Why there is no modern classical composers?
james lee
are the
greatest composers of all time. I have question: Why there is no
modern
composer that his/her skill match any of these old composers? I have
asked
my teacher and other piano student and they don't seem really want to
answer
that question. It is like are modern pianists still in worshiping
old composers who born back in century and century and we find
ourselfve completely
lost to create real music. How so?
How so? The modern world is not same as classical world . The today
enviornment is not easy to create classical music due to the
pollution in nature and technology. Pure musical sound is blocked by
the pollution of
natural world. Music is the expression of the nature which came from
human soul. The nature itself is the human soul. Without natural
world, there is
no pure music. Polluated world creates polluated music such as today
pop music based on technology and computer. Actually those old
classical
composer expressing their musics is really about expression their
soulful
expression of natural world.
Mike Williams
"james lee" <mack...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12613bf0.0210...@posting.google.com...
I think you're missing out on a lot of damn fine composers, musicians and
music. Don't transfer your blind homage of certain (admittedly great)
composers on everyone else.
gregpresley
Prokofiev very much on a par with the "old" composers you listed. Of newer
composers, I am always excited when I hear the music of Steve Reich and
usually when I hear the music of John Adams. I think much of twentieth
century music was or is written for a particular moment or event, and is not
really suitable for listening that will go on into the future. For instance,
much atonal music is ideal, perhaps the very best music for the background
of horror movies or operas whose plot is horrific (Berg's Wozzeck for
example). However, no one reading a paper on a Sunday morning is going to
put on a record of THAT to assist in soothing or relaxing himself.
Uncle Fred
mack...@yahoo.com says...
than classical music has gone out of style. We aren't educated to
appreciate it any more. Education used to be for the rich and they
wanted to understand the finer things in life. Nowdays education
is of the poor and it's about teaching them how to work acording to
instructions and very little about music. So they listen to stuff
based on three chords and with a powerful bass line that just goes
boom, boom, boom. Often this is to lyrics that reflect their
frustration at life and they're not sure why.
There are likely brilliant composers out there, but no one
will pay them any attention in this environment. People don't have
the education to recognize what they are doing. The same effect
leads some to say things like, "Paul McCartney was really a great
composer." or "Playing by ear is the way to be a great musician."
--
With Regards
Fred W.
Please remove *four* F's to reply by email.
Rick Clark
old times than it is today. And many great civilizations that
collapsed did so because they destroyed all the systems of nature
around them. Those that didn't collapse certainly altered nature
around them substantially. The instruments they used and quality of
lives they lead were just as much a product of their own contemporary
"modern technology" as ours today. There is a lot of technology
involved in, say, building a violin. The kind of "educated" music that
was composed was more a result of their political, religious, and
social systems than any other factor. But the world then was also to a
much greater degree full of "folk" music which does not require a
formal education or to be written down on paper, and the pop music of
today is the analogous successor of that.
There are all kinds of great "real" composing talents in the world
today, and in much greater numbers than hundreds of years ago. Some
produce work which resembles that produced in Europe hundreds of years
ago, but the majority do not. At least it is there for those who have
the ability to hear and accept it. Those who define "quality" by the
standards of another era and politico-geography may simply not be able
to accept new music as being good enough for them. But just as the
visual arts have progressed into new territories, so has music. If
someone says they only like European painterly arts of the 17th and
18th centuries, they are bound to be dissapointed by the art produced
today. And so the same with music.
Regards,
Rick Clark
Rick Hollett
from the record labels, and thats what our kids are listening to. However
ther is hope. The first thing you need to do is define "composer" Yes, Paul
McCartney was a great composer, or would you be more comfortable with the
label "songster" or, "pop artist"?
I think Mr. Fred here needs to realize that you don't need to go to school
to appreciate music; classical or otherwise. I could care less about
repetitive motifs, recapitulations, figured bass, etc. when I'm listening to
music. If you have to break it down, something is lost in the translation.
Its the emotional response, which is really why we play and enjoy music,
that truly matters. Final point: I have more faith in a musician who plays
by ear than one who can't play a note once the sheet music is removed.
there is hope
Rick Hollett
"Uncle Fred" <fred.will...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.18244d383...@news1.sympatico.ca...
John Tootle
century. A true giant among composers is currently active, namely John
Williams of movie theme fame.
Best regards,
John
"gregpresley" <gpre...@iea.com> wrote in message
news:apdems$ijpj$1...@ID-153412.news.dfncis.de...
> james lee, I consider Ravel, Debussy, Stravinsky, Bartok, Copland, and
> Prokofiev very much on a par with the "old" composers you listed. Of newer
> composers, I am always excited when I hear the music of Steve Reich and
> usually when I hear the music of John Adams.
EROMLIGNOD
Basically music evolved. You don't hear much great classical anymore, but then
you don't hear much great Baroque anymore either. Come to think of it, I
haven't heard a decent Gregorian Chant in ages! The effect of Jazz and Pop
Culture, as well as mass media, has also had a profound effect on what remains
of classical music.
One thing that happened parallels what happened to art. Around the turn of the
Twentieth Century, art (and music) began to become more abstract and structure
was abandoned (a process which actually started during the Romatic Era of the
Nineteenth Century). Impressionism was all the rage at that time followed by
Contemporary (an ironic term now). Much of it was driven by a rebellion
against standard forms.
Unfortunately, the more abstract art and music became, the more random it
became. When it got to the point that any untrained, untalented idiot could
make noise or throw a can of paint onto a canvas, the whole era of "scam art"
came into being and has continued till this day. As long as people are willing
to fork out big money for ambiguous ravings, other people will crank it out
with fervor.
Just before the beginning of this period came the emancipation of the slaves in
America. By the time Blacks started taking a foothold in society and started
creating their own music, a whole new form of music was created that took the
world by storm. Coincidentally, the phonograph and radio were invented around
this time, which simply threw gasoline on the fire. Now we had a music form
that was accessible to all social classes of the public--both to hear and to
play--and it basically overshadowed the more and more abstract and less
pleasant classical vein. It also made more money!
To me the Pop/Jazz form of music hit its height in the early Eighties. Now,
with the advent of digitally sampled music, recording techniques, MTV (now you
have to sound and LOOK good), and the bean-counters running the show, music is
now market-driven and has devolved into the simple, untalented drivel you now
hear.
I don't know what happened to the great composers. Maybe they're selling Amway
these days.
Don
Milton Dove
> Beethoven, mozart, chopin, bach, haydn,etc. These old composers still
> are the
> greatest composers of all time. I have question: Why there is no
> modern
> composer that his/her skill match any of these old composers?
There are. I don't know if I'd go as far as saying there is a living
composer writing at that level (maybe Ligeti?), but I would consider
composers like Prokofiev, Stravinsky, and Bartok (just to name a few)
as being at that level. I think the environment for new 'classical'
music is not very good either. Many of the older composers you mention
enjoyed the patronage of the church and/or royalty. This doesn't
happen today.
> It is like are modern pianists still in worshiping
> old composers who born back in century and century and we find
> ourselfve completely
> lost to create real music. How so?
If you don't appreciate the music of these composers, I don't think it
can be blamed on the composer. This is real music, albeit music that
is arguably less accessible than music of other eras. You have to make
the effort to understand this music, or much of it will sound like
noise (trust me, it isn't). I've met very few people who claim to hate
20th century music who have actually made this effort.
Milton
Widebeat
Your questions are part of your development. Continue to fine tune your ear.
It's also fun to learn about the concepts which have interested composers over
time. 20th century composers have a lot to offer. To me there is only good
and bad music, so I enjoy all of the musical genres. But since you seem to be
most interested in composers out of the european classical tradition, why not
check out these people: Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Webern,
Stockhausen,Boulez, Messian, Elliott Carter, Milton Babbitt, George Rochberg,
Phillip Glass, Ligeti, Xenakis - these guys should keep you busy for a week or
two! Don't neglect going to the library and reading the Grove Dictionary of
Music.
Of course the above composers are all caucasion. It would be nice for you to
maintain an open mind regarding what constitutes a "composer" being that for a
long time and even in most places in the world , people of color do not have
access to symphonies. Good composers find ways to get their work done,
recorded, performed. Check out Duke Ellington, Eddie Palmieri, Miles Davis,
modern jazz composers like my friends Bruce Eisenbeil and John Zorn are
exploring very diverse music worlds. Saxophonist Joe McPhee has amazing music
out there.
Good luck,
Roy King
EHpianist
your own lack of acquaintance with other composers) lead you to believe that
composers of other styles are not just as great and worthy of admiration.
In my own personal experience I found that it is all about musical maturity
and your own ability to understand each composer's language. As a youngster
I idolized Chopin and Rachmaninoff, and though I could somewhat appreciate
Debussy I thought anything from Ravel onwards was 'modern' and not worth my
time, could not understand why anyone would write such unemotional music. In
college I adored Beethoven and Brahms and I was exposed to so much other
music that my ear (and brain) began assimilate the tonal language that
developed throughout the 20th century. Now I am going through a Ravel phase
and a few years ago Bach began to make my hairs stand on end (I never had
gotten anything out of his music when I was younger, I viewed it as a
must-do, like finger excercises). I have reached a point now where I
realize no one famous composer was perfect, they all wrote great pieces and
others that have gone into oblivion (although I still have not found a piece
by Bach that was bad) and instead of generalizing about composers or periods
I now focus on particular pieces. There is something just as powerful in
Prokofiev's 2nd piano concerto as there is in Beethoven's 4th concerto, it
is just a different language. One cannot really compare Hamlet with Gabriel
García Márquez's novel "One Hundred Years of Solitude" (which earned him
the Nobel Prize), they are each different time periods, different styles and
different languages but they both touch the viewer-reader just as deeply.
The main thing is to keep an open mind, read about and listen to more music
of composers you don't know, you will find that your ear will start liking
it more and more and will catch on to it's varied musical expression. Start
with Ravel's piano works, or his songs and the piano trio, then move onto
other pieces Prokofiev (flute sonata, piano concertos #1,2,3) Stravinsky and
Bartok. If you want to be particularly flabbergasted with pianistic
technique listen to Ligeti Etudes. As with most things in life, we don't
like what we don't know. You're missing out on a lot of wonderful music and
only you can change that for yourself. Enjoy.
Elena
http://www.concertpianist.com
"james lee" <mack...@yahoo.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:12613bf0.0210...@posting.google.com...
O'Gatolan
wide...@aol.com (Widebeat) wrote:
> Check out Duke Ellington, Eddie Palmieri, Miles Davis,
> modern jazz composers like my friends Bruce Eisenbeil and John Zorn are
> exploring very diverse music worlds.
Excellent point. Just like we lump together as "classical" music a very
wide range of styles, many current "non-classical" styles would become
"classical" in a couple of centuries, if the world doesn't need
rebooting before that.
As just one example of very many, "Kind of Blue" would become classical.
Riaz F. Abdulla
Szymanowski, Rachmaninow, Lutaslawski were all amazing composers each
achieving different varieties of fame and fortune, each composing in
different styles. All of them wrote much of their music in the 20'th
century. Lutaslawski died, I believe, in 1993.
I think beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder in this case. I
can not abide the music of Lutaslawski. To me it sounds like someone
moving furniture. I have a friend who gets chills everytime he listens to
just about anything by Lutaslawski. God knows why, but he really finds
this music aesthetically beautiful. It has convinced me to give it a more
of a chance, because I respect him as a musician. This friend of mine
tolerates Chopin, and enjoys playing him on the piano, but doesn't really enjoy his
music as much.
I would definitely say I enjoy the music of Rachmaninow more. When I
first heard Szymanowski's mazurkas, I thought they sounded
completely kitschy. Now, after getting used to them I think their beauty
rivals those of his most famous countrymen. I tried playing them, and
they are intellectually more demanding than those of Chopin, even though
in some cases they are easier to read.
I think you have to open your mind to more composers. And see what is
being done by other people.
Riaz
Riaz F. Abdulla
not to sound like the American guy who is kissing up to the European's but
I have to say that i really started getting back into music when I started
meeting more people from outside the U.S.
To me it felt like i had this disease that I liked pop music, but would
every now and then really want to kick back with some Barenboim and some
sheet music and play around.
When i met people from outside the U.S. they not only knew about music,
they new about new composers, new performers. Over all, they were just
more well-rounded. Its great to hang out with people that can go crazy in
a dance club and then hang out and appreciate a great pianist the next
day.
Riaz
Uncle Fred
rhol...@roadrunner.nf.net says...
> I think Mr. Fred here needs to realize that you don't need to go to school
> to appreciate music; classical or otherwise.
Anyone can appreciate music, true, but ignorance is not
bliss.
> I could care less about
> repetitive motifs, recapitulations, figured bass, etc. when I'm listening to
> music.
Somehow I might have guessed that. (:-))
m b nelms
All of Bartok's mature work.
There is a contemporary composer whose name escapes me. They used his music
in The Thin Red Line. I remember now. Pert is his name. Great composer.
Not just Ellington, but Gershwin, Rogers, Monk, etc. The 20th century
produced a host of great musicians and great music (and LOTS of trash). I
bet if we were alive in Mozart's day we'd hear plenty of trash as well--we
don't perform ALL the operas that were premiered in his lifetime.
It is interesting to note that if you read the opinions of the thinkers
about music at the end of the 19th century, you see a lot of people
wondering what is left to be done with music. And you hear similar questions
now.
I think we may be surprised in a decade or so. At least, I'd like to think
so.
EHpianist
are great, I have yet to meet someone who hasn't liked them...maybe you'll
be the first? ;-)
Elena
http://www.concertpianist.com
"Riaz F. Abdulla" <ria...@physics.purdue.edu> escribió en el mensaje
news:20021026133136...@curie.physics.purdue.edu...
Riaz F. Abdulla
Thank you for the suggestion, will check these out today. I'm not getting
much coding done, anyway.
Riaz
Mark Smythe
the statement you are trying to make is based on certain musical
instruments only and on a certain time and a certain area of the world.
Otis Spann is a great piano composer. His music is as graceful and flowing
as can be.
Tony Evans
> I think it's not that the composers aren't there, but rather
> than classical music has gone out of style. We aren't educated to
> appreciate it any more. Education used to be for the rich and they
> wanted to understand the finer things in life. Nowdays education
> is of the poor and it's about teaching them how to work acording to
> instructions and very little about music. So they listen to stuff
> based on three chords and with a powerful bass line that just goes
> boom, boom, boom. Often this is to lyrics that reflect their
> frustration at life and they're not sure why.
I have to wonder how many contemporaries of the classical composers
actually got to hear the "classic" compositions that are revered now. I
think people today believe that the "classic" compositions were the pop
music of their time, but i hazard to guess that the real pop music of
the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries was minstrel tunes, drinking songs,
sea chanteys, etc. - either that or hymns that would be sung in church.
I bet many of these tunes were just as forgettable as the most insipid
current pop, and most of the people of the time wouldn't sit still
through a lengthy "classic" piece.
Also, it has been mentioned that the classical composers often worked on
commission for kings, popes, emperors, and clerics, and even the greats
occasionally produced some real clunkers for the benefit of a client -
ever heard Beethoven's "Wellington's Victory"? Nowadays, it's very
difficult and expensive to get an orchestra to even play a modern
classical or orchestral piece - Frank Zappa, who composed quite a bit of
modern "serious" music, described the difficulties (and considerable
expense) at some length in his "The Real Frank Zappa Book". Definitely
worth a read.
> There are likely brilliant composers out there, but no one
> will pay them any attention in this environment. People don't have
> the education to recognize what they are doing. The same effect
> leads some to say things like, "Paul McCartney was really a great
> composer." or "Playing by ear is the way to be a great musician."
I have to take issue with this last statement. There have been lots of
great jazz and rock musicians who have learned their chops by playing by
ear. A rigorous musical education certainly does not hurt, but is by no
means necessary to be a great musician. I've known trained pianists who
can play a difficult classical piece beautifully, but when you take the
music away and ask them to play something on their own and off the cuff,
they are completely lost - even the most idiotic/fun "Louie Louie" riff
is beyond them. On the other hand, a self-taught musician who learned by
playing by ear may not be able to handle a Scriabin piano piece, but can
dash off a fine solo or a splendid piece of music on their own.
Tony Evans
styron
> > repetitive motifs, recapitulations, figured bass, etc. when I'm listening to
> > music.
>
> Somehow I might have guessed that. (:-))
"Who will cut open the nightingale's throat to discover where the song comes from?"
-Arthur Hedley (discouraging over-analysis of the Berceuse)
try listening without the autopsy uf, you might hear new things.
you might even gain a measure of respect for a composer like MacCartney.
styron
Mike Williams
"Tony Evans" <ton...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:tonyola-913C84...@netnews.attbi.com...
> think people today believe that the "classic" compositions were the pop
> music of their time, but i hazard to guess that the real pop music of
> the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries was minstrel tunes, drinking songs,
> sea chanteys, etc. - either that or hymns that would be sung in church.
> I bet many of these tunes were just as forgettable as the most insipid
> current pop, and most of the people of the time wouldn't sit still
> through a lengthy "classic" piece.
Most people aren't aware of how often the "classical" piece they love and
believe is the pure output of a single genius is often a set of such
minstrel tunes, hymns, drinking songs etc wrapped up in concert form .
Musical scholars continue to turn up instances such in the works of
Beethoven et al.
Wayne Reimer
> In article <MPG.18244d383...@news1.sympatico.ca>,
<la snippiola>
>
> > There are likely brilliant composers out there, but no one
> > will pay them any attention in this environment. People don't have
> > the education to recognize what they are doing. The same effect
> > leads some to say things like, "Paul McCartney was really a great
> > composer." or "Playing by ear is the way to be a great musician."
>
> I have to take issue with this last statement. There have been lots of
> great jazz and rock musicians who have learned their chops by playing by
> ear. A rigorous musical education certainly does not hurt, but is by no
> means necessary to be a great musician. I've known trained pianists who
> can play a difficult classical piece beautifully, but when you take the
> music away and ask them to play something on their own and off the cuff,
> they are completely lost - even the most idiotic/fun "Louie Louie" riff
> is beyond them. On the other hand, a self-taught musician who learned by
> playing by ear may not be able to handle a Scriabin piano piece, but can
> dash off a fine solo or a splendid piece of music on their own.
>
> Tony Evans
You're trying to compare apples and oranges here, and it shows.
wr
Rick Hollett
enjoyment of various styles. You don't need form & analysis to enjoy any
form of music. If that were the case, the only ones enjoying music would be
students of music. What an incestuous thought!
BTW, Bach was the consummate improviser-so you're "playing by ear" theory
is shot to blazes.
Rick Hollett
"Uncle Fred" <fred.will...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.1824ae99...@news1.sympatico.ca...
Rick Hollett
Rick Hollett
"Wayne Reimer" <wr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.18254a3e1...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
ragzbol
the king commands the composer/conductor who commands the court orchestra
whose players command students. Our world may be polluted but its musicians
are freer.
Ragz Tuttle,
Creator of "THE RAGZPOL"; a musical keyboard that wraps around a pole.
rag...@ragzpol.com
http://www.ragzpol.com
in article 12613bf0.0210...@posting.google.com, james lee at
mack...@yahoo.com wrote on 10/25/02 10:52 PM:
Uncle Fred
rhol...@roadrunner.nf.net says...
> As for "appreciating music", exposure is the only way to broaden ones
> enjoyment of various styles. You don't need form & analysis to enjoy any
> form of music. If that were the case, the only ones enjoying music would be
> students of music. What an incestuous thought!
> BTW, Bach was the consummate improviser-so you're "playing by ear" theory
> is shot to blazes.
>
Yes, it may very well be a question of exposure and even
peer pressure, but more and more today we see less and less music
in our school systems. That's what I mean when I say we're not
being educated to it. The mass population is being dummied down.
Improvisation and "playing by ear" are two different things
that have some small overlap. Rest assured that Bach did not
become a great composer by listening to others and trying to
copy them by ear. He likely had the ability to do so, but it was a
much different process than the "playing by ear" that has been
described recently on <r.m.m.p>. There is also a vast difference
between "playing by ear" and "ear training." The two must not be
confused if one is to truly understand what's involved.
Rick Hollett
harmony and melody into some kind of focus. I'm not sure which posts you're
referring to but I'd be happy to throw it out again if the interest is
there. The most accomplished musicians I've run into can both play by
ear(which equals improvising) which, correct me if I'm wrong, has something
to do with composing. I mean, how can you write it if you can't hear it?
Rick Hollett
"Uncle Fred" <fred.will...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.18260d4ae...@news1.sympatico.ca...
Riaz F. Abdulla
I really like the recent Jobim tribute album (Casa). It has a husband and
wife team, and the pianist is Japanese. It has a picture of Rio de Janeiro
on the cover.
Absolutely beautiful renditions of the music. If you want "tonal vision" I
can't recommend Jobim's music enough. The richness of the music is just
beautiful and it really helps my ability to throw together a few
interesting chords and just mess around.
Riaz
Mike Williams
"Riaz F. Abdulla" <ria...@physics.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:20021027203914...@curie.physics.purdue.edu...
>
> I really like the recent Jobim tribute album (Casa). It has a husband and
> wife team, and the pianist is Japanese. It has a picture of Rio de Janeiro
> on the cover.
The Morelenbaums, with Ryuichi Sakamoto (also a composer).
Wayne Reimer
rhol...@roadrunner.nf.net says...
> I thought he was comparing music to music...amI missing something here?
>
self-taught play-by-ear (oranges) not being comparable. They're not
doing the same thing, although if you want to be really, really dense
about it, you can say that they're both playing the piano. It stops
right there, though.
wr
gregpresley
"Uncle Fred" <fred.will...@sympatico.ca> > Yes, it may very well be a
question of exposure and even
> peer pressure, but more and more today we see less and less music
> in our school systems. That's what I mean when I say we're not
> being educated to it. The mass population is being dummied down.
> Improvisation and "playing by ear" are two different things
> that have some small overlap. Rest assured that Bach did not
> become a great composer by listening to others and trying to
> copy them by ear. He likely had the ability to do so, but it was a
> much different process than the "playing by ear" that has been
> described recently on <r.m.m.p
Uncle Fred, I have to disagree most strenuously with your opinion above. As
someone who has reached a fairly competent level as a pianist (MM in piano
performance from Juilliard) AND as an improvisor (selected by the Martha
Graham Dance Company in 1988 to improvise music for a 45 minute dance
technique demonstration at the Metropolitan Opera House in New York sharing
the stage with Mikhail Baryshnikov among others), I think I can speak to
this with some authority. Playing by ear very well is EXACTLY the skill
needed to begin the practice of improvisation. First you learn to play the
music you have heard by ear, becoming more and more skilled at getting not
only the gist of the melody and harmony, but eventually the nuances of the
chord inversions and spacings. Then you take that skill and apply it to the
millions upon millions of tunes floating around in your own head. I liken it
to tapping into a creative current - something we are all blessed with, but
which gets suppressed out of most of us quite ruthlessly by our educational
system very early in life. Obviously, the greater your exposure to the broad
range of musical styles that have existed over the centuries, and the
specific study of the works of great composers, the more rich your
improvisational palette will be (you will not have to reinvent the wheel
when thinking about accompaniment patterns and so forth). I truly believe
that when we are taught to worship composers of the past to the point that
attempting to compose or improvise becomes utterly impossible for us, we
have lost something very valuable - the thread that ties the living present
to the traditions of the past. I don't think that improvisation and playing
by ear substitute for the disciplined skills that we learn in studying
classical piano, but the two do complement one another. Until at least the
mid-nineteenth century, EVERY pianist was trained to do both. I'm not sure
why that training tradition ended - perhaps it had something to do with the
start of universal free education, (which brought along with it the demand
that everybody know a little about many different subjects, instead of, say,
being born into a family whose trade was being a musician), perhaps with the
every expanding repertory of classical piano pieces - I really don't know.
But if I had the time and energy, I would train all of my piano students to
play the classical repertory and to improvise. Being able to improvise
freely in a wide variety of piano styles is one of the most joyful,
life-affirming activities available to a musician - and it gives us great
insight into the mind of a working composer.
Rick Hollett
Rick Hollett
"Mike Williams" <mikegw...@owlandthepussycattbi.com> wrote in message
news:NS0v9.129946$qM2.41426@sccrnsc02...
Rick Hollett
different styles, one at the expense of the other. There's too much
comparison which only results in negativity and little growth. I'm a
better"by ear" musician but would love to sight read even half as well, so
the great piano pieces would be within my grasp(I know, get to work!).
Countless times, legit musicians would say how much they would love to do
what I do, but the same goes for me as well. Why compare anyways? Is one
greater than the other? I think not>
Rick Hollett
"Wayne Reimer" <wr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.18267f26e...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
EHpianist
I was never taught to develop and I suppose was suppresed out of me during
my adolescent years.
Elena
http://www.concertpianist.com
"gregpresley" <gpre...@iea.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:apip38$1qtj3$1...@ID-153412.news.dfncis.de...
Rick Hollett
Rick Hollett
"Riaz F. Abdulla" <ria...@physics.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:20021027203914...@curie.physics.purdue.edu...
>
Uncle Fred
gpre...@iea.com says...
I see nothing here that is at odds with what I said. I
agree with what you've written. What do you think I said?
Tom Shaw
the school systems around where I live now and have lived before. The high
school marching bands are gigantic. The high school orchestras are very
large also. I am not sure about junior high programs in this area but they
exist in many places around the country.
However if you want to complain about quality it may be another story.
TSnews:MPG.18260d4ae...@news1.sympatico.ca...
James Lee
> Hi:
>
> Basically music evolved. You don't hear much great classical anymore, but then
> To me the Pop/Jazz form of music hit its height in the early Eighties. Now,
> with the advent of digitally sampled music, recording techniques, MTV (now you
> have to sound and LOOK good), and the bean-counters running the show, music is
> now market-driven and has devolved into the simple, untalented drivel you now
> hear.
>
I think so. I thought that early 80's pop music had its heights. AFter 90's
I couldn't really listen to any pop music until these days.
Milton Dove
I've always been interested in improvisation, but I can't find much
information on how it was taught to classical musicians. It seems like
it would be a different approach than jazz, where you would probably
have a bit more freedom. I've always been amazed that composers like
Bach could improvise something as elaborately structured as a fugue.
Are you aware of anything (books, etc.) that deals with this subject?
Milton
Marsha Rider
>"Mike Williams" wrote:
Please cite examples.
Thanks,
Marsha
gregpresley
with a figured bass or a chord progression and create a melody and
accompaniment based upon that. I'm pretty certain that Bach practiced
improvisation himself by taking compositions of composers he liked (such as
Vivaldi or Couperin) and trying to improvise in their styles. It is not
really that difficult to do. A good way to start is simply to begin a piece
(like the Bach Prelude in C major from WTC I) and continue on a different
way after the first 4 measures, using the same figuration but altering the
chord progression. It's not even difficult to improvise in fugal texture,
but the result will not be a polished fugue. In other words, you can start a
theme, take it into a different voice in another key, using standard sort of
contrary motion type secondary theme stuff, but by the time you have a third
voice enter, say in the bass, it's most unlikely that the secondary theme
will be identical to the first one you improvised. You will just have
"busyness" happening over or under a theme that keeps appearing in different
register and different keys, tied together with circle of fifth key
progression interludes and sequences. To the audience, it will sound very
Baroque and impressive, but Bach would laugh at it. That's ok, he probably
had to do a certain amount of faking when improvising a fugue himself.
That's my point, fear is the enemy, not lack of talent or inspiration.
Jazz improvisation is highly stylized - that is, swing, bebop, cool,
blues, etc, each have a particular harmonic and rhythmic vocabulary which
define them and a jazz improvisor is expected to have those vocabularies
under his/her fingers. I think it's actually harder to learn the limitations
and expectations in jazz improvisation than in classical improvisation, but
having master those, jazz improvisation then has a much narrower range of
possibilities to choose from, so, in that sense, becomes easier.
gregpresley
"EHpianist" <EHpianist...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:apjeq3$t7c$1...@reader2.wnet...
> You have no idea how much I envy your improvising ability, Greg.
Something
> I was never taught to develop and I suppose was suppresed out of me during
> my adolescent years.
Elena, you could learn it in a heartbeat. (I said the creative impulse was
suppressed, not destroyed!) Just don't be afraid. Sit at the piano sometime,
and start a Chopin Waltz, a Bach Prelude, a Mozart fantasy- then veer off
into your own material after a few measure. By having a key, an
accompaniment pattern, a meter, and a style outlined for you, you will find
that your fingers and ears will supply you with lots of good possibilities.
Pretend that your imaginary audience loves you and is rooting for you -
oohing and ahing at every note. I think you will surprise yourself!
Alan Jones
"Milton Dove" <mdo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:90782eaf.02102...@posting.google.com...
>
> I've always been interested in improvisation, but I can't find much
> information on how it was taught to classical musicians. It seems like
> it would be a different approach than jazz, where you would probably
> have a bit more freedom. I've always been amazed that composers like
> Bach could improvise something as elaborately structured as a fugue.
Many organists, especially in France, still cultivate this art. Someone
gives them a theme for improvisation, and off they go, usually after a few
minutes to think about it. Typically there will be a free prelude, a toccata
perhaps; then a set of variations; and finally a lengthy and elaborately
developed fugue. I sat near the late and great Jeanne Demessieux as she did
exactly this at the old Harrison organ in Oxford Cathedral; the theme was
supplied by one of the university lecturers, and had a tricky rhythm and a
very angular shape. (Almost more extraordinary than the improvisation was
the fact that she played in high heels.)
Bach and his pupils also had constantly to improvise keyboard parts from
figured bass. Somewhere it's recorded that he played, and expected his
pupils to play, according to the rules of voice leading: if they started in,
say, three-part conuterpoint, that had to be maintained as precisely as if
it had been written out. This skill is still taught ("Keyboard Harmony") for
advanced organ and composition examinations, quite apart from its practical
importance.
Neither of these forms of improvisation is of the "let your fingers wander
as the musical fancy takes you" kind.
Anyone who thinks that improvisation, especially on the piano, is a
necessary or desirable prelude to composition ought to consider Berlioz, who
could play only the flageolet, flute and guitar, who learnt harmony by
listening as a child to string quartets, and whose first original
composition was for flute and string quartet. What he says about the piano
is interesting if disconcerting: "... when I think of the appalling quantity
of platitudes for which the piano is daily responsible - flagrant platitudes
which in most cases would never be written if their authors had only pen and
paper to rely on and could not resort to their magic box - I can only offer
up my gratitude to chance which taught me perforce to compose freely and in
silence and thought..."
Alan Jones
EHpianist
Elena
http://www.concertpianist.com
"gregpresley" <gpre...@iea.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:aplend$2m9a9$1...@ID-153412.news.dfncis.de...
Milton Dove
> Milton, I imagine that improvisation was taught by having students start
> with a figured bass or a chord progression and create a melody and
> accompaniment based upon that. I'm pretty certain that Bach practiced
> improvisation himself by taking compositions of composers he liked (such as
> Vivaldi or Couperin) and trying to improvise in their styles. It is not
> really that difficult to do. A good way to start is simply to begin a piece
> (like the Bach Prelude in C major from WTC I) and continue on a different
> way after the first 4 measures, using the same figuration but altering the
> chord progression. It's not even difficult to improvise in fugal texture,
> but the result will not be a polished fugue. In other words, you can start a
> theme, take it into a different voice in another key, using standard sort of
> contrary motion type secondary theme stuff, but by the time you have a third
> voice enter, say in the bass, it's most unlikely that the secondary theme
> will be identical to the first one you improvised. You will just have
> "busyness" happening over or under a theme that keeps appearing in different
> register and different keys, tied together with circle of fifth key
> progression interludes and sequences. To the audience, it will sound very
> Baroque and impressive, but Bach would laugh at it. That's ok, he probably
> had to do a certain amount of faking when improvising a fugue himself.
> That's my point, fear is the enemy, not lack of talent or inspiration.
Thanks, Greg. I had been taking a composition and using it as a point
of departure for my (horrible) improvisations. I guess I'll continue
doing this.
Milton
Simplicissimus
With respect Alan, I hope the pedantic tenor of your last post doesn't
discourage Milton and Elena from taking Greg's excellent suggestions.
Someone with Elena's gifts will be able to improvise beautifully in
short order: if it's not "according to Johann Sebastian Hoyle" so what?
Re:Berlioz
To improvise an orchestral arrangement you would have to dash around the
instruments very quickly, so I'm unsure of its relevance here. If H.B.
had ears good enough to write without an instrument at hand I have a
hunch he could have expressed himself on flageolet, flute and guitar
without written notes.
Walker describing a Liszt concert in Russia:
"but instead of beginning the first item on the printed program...there
emerged from the piano an improvisation on themes Liszt had just heard
the Gypsies sing"
I'm assuming he didn't follow the strict rules of counterpoint, voice
leading, figured bass, etc...
The fact remains that the greatest piano composers (Beethoven, Chopin,
Liszt, etc..) were fantastic improvisers, and this can be seen flowing
through their music. The Berceuse is a good example. There are many,
many more.
s
EHpianist
I have pretty clearin my head what my strong and weak points are so I don't
rely so much on other people's opinion in order to get things done. Thanks
for your concern though, it was very thoughtful!
Elena
http://www.concertpianist
"Simplicissimus" <simplic...@diplomats.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:3DBE8624...@diplomats.com...
Alan Jones
"Simplicissimus" <simplic...@diplomats.com> wrote in message
news:3DBE8624...@diplomats.com...
I certainly didn't mean to be pedantic, and I'm sure Greg's more ruminative
style of improvisation yields results both attractive and impressive. But
you may underestimate the technical merits and inner coherence of
improvisations by the great composers you mention - Liszt in particular.
My point, though myself a hopelessly bad keyboard player who normally lurks
here merely in the hope of picking up scraps of information, is that the
older kind of improvisation comes *from* experience of composition rather
than being a sort of trial run *for* it. The relevance of Berlioz as an
example is that he did not and could not improvise at the keyboard, and
composed entirely in his mind and at his desk. Most composers are, however,
in fact pianists, even if they write little for the piano, but they need not
be. Britten was an excellent pianist, especially in chamber music, but he
wrote as idiomaticallyl, if not more so, for instruments such as the French
horn and harp which - as far as I know - he couldn't play at all.
I can't resist another little quotation from Berlioz' memoirs: "My father
would not let me take up the piano; otherwise I should no doubt have turned
into a formidable pianist, in company with forty thousand others. He had no
intention of making me an artist ... I have often felt the lack of this
ability.On many occasions I would have found it useful" and then he goes on
to say how grateful he is to have been spared "the tyranny of keyboard
habits, so dangerous to thought, and from the lure of conventional
sonorities."
Alan Jones
Marc Sabatella
> "Uncle Fred" <fred.will...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> > Improvisation and "playing by ear" are two different things
> > that have some small overlap. Rest assured that Bach did not
> > become a great composer by listening to others and trying to
> > copy them by ear. He likely had the ability to do so, but it was a
> > much different process than the "playing by ear" that has been
> > described recently on <r.m.m.p
This is true, but that is not to say one is necessary "better" than the
other. True, Bach and Beethoven did not become who they were through
"playing by ear" in the sense most professional musicians who do so mean
by the term, but on the other hand, Duke Ellington and Charlie Parker
did not become who they were through the same process that Bach or
Beethoven went through.
> As
> someone who has reached a fairly competent level as a pianist (MM in
piano
> performance from Juilliard) AND as an improvisor (selected by the
Martha
> Graham Dance Company in 1988 to improvise music for a 45 minute dance
> technique demonstration at the Metropolitan Opera House in New York
sharing
> the stage with Mikhail Baryshnikov among others), I think I can speak
to
> this with some authority. Playing by ear very well is EXACTLY the
skill
> needed to begin the practice of improvisation.
Agree, but would just like to emphasize the "begin" in the last sentence
above. Playing by ear is necessary to improvise well, just as being
able to read music is pretty much necessary to be able to compose well
in the traditional way. But in neither case is it sufficient.
> Then you take that skill and apply it to the
> millions upon millions of tunes floating around in your own head.
The process works the other way too - almost all musicians have millions
of tunes floating in their head, but it is those who have practiced the
specific skill of improvisation who develop the knack of coming up with
new and different ones to fit a given situation. And each theoretical
concept you learn fuels the fire. Consider, practically no one who has
not specifically been shown a tritone substitution (roughly similar to
an augmented sixth chord in classical harmony) ever comes up with that
sound on their own.
> I liken it
> to tapping into a creative current - something we are all blessed
with, but
> which gets suppressed out of most of us quite ruthlessly by our
educational
> system very early in life.
Ruthlessly but unfortunately quite effectively with many. On a related
note, I tend to take exception with those who claim it takes a long time
to develop a personal style. I have yet to encounter two beginning
improvisors who sound so alike to me that I cannot tell them apart after
getting to know their playing over the course of just a few minutes in a
workshop. The trick in my mind is developing the abilities necessary to
become a great musician (improvising, playing by ear, or otherwise)
while not suppressing what was there in the beginning.
> Until at least the
> mid-nineteenth century, EVERY pianist was trained to do both. I'm not
sure
> why that training tradition ended - perhaps it had something to do
with the
> start of universal free education, (which brought along with it the
demand
> that everybody know a little about many different subjects, instead
of, say,
> being born into a family whose trade was being a musician), perhaps
with the
> every expanding repertory of classical piano pieces - I really don't
know.
I'll hazard a guess that the latter, combined with the increasing use of
the printing press to publish music on a wide scale, was a big factor.
In Bach's time, improvising at the keyboard was a necessary skill just
to have enough music to play at church week after week without boring
oneself to death. This situation had changed dramatically by the
mid-19th century.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Falling Grace"
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Sounds, Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Simplicissimus
When I read your post initially I took your line:
"Neither of these forms of improvisation is of the "let your fingers
wander as the musical fancy takes you" kind.
as a judgement and not the simple statement of fact it was meant to be.
My aggressive reply was out of line, and I apologize without reservation.
s
gregpresley
> of departure for my (horrible) improvisations. I guess I'll continue
> doing this.
>
> Milton
Milton, horrible is always in the mind of the improvisor, not necessarily in
the mind of the listener. I was fortunate to have on-the-job-training in
improvisation playing for modern dancers. As long as the beat was clear,
they were utterly indifferent to the melodic or harmonic invention at work.
The benefit was that I never worried about wrong notes, a poor choice of
harmony, etc , other than a passing thought, such as "I'll bet I can do that
better on the next pass". Naturally when I started to compose music for a
dance performance, I was much more careful. But it is liberating to realize
that there is no such thing as a wrong note. Play it twice, to convince
yourself and everyone else that it was completely deliberate. There is a
little Beethoven teaching piece - a bagatelle or German Dance or some such
thing, which has a horrible accidental (not in the key) a few measures into
the piece. It sounds bad, and every student winces when it comes around the
first time. But Beethoven keeps reiterating it until finally the ear gives
up and accepts it. I have a feeling he stumbled upon it by accident and
decided to have fun seeing how far he could push the envelope, as it were.
EHpianist
imitation. Managed to preoperly modulate to 2 different keys though I had a
hard time finding my way back elegantly...began to sound more like Bartok
than Bach. The hardest part for me in improvising is that theoretically I
know all the rules but I can't conjure them up on an instant's notice! It
was fun though, I'll try a little every day. Thank you Greg!
Elena
http://www.concertpianist.com
"gregpresley" <gpre...@iea.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:apledh$2pq04$1...@ID-153412.news.dfncis.de...
Alan Jones
Not at all - I regularly take part in the two "English usage" groups, and
have grown a very thick skin! Still, it's kind of you to apologise - and I
ought to have realised how my comment could be read judgmentally rather than
as description.
Alan Jones
Uncle Fred
ma...@outsideshore.com says...
> "gregpresley" <gpre...@iea.com> wrote:
>
> > "Uncle Fred" <fred.will...@sympatico.ca wrote:
>
> > > Improvisation and "playing by ear" are two different things
> > > that have some small overlap. Rest assured that Bach did not
> > > become a great composer by listening to others and trying to
> > > copy them by ear. He likely had the ability to do so, but it was a
> > > much different process than the "playing by ear" that has been
> > > described recently on <r.m.m.p
>
> This is true, but that is not to say one is necessary "better" than the
> other.
Never said it was. But you cannot become a great pianist by
only picking thing up by ear, or thinking of the music and bashing
away mindlessly and hoping that it will somehow magically all start
to happen on the keyboard.
> True, Bach and Beethoven did not become who they were through
> "playing by ear" in the sense most professional musicians who do so mean
> by the term, but on the other hand, Duke Ellington and Charlie Parker
> did not become who they were through the same process that Bach or
> Beethoven went through.
>
I recognize the names, Duke Ellington and Charlie Parker,
but I don't know what their training was. I believe Oscar Peterson
was classically educated in piano.
Marc Sabatella
> Never said it was. But you cannot become a great pianist by
> only picking thing up by ear, or thinking of the music and bashing
> away mindlessly and hoping that it will somehow magically all start
> to happen on the keyboard.
No one ever said that, either. If you want to become a great
*classical* pianist, then classical training is undoubtledly the way to
go. But the phrase "great pianist" does not mean the same as "great
classical pianist", and there are indeed a number of great pianists in
other idioms who had little or no classical training, but were largely
self-taught through mostly aural methods. This is a much more complex
process than is implied by saying "only picking things up by ear" - it
would be like reducing all classical training to "only reading notes
from sheet music". In fact, that's a quite good analogy. The process
of learning to play classical music is a lot more than simply learning
to translate dots on a page to keys to press on the piano, just as the
process of learning to play by ear is a lot more than just trying to
copy something you heard.
Milton Dove
> Milton, horrible is always in the mind of the improvisor, not necessarily in
> the mind of the listener. I was fortunate to have on-the-job-training in
> improvisation playing for modern dancers. As long as the beat was clear,
> they were utterly indifferent to the melodic or harmonic invention at work.
> The benefit was that I never worried about wrong notes, a poor choice of
> harmony, etc , other than a passing thought, such as "I'll bet I can do that
> better on the next pass". Naturally when I started to compose music for a
> dance performance, I was much more careful. But it is liberating to realize
> that there is no such thing as a wrong note. Play it twice, to convince
> yourself and everyone else that it was completely deliberate. There is a
> little Beethoven teaching piece - a bagatelle or German Dance or some such
> thing, which has a horrible accidental (not in the key) a few measures into
> the piece. It sounds bad, and every student winces when it comes around the
> first time. But Beethoven keeps reiterating it until finally the ear gives
> up and accepts it. I have a feeling he stumbled upon it by accident and
> decided to have fun seeing how far he could push the envelope, as it were.
I tried using the C major Prelude from Bk I of the WTK as a basis for
improvisation, which I believe you suggested. The pattern works well
on all kinds of bizarre progressions and I was coming up with a bunch
of variations on the basic pattern as I was playing. This is a lot of
fun, but if I do it at the beginning of a practice session I usually
waste an hour or so that I should be working on something else.
Milton
Milton Dove
> I made a very pathetic invention today which had very little in the ways of
> imitation. Managed to preoperly modulate to 2 different keys though I had a
> hard time finding my way back elegantly...began to sound more like Bartok
> than Bach. The hardest part for me in improvising is that theoretically I
> know all the rules but I can't conjure them up on an instant's notice! It
> was fun though, I'll try a little every day. Thank you Greg!
Elena, you've given me a good idea. I'm learning the Bach Inventions
right now, so I will try using one of them as a basis for an
improvisation. They aren't as strict as a fugue so they should be
easier to start with.
Milton
pmfan57
> Maybe those old composers were better but what about a musical world where
> the king commands the composer/conductor who commands the court orchestra
> whose players command students. Our world may be polluted but its musicians
> are freer.
>
> Ragz Tuttle,
>
> Creator of "THE RAGZPOL"; a musical keyboard that wraps around a pole.
>
> rag...@ragzpol.com
> http://www.ragzpol.com
>
> in article 12613bf0.0210...@posting.google.com, james lee at
> mack...@yahoo.com wrote on 10/25/02 10:52 PM:
>
> > Beethoven, mozart, chopin, bach, haydn,etc. These old composers still
> > are the
> > greatest composers of all time. I have question: Why there is no
> > modern
> > composer that his/her skill match any of these old composers? I have
> > asked
> > my teacher and other piano student and they don't seem really want to
> > answer
> > that question. It is like are modern pianists still in worshiping
> > old composers who born back in century and century and we find
> > ourselfve completely
> > lost to create real music. How so?
> >
> > How so? The modern world is not same as classical world . The today
> > enviornment is not easy to create classical music due to the
> > pollution in nature and technology. Pure musical sound is blocked by
> > the pollution of
> > natural world. Music is the expression of the nature which came from
> > human soul. The nature itself is the human soul. Without natural
> > world, there is
> > no pure music. Polluated world creates polluated music such as today
> > pop music based on technology and computer. Actually those old
> > classical
> > composer expressing their musics is really about expression their
> > soulful
> > expression of natural world.
I think it's interesting, though that Beethoven's music, despite the
rantings of some critics, was popular. Very popular. Handel and
Haydn were huge hits in London. Also, Benny Goodman was popular, as
was Cole Porter, Rodgers and Hart, et al. Louis Armstrong was very
popular, and he's about as great as can be. Maybe the question should
be, where is the great music that is also popular. There's still
great music being created, by Chick Corea, Pat Metheny, Herbie
Hancock, Keith Jarrett, Toshiko Akioshi, and probably countless
soundtrack composers we never hear about, but it seems the high
quality music isn't popular music any more. Now in Brazil, a lot of
the pop music is really good music. Milton Nascimento, and many
others. Not here, though. Of course modern trends in composition in
the conservatories are likely never to be popular.
Wayne Reimer
which one of the tests was just what you describe - the improvisation of
a fugue on a given theme. I was flabbergasted that so many players had
learned how to do this and that the results were as good as they were
(but then, I'm often amazed at organists' abilities to do complicated
pedal things while their hands are also quite busy).
It's really training, in the end. It wouldn't surprise me if some of
the HIPster keyboard players are adept at doing most or all of what
Bach's students did.
wr
> In article <kxsv9.8138$8c5....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>, a...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
gregpresley
thousand miles begins with a single step, as the saying goes.......Remember,
that if it starts to sound like Bartok, naturally you INTENDED it to sound
that way. Really, you are going to have a lot of fun with this - at least
I hope so.
Tonight I went to hear Evelyn Glennie perform with our symphony - as
soloist in a very interesting new work by James McMillan. I am so inspired!
I even gave a passing thought to giving up the piano and taking up
percussion! But reading that you and Milton were brave enough to stick your
toes in the water has also inspired me. Maybe I'll go off instead and crank
out an invention to feel solidarity with you in your efforts.
Congratulations, Greg
"
Simplicissimus
Ries on Beethoven's improv:
"the wealth of ideas,... the caprices to which he surrendered himself,
the variety of treatment, the difficulties, were inexhaustible"
Czerny on same:
"extraordinary as his extempore playing was, it was less successful in
the performance of printed compositions..."
I think many jazz players will find a kindred spirit here.
Maybe we're spoiled by Gutenberg: the printed page looks perfect, each
note the same size and shape of the others. The original scores tell a
different story--they look like the dogs breakfast, and are unclear
enough to give editors years of flaming.
My point is the compositions weren't written one note at a time. I think
the originals, with the bursts of phrases and scribbled out bars in many
ways give a clearer indication of the way these guys wrote and played --
and yes, how the pieces should be practiced.
I agree one hundred percent with you that formal methods are valuable,
proven, and should be exploited to the utmost.
I disagree with the notion that anything not falling in line with
traditional conservatory thinking should be rejected out of hand. This
seems to me the viewpoint you espouse -- if I'm wrong set me straight.
My earlier posts were meant to give an alternate view (read the
caveats). It would be as wrong to practice the exercises mentioned to
the exclusion of all else as it would be to do the same for
finger-exercises. I believe everyone should tackle the task of technique
building from as many different angles as possible. As long as the
Listening never stops, what works will be absorbed and what doesn't will
be naturally rejected.
s
Uncle Fred
ma...@outsideshore.com says...
> "Uncle Fred" <fred.will...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Never said it was. But you cannot become a great pianist by
> > only picking thing up by ear, or thinking of the music and bashing
> > away mindlessly and hoping that it will somehow magically all start
> > to happen on the keyboard.
>
> No one ever said that, either. If you want to become a great
> *classical* pianist, then classical training is undoubtledly the way to
> go. But the phrase "great pianist" does not mean the same as "great
> classical pianist", and there are indeed a number of great pianists in
> other idioms who had little or no classical training, but were largely
> self-taught through mostly aural methods.
They are called "piano players."
> This is a much more complex
> process than is implied by saying "only picking things up by ear" - it
> would be like reducing all classical training to "only reading notes
> from sheet music". In fact, that's a quite good analogy. The process
> of learning to play classical music is a lot more than simply learning
> to translate dots on a page to keys to press on the piano, just as the
> process of learning to play by ear is a lot more than just trying to
> copy something you heard.
Yes, that may be. The people *I've* seen doing it *are*
just trying to copy something they've heard. Over and above that,
they even keep playing the same few runs over and over. Then,
(different case), there's my father who played well by ear.
Someone could give him a tune and he'd copy it one note at a time
the first run through and then add the full harmony for the next
verse. He could play for hours and never repeat the same song. But
using the same rules for harmony for every song made them all come
out sounding much the same. They were also usually based on three
chords. Now dad was a fine man and a great father, but he wasn't a
pianist. He was a piano player and he knew himself and he derived
great joy from it anyway. After his stroke I would talk to him in
hospital and he told me that when he was asleep he was working out
how to play different songs, and probably doing some
mental composing, because by that time of his life he was
forgetting the melodies. Each day he found it harder and harder to
wake up and about a week later he was gone, but while he was
dreaming about his music he was already in heaven.
So you can understand that when I call someone a piano
player instead of a pianist, it is not out of disrespect. At the
same time, I had a teacher for a few short years who *was* a world
class, classically trained concert pianist. The extent of his
knowledge and brilliance was awesome, and yes, he had a great ear.
He had a great ear because he had spent years training it. If you
played a line of music to him, he could play it back in any key,
not because he had a "feel" for it, but because he could also tell
you precisely what the intervals were. If you had the time he
could analyse the thing and tell you why the composer chose the
intervals he did and talk about the modes and probably a lot of
other stuff I've never been able to learn myself.
So when I say a pianist is worlds above a piano player, it's
also not out of disrespect for the piano player, but out of awesome
reverence for the knowledge and skill of the pianist.
pTooner
> So when I say a pianist is worlds above a piano player, it's
> also not out of disrespect for the piano player, but out of awesome
> reverence for the knowledge and skill of the pianist.
>
I make it a point to refer to myself as a piano player and not a pianist
because I don't want to be confused with someone who can only take 100
year old sheet music and convert it to sound. I often say I left the
classical field because the money just wasn't there; but the truth is I
left it just as much because it was too confining for me. I make
considerable effort not to put down people who have this great desire to
play the old music, but I occasinally get tired of those who put down
those of us who don't. I will mention that in my opinion most of the
old masters if they were alive today would not be playing that stuff.
Instead they'd be creating new stuff and/or improvising. After all,
Fransz Liszt is the father of piano improvisation.
Gerry
Milton Dove
> After all, Fransz Liszt is the father of piano improvisation.
What about Mozart, not to mention Beethoven, Hummel, Clementi, etc.?
They all lived before Liszt and improvised as well.
Milton
Mike Williams
They're the grand- and great-grand-fathers of piano improvisation.
A lot of people before then had to improvise because there weren't any
pianos around so harpischords etc had to be used.....
Marc Sabatella
> > there are indeed a number of great pianists in
> > other idioms who had little or no classical training, but were
largely
> > self-taught through mostly aural methods.
>
> They are called "piano players."
I read you story about your father, and it is touching, but I don't
think it fair to assume that anyone else will recognize the same
distinction you two did.
> But
> using the same rules for harmony for every song made them all come
> out sounding much the same. They were also usually based on three
> chords.
Well, this may be a function of *what* he tried playing by ear.
Certainly, there is a whole repertoire of music out there that is
commonly played by ear (Tin Pan Alley tunes) that are considerably more
complex than that. On the other hand, if you don't have much knowledge
of harmony, you tend shoehorn everything into just three or four chords.
It is, after all, *possible* to harmonize any diatonic melody with just
three chords, whether those were the intended or best chords or not.
Tom Shaw
TS
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:S1Hw9.59$OK3.1...@news.uswest.net...
> "Uncle Fred" <fred.will...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
snip.