Is It Jazz or Is It Classical?

administrator

@SSmith1226 said in Is It Jazz or Is It Classical?:

Here is a link to a timely article from today’s issue of The Guardian on this subject:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/jun/06/why-classical-musicians-need-to-learn-how-to-improvise

I have seen several "crossover" artists advocate this.

J. Jericho

I've always heard a great similarity between Bach and Bebop, especially the in rhythms and the improv. Bach would have been an awesome Jazz musician IMO, and I think he would have loved the genre.

Kehaulani

@J-Jericho said in Is It Jazz or Is It Classical?:
I've always heard a great similarity between Bach and Bebop, especially the in rhythms and the improv. Bach would have been an awesome Jazz musician IMO, and I think he would have loved the genre.

Compared to today's midstream music, I think that can be attributed to three fundamental things.

The use of the same (basically) fundamental harmonic structure.
The use of similar or same embellishments.
The use of improvisation, or structured music that has an improvisatory character.

Dr GO

@Kehaulani said in Is It Jazz or Is It Classical?:

Compared to today's midstream music, I think that can be attributed to three fundamental things.

The use of the same (basically) fundamental harmonic structure.

Not sure I would agree with this one. Modal use and forms have progressed significantly since Bach's time.

Kehaulani

@Dr-GO said in Is It Jazz or Is It Classical?:
Not sure I would agree with this one. Modal use and forms have progressed significantly since Bach's time.

How does that account for how today's musicians would follow classical greats, like Bach, and improvise?

Dr GO

@Kehaulani said in Is It Jazz or Is It Classical?:

@Dr-GO said in Is It Jazz or Is It Classical?:
Not sure I would agree with this one. Modal use and forms have progressed significantly since Bach's time.

How does that account for how today's musicians would follow classical greats, like Bach?

Not sure this response is relevant as J Jericho was lamenting on whether Bach would have been great at improvisation. Today's musicians would have progressed very well if there was no prior history of Bach. Now, if there were no Charlie Parker, or Dizzy Gillespie, we may have had a problem with the more rapid evolution of improvisation.

So in answering your question as I understand it... There is no need to account for the followers of Bach.

J. Jericho

@Dr-GO "Lamenting"? Didn't you mean "commenting"?

Trumpetb

This is odd that the question is even asked.

Music from the earliest time was heavily improvised it had to be, there was no means or method to write anything down.

Before the time of formal notation which appeared as Neumes in or around the 9th century there was only recalled melodies and learned plainchant and gregorian chant, passed on by word of mouth.

This followed on from Pope Gregory the 1st and his standardisation of chant in the 7th century.

Musicians were expected to improvise and use their experience to do so in groups all improvising simultaneously.

Rules were invented to make it more structured but it often created dissonances and errors which had to be corrected on the fly.

Musician would treat music as a suggestion and use embellishments freely.

Much later when formal scores appeared in or around the 15th century composed music written in a score was treated as a suggested framework upon which to improvise and diminutions and other embellishments were expected to be performed by the musician.

Musica Ficta was expected to be applied by musicians in addition.

Musica Ficta is the changing of the written notes adding sharps or flats, or the addition of many extra notes or the shifting of the melody up or down an octave, according to the skill and talent or desire of the musician and changing the score as it was played to solve issues of discordant note pairs that often appeared.

Later composers complained that the number of added notes in musicians diminutions were so many that the music became chaotic and they began to demand that the music be played as written.

Maestro composers even suggested that while improvising in ensembles, different instrumentalists should play solos individually and each take a turn.

This sounds very much like a modern Jazz ensemble with free interpretation, octave shifts runs and trills and free improvisation upon a theme or melody.

All this was well before Bachs day.

I regard Jazz now merely as a modern version of 15th century musicianship that had many techniques that had become lost over time and have now been rediscovered in the new age.

I recommend the site "Early Music Sources" to understand just how highly developed and technically brilliant the early musicians were.

Dont get me wrong we are very advanced now and Jazz is wonderful, but we must recognise just how wonderful early musicians were and what we owe to them.

barliman2001

Composers and performers of all ages have been freely interpreting the work of their predecessors, even if only by playing pieces that were written for the instruments of the day on modern instruments. Obviously the modern piano sounds very different from the harpsichord many of Bach's works were originally intended for, and even farther from the spinet they were composed on; and the modern trumpet is a totally different beast from the original, and the performers are acclaimed - just think of Glenn Gould and his Bach performances. One guy that takes Bach even further into modernity is Jacques Loussier and his PlayBach group...

Trumpetb

I agree completely.

There are however additional considerations, tempo in the past was much faster than in modern day, we can see this on the few original recordings that survive from the late 19th century and early 20th century.

For example recordings made of Grieg playing grieg are played at a much faster tempo with more varied timing and dynamics than is present on modern recordings of grieg.

I dont think anyone would argue that Grieg did not know how to play grieg.

This is a very common and noticeable characteristic of original recordings made 100 years or more ago versus modern performances made just a few years ago, the modern performances are played very much slower.

Also the timing in original recordings is far more varied and variable than in modern recordings and performances.

Modern recordings tend to be far less varied and less nuanced - almost clinical in their precision compared to older recordings of the same works.

The older performances I have listened to carry far more energy in my opinion than their modern performances, and there are accusations in the general community that orchestral works are boring for younger audiences.

Are we in seeking perfection and seeking more emotional performances simply causing a rejection of orchestral works that the original performances did not suffer over 100 years ago.

I personally find the older recordings to be more energetic and more interesting than modern performances.

Audiences love faster I am concerned that if this trend continues we risk alienating them when we play works slower than the composer intended.

Kehaulani

Let's keep in mind that old records had time parameters that modern recordings do not. In many cases, music was played quicker to fit in the finite requirements of the recording parameters of the time.

Trumpetb

That is true that is a fair point.

I will challenge that however.

Here we have a composer who is at the height of his art, would he really have agreed to compromise the work he slaved over to perfect it and considers it representative of his craft and then rush through it to appease a recording studio and make it less than perfect.

The studio serves the artist not the other way round.

I dont consider myself anywhere like the capability of Grieg, but I refuse to compromise my standards and rush a piece just because the audience cannot spare enough time for me to play it properly.

Would Mozart have galloped through a performance of the magic flute just because it was inconvenient for the theatre to play it as it was composed.

I have also consistently seen older recordings or rather heard them and they are all played at a much faster tempo than recent recordings.

And as for recordings having equipment constraints a Baroque orchestra in the UK who have studied baroque compositions and playing and have made recordings in recent years, are not subject to such equipment constraints you speak of, and they play baroque and renaissance works very much faster than other contemporary orchestras play them.

It has been remarked that they play like they are on speed, I think they are unfairly ridiculed for the speed they play at, maybe they have actually got it right and it is the rest of us who are misguided.

I see specialist musicologists playing old compositions swiftly at a brisk tempo full of energy.

I believe if anyone truly understands Baroque works it is a specialist Baroque orchestra who have intensively studied them and concluded that they need to be played briskly and not at the conventional pace we usually hear them at.

It is easy I know to dismiss these early recordings as musicians and artists being forced by the recording equipment to play 20% or 30% faster than they should be played, but there is a mounting wealth of evidence that this is not the right conclusion.

And I think we have to face the question honestly, - would an artist singer or composer who is recognised as being right at the top in the world, like for example Pavarotti was, be persuaded to make low quality recordings just so they can fit them on a limited length of recording media.

When I am asked to lower my standards I simply say

NO!

I would expect the best to do no less.

Kehaulani

Regarding the aesthetics of whether or not a composer of the past would compromise his tempos in order to fit the technology, I don't think that has a universal answer.

In the case of that composer who would not compromise, his option is to forgo getting his music recorded. His choice.

OTOH, some composers would be willing to compromise adjustments to tempo in order for a recording to take place.

I remember doing some research for an upcoming tour containing "An American in Paris" and noticing the difference in tempos between the original Whiteman recording and recordings by, say, Bernstein, Fiedler etc. I would suggest what's a bigger question: what's authentic and does it matter musically?

In this case, I opted for as historical as I could get. But I'm not going to go eye-to-eye with Uncle Lenny over the musicality of the respective choices.

Trumpetb

Love that answer.

Some composers undoubtedly would compromise I agree.

It depends on how much perhaps.

Is a 30% change in tempo an adjustment, I ask because Grieg did play 30% faster in tempo than many recent recordings.

We often speak of 1% 2% maybe 5% but 30% is a huge change.

Imagine an orchestra about to play the 1812 overture which takes 15 minutes normally, being told by the event organiser "Thats great but I need you to finish it in 10 minutes or less."

I can imagine the 1812 played in totality in 9 or10 minutes but that is neither an adjustment nor is it a palatable concept.

I think chaos is an apt description.

Pace is critically important if the pace is too fast emotion and meaning dies. Equally if the pace is too slow understanding and meaning dies.

And I dont think Samuel Barber would have agreed to knocking out his Adagio for Strings in 5 minutes instead of the 8 it usually takes.

The feeling and sense of a work is bound up in the pace and to knock out a contemplative work at 100 miles an hour does nobody any favours least of all the composer.

Likening this to Fine Art Picasso painted Guernica and the canvas is 11 feet 6 inches. If a gallery approached him and said " We love the work but we only have a 7 foot long space for it, can you shrink it down to fit our 7 feet long wall", Picasso I am sure would have replied " No, get a bigger wall"

You ask does it matter musically if the tempo is altered, great question. I think it does, if the composer wanted it substantially slower he would maybe have composed it that way, does it really matter if we slow it down slower and slower until an energetic work sounds lethargic and sluggish if we choose to.

The flight of the bumble bee was composed at 178 BPM and if audiences want it performed at 30 BPM should we perform it at that pace. I think not, it is a 178 BPM piece its majesty energy and power is a result of its pace so that is how we should play it.

I suggest that this question is already answered by the people who have ridiculed the modern Baroque orchestra musicians who played the work at the fast pace they believed it should be played at.

If the tempo of the work were unimportant then those who complained would not have made an issue of it.

I am however on your side to an extent in that I believe it is good to play around with tempo and reach for a new perspective but this ceases to have meaning if we are unaware of the tempo the work was originally composed at.

It is all relative after all.

But there is a limit if we slow the tempo enough we eventually reach Larghissimo at 24 BPM, and then music ceases to be notes separated by spaces and becomes spaces separated by notes, it then becomes meaningless and then we have destroyed the music.

So I guess it is important.

Kehaulani

I was referring to an era of finite time requirements and how the aesthetics impact on that. Only.

Trumpetb

Ahhhh I understand apologies for my confusion

Vulgano Brother

This post is deleted!

barliman2001

As regards speed in old recordings: Of course there was a time restraint in these days. The technical ability was limited, and if a conductor and his orchestra wanted to do a recording of a certain piece, the technician would ask "How long?", be told a figure and then say, "Can't do that - too long." And then they would dispute whether to leave out a bit (quite a few written repeats simply vanished in this process) or whether to speed things up. And sometimes they did that, just to be able to record at all. There usually was no discussion of artistic merit because that had to go to the wall before the question of "record or not". And as recording was a profitable business even in the times when they were still discussing whether recording would stay or would be a one-time wonder, they usually chose to record.
Remember, when Sony developed the CD, they asked Karajan whether he thought 70 minutes was a good choice for max playing time, and he said they needed at least 75 minutes so that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony could fit on one CD without speeding up. They did not quite manage that, so 74 minutes became the standard. And an old Karajan recording of Beethoven #9 now suddenly was one minute shorter on the new medium compared to the old vinyl recording...

Trumpetb

I think the point is being missed lets look at a real example.

Here is Grieg playing his own Bridal Procession in 1903

And here is a later recording of William Murdoch playing Griegs Bridal Procession in 1931 just 28 years later

https://www.google.com/search?q=recording+of+griegs+bridal+procession&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB973GB973&oq=recording+of+griegs+bridal+procession&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i10i160j33i21.13740j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:f607949a,vid:cUYNgacgIQg

I could have chosen any one of many other recordings of this work and seen the same thing, all are played significantly slower than the Grieg himself played it.

The argument that Grieg played it at a faster tempo than he wanted to play it was because he was forced to play it that fast by the recording medium is simply untrue.

Murdoch used the same recording medium of 78 that Grieg did, the later 33 1/3 technology was not invented until 1948, some 17 years after the Murdoch recording.

Murdoch therefore suffered the exact same constraints as Grieg did and by rights should have been required to play much faster and at the pace Grieg was, but he didnt play it at the same pace as Grieg played it.

The argument that the composer played it faster because the recording medium forced him to is in my opinion simply an attempt to justify modern musicians wishes to play pieces at a slow tempo.

I would ask, are they right to do this.

I would also ask how can musicians say "play as written" if they play all works slower than they were written, but then claim the composers really meant them to be played that slowly and then make up indefensible arguments to support that claim.

There are many more examples of modern musicians simply playing slowly with no good reason for it, other than the musician thinks the music sounds better played slower than written, if you look for them but few are so clear and so striking as this one.

ROWUK

I think that everyone that makes "improvisation" a requirement to be a great trumpeter does not understand what "greatness" truly is!

There are many "strengths" that qualify for greatness. I do not think that Bud Herseth was a lesser trumpeter just because he did not perform combo gigs. I do not think that Miles is greater just because he improvises.

Greatness in my world comes from exceptional performance, preferably over a long time. Exceptional performance very much can be "only" being the solo trumpet in a symphony orchestra - a leader musically and dynamically (Bud Herseth, Bill Vacchiano as two examples). Exceptional performance can also be what Maynard did - keeping a live band afloat in the most difficult of times and inspiring generations of musicians that played in his band. Exceptional performance can be Pops - creating the base for many musical things taken for granted today. Exceptional performance can be Bachs own Gottfried Reiche - who inspired Bach to create some of the most awesome trumpet parts ever written.

I very much do agree that there are many fine but mediocre performances due to the lack of understanding the genre. The Metropolitan Opera Orchestra recently released a Gabrieli recording that is an example of such playing. Great players missing the point - and proving that there are modern groups of musicians that offer the same or less than the Philadelphia/Cleveland/Chicago recording from the 1960s.

I can very much appreciate what "non improvisors" have to make them great. I can also appreciate those dedicated to period style and performance practices (in Jazz, Commercial or classical genres). I do not understand the need to limit the term "great" to artificial requirements submitted by those not anywhere near greatness.