What about Jazz?

[thierry13]

Oscarr111111 never said such thing. His post specifically says "improvisation based genres"...

Okay, now did you actually read his post or are you just really dumb ? He said : "Anyone else get the impression that he only hates creative and improvisation based genres so much because he hasn't got the talent to play them". Analyse this. He assumes I hate every genre wich enables improvisation. I, obviously, do NOT hate classical music, but classical music DOES enable improvisation, thus making his statement wrong.

[richard black]

Blimey, isn't Mister Thierry really Mister Manners and Grace?

[thierry13]

Blimey, isn't Mister Thierry really Mister Manners and Grace?

Sometimes I loose my manners, and I do not regret it.

[general disarray]

Well, the jazzers I've always known have been the best all-around musicians I've ever met.  Don't know a classical musician who doesn't admire them.

I tried to read through this to get some info, but kept tripping over the  fighting.  So my question is this.  I'm a jazz ignoramus, but I want to learn more about it.  You know, chords, riffs, etc.  Is there a method series out there for pianists that I could use to teach myself the basics before I embarrass myself in front of a teacher?

I'm classically trained and can get around the keyboard just fine.  Can improvise in various classical styles, as well.  But I want to learn the jazz "language,' you know?

Thanks.   

[Petter]

I learned alot from this book.
https://www.amazon.com/Jazz-Piano-Book-Mark-Levine/dp/0961470151
There´s probably alot of other good books but I think this would get you far if you already know technique (as in posture, movements lalalala). Get a fake book with lots of tunes and apply what he talks about in each chapter to the tunes he suggests. Then listen of course, there´s a good discography in the end of the book. He´s very keen on McCoy Tyner for unknown reasons but overall most jazz classics are mentioned.

[chopininov]

I like Jazz. I like that it requires a different mindset to listen to it.

And regarding Thierry and his bad analogies, you can't compare 2 very different genres of music. It's like those people that say they don't like Rap because it's "not very musical"; you listen to Rap for it's poetic content and catchy rhythms.

[thierry13]

It's like those people that say they don't like Rap because it's "not very musical"; you listen to Rap for it's poetic content and catchy rhythms.

HAHAHA. You're a funny guy. Hey let's go at the theater to watch the worse movie ever in the worse theater ever with bad sound and a bad image. They have coke, that very same one there is in the better theaters who shows better movies, and again that very same one you can buy anywhere! Yay, what a great idea!

[general disarray]

I learned alot from this book.
https://www.amazon.com/Jazz-Piano-Book-Mark-Levine/dp/0961470151
There´s probably alot of other good books but I think this would get you far if you already know technique (as in posture, movements lalalala). Get a fake book with lots of tunes and apply what he talks about in each chapter to the tunes he suggests. Then listen of course, there´s a good discography in the end of the book. He´s very keen on McCoy Tyner for unknown reasons but overall most jazz classics are mentioned.

Hey, thanks, Petter.

[chopininov]

HAHAHA. You're a funny guy. Hey let's go at the theater to watch the worse movie ever in the worse theater ever with bad sound and a bad image. They have coke, that very same one there is in the better theaters who shows better movies, and again that very same one you can buy anywhere! Yay, what a great idea!

Can someone help me decipher this? I can't understand anything past the second sentence.

[ctrastevere]

Can someone help me decipher this? I can't understand anything past the second sentence.

I think the point he is trying to make is that it is pointless to listen to a "lesser form" of music for "poetic content and catchy rhythms" when the same can be found in classical music. Perhaps I interpreted him wrong, but I'm sure that regardless of what he meant I'd disagree with it.

Personally, I find our friend Thierry to be as much of a fanatic as Pianistimo. Unlike Pianistimo, however, I find his mindless ranting amusing.

[chopininov]

I think the point he is trying to make is that it is pointless to listen to a "lesser form" of music for "poetic content and catchy rhythms" when the same can be found in classical music. Perhaps I interpreted him wrong, but I'm sure that regardless of what he meant I'd disagree with it.

Personally, I find our friend Thierry to be as much of a fanatic as Pianistimo. Unlike Pianistimo, however, I find his mindless ranting amusing.

Fortunately, I can't take anything he says seriously; due to his remarks in Essyne's thread about European women, everything else he's said has been invalidated.

[webern78]

Why, what did he say?

[chopininov]

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,29941.msg346362.html#msg346362

But that is besides the point.

What is up with this new "Smooth Jazz" genre?

[frigo]

Okay, now did you actually read his post or are you just really dumb ? He said : "Anyone else get the impression that he only hates creative and improvisation based genres so much because he hasn't got the talent to play them". Analyse this. He assumes I hate every genre wich enables improvisation. I, obviously, do NOT hate classical music, but classical music DOES enable improvisation, thus making his statement wrong.

What if he meant that you "haven't got the talent" to play the improvisation that classical enables?

[thierry13]

What if he meant that you "haven't got the talent" to play the improvisation that classical enables?

All that I am saying is that his post was simply stupid because classical is part of those "genres" that he said I hated. As simple as that.

[oscarr111111]

Classical music allows improvisation, but its not based on it.

No musician is as ignorant and closed mind as thierry13, anyone who knows and loves music can appreciate all avenues (though not necessarily not all music).  I propose that thierry13 is not a musician, but at best an immature piano player.

[thierry13]

Classical music allows improvisation, but its not based on it.

No musician is as ignorant and closed mind as thierry13, anyone who knows and loves music can appreciate all avenues (though not necessarily not all music).  I propose that thierry13 is not a musician, but at best an immature piano player.

I propose that I can't stand crappy music. I do not agree that a true musician can appreciate all avenues. A true musician knows what is good music and what is crap. Thinking inferior music is equally great is good for amateurs.

[frigo]

I propose that I can't stand crappy music. I do not agree that a true musician can appreciate all avenues. A true musician knows what is good music and what is crap. Thinking inferior music is equally great is good for amateurs.

We are returning to the same point: just because you don't like jazz, don't say it is an "inferior music". You have to stop mixing the concepts "subjectivity" and "objectivity", "opinion" and "truth", because no one in the world has the power to say what kind of music is inferior or superior, there's too many factors and too many opinions to built a sentence that you can call it "truth".... So, we get your point, your opinion, stop being here boring us with your analogies (though they're very funny, ridiculously funny)

[thierry13]

You have to stop mixing the concepts "subjectivity" and "objectivity", "opinion" and "truth"

Thanks those concepts are allready pretty clear to me. If you LIKE something is an opinion and is subjective. If it is inferior or superior wether you like it or not is truth and objective. I have to admit that jazz is by far superior to pop and hip hop, even if I do not LIKE it. I DO like some pop songs, not many of them, but still ... and that does not mean I think they are equally great because I like them equally. That simply isn't true. You can't compare Beethoven to Britney Spears, not only because okay yeah it's a very different style it's like comparing bananas with oranges, but because it is so inferior to it also!

[Petter]

First jazz, then hip hop and poor Britney, and now oranges... When shall thy merciless retribution end?!

And Indutrial, I just got the Marc Copland record, I like it alot, thanks for mentioning him. It reminds me of John Taylor a bit.

[xavierm]

I have to agree with thierry13 on this one, even if he's being a bit harsh.

There IS such thing as better music and worse music. Of course, music is very subjective and a person can like whatever he/she may wish. But as has already been stated, liking something is different from knowing whether or not it's substantial. I agree with theirry but I come at it from a different viewpoint since I DO like jazz a lot. (however for full disclosure I am a classical pianist).
Regardless, even though I may enjoy listening to jazz, I realize that there is, in effect, a great divide between the two.

It's a complicated issue because the two are so different are there MANY different factors to discuss and compare. This isn't an issue that's well-suited to forum talk. If you have ever studied music though (I'm not sure how many people here could consider themselves versed in musical theory, counterpoint, jazz theory etc.) you would realize that classical music is, I guess, more 'work'. For some the payoff is greater than for others, and that's perfectly fine. There's really no easy way to say this or defend this position because it offends many who enjoy jazz more than classical.

Case in point, I could go on for hours explaining the difference in depth between the two (not that jazz does not have any, because it takes an extreme amount of talent and there are many factors that go into a true 'great' jazz performance). Having studied both, I can objectively say that I like classical more than jazz because I feel it has more depth, and I can defend that position. Let's just agree to disagree about which is 'better' beacuse we're not going to get anywhere. If we ever wanted to have a true arguement about that, we'd have to all be sitting down and talk for about 8 hours and the person that could defend their position better would win. But we don't have the resources or time to do that... plus, it's probably not that beneficial in the long run anyway.

[etcetra]

Xavierm,

I guess you may have a point in that classical pianists may have to put more 'work' in learning a single piece of music, but it's really hard to say which is more difficult since the two genres of music requires such different skill sets.  They are jazz musicians that are "freaks" as far as their natural abilites is concerned, and I can't imagine how their talent is comparable to the so called "freaks" in the classical genre.

For example Geoffrey Keezer did a demonstration where he asked the audience to pick two keys.. he then went ahead and play the head and soloed on the tune "donna lee" with right hand improvising in one key and the left hand improvising in the other key.. When Keith jarret was playing at a hotel lounge (way before he became known in the jazz scene), a lady asked him to play Ravel's Bolero.  He went ahead and played it in its entirety without music.  Bill Evans was known for his exceptional sigh-reading abilities, and he is able to do a reduction of Stravinsky's "rite of spring" on the spot at tempo with no mistakes.
I guess I can go on and with this, but I met serveral lesser-known  jazz pianists who are able to improvise a fugue, a real fugue in the style.. and for me that alone is scary. 

I am not sure how many of these things are something concert pianists are capable of doing. . I would imagine if jazz was really that much easier than classical, than any accomplished classical pianist can do any of the above at relative ease?  There are different level of musicianship, even among proffessional musicians.  and if jazz was really that much easier than most classical pianists should be able to learn the genre with relative ease, but that is not the case. 

Again, my point is that jazz and classical music requires such a different skill set.. it may be similar in some ways but really being good at one doesn't guarantee you will good at the other.  It would be like comparing the merit of a theoretical physicist and biologist.. they both have value and place in the world. It would be awkward to say theoretical physicist are better, even though their theories might be more 'complicated'..

Oscar Peterson practiced 15 hrs a day at one point in his life, so if you want to be the best of the best it is not any easier in either genre, and only a handful of people can do what they do at their level.

anyways i am not condemning anyone who thinks classical music is better, i can see the point that it has more depth.. i kind of wish people aren't wasting time arguing about this, because really.   I know some religious fantatics make similar comparison between religions, like Christianity VS Bhuddism.. you can argue about how Christianity is better because of its global impact ..etc etc.. but  most of these arguments are trite, academic, and demeaning... What's the point of arguing this? to make yourself feel better about the camp you belong to? Why does any of these matter you love something and it makes you want to become a better person?

[xavierm]

I see your points and I actually agree with most of them.

Those cases are all true... and there are cases that go the opposite way with classical music. I can't think of any modern examples, but I imagine if Liszt were alive today, he could choose to be one of the greatest jazz pianists alive according to the stories of his improvisation. He could compose a piece in any key, about any subject, on the spot and then remember it well enough to right it down almost note for note later. I suggest this is similar the examples you cited about Keezer and the like.

The skill that is required for both genres you cannot compare. This is a good point.

But you have to admit... there is nothing in the standard or extended jazz repertoire that could equal that of the depth and intellect that is in Bach's Goldberg Variations or Beethoven's Hammerklavier Sonata. Why? Structure is the biggest reason. Not that jazz doesn't have structure, obviously it is also an important aspect. However, you cannot possibly structure something so intricately and meticulously as Bach while improvising. You would have to be a god beyond gods to do this... and no such creature has yet existed (not even Bach himself or Liszt or Keezer or Evans). Therefore, the 'intelligence' inherent in the music itself is greater with classical music. However, you CAN make jazz as intelligent in a different way. But you have to admit, Bill Evans and the like are extremely rare... even more rare than classical virtuosos. AND... one could argue that their roots are founded more in classical music (evans' background in particular) which helps the way they do things become so intelligent.

Kapustin, if you are familiar with him, fuses jazz idioms with classical conceptions. He has never considered himself a jazz pianist (even though he played in a jazz trio for a good portion of his life) because he didn't improvise. He felt his compositions were better when he wrote them down and was able to rework them and make them as cohesive as possible. This is kind of the point I'm making.

But there is something to improvisation that classical music can't touch! I'll never be as huge a fan of it than classical, but any classical musician worth his weight should understand the magic behind improve. The intellect, talent, and pure excitement of jazz improve is a COMPELTELY DIFFERENT idea than music in it's purest form. It's neither better nor worse, just different... and  IMO wonderful. I feel that classical musicians should be forced to do jazz at least for a year (plus, most jazz musicians have to study classical).


And really, I didn't mean to argue that classical music is more work... both take much work.

[xavierm]

Oh.. and nice to have civil conversation about this finally. Thank you

[thalbergmad]

but I imagine if Liszt were alive today, he could choose to be one of the greatest jazz pianists alive according to the stories of his improvisation.

The thought of Liszt Jamming with Tatum i find particularly fascinating.

Or perhaps even playing a duet with Fats Waller at one of his house parties. A bevvy of beauties flaked out on the piano and a gallon of moonshine placed next to the stool for easy reach.

Stimulating thought.

Thal

[xavierm]

I bet he would out drink everyone there

[etcetra]

xavierm,

Yes its really really nice to have a conversation about this that is meaningful, i mean i cant believe it was possible until now

I usually resent argument about this, because jazz have always had a inferiority complex, and a lot of musicians in the 50s struggled to present it as a 'serious art'.. it's tough enough for them already as it is, and it bothers me when people belittle what they accomplished without knowing what they went through.

I agree that jazz does not have the kind of structure that classical music has, and in that respect i don't think jazz will ever achieve that kind of depth.  But I guess for jazzers, that kind of structure is not really their concern.. it's such a different way of thinking, because the purpose of jazz is freedom, where as the purpose of classical music, as far as i can understand is perfection of form.  I've heard of Kapustins work, and they are amazing..I have tremendous respect for what he does. I can see how he has made the music better by refining them, but at the same time, it loses the kind of excitement you get from hearing a great jazz  solo.. I don't know whether freedom and structure is diametrically opposed, but it seems like you can't have one without losing a bit of the other.

But then again, it seems like more and more people are willing to accept Duke Ellington as a significant composer of the 20th century.  I wonder whether you can measure the contribution of contemporary jazz composer to classical composers.. i mean let's pick Gil Evans, and Maria Schneider, how significant is their contribution compared to let's say, Steve Reich or John Corigliano?    I don't think it would be fair to compare them to Bach, since pretty much all western music have some kind of classical roots, the contemporary composers, whether classical or jazz, are offspring of that tradition in that sense.

As far as the argument about "depth" or intellectual content is concerned, its a very iffy area.. I was a philosophy major before  I was a music student, and well, I had conversation with philosophy teachers about how Philosophy is better than any of the arts, including music.. and yes you can argue that way because philosophy has more "intellectual content", you can litearally days months understanding a single page.. but the argument just seemed absurd.. i mean if that is true why don't well all quit our instrument and pick up a copy of Plato's Republic? it would make my philosophy teachers happy, but it would certainly make the world a dull place.

I guess if it comes down to it, people 100 yrs from now on will probably remember Beethoven, Bach, or Wagner more then they will remember Bird, Coltrane, or Evans.(although i can argue classical music is documented more favorably than jazz) But recording of John Coltrane's "My Funny Valentine" moves me more than Glenn Gould's 1981(?) recording of Goldberg Variation, and I am sure there will be minority of people who feel the same way as I do 100 yrs from now on.


I guess, with my limited background jazz history, I think the biggest thing that jazz has brought is it's African-American roots .. and that kind of fusion of tradition and evolution is priceless.. again its not really about better or worse, it's about being in awe of all the possibilities in music and knowing you are part of it somehow.

[etcetra]

Thal,

yea that would be neat, although, Fats will probably have a lot more than moonshines to entertain himself and his guests..

imagine chopin stoned off his mind talking to Bill Evans about music, that would be priceless.  ;

[thalbergmad]

The possible combinations i guess are endless.

I would like to have seen Glenn Gould and Willie "The Lion" Smith playing together. I wonder who would make the most noise. Sergovia playing with Rheinhardt wets the appetite. I used to enjoy it when Grapelli and Menuhin got together.

Mixing the two genres together could produce some interesting outcomes.

Claude Debussy and the hot club de France. Sorabji meets Meade Lux Lewis.

Shut up Thal.

Thal

[etcetra]

haha, how about Bach laying down sick keyboard track for Dr Dre?

this is getting absurd i should stop too.

[xavierm]

etcetra,

I think the point you are making is best summed up as thus:

The best things in the world are never meant for everyone.
This is not specifically confined to classical or to jazz, or any subject for that matter.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's just the way the world rolls.


Ahhh.... I think we can finally wipe our hands clean of this!

Good conversation

[thierry13]

I agree that jazz does not have the kind of structure that classical music has, and in that respect i don't think jazz will ever achieve that kind of depth. 

You see, you all agree with the points I made  I simply said it directly instead of wasting my time writing a long text like Xavierm's one to say it. You didn't rebel against what I said, but against the way I put the facts, I think that's lame. Now, I need to say I agree with what both you and xavierm discussed about in those past posts. Congratulations you guys.

[etcetra]

xavierm,

what you said about Lizst, it reminded me of the fact that Chopin and Bach were known to be exceptional improvisers.. i wonder whether its the educational system but its strange how there is a big divide between improvised and composed music.  Most classical piano students never improvise let alone compose.

Yea you pretty much summed it up, thanks...and well that what makes us all different.

let's just hope others will take the lead.. finally peace and prosperity in this forum thread, i can rest now.  I feel like i've done my life's work 

[etcetra]

thierry13,

I dont think you understood my point, I made all that point about freedom, freedom is a value just as much as structure is.  And the argument was never meant to be objective, and we agreed on how it's senseless to have an 'objective' opinion about this

Anyways I am not rebelling or a even arguing about whether one is better than the other.  I don't know if this true but you seem to be doing this to provoke people.. I posted a thread asking for help with technique and you made that a platform for making your point.  It's like going up to someone who has cancer and telling him "see, this is why cancer is bad".  i mean what is the point in posting there? to try have more people agree with you?

There is an intellegent and mature way to argue this, xavierm has proved that.. most of all, he argued the point with RESPECT for others. i think we all want to move on from this senseless bickering, perhaps, you can follow his lead on this?

[xavierm]

xavierm,

what you said about Lizst, it reminded me of the fact that Chopin and Bach were known to be exceptional improvisers.. i wonder whether its the educational system but its strange how there is a big divide between improvised and composed music.  Most classical piano students never improvise let alone compose.

Yea you pretty much summed it up, thanks...and well that what makes us all different.

let's just hope others will take the lead.. finally peace and prosperity in this forum thread, i can rest now.  I feel like i've done my life's work     haha

That is an interesting point. I wonder too where/when that divide started to occur...

In either case, I am glad that there are sensible people out there too! I really didn't expect this to go as smoothly as it did.

Yes, hell occasionally freezes over.

[etcetra]

gosh its amazing, it only took 5 min to ruin the peace.

I am sure, a lot of these senseless arguments are just "sad exceptions"..its just annoying because i had to put up with that kind of 'snobbery' in school.  I mean this classical saxophone teacher was bone-headed enough to tell Kenny Garrett that he can teach kenny how to play his instrument if he stopped playing for 6 months.

It's also interesting that student jazz pianists have better "musicianship" than their classical counterpart.. a lot of classical students don't have solid sense of "time" and don't necessary have a good chord identification/aural skills.  I guess that part of classical education always puzzled me.. some of my friends are going to very prestigious grad school, and yet they can't figure out simple tunes like "jingle bells" by ear.

Well i am glad to know that classical and jazz musicians can get along.

[etcetra]

“There is a Japanese visual art in which the artist is forced to be spontaneous. He must paint on a thin stretched parchment with a special brush and black water paint in such a way that an unnatural or interrupted stroke will destroy the line or break through the parchment. Erasures or changes are impossible. These artists must practice a particular discipline, that of allowing the idea to express itself in communication with their hands in such a direct way that deliberation cannot interfere. The resulting pictures lack the complex composition and textures of ordinary painting, but it is said that those who see well find something captured that escapes explanation. This conviction that direct deed is the most meaningful reflections, I believe, has prompted the evolution of the extremely severe and unique disciplines of the jazz or improvising musician.

Bill Evans
liner notes to Miles Davis’ ‘Kind of Blue’)

[frigo]

Very very interesting, thank you both  i started this thread because of my ignorance about the subject, a formal ignorance, and this was the best explanation I had thank you once again

And now, for your delight, i live you this:

Sassetti, Burmester and Laginha, 3 pianos, "Sonho dos Outros" - "Other's Dreams", composed by Sassetti, the one on the middle

Enjoy, it's magnificent

[frigo]

You can see other pieces played by the 3 pianos on youtube, they are amazing

[etcetra]

yea that is some great stuff. thanks for posting.

I guess now that you mentioned youtube..i have to share one of my youtube favorites too.

the thought that they improvised this completely, probably without any rehearsal .. scares me.

[oscarr111111]

yea that is some great stuff. thanks for posting.

I guess now that you mentioned youtube..i have to share one of my youtube favorites too.

the thought that they improvised this completely, probably without any rehearsal .. scares me.

They would have rehearsed extensively, professionals of that level don't take risks.

[jaypiano]

As far as the argument about "depth" or intellectual content is concerned, its a very iffy area.. I was a philosophy major before  I was a music student, and well, I had conversation with philosophy teachers about how Philosophy is better than any of the arts, including music.. and yes you can argue that way because philosophy has more "intellectual content", you can litearally days months understanding a single page.. but the argument just seemed absurd.. i mean if that is true why don't well all quit our instrument and pick up a copy of Plato's Republic? it would make my philosophy teachers happy, but it would certainly make the world a dull place.

Wow, etcetra, clearly your philosophy professors are NOT true philosophers in the deepest sense.  The greatest, the ones with truly huge dimensions, bow before the vastness of music.  I was fortunate to have an amazing philosopher as professor of philosophy, and his attitude towards music and musicians was one of greatest, humblest respect, saying that in philosophy, once you've understood the concept, work is done, whereas with music, there's first the concept, than the action: reason for total awe and admiration.

[etcetra]

Oscar1111,

Well, I am not sure about that, i mean with their schedule how much time do they really have to work things that extensively?  As far as I know Bill Evans said that when he brought new material to the trio it only took couple of rehearsals to get it right.. Keith Jarrett's trio.. all their stuff is no rehearsed, I read that Keith was pretty annoyed when critics called his performance of the standards "arrangements' because according to him, they just got up and played the time.

From my experiences at jam sessions, if the musicians are really good they can pull of some crazy things, even if it's the first time playing with each other.  Having said that.. I am not Chick or Hiromi and I really don't know how much "rehearsing" jazz musicians at that level do.

Aside from that, it's kind of strange to say that "proffessionals at that level don't take risks", I mean Bill Evans and Miles Davis talks about how much risk they take in their playing .. its part of the music.. at least in jazz.

[etcetra]

Jaypiano,

I think a lot of my philosophers appriciated music very much, but you ask them which is better, most of them will probably say philosophy.    I can understand why they will say so..For them reading Plato or Niestze was the most profound experiences they had in their life, ,more so than listening to Beethoven or Bach... I've heard some of the proffs say stuff like "if you really want to hear Logos in music, listen to schubert's string quratets", which, for someone  withtraining in music seems like a misguided idea, but well then again, I really don't have ability to understand what he meant by that.

Anyways I was just bringing that up to make a point that its absurd to make comparisons like that whether its philosophy vs music or jazz vs classical.

[thierry13]

Anyways I was just bringing that up to make a point that its absurd to make comparisons like that whether its philosophy vs music or jazz vs classical.

It's not an equal comparison at all. Philosophy vs music isn't even the same art, it's two completly different things. Jazz vs classical are both MUSIC. It's comparing two entities of the same art.

[ed palamar]

His eyesight was fixed somewhat by surgery, the beating just undid whatever good the surgery had done.

Only Jesus can heal.

[dfrankjazz]

Jazz is ok.

[ed palamar]

Jazz is ok.

play along arrangements which allow for some jazz soloing (Tunes2Do) :

https://risen-from-the-dead.forumotion.com/f62-tertian-harmony-and-chord-manual-plus-sudokus

[visitor]

Only Jesus can heal.

agreed hes an excellent othalmologist
https://doctor.webmd.com/doctor/jesus-martinez-b6f19ba1-7d8f-4862-ae36-fb16c95bdba7-overview

most insurances accepted,  payment plans available