posted
OK, I am in this argument, which to me seems silly, or seems that I am just not making my point, or that maybe I am just plain wrong. So, where do i come from for help? Here, of course.
My general point was this. Someone had said something about live music versus studio. That studio music sounds the same, and people can handle it better that way. This made me feel that the person was saying that someone who does not appreciate live music(Read:jammy music) is less knowledgeable or savvy about music.
So, I mentioned classical music. That as far as I knew, the notes were written down, and people played those notes. If the high school orchestra played the piece, it would sound the same as the London Symphony, except the London Symphony would sound more intense and rich because the musicians were more skilled.
No, he said that there were all sorts of ways classical music could be different. Well, it can, but I think that those changes are in the orchstra itself and the tempo, but that most classical musicians tend to stay with the notes that are written(if they can play them)
Am I wrong about this? Was Mozart really an imporvisational guy and I did not know it?
[ April 15, 2005, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Classical music, for the most part, the musicians don't improvise with respect to either the notes or the rhythms, all of which, as you say, are clearly written down. This is importan, especially in a full orchestra, because keeping such a large, disparate group of musicians "together" and sounding good takes more exacting coordination than does keeping a pianist, drummer, saxophonist, bassist, etc., "together" in a jazz-style jam session. In other words, the first violins and the trumpets are sitting far enough apart, with enough other musicians and kinds of instruments between them, that they couldn't reasonably be expected to improvise anything anybody would want to hear.
However, the conductor of an orchestra does have considerable leeway, even when the music has been written down for centuries. The conductor can bring a high degree of personalization and uniqueness to a performance by instructing his musicians on tempo, balance, expression, mood, and many other technical points. The same piece played by different orchestras can sound quite different based on the quality of the musicians and conductor, but also based on the choices and instruction of the conductor during rehearsals.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have the same opinion concerning speech. While I appreciate those who speak well without preparation, I'd rather listen to someone with a prepared the speech.
quote:If the high school orchestra played the piece, it would sound the same as the London Symphony, except the London Symphony would sound more intense and rich because the musicians were more skilled.
It's not a matter of instrumental skill. The symphony performers would be more aware of the nuances of the piece. They would know which themes were crucial and where to bring them out, and for the sake of what story is being told. The difference would not only be in skill-- playing the right notes in tune-- but more importantly, the difference would be in sensibility and attention.
___
I've never seen the glory in improvisation. It's a cool skill, like being able to recite the numbers of pie to the first hundred places, but I think the stress on improvisation is distracting.
There are very good arguments for the tighter the constraints, the greater the capacity for artistry. Poetry is an example of this. I think that having the notes predetermined frees the musicians to pay attention to the music, and not worry about which notes they are going to choose to play.
posted
Also, I have no doubt that the Symphony would be much more capable of staying together and sounding like a coherent group. One of the biggest steps up in classical music is awareness of the larger whole, which high schoolers usually utterly lack.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Many great composers were masters at improvisation, and some of them incorporated improvisation into their written compositions. Mozart and Beethoven not only improvised variations on popular themes of the day, but preserved some of these improvisations of paper. Sometimes, a composer was required to improvise a passage of an otherwise notated composition, as was the case with the 1808 premiere of Beethoven's Choral Fantasy, Op. 80. Beethoven was so overwhelmed with concert preparations that he had no time to compose an introduction for the Fantasy. When it came time for the premiere and Beethoven still had no introduction, he simply sat down at the piano and improvised one.
posted
Wow. Thanks. I have been researching this a bit, and t seems that there was more wiggle room in the composers' minds at the beginning, and that improvisation was encouraged. http://www.melbay.com/creativekeyboard/sep04/history.html
quote:So the idea of improvisation belonging to less serious music is not very credible. Up until the twentieth century musicians used to improvise. In the twentieth century, most classical music takes a very technological and formal approach, which makes improvisation often impossible due to the extreme restrictions on music material. That formal restrictive approach is also largely responsible for the smaller audiences that enjoy "contemporary classical" music.
Interesting. tell me more!
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is something for you to research: The Cadenza
A Cadenza is the section in a concerto where the soloist originally would improvise a solo based on the themes of the particular movement they were playing.
A funny thing happened eventually, instead of improvising this section, some composers started to write down something close to what they were actually playing. Some wrote it down pretty carefully, some just gave the general idea.
Later, musicians are faced with a real problem...do they allow themselves to improvise freely or to try to follow the "spirit" or "intent" of the composer and stay close to what records we have of what Beethoven (or whoever) might have done.
The answer is: "it depends".
In the score, a Mozart piano concerto, for example might only have a fermata and the word "Cadenza" written. The pianist, can pretty much just let 'er rip. (within certain historical guidelines)
A Rachmaninoff Concerto on the other hand can give you pretty much all of the notes.
If you go into baroque music, you will find tons of improvisation. For the keyboard player, you sometimes had no choice but to improvise when realizing figured bass. Much like a jazz player, a keyboard player would have a set of "acceptable" notes to choose from, but some degree of freedom. Ornamentation is a huge improvisational element of baroque music as well.
And then...you enter the world of opera and the colaratura soprano. Take your average Donizetti aria and you will find all sorts of ornamentation...especially as you repeat material.
Posts: 194 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Compare especially Opus 7 No. 1 (unfortunately this piece is not in the third set) and Opus 7 No. 2. One thing you see with solo piano is varying use of rubato, which (correct me if I'm wrong) is much less common in orchestral presentations. I am thinking of getting the Ohlsson, unless anyone can point me to another set of Chopin mazurkas that they prefer.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a lot I could say about this, from a historical standpoint.
Historically speaking, art music (what most people describe as classical music) used to be much more improvisatory than it is now. Musical notation, over the centuries, gradually became more and more specific; early twentieth-century art music is the peak of this, in which every aspect of music is regulated down to the last detail. Then, there was a reactionary movement against this, causing the development of aleatoric music (chance music, in which every single performance is different).
Music notation in a form we would recognize now appeared in the seventeenth century; before that, the type of notation used served as more of a guide for the way things could be sung. Mensural notation (in medieval and renaissance music) isn't a subject that I'm overly familiar with, but bear in mind that scores (in which all parts are seen at once) didn't appear until late, late renaissance.
Moreover, musical nuances such as articulation and dynamics were not common in written music until the nineteenth century, when composers began to have more specific ideas of the sort of things they wanted performed in their music. Prior to that, it was simply assumed that performers would take some license with the written music (adding melismas in appropriate places, etc.).
As far as composers and improvisatory skill--though improvisatory skill is not emphasized in music education much (except for organists, early music people, and jazz people), it is still hailed as more than a neat party trick. What it demonstrates is an intimate knowledge of how musical structure works. As such, most composers (past and present) have at least some improvisatory skill. Bach, in fact, was famous for it.
I could say more, but I'm being told we have to leave the house now. If anyone's interested, I can continue later.
or not...in case this is just obnoxious... Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Here is something for you to research: The Cadenza
A Cadenza is the section in a concerto where the soloist originally would improvise a solo based on the themes of the particular movement they were playing.
I was chosen to perform at my graduation and picked an 8-piece Cadenza that my professor performed for his discertation. It was very cool!
Liz,
Make no mistake though, I am no expert by far. However, I see your initial assumption of this topic and I would generally agree that classical music is performed to a score, and the director has some creative input to the performance.
Worth noting is that I have a few CDs and Paginini comes to mind, where the orchestra played the score and there were several passages that were filled with improvisation by the violinist. Think of a guitar solo as in a "Classical Heavy Metal" type of piece.
Also worth noting was that my competitor in states that I battled with for 3 years in a row was considered to be an excellent classical improvisor, but was more lacking in jazz...
posted
My high school orchestra teacher's main goal was to make us sound like the London Symphony, or someone similar, at some concerts she would change a few things, to make the song sound better, but for a contest, it was played like it was written however long ago.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that this has any relevance to anything, but this guy, Steve, who played tenor sax in marching band, lined up next to me. When we would parade onto the field majestically to play our "Rah Rah" Fight song, Onward Franklin , he would rip into this wild improvisational streak of "orgasmic jazz" (at least that is what we called it) and I would bust up laughing like a fool.
At least it was funny at the time.
Etited for mistakes on the song we played. Originally, I was mistaken and thought it was the national anthem, but it was not!
posted
there is some improv in classical music, though it generally lies only in the hands of the conductors or the composers. Many of Bach's pieces were originally improvised and Beethoven was renound for his improvisations as well.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder how much the push to follow the score in the 20th century was due to the ability to record performances?
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Getting back to the original point, though, I don't think you can say that jamming is more important than writing or playing more structured music. They're two different sides of the same coin. No jammer on earth could improvise if they hadn't put in thousands of hours practicing structured music. And there are things that can be written deliberately that could never be improvised. Think of a Die Kunst Der Fugue or "Roundabout" by Yes. As skilled at improvising as J.S. Bach was (and by all accounts he was mind-bendingly, superhumanly skilled), there were things he just wouldn't have been able to do without sitting down and sweating over the scores.
That's not to say that improvising is a lesser form, either. Improvisation is the cornerstone of nearly all American music... jazz, blues and rock wouldn't even exist without improvisation. There are emotions that can be conveyed on the fly that are more moving and immediate than anything that you could sit down and write.
I think comparing the two schools of music is like trying to decide who has the greater talent: Orson Scott Card or Garrison Keillor. Storytelling comes in many different forms. They're all related, they all feed off each other, but saying that an improvisational storyteller is a higher artist than a skilled novelist, or vice versa, is closing your mind to half a world.
posted
"I think comparing the two schools of music is like trying to decide who has the greater talent: Orson Scott Card or Garrison Keillor. Storytelling comes in many different forms. They're all related, they all feed off each other, but saying that an improvisational storyteller is a higher artist than a skilled novelist, or vice versa, is closing your mind to half a world."
And that is my basic point, that each style has their elitist contingent. Even if classical music has improvisation, it is still different, and dfferent is OK and good.
You cannot improvise without a basic knowledge of the structure of the music. I see my eight year old son, and I am amazed. He can "jam" on guitar. Serously jam. But I know that he knows what he is doing. He knows the chords.
It has been really interesting, learning about the history of improvisation, and that the paradigm I am working from, that classical music is all about reading the music, is due to a more modern(relatively) concept that "the song remain the same."
[ April 15, 2005, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's different in a relevant way. In improvisation, the musician has more control. The experience, in a way, becomes more about the musician and less about the piece. That's not a small matter.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, a lot of classical music is structured in any number of ways, some of lend themselves to improv, and some don;t.
You won't see a lot of classical musicians improv Vivaldi's Four Seasons, but if you go listen to Yo-Yo Ma play Bach, with a full Orchestra behind him, he may take some liberties with the score, and it is the other musicians job to make sure they adapt to his interpretations of it.
Also, conductors have always had a lot of control over the performances and the specific interpretations of the music. A great conductor can make an average orchestra sound wonderful, if given the necessary time and the insight into the music.
But you are actually more right than wrong, most of the time...there is nothing worse than not conforming in that type of setting...a single out of tune instrument can blow a whole performance if it is noticeable.
Improv was only acceptable in specific parts of the pieces being performed...if it is tried in any other part it runs counter to the very nature of the performance.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have this argument even within the "jam band" circles. Jazz improv is different from bluegrass improv is different from rock improv. I do not enjoy jams that go way off the track of the song. i like to hear the song in the improvisation. I think it takes more skill, and is truer to the essence of the music.
I agree, Kwea, that a good conductor, or even middle school band leader, can make a huge difference. They might have a strong horn section, and a weak woodwind section, except for one outstanding clarinet player.Heor she has to shuffle parts around to make it sound good, and they always amaze me with what they can do.
I would fdefinitely be interested in hearing more of this. There are some great links abov. If you guys have any more let me know.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In "classical" music, if you're going to be stylistically correct, actual improvisation is only appropriate for music from eras in which improvisation was common (e.g., baroque, or the romantic cadenza...but even then, a lot of the cadenzas were written out by composers).
However, "not improvising" and "just playing the notes on the page" are two entirely different things. An orchestral piece played by two different orchestra WILL vary from orchestra to orchestra, depending on the interpretation of the conductor. For that matter, solo works (duo sonatas, monophonic works, etc.) will vary VASTLY from to performer to performer. The person making the interpretive choices changes depending on the size and nature of the ensemble, but there is (almost) always someone making those choices--resulting in differing performances from group to group, and even from performance to performance within the same group. That's why professional symphonies have rehearsals--not to learn the notes; they already KNOW the notes, or they wouldn't be there. They rehearse to learn the interpretation that they will all share for that particular performance.
Actual improvisation, though--by which I mean "departing from the notes and rhythms written on the page"--is not so common in classical music as it is performed today. As I said earlier, in some circles, it's more common than in others (early music is a good example).
By the way, I would disagree that a more talented performer (e.g., Yo-yo Ma) would be inclined to improvise more. It would entirely depend on their training, and the example given above (Yo-yo Ma playing Bach with an orchestra...not sure what piece you had in mind, there) is even LESS likely to contain improvisation except in a cadenza situation, because improvisation in that situation would disrupt the structure of the music being played by the orchestra. Yo-yo Ma might be more inclined to improvise on his own, but with an orchestra? Highly unlikely.
posted
"However, "not improvising" and "just playing the notes on the page" are two entirely different things. An orchestral piece played by two different orchestra WILL vary from orchestra to orchestra, depending on the interpretation of the conductor."
Megan is entirely correct.
To add to that, I'd like to bring a little extra perspective. (I studied orchestral conducting as a grad student (composition and piano as an undergrad))
Here's the thing about composers...they are all unique individuals. Some have a wealth of experience at their disposal when they are composing, some are pretty ignorant about things. I've encountered a wide range in my day.
The point I'm trying to get to is that sometimes when a musician interprets a score, he tries to interpret the INTENTION of the composer, not what is actually on the page. For instance, a particular composer may write beautifully with respect to notes and whatnot, but may not have a clue about orchestration. If you take a Schumann symphony, the orchestration is SO heavy, that if you don't alter some things, it can be quite awful. Or, if you are dealing with a student composer, then they may not have a clue about bowings for strings (or whatever) and you may have to alter things a bit to make it playable.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that sound (and therefore music) is so complex that it is virtually impossible to notate all of its dimensions accurately.
I tend to think of a score as being like a recipe that the composer made for you. He can give you the ingredients and a varying level of (sometimes) accurate instructions, but at the end of the day, you have to bring your own experience (and creativity) in order to make dinner.
Posts: 194 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Ryoko-- I'm in my last year of coursework for a Ph.D. in music theory! Where are you studying?)
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, as usual, more fun to get info here than on Google. You guys rock. Or, um, I mean, you cadenza!
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant that he is more likely to imprint the piece with his own style and impressions, and that since he is so skilled even very minor changes in the piece have a greater impact on the overall performance.
I know that in his solo cello works it was obvious that he was playing them the first time I heard them. I don't know why, and I can't point to any specific thing that let me know it was him playing, but the whole time I was listening I was amazed at the depth and the strength of his performances.
I also know from my won (very limited) experience as a concert soloist that if the piece or movement is focused on one sound or instrument then the soloist has more room to make minor changes in the piece, based on their own interpretation..sometimes changing a retard to shorten it or draw it out more, or make other changes...as long as they make sure the conductor knows what they are going to do. That isn't jamming, per say, at least not like a 40 mi drum solo in the Dave Matthews Band is, but it shows that there is some "wiggle room" open to the soloist, as long as everyone is on the same page.
Take opera for instance...a lot of the most famous soloists were know for the improv skills they brought on stage. No two performances were completely the same, but they all followed the score...but two great voices singing together could often bring out even better performances in each other. I don't know a lot about opera myself, although I did read a wonderful book on Maria Callas, and it discussed some of the things that occurred...and the thing that struck me the most reading that book was the amount of control those singers had over the tone and quality of each performance, and how they differed from concert musicians.
Concert musician are more bound by the score compared to soloists. That is not to say that there is no room for changes in the score, but if there are changes made those changes are usually applied universally to the whole orchestra by the conductor, rather than being made on an individual basis by each specific musician.
The exception to this is if it is a solo performance with an orchestra. In that case often the soloist will want to make changes, and MUST work closely with the conductor, or any changes made quickly turn into a train wreck. I have heard a few of myself, but fortunately not while I was playing myself. In those cases someone like Yo-Yo Ma would have far more influence in changing things than your average orchestral musicianwhose performance is ultimaly determined by how everone else is playing it.
posted
In the music world I travel in, there is often disagreement, even within the jamband world, over what constitutes a jam band.
Someone once compared Donna the Buffalo more to a classical piece, where many jambands do that bluegrass style of "OK, now the banjo's turn." Jaz is jazz, it just sort of morphs all over the place.
I prefer to be able to hear the original tune within the improvised piece, whichever style of music it is.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Liz, I think it depends on the style of music as well. I jammed with a guitar player once, just me on flute and him on guitar, and a friend who happened to be there listening swore it was on of the best things he had ever heard, despite the weird combo of sounds and the fact that we were just playing along with no real play.
I like hearing a melody as well, and I am not a fan of the really far out there jazz stuff I have heard, or the so-called discordant symphionies....they just sound like noise to me, rather than music.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While we're on the subject of improvisation, one of the most amazing and fascinating pieces of music I've ever heard is The Köln Concert by Keith Jarrett. It's a live solo piano concert that is absolutely beautiful anyway. But sometime after I got the album, I discovered that it was entirely improvised. He just got up on stage and made up a little over an hour of music. And you can't even tell. Making a good hour long album with one instrument is enough of an accomplishment in itself, but without a written score, it's something you'd never believe. The music defies categorization (it was released on a label known mostly for jazz and world music, but those descriptions don't do this piece any justice), and it never gets boring or repetitive. An entirely singular example of the power of good improv.
posted
OK, but is that improvisation, or creation? What is the difference? I mean, a composer or songwriter has to make it up at some point, but what is the difference?
And Kwea, you should come jam with Aidan some time. Really. That would be so fun.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you first asked the question, I immediately flashed back to the difference between a "studio" band and a "live" band - as I learned quite graphically the first time I helped record and mix down a demo tape of some college 80's wanna-be. *shudders remembering*
The "live" band actually has musicianship skills (i.e., the ability to hear tone and stay on key, rhythm, creativity, discipline . . . ) whereas the "studio" band relied upon the sound technician to fix them up during production and post-production.
The cassette tape and the concert differences could be horridly amazing.
Edit to add: I know that the thread referred to "classical" music, but most hard rock is very similar in structure to medieval/renaissance modality. I was also pondering Yngwie Malmsteen and his interpretations of certain previous composers . . . Icarus Dream Suite, anybody?
My husband and I have been into predominatly live music in the past years. We have always liked live music, but now that recordings can be so clear, and soundboard recordings can cut out most of the crowd noise, it is sort of addictive.
However, I do love studio cds and still buy them, especially for bands we tend to see live. (We do not accept rcordings of bands that do not allow taping.)
I would love to hear more about the rock-medieval-renaissance connections.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My music theory teacher in high school (mercy - almost 20 years ago now) taught us the modes (aeolian, dorian, phrygian, lydian, etc.) using heavy metal and rock.
For instance, Iron Maiden does a lot using phrygian (which sounds similar to a harmonic minor) but is actually a minor scale with the 2nd note flatted). Powerslave comes to mind.
But when you take away the amplification and get back to basic chord structure and lyrics, or if you were to add amplification and other groovy effects to say a piece of renaissance music, you might be surprised by the similarities.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always thought (and this is corporate music me speaking) that improvising was a way of testing how good someone was. In vocal scatting, for instance, you have to know something about music, you can't just memorize and get by. Thus, I always assumed that people who understood music theory more would get more out of live, jammy music. I think it's true to a certain extent - look what happened to Dave Matthews Band on the Everyday album - their producers made it a 3-minute track, heavily "produced" album of basically radio cuts. It sold a lot, but not to any of their former fans who enjoyed the 7-minute saxophone tangents.
And I still can't listen to much "out there" jazz. I always assumed that was a product of my music ignorance, but maybe it's just because I've trained my ear to like that synthetic crap.
posted
Fans of bands like Dave Matthews,' The Grateful Dead, Widespread Panic, and Donna the Buffalo usually buy the cds, but are more interested in hearing the live music. And recording it. And trading it.
Golly, I have said this before, but I wish I could send my taper geek friends back in time to record Bach and friends.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
If anyone's interested, I can continue later.![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
I'm in my last year of coursework for a Ph.D. in music theory! Where are you studying?)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
