knowledge -> less enjoyment
Charles R. Sullivan
post an interesting tidbit:
Sting was interviewed on Fresh Air last night, and said that he
doesn't listen to music for enjoyment anymore, partly because he
can't listen without thinking of technical things. He said
"Music can be a form of torture sometimes", and then described
how he automatically starts analyzing any music he hears, so that listening
to music becomes the opposite of a way to relax. He also said he has
too much music in his head and doesn't need any more.
Perhaps we bluenote snobs will consider Sting as someone who is still at
the "student" stage where excessive attention to technical details
dominates. But I think he has made music that succeeds at goes deeper
than that.
I guess the bottom line is that YMMV.
Charlie Sullivan
Thomas F Brown
>
>The mystery in this is why someone who felt like that got so involved in music
>in the first place, though.
I know a lot of musicians who no longer really like music
all that much. Doing it for a career can burn you out.
Marc Sabatella
> > I know a lot of musicians who no longer really like music
> > all that much. Doing it for a career can burn you out.
> Yeah, I think that's pretty common. A lot of musicians are so determined
> to make a living from music (NO DAY JOBS!!!), that they end up playing a
> lot of music they don't like, maybe in bad situations or with players
> they don't like, etc. Teaching music all day can sap your energy too.
> IMO, it's real important to take care of your "creative energy," and your
> spirit & enthusiasm for the music. Without that, you may as well hang it
> up and become a critic.
This is why I'm glad I have my day job. I want to be able to leave and do
music full time, but not if it means I have to do things I won't like that
could burn me out. I do enjoy teaching, but wouldn't want to have to do it all
the time. I would want to be selective about who I teach - eg, no six year
olds whose mothers are making them take piano lessons. Just as I would want to
be selective about gigs, although I find I don't very often get asked to do
gigs I wouldn't find at least somewhat interesting. Now, as for becoming a
critic, I have to admit this has its appeal as well, as I definitely enjoy
writing. I'd like to think that by spreading myself out like this, I'll be
able to avoid burnout.
--
Marc Sabatella
--
ma...@fc.hp.com
http://www.fortnet.org/~marc/
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Jeff Volkman
On 10 Mar 1996, Thomas F Brown wrote:
> In article <4hidtr$g...@fcnews.fc.hp.com> ma...@fc.hp.com writes:
> >
> >The mystery in this is why someone who felt like that got so involved in music
> >in the first place, though.
>
> I know a lot of musicians who no longer really like music
> all that much. Doing it for a career can burn you out.
Yeah, I think that's pretty common. A lot of musicians are so determined
to make a living from music (NO DAY JOBS!!!), that they end up playing a
lot of music they don't like, maybe in bad situations or with players
they don't like, etc. Teaching music all day can sap your energy too.
IMO, it's real important to take care of your "creative energy," and your
spirit & enthusiasm for the music. Without that, you may as well hang it
up and become a critic.
-Jeff
Jay Brown
: He's right about this - music is not meant to be a background to let
: you "relax." Music is written to engage you, much the same as a piece
: of literature is written.
I think music can be lots of things. While I do a lot of active listening,
I also like atmosphere created by music I like. Your literature analogy
doesn't work for me - reading requires intellectualization. How about
interior design? It is primarlily a visual thing - most people
aren't trained in it and don't actively analyze places they go into,
but yet there are probably places that make you feel good and places
that don't. The visual arts can straddle this intellectual versus emotional
thing as well. Some pieces are intriguing for the richness of the skill
and craft to create them, some transcend intellectual things and just
make you feel good.
: Music may make you feel things, but only if you pay attention to it.
I listen to music a lot while I work. My listening fades in and out of
active and passive states pretty freely and I enjoy this.
The George Winston story strikes a chord with me (argh...couldn't resist
though). I bought a couple of his albums 8-9 years ago before I found
I was hunting for jazz. They really did it for me for a while. I went
to a live concert and after about 1/2 hour was bored out of my mind.
Later George played a tune that was very heavily blues influenced and
got my attention, but then he went back to his normal stuff.
I consider it all part of the path I took to jazz.
Jay Brown hpgrla!jayb
Master Killer Scot
1) I find that I have indeed "burned out" on a lot of music that I used
to listen to just because I guess I know more about music and it doesn't
impress me anymore... Luckily there is lots of jazz and classical in
the world that I still haven't heard yet so I will never ant for anything
new to buy...
2) Music theory ruined me. I used to play antirely by ear not paying any
attention at all to the science behind the music I wrote for my horn players
(although I knew enough about music to write it out when I was done) but
since I took a theory course, I don't feel the freedom to just rock out
when I'm writing because I am so caught up in what notes "theoretically"
sound good together and all the ridiculous taboos we were taught in the
strict 4-part section which is what the teacher spent most of our time on.
Unfortunately I don't have room in my schedule for theory 2 or jazz theory
so I am going to have some trouble unlearning what I have learned...
(Although it is fun to be able to use tech terms with my horn section who,
by the nature of their instruments, actually had schooling in music)
Scotty
Ton Maas
came to mind. He used to say: "If your pictures ain't good enough, that
means you weren't close enough!"
Would that translate into: "If you are bored, you didn't let yourself
become involved enough deeply"?
The idea that knowledge somehow spoils enjoyment may indicate a (temporary)
crisis in an ongoing learning process. I know that it *feels* like you're
on the wrong track, but the only way out is to go ahead.
Ton Maas, Amsterdam NL
Jeff Volkman
On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, Gary Valentin wrote:
> I'm all for keeping your creative energy in good shape. But there
> must be some downsides. For instance, you can't go touring to various
> Jazz festivals across the country. Which is really too bad. Also,
> you probably don't get as much opportunity to check out new artists
> and see what's going on in the Jazz world. Or do you?
Well, I try to. But you're right; I'd love to be out touring. I do
some regional touring in the summers with some local bands, but
nothing beyond that recently. Lot's of my friends are out touring in
various circuits, and that seems like the logical thing for me to be
doing. However, I'm committed to hanging out here and raising my son, and
I really love Seattle, so I'm just working to find nice niches for
myself in the local scene. In a few years I'll probably try to get into
national/international touring of some kind again.
-Jeff
Gary Valentin
Jeff> On 12 Mar 1996, Marc Sabatella wrote:
>> Jeff Volkman wrote:
Jeff> Same here. I burned myself out for a few years, but now I've got a
Jeff> decent day job that doesn't stress me out or sap a lot of energy, and I've
Jeff> been diversifying a little; putting more time into arranging and producing
Jeff> than playing lately. As you say; it's nice to be able to pick and choose
Jeff> what you want to do, and it's not bad to have a reputation for
Jeff> being somewhat selective.
Jeff> -Jeff
I'm all for keeping your creative energy in good shape. But there
must be some downsides. For instance, you can't go touring to various
Jazz festivals across the country. Which is really too bad. Also,
you probably don't get as much opportunity to check out new artists
and see what's going on in the Jazz world. Or do you?
--
____________________________________________________________________
garyValentin IBM DB2 Performance
rud...@vnet.ibm.com
(416)-448-3467 Everybody makes me steaks,
(TL)-778-3467 even me.
Jeff Volkman
On 14 Mar 1996, Marc Sabatella wrote:
> Jeff Volkman wrote:
>
> > but they really are an excellent foundation to build on. You need to
> > keep studying to get the value of it though, otherwise; yeah, you may as
> > well just un-learn it. Of course, when you're writing horn parts for
> > modern music you can break those rules with impunity, but it is good to
> > learn how to avoid parallel 5ths & 4ths, the relative dissonance of
> > different intervals, etc.
>
> For me, what I got most out of it was learning an appreciation for when to
> double parts, the effect of different spacing between voices, and the
> importance of maintaining good horizontal voice-leading. This helps me both
> when arranging for horns and when constructing voicings on the piano.
>
> If I were developing a music theory class, I'd structure it to emphasize these
> points and not worry so much about the parallel fifths, and not concentrate so
> much on diatonic music.
For general music theory, or theory oriented more towards jazz and 20th
century music; I totally agree. But in your average college music
program (like here at the UW), the theory classes -aside from the
specialized jazz theory classes- are classical oriented. So unless going
to a good jazz school is an option, a student in one of these 1st or 2nd
year theory classes should probably go ahead and learn the godawful Bach
4-part rules, in preparation for the slightly funner clases that come
later. This is something I learned the hard way, because my first couple
years of college; I wasn't interested in that stuff either, and I slacked
a bit. All I was interested in was the bass. But sure enough, a few
years later I became more interested in arranging and orchestration, and
decided to take some of the classical oriented theory classes here at the
UW. They were great classes, and I really got a lot of good from them,
but I definitely had to scramble at the beginning to cover some of the
ground I hadn't thoroughly covered my first time around. And those
parallel 5ths continue to be a bugger in the later counterpoint classes,
but it also becomes clearer why they're so "taboo" (duh, they don't sound
good).
-Jeff
Marc Sabatella
> Those rules you learn in 4-part are a pain,
> but they really are an excellent foundation to build on. You need to
> keep studying to get the value of it though, otherwise; yeah, you may as
> well just un-learn it. Of course, when you're writing horn parts for
> modern music you can break those rules with impunity, but it is good to
> learn how to avoid parallel 5ths & 4ths, the relative dissonance of
> different intervals, etc.
For me, what I got most out of it was learning an appreciation for when to
double parts, the effect of different spacing between voices, and the
importance of maintaining good horizontal voice-leading. This helps me both
when arranging for horns and when constructing voicings on the piano.
If I were developing a music theory class, I'd structure it to emphasize these
points and not worry so much about the parallel fifths, and not concentrate so
much on diatonic music.
--
Jeff Volkman
Don't give up so quickly. Those rules you learn in 4-part are a pain,
but they really are an excellent foundation to build on. You need to
keep studying to get the value of it though, otherwise; yeah, you may as
well just un-learn it. Of course, when you're writing horn parts for
modern music you can break those rules with impunity, but it is good to
learn how to avoid parallel 5ths & 4ths, the relative dissonance of
different intervals, etc. I can tell you, from my own experience, that
you may eventually become more interested in this stuff (voice-leading,
counterpoint) again, and you'll be glad you spent the time studying the
4-part writing.
-Jeff
Charles H Berg
> Well, I try to. But you're right; I'd love to be out touring. I do
> some regional touring in the summers with some local bands, but
> nothing beyond that recently. Lot's of my friends are out touring in
> various circuits, and that seems like the logical thing for me to be
> doing. However, I'm committed to hanging out here and raising my son, and
> I really love Seattle, so I'm just working to find nice niches for
> myself in the local scene. In a few years I'll probably try to get into
> national/international touring of some kind again.
>
> -Jeff
>
Hmm. That's funny - it sounds very much like my story. I basically
left the life when my son was born back in 1990, 'cause I couldn't do
the road and be a Dad, and most of what I was playing then involved
travel. It was too much to juggle 3 lives - music, my day gig, and
the Father Thang. Stopped playing altogether for several years, I got
so far from it (couldn't listen to much music either - especially
stuff I had played over the years - too painful). I'm just
getting back into it now, now that my son is 6 and is somewhat "lower
maintenance". But travel is still going to be an issue.
Jeff, how old is your son?
--
Charlie Berg
c...@world.std.com
Marc Sabatella
> On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, Gary Valentin wrote:
> > I'm all for keeping your creative energy in good shape. But there
> > must be some downsides. For instance, you can't go touring to various
> > Jazz festivals across the country. Which is really too bad. Also,
> > you probably don't get as much opportunity to check out new artists
> > and see what's going on in the Jazz world. Or do you?
> Well, I try to. But you're right; I'd love to be out touring. I do
> some regional touring in the summers with some local bands, but
> nothing beyond that recently. Lot's of my friends are out touring in
> various circuits, and that seems like the logical thing for me to be
> doing. However, I'm committed to hanging out here and raising my son, and
> I really love Seattle, so I'm just working to find nice niches for
> myself in the local scene. In a few years I'll probably try to get into
> national/international touring of some kind again.
It wasn't originally clear to me what Gary meant - whether the "downsides"
came from having the day job (and thereby being "grounded" in a sense) or from
not having one (and thereby having no money). I think I have the best of both
worlds - my (part time now) job keeps me financially stable, but I can take a
couple of weeks off whenever I want - either by using up my vacation time, or
by taking time off without pay. Of course, I haven't the vaguest idea how to
actually get a tour together, although this is something I am now extremely
interested in. As for checking out new artists, sure I do - I can afford to
buy their CD's, and because I am reasonably selective in taking gigs (I forget
how Jeff put it - something about others being selective for me - this is
actually more accurate), there is a semi-reasonable chance I'll have an
off-night when someone interesting comes through town.
Marc Sabatella
> For general music theory, or theory oriented more towards jazz and 20th
> century music; I totally agree. But in your average college music
> program (like here at the UW), the theory classes -aside from the
> specialized jazz theory classes- are classical oriented.
Well, yeah, that's my point. Seems kind of silly to start people off with the
narrowest possible view of harmony. I think a good introduction to theory
class could be put together that would prepare one for either jazz, "common
practice" classical, or 20th century classical, and *without* requiring the
student to unlearn everything in order to do anything other than "common
practice" classical.
> parallel 5ths continue to be a bugger in the later counterpoint classes,
> but it also becomes clearer why they're so "taboo" (duh, they don't sound
> good).
They don't *in that context*. They sound great in other contexts. So I'd
prefer putting off teaching the bit about avoiding them until you got to the
course that dealth with that style of music - which would come *after* my
hypothetical universal basic theory class.
Thomas F Brown
>Realistically, no one is going to go for something so extreme - as you said
>before, most programs *are* designed around classical music. But I do think
>one could sell an arrangement where the theory that is common to jazz, common
>practice classical, and 20th century classical goes into the first semester, an
>overview of the differences between the three genres I mention above (with
>counterpoint included in the common practice classical) in the second semester,
>and then allow the student to take his second year in one of the three
>specialty areas.
I have heard that Oberlin either integrates or combines jazz and classical
approaches--all students are exposed to both. I don't know the details,
but would like to.
Jeff Volkman
On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Gary Valentin wrote:
> What about including other styles of music, like Pop and Rap and
> Grunge and Rock'n'Roll? I don't like any of them, but they are rather
> significant. Are they just subsets of Jazz and Classical? I think
> they are important enough to deserve a course of their own. A course
> on popular music. The general attitude (correct me if I'm wrong) is
> that *anyone* could write pop-music so it's not worth teaching. Just
> like horror and romance novels are not taught in English Lit.
>
> If they did this seriously, then classes would sound like names of
> radio stations: Country 534, Mix 366, etc etc
Berklee's course catalog looks about like that. But you're right. I'd
like to see the "general theory" course focus on 20th century music,
and/or music of the Americas. I mean, if we're going to include rock
(which is not exactly a subset of jazz theory), then IMO we should
include Blues, R&B, Country, as well as Bossa, Samba, Rumba, Cha-Cha,
(some tie-in with upper-level courses in African, and Asian musics would
be fabulous), etc.
-Jeff
Marc Sabatella
> On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Gary Valentin wrote:
> > What about including other styles of music, like Pop and Rap and
> > Grunge and Rock'n'Roll? I don't like any of them, but they are rather
> > significant. Are they just subsets of Jazz and Classical? I think
> > they are important enough to deserve a course of their own. A course
> > on popular music. The general attitude (correct me if I'm wrong) is
> > that *anyone* could write pop-music so it's not worth teaching. Just
> > like horror and romance novels are not taught in English Lit.
> >
> > If they did this seriously, then classes would sound like names of
> > radio stations: Country 534, Mix 366, etc etc
> Berklee's course catalog looks about like that. But you're right. I'd
> like to see the "general theory" course focus on 20th century music,
> and/or music of the Americas.
This sounds good to me as well. I think Gary is right about the general
attitude toward pop in music schools, and I think it does the music a great
disservice. However, I suspect that most of what would go into a course on pop
would not be music theory per se. The harmony is indeed largely - but not
completely - a subset of the theory of classical and jazz, and indeed, taking
this into account would help to solodify the syllabus for my proposed
introductory theory class - you'd want to concentrate on principles that are
common to *all* genres of Western music.
This, BTW, immediately suggests that we also broaden our scope and start
thinking about non-Western music as well, as Jeff suggests, but I'm not really
qualified to go into that. It is likely one could come up with a "fundamentals
of music" course that was reasonably independent of culture (assume only
"earth" and "human"), follow it up with a "introduction to Western music
theory" (and have tracks for other musics as well), and then start going into
particular genres.
The course on "pop" (or some of the other genres you mention) would not
necessarily add much in the way of theory over and above this, but would go
into "practice" a lot. *What* a pop musician does with a C chord, versus what
a country or jazz or classical musician might do. Actually, some of this could
be covered in a third general course, "overview of Western music styles". The
real pop-specific course would, I think, mostly cover production techniques,
including some amount of arranging. I know if *I* try to play in a pop style,
I can recognize that I am playing more or less the "right" notes, but I haven't
a clue as to how to put together a live performance or recording that sounds
anything like "real" pop music.
Jeff Volkman
On 19 Mar 1996, Dean Parks wrote:
> I don't agree. You are free to use the knowledge or not, once you are
> proficient enough. Write as though you are improvising, do it fast. By
> the way, my theory teacher wrote the book we used in college, and he
> showed us the "exceptions" to every "rule", all in Bach's 371 Chorales
> book. The rules were written LATER, to try and "codify" what the Baroque
> masters wrote from their common sense and great experience. You can find
> parallel 5ths, a third in the bass AND in the chord, etc.
The main point I got out of the "parallel 5ths rules," is that learning
to avoid them from the beginning makes it easier to avoid problems in the
mid and later stages of writing counterpoint and fugue pieces in the
upper level classes. Of course sometimes you don't nessecarily want to
avoid those problems, and as you point out; this obviously wasn't the way
Bach worked. I'm glad I learned that stuff; the parallel 5ths do have a
definite flavor to them, and it's IMO hipper to have a handle on when
they are and aren't being used.
-Jeff
Jeff Volkman
On 19 Mar 1996, Marc Sabatella wrote:
> Jeff Volkman wrote:
> > Berklee's course catalog looks about like that. But you're right. I'd
> > like to see the "general theory" course focus on 20th century music,
> > and/or music of the Americas.
>
> This sounds good to me as well. I think Gary is right about the general
> attitude toward pop in music schools, and I think it does the music a great
> disservice. However, I suspect that most of what would go into a course on pop
> would not be music theory per se. The harmony is indeed largely - but not
> completely - a subset of the theory of classical and jazz, and indeed, taking
> this into account would help to solodify the syllabus for my proposed
> introductory theory class - you'd want to concentrate on principles that are
> common to *all* genres of Western music.
Maybe provide some common chord progressions from various styles that
deviate from the generalized "norm."
> This, BTW, immediately suggests that we also broaden our scope and start
> thinking about non-Western music as well, as Jeff suggests, but I'm not really
> qualified to go into that.
I make this suggestion because in my experience; American musicians are
largely on their own when it comes to learning about the African elements
that are common to almost all music of the Americas. IMO opinion that's
a terrible shame. It's really kind of a denial of reality on the part of
most academic institutions (I guess this is the flip-side of the argument
that there's no European influences in jazz).
> It is likely one could come up with a "fundamentals
> of music" course that was reasonably independent of culture (assume only
> "earth" and "human"), follow it up with a "introduction to Western music
> theory" (and have tracks for other musics as well), and then start going into
> particular genres.
>
> The course on "pop" (or some of the other genres you mention) would not
> necessarily add much in the way of theory over and above this, but would go
> into "practice" a lot. *What* a pop musician does with a C chord, versus what
> a country or jazz or classical musician might do. Actually, some of this could
> be covered in a third general course, "overview of Western music styles". The
> real pop-specific course would, I think, mostly cover production techniques,
> including some amount of arranging. I know if *I* try to play in a pop style,
> I can recognize that I am playing more or less the "right" notes, but I haven't
> a clue as to how to put together a live performance or recording that sounds
> anything like "real" pop music.
I took a couple good pop music classes that were mainly listening and
analysis; listening to the various rhythm parts, production techniques,
form devices, etc. That was a great class, and a class like that can
also be valuable for teaching different kinds of "analytical listening."
-Jeff
Gary Valentin
Marc> Jeff Volkman wrote:
>> That would be a good way to do it; maybe have the classical theory
>> classes be upper-level, or specialty type classes, like jazz theory often
>> is now.
Marc> This cuts to the heart of the matter, doesn't it?
Marc> Realistically, no one is going to go for something so extreme - as you said
Marc> before, most programs *are* designed around classical music. But I do think
Marc> one could sell an arrangement where the theory that is common to jazz, common
Marc> practice classical, and 20th century classical goes into the first semester, an
Marc> overview of the differences between the three genres I mention above (with
Marc> counterpoint included in the common practice classical) in the second semester,
Marc> and then allow the student to take his second year in one of the three
Marc> specialty areas.
What about including other styles of music, like Pop and Rap and
Grunge and Rock'n'Roll? I don't like any of them, but they are rather
significant. Are they just subsets of Jazz and Classical? I think
they are important enough to deserve a course of their own. A course
on popular music. The general attitude (correct me if I'm wrong) is
that *anyone* could write pop-music so it's not worth teaching. Just
like horror and romance novels are not taught in English Lit.
If they did this seriously, then classes would sound like names of
radio stations: Country 534, Mix 366, etc etc
--
____________________________________________________________________
garyValentin IBM DB2 Optimizer
Joe Germuska
vale...@torolab.ibm.com (Gary Valentin) wrote:
>If we want to teach African music in North-American schools,
>then we need to import not just the music, but also the methods of
>teaching it. I hope I'm not completely off on this.
I don't think so. Here at Northwestern, Professor Paul Berliner (author
of "Thinking in Jazz" and "Soul of Mbira") teaches a class on Mbira
music. Over the course of a quarter, students actually make their own
mbira and learn to play them using basically the same methods through
which Berliner learned to play mbira himself in Zimbabwe twenty-some years
ago...
It's really a beautiful thing; I had the opportunity last Spring to go
with the class to Mama Desta's Red Sea restaurant, where they celebrated
the completion of the class and played together. The restaurant owner
invited a Zimbabwean family down to witness, and the expressions on their
faces as they saw a class of nine college students (and a professor) play
their traditional music... it was just amazing. People walking by on the
street heard the singing and clapping and stared in or even stepped into
the restaurant to see what was going on...
(Interestingly enough, guitarist Fareed Haque just happened to drop in for
dinner that night on his way home from Guitar Center. He seemed to enjoy
the music, and chatted some with Berliner, with whom he'd studied at NU)
I just like to tell that story... a simple reminder that some pretty cool
things still do happen in this world...
Joe
--
Joe Germuska * Learning Technologies Group * Northwestern University
j-ger...@nwu.edu * http://www.nwu.edu/people/j-germuska
"The impossible attracts me, because everything possible
has been done, and the world didn't change." - Sun Ra
Gary Valentin
Jeff> On 19 Mar 1996, Marc Sabatella wrote:
>> Jeff Volkman wrote:
>> This, BTW, immediately suggests that we also broaden our scope and start
>> thinking about non-Western music as well, as Jeff suggests, but I'm not really
>> qualified to go into that.
Jeff> I make this suggestion because in my experience; American musicians are
Jeff> largely on their own when it comes to learning about the African elements
Jeff> that are common to almost all music of the Americas. IMO opinion that's
Jeff> a terrible shame. It's really kind of a denial of reality on the part of
Jeff> most academic institutions (I guess this is the flip-side of the argument
Jeff> that there's no European influences in jazz).
I agree that there's not enough music being taught outside of western
material, and that there's a lot of interesting sounds which are
produced all over the world and that are more or less ignored by the
academics. But I'm not sure how successful we would be at trying to
tie in our own musical theory to explain the music which is produced
in the East (for a lack of better word). The best way, in my opinion,
is to abandon western musical theaching methods for non-western music.
If a student of music wants to learn how to play African music,
they're better off going to Africa and doing some research on their
own. If we want to teach African music in North-American schools,
then we need to import not just the music, but also the methods of
teaching it. I hope I'm not completely off on this.
Last night on the radio, I was listening to "brave new waves" which is
a radio show about experimental music coming from the underground. It
includes such wonderful samples as Acid Jazz, Industrial, Gothic, and
Jungle (to name a few). And the host got talking about the subject of
music theory. She was talking to the band leader of the "Wedding
Present" (I think it's a famous brit underground band) and they were
discussing music theory, and how useless it is for making good music.
They were saying that most of the new, innovative, and beautiful music
in this world is created by musicians who do not learn theory from
schools, but instead they learn it from friends. Of course, I had a
negative reaction, because so many of my favourite musicians are
experts at music theory! but when you look at how many examples are
available for the counter-argument (even in the Jazz world) and the
examples from non-western music, well, it makes you think.
Jeff Volkman
On Wed, 20 Mar 1996, Gary Valentin wrote:
> >>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Volkman <ve...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>
> Jeff> I make this suggestion because in my experience; American musicians are
> Jeff> largely on their own when it comes to learning about the African elements
> Jeff> that are common to almost all music of the Americas. IMO opinion that's
> Jeff> a terrible shame. It's really kind of a denial of reality on the part of
> Jeff> most academic institutions (I guess this is the flip-side of the argument
> Jeff> that there's no European influences in jazz).
>
> I agree that there's not enough music being taught outside of western
> material, and that there's a lot of interesting sounds which are
> produced all over the world and that are more or less ignored by the
> academics. But I'm not sure how successful we would be at trying to
> tie in our own musical theory to explain the music which is produced
> in the East (for a lack of better word).
That's not what I had in mind. Rather, the teaching of American music
should acknowledge the non-European ingredients that went into the
"mix." I'm mostly talking about African rhythmic patterns that became a
part of most of the musics of the Americas and Caribean. There are also
melodic elements from African music that are major ingredients in many
styles of American, Cuban, Jamaican and Brazilian musics.
> The best way, in my opinion,
> is to abandon western musical theaching methods for non-western music.
> If a student of music wants to learn how to play African music,
> they're better off going to Africa and doing some research on their
> own. If we want to teach African music in North-American schools,
> then we need to import not just the music, but also the methods of
> teaching it. I hope I'm not completely off on this.
I don't know if you're completely off, but American music contains elements
from other musical cultures besides Europe, and IMO should be taught
accordingly. I think those non-western elements could be taught in western
schools just fine. As has been pointed out; the European composers we
study didn't actually use the "theories" we're being taught, and certainly
didn't learn by the same teaching methods.
> Last night on the radio, I was listening to "brave new waves" which is
> a radio show about experimental music coming from the underground. It
> includes such wonderful samples as Acid Jazz, Industrial, Gothic, and
> Jungle (to name a few). And the host got talking about the subject of
> music theory. She was talking to the band leader of the "Wedding
> Present" (I think it's a famous brit underground band) and they were
> discussing music theory, and how useless it is for making good music.
> They were saying that most of the new, innovative, and beautiful music
> in this world is created by musicians who do not learn theory from
> schools, but instead they learn it from friends. Of course, I had a
> negative reaction, because so many of my favourite musicians are
> experts at music theory! but when you look at how many examples are
> available for the counter-argument (even in the Jazz world) and the
> examples from non-western music, well, it makes you think.
I think probably 99% of my favorite musicians are well-educated, whether
that means going to college, having good private instructors, or being
self-taught. Sure, there's something to be said for the anti-education,
caveman approach, but you've got to be damned talented to make that
work. It's definitely not a recommended career path.
-Jeff
Gary Valentin
Marc> Jeff Volkman wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Gary Valentin wrote:
>> > What about including other styles of music, like Pop and Rap and
>> > Grunge and Rock'n'Roll? I don't like any of them, but they are rather
>> > significant. Are they just subsets of Jazz and Classical? I think
>> > they are important enough to deserve a course of their own. A course
>> > on popular music. The general attitude (correct me if I'm wrong) is
>> > that *anyone* could write pop-music so it's not worth teaching. Just
>> > like horror and romance novels are not taught in English Lit.
>> >
>> > If they did this seriously, then classes would sound like names of
>> > radio stations: Country 534, Mix 366, etc etc
>> Berklee's course catalog looks about like that. But you're right. I'd
>> like to see the "general theory" course focus on 20th century music,
>> and/or music of the Americas.
Marc> This sounds good to me as well. I think Gary is right about the general
Marc> attitude toward pop in music schools, and I think it does the music a great
Marc> disservice. However, I suspect that most of what would go into a course on pop
Marc> would not be music theory per se. The harmony is indeed largely - but not
Marc> completely - a subset of the theory of classical and jazz, and indeed, taking
Marc> this into account would help to solodify the syllabus for my proposed
Marc> introductory theory class - you'd want to concentrate on principles that are
Marc> common to *all* genres of Western music.
If I understood your post correctly, then you do not necessarily need
any particular type of music to teach music theory. Instead of
Classical, one could use Rock'n'Roll. Only it would be much more
limited. So classical music is conveniant because it uses many
different instruments, because it has a wide variety of forms, and
because most of the Classical composers knew what they were doing (in
term of theory). Unfortunately, Classical music is not "popular"
these days, and that makes it harder for the students who don't
particularly enjoy classical, or want to play it.
Marc Sabatella
> If I understood your post correctly, then you do not necessarily need
> any particular type of music to teach music theory. Instead of
> Classical, one could use Rock'n'Roll.
Well, not realistically. If you want to compose "classical" music, studying
theory from a "rock" standpoint won't give you all the materials you need.
However, there is a subset of theory that is common to both, and this is the
only subset that I would claim all music students "need" to learn. This should
come first, and only then would you move on to genre-specific instruction.
Regarding the use of Western teaching methods to learn Eastern and African
musics, you may be correct that this is not a good match. As I said, this is
really outside my area. I'm nopt convinced it would be impossible, but it is
certainly true that a good deal of thought would have to go into it, since this
is not the way this music is traditionally learned. On the other hand, it
isn't really the way jazz has traditionally been learned, but I *do* think it
is possible to teach jazz using Western teaching methods. I just don't think
the current universities (or dedicated music schools like Berklee) are doing
a particularly good job of it, largely because they they concentrate too much
on certain aspects of the theory at the expense of the broader picture.
Thomas F Brown
>
>deviate from the generalized "norm."
I had a teacher in freshman harmony who tried to be hip by analyzing
"Something In The Way She Moves". However, she lost her street credibility
when she attributed it to Lennon and McCartney.
Larry Lewicki
<:>In following this thread, a quote from the late photographer Robert Capa
<:>
I really like this idea!!! Thanks Tom. I think this phenomena is
the same in most fields (similar to the posts that I have recently
created in the "analytical vs. non-analytical listening" thread
recently. The trick is not to avoid knowledge but to make knowing
really intuitive. It's hard to talk about in a linear language
medium. Thanks again,
L^2
---
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Larry Lewicki | National Semiconductor |Opinions are mine and in *NO* |
*l...@galaxy.nsc.com | Santa Clara, CA |way represent National Semi. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Marc Sabatella
> Marc> I
> Marc> *do* think it
> Marc> is possible to teach jazz using Western teaching methods. I
> Marc> just don't think
> Marc> the current universities (or dedicated music schools like
> Marc> Berklee) are doing
> Marc> a particularly good job of it, largely because they they
> Marc> concentrate too much
> Marc> on certain aspects of the theory at the expense of the broader
> Marc> picture.
> Sounds interesting! Can you explain more about how current teaching
> methods fail for Jazz, and what you would do if you were a Jazz
> teacher?
> Maybe you are a Jazz teacher :)
I am.
The biggest failing, as I see it, is that the general form of the teaching
goes like this:
Here is some music. It is good, because people have been listening to
it for 40 years. Learn to copy it exactly, and you will be good, too.
OK, this is somewhat cynical, but the basic idea is, jazz is taught as
something that has already happened, rather than something that continues to
happen around us. The aspect of jazz that lends itself most to traditional
teaching methods is the theory - "here are the scales that work over this
chord". Hardly anyone steps back to say, "here's why we might want to use
chords in the first place, and here is why we might choose not to". Or "here
are some areas that that are not well-understood yet - let's explore them".
> Anyways, 16 hours of practice per day is exaggerated (IMHO) and will
> not produce better music (IMHO) but will allow him to achieve
> technical perfection.
Practicing isn't necessarily about achieving technical perfection. It is about
training the body to perform almost automatically, so that in performance, you
can concentrate more on making music and less on how to make your body respond
to what you want it to do. Of course, not everyone is really conscious of
this, and you do end up with people not gaining everything they could out of
practicing. The sorts of things one should be concentrating on other than
technique at a performance are, again, not things that are normally taught very
well in universities.
This is not to say that university teaching programs are bad - far from it,
many do a fine job of doing what they do. However, I do sometimes think most
could do well by expanding beyond what can be learned by rote and getting more
into really understanding music. Ironically, it sometimes seems to me the
science departments are often better about encouraging this sort of exploration
than music departments. Then again, it's not like I've checked out each
program at each university in detail. It's just kind of a gut impression.
Thomas F Brown
>Hardly anyone steps back to say, "here's why we might want to use
>chords in the first place, and here is why we might choose not to". Or "here
>are some areas that that are not well-understood yet - let's explore them".
>
>many do a fine job of doing what they do. However, I do sometimes think most
>could do well by expanding beyond what can be learned by rote and getting more
>into really understanding music. Ironically, it sometimes seems to me the
>science departments are often better about encouraging this sort of exploration
>than music departments. Then again, it's not like I've checked out each
>program at each university in detail. It's just kind of a gut impression.
The academic composition teachers I have had were all totally forward-
looking, and would return any assignment that wasn't an honest attempt
at innovation.
Jazz, otoh, is more of a language in which musicians communicate, and
I think it is more efficient for beginners to learn that language
before they try to extend it. Creating one's own language is possible
on a sheet of paper, but to be able to use it to communicate with
others is a major project that few can pull off.
Gary Valentin
>> Maybe you are a Jazz teacher
M> I am.
>> Anyways, 16 hours of practice per day is exaggerated (IMHO) and will
>> not produce better music (IMHO) but will allow him to achieve
>> technical perfection.
M> Practicing isn't necessarily about achieving technical perfection.
M> It is about
M> training the body to perform almost automatically, so that in
M> performance, you
M> can concentrate more on making music and less on how to make your
M> body respond
M> to what you want it to do.
Yes. I can see that is useful. But for some reason, it doesn't
always apply when you practice the same piece over and over again. If
you practice Misty 100 times, does that mean you're better at
playing Misty? What about the famous album Kind of Blue, where the
musicians were looking at the sheets for the first time in their
lives, and they produced beautiful music. I'm sure it took a lot of
practice for them to achieve that degree of proficiency, but it just
shows that practice is not absolutely necessary. If you have to give
a performance in front of a large audience, it's probably smart NOT to
practice with those pieces which you plan to play. This will give you
a fresh feel for the music during the actual performance. You will
hear it for the "first time" again and you will be able to hear it
as if you were a member of the audience.
M> Of course, not everyone is really conscious of
M> this, and you do end up with people not gaining everything they could out of
M> practicing.
M> This is not to say that university teaching programs are bad - far from it,
M> many do a fine job of doing what they do. However, I do sometimes think most
M> could do well by expanding beyond what can be learned by rote and getting more
M> into really understanding music. Ironically, it sometimes seems to me the
M> science departments are often better about encouraging this sort of exploration
M> than music departments. Then again, it's not like I've checked out each
M> program at each university in detail. It's just kind of a gut impression.
I understand what you're saying, but you didn't give any examples.
What should universities be doing? Encourage students to listen to
different kinds of music from all over the world? Encourage students
to jam more often, and to compose?
Marc Sabatella
> M> Practicing isn't necessarily about achieving technical perfection.
> M> It is about
> M> training the body to perform almost automatically, so that in
> M> performance, you
> M> can concentrate more on making music and less on how to make your
> M> body respond
> M> to what you want it to do.
> Yes. I can see that is useful. But for some reason, it doesn't
> always apply when you practice the same piece over and over again. If
> you practice Misty 100 times, does that mean you're better at
> playing Misty?
No, the value I was referring to applies mostly to classical music, where you
can really practice the exact notes and fingerings that you will use in
performance.
With jazz, there is some value in practicing a given tune over and over - it
allows you to experiment with different chord substitutions, get a sense for
where and how to use harmonic tension, and so forth - but for the most part,
I think that type of experience can be gained by playing a variety of tunes
rather than one over and over. At least, once you've practiced it to the point
where you've really learned the form.
> What about the famous album Kind of Blue, where th
> musicians were looking at the sheets for the first time in their
> lives, and they produced beautiful music.
This is a good example. Yes, they hadn't played "So What" before, but they had
shedded D minor in lots of other situations. Similarly, they hadn't played
"Freddie Freeloader", but had played their share of other blues tunes in Bb.
> If you have to give
> a performance in front of a large audience, it's probably smart NOT to
> practice with those pieces which you plan to play.
Only if the pieces are as easy harmonically as the ones on "Kind Of Blue",
though. I would *not* recommend this for "Giant Steps" unless you want to make
a complete fool of yourself (hint - Tommy Flanagan *did* get the chance to
practice). I think you underestimate the need to be comfortable with the
harmonies of a piece in order to improvise smooth lines over it.
> M> However, I do sometimes think most
> M> could do well by expanding beyond what can be learned by rote and getting more
> M> into really understanding music.
> I understand what you're saying, but you didn't give any examples.
> What should universities be doing?
Actually, I did, but perhaps it was in a different posting (or maybe you just
clipped it out of this one). Currently, there is a lot of emphasis on which
scales to play over which chords in a bebop setting, but little on what the
other options are. Why have chords, or preset progression? There are reasons
why we keep coming back to them, but harmony can be used in so many ways other
than as a repeating pattern over which new melodies can be constructed. There
is value in all of those ways. It would be like if someone taught you to paint
but only gave you blue paint to do it with. Sure, you can learn a lot, and
produce interesting art, but how much better if you were able to see how blue
differs from red, and why one might choose one over the other in a given
context, and how much more striking the blue would be if it were used as an
accent rather than as the only color in the painting.
Similarly, why do we have time signatures? There is value to organizing rhythm
in this way, but only by stepping outside of it and looking at the alternatives
can we truly understand what playing in 4/4 gives us, and then we can decide
for ourselves when it makes sense to use other structures (and no, I don't mean
just switching to another meter).
We tend to start with the assumption that music is about music in a given key,
with given harmonies, and a given time signature, then look for ways to produce
variation within that fairly narrow framework. As a result, we tend to focus
on the mechanics of that variation. If we were able to look outside that
framework, we would discover ways of organizing our thinking about music that
we could apply regardless of whether we were dealing with a key or time
signature or not. Our music would reflect the richness of this additional
experience, even when operating within the more traditional frameworks.
Joe Germuska
>It would be like if someone taught you to paint
>but only gave you blue paint to do it with. Sure, you can learn a lot, and
>produce interesting art, but how much better if you were able to see how blue
>differs from red, and why one might choose one over the other in a given
>context, and how much more striking the blue would be if it were used as an
>accent rather than as the only color in the painting.
Marc, I think you make some excellent points in this post with your
specific musical examples...
but I was just going to bring up an inkling I had recently... how much
can be learned from comparing the current state of jazz with painting
developments since the late 19th century? Since I'm far from expert in
either field, I'm leery of making too much out of it, but the arguments
people use to denigrate newer jazz seem much like those used against most
of the movements in painting in this century.
I also think that the introduction and wide spread of recorded music
probably had a similar effect on music to the introduction and spread of
photographic techniques just before the explosion of non-realist art in
Europe and the US, and someone has probably written well on one or both
subjects... but I don't have the references...
It's interesting, though... from my outsider's perspective, it seems like
in art appreciation circles less credence is given to realism nowadays,
which seems contrary to the state of music -- but perhaps this is my
ignorance showing?
At least I can go down to the Art Institute and see a variety of styles of
art. There aren't any listening museums that I know of... (Would people
really be interested? I don't think it would come off so well in
practice... people "listen" differently than they "look", which also
brings up some of the limitations of my metaphor...)
joe
--
Joe Germuska * Learning Technologies Group * Northwestern University
j-ger...@nwu.edu * http://www.nwu.edu/people/j-germuska
"There's only one way out of this mess -- knock the corners off the squares.
We hate nothing and love the rest -- we're all divided into equal shares."
- Sly Stone
Marc Sabatella
> but I was just going to bring up an inkling I had recently... how much
> can be learned from comparing the current state of jazz with painting
> developments since the late 19th century? Since I'm far from expert in
> either field, I'm leery of making too much out of it, but the arguments
> people use to denigrate newer jazz seem much like those used against most
> of the movements in painting in this century.
Absolutely, and as I mentioned a few weeks ago (in an unfortunate posting that
made light of Mondrian), I tended not to "get" modern art until relatively
recently. I strongly suspect it has been my appreciation for modern jazz that
has widened my eyes as well. Or maybe it has been the other way around. I
think it started happening for me in both arts around 10 years ago. My first
positive exposure to Kandinsky came about the same time as my first positive
exposure to Cecil Taylor.
On the other hand, I still don't "get" a lot of modern poetry.
> It's interesting, though... from my outsider's perspective, it seems like
> in art appreciation circles less credence is given to realism nowadays,
> which seems contrary to the state of music -- but perhaps this is my
> ignorance showing?
The art history texts and museums I have seen, and the art history course I
took many years ago, seem to show a much healthier balance (aside from genre
specific books and museums, of course).
> There aren't any listening museums that I know of...
This is an interesting observation, loaded with possibilities. There are
indeed "listening museums", in university music school libraries particularly.
But they are not the commonplace part of our culture that the musuem or library
is. Although I realize many libraries allow listening, it isn't really
perceived the same way; it is presented as a sidelight to the main purpose of
the library.
> people "listen" differently than they "look"
I don't think this makes the concept unworkable, I think it just means some
thought would have to go into it.
JFinn26231
the time , I was once told [lectured, really ] by an authority on the
subject [my sister, actually ] that painters have always lead the way:
Monet preceded Ravel, Picasso's expressionism before that of
Schoenberg and all that stuff. I hope one of you guys can tell me
it aint so..............joe
Joe Germuska
(JFinn26231) wrote:
it depends on which "way" you're "leading" -- show me some painterly
achievements which precede, or even compare to jazz developments in
collective collaboration and improvisation, for example... (Jackson
Pollack as improviser? I don't know enough to judge, but I think my
point is still valid...) Since improvisation and collective creativity
are fascinations of mine, I spend much more time listening to music than
looking at art or reading literature.
But there's no reason to be bitter if painters come to certain limits and
transcend them before musicians do... writers generally do as well.
It has to do with all kinds of biases in our culture, but I would hazard
once again that those biases have to do with the relatively short time
music has been recordable and mass-distributable, compared to words and
pictures...
it would be interesting to think about how painters and musicians (and any
other artists, for that matter) find the same limitations in widely
different media, and seem to come up with similar solutions for
transcending those limits (impressionism, expressionism, etc...) How
similar the solutions really are, compared to the labels, would be worth
examining as well... who studies this kind of stuff? I'd love to read
more about it... I have read most of Joachim Ernst-Berendt's "The Third
Ear", which addresses some of these questions. I found it interesting,
but much too defensive on behalf of listening -- too aggressively
asserting preeminence for listening over looking, where I'd be satisfied
with equal status.
Joe
--
Joe Germuska * Learning Technologies Group * Northwestern University
j-ger...@nwu.edu * http://www.nwu.edu/people/j-germuska
Gary Valentin
jfinn> Even though I call myself a musician and didn't want to hear it at
jfinn> the time , I was once told [lectured, really ] by an authority on the
jfinn> subject [my sister, actually ] that painters have always lead the way:
jfinn> Monet preceded Ravel, Picasso's expressionism before that of
jfinn> Schoenberg and all that stuff. I hope one of you guys can tell me
jfinn> it aint so..............joe
joe, it's so.
The truth is that people have better appreciation of paintings than
music. You can go to a fancy dress ball where everyone is dressed
impeccably and the paintings hanging on the walls are magnificent.
And what will they be dancing to? Techno. Madonna. Michael Bolton.
Maybe I'm too sensitive to awful music, but despite the bias, I do see
the people don't know how to appreciate music. More people out there
will react positively to Monet and Picasso than Ravel or Schoenberg.
But don't blame the musicians - rather - blame society for being cruel
to musicians.
Besides, I'm not sure you should be too quick with the equations
Monet=Ravel and Picasso=Schoenberg. impressionism and surrealism and
abstract art are not clearly defined in music. You could easily say:
Monet=Chopin and Picasso=Debussy and Modiliani(I have no idea how to
spell his name) Modiliani=Ellington. Not too many would object.
Thomas F Brown
>
>Absolutely, and as I mentioned a few weeks ago (in an unfortunate posting that
>made light of Mondrian), I tended not to "get" modern art until relatively
>recently. I strongly suspect it has been my appreciation for modern jazz that
>has widened my eyes as well. Or maybe it has been the other way around. I
>think it started happening for me in both arts around 10 years ago. My first
>positive exposure to Kandinsky came about the same time as my first positive
>exposure to Cecil Taylor.
I was looking at a rather large painting by Renoir last weekend. I got
up really close to it, and suddenly realized that it reminded me of
De Kooning! Incredible. At the micro level, many of the brush strokes
and color-mixing techniques seemed very similar. Of course, once you
stand back and take in the entire composition the similarity mostly
disappears, except for the use of color.
What does this have to do with jazz? Once you get into the details
of craftsmanship, you can see a lot of similarities between the
ag and the pioneers. And making these links might help in understanding
and appreciating the new guys more.
Ashish Banerjee
Joe,
What follows is somewhat tangential to the points you make, but
relevant nevertheless, imo.
The Dutch painter Piet Mondrian spent the latter years of his life in
NYC, and some of his work was *very* jazz-influenced - most notably,
"Broadway Boogie-woogie" and Trafalgar Square".
Mondrian apparently spent much of his time in clubs and hanging out
with musicians, and the central organizing principle of "Broadway
Boogie-woogie" is definitely jazz - Mondrian's organization of colored
bars in regular-interval repetitive sequences resemble a percussive
groove or a melody - i.e., they can be assumed to have properties
analogous to a song form.
Anyone know any more about this?
-Ashish Banerjee
Tom Waters
: Besides, I'm not sure you should be too quick with the equations
: Monet=Ravel and Picasso=Schoenberg. impressionism and surrealism and
: abstract art are not clearly defined in music. You could easily say:
: Monet=Chopin and Picasso=Debussy and Modiliani(I have no idea how to
: spell his name) Modiliani=Ellington. Not too many would object.
This reminded me of a passage from the poem, "Vermeers," by Lloyd Schwartz:
"'Rembrandt ist Beethoven,' I heard an old woman say to herself in the
Rijksmuseum, 'Vermeer ist Mozart.' Why must we choose one over the other?"
At the time I first read that I was sharing a 90-mile-each way daily
commute with one carpooler. We made a game of extending the analogy. Hals
ist Haydn. Van Eyck ist Bach. Are the two I remember. We didn't
include any jazz I can recall. But a great way to pass the time.
Tom
Gary Valentin
>>>>> "TB" == Thomas F Brown <tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> writes:
TB> I was looking at a rather large painting by Renoir last weekend. I got
TB> up really close to it, and suddenly realized that it reminded me of
TB> De Kooning! Incredible. At the micro level, many of the brush strokes
TB> and color-mixing techniques seemed very similar. Of course, once you
TB> stand back and take in the entire composition the similarity mostly
TB> disappears, except for the use of color.
De Kooning? really? I can't say that there's too much of a
connection between these two artists on the emotional level. Renoir's
paintings are always "pretty" (for lack of a better word) to me, while
De Kooning is more mysterious.
TB> What does this have to do with jazz? Once you get into the details
TB> of craftsmanship, you can see a lot of similarities between the
TB> ag and the pioneers. And making these links might help in understanding
TB> and appreciating the new guys more.
Sorry - I don't quite catch what you're saying. Can you explain a
little more? or some examples would be nice.
Walter Davis
"Art/Jazz" (Suitcase, available through Cadence or maybe Matt will post
the address). He went to various art museums across the state, chose a
piece from their collection, and wrote/improvised pieces (for
quintet) around those works of art. The artworks are reproduced in the
cd booklet, but I haven't yet taken the time to connect the music to the
art. But it's some fine music. I've seen him do similar solo
improvisations and those were quite impressive.
-walt
Walter Davis walter...@unc.edu or
Department of Sociology and wdavi...@mhs.unc.edu
Health Data Analyst at the ph: (919) 962-1019
Institute for Research in Social Science fax: (919) 962-4777
UNC - Chapel Hill
Thomas F Brown
>>>>>> "TB" == Thomas F Brown <tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> writes:
>TB> I was looking at a rather large painting by Renoir last weekend. I got
>TB> up really close to it, and suddenly realized that it reminded me of
>TB> De Kooning! Incredible. At the micro level, many of the brush strokes
>TB> and color-mixing techniques seemed very similar. Of course, once you
>TB> stand back and take in the entire composition the similarity mostly
>TB> disappears, except for the use of color.
>
>De Kooning? really? I can't say that there's too much of a
>connection between these two artists on the emotional level. Renoir's
>paintings are always "pretty" (for lack of a better word) to me, while
>De Kooning is more mysterious.
Have you ever seen paintings by these two artists in person, close up?
It's really impossible to understand the effect I experienced by
looking at reproductions, because I'm talking about brushstrokes
and color-mixing techniques that require extreme close-up viewing
of the actual painting in order to apprehend.
>TB> What does this have to do with jazz? Once you get into the details
>TB> of craftsmanship, you can see a lot of similarities between the
>TB> ag and the pioneers. And making these links might help in understanding
>TB> and appreciating the new guys more.
>
>Sorry - I don't quite catch what you're saying. Can you explain a
>little more? or some examples would be nice.
Example: Albert Ayler and Charlie Parker sound pretty dissimilar.
Yet occasionally Ayler will play a Bird lick. It won't sound
anything like the way Bird played it, but you can hear its
ancestry if you listen closely and deeply. This type of thing
comes through in almost all of the american avant players.
Most of them are intimately familiar with the tradition, and
it peeks through now and then in their playing. You hear less
of it in the euro cats, though.
Eric Hines
things:
1. Art doesn't always lead the way. Take abstraction for instance.
Music is the abstract art par excellance--it has never really tried
to represent anything. Kandinsky et al. may be thought of as trying
to make art more like music.
2. There are several reasons why people are more tolerant of challenging
art than challenging music. One is you only have to briefly occupy
yourself with a work of art, while music goes on and on. You are
a lot more likely to be tolerant of something you only have to pay
attention to for a few minutes. Also we have far more brain cells
dedicated to the processing of sights than sound, so we are more
likely to be interested in something that plays with the confines
of seeing than with something that tests the limits of our
listening ability.
3. The original comparison between the negative reception of modern
art and the negative reception of outside jazz is a rather devious
way of validating your own tastes. You are taking it for granted
that everyone will eventually embrace your favorite music as
they have embraced Picasso. They may or they may not. Art and
music, like everything else, have pursued dead ends and dark alleys
over their long histories. Only time will tell for certain whether
outside jazz is one of them. If someone were to do the research
(we don't usually remember historical cul-de-sacs so well) I'm
sure we could have a few historical precedants for artistic
movements with a good deal of expert support which died out
and ended up having scorn and ridicule heaped on them. But that
would say nothing regarding the merits of outside jazz either.
4. It is indeed dangerous, or careless, to make to many parallels
between music and art say. (How, exactly does art influence (not
inspire, but influence) music? Only in the most general terms
because the techniques and knowledge required are pretty disparate
in the end.) On the other hand, the sort of general similarity
between artistic productions of the last hundred years or so has
been remarked before and given a name: modernism. The similarities
probably have more to do with common social and cultural factors
(like the loss of confidence in progress, an increasing feeling
that artists should be oppositional and confrontational in their
relationship with society, an ongoing deification of the artist,
etc., etc.). Many books need ye read to exhaust this one.
--eric
Joe Germuska
Hines) wrote:
>3. The original comparison between the negative reception of modern
>art and the negative reception of outside jazz is a rather devious
>way of validating your own tastes. You are taking it for granted
>that everyone will eventually embrace your favorite music as
>they have embraced Picasso.
I don't think everyone has embraced Picasso either, or insofar as they
have, perhaps one should say "Picasso ~ Ornette Coleman". A better
example of the revolutionary becoming the mainstream would be "Monet ~
Charlie Parker". Given one of my early hypotheses about the effect of
recording (photography and mass printing ~ phonography), I think the
relative timing across those two metaphors is an interesting coincidence.
I understand that I'm being circular, subverting your metaphor to my
deviosity ;-) it's just a game...
>The similarities
>probably have more to do with common social and cultural factors
>(like the loss of confidence in progress, an increasing feeling
>that artists should be oppositional and confrontational in their
>relationship with society, an ongoing deification of the artist,
>etc., etc.). Many books need ye read to exhaust this one.
and again, this is what I'm most interested in... I'm also interested in
the creative processes involved, and suspect that there is a fair amount
of overlap, but I wouldn't go much farther than idle chatter. It does
seem that at times of great change in creative arts, many artists take on
multiple media in hopes of getting a better idea of what is really going
on in their heads. (the "renaissance man... er, HUman")
Here's one for you... "Magritte ~ Mingus". Discuss :-) (This may just be
based on a personal connection, but I'd be interested to see what other
people say before I explain myself...)
Joe
--
Joe Germuska * Learning Technologies Group * Northwestern University
j-ger...@nwu.edu * http://www.nwu.edu/people/j-germuska
"Point of view is worth 80 IQ points." - Alan Kay
Thomas F Brown
>
>I don't think everyone has embraced Picasso either, or insofar as they
>have, perhaps one should say "Picasso ~ Ornette Coleman". A better
>example of the revolutionary becoming the mainstream would be "Monet ~
>Charlie Parker".
Monet prints are abundant in offices, restaurants, apartments.
But Bird is rarely heard on the radio.
Joe Germuska
F Brown) wrote:
>>I don't think everyone has embraced Picasso either, or insofar as they
>>have, perhaps one should say "Picasso ~ Ornette Coleman". A better
>>example of the revolutionary becoming the mainstream would be "Monet ~
>>Charlie Parker".
>
>Monet prints are abundant in offices, restaurants, apartments.
>But Bird is rarely heard on the radio.
True, true, but no one has disputed the "lesser" position of sound
compared to vision in our culture. I particularly liked the observation
that music requires your attention over time much more than visual art.
Don't get me started on radio -- how much Parker can you find in your
average chain store jazz section?
Would you rather "Monet ~ Louis Armstrong" ? I hear that Armstrong was
revolutionary at the time, but it's impossible for me to hear it... maybe
that is a better metaphor?
Joe
?? ~ George Lewis (tb) ?
--
Joe Germuska * Learning Technologies Group * Northwestern University
j-ger...@nwu.edu * http://www.nwu.edu/people/j-germuska
Harvey J. Cormier
> This string has been interesting reading. I'd like to suggest a few
> things:
>
> 1. Art doesn't always lead the way. Take abstraction for instance.
> Music is the abstract art par excellance--it has never really tried
> to represent anything. Kandinsky et al. may be thought of as trying
> to make art more like music.
>
This observation is often made, but Aristotle called music the most
representational of the arts, because it always represents emotions.
One might disagree with this: I do think that there is "abstract music",
especially but not exclusively among modernist composers like Schonberg;
and I think there are abstractionist tendencies among "modern" jazz
musicians. (I have tried to sell the latter idea before on rmb, and got
few buyers.)
[. . .]
> 3. The original comparison between the negative reception of modern
> art and the negative reception of outside jazz is a rather devious
> way of validating your own tastes. You are taking it for granted
> that everyone will eventually embrace your favorite music as
> they have embraced Picasso. [. . .] Only time will tell for certain whether
> outside jazz is one of them. If someone were to do the research
> (we don't usually remember historical cul-de-sacs so well) I'm
> sure we could have a few historical precedants for artistic
> movements with a good deal of expert support which died out
> and ended up having scorn and ridicule heaped on them. But that
> would say nothing regarding the merits of outside jazz either.
Why do people suppose that the people of the future will be right, or more
right than we are, about how good art is? Why will they necessarily be
better judges than we are?
And nothing is easier to find than art works that had the support of the
experts of their time but fell out of favor. The whole "academic" realist
tradition of painting that existed in competition with the impressionists,
for example: these painters drove the impressionists out of the "Salons",
and today only art historians remember any of them--though, curiously
enough, some art historians seem to be trying now to revive some of their
reputations!
>
> 4. It is indeed dangerous, or careless, to make to many parallels
> between music and art say. (How, exactly does art influence (not
> inspire, but influence) music? Only in the most general terms
> because the techniques and knowledge required are pretty disparate
> in the end.)
But many musicians have been part of the milieus of, and expressed
affinity with the productions of, visual artists. Weren't Picasso and
Stravinsky friends, and co-workers on a ballet production? Didn't John
Cage and Jasper Johns hang out? (I guess the influence might have gone
the other way in this case.)
Harvey
--
Harvey Cormier
Philosophy Dept.
University of Texas @ Austin
cor...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
Gary Valentin
Harvey> In article <4jt5bo$5...@er7.rutgers.edu>, ehi...@eden.rutgers.edu (Eric
Harvey> Hines) wrote:
>> This string has been interesting reading. I'd like to suggest a few
>> things:
>>
>> 1. Art doesn't always lead the way. Take abstraction for instance.
>> Music is the abstract art par excellance--it has never really tried
>> to represent anything. Kandinsky et al. may be thought of as trying
>> to make art more like music.
>>
Harvey> This observation is often made, but Aristotle called music the most
Harvey> representational of the arts, because it always represents emotions.
Aristotle was a funny guy.
But that was a long time ago. And he was kindof slow. I once read a
2-page text by him which proves that 2 states for one object combined
with another 2 states for that same object, results in a total of 4
states for that object, as long as the two state-combinations are
orthogonal. Like, duh...
Harvey> One might disagree with this: I do think that there is "abstract music",
Harvey> especially but not exclusively among modernist composers like Schonberg;
Harvey> and I think there are abstractionist tendencies among "modern" jazz
Harvey> musicians. (I have tried to sell the latter idea before on rmb, and got
Harvey> few buyers.)
I would describe "abstract music" as Phillip Glass (or as someone
described him, Phillip Glass, Phillip Glass, Phillip Glass,
Phillip Phillip Phillip Phillip, Phillip Glass, Phillip Glass.) Or
also Techno music can be abstract music. It's the same thing, really.
I don't understand why some people appreciate abstract music when a
whole orchestra plays it, but not when a DJ plays it. Different
instruments, same shit. I mean shit in the best possible way. Sorry
if I'm swearing. I am NOT stoned. definitely. not stoned. no.
Jazz can be like Renoir, if you consider the delicate touch of Ben
Webster. Or jazz can be confusingly beautiful like Jackson Pollock,
when you listen to In a Silent Way.
But it's hard - very hard - to link up artistic movements to musical
movements, because it's all so emotional! And people react to music
and art (paintings) in a very different way (emotionally). As far as
I'm concerned, the only way one could link Schonberg with Frank
Stella, is based on the reception they got from the general public.
Harvey> Why do people suppose that the people of the future will be right, or more
Harvey> right than we are, about how good art is? Why will they necessarily be
Harvey> better judges than we are?
No - it's not that. "people of the future" will be fanatics like me,
who are not satisfied with the music which is around them, and search
in all directions for something more. I can guarantee that the
"people of the future" will be listening to crappy music just like the
people of today. But what survives is only the exceptional. Only
those things which cause the strongest emotions. Like Miles Davis
ballads. Unlike Elvis Presly (yes, 50 million people CAN be wrong.
Trust me, Mom.)
Harvey> And nothing is easier to find than art works that had the support of the
Harvey> experts of their time but fell out of favor. The whole "academic" realist
Harvey> tradition of painting that existed in competition with the impressionists,
Harvey> for example: these painters drove the impressionists out of the "Salons",
Harvey> and today only art historians remember any of them--though, curiously
Harvey> enough, some art historians seem to be trying now to revive some of their
Harvey> reputations!
Yes - and that is why we can only make connections between painters
and musicians based on the reactions they got from their peers and the
public.
>>
>> 4. It is indeed dangerous, or careless, to make to many parallels
>> between music and art say. (How, exactly does art influence (not
>> inspire, but influence) music? Only in the most general terms
>> because the techniques and knowledge required are pretty disparate
>> in the end.)
Harvey> But many musicians have been part of the milieus of, and expressed
Harvey> affinity with the productions of, visual artists. Weren't Picasso and
Harvey> Stravinsky friends, and co-workers on a ballet production? Didn't John
Harvey> Cage and Jasper Johns hang out? (I guess the influence might have gone
Harvey> the other way in this case.)
Jasper Cage and John Johns were both very weird and high on mushrooms.
Again, you'll have to trust me on that bit of information. I think
they were friends because they were in the same situations. But I
have high respect for Johns, and relatively nil for Cage. Why?
because Johns was still out there trying to make paintings with the
original goal in mind: "make something which people want to look at
and enjoy" Cage - God knows what he was doing. I honestly think that
he ate too many mushrooms. He was "imitating" the art world, not
really inventing on his own. He was inspired by blank canvases of
**** (I forget who it was) and imitated them. He created controversy,
he made people think, and he was relatively successful. But don't
call it music.
Gary Valentin
Thomas> In article <j-germuska-03...@slugworth.acns.nwu.edu> j-ger...@nwu.edu (Joe Germuska) writes:
>>
>> I don't think everyone has embraced Picasso either, or insofar as they
>> have, perhaps one should say "Picasso ~ Ornette Coleman". A better
>> example of the revolutionary becoming the mainstream would be "Monet ~
>> Charlie Parker".
Thomas> Monet prints are abundant in offices, restaurants, apartments.
Thomas> But Bird is rarely heard on the radio.
Wouldn't you say that painters are more like composers? I think
there's a fine distinction in music between performers and composers,
something which you don't have in art. So maybe Picasso is more like
the Sex Pistols or something.
Jeff Beer
"You've Stepped Out Of A Dream".
Jeff
Matthew C Weiner
[out-of-context smip]
: I don't think everyone has embraced Picasso either, or insofar as they
: have, perhaps one should say "Picasso ~ Ornette Coleman". A better
: example of the revolutionary becoming the mainstream would be "Monet ~
: Charlie Parker".
I've missed most of this thread, but Philip Larkin (in his introduction
to All What Jazz) specifically compared Charlie Parker to Picasso to
Ezra Pound, as modernists: people of whom it was said that they were
daringly abstract, and that you had to be a musician to really understand
them (so Larkin claims), etc. Larkin doesn't like any of them. He
thought jazz was in a process of reducing itself to ugliness (Rollins,
Coltrane and Coleman he called music in which ugliness was positively
valued), and that perhaps after it reduced itself to absurdity it
would get back to real human emotion.
This last bit I mention because of its similarity to something you
occasionally hear from the Crouchites; though they draw the line
20 years later....
But as far as being absorbed into the mainstream goes, you have to
distinguish the mainstream of jazz from the mainstream of music. If
your measure of mainstream is what you see hanging in offices (someone
else's line about Monet prints), then jazz is not really the
mainstream music at all, and hasn't been since bop. If your
definition of mainstream is the way people paint (or perform jazz),
I'm not sure that Monet is the mainstream these days; I don't see
many contemporary Impressionists; perhaps if I knew more about
painting I'd think differently.
(I realize that you sometimes hear post-bop jazz in bookstores, etc.,
but it's my impression that classical is more common; anyway, jazz
certainly hasn't been *the* popular music since the forties.)
Matt
Tom Waters
: Wouldn't you say that painters are more like composers? I think
: there's a fine distinction in music between performers and composers,
: something which you don't have in art.
But you also don't have it in most music. In the European music which
eventually got classified as classical, musicians have played eachother's
stuff for a long time, but there was no professional distinction between
composer and performer until, what, 150 years ago? Of course this was
part of the same process that gave us "classical" as a distinct genre.
Since we're all jazz fans here, most of us probably think that the
elevation of this genre into a separate realm from the rest of music is
bunk. And a lot would probably agree that it hasn't exactly done wonders
for the music of Beethoven, Schubert and the rest as living art. I would
suggest that we ought to throw the performer-composer divide out with the
rest of this bathwater. And maybe it's just wishful thinking but I think
the process has already begun.
Don't get me wrong, I love to hear a professional performer specialist
like Andras Schiff play the Hammerklavier, but I'm even more intrigued by
reports of Frederick Rzewski playing the piece and look forward to the
day when composing and improvising virtuosos like Don Byron or Barry Guy
play such music as a matter of course, and not just because they have
fought hard to pursue unorthodox careers.
Oh yeah, Wynton Marsalis too, I guess.
Tom
Tom Waters
Distribution:
Matthew C Weiner (mcw...@pitt.edu) wrote:
: But as far as being absorbed into the mainstream goes, you have to
: distinguish the mainstream of jazz from the mainstream of music. If
: your measure of mainstream is what you see hanging in offices (someone
: else's line about Monet prints), then jazz is not really the
: mainstream music at all, and hasn't been since bop. If your
: definition of mainstream is the way people paint (or perform jazz),
: I'm not sure that Monet is the mainstream these days; I don't see
: many contemporary Impressionists; perhaps if I knew more about
: painting I'd think differently.
You don't hear Ellington playing in offices either. The aesthetic
radicalism of jazz -- the reason it has never been welcomed into such
environments unless tamed in some way -- comes, I would suggest (and so
would Stanley Crouch), not from its similarities to European modernist avant
gardes but from its connection to a counter-modernist aesthetic that has
been around since way before tha avant gardes and is, culturally speaking,
black.
This doesn't indicate to me that there's anything illegitimate about the
avant-garde elements in jazz, which include not only the styles we
usually call avant garde in shorthand but also bebop. But that, I think,
is where Crouch is coming from.
On an unrelated point, the visual language of Monet is incredibly
important to a huge number of artists making original work today. It's
just not the art that is involved in the cosmopolitan
gallery-museum-university circuit. If we want to really understand the
visual culture of our time, we have to consider how supposedly obsolete
modernisms beginning with impressionism but also including surrealism,
dada, abstract expressionism and many more, are still used in the lives
and work of people who are genuinely committed to art but don't happen to be
on the cutting edge. Maybe it's not so unrelated, actually.
Tom
Thomas F Brown
>
>: Wouldn't you say that painters are more like composers? I think
>: there's a fine distinction in music between performers and composers,
>: something which you don't have in art.
Some of the Impressionists painted rapidly, in an improvisational
fashion. They are more akin to jazz players than the painters
who spent months designing and executing a work.
Eric Hines
>Organization: United States Internet, Inc.
>Distribution:
>Matthew C Weiner (mcw...@pitt.edu) wrote:
>: But as far as being absorbed into the mainstream goes, you have to
>: distinguish the mainstream of jazz from the mainstream of music. If
>: your measure of mainstream is what you see hanging in offices (someone
>: else's line about Monet prints), then jazz is not really the
>: mainstream music at all, and hasn't been since bop. If your
>: definition of mainstream is the way people paint (or perform jazz),
>: I'm not sure that Monet is the mainstream these days; I don't see
>: many contemporary Impressionists; perhaps if I knew more about
>: painting I'd think differently.
I don't think "mainstream" is the issue. The ur-inspiration for this
line was my comment that Joe Germuska was trying to sneakily
validate his taste in music by aligning it with now-well-
accepted figures like Picasso. Now regardless of whether
Picasso appears in many big business office-buildings, Picasso
is an established figure in the art world and without it. Saying
you don't think Picasso was an important painter is like saying
"I am a boob" not only among appreciators of art but also among
the haute-bourgeois tastemakers and all those influenced by them.
Now that's establishment. The popularity of impressionists among
real estate brokers and their lot has very little to do with their
positve tastes in art, but rather in their feeling that they ought
to have art and the relative inoffensiveness of impressionists.
Japenese real estate brokers actually used these paintings as
convenient vehicles for kickbacks and bribes during the eighties.
So we shouldn't use the exigencies of art in the big deal land
as our main benchmark. Check out t-shirt sales and exhibition
attendance. Picasso is doing just fine, he did buy his own
island in the Pacific after all. The guy was hardly marginal.
>You don't hear Ellington playing in offices either. The aesthetic
>radicalism of jazz -- the reason it has never been welcomed into such
>environments unless tamed in some way -- comes, I would suggest (and so
>would Stanley Crouch), not from its similarities to European modernist avant
>gardes but from its connection to a counter-modernist aesthetic that has
>been around since way before tha avant gardes and is, culturally speaking,
>black.
Ditto here for offices, but I would suggest something else, too. We
shouldn't be too quick to oppose the emerging black culture of the
early twentieth century (emerging that is as a broad-market
phenomenon) to modernism. Adorno did it, but he was wrong.
The black music/dance/language/etc. scene in NYC and Paris was
part of what made modernism possible, and many blacks coming
out of those scenes helped shape what modernism was (for
instance, Ellington). Though I'm not altogether sure it was
recognized as such at the time, we might think of Ellington
et al. as counter-European-modernist-avant-garde. People
coming later (like Crouch) have recognized a cleft between
two approaches and made much of it, but what would Ellington
have said?
--eric
Gary Valentin
>> Gary Valentin (vale...@torolab.ibm.com) wrote:
>>
>> : Wouldn't you say that painters are more like composers? I think
>> : there's a fine distinction in music between performers and composers,
>> : something which you don't have in art.
Thomas> Some of the Impressionists painted rapidly, in an improvisational
Thomas> fashion. They are more akin to jazz players than the painters
Thomas> who spent months designing and executing a work.
Right - but some composers composed rapidly too. I guess there's a
very blurry line between the two concepts.
JFinn26231
Ravel [as in impressionist types] "borrowed" freely from jazz to the
extent that they employed 9th, 11th, and 13th extensions. ....joe
Thomas F Brown
You've got it backwards. Jazz arrangers borrowed those harmonies
from the French cats. Debussy was dead long before that stuff
turned up in jazz.
Matthew C Weiner
Debussy has a piece called "Le Petit Negre." I suspect that this indicates
that he was borrowing from black music of some sort, even if it wasn't
jazz. (Don't know the specific musicological details.)
Matt
Marc Sabatella
> Debussy has a piece called "Le Petit Negre." I suspect that this indicates
> that he was borrowing from black music of some sort, even if it wasn't
> jazz.
I've played this, as well as a few others by Debussy. Basically, it is the
rhythmic aspects that are borrowed - the use of syncopation and the stride bass
figure is reminiscent of ragtime. However, the ragtime composers did not
generally use harmonies as rich as Debussy's.
--
Marc Sabatella
--
ma...@fc.hp.com
http://www.fortnet.org/~marc/
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Jeff Volkman
On 8 Apr 1996, JFinn26231 wrote:
> Just to blur this one a bit more for what [ever] it's worth , Debussy and
> Ravel [as in impressionist types] "borrowed" freely from jazz to the
> extent that they employed 9th, 11th, and 13th extensions. ....joe
Thomas already pointed out that the French impressionists, for the most
part, came first. In the context of artistic/cultural movements, it's
interesting to note that that period of French culture, especially art &
music, more or less directly predated, and had a huge influence on, the
cultural "explosion" in the US, particularly Harlem, around the time of
WWI. In many ways, the Americans picked up where the French left off,
music being no exception.
-Jeff
Thomas F Brown
>: >Just to blur this one a bit more for what [ever] it's worth , Debussy and
>: > Ravel [as in impressionist types] "borrowed" freely from jazz to the
>: >extent that they employed 9th, 11th, and 13th extensions. ....joe
>
>: from the French cats. Debussy was dead long before that stuff
>: turned up in jazz.
>
>that he was borrowing from black music of some sort, even if it wasn't
Debussy saw sheet music on ragtime tunes, but that's not
where those harmonies came from. Impressionistic harmony didn't
begin to manifest in jazz until the late 20s.
jkn...@micromass.com
(72 & 75) at Montreaux. There'll also be a video.
Joe Germuska
(Eric Hines) wrote:
>The ur-inspiration for this
>line was my comment that Joe Germuska was trying to sneakily
>validate his taste in music by aligning it with now-well-
>accepted figures like Picasso.
Is Wynton Marsalis sneaky for aligning his taste in music with
now-well-accepted figures like Duke Ellington? ;-)
I like music made by artists who challenge conventions. Picasso's
paintings challenged conventions. What's so sneaky about that? I didn't
even bring Picasso into this, you did:
>
>>3. The original comparison between the negative reception of modern
>>art and the negative reception of outside jazz is a rather devious
>>way of validating your own tastes. You are taking it for granted
>>that everyone will eventually embrace your favorite music as
>>they have embraced Picasso.
here's my original posting, for reference>
>but I was just going to bring up an inkling I had recently... how much
>can be learned from comparing the current state of jazz with painting
>developments since the late 19th century? Since I'm far from expert in
>either field, I'm leery of making too much out of it, but the arguments
>people use to denigrate newer jazz seem much like those used against most
>of the movements in painting in this century.
>
>I also think that the introduction and wide spread of recorded music
>probably had a similar effect on music to the introduction and spread of
>photographic techniques just before the explosion of non-realist art in
>Europe and the US, and someone has probably written well on one or both
>subjects... but I don't have the references...
>
>It's interesting, though... from my outsider's perspective, it seems like
>in art appreciation circles less credence is given to realism nowadays,
>which seems contrary to the state of music -- but perhaps this is my
>ignorance showing?
>
>At least I can go down to the Art Institute and see a variety of styles of
>art. There aren't any listening museums that I know of... (Would people
>really be interested? I don't think it would come off so well in
>practice... people "listen" differently than they "look", which also
>brings up some of the limitations of my metaphor...)
Joe
Gary Valentin
Marc> Matthew C Weiner wrote:
>> Debussy has a piece called "Le Petit Negre." I suspect that this indicates
>> that he was borrowing from black music of some sort, even if it wasn't
>> jazz.
Marc> I've played this, as well as a few others by Debussy. Basically, it is the
Marc> rhythmic aspects that are borrowed - the use of syncopation and the stride bass
Marc> figure is reminiscent of ragtime. However, the ragtime composers did not
Marc> generally use harmonies as rich as Debussy's.
I usually associate Debussy's music with Bill Evans' style of playing.
There's many colours and you need lots of patience with it. It's also
very delicate.
Anyways - I wouldn't call it black music. It's beautiful, no doubt,
but it ain't black music.
Marc Sabatella
> > Matthew C Weiner wrote:
> >> Debussy has a piece called "Le Petit Negre."
> I usually associate Debussy's music with Bill Evans' style of playing.
> There's many colours and you need lots of patience with it. It's also
> very delicate.
> Anyways - I wouldn't call it black music. It's beautiful, no doubt,
> but it ain't black music.
You presumably haven't heard the piece in question. True, many of Debussy's
piano works (such as "Claire De Lune") are impressionistic, but he has a series
of pieces that are pretty much direct copies of the ragtime style as well. The
most famous of these is probably "Golliwog's Cakewalk".
JFinn26231
the process of cross pollenation had begun to take hold . On the topic
of M. Ravel
I would add that one need only harken back to the Violin Sonata
[1923 to 27] and of course the Piano Concerto in G {1930 ?} which are
generally acknowleged as "under the influence" so to speak. Happy
listening. .... joe
John Monroe
>
> > Debussy has a piece called "Le Petit Negre." I suspect that this indicates
> > that he was borrowing from black music of some sort, even if it wasn't
> > jazz.
>
>
> Marc Sabatella
> --
Early twentieth century French composers used "Jazz" elements, for the
most part, as exotic sources of "local color," in much the same way they
used "Spanish" or "Chinese" elements (take, for example, the "blues
licks" in Ravel's G-Major piano concerto, which serve a plainly
atmospheric purpose). The generation of French composers that came after
World War I, particularly "Les Six" (Honegger, Milhaud, Auric, Poulenc,
Tailleferre and Durey) attempted to make Jazz a more important element in
their compositions, but they were only intermittently successful (listen,
for example, to Milhaud's somewhat stiff "La Creation du monde," a "Jazz"
ballet written in 1918 [I think]--at the time, it created a sensation,
but Milhaud clearly didn't "get" what makes Jazz work).
Jazz musicians, to my mind, have been *much* more successful in their
borrowings from modern classical music than vice versa. Take what Art
Tatum, Billy Strayhorn, Bud Powell, and Bill Evans have done with Debussy's
and Ravel's harmonies--they are now a seamlessly integrated part of the Jazz
vocabulary. The same goes for Stravinsky's rhythmic innovations, which
can be heard in the playing of people like Andrew Hill and Duke Ellington.
John Monroe.
Jeff Volkman
On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, John Monroe wrote:
> Jazz musicians, to my mind, have been *much* more successful in their
> borrowings from modern classical music than vice versa. Take what Art
> Tatum, Billy Strayhorn, Bud Powell, and Bill Evans have done with Debussy's
> and Ravel's harmonies--they are now a seamlessly integrated part of the Jazz
> vocabulary. The same goes for Stravinsky's rhythmic innovations, which
> can be heard in the playing of people like Andrew Hill and Duke Ellington.
I agree. I like Stravinsky and Ravel a lot, but to me Debussy is the
guy. And, I like almost all of Debussy's work, but it's his
full-orchestral stuff that I especially love, and would strongly
recommend to all jazz fans. The links between Debussy and jazz are
strong; his music is full of sounds that have become associated with jazz
much more than classical.
-Jeff
Gary Valentin
Marc> Gary Valentin wrote:
>> > Matthew C Weiner wrote:
>> >> Debussy has a piece called "Le Petit Negre."
>> I usually associate Debussy's music with Bill Evans' style of playing.
>> There's many colours and you need lots of patience with it. It's also
>> very delicate.
>> Anyways - I wouldn't call it black music. It's beautiful, no doubt,
>> but it ain't black music.
Marc> You presumably haven't heard the piece in question. True, many of Debussy's
Marc> piano works (such as "Claire De Lune") are impressionistic, but
Marc> he has a series
Marc> of pieces that are pretty much direct copies of the ragtime
Marc> style as well. The
Marc> most famous of these is probably "Golliwog's Cakewalk".
No - I have heard it. It's on my "complete piano works by Debussy"
set, but I lent it to a friend and I can't relisten to it. Are these
pieces hard to play? They sure are hard to get into. I had a
favorite called La Cathedrale. The problem with these pieces is that
it doesn't leave too much room for interpretation. You cannot fool
around with it too much. I don't know this for experience: I'm just
assuming because all the versions I heard were identical. Claire de
Lune is beautiful no matter who plays it. Well, pretty much.
Marc Sabatella
> >> >> Debussy has a piece called "Le Petit Negre."
> Are these
> pieces hard to play?
Technically, they are at about the level of your average junior high school
piano student. Well, your average serious student anyhow. And I'd probably
agree that there isn't all that much room for interpretation, compared to some
of Debussy's other works.
> Claire de
> Lune is beautiful no matter who plays it. Well, pretty much.
This one is *considerably* harder to play well. The notes themselves are
only a little more difficult, but it really requires a sophistication of
expressiveness that is well beyond what is required for the more ragtime
derived pieces. This is, BTW, one of the few "classical" works I continue to
play occassionally - usually, just to steal the intro to work into an
arrangement of Duke Ellington's "Melancholia" (which shares the same chord
progression and key center), but sometimes, I try playing the rest of it. I'm
nowhere near as good as when I was in high school, though.
Russ Evans
In article <VALENTIN.96...@gaia.torolab.ibm.com>, Gary Valentin writes:
> Marc> The
> Marc> most famous of these is probably "Golliwog's Cakewalk".
>
> No - I have heard it. It's on my "complete piano works by Debussy"
> set, but I lent it to a friend and I can't relisten to it. Are these
> pieces hard to play? They sure are hard to get into. I had a
> favorite called La Cathedrale. The problem with these pieces is that
> it doesn't leave too much room for interpretation.
'Golliwog's Cakewalk' is part of the 'Children's Corner' suite. They
aren't terribly difficult -- they are used as examination pieces quite
often at around ABRSM Grade VI, say, lower intermediate standard. My
copy is published by United Music, but says 'not to be sold outside the
British Empire' on the title page, so I'd hazard a guess that that
edition is out of print! The original copyright owners appear to have
been Durand et Cie. And I'd disagree about room for interpretation;
although with all these little pieces, it's critical to maintain a
steady pulse, and Debussy does give ample dynamic markings, there is
still a fair bit of room for personal interpretation.
BTW I think your favourite is actually 'La Cathedrale engloutie' (the
drowned cathedral) -- it's one of the preludes. You need a really
good piano to play that one well!
Russ