Classical Players: Do you ever play without written music?
ggua...@pipeline.com
recently rekindled my interest.
I was talking to a sax player I know about the Yo Yo Ma "Obrigado
Brasil" CD. The CD covers a variety of styles of Brazilian music, most
of which is obviously composed. But there are at least two cuts (bossa
novas) where you would normally expect the musicians to be improvising
to a set of changes. They would certainly improvise their solos. We
were wondering if Yo Yo Ma had played a composed part, or composed a
part for himself, or improvised it.
The album is beautifully played and I recommend it. Still, I wonder.
I don't know the answer, of course. But I know musicians that have
pretty much never played a note that wasn't written. This is a very
foreign concept to me.
When I sit and play the piano, I try out melodies, chord forms,
patterns, rhythms: whatever comes into my head. When I'm really "on",
it almost feels like I'm watching someone else play. And of course,
sometimes nothing much of interest happens.
When I'm not at the piano, I often have similar "experiments" going on
in my head. This seems to me to be the natural condition of a
musician. (I realize that there's nothing surprising about finding
your OWN experience "natural")
It just seems strange to me that vastly superior musicians may never
do what to me seems the very essence of my "musicality". Don't they
"noodle" a little bit, even in private?
So what is your experience?
Sandman
player) I improvise next to the written music.In my case that means a
little jazz, a little blues, a little rock and lately I'm trying to
improvise in a simple counterpoint manner. Sometimes after hearing or
playing certain classical pieces I try to style-copy. Whether I'm good at
it, is something else but I do it.
<ggua...@pipeline.com> schreef in bericht
news:u5ua301u4trdsh83t...@4ax.com...
f_unde...@hotmail.com
> to a set of changes. They would certainly improvise their solos. We
> were wondering if Yo Yo Ma had played a composed part, or composed a
> part for himself, or improvised it.
Why does it matter whether Yo Yo Ma played from a prearranged part or
not? All you should be asking yourself is if you like the music. It is
the end result that matters. If piano A and piano B sound the same,
does it matter if A is made by hamsters and B is made by squirrels?
> When I sit and play the piano, I try out melodies, chord forms,
> patterns, rhythms: whatever comes into my head.
When I sit and play the piano, I play whatever piece that comes into
my head. Sometimes they are snippets, other times full pieces. Yes,
they are composed classical pieces, but since I don't look at the
score often, I don't know whether they are note perfect. And I suspect
not, coz if my memory says something ends with the tonic chord, that's
what I play. I won't be 100% sure how it's originally voiced.
> When I'm really "on", it almost feels like I'm watching someone else play.
Sometimes I feel like my fingers are flying and I am on autopilot.
This is especially true when playing Hanon, so I never play them
anymore :) I was taught never to switch off, as I'm supposed to
concentrate on listening.
> When I'm not at the piano, I often have similar "experiments" going on
> in my head.
Depends on what experiments. See next comment.
> This seems to me to be the natural condition of a musician.
Same goes for a scientist, writer, video game player, chef, dancer
.....
> It just seems strange to me that vastly superior musicians may never
> do what to me seems the very essence of my "musicality".
It just seems strange to me that so many posters in r.m.m.p have never
heard of Jay-Z, Dr Dre, Missy Elliot and their contemporaries. They
seem to be the very essence of modern "musicality" :)
> Don't they "noodle" a little bit, even in private?
Do you rap a little bit, even in private?
Marc Sabatella
> not? All you should be asking yourself is if you like the music.
Well, that's certainly one valid question, but it can be equally valid
to wonder how what is improvised and what is written if you are trying
to understand how to go about creating similar music. Or even if you
are just wondering how to find similar music to listen to.
FWIW, on the track I heard on the radio the other day - a standard, I
think it was Chega de Saudade - the lines I heard played on cello
definitely sounded improvised. If they were composed, it seemed to me
that would have had to have been by someone who frankly didn't have a
particularly good feel for this music. That is, considering how well
arranged the piece was otherwise, it doesn't seem likely the arranger
would have written the cello part Yo Yo Ma played, although it is
possible Yo Yo Ma composed his own lines and inserted them into someone
else's arrangement. On the other hand, it didn't help that the cello
was mixed way too high - it was just a background part, but it was
louder than Rosa Passos' vocals. And it could be that the lines
themselves would have worked better had they been played with a more
typically Brazilian rhythmic inflection. But all in all, my impression
is that it was a good sounding recording with a very out-of-his-element
cello player that the recording would have been better without. And I
say this as someone who has liked what I've heard of other forays by Yo
Yo Ma outside the world of classical music.
> the end result that matters. If piano A and piano B sound the same,
> does it matter if A is made by hamsters and B is made by squirrels?
But if A sounds better than B, you would want to know which was which if
you were planning on contracting on or the other species to build you a
piano, or if you were planning on seeking out other pianos of the same
quality as A.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Raj V
and several other albums were mentioned where he played with Mongolian, and
I think, Blue Grass musicians. As I recall, he talked about the challenge of
improvising with such talented players and how much fun it was.
I found the interview at
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1419318
Raj
<ggua...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:u5ua301u4trdsh83t...@4ax.com...
ggua...@pipeline.com
>ggua...@pipeline.com wrote in message news:<u5ua301u4trdsh83t...@4ax.com>...
>
>> to a set of changes. They would certainly improvise their solos. We
>> were wondering if Yo Yo Ma had played a composed part, or composed a
>> part for himself, or improvised it.
>Why does it matter whether Yo Yo Ma played from a prearranged part or
>not? All you should be asking yourself is if you like the music. It is
>the end result that matters. If piano A and piano B sound the same,
>does it matter if A is made by hamsters and B is made by squirrels?
I'll get to whether or not it "matters" further down.
I'm mostly curious about how the musical process works for other
people, particularly classical players, whose take on it may differ
from mine. That curiosity goes back a long way.
When I was quite a bit younger I tended to assume that people had more
or less the same "experience" of playing that I do. They might have
more or less skill, or play a different style, but they would "hear"
the notes, chords etc. coming up in their minds and play what they
heard. (a simplified description) I also assumed that a musician's
ability to "play by ear" was proportional to their general musical
ability.
That changed during one lunch hour in high school. I sang in the
chorus and there was a student who was the accompanist. He was my age
but obviously a much better player. After chorus practice one of the
girls asked him if he would play a song for her to sing and handed him
the sheet music. To my astonishment, he was able to sight read the
song immediately and played it pretty well to boot. (then, as now, I
was a poor reader)
Everyone clapped for the girl who sang and for the boy on the piano.
Another girl asked if she could sing "It's Too Late" by Carol King.
(I'm dating myself now). The accompanist asked if she had the sheet
music for it. She didn't. He said he really couldn't play the song
without the music.
I was a bit intimidated by the other boy's playing, but I liked the
clapping. I said, somewhat timidly, that I could play it for her. I
sat down and did a pretty fair rendition of the song (for a high
school kid), and everyone clapped again. The accompanist said he liked
the arrangement and asked where I had gotten it. I remember being a
little confused, not completely understanding the question. I told him
that there was no arrangement, that I just made it up from what I
remembered hearing on the record.
Now HE looked dumbfounded. He asked WHEN I had "made it up". I
answered, "Um, just now." He immediately said that I should really be
playing for the Chorus as I was obviously a better musician than he
was.
Now his chops were quite a bit superior to mine, but he simply
couldn't understand how someone could play a song without reading it
first. I can usually play most anything within the range of my finger
skills on the first go, but can't conceive of sight-reading something
cold.
People have very different approaches to music and I find that a very
interesting topic for discussion. That's mostly why I made my post.
Now, does it matter if Yo Yo Ma improvised his parts on the bossa
novas? You could just as easily ask if it matters who played it, or
whether it was played live or spliced together from dozens of takes,
or pitch corrected with Auto-Tune or timing corrected in Pro Tools
or... you get the picture.
You have a point, I suppose, when you say that I like it or don't like
it and nothing else matters. But many of us, especially musicians,
like to know something about the people playing the music we like and
how the music came to be.
Whe we hear Ma play Mozart, we know that we are hearing Ma's tone,
phrasing subtleties, vibrato, etc. We are hearing Mozart's melodic and
harmonic sense. We are hearing the particular conductor's sense of the
piece as well. Music fans like to know such things.
So when I hear Chega de Saudade (mentioned elsewhere in this thread),
am I hearing Ma's sense of melody, harmony and rhythm, or his
interpretation of someone else's? If I were to hear him perform this
music live, would I hear exactly the same notes as the record, or
something different? Does he "get" the style he is playing, or is it
more like imitation?
>> When I sit and play the piano, I try out melodies, chord forms,
>> patterns, rhythms: whatever comes into my head.
>When I sit and play the piano, I play whatever piece that comes into
>my head. Sometimes they are snippets, other times full pieces. Yes,
>they are composed classical pieces, but since I don't look at the
>score often, I don't know whether they are note perfect. And I suspect
>not, coz if my memory says something ends with the tonic chord, that's
>what I play. I won't be 100% sure how it's originally voiced.
Now that's what I was getting at when I asked the original question.
Perhaps even though it sounds like you play mostly, or only, composed
pieces, you do "hear" the notes in your head, and play what you hear,
which might not match the score exactly. I'd be curious to know if you
ever play anything that is entirely improvised. Perhaps you do some
composition yourself?
>> When I'm really "on", it almost feels like I'm watching someone else play.
>Sometimes I feel like my fingers are flying and I am on autopilot.
>This is especially true when playing Hanon, so I never play them
>anymore :) I was taught never to switch off, as I'm supposed to
>concentrate on listening.
I wouldn't call it "switching off". I'm not talking about playing
something for the umpteenth time, but rather a pure improvisation that
goes in a direction I would never have guessed, almost like I was
listening to someone else.
>> When I'm not at the piano, I often have similar "experiments" going on
>> in my head.
>Depends on what experiments. See next comment.
>
>> This seems to me to be the natural condition of a musician.
>Same goes for a scientist, writer, video game player, chef, dancer
I agree.
>
>> It just seems strange to me that vastly superior musicians may never
>> do what to me seems the very essence of my "musicality".
>It just seems strange to me that so many posters in r.m.m.p have never
>heard of Jay-Z, Dr Dre, Missy Elliot and their contemporaries. They
>seem to be the very essence of modern "musicality" :)
>
>> Don't they "noodle" a little bit, even in private?
>Do you rap a little bit, even in private?
This seems like a non-sequitur to me. I'm trying to get at how other
musicians approach music, specifically regarding whether or not they
do any sort of "improvisation" or composition, for that matter. But
other facets of the process are interesting to me as well.
f_unde...@hotmail.com
> Now his chops were quite a bit superior to mine, but he simply
> couldn't understand how someone could play a song without reading it
> first. I can usually play most anything within the range of my finger
> skills on the first go, but can't conceive of sight-reading something
> cold.
I think both of you learn a very important lesson about music that
day. Everyone approaches music differently. And it's not just in the
making of it. People listen very differently too. When I listen to a
piece of music, I just let myself feel it, be immerse in it. But some
of my friends really analyse the forms, the instrumentation, etc, like
Aaron Copland says you should listen in his book about music (can't
remember the name).
> Now, does it matter if Yo Yo Ma improvised his parts on the bossa
> novas? You could just as easily ask if it matters who played it, or
I would ask who plays it so that I can avoid or buy more records from
the same artist.
> whether it was played live or spliced together from dozens of takes,
That would certainly be the case for all recorded music.
> it and nothing else matters. But many of us, especially musicians,
> like to know something about the people playing the music we like and
> how the music came to be.
I understand you perfectly now. You are very methodical in your music
study.
>
> >> When I sit and play the piano, I try out melodies, chord forms,
> >> patterns, rhythms: whatever comes into my head.
> >When I sit and play the piano, I play whatever piece that comes into
> >my head. Sometimes they are snippets, other times full pieces. Yes,
> >they are composed classical pieces, but since I don't look at the
> >score often, I don't know whether they are note perfect. And I suspect
> >not, coz if my memory says something ends with the tonic chord, that's
> >what I play. I won't be 100% sure how it's originally voiced.
>
> Now that's what I was getting at when I asked the original question.
> Perhaps even though it sounds like you play mostly, or only, composed
> pieces, you do "hear" the notes in your head, and play what you hear,
> which might not match the score exactly.
With classical training, you learn to read music and reproduce it. But
to actually play from memory, you have to (or will) form a
tonal/visual image of the piece. So in the end, you are really playing
what you hear. For example, if I haven't played a piece for a long
time, I'll try to figure it out on the piano, and only as a last
resort would I go and find the original music score. But since I don't
perform (other than imposing my will on friends and families), I am
more lax in this then my teachers taught me. To retain a correct image
of a piece, you need to play from the score once in a while, to erase
the "errors" that crept in.
And CC Chang suggested in his book
http://members.aol.com/chang8828/contents.htm
that anyone who want to sight read well should learn to sight sing. I
am not a good sight reader (can't do up to tempo), so I don't know
whether the good sight readers hear what they are going to play as
well.
> ever play anything that is entirely improvised. Perhaps you do some
> composition yourself?
I don't compose. But sometimes when I'm frustrated at not getting
difficult passages, I'd just bang on random notes on the keyboard, and
that's the extend of my improvisation :) I can play a right hand
melody of something I can hum, but can't work out chords to accompany
the melody except through trial and error.
I used to be in a choir and my biggest handicap is that I can't sight
sing. I basically sing by ear (or should it be imitation?) I don't
sing improvised either. To my ear, my improvisation, whether be vocal
or piano, sounds very uninteresting. So interestingly, even though I
sing by ear, I don't improvise :)
> >> Don't they "noodle" a little bit, even in private?
> >Do you rap a little bit, even in private?
>
> This seems like a non-sequitur to me. I'm trying to get at how other
> musicians approach music, specifically regarding whether or not they
> do any sort of "improvisation" or composition, for that matter. But
> other facets of the process are interesting to me as well.
Actually the rap comment is not entirely stupid. Do you know there are
improvised raps as well? It's like they see something happen on the
street, the rapper improvised to express himself.
Edward
> ggua...@pipeline.com wrote in message news:<u5ua301u4trdsh83t...@4ax.com>...
>
> > to a set of changes. They would certainly improvise their solos. We
> > were wondering if Yo Yo Ma had played a composed part, or composed a
> > part for himself, or improvised it.
> Why does it matter whether Yo Yo Ma played from a prearranged part or
> not? All you should be asking yourself is if you like the music. It is
> the end result that matters.
Agreed.
> When I sit and play the piano, I play whatever piece that comes into
> my head. Sometimes they are snippets, other times full pieces. Yes,
> they are composed classical pieces, but since I don't look at the
> score often, I don't know whether they are note perfect. And I suspect
> not, coz if my memory says something ends with the tonic chord, that's
> what I play. I won't be 100% sure how it's originally voiced.
That's fine, of course. I have recently been playing a piece that
ends with an octave in the LH and the 3rd and 5th notes of the tonic
triad in the RH. I had somewhat sloppily read (it was above the
staff) the 1st and 3rd. My teacher picked up this incorrect voicing
immediately.
> It just seems strange to me that so many posters in r.m.m.p have never
> heard of Jay-Z, Dr Dre, Missy Elliot and their contemporaries. They
> seem to be the very essence of modern "musicality" :)
I've heard of them, I've even had the misfortune to have heard them.
"Musicality"? Surely you jest.
> > Don't they "noodle" a little bit, even in private?
> Do you rap a little bit, even in private?
What, you mean make up badly scanned, clunkily rhymed couplets about
taking drugs, sexually abusing women and shooting people? Hardly
ever.
Edward
--
The reading group's reading group:
http://www.bookgroup.org.uk
chu...@xpivot.net
distressed that performers are rarely compsers any more, and that in the past even the
audience was full of performers/composers. I know of accomplished concert pianists who
insist on playing with the music in front of them so as not to stray too far from the
original notations of the composer. Of course. improvisation has a much smaller role in
classical music than in jazz/blues.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
remove nospam
>>do what to me seems the very essence of my "musicality". Don't they
>>"noodle" a little bit, even in private?
>>
>>So what is your experience?
It seems to me that we're talking about two different ways of performing music.
A classical musician is trying to recreate a well thought out piece of music
in which the composer designed every note and every chord to be in an exact
relationship to get the effect he desired. In performing this pieces, we don't
deviate from what he wrote as a matter of respect for his inspiration, in the
same way a Shakesperian actor would not change the words of Hamlet and
improvise on his own. And we also as a matter or respect for what others have
created, such as the 23rd Psalm, a Chopin Nocturne, and Michaelangelo's Sistine
Chapel, do not improvise on these, but merely enjoy them as the original
creator conceived of them.
That is not to say that that is a superior way of creating art. A person
who can take a basic musical idea and improvise on it is creating his own art,
not limited by the conception of another person. Just as valid, and maybe more
so, than the person who recreates, with his own slight interpretation, the
conception of another.
ggua...@pipeline.com
wrote:
I think you have expressed the different approaches quite well. But I
wonder if my actual question is getting through.
I think that there is certainly a place for music that is entirely
composed, even though that isn't what I tend to play myself. In fact,
music using more than a small number of monophonic instruments almost
has to be composed if it is to sound at all cohesive. Even a horn
section in an R&B group has to have charts.
What I am really wondering about is whether classical players, who of
course play from a score in "organized" settings, ever play whatever
comes into their heads say, at home? I understand that they might not
stray from the notes as written when practicing composed pieces, but
do they ever just sit and experiment with a melody?
For me, the lure of hearing a new melody, or set of chords against
each other, or just a rhythmic motif as I play it is a very large part
of why I sit down to play at all. The instrument we all play, the
piano, seems to practically have been designed for experimentation.
The pitch range, the dynamic variation and most of all, the unmatched
polyphonic versatility of the instrument allow us to create a complete
and complex sound alone, even on the fly.
Tom put a finer point on it, I don't find it unusual that people might
want to hear, and play, fixed compositions. It is however hard for me
to imagine NEVER doing any improvisation at all, even in private. So
I'm asking classical musicians if that is indeed what they do. So far
one person has written about his take on it. I'd like to hear from
more.
Greg Guarino
ggua...@pipeline.com
>ggua...@pipeline.com wrote in message news:<si9d3017n9g0dje45...@4ax.com>...
>
>> Now his chops were quite a bit superior to mine, but he simply
>> couldn't understand how someone could play a song without reading it
>> first. I can usually play most anything within the range of my finger
>> skills on the first go, but can't conceive of sight-reading something
>> cold.
>
>I think both of you learn a very important lesson about music that
>day.
Definitely. I realized that right away.
>Everyone approaches music differently. And it's not just in the
>making of it. People listen very differently too. When I listen to a
>piece of music, I just let myself feel it, be immerse in it. But some
>of my friends really analyse the forms, the instrumentation, etc, like
>Aaron Copland says you should listen in his book about music (can't
>remember the name).
>> Now, does it matter if Yo Yo Ma improvised his parts on the bossa
>> novas? You could just as easily ask if it matters who played it, or
>I would ask who plays it so that I can avoid or buy more records from
>the same artist.
>
>> whether it was played live or spliced together from dozens of takes,
>That would certainly be the case for all recorded music.
>> it and nothing else matters. But many of us, especially musicians,
>> like to know something about the people playing the music we like and
>> how the music came to be.
>I understand you perfectly now. You are very methodical in your music
>study.
I'm afraid I must not be expressing myself clearly. The last thing I
am is methodical and I'm afraid I've never made much of a "study" of
music at all. (perhaps somewhat to my detriment). I do pretty much
always know what notes and chords are being played, almost without
thinking about it, though.
But I think that for most of us the sound doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Why else would there be liner notes? I enjoy a piece or don't enjoy
it, FIRST, based on the sound alone. But if I DO enjoy it, I like to
know who played on it, what else they've done, who they may have
listened to as they grew up. I think it can help surround the music
with a context.
I recently saw part of the PBS "Blues" series that was shot in Africa.
While I'm aware that the African musicians weren't plucked from a time
capsule, playing the pure undiluted styles of their ancestors, it was
fascinating to hear the commonalities with what we hear as Blues.
I took a short course in Jazz piano in college. I wasn't a music
major. The teacher was an excellent player and, more importantly, a
genius as a teacher. 25 years later I'm still slowly absorbing what he
tried to get across.
As it was actually a course at the Teachers' College of my school the
class was filled with music teachers, most well past "college age".
Most of them had hardly ever played a note that wasn't written out
before. Before the first class several of the students expressed
serious doubt that they could learn. I agreed (silently, of course).
At that age I had pretty much decided that improvisation could be
nurtured and improved, but not taught wholesale to someone who had
never tried it by a certain age.
I was wrong.
The teacher didn't start out by teaching chord substitutions and
scales and modal theory etc. In fact, he barely said anything before
he started playing a sample chord change.
There were maybe 15 little pianos in the room. He had a piano at the
front. He started alternating between E flat min 7th and A flat 7th.
He told each person in turn to play any notes they wanted, but only on
the black keys.
After he had gone around the room twice, he changed to D min 7th and G
7th and told the students to play just the white keys. A little later
he played 4 bars of the first pair of chords followed by 4 bars of the
second pair and let each student try their hand at that.
It was like magic. You could see the look of wonderment come over the
faces of people around the room. People who had never played an
uncomposed note, who had in some cases been TAUGHT that there was no
reason to ever try it, were DOING it, in the first half hour of the
first class. In each go-round someone else started to grin a bit as
they played.
Was it rudimentary? A trick, even? Sure. But it was the teacher's way
of overcoming the students' fear of even trying to improvise anything.
Once he had broken that barrier he was able to begin teaching the more
substantive material.
I doubt that many of the students went on to become great jazz players
(hell, I didn't). But nearly all of them left with the feeling that it
was POSSIBLE to play without sheet music, at least some of the time,
without making a fool of yourself.
Greg Guarino
ptooner
"remove nospam" <rand...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040221224618...@mb-m01.aol.com...
> >It just seems strange to me that vastly superior musicians may never
> >>do what to me seems the very essence of my "musicality". Don't they
> >>"noodle" a little bit, even in private?
> >>
> >>So what is your experience?
>
> It seems to me that we're talking about two different ways of performing
music.
> A classical musician is trying to recreate a well thought out piece of
music
> in which the composer designed every note and every chord to be in an
exact
> relationship to get the effect he desired. In performing this pieces, we
don't
> deviate from what he wrote as a matter of respect for his inspiration, in
the
> same way a Shakesperian actor would not change the words of Hamlet and
> improvise on his own. And we also as a matter or respect for what others
have
> created, such as the 23rd Psalm, a Chopin Nocturne, and Michaelangelo's
Sistine
> Chapel, do not improvise on these, but merely enjoy them as the original
> creator conceived of them.
I've often wondered, considering the above, why one doesn't create a midi of
the performance and edit any slight variation out, then play it back on a
midi playback equipped piano on stage. That way there would be no chance of
a slight slip by the "performer" which might result in an unwanted variation
on the original score? Once the "definitive" midi was done, there would of
course be no further need for a live pianist which would result in a savings
in cost of concerts (however slight) as well as making it easy to bring the
performance to the masses.
Gerry
Devin
> Don't like it?
>
> Truth hurts?
>
> Hits home for many of you?
>
> Who cares.....
Let me guess, even with all your talent, you're a financially struggling
musician and you're bitter about it.
Truth hurts?
Thing is, people that use bitterness and arrogance as a crutch are rarely
successful. And you're not bitter because you're a failure, you're a
failure because you're bitter. Childish personality types that revel in
angry arrogance are legion amongst the "talented loser" crowd. Successful
types either have a vast abundance of talent, or combine decent talent with
emotional, social, and professional maturity.
remove nospam
>the performance and edit any slight variation out, then play it back on a
>midi playback equipped piano on stage. That way there would be no chance of
>a slight slip by the "performer" which might result in an unwanted variation
>on the original score? Once the "definitive" midi was done, there would of
>course be no further need for a live pianist which would result in a savings
>in cost of concerts (however slight) as well as making it easy to bring the
>performance to the masses.
>
>Gerry
Two reasons. Even though the notes and dynamics are on the page, even
Beethoven and Chopin leave a lot of room for creativeness. There is an
electricity and emotion in a live performance that you don't get listening to a
recording.
The second reason is that with MIDI recording, an untalented (as far as
performing) person could put together a performance just by maneuvering the
sound information. This leaves out the excitement and respect of watching a
talented person who has honed his craft performing the music in real-time.
And I know, you're going to say, well, a person who can play on MIDI
software has developed his talent also. Yes, but that's just manipulating
recorded sounds, lengths of sound, velocities, volume, etc. that doesn't allow
for real-time performances with the emotion.
Imagine Horowitz or Cliburn "hand-syncing" like the lip-syncing performance
of Britney Spears or Janet Jackson!
Randy
ptooner
"ptooner" <no...@yourlife.com> wrote in message
news:JY4_b.14323$Dc2.9531@lakeread01...
Come to think of it, with the above scenario you have to worry about the
piano going somewhat out of tune during the performance. If you record it
instead, you could edit out any variation of tuning and dynamics so that a
recording of a midi playback would actually be the ultimate performance.!
Gerry
>
>
Cc88m
>course play from a score in "organized" settings, ever play whatever
>comes into their heads say, at home?
Our 2 daughters do it all the time. But it is not as easy in classical as in
jazz, etc., where improvisation is part of the culture. Our daughters had
years of solfege training and have perfect pitch, both of which are very
helpful especially if you also want to write them down. The difficulty is in
getting started, because in classical, such activities are generally classified
more as "composing" instead of improvising (there really shouldn't be a
distinction, and in the beginning, there wasn't). However, once you get
started, it is apparently quite do-able, and they have fun recording it, using
all the midi etc., capabilities, which means that they can record it as
harpsichord, violin, or even entire orchestras. However, unlike jazz
improvisations, they really have to work at it, it doesn't always come, and
creating good beginnings, endings, etc., are not easy at all.
So the answer to your Q is yes, but relatively few, probably because the
demands of learning to play available music is so overwhelming (without a
really good teacher) and the difficulty of composing anything worthwhile.
C. C. Chang; more on piano practice at
Sandman
>
> To get back to the original topic, most classical musicians are TRAINED
> MUSICIANS, and as a result die a quick death when the chart is removed.
> They have no natural talent, but are learned and schooled in various
> degrees of success at what they do.
>
> Face it, talent is a natural ability, it is God given and no amount of
> training can take it's place.
>
I don't believe that talent is God given. I'm sure that a favourable
genetical constitution (a good ear-brain connection, coordination) is
needed, however it can be trained too( not entirely, I'm sure but eg the
brain development could be greatly influenced when young enough--Mozart is a
perfect example of that). If music teachers would impliment improvisation as
a part of the training (which they almost never do) , the majority of
instrumentalists (especially pianists who play polyphonic music) would be
able to improvise and compose. So training should be extended over impro and
compo (harmony) next to technique. It's a debat between nature and nurture,
but I believe the role of nurture should not be underestimated.
Tom Shaw
friends enjoy hearing them and they contribute to the support of genius'
like yourself who are the elite by buying your CDs and tickets to your
concerts.
I dont think that musicians at your level could keep yourselves in pot money
without these miserable clods you speak of.
I think you are absolutely right about all this. Anybody who can read music
is a no good shit whereas somebody who plays by ear is a genius whom we
should all emulate by burning up all our folios, fake books, sheet music and
other junk.
TS
<qiu...@linuxmail.com> wrote in message
news:avfi309hirtn29cl4...@4ax.com...
> On 22 Feb 2004 03:46:18 GMT, rand...@aol.comnospam (remove nospam)
> wrote:
>
> >>It just seems strange to me that vastly superior musicians may never
> >>>do what to me seems the very essence of my "musicality". Don't they
> >>>"noodle" a little bit, even in private?
> >>>
> >>>So what is your experience?
>
> To get back to the original topic, most classical musicians are TRAINED
> MUSICIANS, and as a result die a quick death when the chart is removed.
> They have no natural talent, but are learned and schooled in various
> degrees of success at what they do.
>
> While there are examples of trained/schooled musicians who can actually
> *Swing* and put some feeling and improvisation into the music, the VAST
> majority of classical musicians are trained to do one thing:play the
> notes in front of them.
>
> Take the chart away and they stop.
>
> Put it back and they start.
>
> It's like hitting the play/stop button on a Diskclavier.
>
> Unfortunately our colleges are churning out carbon copies of these
> lifeless drones year after year and a trained ear can spot one a mile
> away.
>
> You can hear them in most wedding bands trying to plunk out "Ipanema".
>
> A couple of years ago I was putting together a jazz quartet with
> vocalist and I advertised in all the trade rags and waited for the
> resume's to appear.
>
> I developed what I call the "Quiznos Inverse Proportion Theory" which in
> a nutshell is:
>
> The more formal education.
> The more I studied under xxxxyyyyyyzzzz (name dropping).
> The more slick sounding the demo tape ($$$$$$$$$).
> The better the headshot (vocalists).
> ............................etc
>
>
> THE WORSE THE PERFORMER....
>
> I have tapes of people studying for masters and doctorates in music that
> can't stay on key and play with any feeling or emotion.
>
> And the real gag was that many of these *musicians* (vocalists mainly)
> were accompanied bye the very professors that were educating them!!!
>
> And they sucked even more!!!
> The professors that is.
>
> Face it, talent is a natural ability, it is God given and no amount of
> training can take it's place.
>
> The classical world is chock full to the brim with *note players* who
> lack talent.
>
> And these same idiots are teaching children to play just as badly as
> they do.
>
> Don't like it?
>
> Truth hurts?
>
> Hits home for many of you?
>
> Who cares.....
>
> Give me an Art Tatum, or Stevie Wonder any day compared to some schlump
> on American Idol who studied 16 years under Professor XXXXYYYYZZZZ......
>
> QN
>
> BTW who the hell knows what Mozart wanted his music to sound like
> anyway?
> Were any of you there?
> Any recordings of Mozart exist?
> One can only express so much with written dynamics.
>
> I thought so...
>
Raj V
won't even see the less than positive notes from TS.
"Sandman" <Zandman...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10775410...@seven.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be...
Doogle
I second Gerry's intriquing question -- If the ultimate goal is to
achieve a faithful realization of the composer's musical intentions,
why rely on imperfect human performance skills? There's no reason in
principle why a pianist/composer today can't create a good MIDI
recording of himself/herself performing the work, tweak the recording
to his/her complete satisfaction, and then distribute this definitive
MIDI recording to assure a perfect stage performance every time on a
suitable instrument (e.g., a midi-prepared Steinway D). The resulting
performance would have exactly all the "emotion" that the composer
intended and avoid the possibility of slight errors. Indeed, it would
be better than having the composer him/herself performing live,
because composers make mistakes, too. We can't do this with old
composers who died before recording technology, but there's no reason
we can't start now.
If this seems like a strange idea, maybe it's time to admit that
"respecting the composer's original intention" is not the ultimate
goal nor is it sufficient for a satisfying musical performance.. . .
Doogle
Tom Shaw
I am delighted that you are blocking me so you wont have to read criticism
which ruins your pollyanna day. Drop dead.
TS
"Raj V" <rva...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:kWs_b.16533$jl....@fe2.texas.rr.com...
ptooner
> "respecting the composer's original intention" is not the ultimate
> goal nor is it sufficient for a satisfying musical performance.. . .
<<GRIN>>
Gerry
gregpresley
21, I made my living improvising for modern dance without much trauma, and
did so lucratively for 18 years. The fact is that good classical training
and interest in a wide variety of music, coupled with a few years of basic
theory is enough to give someone an adequate basis for playing by ear
quickly and for being able to improvise in a wide variety of styles.
HOWEVER, most people will not do it without a compelling reason. Why?
Because it takes people well out of their comfort zones. It takes a year or
so of making lots of mistakes, minor or major, before a person can sit down
and be absolutely confident of what sounds are going to come out of the
piano when he sits down to play without music. (And how many of us are
eager to put ourselves in situations where we know we are going to make a
lot of mistakes, after we have already demonstrated success in another type
of music-making). Mind you, I'm not talking about basic I IV V chording,
which people can learn to do pretty well in a few weeks. However, if a
pianist has played a lot of Debussy and Ravel, he has played nearly every
tonal chord possible, in every key, every voicing, and every register, so
there are a lot of beautiful sounds already "lying under the fingers" as it
were.
Even as a confident improviser, I wouldn't pretend to be able to play
jazz - that is its own style with its own harmonic and rhythmic language and
in my opinion a person needs to take a year or two to study those languages
before beginning to become fluent in jazz improvisation.
drsmith
Doogle <doog...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >I've often wondered, considering the above, why one doesn't create a midi of
>> >the performance and edit any slight variation out, then play it back on a
>> >
>> >Gerry
>>
>
>I second Gerry's intriquing question -- If the ultimate goal is to
>achieve a faithful realization of the composer's musical intentions,
>why rely on imperfect human performance skills? There's no reason in
>principle why a pianist/composer today can't create a good MIDI
>recording of himself/herself performing the work, tweak the recording
>to his/her complete satisfaction, and then distribute this definitive
>MIDI recording to assure a perfect stage performance every time on a
>suitable instrument (e.g., a midi-prepared Steinway D). The resulting
>
>If this seems like a strange idea, maybe it's time to admit that
>"respecting the composer's original intention" is not the ultimate
>goal nor is it sufficient for a satisfying musical performance.. . .
>
>Doogle
I've had an interest in various arts and I don't think that a perfect
rendition of any art is all that interesting. I've done a bit of study
of calligraphy, and what makes hand-written calligraphy interesting is
the imperfections between the characters. Not every G looks the same -
they're all the same style, drawn the same way, but the subtle
differences are what make it look interesting on the page. Rendering
a font in a computer and printing it on a page only serves to eliminate
those variations with the end result having a manufactured, lifeless
feel.
I tend to think the same applies in music. The dynamics and subtle
errors in rhythm can add texture to the art that would be totally absent
if it were corrected by the computer. I know musicians who don't count
time at all - what they play is 'close enough' to what they intended
and they didn't lose time with the rest of the band. Sometimes I think
in working to perform perfectly, musicians tend to lose sight of how
those minor variations can really add a texture or emotion to the music.
Maybe I misunderstand your intentions, but I don't see how a computer
corrected performance could be better than the live performance. How
would the computer decide what was an error vs. an intended deviation?
If a performer wanted every performance to be the same, why go to the
concert at all - just buy the cd and be done with it.
Doogle333
>Doogle <doog...@aol.com> wrote:
>>I second Gerry's intriquing question -- If the ultimate goal is to
>>achieve a faithful realization of the composer's musical intentions,
>>why rely on imperfect human performance skills? There's no reason in
>>principle why a pianist/composer today can't create a good MIDI
>>recording of himself/herself performing the work, tweak the recording
>>to his/her complete satisfaction, and then distribute this definitive
>>MIDI recording to assure a perfect stage performance every time on a
>>suitable instrument (e.g., a midi-prepared Steinway D).
>>
>>If this seems like a strange idea, maybe it's time to admit that
>>"respecting the composer's original intention" is not the ultimate
>>goal nor is it sufficient for a satisfying musical performance.. . .
>I've had an interest in various arts and I don't think that a perfect
>rendition of any art is all that interesting. I've done a bit of study
>of calligraphy, and what makes hand-written calligraphy interesting is
>the imperfections between the characters. Not every G looks the same -
>they're all the same style, drawn the same way, but the subtle
>differences are what make it look interesting on the page. Rendering
>a font in a computer and printing it on a page only serves to eliminate
>those variations with the end result having a manufactured, lifeless
>feel.
>I tend to think the same applies in music. The dynamics and subtle
>errors in rhythm can add texture to the art that would be totally absent
>if it were corrected by the computer. I know musicians who don't count
>time at all - what they play is 'close enough' to what they intended
>and they didn't lose time with the rest of the band. Sometimes I think
>in working to perform perfectly, musicians tend to lose sight of how
>those minor variations can really add a texture or emotion to the music.
>Maybe I misunderstand your intentions, but I don't see how a computer
>corrected performance could be better than the live performance. How
>would the computer decide what was an error vs. an intended deviation?
>If a performer wanted every performance to be the same, why go to the
>concert at all - just buy the cd and be done with it.
>
In our scenario the computer doesn't "decide" anything or correct mistakes or
cause the music to sound uniform or mechanical. The computer simply captures
exactly how the composer wants his music to be heard, down to every subtle
nuance of tempo, rhythm, accent, dynamics, phrasing, pedal, expression. If the
composer wants a certain passage to be played rubato, the MIDI recording
captures and reproduces it exactly. If he wants an emotional burst of speed
followed by a sudden ritard and whisper-quiet pianissimo, the MIDI sequence
reproduces it exactly. The composer's definitive performance can then be
experienced by listeners in concert halls throughout the world, on excellent
concert-quality acoustic grand pianos instead of cheap home stereo speakers.
The main differences from a live performance are: you always get to hear
exactly what the composer intended his work of art to sound like, and the piano
bench is empty.
Doogle.
Alan Young
<doog...@aol.com> wrote:
> If the
> composer wants a certain passage to be played rubato, the MIDI recording
> captures and reproduces it exactly. If he wants an emotional burst of speed
> followed by a sudden ritard and whisper-quiet pianissimo, the MIDI sequence
> reproduces it exactly.
On the contrary, this example proves exactly why we need live
performance. Emotions are not mechanically reproducible. A burst of
speed is just that; it's only "emotional" relative to the people
experiencing the emotions, which varies according to the temperament of
the performer, the audience, the news on the radio that night (ask
anyone who performed the week of 9/11/01, for example), and other
imponderables. What is "whisper-quiet" also depends on the physical
conditions of the hall, etc.
> The composer's definitive performance can then be
> experienced by listeners in concert halls throughout the world, on excellent
> concert-quality acoustic grand pianos instead of cheap home stereo speakers.
The best stereo system in the world is cheaper than even an average
concert grand, and all pianos are different one from another. Why take
a chance on an inferior or out-of-tune piano, when you can have
perfectly standardized audio? You are contradicting yourself.
> The main differences from a live performance are: you always get to hear
> exactly what the composer intended his work of art to sound like, and the piano
> bench is empty.
As I see it, most composers intended their works to sound like a unique
experience every time they are played, and intentionally leave room for
interpretation in order to keep it interesting. You will do well in
pop-music production, though, where everything has been reduced to
computerized technology.
--
Alan
http://www.hummingbear.net/~aayoung/Jazz/jazz.html
"Pray every day to every god."
-- Kurt Elling, "Resolution"
Raj V
in cheek in this thread started by Gerry. Perfection, or someone's
interpretation of perfection, may only be attainable through technology
(midi) but it would be exceedingly uninteresting. Who is to say how the
composer intended the music to be exactly played? This and previous threads
have discussed rendering classical music the way the composer supposedly
"intended", God forbid any improvisation. I have at least three artists
interpretations of Beethoven's 5th piano concerto, and thank God, each is
different.
Raj
"drsmith" <drsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1g09o$mes$1...@pyrite.mv.net...
ptooner
> I think you are taking this far too literally. I detect some serious
tongue
> in cheek in this thread started by Gerry.
Just for the record, I didn't actually start this although I am very
interested in it. For those who may have forgotten, here's the original
post:
"I've been curious about this for a long time. A conversation I had
recently rekindled my interest.
I was talking to a sax player I know about the Yo Yo Ma "Obrigado
Brasil" CD. The CD covers a variety of styles of Brazilian music, most
of which is obviously composed. But there are at least two cuts (bossa
novas) where you would normally expect the musicians to be improvising
to a set of changes. They would certainly improvise their solos. We
were wondering if Yo Yo Ma had played a composed part, or composed a
part for himself, or improvised it.
The album is beautifully played and I recommend it. Still, I wonder.
I don't know the answer, of course. But I know musicians that have
pretty much never played a note that wasn't written. This is a very
foreign concept to me.
When I sit and play the piano, I try out melodies, chord forms,
patterns, rhythms: whatever comes into my head. When I'm really "on",
it almost feels like I'm watching someone else play. And of course,
sometimes nothing much of interest happens.
When I'm not at the piano, I often have similar "experiments" going on
in my head. This seems to me to be the natural condition of a
musician. (I realize that there's nothing surprising about finding
your OWN experience "natural")
It just seems strange to me that vastly superior musicians may never
do what to me seems the very essence of my "musicality". Don't they
"noodle" a little bit, even in private?
So what is your experience?"
I forget who actually posted it though.
gerry
f_unde...@hotmail.com
> In Message-id: c1g09o$mes$1...@pyrite.mv.net> drsmith writes:
>
> >Doogle <doog...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>I second Gerry's intriquing question -- If the ultimate goal is to
> >>achieve a faithful realization of the composer's musical intentions,
> >>why rely on imperfect human performance skills? There's no reason in
> >>principle why a pianist/composer today can't create a good MIDI
> >>recording of himself/herself performing the work, tweak the recording
> >>to his/her complete satisfaction, and then distribute this definitive
> >>MIDI recording to assure a perfect stage performance every time on a
> >>suitable instrument (e.g., a midi-prepared Steinway D).
> >>
> >>If this seems like a strange idea, maybe it's time to admit that
> >>"respecting the composer's original intention" is not the ultimate
> >>goal nor is it sufficient for a satisfying musical performance.. . .
>
You know, I don't want to butt in this thread. But your attitude on
how classical music can be replaced by a computer, while improvisation
can't really really annoys me. Any scientist in machine intelligence
will tell you it is a very possible thing (ie forseeable). In fact
there are many research papers published on generating music
automatically.
A quick google search gives me these
1. "Techniques for Algorithmic Composition of Music" by Adam Alpern,
1995
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/alpern95techniques.html
It summarised the authors work in the 3 years pre 1995. And from one
of the citations, it seems to be on jazz improvisation/composition.
2. "Improvising Jazz With Markov Chains" by Yuval Marom
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/131999.html
3. "Automatic composition of music by means of grammatical evolution"
2002 from Universidad Autónoma de Madrid and IBM
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=602231.602249&dl=GUIDE&dl=ACM&type=series&idx=SERIES404&part=Proceedings&WantType=Proceedings&title=International%20Conference%20on%20APL
4. "An Algorithmic Approach to Composition based on Dynamic
Hierarchical Assembly" by Bill Punch, Mark Sullivan, et al.
http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/180298.html
> The main differences from a live performance are: you always get to hear
> exactly what the composer intended his work of art to sound like, and the piano
> bench is empty.
An addition to the above statement.
The main differences from a live performance are - you get to hear
beautiful improvised music, and the piano bench is empty. And by
switching AI algorithms, you have a new artist with a different
harmonic and melodic vocabulary.
Gary
> In our scenario the computer doesn't "decide" anything or correct mistakes
or
> cause the music to sound uniform or mechanical. The computer simply
captures
> exactly how the composer wants his music to be heard, down to every subtle
> nuance of tempo, rhythm, accent, dynamics, phrasing, pedal, expression.
If the
> composer wants a certain passage to be played rubato, the MIDI recording
> captures and reproduces it exactly. If he wants an emotional burst of
speed
> followed by a sudden ritard and whisper-quiet pianissimo, the MIDI
sequence
> reproduces it exactly. The composer's definitive performance can then be
> experienced by listeners in concert halls throughout the world, on
excellent
> concert-quality acoustic grand pianos instead of cheap home stereo
speakers.
That is only true in theory because digital sequencing is prone to
OVER editing with subsequent blandness the result.
Don't you get bored playing a song the same way EVERY time?
Gary.
ptooner
"Gary" <Klavie...@Bundestag.com> wrote in message
news:xH0%b.75888$Wa.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I certainly do! That's why I gave up playing "classics".
Gerry
Doogle333
performances of composed art music. I do think the idea (credit to Gerry)
provides a thought experiment to explore the limits of "respecting the
composer's original conception" and the significance of the performer.
f_underhill37@hotmailcom wrote:
<<"You know, I don't want to butt in this thread. But your attitude on
how classical music can be replaced by a computer, while improvisation
can't really really annoys me. Any scientist in machine intelligence
will tell you it is a very possible thing (ie forseeable). In fact
there are many research papers published on generating music
automatically.">>
Please don't be annoyed. I didn't say anything about the inability of
computers to replace improvisation, and I have no attitude about it. I figure
if computers can play chess they can probably play riffs.
Here's a philosophical question for you: Does a computer make music if no one
listens to it?
"Gary" Klavie...@Bundestag.com wrote:
<<"That is only true in theory because digital sequencing is prone to
OVER editing with subsequent blandness the result.
Don't you get bored playing a song the same way EVERY time?">>
I agree, many MIDI sequences are awful, but that's not the kind I had in mind.
Yes, I do get bored playing a piano piece exactly the same way all the time.
Maybe we should consider two different perspectives: the performer's and the
listener's. Do you have a favorite recording of a great piece of music? If
so, does it bother you that it sounds the same every time you listen to it?
Alan Young aay...@sonic.net wrotes:
<<"As I see it, most composers intended their works to sound like a unique
experience every time they are played, and intentionally leave room for
interpretation in order to keep it interesting. You will do well in
pop-music production, though, where everything has been reduced to
computerized technology">>
You could be right about composers wanting performers to provide varying
interpretations. Personally I don't know, but I think that would be a good
question for the "composer's original intention" fetishists to address. As for
doing well in pop-music production, I appreciate your vote of confidence but I
have no interest in that activity.
Best regards,
Doogle
Tom Shaw
human composing is bs. Much like the proverbial monkey typing out the New
Testament by random.
TS
<f_unde...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8e4ae4bb.04022...@posting.google.com...
ptooner
"Doogle333" <doog...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040225114747...@mb-m18.aol.com...
I don't know if it is relavent, but I know lots of people who watch the same
movie over and over and/or read the same book over and over. I can't stand
either. I wonder if that is the temperament difference that separates the
"classic" pianist and the pop pianist? Just a thought.
Gerry
Terryo
>>
> I don't know if it is relavent, but I know lots of people who watch the same
> movie over and over and/or read the same book over and over. I can't stand
> either. I wonder if that is the temperament difference that separates the
> "classic" pianist and the pop pianist? Just a thought.
>
> Gerry
Are we to conclude, then, that you can't stand to see "Hamlet"
performed over and over?
The point you may be missing is this -- composers create works and put
them out to be performed by various performers. No two performers are
exactly alike. People attend live performances to see how the
performers interpret the piece, to appreciate those subtle differences
that make one performance good and another performance less
satisfying. Those subtleties seem to be lost on you, however.
"Hamlet" can vary greatly when performed by different troupes --
indeed, when performed by the same troupe from one night to the next
-- even though all are being true to the playwright's "original
intent". Even though they are speaking the same words and following
the same stage directions, the results vary. The performances of a
piece of music are analogous -- the notes and directions are followed
as written, but the results vary. And, although you seem unaware of
it, composers play their own music differently at different times,
while remaining true to their "original intent". No single
performance, even by the composer, is ever "perfect" -- there is
always room for subtle interpretation. That is why live performances
will always attract intelligent and informed listeners ... while you
sit at home.
ptooner
"Terryo" <yr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4f9c406e.04022...@posting.google.com...
> "ptooner" <no...@yourlife.com> wrote in message
news:<eZ5%b.6595$UU.6563@lakeread01>...
> >>
> > I don't know if it is relavent, but I know lots of people who watch the
same
> > movie over and over and/or read the same book over and over. I can't
stand
> > either. I wonder if that is the temperament difference that separates
the
> > "classic" pianist and the pop pianist? Just a thought.
> >
> > Gerry
>
> Are we to conclude, then, that you can't stand to see "Hamlet"
> performed over and over?
Well, I would not watch any of the various movie adaptations over and over.
I wouldn't read the play over and over.
>
> The point you may be missing is this -- composers create works and put
> them out to be performed by various performers. No two performers are
> exactly alike. People attend live performances to see how the
> performers interpret the piece, to appreciate those subtle differences
> that make one performance good and another performance less
> satisfying. Those subtleties seem to be lost on you, however.
Well, the gist of this thread is that the performer should strive to vary as
little as possible from the original score. After nearly 50 years as a
professional musician, perhaps some of the subtleties are lost on me.
>
> "Hamlet" can vary greatly when performed by different troupes --
> indeed, when performed by the same troupe from one night to the next
> -- even though all are being true to the playwright's "original
> intent". Even though they are speaking the same words and following
> the same stage directions, the results vary. The performances of a
> piece of music are analogous -- the notes and directions are followed
> as written, but the results vary. And, although you seem unaware of
> it, composers play their own music differently at different times,
> while remaining true to their "original intent". No single
> performance, even by the composer, is ever "perfect" -- there is
> always room for subtle interpretation. That is why live performances
> will always attract intelligent and informed listeners ... while you
> sit at home.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
Gerry
ggua...@pipeline.com
>>What I am really wondering about is whether classical players, who of
>>course play from a score in "organized" settings, ever play whatever
>>comes into their heads say, at home?
>
>Our 2 daughters do it all the time. But it is not as easy in classical as in
>jazz, etc., where improvisation is part of the culture.
True, I suppose, inasmuch as we are referring to "instant"
improvisation, such as in Jazz. But my impression is that even (slow)
composition is treated as an exotic concept in a lot of music
education. Why do you suppose that is?
>Our daughters had
>years of solfege training and have perfect pitch, both of which are very
>helpful especially if you also want to write them down. The difficulty is in
>getting started, because in classical, such activities are generally classified
>more as "composing" instead of improvising (there really shouldn't be a
>distinction, and in the beginning, there wasn't).
A friend of mine told me he wrote a college paper whose theme was that
ALL music is improvised. After all, SOMEONE had to improvise all the
music we know as classics now.
>However, once you get
>started, it is apparently quite do-able, and they have fun recording it, using
>all the midi etc., capabilities, which means that they can record it as
>harpsichord, violin, or even entire orchestras. However, unlike jazz
>improvisations, they really have to work at it, it doesn't always come, and
>creating good beginnings, endings, etc., are not easy at all.
I don't know about the "unlike Jazz" part. As with any sort of
creativity or invention, the results vary.
>So the answer to your Q is yes, but relatively few, probably because the
>demands of learning to play available music is so overwhelming (without a
>really good teacher) and the difficulty of composing anything worthwhile.
I find your final comment intriguing, possibly fodder for a new
thread. Do you really think that it's difficult to compose anything
worthwhile? I have often wondered if that opinion might not be part of
the reason that composition, or at least experimentation, isn't a more
integral part of the standard musical education.
Do classical musicians and teachers tend to feel that composition is
such an unusual talent that most people need not even try it? Or
perhaps even that most everything that could be composed within our
musical framework already HAS been?
Back when I had a personal studio and more time on my hands I recorded
upwards of a hundred instrumental (dare I call them) compositions.
Some were little musings, tossed of quickly. Others were more fleshed
out. I think all of them were "worthwhile", and some were even good.
(I make that distinction deliberately).
Were any of them the caliber of Beethoven, or Chick Corea? I suppose
not. But I enjoyed "inventing" them, and a number of people have
enjoyed listening to the better ones. Moreover, ALL of my little
experiments have improved my musical vocabulary, in a way that I think
could not be duplicated by any other method.
So tell your daughters to keep up the good work!
Michael
> Much like the proverbial monkey typing out the New
> Testament by random.
It's highly likely one monkey would look at the text, scratch his head
and come up something far more plausible.
An infinite number might distract each other enough to get the job done.
--
Michael.
nada
"Michael" <mic...@none.invalid> wrote in message
news:gIe%b.1117$44.1018@newsfe1-win...
Ok, that was pretty damn funny.
Tom Shaw
should have picked a different example...one of Lenin's works perhaps.
TS
"nada" <he...@helll.org> wrote in message
news:103qv4d...@corp.supernews.com...
Tom Shaw
but my father would and did. He annotated the text in the margins and
apparently found something in every read which he had not noticed or fully
understood before. But that is not casual entertainment reading...more of a
professional activity. There might be an anology in music.
TSnews:0_b%b.7381$UU.6086@lakeread01...
Wai Doan Hsu
> On 23 Feb 2004 03:32:49 GMT, cc...@aol.com (Cc88m) wrote:
>
> >>What I am really wondering about is whether classical players, who of
> >>course play from a score in "organized" settings, ever play whatever
> >>comes into their heads say, at home?
> >
> >Our 2 daughters do it all the time. But it is not as easy in classical as in
> >jazz, etc., where improvisation is part of the culture.
>
> True, I suppose, inasmuch as we are referring to "instant"
> improvisation, such as in Jazz. But my impression is that even (slow)
> composition is treated as an exotic concept in a lot of music
> education. Why do you suppose that is?
Because it is not generally taught, nor was it generally taught to the
teachers. A student who has not moved beyond five keys in each hand
has enough elements to learn to compose, but few teachers will teach
composition at that level. Too few actually learn about composition,
and those who do tend to be at an advanced level, even though it
should be taught sooner.
>
> >Our daughters had
> >years of solfege training and have perfect pitch, both of which are very
> >helpful especially if you also want to write them down. The difficulty is in
> >getting started, because in classical, such activities are generally classified
> >more as "composing" instead of improvising (there really shouldn't be a
> >distinction, and in the beginning, there wasn't).
>
> A friend of mine told me he wrote a college paper whose theme was that
> ALL music is improvised. After all, SOMEONE had to improvise all the
> music we know as classics now.
If you understand the difference between composing and improvising
(which I'm sure you do) it becomes clear why this is not true. One
could argue that there's no distinction between a "live" recording and
a "studio" recording using the same logic. After all, somebody was
playing something live at one point.
The difference is fluency. An improvisation is a spontaneous and
continuous piece. While a composer might come up with a spontaneous
melody, chances are that it's built into a composition over time.
Unless it was written in "one take," it's composed. Likewise, a "live"
recording was recorded in one take.
>
> >So the answer to your Q is yes, but relatively few, probably because the
> >demands of learning to play available music is so overwhelming (without a
> >really good teacher) and the difficulty of composing anything worthwhile.
>
> I find your final comment intriguing, possibly fodder for a new
> thread. Do you really think that it's difficult to compose anything
> worthwhile? I have often wondered if that opinion might not be part of
> the reason that composition, or at least experimentation, isn't a more
> integral part of the standard musical education.
>
> Do classical musicians and teachers tend to feel that composition is
> such an unusual talent that most people need not even try it? Or
> perhaps even that most everything that could be composed within our
> musical framework already HAS been?
>
A lot of people are under the impression that it's very difficult and
that everything worthwhile has been written before. I've heard
arguments that there are only eight notes and there are only so many
ways to arrange them. And that's true. While they can be whole notes
or quarter notes, etc. the number of elements is pretty limited. One
must also consider that there are only 26 letters in the alphabet and
a few puntuation marks. That's why I can say with reasonable
certainty that this post I am making now was written before, but the
difference was the order of the 26 letters. However, most people will
agree that the limited number of letters in the alphabet allows for an
almost unlimited number of written compositions with quite varied
ideas. Likewise, there is no threshold or saturation point for
musical compositions either. There's still room for an almost
infinite number of compositions to be written.
The big problem here is one of paradigm. We expect music teaching to
be a certain way, and we expect that if composition does not come
naturally, it can't be taught easily.
Some musicians are self taught. Some of them are excellent musicians.
Imagine if people were under the impression that if you can't teach
yourself music, it's not real music. Most people who play an
instrument would never learn. Likewise, imagine if people were taught
that playing from a musical score is not real music, and that only
improvisational music is legitimate. Musical teaching would be very
different.
If we look at other arts, we can see this opposite paradigm. Around
the turn of the 20th century, "paint by numbers" was a very popular
hobby. Nobody said that it was not real painting, and some who
learned that way were excellent painters. There was also a degree of
improvisation involved. Some people would alter some facial features
or add things to landscapes, etc. Painters learned techniques of
blending and strokes and mixing and other things that made a poor
painting as different from a good one as a poor rendition of a scored
piece is from a good one. But it fell out of fashion, and now the art
world views it as something inherently unworthy. We accept that
people can play music "by numbers" with sheet music, or that people
can perform in plays and movies "by numbers" with a script. Yet we
also accept improvisational theater and comedy, or jazz or improvised
rock music. Composer Chris Opperman (oppymusic.com) put on some
concerts of entirely improvised classical style piano music around the
time of his Klavierstücke CD, and it was well received. But "paint by
numbers" is still on the bottom of the heap and is no longer
considered "real" art.
So in some areas of the arts, original composition is all but required
for an artist's work to be considered legitimate, and in others, it's
all but absent among the best performers. But a look at history shows
that these very different art forms really do allow for differing
degrees of these elements and some were far more accepted in different
points in history.
If we had the view that music must be improvised or self taught to be
worthwhile, we would miss a lot. But we also know that lessons can
help those who are not self taught, and jazz teachers can teach
improvisation. It's just as logical to assume that we can teach
arranging and composing to even beginning students, but it's not done.
If a student learns to figure out which of three chords fits where,
and how to play around with keys within scales to find a melody, then
a beginning student can compose. If we teach basic concepts such as
sequencing and repetition and ABA or AB forms and have students try
them out, then students can learn to compose. Teachers merely need to
explain what elements are out there and have students try them. Not
everybody will become a brilliant composer, but then again, not
everybody will play "Mary Had a Little Lamb" with finesse either.
ggua...@pipeline.com
wrote:
>ggua...@pipeline.com wrote in message news:<kpkq30lb2di963uee...@4ax.com>...
>> On 23 Feb 2004 03:32:49 GMT, cc...@aol.com (Cc88m) wrote:
>>
>> >>What I am really wondering about is whether classical players, who of
>> >>course play from a score in "organized" settings, ever play whatever
>> >>comes into their heads say, at home?
>> >
>> >Our 2 daughters do it all the time. But it is not as easy in classical as in
>> >jazz, etc., where improvisation is part of the culture.
>>
>> True, I suppose, inasmuch as we are referring to "instant"
>> improvisation, such as in Jazz. But my impression is that even (slow)
>> composition is treated as an exotic concept in a lot of music
>> education. Why do you suppose that is?
>
>Because it is not generally taught, nor was it generally taught to the
>teachers. A student who has not moved beyond five keys in each hand
>has enough elements to learn to compose, but few teachers will teach
>composition at that level. Too few actually learn about composition,
>and those who do tend to be at an advanced level, even though it
>should be taught sooner.
What you've written is what I have often suspected, but I wonder why
it has gotten to be that way. I had piano lessons as a child from a
woman who lived about a block away. She was quite a music lover and
her husband played Bass for the (NY) Metropolitan Opera.
I imagine that my experience was pretty standard, with two possible
exceptions. I always found sight reading difficult and would
frequently ask her to play a piece for me before I tried it. On some
occasions she woould insist that I work it out for myself, but most of
the time she would play the piece. I think she could tell that I had a
talent for playing by ear that was worthwhile to nurture a bit, even
if it might also be indulging my laziness.
When I was maybe twelve years old, she decided to introduce me to the
concept of chords. She explained to me that if you understand chords
you can play music that's not written, or even make up your own. She
had only taught me the very simplest chords and the concept of
inversions by the time I stopped taking lessons, but it opened up a
whole world of possibilities.
Fast forward thirty odd years and I'm still a lousy reader (that's
probably putting it mildly as I haven't had an occasion to read
anything in a very long time) but I'm an unusually good ear player who
always has a melody or chord change or rhythmic motif ratlling around
in his head. When I sit down to play by myself it is nearly always to
experiment.
I'm also a part time musician, playing about 120 jobs a year. My
favorite part of our gigs is taking requests for songs we don't know.
Someone asked for "25 or 6 to 4" by Chicago the other night and we did
a passable version of it. We do this at practically every gig, and
our better attempts make it into the repertoire. We refer to this as
"rehearsal". (in my 8 years with this group, we've had fewer than ten
"actual" rehearsals). We've got about 230 songs on our list now.
I am grateful that my first teacher didn't try to squash my early
leanings toward playing by ear. I am also grateful that she opened the
door a crack toward improvisation. It was my own laziness that
prevented me from learning to read better.
>> >Our daughters had
>> >years of solfege training and have perfect pitch, both of which are very
>> >helpful especially if you also want to write them down. The difficulty is in
>> >getting started, because in classical, such activities are generally classified
>> >more as "composing" instead of improvising (there really shouldn't be a
>> >distinction, and in the beginning, there wasn't).
>>
>> A friend of mine told me he wrote a college paper whose theme was that
>> ALL music is improvised. After all, SOMEONE had to improvise all the
>> music we know as classics now.
>
>If you understand the difference between composing and improvising
>(which I'm sure you do) it becomes clear why this is not true. One
>could argue that there's no distinction between a "live" recording and
>a "studio" recording using the same logic. After all, somebody was
>playing something live at one point.
>
>The difference is fluency. An improvisation is a spontaneous and
>continuous piece. While a composer might come up with a spontaneous
>melody, chances are that it's built into a composition over time.
>Unless it was written in "one take," it's composed. Likewise, a "live"
>recording was recorded in one take.
While I recognize the difference, I see improvisation and composition
as points on a continuum, not separate concepts. Composition is (or at
least ought to be, in my view) improvisation plus improvement. There
may be ways to compose other than hearing a bit of a piece in your
head and trying it out, changing it, adding to it and so on, but I
think most music that I would find enjoyable has to begin that way.
I agree wholeheartedly, and not just because we'll produce more
composers. Experimentation expands your musical vocabulary. I think it
can even help you play written pieces with a greater depth of
understanding.
Thank you for your excellent and well-written post, by the way.
Greg Guarino