardly the same thing.
Matanya Ophee
>
>PS: What attorney are you talking about? I'm not an attorney, and
>I've never claimed to be one. I do conduct legal research in my
>professional capacity as a scholar, but that's hardly the same thing.
My apologies, your honor. It was another Brown who claimed to be one.
Them Browns, they all look alike.
Matanya Ophee
>
>
>Matanya, I can't help but relate your debating tactics to your earlier
>claim to have fought for a terrorist organization in your teens.
This is exactly what I said:
English, for me, is a fourth language, one I
refused to learn when I was a member of the Haganah in my teens,
fighting the British Mandate in Palestine.
It is you who characterizes the Haganah as a terrorist organization,
not me. Shows your true colors, a real Brown, I am afraid.
> (If
>you're really only 67 today, and considering that the Haganah was dissolved
>in 1948, that means you couldn't have been more than 15 when you were
>"fighting the British Mandate", or making coffee, or handwashing Moshe
>Dayan's eyepatch, or whatever it was you did for them.)
Your arithmetic is commendable. I was 16 in 1948 and it was me who
stated that I was in my teens at the time. So what's you point? Oh you
doubt I actually did any fighting. I'll tell you what: what I did or
did not do then is none of your business. I am not about to engage
here in war stories. All I said was that the Haganah was fighting the
British and I was a member of it. That should be enough for you.
>Anyway, have fun whacking those straw men of yours. When you're
>ready to discuss the points I raised about music, I'll still be here.
I was afraid of that. Guess nothing to be done. I'll just get a couple
more of Lysol air fresheners. It smells bad around here
Thomas F Brown
Matanya Ophee <m.o...@orphee.com> wrote:
>tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Thomas F Brown) wrote:
>>
>>Matanya, I can't help but relate your debating tactics to your earlier
>>claim to have fought for a terrorist organization in your teens.
>
>This is exactly what I said:
>English, for me, is a fourth language, one I
>refused to learn when I was a member of the Haganah in my teens,
>fighting the British Mandate in Palestine.
>
>It is you who characterizes the Haganah as a terrorist organization,
>not me. Shows your true colors, a real Brown, I am afraid.
That the Haganah was a terrorist organization during your tenure
is common knowledge. From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
After World War II...the Haganah turned to terrorist activities,
bombing bridges, rail lines, and [passenger] ships.
So unless you want to paint the editors of the Britannica as part of
an anti-Zionist conspiracy, you are claiming membership in what is
well-known to have been a terrorist organization during your tenure.
Why is that important here? Because it shows that the facade of
moral outrage you habitually display in this venue is, in reality,
only skin deep.
Again, from the Encyclopedia Britannica:
The Haganah [was illegally] organized to combat the revolts of Palestinian
Arabs against the Jewish settlement of Palestine.
In other words, the Haganah was an outlaw, terrorist organization expressly
intended to provide military support for a group of people who were poaching
the land of another group of people.
You scream like a stuck pig when anyone even raises the idea of
poaching on your intellectual property. Yet you publically claim
membership in a terrorist organization whose primary purpose was
to poach other people's land. That, sir, makes you a hypocrite.
Your facile appeal to the rule of law only applies when the law
supports your own material interests. Otherwise, you demonstrate
no compunctions about violating the rule of law. Apparently,
even terrorism is acceptable to you--as long as it's in your
interest.
I think this proves that your frequent display of moral outrage
is a self-serving sham.
Thomas F Brown
>Thomas F Brown <tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> wrote in message
>news:88ffo1$82bsk$1...@news.jhu.edu...
>>
>> rearranged and/or reorchestrated the compositions of Bach,
>> Beethoven, and many other notables. Their performance editions
>> did not demonstrate the respect for the composer's intentions
>> that manifests in contemporary common practice.
>
>In one paragraph you say that you are referring to performance issues, and
>in the other, you pick up the argument from an arranging or reorchestration
>aspect. That lack of clarity in your argument is the root of why you cannot
>avoid attacks upon your position. All of the posts AGAINST you are because
>you cannot differentiate between performance and compositional
>responsibilities. Performance of an original work, by ethical standards,
>should reflect the composer's creation. Rearranging or reorchestrating that
>work is not performance, and is thereby a different composition. It is at
>that point that MANY possibilities exist for variation on the original
>piece that neither the composer nor the listener would likely object to.
You invoke "responsibilities" and "ethical standards" as if they
are primordial directives. You never address their source. The
argument of mine from which you quote above simply says that such
responsibilities or standards are socially constructed, and of recent
vintage at that. They are clearly not primordial.
This leaves you with the problem of justifying these responsibilities
or standards. Instead, you treat them as a religious manifesto.
>I think most of us would agree that performing a piece by another composer s
>hould remain faithful to the composer.
You seem incapable of explaining why performances should remain faithful.
Other people have taken a crack at it, and come up with three basic
justifications:
1) Personal preference.
Can't argue with that.
2) Truth in advertising.
Fair enough, although there don't seem to be any standards that
tell us how much alteration is acceptable before we should change
the billing, nor do they tell us how to resolve this billing
question with intellectual property laws as they now exist.
3) Intellectual property rights.
Can't argue much with the law either, but this approach
sidesteps the question of musical aesthetics. In fact,
this approach totally subordinates art to the mandates
of the legal process.
You said: "Rearranging or reorchestrating that work is not
performance, and is thereby a different composition."
In fact, rearranging or reorchestration certainly can be accomplished
in performance, especially with solo instrumental music. Whether it
results in a different composition or not seems to me to be a function
of *how much* alteration is made.
How much alteration is acceptable to you before I have to
change the billing? Where does your standard come from?
Why should I adhere to it? How does it interface with
intellectual property doctrine?
Again, you refuse to address these issues. This is not the
first time I've raised any of them, but you still ignore
them.
John Philip Dimick
>>
>>I happen to love the music of John Dowland. When someone misrepresents it, it
>>saddens me. If someone jacks around with Dowland's music and then offers it as
>
>>"the music of John Dowland," it's not fair to the memory of Dowland and it's
>>not fair to the audience. If someone wants to play an "unrestricted" version
>>of a Dowland piece, then let him say, "Here is an almain after John Dowland."
>>If the free-spirited version is any good, then let the free spirit take the
>>credit; and if it sounds like hell, then let it also redound to the credit of
>>the free-spirit. Why ruin the idea and memory of John Dowland with it?
>
>Your argument is the point where the question of "taking liberties"
>begins to intersect with intellectual property rights, or "creators'
>rights" as MO put it.
Etc.
You want to shift the topic to legalities, but I will not follow you there.
Adios.
Vivienne McLaughlin
>And yet weren't most cadenzas in classical-era concertos (and some solo
>piano pieces too, if Im not mistaken)actually improvised? Here clearly
>is a case where the score wasnt sacrosanct; the performer's liberties
>were not only encouraged but in fact required. I would dearly love to
>see this ability resurface by current artists of any instrument playing
>those pieces.
Well, its funny. The most beloved music is usually improvised first, and
then the world wants to hear it played the same way over and again. It is
the contradiction that takes music out of the dance halls, bars, sidewalks,
and picnics (kidding) and pours it into the concrete cultural foundation.
> However this
>places an extra demand upon the performer for they have to know how to
>improvise physically and more importantly should have a well grounded
>study in composition as well ( compositional concepts/techniques
>being , IMO, the best way to approach improvisation, as composition is
>only at its core drafted improvisation as you point out - and therefore
>we take the apparent obverse, that improvisation is spontaneous
>composition).
I have found some of my most expressive playing to come from improvisation.
Actually, for years that is the only guitar style I played. 10 years ago, if
you asked me to play a piece of music from front to back, I could not, since
all I did was scale and arpeggio and chord. This is why I can identify with
alot of modern folk based music like Sakura Var. and Koyunababa. They come
from the heart of improvisation. The problem is, once the world's ears (and
mine too) get wind of it, they want to hear it played within a set of
stringent idealistic settings. Domeniconi and Yucoh certainly *improvised*
folk songs to come up with their respective pieces, but now their improvs
are solidified, and with little wiggle room.
V.
Konstantin Litovsky
> >>Matanya, I can't help but relate your debating tactics to your earlier
> >>claim to have fought for a terrorist organization in your teens.
> >
> >This is exactly what I said:
> >English, for me, is a fourth language, one I
> >refused to learn when I was a member of the Haganah in my teens,
> >fighting the British Mandate in Palestine.
> >
> >It is you who characterizes the Haganah as a terrorist organization,
> >not me. Shows your true colors, a real Brown, I am afraid.
>
> That the Haganah was a terrorist organization during your tenure
> is common knowledge. From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
>
> After World War II...the Haganah turned to terrorist activities,
> bombing bridges, rail lines, and [passenger] ships.
>
> So unless you want to paint the editors of the Britannica as part of
> an anti-Zionist conspiracy, you are claiming membership in what is
> well-known to have been a terrorist organization during your tenure.
Here, Mr. Brown you overstep your authority on the subject.
First of all, you should know just WHO was responsible for
the whole mess -- it was the British. Second, you have no idea
what happened in that part of the world for the past 200 years, so
you should not claim "judgement" on the basis of two lines from
any source that comes from the oppressive regime itself.
And third, why don't you read some books first, before you
start throwing accusations.
> Why is that important here? Because it shows that the facade of
> moral outrage you habitually display in this venue is, in reality,
> only skin deep.
>
> Again, from the Encyclopedia Britannica:
>
> The Haganah [was illegally] organized to combat the revolts of Palestinian
> Arabs against the Jewish settlement of Palestine.
>
> In other words, the Haganah was an outlaw, terrorist organization expressly
> intended to provide military support for a group of people who were poaching
> the land of another group of people.
Suspend your jugement until you know more facts - you will be laughed
at by those who know a lot more about what really happened in Palestine
at the time.
> You scream like a stuck pig when anyone even raises the idea of
> poaching on your intellectual property. Yet you publically claim
> membership in a terrorist organization whose primary purpose was
> to poach other people's land. That, sir, makes you a hypocrite.
>
> Your facile appeal to the rule of law only applies when the law
> supports your own material interests. Otherwise, you demonstrate
> no compunctions about violating the rule of law. Apparently,
> even terrorism is acceptable to you--as long as it's in your
> interest.
Don't go too far in your ignorance.
> I think this proves that your frequent display of moral outrage
> is a self-serving sham.
This is not funny any more.
Konstantin
Larry Deack
> You want to shift the topic to legalities, but I will not follow you
there.
> Adios.
Mr. Brown seems intent on picking fights with anybody and everybody in this
NG. I find his latest posts to Matanya to be beyond any reasonable exchange
of ideas. Like you, JPD, I say Adios, Mr. Brown.
Stefan Dill
"Vivienne McLaughlin" <vah...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> I have found some of my most expressive playing to come from
improvisation.
> Actually, for years that is the only guitar style I played. 10 years
ago, if
> you asked me to play a piece of music from front to back, I could
not, since
> all I did was scale and arpeggio and chord. This is why I can
identify with
> alot of modern folk based music like Sakura Var. and Koyunababa. They
come
> from the heart of improvisation. The problem is, once the world's
ears (and
> mine too) get wind of it, they want to hear it played within a set of
> stringent idealistic settings. Domeniconi and Yucoh certainly
*improvised*
> folk songs to come up with their respective pieces, but now their
improvs
> are solidified, and with little wiggle room.
>
> V.
>
>
that you don't anymore.Maybe there are more CGists who actually do but
feel they can't get away with it; too bad. Ive posted elsewhere my
views that this could be a way to inject some life into the scene. I
say, take a chance, delight and surprise your audience - if you play
from the soul, no holds barred, THAT transcends notes or scores or form.
Ive "toned down" my work in many circumstances only to find that when I
let go and take it somewhere, people respond - even if its a codffee
house gig. this has happened to me so often that i finally dont
underestimate the audience anymore...
best,
Konstantin Litovsky
>
> In article <38AC1E...@mediaone.net>,
> Konstantin Litovsky <lito...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >Thomas F Brown wrote:
> >
> >> >>Matanya, I can't help but relate your debating tactics to your earlier
> >> >>claim to have fought for a terrorist organization in your teens.
> >>
> >> is common knowledge. From the Encyclopedia Britannica:
> >>
> >> After World War II...the Haganah turned to terrorist activities,
> >> bombing bridges, rail lines, and [passenger] ships.
> >>
> >what happened in that part of the world for the past 200 years, so
> >you should not claim "judgement" on the basis of two lines from
> >any source that comes from the oppressive regime itself.
> >And third, why don't you read some books first, before you
> >start throwing accusations.
>
> it? If not, then what is your point?
I will not bother. You have no clue what you are talking about --
and there are volumes to read before you can catch up.
I can't tell you all the history behind this, and even if I did,
you wouldn't understand. So, lets stay on topics here --
wanna spank MO? Go ahead, but don't bring in "evidence"
that you have not the slightest idea about. I bet MO won't
even answer you concerning this for the same reason.
To him your accusation probably sounds childish.
Konstantin
P.S. What you are saying sounds something like "Russian partisans were
bandits who
blew up innocent soldiers of Wermaht, and terrorized the civilians who
collaborated
with the soldiers of Wermaht."
Thomas F Brown
Konstantin Litovsky <lito...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> >Here, Mr. Brown you overstep your authority on the subject.
>> > you have no idea
>> >what happened in that part of the world for the past 200 years, so
>> >you should not claim "judgement" on the basis of two lines from
>> >any source that comes from the oppressive regime itself.
>> >And third, why don't you read some books first, before you
>> >start throwing accusations.
>>
>> I've just quoted to you from a book I've read. Can you refute
>> it? If not, then what is your point?
>
>I will not bother. You have no clue what you are talking about --
>and there are volumes to read before you can catch up.
>I can't tell you all the history behind this, and even if I did,
> you wouldn't understand.
Rather presumptuous of you to assume that everyone who disagrees
with your political outlook is ignorant. The bottom line? You're
just like Matanya. You make unwarranted, insulting accusations
that you cannot back up. Then when challenged you disappear and
sulk in a corner. Good riddance to bullies like you.
>I bet MO won't
>even answer you concerning this for the same reason.
MO won't answer because he always disppears whenever anyone stands
up to him. That's why I compare him to a terrorist--he throws
rhetorical bombs, then vanishes when the army shows up to
defend its position.
>P.S. What you are saying sounds something like "Russian partisans were
>bandits who
>blew up innocent soldiers of Wermaht, and terrorized the civilians who
>collaborated
>with the soldiers of Wermaht."
Wrong analogy. The Russians were defending their country against
invaders. The Haganah were fostering the settlement of immigrant
European Jews on land that was already spoken for. The Palestinian
participants in the Arab Revolts are a closer analogue to the Russian
partisans, if you insist on an analogy.
Thomas F Brown
>Actually, the bottom line is that you, Mr. Brown, must always find some
>straw to grasp that seemingly justifies your defiance against any postion
>but your own. You accuse MO for reacting to people who stand against his
>positions, but you cannot stand for someone to disagree with yours. The
>fact of the matter is that you are the type of person who wants to argue for
>the sake of arguing, whether you are correct or not. The folly of most of
>your arguments does not lie within your ability to debate, but rather in the
>root logic behind those positions.
This is the third time you've pulled this condescending "you need to
take a logic course" nonsense on me. I ignored it the first
two times and addressed what substance your argument contained.
You have yet to address *any* of the substantive questions I've raised.
In fact, you've totally ignored them in favor of straw man attacks
and snide criticisms of my logic skill. What is your purpose in this
thread, anyway? Why are you posting if you don't want to talk about
the issues being raised?
I've been exceedingly civil to you in the face of your repeated
insults against my logic skills, and look what it's got me--a pissy
little scolding and a kiss-off. Good riddance to you.
>A perfect example is your inability or
>unwillingness to accept that composition and performance are two vastly
>different activities.
Not to people who know how to improvise. Just because you have never
experienced the integration of composition and performance doesn't
mean that it is fictional.
> So, the "bottom line", as you say, is the fact that has caused several
>people to begin considering you persona non grata. If you can only spew
>belligerent comments without discussing a particular topic, and must resort
>to personal attacks on a person's life history without having the knowledge
>and research to FULLY back up your statements, then you are indeed someone
>who should not be listened to.
You would have to search far and wide to find me ever engaging in
ad hominem attacks. I make an exception for MO, because he is--by
anyone's standard--a Special Case. I employed ad hominem against him
only after great provocation, and only in order to point out his vast
hypocrisy.
I would challenge you to find a single other instance of me ever doing that
to anyone else in this ng. I'm not even going to do it to you. Why waste good
ad hominem on someone who can't appreciate it? At least MO is a connossieur
and a skilled practitioner. I wouldn't spank him if I didn't like and respect
him. You don't rate that kind of consideration.
You also might consider your own hypocrisy in criticizing me on
this account, but I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
> I for one will join the group ignoring you from this post on.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Vivienne McLaughlin
>The classical/jazz dichotomy is not one that I see useful.
Joe Pass and Miles Davis do not compare, IMO, to Vivaldi, Mozart or Bach.
Just writing that sentence seems silly. And if you tell players it is
alright to do what Bach did with the courante, gavotte, chaconne, etc., with
improvisation, you are encouraging them to believe that they have the
ability of Bach himself, or worse, Miles or Joe, and can rework the art and
expand on it. That is as ridiculous as saying "Because Michaelangelo
reworked classical Greco-Roman sculpture and expanded on Donatello, I too
can rework 'David', and should". How many do you think have the talent to
successfully embark on that? It seems you think that every player can do it.
And worse, should.
> The fact is that
>baroque and classical era composers were often known for being prodigious
>improvisers. Performers of those eras apparently felt free to take
>improvisational liberties with anyone's compositions.
That is evident. Though, we are not living in the baroque era. We are living
in a time of growth for the classical guitar (I hope). What constitutes
modern classical guitar is its tradition of playing classical compositions
on guitar. The repertoire is not a subjective part of this, it is the ONLY
part of it. The character of the repertoire is what differentiates the
beauty of the instrument and its style from other guitar styles, and what
makes it attractive to many. It would not be attractive to me if played in
the manner of the modern fusion guitarist.
I have nothing against jazz or whatever. I play fingerstyle folk guitar too.
And I might even throw in a chord or two from Bach, because the whole notion
of bluegrass guitar is improvisational fingerpicking and soloing over
certain themes and rhythms and chords. But the process of learning the CG
and bluegrass are entirely different. Players approach CG because of the
challenge and beauty of the repertoire, the ability to play and partake in
classical music, and the satisfaction of playing that particular style.
>The notion that the score is sacrosanct, the way we understand it today,
>would have been fairly alien to those folks.
Yes. Obviously. But those folks - the composers - were but a small few of
extremely gifted people. The vast majority of players, then and today, can
not play the way they did.
The culture which helped create Bach compositions is not alive today. It is
being preserved, as much as possible, through classical music. There will
never be another Mozart. And encouraging people to rewrite or improvise
Mozart the way he improvised whole compositions is demeaning to the
preservation of the art. Only in rare cases does it succeed, and due to the
rarity, those few works that can improvise over Mozart too become sacrosanct
within the repertoire. Sor and the "Magic Flute" for instance. Tarrega (the
Chopin Nocturne, even RDLA as we have seen here, was most likely taken from
flamenco improvs and standards) was popular in his influential little circle
for doing just. But they are the exception.
>My question in this thread is--what good is it? What benefit do we
>realize from this fairly recent innovation that upholds the written
>score as the ultimate realization of a composition?
The benefit of preserving the arts. There is a difference between your
notion of discovery in art and the societal notion of cultural art as a
linear tradition. It is just as important to look backward as it is to look
forward.
V.
Vivienne McLaughlin
>Thomas Brown wrote:
>> But whatever the causes, is it impossible to reverse the trend? Hell,
>> no! There are many improvisational art worlds that are flourishing
>> today. There's no reason the classical world, and the CG world
>> in particular, has to stick with this conservative, defensive
>> stance. Things could easily be different, and will be if this
>> art world is to survive. Either the classical world begins to
>> embrace creativity in all its varied manifestations, or it will
>> die a long, slow death.
>
>This is exhortative prose, rhetorical to the bone. It implores its
>audience to abandon that bad old philosophy, that which is conveniently
>caricatured as taking a 'conservative defensive stance' while it tries to
>leverage in its own new order of things. Naturally, this new order is cast
>as unproblematic. It somehow a lush creativity flourishes all around us,
>yet withers in our parched wilderness.
Well put. This is exactly the feeling I get from his statements. He does a
good job of painting the conservative label on all us liberals - all two of
us.
V.
Vivienne McLaughlin
>>
>> But whatever the causes, is it impossible to reverse the trend? Hell,
>> no! There are many improvisational art worlds that are flourishing
>> today. There's no reason the classical world, and the CG world
>> in particular, has to stick with this conservative, defensive
>> stance. Things could easily be different, and will be if this
>> art world is to survive. Either the classical world begins to
>> embrace creativity in all its varied manifestations, or it will
>> die a long, slow death.
>>
Is it easy for you, on solo guitar, to improvise classical music? Just
wondering. I can't do it, and I can play CG *and* improvise Hendrix's
'Voodoo Child', which is the improv of his 'Catfish Blues', which is the
improv of Muddy Water's improvs like "Rolling Stone". It is easy to compound
bend the 4th to the 5th, pluck the low E and octave, double stop an E5,
slide from 4th to 5th or 7th to 1st, and repeat or select to do a cadenza
walking down chromatically from the 7th to the 5th and landing on the tonic.
That is pretty easy. Formulaic. I mean, even the solo is spelled out. Scale
runs, pentatonics, hexatonics, blues scales, mixolydians. Lather, rinse,
repeat.
I imagine with classical improv, you have to consider first the fine art of
counterpoint. You need two brains for that! Plus, how do you decide whether
to use one voicing over another on an adjacent string? Or position? Is that
a split second decision, or do you plan ahead during the double-brain
counterpoint? I suppose, collectively, we should need up to three brains
now. What about the colors? Should I place tinny sounds on all the quite
parts or should I use more dolce? Shucks. What about mixing colors? You
know - ponticello on the high notes or dolce for the ones closer to 1st
position? Crap. Do I use rubato, or play the whole thing that way? As to
chords, should I refer to chord shapes that are immediately familiar or rely
on scrambling through my chord finder while playing to determine the best
embellishments for the job? Four. So many questions. Is improvised classical
guitar still classical guitar?
Lastly, it is almost impossible to compose for the instrument in slow, very
slow, very, very slow increments of note to note, measure to measure. How do
you do that at tempo? I think we are up to five brains now.
V.
Bob Ashley
> Where is the moral exhortation? I don't see it. This is not preaching,
> it's predicting the future. Both are acts of faith, but they are not
> identical.
The exhortation resides and flourishes in the attempt 'persuade' an
audience that there is a better way and to try to call that audience to
action which you prescribe. Anytime you evaluate anything in terms of
'good' or 'bad', you are in the realm of morality. Further, its sense of
urgency and apocalypse surely remove your post from the perspective of
neutral prognostication into the capital city of exhortation. I invite you
to submit this post to group, asking whether they felt it 'preached' to
them or not. If that wasn't your intention, then a conflict roils between
what you think, what you write, and how it is received. Meaning is the sum
of author and audience. You are not alone in this. We all bugger it up,
all of us, mostly everyday too. So, I'm not pointing on you, merely
welcoming you to our mess of misunderstandings.
Thomas wrote:
> But when conservation starts to overwhelm innovation, it's the
> sign of a art world in its death throes. I'm not arguing that
> classical music is at that point just yet, but I see the signs.
> When I go to the classical section of my local Big Box Culture
> Vendor and see endless recordings of the same few pieces, it strikes
> me as representing stagnation.
Well, I think you're right; changes are afoot. Big changes, too. What I'm
most hesitant to do, however, is to take a evaluative stand, one way or
the other. Thus,
overwhelm = negative connotation, presupposes sentient evil agency
death throes= rhetorical trope- negative hyperbole
Big Box Culture- negative critical metonymy
endless - rhetorical trope - hyperbole
same few pieces- presupposes emaciation - negative diminuition
strikes - negative metaphor of violence
stagnation - negative metaphor of decay
To me, this list doesn't really say much about the state of classical
music, but most excellently it tells about the anxieties and tastes of its
author.
Regards,
Rib
Bob Ashley
> Bob Ashley wrote in message ...
> >Thomas Brown wrote:
> >> But whatever the causes, is it impossible to reverse the trend? Hell,
> >> no! There are many improvisational art worlds that are flourishing
> >> today. There's no reason the classical world, and the CG world
> >> in particular, has to stick with this conservative, defensive
> >> stance. Things could easily be different, and will be if this
> >> art world is to survive. Either the classical world begins to
> >> embrace creativity in all its varied manifestations, or it will
> >> die a long, slow death.
> >
> >This is exhortative prose, rhetorical to the bone. It implores its
> >audience to abandon that bad old philosophy, that which is conveniently
> >caricatured as taking a 'conservative defensive stance' while it tries to
> >leverage in its own new order of things. Naturally, this new order is cast
> >as unproblematic. It somehow a lush creativity flourishes all around us,
> >yet withers in our parched wilderness.
>
> Well put. This is exactly the feeling I get from his statements. He does a
> good job of painting the conservative label on all us liberals - all two of
> us.
Ha, that was a good one. Caught me by surprise.
Regards,
Rib
Klaus Heim
news:nZRr4.210$zu3....@news3.mia...
> -edit-
>
> Lastly, it is almost impossible to compose for the instrument in slow,
very
> slow, very, very slow increments of note to note, measure to measure. How
do
> you do that at tempo? I think we are up to five brains now.
>
> V.
This gets me thinking. Somewhere else you related how you compose, or rather
learned to compose. Taking a melody, imitating it, then changing it. Per se
would this not be improvisation, even as you say very slow? Theoretically,
what would happen if you had a few hundred years of practice, getting it up
to speed?
Klaus
Mark Lee
> > it's predicting the future. Both are acts of faith, but they are not
> > identical.
>
> The exhortation resides and flourishes in the attempt 'persuade' an
> audience that there is a better way and to try to call that audience to
> action which you prescribe. Anytime you evaluate anything in terms of
> 'good' or 'bad', you are in the realm of morality.
I don't want to seem to be picking at a nit, because what you say, Bob, is
quite important. I'd suggest that sometimes when a person evaluates a thing
in terms of 'good' or 'bad,' it may be merely an exercise of taste. Orange
would be a bad color for my living room. It would not be immoral, just bad
taste in the context of Mark Lee.
>
Further, its sense of
> urgency and apocalypse surely remove your post from the perspective of
> neutral prognostication into the capital city of exhortation. I invite you
> to submit this post to group, asking whether they felt it 'preached' to
> them or not. If that wasn't your intention, then a conflict roils between
> what you think, what you write, and how it is received. Meaning is the sum
> of author and audience. You are not alone in this. We all bugger it up,
> all of us, mostly everyday too. So, I'm not pointing on you, merely
> welcoming you to our mess of misunderstandings.
And that, in the final analysis, is the magic of Bob Ashley: A call to
intellectual repentence clothed in a soothing paragraph. I would (finally)
suggest that there's a thin line, if one exists at all in the minds of most
people, between preaching and persuasive argument. If you remove the
element of morality, it may just be the latter after all.
--
=============================================
Mark Lee - ml...@allwest.net - www.allwest.net/leefamily
Pain just means you're not dead yet. Ouch. Hooray.
Bob Ashley
> I don't want to seem to be picking at a nit, because what you say, Bob, is
> quite important. I'd suggest that sometimes when a person evaluates a thing
> in terms of 'good' or 'bad,' it may be merely an exercise of taste. Orange
> would be a bad color for my living room. It would not be immoral, just bad
> taste in the context of Mark Lee.
This is not pit-nicking, Mark. Not at all. I think we have simple
explanation before us, however, and that is that the word 'bad' has quite
a few denotation (and connotative) meanings, appropriate to this or that
situation or context. The sense I am calling upon, and that which I
believe Thomas was calling upon, is 'wrong'. The sense you are refering to
is 'unbecoming' or 'unattractive'. There is no monolithic meaning.
If you review the message I was criticizing you may find that the
meaning of bad has little to do with 'bad' hair, 'bad' floral
arrangements, or to borrow your instance, 'bad' orange. No, his call was
to say that is 'wrong' for CG to remain stuck in their conservatism,
'wrong' that it should be allowed to 'overwhelm' creativity.
There is nothing 'bad', of course, about making statements like these.
Sheesh we all do it. My aim was merely to point out, that much like this
present post, the moral judgement--that CG-ers 'ought' to be more
liberal-- is not a critical statement about music.
Mark Lee wrote:
> And that, in the final analysis, is the magic of Bob Ashley: A call to
> intellectual repentence clothed in a soothing paragraph. I would (finally)
> suggest that there's a thin line, if one exists at all in the minds of most
> people, between preaching and persuasive argument. If you remove the
> element of morality, it may just be the latter after all.
On all points, I hail ye! Quick-eyed and nimble of wit and wisdom, thou
art.
Regards,
Rib
Vivienne McLaughlin
>This gets me thinking. Somewhere else you related how you compose, or
rather
>learned to compose. Taking a melody, imitating it, then changing it. Per se
>would this not be improvisation, even as you say very slow? Theoretically,
>what would happen if you had a few hundred years of practice, getting it up
>to speed?
Then I would be in a position to improvise freely the classical guitar the
way Mozart and Bach did it on keyboards. Of course, I am sure someone
somewhere can do it, just not the majority of us. And theoretically, yes, I
would support all centenarians (esp. quintuple lobed ones) right to
improvise classical guitar music.
Improvising is composing on the fly, isn't it. I suppose people think they
can wing a bunch of house paint on a pre-stretched canvas with a stick and
make something as good as a Pollack. I bet Mr. Brown can (can not).
V.
Stefan Dill
slow, very
> slow, very, very slow increments of note to note, measure to measure.
How do
> you do that at tempo? I think we are up to five brains now.
>
> V.
>
>
simply a matter of training. You do have to think compositionally: i.e,
theme and development, as opposed to scales over chords. The trick is
to start very small if its going to be a completely improvised
performance. Take 3 to 7 notes. Start by rythmically altering the cell
and/or octave displacement of one or all the notes. Rythmically alter
THAT, subdivide ( i.e. create smaller cells), rhythmically alter yet
again, recombine/intersperse with all of the above. Harmony is
generated by combining as many or as few of the tones in the cell as
you want and/or altering familiar chord shapes to include those tones.
Same with counterpoint; any variation of the cell can be played with
any other variation of the cell.Colour choices are made on the fly.
Trick is, if you havent picked a very good set of notes initially, then
you're completely screwed!!!<g>
To avoid this,I prefer to have a bit of pre planning, sometimes a lot.
I usually write a pretty thorough piece. "Ground zero" is either 1) 9
or 10 note rows,( i dont like a full 12 tone row, I like the clarity
of "something missing", seems to define it more) or 2) some melody or
cell that comes to me, and then Ill expand and derive a 9 or 10 note
row from that.
Again, harmony is generated from this initial content:In other words,
you have any given number of half and whole steps in a certain line,no?
not neccessarily adjacent, but thats O. K... so what happens when you
arrange these tones vertically and make cluster melodies or chords or
additional themes or rows that in turn generate additional or secondary
themes...I analyze the initial material for the intervallic content,
try melodic/harmonic/contrapuntal material out based from that (quite
often not all of it works, so theres a lot of discarding at this
point). This in turn might generate a row or secondary melody, and it
just keeps going; you start discovering a lot of lines and figures that
interrelate or can easily link to each other..
From that point I start paring down, really finding out what works and
what doesnt. Then settle on a smallish number of what I thought were
the best items that not only are good on their own but work well
together(which will usually include the initial generative cells,
melody line or two, plus counterpoint, a cluster melody, a few rhythmic
motifs, and full chords). Ideally, it should physically lay well on the
guitar , too.
The challenge is in performance. The pieces are notated using only
alphabet letters, no music staff or fingerings, as register options are
at the discretion of the performer(though there is a way to notate
specific voicings for certain chords). This means you can set the score
in front of an orchestra, a big band, a string quartet, solo piano, etc
and guide them through it - you can have for example the brass set up
one of the rhythm cells while the strings work line 1 while the winds
do cluster melody 2...or any other combination. It may take a bit of
rehearsal to see what works, but musically its surpisingly cohesive
because it all stems from the same material - very organic).
The performer is expected to develop the piece further by improvising
and expanding on the given material. The additional challenge is that
the performer is also responsible for the actual FORM of the piece;
balancing and juxtaposing all the elements in addition to their
development. So you're not only improvising content but form as well -
You can start with line 1,
go to rhythm cell 2, back for half of 1 and then -etc..(but you have to
work and develop each individual element at the same time).
Next performance might be completely different.
Nothing new here, it's all been done before, but its simply how i like
to work. Whether its still classical guitar? Ive no idea, and to me it
doesnt matter. Depends on what the performer does with it. They could
interpret the given material in any period style they like, i suppose;
would that make it "classical" then?
best,
Stefan
Thomas F Brown
John Philip Dimick <j...@guitarist.com> wrote:
> tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Thomas F Brown) wrote:
>>>credit; and if it sounds like hell, then let it also redound to the credit of
>>>the free-spirit. Why ruin the idea and memory of John Dowland with it?
>>
>>Thank you for taking my argument seriously and addressing it directly.
>>Your argument is the point where the question of "taking liberties"
>>begins to intersect with intellectual property rights, or "creators'
>>rights" as MO put it.
>
>Etc.
>
>Adios.
Smart fellow; good choice. We don't want to awake the sleeping bear.
Thomas F Brown
Vivienne McLaughlin <vah...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Thomas F Brown wrote in message <88naq0$au3or$1...@news.jhu.edu>...
>>The classical/jazz dichotomy is not one that I see useful.
>
>Joe Pass and Miles Davis do not compare, IMO, to Vivaldi, Mozart or Bach.
>Just writing that sentence seems silly.
There are significant parallels between bebop and baroque, that
have been observed may times before by many people. Both styles
are highly improvisational; in both, melodic material is developed
from chord progressions; both styles are constructed from a
predetermined vocabulary of melodic and harmonic formulae, etc.
And if you tell players it is
>alright to do what Bach did with the courante, gavotte, chaconne, etc., with
>improvisation, you are encouraging them to believe that they have the
>ability of Bach himself, or worse, Miles or Joe, and can rework the art and
>expand on it. That is as ridiculous as saying "Because Michaelangelo
>reworked classical Greco-Roman sculpture and expanded on Donatello, I too
>can rework 'David', and should". How many do you think have the talent to
>successfully embark on that? It seems you think that every player can do it.
>And worse, should.
I am astonished at your perspective. Mastery is a process, not a
prerequisite. You seem to suggest that one needs to be a genius
even to participate in this work. In nearly all art worlds, novices
learn by imitating their masters. They become masters themselves
by developing their own style.
>> The fact is that
>>baroque and classical era composers were often known for being prodigious
>>improvisers. Performers of those eras apparently felt free to take
>>improvisational liberties with anyone's compositions.
>
>That is evident. Though, we are not living in the baroque era. We are living
>in a time of growth for the classical guitar (I hope). What constitutes
>modern classical guitar is its tradition of playing classical compositions
>on guitar. The repertoire is not a subjective part of this, it is the ONLY
>part of it. The character of the repertoire is what differentiates the
>beauty of the instrument and its style from other guitar styles, and what
>makes it attractive to many. It would not be attractive to me if played in
>the manner of the modern fusion guitarist.
>
>>The notion that the score is sacrosanct, the way we understand it today,
>>would have been fairly alien to those folks.
>
>
>Yes. Obviously. But those folks - the composers - were but a small few of
>extremely gifted people. The vast majority of players, then and today, can
>not play the way they did.
This is simply incorrect. Anyone can learn to play in any style
of music. It seems requires a bit of self-discipline.
>The culture which helped create Bach compositions is not alive today. It is
>being preserved, as much as possible, through classical music. There will
>never be another Mozart. And encouraging people to rewrite or improvise
>Mozart the way he improvised whole compositions is demeaning to the
>preservation of the art. Only in rare cases does it succeed, and due to the
>rarity, those few works that can improvise over Mozart too become sacrosanct
>within the repertoire. Sor and the "Magic Flute" for instance. Tarrega (the
>Chopin Nocturne, even RDLA as we have seen here, was most likely taken from
>flamenco improvs and standards) was popular in his influential little circle
>for doing just. But they are the exception.
These exceptions would not even exist if someone hadn't had the huevos
to create them in the first place. Where will the exceptions of the next
generation come from if people are afraid to create because they think
they can never measure up to the greats of the past?
Thomas F Brown
>> it's predicting the future. Both are acts of faith, but they are not
>> identical.
>
>The exhortation resides and flourishes in the attempt 'persuade' an
>audience that there is a better way and to try to call that audience to
>action which you prescribe. Anytime you evaluate anything in terms of
>'good' or 'bad', you are in the realm of morality.
And I have made such value judgments in this thread? Where?
>Further, its sense of
>urgency and apocalypse surely remove your post from the perspective of
>neutral prognostication into the capital city of exhortation. I invite you
>to submit this post to group, asking whether they felt it 'preached' to
>them or not. If that wasn't your intention, then a conflict roils between
>what you think, what you write, and how it is received. Meaning is the sum
>of author and audience. You are not alone in this. We all bugger it up,
>all of us, mostly everyday too. So, I'm not pointing on you, merely
>welcoming you to our mess of misunderstandings.
Yes, good point. On the other hand, there a several spin doctors
here--including you--who seem intent on distorting my message
and thus biasing the community's reception of it. Further, my
message is not cast in stone, but evolves day to day in response
to the conversation.
I appreciate that you respect my message enough to subject it
to a literary deconstruction, but it's only conversation, not
a published manifesto. I think you give it more credence
than it deserves.
>overwhelm = negative connotation, presupposes sentient evil agency
>
>death throes= rhetorical trope- negative hyperbole
>
>Big Box Culture- negative critical metonymy
>
>endless - rhetorical trope - hyperbole
>
>same few pieces- presupposes emaciation - negative diminuition
>
>strikes - negative metaphor of violence
>
>stagnation - negative metaphor of decay
>
>To me, this list doesn't really say much about the state of classical
>music, but most excellently it tells about the anxieties and tastes of its
>author.
Uhh, Bob, my good friend, *you* are the author of this list. So what
are you trying to tell us about your anxieties and tastes?
Thomas F Brown
Vivienne McLaughlin <vah...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>Is it easy for you, on solo guitar, to improvise classical music? Just
>wondering. I can't do it, and I can play CG *and* improvise Hendrix's
>'Voodoo Child', which is the improv of his 'Catfish Blues', which is the
>improv of Muddy Water's improvs like "Rolling Stone". It is easy to compound
>bend the 4th to the 5th, pluck the low E and octave, double stop an E5,
>slide from 4th to 5th or 7th to 1st, and repeat or select to do a cadenza
>walking down chromatically from the 7th to the 5th and landing on the tonic.
>That is pretty easy. Formulaic. I mean, even the solo is spelled out. Scale
>runs, pentatonics, hexatonics, blues scales, mixolydians. Lather, rinse,
>repeat.
>
>I imagine with classical improv, you have to consider first the fine art of
>counterpoint. You need two brains for that!
First, not all classical music is contrapuntal, even in Bach. Second,
contrapuntal music need not be complex. Even some saxophonists improvise
cntrapuntally, implying two voices in a single line. Third, almost any
improvising musician relies on formulae and preconceived material,
recombining it into a fresh composition. One can develop a vocabulary
of contrapuntal possibilities for improvisation.
But to answer your question, yes, I can improvise classical and
baroque-sounding music, but I don't do it very often because those
are historical styles and I am living in the present, which offers
so many more choices. But I am aware of the formulae that baroque
musicians used, and I can recombine them or imitate them to some
extent. It's hard for me to remain in that style while improvising,
though, because my harmonic and rhythmic sensibility is not of
that era.
There are people who are brilliant at it. There's a pianist--I forget
his name but I think he's a professor at Occidental College--who used
to give a concert every year. He would take tune suggestions and style
suggestions from the audience and improvise, just like a improvisational
comedy revue. So you might wind up hearing a Beatles tune played in
the style of Mozart, or some such. This guy is just amazing, able
to improvise in any classical style. It's kind of a parlor trick,
though, of dubious artistic worth beyond sheer entertainment.
>Plus, how do you decide whether
>to use one voicing over another on an adjacent string? Or position? Is that
>a split second decision, or do you plan ahead during the double-brain
>counterpoint? I suppose, collectively, we should need up to three brains
>now. What about the colors? Should I place tinny sounds on all the quite
>parts or should I use more dolce? Shucks. What about mixing colors? You
>know - ponticello on the high notes or dolce for the ones closer to 1st
>position? Crap. Do I use rubato, or play the whole thing that way? As to
>chords, should I refer to chord shapes that are immediately familiar or rely
>on scrambling through my chord finder while playing to determine the best
>embellishments for the job? Four. So many questions.
Dealing with these questions is the challenge and the reward.
>Is improvised classical guitar still classical guitar?
Perhaps here is where we part. You have defined this particular art world--
that we both call classical guitar--according to a standard, "classical"
repertoire, whereas I define it as an esthetic sensibility that evolves over
time. I see it as defined by the shared esthetic of the participants, rather
than by a primordial canon.
>Lastly, it is almost impossible to compose for the instrument in slow, very
>slow, very, very slow increments of note to note, measure to measure. How do
>you do that at tempo? I think we are up to five brains now.
I just do it, and I'm not remarkable; I'm mediocre at best. Improvisation
is a skill anyone can learn if they apply themself. And you can improvise
in any style. A style becomes understood as a style through its formulaic
gestures. If you can understand and reproduce them, then you can improvise
in that style by recombining those gestures and formulae.
Remember, though, that improvised music will rarely be as perfectly conceived
as composed music. What it brings is an immediacy, a huge potential for
interaction between musicians, and between musicians and audience.
Vivienne McLaughlin
>Remember, though, that improvised music will rarely be as perfectly
conceived >as composed music.
Mhmmn.
V.
Vivienne McLaughlin
able to improvise the types of pieces which, for example, we play on a
concert level. It is very easy to improvise (even without charts!) classical
guitar music on the level of 'Romanza', studies, sketches, Romantic pieces
played at Romantic tempos, etc. Even simple counterpoint. I think the
contenders here are mistaking that form of improv for the real deal.
I am of course being sarcastic toward the improvisation of concert level
masterpieces: 'Ronda alla Turca', 'Variations on a theme of Handel', 'Julia
Florida', the popular 'Leyenda's', 'Koyunbaba's' and 'Chaconne's' are a few
that come to mind. Played on an equal level (as is being suggested,
"perfecting" them (ha!)) as the original. I would love to see someone, Mr.
Brown in particular, improvise a classical guitar rendition of the Chaconne
by Bach which is better than, or on par with, the Chaconne itself. As Mr.
Brown points out, this is neither likely nor the point. But, of course, it
is the entire point.
I am sure this all boils down to context. I have no argument with playing
the 'improvs' in their proper context. But I think the reason the CG is is
called "CG" and not something else is because 1) 'CG' is a science complete
with nomenclature - the name itself a distinction made for the sake of
defining a modern 'style', 2) many people appreciate that 'style', even if
it was marketed to us by commercial, musical and social institutions, and 3)
it has a distinct body of literature, a canon, which makes it attractive to
those who consent to it, and 4) within this context, the literature is
accepted as being played in a fixed manner as has become custom in this late
'modern' (she said with contempt) era.
This all leads to how CG players are trained, too, WRT learning the
repertoire. Focus must be on first learning to play (the old '7 years'
cliche), then learning the repertoire (not just the graded material, another
'7 years'). I have no doubt, after this time - whether 14 years or 2, the
student will be free to choose to learn to improv, or even study it
simultaneously.
V.
Stefan Dill wrote in message <88qopi$j3r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Klaus Heim
news:88qvj0$c8fsv$1...@news.jhu.edu...
> In article <nZRr4.210$zu3....@news3.mia>,
> Vivienne McLaughlin <vah...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >Is it easy for you, on solo guitar, to improvise classical music? Just
> >wondering. I can't do it, and I can play CG *and* improvise Hendrix's
> >'Voodoo Child', which is the improv of his 'Catfish Blues', which is the
> >improv of Muddy Water's improvs like "Rolling Stone". It is easy to
compound
> >bend the 4th to the 5th, pluck the low E and octave, double stop an E5,
> >slide from 4th to 5th or 7th to 1st, and repeat or select to do a cadenza
> >walking down chromatically from the 7th to the 5th and landing on the
tonic.
> >That is pretty easy. Formulaic. I mean, even the solo is spelled out.
Scale
> >runs, pentatonics, hexatonics, blues scales, mixolydians. Lather, rinse,
> >repeat.
> >
> >I imagine with classical improv, you have to consider first the fine art
of
> >counterpoint. You need two brains for that!
>
> contrapuntal music need not be complex. Even some saxophonists improvise
> cntrapuntally, implying two voices in a single line. Third, almost any
> improvising musician relies on formulae and preconceived material,
> recombining it into a fresh composition. One can develop a vocabulary
> of contrapuntal possibilities for improvisation.
>
> But to answer your question, yes, I can improvise classical and
> baroque-sounding music, but I don't do it very often because those
> are historical styles and I am living in the present, which offers
> so many more choices. But I am aware of the formulae that baroque
> musicians used, and I can recombine them or imitate them to some
> extent. It's hard for me to remain in that style while improvising,
> though, because my harmonic and rhythmic sensibility is not of
> that era.
>
> There are people who are brilliant at it. There's a pianist--I forget
> his name but I think he's a professor at Occidental College--who used
> to give a concert every year. He would take tune suggestions and style
> suggestions from the audience and improvise, just like a improvisational
> comedy revue. So you might wind up hearing a Beatles tune played in
> the style of Mozart, or some such. This guy is just amazing, able
> to improvise in any classical style. It's kind of a parlor trick,
> though, of dubious artistic worth beyond sheer entertainment.
>
> >to use one voicing over another on an adjacent string? Or position? Is
that
> >a split second decision, or do you plan ahead during the double-brain
> >counterpoint? I suppose, collectively, we should need up to three brains
> >now. What about the colors? Should I place tinny sounds on all the quite
> >parts or should I use more dolce? Shucks. What about mixing colors? You
> >know - ponticello on the high notes or dolce for the ones closer to 1st
> >position? Crap. Do I use rubato, or play the whole thing that way? As to
> >chords, should I refer to chord shapes that are immediately familiar or
rely
> >on scrambling through my chord finder while playing to determine the best
> >embellishments for the job? Four. So many questions.
>
>
>
world--
> that we both call classical guitar--according to a standard, "classical"
> repertoire, whereas I define it as an esthetic sensibility that evolves
over
> time. I see it as defined by the shared esthetic of the participants,
rather
> than by a primordial canon.
>
very
> >slow, very, very slow increments of note to note, measure to measure. How
do
> >you do that at tempo? I think we are up to five brains now.
>
> is a skill anyone can learn if they apply themself. And you can improvise
> in any style. A style becomes understood as a style through its formulaic
> gestures. If you can understand and reproduce them, then you can improvise
> in that style by recombining those gestures and formulae.
>
conceived
> interaction between musicians, and between musicians and audience.
>
>
I have an answer to most of the problems discussed in this thread. (Happy,
happy, please don't hit me!)
I had forgotten the guy's name, remembered this morning and bought the CD.
Arcadi Volodos, plays piano, his debut CD is simply called Volodos (Sony,
1997). He plays what he calls transcriptions, paraphrases, deeply rooted in
the tradition of Bach, Liszt and Horowitz. Thus the composers are listed as
Rachmaninoff-Volodos, Schubert-Liszt, Mozart-Volodos. He plays the
Horowitz-Transcriptions of Bizet's Carmen Variations and Liszt's Hungarian
Rhapsody No.2. These were never written down, so he just listened to the
recordings of Horowitz. The music is just- wow! Listen.
Klaus
Stefan Dill
"Vivienne McLaughlin" <vah...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> I think you folks miss the sarcasm. I am of course thinking of
someone being
> able to improvise the types of pieces which, for example, we play on a
> concert level. It is very easy to improvise (even without charts!)
classical
> guitar music on the level of 'Romanza', studies, sketches, Romantic
pieces
> played at Romantic tempos, etc. Even simple counterpoint. I think the
> contenders here are mistaking that form of improv for the real deal.
I think what you describe above, yes, would be relatively easy - but
what do you define as " the real deal" and would the modus operandi as
i described not be considered as a viable or valid process? Or maybe
so, but just not "classical guitar" but something else?
> I am of course being sarcastic toward the improvisation of concert
level
> masterpieces: 'Ronda alla Turca', 'Variations on a theme of
Handel', 'Julia
> Florida', the popular 'Leyenda's', 'Koyunbaba's' and 'Chaconne's' are
a few
> that come to mind. Played on an equal level (as is being suggested,
> "perfecting" them (ha!)) as the original. I would love to see
someone, Mr.
> Brown in particular, improvise a classical guitar rendition of the
Chaconne
> by Bach which is better than, or on par with, the Chaconne itself. As
Mr.
> Brown points out, this is neither likely nor the point. But, of
course, it
> is the entire point.
He or I might not be able to, but consider the possibility that someone
out there might could, however unlikely...
> I am sure this all boils down to context. I have no argument with
playing
> the 'improvs' in their proper context. But I think the reason the CG
is is
> called "CG" and not something else is because 1) 'CG' is a science
complete
> with nomenclature - the name itself a distinction made for the sake of
> defining a modern 'style', 2) many people appreciate that 'style',
even if
> it was marketed to us by commercial, musical and social institutions,
and 3)
> it has a distinct body of literature, a canon, which makes it
attractive to
> those who consent to it, and 4) within this context, the literature is
> accepted as being played in a fixed manner as has become custom in
this late
> 'modern' (she said with contempt) era.
>
So are you saying that no form of contemporary composition that would
allow for improvisation be allowed into the CG repertoire? that the
body of literature should remain fixed? Context is a funny thing; My
first CD was too "out" for even the "out" jazz labels, but
a "classical" label released it. So whats "classical"?
Im not getting defensive here, just curious. is there an arbitrary date
or method that a "classical" piece wont be considered "classical"
anymore?
wondering,
--
Matanya Ophee
>
>I have an answer to most of the problems discussed in this thread. (Happy,
>happy, please don't hit me!)
>
>I had forgotten the guy's name, remembered this morning and bought the CD.
>Arcadi Volodos, plays piano, his debut CD is simply called Volodos (Sony,
>1997). He plays what he calls transcriptions, paraphrases, deeply rooted in
>the tradition of Bach, Liszt and Horowitz. Thus the composers are listed as
>Rachmaninoff-Volodos, Schubert-Liszt,
Was published by Haslinger in Vienna in 1840. Some of these
transcriptions were later re-transcribed by Johann Kaspar Mertz for
guitar.
> Mozart-Volodos. He plays the
>Horowitz-Transcriptions of Bizet's Carmen Variations and Liszt's Hungarian
>Rhapsody No.2. These were never written down, so he just listened to the
>recordings of Horowitz.
And I'll say to this: pull the other one, gospodin Volodos. It's got
bells on it.
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphée, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH, 43235-1226
Phone: 614-846-9517
Fax: 614-846-9794
Check out the Orphée Catalogue at:
http://www.orphee.com
Including the on-line guitar magazine titled: Guitar And Lute Issues
Klaus Heim
news:88ri6u$13os$1...@f1node01.rhrz.uni-bonn.de...
> I have an answer to most of the problems discussed in this thread. (Happy,
> happy, please don't hit me!)
>
> I had forgotten the guy's name, remembered this morning and bought the CD.
> Arcadi Volodos, plays piano, his debut CD is simply called Volodos (Sony,
> 1997). He plays what he calls transcriptions, paraphrases, deeply rooted
in
> the tradition of Bach, Liszt and Horowitz. Thus the composers are listed
as
> Rachmaninoff-Volodos, Schubert-Liszt, Mozart-Volodos. He plays the
> Horowitz-Transcriptions of Bizet's Carmen Variations and Liszt's Hungarian
> Rhapsody No.2. These were never written down, so he just listened to the
> recordings of Horowitz. The music is just- wow! Listen.
>
> Klaus
If you say this contradicts what I said above, yes, I was so fabulously,
utterly wrong. Listening to him for a few hours now. What he does to my
beloved Schubert songs! Never heard a Bumblebee fly like this! I bet the
Turks have never marched this way!
Me, I fall to my knees, I am not worthy.
Klaus
Klaus Heim
news:qll2bssg90e81mkr0...@4ax.com...
> "Klaus Heim" <klh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >I have an answer to most of the problems discussed in this thread.
(Happy,
> >happy, please don't hit me!)
> >
> >I had forgotten the guy's name, remembered this morning and bought the
CD.
> >Arcadi Volodos, plays piano, his debut CD is simply called Volodos (Sony,
> >1997). He plays what he calls transcriptions, paraphrases, deeply rooted
in
> >the tradition of Bach, Liszt and Horowitz. Thus the composers are listed
as
> >Rachmaninoff-Volodos, Schubert-Liszt,
>
> transcriptions were later re-transcribed by Johann Kaspar Mertz for
> guitar.
Yes, the ones I've been plugging for some time now.
>
> > Mozart-Volodos. He plays the
> >Horowitz-Transcriptions of Bizet's Carmen Variations and Liszt's
Hungarian
> >Rhapsody No.2. These were never written down, so he just listened to the
> >recordings of Horowitz.
>
> And I'll say to this: pull the other one, gospodin Volodos. It's got
> bells on it.
Don't understand what you mean by this, please clarify.
Klaus
Matanya Ophee
>
>> > Mozart-Volodos. He plays the
>> >Horowitz-Transcriptions of Bizet's Carmen Variations and Liszt's
>Hungarian
>> >Rhapsody No.2. These were never written down, so he just listened to the
>> >recordings of Horowitz.
>>
>> And I'll say to this: pull the other one, gospodin Volodos. It's got
>> bells on it.
>
>Don't understand what you mean by this, please clarify.
Cultural difference of the English language. A common Britishism to
the pulling of legs.
Vivienne McLaughlin
>> "perfecting" them (ha!)) as the original. I would love to see
>someone, Mr.
>> Brown in particular, improvise a classical guitar rendition of the
>Chaconne
>> by Bach which is better than, or on par with, the Chaconne itself. As
>Mr.
>> Brown points out, this is neither likely nor the point. But, of
>course, it
>> is the entire point.
>
>out there might could, however unlikely...
Of course you see this is the whole point. You, I and he may not, but some
'other' might. In fact, it is those 'others' which gives you, I and he our
very motivation to play good music. Music made by those 'others', remembered
by us, preserved by us, in memory of the 'other' - the genius. When you
point out 1 'other' to me, I will blindly point out 1,000 'you, I and he's'
to you. Using the exception to the rule, relying on 5 sigma events, and
people whose abilities lie outside 3 standard deviations from the bell you,
I and he sit under, can not prove that the standard, in this case, the
standard practice in CG of *not* improvising the repertoire, is not without
its merits and is in fact inherently sound tradition. In other words, the
rare exception to the rule does not negate the rule, or even challenge its
universality (if it did, then there would be no absolutes - not in morality,
laws, or the color red).
>So are you saying that no form of contemporary composition that would
>allow for improvisation be allowed into the CG repertoire?
Of course not. As is evident, there is classical music whose score requires
improvisation. There are many opportunities to do this in even the most
stringent scores. In fact, the very act of playing notes is a personal and
improvisational thing itself (being cute here). Seriously, we all know the
examples of cases where liberty and improvisation come in to play. This is
not being contended. The contention lies with ad hoc alterations of master
works. The only time it is acceptable is when the result can truly be said
to surpass the original. By that 'other' you mention. And there I have no
argument, because that is 'progress' (she said with contempt).
For every 1,000 Salieri's, but one Mozart.
V.
Klaus Heim
> "Klaus Heim" <klh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> > Mozart-Volodos. He plays the
> >> >Horowitz-Transcriptions of Bizet's Carmen Variations and Liszt's
> >Hungarian
> >> >Rhapsody No.2. These were never written down, so he just listened to
the
> >> >recordings of Horowitz.
> >>
> >> bells on it.
> >
> >Don't understand what you mean by this, please clarify.
>
> Cultural difference of the English language. A common Britishism to
> the pulling of legs.
>
Sorry, my brain has gone a bit mushy, listening to his music. You know I
tend to believe what people say. So you are saying that either the Horowitz
transcriptions have been printed (I haven't been able to locate them yet),
or that Volodos is not being honest, even though it would be quite easy
proving him wrong by just listening to his CD.
I know you very much like Horowitz, but to me it has much more effect, when
someone of my generation comes along, and does similar. If we are lucky,
every now and then someone like this does come along, after years of tedious
listening to mediocre performers.
Klaus
Trips
>I imagine with classical improv, you have to
> consider first the fine art of counterpoint. You
> need two brains for that! Plus, how do you
> decide whether to use one voicing over
> another on an adjacent string? Or position? Is
> that a split second decision, or do you plan
> ahead during the double-brain counterpoint?
A very good point Id like to expand on, I think when a cross from
classical and jazz combined actually needs 2 instruments, hence your 2
brains you bring up
What you said in another post to this thread, with once a standard is
recorded, everyone more or less wants to hear it that way, improvising
becomes hard once a recording is sorta set in stone, a few liberties,
yes, but not much when it come to like Bach, (by liberties I think of
Jethro Tull and bouree)
but with this, it took more instruments to even do this, (your more
brains)
I have a friend that can do great Jazz over top of classical solo
guitar, here is the cross I have heard between strait Jazz and strait
classical, I can not do the Jazz to it, (I play my CD and try what he
does over top of it and I suck) I play the classical as strait classical
and he does his thing "over top" but with this, Im not improvising, He
is though, two worlds combined as one but separate
Sucks that his nerves wont let him get it recorded, oh well, I have
tried, even getting him laid, a ES335 he wanted and I set him up with
one for it, but no luck, His nerves are to much for him, drunk and for
fun, no problem!
>I suppose, collectively, we should need up to
> three brains now. What about the colors?
> Should I place tinny sounds on all the quite
> parts or should I use more dolce? Shucks.
> What about mixing colors? You know -
> ponticello on the high notes or dolce for the
> ones closer to 1st position? Crap. Do I use
> rubato, or play the whole thing that way? As
> to chords, should I refer to chord shapes that
> are immediately familiar or rely on scrambling
> through my chord finder while playing to
> determine the best embellishments for the
> job? Four.
My friend does all that, I just play strait solo classical guitar
foundation down and he does his thing, but again, like you said, more
brains were needed.
>So many questions. Is improvised classical
> guitar still classical guitar?
Good question, In what Im saying from my friend and I playing, yes, it
is "Classical Guitar"
But Is it "Classical Guitar MUSIC" once its combined? Hmmmm, good
question, Is it Jazz? hmmm good question, it all depends on how its
listened to, I tell you what, I love it, But does the Bach, Mozart,
ect... parts sound like they arranged it? Not the Jazz part, but the
foundation, yes. So Id leave that up to the few fortunate listeners that
got to hear us at times, we don't care, we had fun, :-)
>Lastly, it is almost impossible to compose for
> the instrument in slow, very slow, very, very
> slow increments of note to note, measure to
> measure. How do you do that at tempo? I
> think we are up to five brains now.
>V.
I don't quite understand this last part in context of it all but its a
large thread
But do agree, to improvise a famous piece from Bach in solo guitar is
close to impossible, (as you said, once an improvised piece is heard,
they want to hear it that way again)
to write like Bach is possible,
Bach pieces were improvised by Himself before they got written in stone,
he was the composer, it stands to reason, composer always messes around
when writing something, thats how the neat stuff is found in my eyes,
:-)
Trippy
Whats Ironic is my friends name is Steve Brown, what are Browns all Jazz
players? :-)
Matanya Ophee
>
>Sorry, my brain has gone a bit mushy, listening to his music. You know I
>tend to believe what people say. So you are saying that either the Horowitz
>transcriptions have been printed (I haven't been able to locate them yet),
>or that Volodos is not being honest, even though it would be quite easy
>proving him wrong by just listening to his CD.
All I am saying is that I have learned to take what Russian musicians
say with a very large grain of salt. I rather doubt that Volodos took
the Horowitz right off the record. In most probability, he did, but
wrote it down note for note before committing it to memory. Like
people did to the Ponce-Weiss Suite.
>I know you very much like Horowitz, but to me it has much more effect, when
>someone of my generation comes along, and does similar.
In which case you ought to get yourself a copy of Carmen Fantasy by
Wolfgang Lendle which I just published. It is not Horowitz second
hand. It is the expression of a genuine musical mind at work, and it
is for guitar, not for piano.
>If we are lucky,
>every now and then someone like this does come along, after years of tedious
>listening to mediocre performers.
You see, I am not ready to go gaga about Volodos. He will be given a
concert in my town next month and I shall go and see for myself. Some
of the best Russian pianists of this century were never heard of.
Sofronitsky, Virsaladze, Nekrasov, and of course, Neuhaus who the
Russians refer to as Neigaus. What I smell in Volodos is a first rate
hype job by a good salesman. Wolfgang Lendle, as far as I am
concerned, is one of the most eloquent musicians alive today, both as
a composer and as a performer. Do you know him? have you ever heard
him in concert? on record?
Problem with him is that he is not much of a salesman. He is not
pushy, just your regular run-of-the-mill genius, teaching the guitar
in some school in Wiesbaden.
Klaus Heim
> "Klaus Heim" <klh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> In which case you ought to get yourself a copy of Carmen Fantasy by
> Wolfgang Lendle which I just published. It is not Horowitz second
> hand. It is the expression of a genuine musical mind at work, and it
> is for guitar, not for piano.
>
And to that I'll add his Paganini-Variations, which have also interested me
for some time.
> >If we are lucky,
> >every now and then someone like this does come along, after years of
tedious
> >listening to mediocre performers.
>
> You see, I am not ready to go gaga about Volodos. He will be given a
> concert in my town next month and I shall go and see for myself. Some
> of the best Russian pianists of this century were never heard of.
> Sofronitsky, Virsaladze, Nekrasov, and of course, Neuhaus who the
> Russians refer to as Neigaus. What I smell in Volodos is a first rate
> hype job by a good salesman.
Being able to sell yourself does help, but it does not change what I hear.
His playing of the Feinberg paraphrase of Tchaikovsky's Scherzo from
Symphony No.6 is so violent, that I wonder the piano still stands, but what
astounds me most is his intimate playing of the Schubert songs and the Largo
from the Bach Trio Sonata BWV529. And then his picaresque adaption of
Mozart's Rondo alla turca. Do not miss him, I think you will like what you
hear. Wasn't Horowitz called the last romantic? Maybe we need an addendum.
> Wolfgang Lendle, as far as I am
> concerned, is one of the most eloquent musicians alive today, both as
> a composer and as a performer. Do you know him? have you ever heard
> him in concert? on record?
>
> Problem with him is that he is not much of a salesman. He is not
> pushy, just your regular run-of-the-mill genius, teaching the guitar
> in some school in Wiesbaden.
Pssst, let's keep this guy to ourselves. Not everybody needs to know that he
can make the Rodrigo preludes sound like music.
Grinning like a Cheshire cat,
Klaus