Is improvisation necessary for something to be called art?
oasysco
When talking about jazz only, some folks feel that it 'aint jazz or
even art unless it is improvised.
So, what is improvisation?
Movie actors memorize scripts (same as arrangements in the music biz)
written by someone else, yet they may change the inflection of their
voice or the look on their face from performance to performance. Is
that improvisation or interpretation? Is there a difference?
Can graceful recovery be considered improvisation?
If an ice dancer recovers from a fall and has to go outside a rehearsed
routine to do so, is that "artistic improvisation" or simply the
ability of a pro to recover form a bad situation?
If I play an arragement as written with no deviation, is that art or
monkey-see-monkey-do? What if Oscar Peterson plays an arrangement as
written with no deviation... art or monkey-see-monkey-do?
Is it even possible for anybody to play an arrangement with no
deviation? Do we not all interpret differently each and everytime we
play a piece? Does that qualify as improv?
Or is there a threshold of changes that must be crossed before it
becomes improvisation? Is it improv, if I change 5% of an arrangement?
10%? 80%?
Just curious since we can't seem to agree on what jazz is, yet we say
improv is the most important part of jazz. If so, then what's
improvisation? Or does everybody have their own personal definition of
that as well? And if so, wouldn't it be more accurate to call
everything jazz or say that nothing is jazz?
Greg
Starcaster
NOT necessary for art to contain improvisation. Art is an unbounded
spectrum of expressive pursuits. A performance recreated over and
over, such as a play, is still art. Same with a rock or pop band
playing its songs to sound like their album. All music is art.
But is it jazz without improvisation, that's a different question. And
I think jazz is defined both as a set of essential musical styles as
well as by a set of musical values. Among those values is that an
element of improvisation be present. But few would argue that a
learned arrangement, played the same way each time in a jazz style, is
not jazz.
So perhaps we should distinguish between reproducing art and creating
art. A classical pianist reproduces art by learning and performing a
piece written 200 years ago. A jazz musician creates art when s/he
improvises a solo. The rock musician creates art when s/he writes a
song, and reproduces it when s/he performs it. A cover band just
reproduces.
There are gray areas all over where a little of both happens.
And all improvisation is not jazz, because improv is a part of other
musics too.
hotchkisstrio
Is it art? Yes. Classical music is art, and it is in general played
the same way (notes, tempo) each time (although the emotion of the
performance may change each night)
Is it Jazz? I say no, but some would disagree. To me the thing that
sets jazz apart from other musical forms is the improvisation and the
fact each live performance is different due to the improvised elements.
Unlike pop music which is the same every time depending on how good
the singer is at lip syncing :-)
k.e.maij
>To be art, must it be improvised?
No, it just has to communicate.
>When talking about jazz only, some folks feel that it 'aint jazz or
>even art unless it is improvised.
This is the freedom in choosing music by everybodys own tase and
name it as one want.
>So, what is improvisation?
Instant composing mainly.
An improvisation can be written down and be reimprovised. Same as
licks and melodies, all comes out of the huge trick bag of
knowledge, experience and fine motoric training and improvisation
is the art of connecting it together in a certain context.
Just my 50cents, I do not claim to be true.
sincerely
karlie
--
Karl E. Maij
http://www.bebop.ch/rmmgj
Joe Finn
Greg wrote:
>To be art, must it be improvised?
No. Sculpture is not improvised. Plays, poems, prose and other written
expression is not improvised either.
>When talking about jazz only, some folks feel that it 'aint jazz or
>even art unless it is improvised.
>So, what is improvisation?
Improvisation is the extemporaneous or ad lib element in the jazz style of
music.
>Movie actors memorize scripts (same as arrangements in the music biz)
>written by someone else, yet they may change the inflection of their
>voice or the look on their face from performance to performance. Is
>that improvisation or interpretation? Is there a difference?
What actors do in performing a play is both interpretive and improvisational
at times.
A script is not the same as a musical arrangement. These are two separate
mediums and many differences can be pointed out.
>Can graceful recovery be considered improvisation?
>If an ice dancer recovers from a fall and has to go outside a rehearsed
>routine to do so, is that "artistic improvisation" or simply the
>ability of a pro to recover form a bad situation?
I'm not sure, but when a skater falls during his routine isn't this a
technical error resulting in a point deduction? Technical errors are not
art. They are mistakes. In real time performing arts these things will
happen from time to time. They tend to subtract from the presentation.
>If I play an arrangement as written with no deviation, is that art or
>monkey-see-monkey-do? What if Oscar Peterson plays an arrangement as
>written with no deviation... art or monkey-see-monkey-do?
Monkey-see-monkey-do? Wow. The ability to play what's on the page with
expression, color, artistry etc. requires a very refined set of skills.
Great sensitivity and musicality are called for.
>Is it even possible for anybody to play an arrangement with no
>deviation?
Yes.
>Do we not all interpret differently each and everytime we
>play a piece?
Perhaps, but this may be measured in very small nearly imperceptible
degrees.
>Does that qualify as improv?
Nope.
>Or is there a threshold of changes that must be crossed before it
>becomes improvisation? Is it improv, if I change 5% of an arrangement?
>10%? 80%?
To me "changing the arrangement" as you say and the sort of improvisation
characteristic of the jazz style that we are talking about are two different
things.
>Just curious since we can't seem to agree on what jazz is, yet we say
>improv is the most important part of jazz. If so, then what's
>improvisation? Or does everybody have their own personal definition of
>that as well? And if so, wouldn't it be more accurate to call
>everything jazz or say that nothing is jazz?
>Greg
Greg, there is widespread broad agreement among musicians, audiences and
others in the biz as to what is and what isn't jazz. Improvisation is a key
element of the style. It's the ad lib part. ....joe
--
Visit me on the web www.JoeFinn.net
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
j...@isu.edu
> So perhaps we should distinguish between reproducing art and creating
> art. A classical pianist reproduces art by learning and performing a
> piece written 200 years ago.
Even in the case of reproducing 200 year old music there is still a lot
of wiggle room in the interpretation. The result is different from
performer to performer, and is different from one performance to the
next for a single person. You'd need a machine to make an exact
reproduction of any significant piece of music. I think that Jazz
improv performance differs only to degree. Jazz, I think, seems to
prize originality more (i.e., subsequent takes are very different, not
just subtly different).
Steven Bornfeld
Joe Finn wrote:
> "oasysco" <wilder...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>
> Greg wrote:
>
>>To be art, must it be improvised?
>
>
>
> No. Sculpture is not improvised. Plays, poems, prose and other written
> expression is not improvised either.
>
>
I think it might be possible to improvise sculpture. But I don't wanna
be in the room.
Steve
pmfan57
Along the lines of what you said Joe, one time Bill Evans and Teddy
Wilson did a joint Blindfold test and they were played a super cleaned
up recording of In a Mist, as recorded by Bix himself. They both were
commenting that it was being played really really well, but had one
criticism: it was EXACTLY like the written arrangement. (obviously
they were fooled by the clean sound into thinking it was a more modern
player/recording)
Of course, they understood when it was explained to them that it was
Bix himself playing, from whom the arrangement was made/transcribed.
If someone else had played it exactly like the original they would have
had some reservations.
oasysco
Greg
oasysco
>No. Sculpture is not improvised. Plays, poems, prose and other written
>expression is not improvised either.
I know I'm splitting hairs, but why isn't sculpture or poetry
improvised? I mean it's created out of nothing at least at the time
it's created.
Greg
Willie K. Yee, MD
wrote:
>To be art, must it be improvised?
>
>When talking about jazz only, some folks feel that it 'aint jazz or
>even art unless it is improvised.
Many years ago, the French critic Andre Hodeir stated that
improvisation, though important was not ESSENTIAL to jazz. To make his
point he asked if the Count Basie Orchestra came and played a swinging
concert using only written out charts, with not improvised solos,
would we not still consider it jazz?
Leonard Feather countered with his definition of jazz which included
"improvisation OR composition in an improvisatory spirit."
Hmph.
pmfan57
Well then composing is improvising, too. The word has a meaning, and
extemporaneous creation is involved. Otherwise, use a different word.
Anyway, improvisation is NOT necessary for great art, but is necessary
for jazz.
nez50
Also, I don't think improvisation is necessarily making something out of nothing. There is always something to work from be it a music score or an idea. Answering your question may lie somewhere between something that could be called spontaneous and something that could be called improvised, if a distinction could be made between the two. But, that may lead to some serious hair splitting.
joe nez
Joe Finn
>
> I think it might be possible to improvise sculpture. But I don't wanna be
> in the room.
>
> Steve
Wear goggles at least. ..........joe
p.s. maintain a low profile.
Joe Finn
>
> Along the lines of what you said Joe, one time Bill Evans and Teddy
> Wilson did a joint Blindfold test and they were played a super cleaned
> up recording of In a Mist, as recorded by Bix himself. They both were
> commenting that it was being played really really well, but had one
> criticism: it was EXACTLY like the written arrangement. (obviously
> they were fooled by the clean sound into thinking it was a more modern
> player/recording)
I've heard that rendition too. Bix was able to notate pretty much exactly
what he played. Anybody looking at the music would probably say likewise.
> Of course, they understood when it was explained to them that it was
> Bix himself playing, from whom the arrangement was made/transcribed.
> If someone else had played it exactly like the original they would have
> had some reservations.
Marian McPartland has played "In a Mist" on her show now and then. Her
interpretation is hers and hers alone but it may vary from one take to the
next.
Interpretation is part of what makes jazz jazz. Arturo Sandoval's rendition
of "Joy Spring" is unlike that of Brownie himself but it won a grammy and
cemented Arturo's reputation as jazz royalty over a decade ago.
Thanks for your insightful and knowing remarks. ......joe
Joe Finn
>
> I know I'm splitting hairs, but why isn't sculpture or poetry
> improvised? I mean it's created out of nothing at least at the time
> it's created.
>
> Greg
This is not meant to be dismissive at all, Greg, so please don't
misunderstand, but the main thing is real time. A performing art is
fundamentally different from a visual art or literature. Literature and
visual arts can be reworked, edited, revised and even discarded before they
are put before the audience.
...joe
p.s. You are not splitting hares.
Joe Finn
> Well then composing is improvising, too. The word has a meaning, and
> extemporaneous creation is involved. Otherwise, use a different word.
>
> Anyway, improvisation is NOT necessary for great art, but is necessary
> for jazz.
Composition is not improvisation. The creation of something that will
eventually take wing as artistic human expression is an inspiration or a
concept.
Did you see the pbs thing on O'Neill this week? Some of his plays came to
him in dreams. He subsequently hammered out the concepts in a process that
took weeks to months. This eventually resulted is a script that was later
edited and finally published. From the published script to the actual
presentation is another year or so, depending.
Jazz is special because it jumps the gap between the inspiration and the
presentation.
On Saturday night I'm presenting a concert featuring sax great Ralph Lalama.
I know Ralph and I'm confident that he will play things he hasn't even
thought of yet. What I mean is that the performance will happen in the
moment. You have to be there.
That's where jazz musicians live. .............joe
Joe Finn
>
> Many years ago, the French critic Andre Hodeir stated that
> improvisation, though important was not ESSENTIAL to jazz. To make his
> point he asked if the Count Basie Orchestra came and played a swinging
> concert using only written out charts, with not improvised solos,
> would we not still consider it jazz?
>
> Leonard Feather countered with his definition of jazz which included
> "improvisation OR composition in an improvisatory spirit."
>
> Hmph.
Willie: What Butch Miles, Will Matthews, Tony Suggs et. al. are doing in
the current edition of the Basie band is improvisational from start to
finish. What the rhythm section does in the big band context is always
improvisational. The composed parts that the horn sections are playing is
another matter. The section leaders and or the director will decide how
these parts are to be performed.
The thing that the rhythm section lays down is what makes the written horn
lines really happen. .....joe
p.s. btw we are planning to bring the Basie band to kingston this june.
Keith Freeman
-Keith
Portable Changes, tips etc. at http://home.wanadoo.nl/keith.freeman/
e-mail only to keith DOT freeman AT wanadoo DOT nl
Norman Clark Stewart Jr
come up with a more and more solid answer to this type of questioning(at
least for myself):
As already stated, improv is spontaneous (what I used to think of as "jazz")
and historical re-presentations (what I used to think of as "classical") are
an attempt to interpret and pay tribute to something that already exists.
All music lives somewhere on the spectrum between improv and tribute (to
'style' if nothing else), which is to say that there is classical music in
which the tribute part is only,really only,(like with Stockhausen) a verbal
set of words intended to create a mental image to inspire the playing of the
"piece", which is otherwise improvised or more or less set in stone by the
conductor and becomes a tribute to the conductor.....There is also jazz
which is mostly tribute to, whatever-- some history or some contemporary
'composer' -- and is completely devoid of
improvisation. --In this type of jazz tribute, there is the tendency to try
to call it more classical, including jazz into the ever-gobbling-up
classical acceptance.
All those words to say it is, of course, stuff other than improv vs. tribute
considerations which define jazz or classical.
I may be straying from actual history here and would love correction if I
am ------- It seems to me that "classical" defines a process of
acceptance, an ever-expanding set of the 'allowable' which dictates what is
accepted by musicians, musicologists, and society as significant or great
music. It is classical because a certain type of thinking, a certain
'conservatism', a certain process allows for it as significant and great --
(or because it is a tribute to that type of significance and greatness) --
this has nothing to do with improv -- improv has been an accepted part of
the classical for a very, very long time.
Jazz, though I used to think of jazz as THE music that was pushing out the
edges of those boundaries which define what is 'allowable' in classical, is,
I believe, more defined by a syncopation of the beat, (which of course is
not unknown in classical.) and spontaneous reharmonization and
remelodization of some 'already known', usually pop- music-based piece.
Whereas the history of classical performance is associated largely with
music heavily weighted toward the 'tribute' side, it includes a large
central core ideal and assumption that the piece being played is "great and
significant" and that the artistry will be displayed in ,firstly and most
expectedly , a faithful tribute to the significance and greatness of the
piece and then (here is where the performance itself achieves greatness)
some expression of
the uniqueness of this particular interpretation and expression of the piece
(If it is a NEW piece, it of course is judged against the ideals of
greatness and significance assumed of the 'classical')
Jazz, it seems to me, comes from a different set of ideals.
There need not be, in any way, any assumption of greatness ascribed to the
music from which this variation is borne. In some ways, it is more of
indicative of the greatness and artistry of the interpreter if the original
piece was BAD or at least mundane. What, here is assumed to be necessarily
'great and significant' is the performer.
Even though some orchestras achieve the status of greatness and
significance, this is not an assumed essential element of the performance of
an evening of classical music. If they are mostly 'machine-like' in
performance, the music can still be amazing and worthwhile because of its
own underlying significance and greatness.
In jazz, if you have an ungreat performer 'jazzing up' a mundane or even bad
piece of music.......well, you see the distinction. Jazz, itself, has come
to include the expectation of certain types of "tribute" -- in order to
call it jazz, the audience might expect certain conventions of
variation on familiar melody, syncopation of the beat, (even a 'swing'),
harmony to the seventh degree, possibly certain types of orchestration and
instrumentation. I, grudgingly, must include an evening of music in a
certain mode and mood that is entirely written out, almost entirely
"tribute", even without any improve, as to be included in "Jazz".
With that said, improv and what I'm calling 'tribute' are totally different
disciplines. "improv", in that article on performance's terminology, is
VERY alive to feedback and feedforward and, as a goal, reacts immediately to
the whims and artistry of other performers and outside environment to
interact with external and internal "programs". "tribute" is mostly
concerned with performing, as closely as possible, the internal "program"
which is the ideal in the conductor or performers' head.
"Tribute" would, most likely, want to ignore variations from the internal
ideal and 'get the music back on track'
improv, as an ideal, (in my opinion) expects and welcomes 'surprises' and
deviations from the "planned" and the internal image of the 'ideal program'
is based on
synchronicity and a "coming together" of more or less spontaneous
renderings.
The more jazz becomes tribute and defined and included into the 'classical'
the more I want to find, well....spontaneity that bears another name.
I have dubbed (with some other discinctions) that new subset of jazz with
the name BEBOP NOUVEAU.
You may use it if you like. I'll post samples if there's any interest. I'm
not sure if the music I'm working on now under the name "Full Tilt Bozo"
really describes the ideals of Bebop Nouveau, being a offspring of bossa
nova aspirations and bebop virtuosity .....bebop as improv not tribute.
As to what is art.....both improv and tribute require artistry. To me, the
total musician has developed both tribute and improv toward a mastery.
Don't get me going on theater and dance and performance art and new forms of
sculpture..........but there are similar distinctions there.
"Joe Finn" <J...@JoeFinn.net> wrote in message
news:442cbaf1$0$9687$6d36...@titian.nntpserver.com...
pmfan57
Joe Finn wrote:
> Composition is not improvisation. The creation of something that will
> eventually take wing as artistic human expression is an inspiration or a
> concept.
>
Joe,
You know I wasn't saying composing is the same thing as improvisation,
right? I was reducing what the previous poster had said to the absurd
conclusion. (You probably knew that and were also addressing the
previous poster, but I wanted to be sure I was understood.)
pmfan57
I'm sure Bix's would vary from performance to performance (assuming he
ever played the piece again for anybody), but the sheet music is based
on Bix's recording of it. So it makes sense that the recording is note
for note of the subsequent transcription on the sheet music. Bix did
not write it out beforehand and then perform it.
Mike C.
> "oasysco" <wilder...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> I know I'm splitting hairs, but why isn't sculpture or poetry
>> improvised? I mean it's created out of nothing at least at the time
>> it's created.
>>
>> Greg
>
>
> This is not meant to be dismissive at all, Greg, so please don't
> misunderstand, but the main thing is real time. A performing art is
> fundamentally different from a visual art or literature. Literature and
> visual arts can be reworked, edited, revised and even discarded before
> they are put before the audience.
>
>
>
> ...joe
>
> p.s. You are not splitting hares.
>
This all depends on what you define as poetry. One can improvise poetic
verse in real time, but what is considered great poetry, therefore art, is
the writing and constant reworking and editing of the work until it says
what the writer is trying to get across. I would consider the general
definition of poetry as one's creativity in getting his/her original, unique
thoughts across by using devices of language. One could do this
spontaneously, but the aesthetic beauty of poetry has more to do with the
writer picking from all of his tools available to him. That generally takes
time and thought, rather than making it up on the spot.
I suppose that spontaneous poetry, such as at poetry slams, etc., can be
considered art, but it's not what we generally consider to be great poetry.
Generally just the people witnessing the spontaneity may consider it art,
but it doesn't tend to withhold the tests of time. The art of creating
meaningful poetry spontaneously seems to be a very different animal and
different art form from writing great poetry, re-editing and reworking
continuously.
Isn't this similar to Bill Evans' discussion in the liner notes of "Kind Of
Blue", of the Japanese painting style in which one can't go back and rework,
edit, or correct anything? I believe that is also the basis of
Impressionism, as the artist doesn't (in theory, anyway) spend any extra
time re-working things, but just paints what he/she sees or imagines in a
short amount of time.
icarusi
news:1143748795.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Just curious since we can't seem to agree on what jazz is, yet we say
> improv is the most important part of jazz. If so, then what's
> improvisation?
For me it's the differences in notes and timing between one performance of a
piece and the next. I couldn't put a percentage on it but I know which
artists do much of it and those who do little or none and I'm more likely to
see the former live. Another description could be spontaneous creation
within a framework. If it's nearly exactly the same notes and timing with
some variations on expression, tempo etc. I'm less likely to want to see
that live.
I also prefer to play that way. When I started during the 'blues boom' it
was touted as the 'thing to do'. You weren't expected to play exactly the
same thing each time. You were expected to play something fairly different
each time. The improv sections were where you 'express' yourself, play for
the moment, good bad or indifferent. It was more of a 'live' thing. For
recording it was to try and capture a 'good one' while the tape was running.
There was quite a lot of pressure/adrenalin to do that for a recording.
Live, if it wasn't so good one night there was always the next night.
Icarusi
--
remove the 00 to reply
Willie K. Yee, MD
wrote:
>p.s. btw we are planning to bring the Basie band to kingston this june.
>--
Lemme know if Freedie Green's chair need fillin'.
Joe Finn
"pmfan57" <jwra...@aol.com> wrote
>
> I'm sure Bix's would vary from performance to performance (assuming he
> ever played the piece again for anybody), but the sheet music is based
> on Bix's recording of it. So it makes sense that the recording is note
> for note of the subsequent transcription on the sheet music. Bix did
> not write it out beforehand and then perform it.
Joe: I was wrong about a couple of things re: Bix and the sheet music for
"In A Mist". Your remarks prompted me to look this up. Bix was assisted with
a transcription by Bill Challis on which the published sheet music was
based. This was well after the recording.
Here are some other interesting points on the subject:
http://ms.cc.sunysb.edu/~alhaim/recordingsinamist.htm
I don't know why I assumed he wrote it out beforehand. That was not the case
at all, as you pointed out. I looked at a version of "In A Mist" that was
apparently just like one of Bix's recordings once so maybe that's what got
me confused. .......joe
Joe Finn
> Joe,
>
> You know I wasn't saying composing is the same thing as improvisation,
> right? I was reducing what the previous poster had said to the absurd
> conclusion. (You probably knew that and were also addressing the
> previous poster, but I wanted to be sure I was understood.)
>
I was agreeing with you. ...joe
pmfan57
Well Evans and Wilson were confused too, so you're in good company.
They both must have had the arrangement memorized to notice is was note
for note, though. Maybe they thought it was a classical player. Bix's
pieces have been recorded by a guitar group at some point, but I don't
remember where.
bob r
jwra...@aol.com wrote on 4/1/06 8:05 AM:
> Bix's
> pieces have been recorded by a guitar group at some point, but I don't
> remember where.
There's a recording done by Bucky Pizzarelli in a guitar quintet with Art
Ryerson, Barry Galbraith, Allen Hanlon, Tony Mottola and Howie Collins
(Mottola subs for Colllins on some tunes). Bill Challis did the charts for
five guitars on "In a Mist", "In the Dark", and three other tunes. The same
CD also features Bucky and his daughter Mary doing eight Kress/McDonough
duets: "Stage Fright", "Danzon", etc. It's on the Audiophile label.
--
Bob Russell
Web - http://www.bobrussellguitar.com
CDs - http://www.cdbaby.com/all/bobrussell
Soundclick - http://www.soundclick.com/bobrussell
googledawg
Can graceful recovery be considered improvisation?
I guess you would HAVE to call it improvisation - i.e., unplanned
creation for whatever purpose - entertainment, recovery, whatever.
the question then would be "how graceful" was that improvisation - and
THAT would depend on exactly what you were recovering from. ending
a tune in A minor on a high Bb note would require SOME sorta recovery -
an Ab would probably be passable (in some places) requiring no
recovery...
..however, maybe graceful recovery should be a learned response instead
of an improvisation, which could require some FURTHER recovery....
Marc Sabatella
> improvised? I mean it's created out of nothing at least at the time
> it's created.
As others have observed, we have a distinction in music between
"improvisation" and "composition" that does not really exist in other
art forms, or at least, the distinction is seldom made. Certainly it
should seem clear enough what improvised poetry might entail - someone
standing in front of an audience and reciting poetry he is making up on
the spot. And I'm sure, if there isn't already a group of people
actively engaged in this activity and creating their own forms and
conventions within it, it's just a matter of time.
As someone who has more than dabbled in visual art, there are certain
parallels I'd make to improvisation. The idea of developing a painting
a painting over an extended period - days, weeks, months, or years -
seems rather like musical "composition", whereas the idea of completing
a painting in one sitting - called "alla prima" painting, and often
associated with the idea of "plein air" (paintings landscapes outdoors
on location) painting - seems more akin to musical "improvisation". In
fact, if there is someone watching you paint, as often happens when
painting plein air, the connection becomes stronger. Still, it is quite
common to wipe out mistakes when painting alla prima and correct them,
and there is also the idea of an underpainting, which is something you
put down on the canvas fully expecting to cover up. So here we are
talking about something that might seem to be between the "extremes" of
composition and improvisation.
Note, however, that nothing in the visual art world corresponds to the
idea of performing a notated piece of m,usic (eg, playing classical
music). The most obvious analogy would be paint-by-numbers, but that
seems insulting to classical musicians, whom I think we would all agree
are doing something far more inherently artistic. Or, perhaps, doing a
copy of a famous painting, but in terms of the context and connotations
of this act, copying a painting is much more akin to transcribing an
improvised solo - it's a learning exercise at most.
---------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Marc Sabatella
> becomes improvisation? Is it improv, if I change 5% of an arrangement?
> 10%? 80%?
Why must it be an either-or thing? Why not say that something in which
you change 5% of an arrangement was 5% improvised; something in which
you changed 80% was 80% improvised, etc? Not that we need specific
numbers, of course. But the point is, we don't have to be able to say
that X was definitely improvised and Y was deifnitely not in order for
the term to have meaning. It still has value if we can reasonably talk
about whether one thing was "more" improvised than another. Just like
we don't need a rigid black/white definition of "tall", "smart",
"useful", or "beautiful" in order for those terms to have real meaning.
Some of these terms are more *subjective* than others - and there's
another word that has real meaning even though it isn't a black/white
thing (the word "subjective", that is). Improvisation is probably
somewhat less subjective than "smart", "useful", or "beautiful", but
more subjective than "tall".
Pt
You got to start someplace.
Pt
thom_j.
Gerry
>> Along the lines of what you said Joe, one time Bill Evans and Teddy
>> Wilson did a joint Blindfold test and they were played a super cleaned
>> up recording of In a Mist, as recorded by Bix himself. They both were
>> commenting that it was being played really really well, but had one
>> criticism: it was EXACTLY like the written arrangement. (obviously
>> they were fooled by the clean sound into thinking it was a more modern
>> player/recording)
>
> I've heard that rendition too. Bix was able to notate pretty much
> exactly what he played. Anybody looking at the music would probably say
> likewise.
Just scanning this discussion after the fact. But I had heard that one
of Bix's great personal tragedies was that he could not read music and
that this hampered him and kept him from playing with bands that he
would have preferred.
I think later in his brief life he turned his attention to learning to
read and write with the same vigor he did in killing himself so he did
have some abilities before he hit the deck...
--
What a day this has been, what a rare mood I'm in.
googledawg
thom_j. wrote:
> No...
googledawg
1) random occurences
2) totally improvised
3) somewhat made-up
4) well conceived and pre-composed
5) stolen from another forum
1) you totally agree
2) you could care less
3) don't know what they said
4) are vehemently opposed
5) are far above this nonsense and can see that it obviously detracts
from
the true beauty of the ....uh.... you know....what they ...uh...
Pt
Gerry
------- TO USERS OF THE GOOGLE GROUPS INTERFACE:
A recent change at Google Groups is causing its users to create messages
that don't quote any previous material at all, which is baffling to our
readers. If you're going to use the Google interface to reply to Usenet
posts, please perform this extra step:
(1) click "show options" next to the poster's name, and
(2) click "Reply" in the line:
Reply | Reply to Author| Forward | Print | Individual Message
This will put quotations and attributions in your message, just as other
newsreader programs do.
thom_j.
>
>>No...
>>
"Pt" wrote:
> Waddaya mean No?
Definitions
Main Entry: im搆ro暇i新a暗ion
Function: noun
1 : the act or art of improvising
2 : something (as a musical or dramatic composition) improvised
- im搆ro暇i新a暗ion戢l adjective
- im搆ro暇i新a暗ion戢l損y adverb
Main Entry: '酺t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin art-, ars -- more at
ARM
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation <the art of making
friends>
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : LIBERAL
ARTS b archaic : LEARNING, SCHOLARSHIP
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill <the art of organ building>
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the
production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : FINE ARTS
(2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
"creative or creating are the key words here for art"
Norman Clark Stewart Jr
When one improvises with improvising players, the harmonies and counter
melodies are not in anyone's head alone.
when I say I am improvising a solo performance, how is that different from
composing?.........The only imperfection in my composing is from inabilities
to write or rewrite
what may or may not be perfect in my head.
I still make mistakes when I'm playing and no matter whether what I've just
played is right or not it sometimes is the inspiration for what comes next
but it NEVER can be taken back and REDONE to make it better or different.
The more improvising takes REAL GUTS and puts notes and harmonies out there
that risk NOT WORKING, the more interesting the improv is to me --
especially if it DOES work.
"Pt" <can.n...@reached.com> wrote in message
news:87n232do07pmcgdet...@4ax.com...
Joe Finn
> when I say I am improvising a solo performance, how is that different from
> composing?.....
Spontaneity is the key. Beethoven concert posters are worth looking at.
> ....The only imperfection in my composing is from inabilities
> to write or rewrite
> what may or may not be perfect in my head.
Do you happen to be a composition student?
> I still make mistakes when I'm playing and no matter whether what I've
> just
> played is right or not it sometimes is the inspiration for what comes next
> but it NEVER can be taken back and REDONE to make it better or different.
Composers take back, rework and redo all the time. In a way that's what
composition is.
> The more improvising takes REAL GUTS and puts notes and harmonies out
> there
> that risk NOT WORKING, the more interesting the improv is to me --
> especially if it DOES work.
This doesn't ring true to me. Experienced players know what works and what
doesn't.
Hang in there. All this stuff about perfection, writing, rewriting,
mistakes, guts, working, not working, etc. are big issues that require the
hand of time to digest and fully comprehend.
Practice.
Relax.
Repeat. ......joe
Pt
I just saw this in another thread.
If you don't know the song or get lost...improvise.
Pt
danstearns
"This doesn't ring true to me. Experienced players know what works and
REAL GUTS and puts notes and harmonies out there that risk NOT WORKING,
agree with the other guy here! I mean if i only played what i knew was
surefire going to work, i'd be so embarrassed and ashamed with myself
and quit music and try and get some cruise ship or restaurant gigs
supplying a background for somebody else's vacation and dinning
needs.