Where did improvising go? machines and playing

[Baron_Clavier]

Improvisation is a subject that i return to time after time.

It used to be a skill all pianists were required to demonstrate, but then it suddenly disappeared somewhere in the 19th century.
Does anybody know why??

Today, classical pianists are almost reduced to robots - the majority programmed into repeating the same pieces over and over. Only a few people can contribute something new enough to get a career or/and fame. The other ones...
But the non-Gods could have much to say in for example improvisation and composing where they could show off their understanding of music, melodies, structures etc.
It's not purely chance that most of the worlds musical traditions are based on improvisation.

Look, why do we spend thousands of hours to just play what everybody is playing already, getting the technique etc.
There are robots there that can scan a pianists performing the piece and replay it perfectly.
A musician could program this robot to play exactly as he would like without having to spend time polishing the technique, learning and memorizing the piece.

What do you think is the future of concert pianism as it is today??

Does anybody of you improvise (classical, not jazz) and do you know any material to learn from??

Hope that you don't get confused by this post, but it's just thoughts I've had with hope of input.

/Baron

[Allan]

Very true.  Improvising seems to be a lost art for many, if not most, classically trained pianists.  I was taught to learn the exact notes of a previously written piece and to play it as musically as possible.  This is an important skill.  But how wonderful to create your own music.  It is a new level of expression.  I think both of these skill could be better taught through our formative stages.  

[monk]

This development comes through Perfectionism.

Improvisation means acceptance of imperfection, and that became more and more difficult in the 19th century when all these virtuosos appeared on the scene.

Many classic musicians, when I talk to them, they say: "I wish I could improvise, just like you!"

And do you know what the reason is they don't improvise yet?

They hate (and fear) hearing themselves playing imperfectly!

Learning to improvise means trial & error, means accepting that in the beginning there will be undesired sounds.
But in our normal teaching system there is from the beginning the focus on "doing things right": hitting the "right" note that's on paper at the right time with the right volume.

A better and improvisation-friendly way of teaching would be: "You are allowed to make mistakes, BUT: You have to hear them; you have to learn to hear by yourself alternative notes to the wrong note that sound good; you have to learn to really hear and appreciate the sound of something wrongly played, so that you can perhaps say: Man, that was wrong, but it sounds interesting - I'll make a tune out of that or I'll add that chord to my repertoire of hip voicings!"

John Cage: "I welcome what comes next."

Best Wishes,
Monk

[JK]

It is a pity that more people don't improvise their own cadenzas and stuff, there are still a couple of people who do though. I think we also should remember that when composers such as chopin and liszt played their own works they probably wouldn't have played everything that was written and they probably would have spontaneously done slightly different things, whilst keeping the overall shape of the piece.

[ahmedito]

Classic imporvisation is actually taught at good music schools, and its development is usually essential to a students formation.... I think it really is coming back, no one would ever record baroque now without improvising...

[xvimbi]

I think there is an underlying and deeper problem. I completely agree that improvisation in classical music is a skill that every well-rounded musician should have, but I think there is simply no "market" for it. Who wants to hear improvised variations on a classical theme other than, perhaps, as an encore or a party trick? Improvisations require advanced musicians as well as advanced listeners. The average listener would probably not even realize that the musicians are improvising. And there are simply not enough advanced listeners to make it worthwhile.

Improvisation requires that people are actually willing to listen to new material. But they really aren't. For example, everybody agrees that Beethoven symphonies are awsome, yet if somebody came up with symphonies in the style of Beethoven (very easy to compose, every composition student can do a dozen a day and just as complex, lyrical, whatever), it would not be accepted. This is because composers want and need to come up with unique, novel material, and people expect unique and novel material. I'd love to have ten more Mahler symphonies, a few more Rachmaninoff piano concertos, or why not a couple hundred more Schubert dances?

Improvisations that match the style of the piece are not novel, and improvisations that are not novel won't match the style of the piece. Just look at cadenzas. Most soloists write their own cadenzas to show off and choose techniques, tempos, etc. that are entirely incompatible with the concerto they are actually playing.

[Motrax]

I just bought the full set of Rachmaninoff's recordings (Rachy performing his own music and the music of others), and indeed he does some strange things with his own pieces. In one of his recordings of the famous 5th Prelude in G minor Op 23, Rachmaninoff uses dotted rhythms throughout all of the "marching" sections. In addition, he adds three extra chords at the end.

[monk]

The average listener would probably not even realize that the musicians are improvising. And there are simply not enough advanced listeners to make it worthwhile.

Does that matter? ? ?

Good music is good music, and it absolutely doesn't make any difference whether it's improvised or not and whether the listener knows that or not. Period.

For example, everybody agrees that Beethoven symphonies are awsome, yet if somebody came up with symphonies in the style of Beethoven (very easy to compose, every composition student can do a dozen a day and just as complex, lyrical, whatever), it would not be accepted.

Sorry, but that's complete bullshit and completely disrespectful towards Beethoven, one of the giants of music. Show me ONE human being who can, except perhaps superficial technical aspects of the music, compose a symphony like Beethoven! If there would be a person who could do that, his music would be played and heard, because it would have real depth, would really move the audience. But there is NO composer today, regardless of style, who could compose a masterwork comparable to the greatest works of Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, Schönberg or al.

Instead, "classical" composers today mostly write brainy stuff that's called "Epitaph XVII" or "Oscillations II" with many quintuplets in it . And in jazz/rock/pop there is NO composer who is comparable to the great classical composers. (I'm a jazz pianist, by the way.)

Best Wishes,
Monk

[xvimbi]

Does that matter? ? ?

Good music is good music, and it absolutely doesn't make any difference whether it's improvised or not and whether the listener knows that or not. Period.

It does very well matter. In today's world, if it doesn't sell, it won't be done. Quality is not sufficient.

Sorry, but that's complete bullshit and completely disrespectful towards Beethoven, one of the giants of music. Show me ONE human being who can, except perhaps superficial technical aspects of the music, compose a symphony like Beethoven! If there would be a person who could do that, his music would be played and heard, because it would have real depth, would really move the audience. But there is NO composer today, regardless of style, who could compose a masterwork comparable to the greatest works of Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, Schönberg or al.

Strong words! However, I doubt very much it's true what you are saying. Are you saying that, all of a sudden, people don't know how to compose anymore or don't have imagination? Or are we just in a dry spell? If Brahms was able to compose in the style of Beethoven, why not somebody today. People would likely say "Oh, it sounds just like Beethoven. How boring!".

There is no question that one can easily imitate somebody's composing style so that it sounds similar. It is of course much more difficult to come up with a truly deep and well structured symphony, because it involves more than just technical aspects. Yet, I think you are underestimating the capabilities of today's composers. It might not be comparable to the greatest works of the composers you mentioned, but it could easily pass as one of their pieces. Lot's of scholars got fooled by imposters in the past...

[JK]

If Brahms was able to compose in the style of Beethoven, why not somebody today. People would likely say "Oh, it sounds just like Beethoven. How boring!".

:oI'm sorry but I really don't agree with this statement, Brahms didn't composes "in" the style of Beethoven but was strongly influenced by him, especially in works such as his first symphony. Yes of course there are elements of Beethoven in Brahms' music because he was influenced by him, but everyone after Beethoven was influenced by him, even people like Wagner. For me Brahms' style is very unique and instantly recognizable. He didn't copy Beethoven but carried on where he left off, whilst creating his own personal music, afterall their music is bound to be different because they have different personalities etc.

As for whether or not Beethovens' music can be easilly imitated today, I don't think this is possible and I partly agree with Monk. Nobody can completely imitate him because there will never be anyone like him again, noone with quite the same personality etc. Also take into account the circustances under which Beethoven composed, at this time his music was revolutionary and new, today these circumstances are very difficult to recreate. It may well be possible for people to imitate aspects of his style, after all every composer has tradmark harmonic progressions, use of instruments etc. however Beethovens' music is so remarkable and aweinspiring (IMO) because of the context that it was composed in and the way in which his character is expressed, something that I think will never be recreated!

Lastly, why on earth should the fact that a large amount of people don't appreciate the skill of improvisation stop people from doing it!? It is worth while learning anyway, even if it's just for your own enjoyment. Also there are some people that appreciate it, and anyway when Mozart was improvising Cadenzas and stuff, how many people would really have understood everything that he was trying to do?

[xvimbi]

:oI'm sorry but I really don't agree with this statement, Brahms didn't composes "in" the style of Beethoven but was strongly influenced by him, especially in works such as his first symphony. Yes of course there are elements of Beethoven in Brahms' music because he was influenced by him, but everyone after Beethoven was influenced by him, even people like Wagner. For me Brahms' style is very unique and instantly recognizable. He didn't copy Beethoven but carried on where he left off, whilst creating his own personal music, afterall their music is bound to be different because they have different personalities etc.

Many early works of composers resemble the late works of the previous generation. There are a couple of reasons for that: 1. a composer really admired another composer and tried to imitate him; 2. a composer really hasn't found his own style yet. They all got heat from the critics, "composer x sounds just like composer y. If he doesn't stop that, he will never become one of the great masters.". There are numerous, well-documented examples. But that is not really the argument here.

As for whether or not Beethovens' music can be easilly imitated today, I don't think this is possible and I partly agree with Monk. Nobody can completely imitate him because there will never be anyone like him again, noone with quite the same personality etc. Also take into account the circustances under which Beethoven composed, at this time his music was revolutionary and new, today these circumstances are very difficult to recreate. It may well be possible for people to imitate aspects of his style, after all every composer has tradmark harmonic progressions, use of instruments etc. however Beethovens' music is so remarkable and aweinspiring (IMO) because of the context that it was composed in and the way in which his character is expressed, something that I think will never be recreated!

I already stated that I definitely believe that it is possible to compose in the style of another composer so that it will be very difficult to distinguish the "fake" from the "original". No matter what the circumstances are. It's been done before. So, I don't buy the idea that there is no one who can compose like the old masters. Composers do not only avoid composing like Bach, they even avoid to compose in the style of the times of Beethoven, Brahms, Dvorak or Bruckner, and that would definitely be possible. Here is why I think they won't do it:

1. People are not interested in hearing stuff that they have heard for the last four hundred years. They want novelties. There are not enough people who would really enjoy ten more symphonies in the Beethoven style.

2. Composers need to live. Most of them live from commissions. Nobody who funds a composer would commission a symphony that sounded like Beethoven. Foundations and concert halls want something unique to attach their name to.

3. Composers are not interested in composing something that sounds like somebody else. They want to present their own individual style. They want to be known as "John Doe, the composer", not as "John Doe, the guy who sounds like Beethoven". Same thing in all other areas of the Arts (painting, dancing, architecture, etc.).

To refute the idea that composers nowadays are not able to compose like the Great Masters, let me present a simple statistical argument. 95% of the great composers came from Europe, mostly Germany, Austria and Russia. 95% of the great Jazz composers come from the U.S. 95% of the great Salsa composers come from Latin America. It would be a spectacular coincidence that only Europe had all the great classical geniuses, only the US had all the Jazz geniuses and so on. It is because a genre was invented in a certain area and the people living in that area were exposed to that genre much more, so more of them composed in that style. The same argument applies to time, not just geography. It would be a similarly spectacular coincidence if the great classical composers lived only between 1600 and 1940. Boom, all of a sudden they die out? People have gotten smarter in all areas; in music, people play better than ever. There are probably more excellent pianists alive today in Europe or the US alone than there were in the entire period between 1600 and 1940 in Europe. Is it plausible that composition should have stagnated when everything else has advanced? I admire the Great Masters, and I would not dare to insult them. Saying that it is possible to compose in their style and come up with great sounding and deep works is not an insult at all. I believe it is rather an insult to the current generation to claim they are not as good as the Great Masters. In fact, a lot of film music is very complex (one could say "deep") and clearly in the style of the time of the Great Masters. I bet you, good film music composers can imitate any style and period in a convincing way.

Lastly, why on earth should the fact that a large amount of people don't appreciate the skill of improvisation stop people from doing it!? It is worth while learning anyway, even if it's just for your own enjoyment. Also there are some people that appreciate it, and anyway when Mozart was improvising Cadenzas and stuff, how many people would really have understood everything that he was trying to do?

This brings me to my last point. People do things only when they have an incentive. If they would enjoy it, they would learn it. However, the most prevalent incentive today is money. You can bet your grandmother that, if classical improvisation would pay loads of money, you'd find loads of classical pianists who improvise. Improvisation is not THAT difficult. Jazz musicians make a living out of it. The structures of classical music are not so much more difficult than Jazz, so that nobody would be able to handle it. They don't because it doesn't pay! It doesn't pay, because no one cares!

[Baron_Clavier]

Did jazz music pay off in the beginning?
And
can you be interested in something you've never heard??
Are people interested in new compositions??

Off course you have to introduce new music, compositions and improvisation. A bad way of doing it may be to have an entire performance consist of it.

In the past, the pianists put in some of their own compositions in their recitals, backed up by already known, recognized works.
Why wouldn't it be possible to add just a bit, and not more, improvisation?
The audience isn't braindead, some will identify it and if those who don't, like it, then they will find out.

Jazz as a style wasn't created in a day, and in it's infancy it didn't really roam the world.

[Baron_Clavier]

@Motrax

I've thought about Rach's recordings as well. But isn't it strange that today, it would be unacceptable to "play" with his compositions? Even when he himself gave a hint/his permission?

There are composers and there are performers. I don't agree that the performers have to be slaves under the composers wills

[Baron_Clavier]

Writing as another composer:

Have anybody else of you heard of the test they did with Bach's music?
A panel of professionals had to identify a piece by the authentic Bach.
They had to listen to a couple of Bach-copies made by other composers and one of them was made by a computer.
The majority thought the computer generated piece was the authentic one!!

We have entirely different capabilities today, Bach didn't have a piano, Beethoven didn't have an electric guitar etc. But nevertheless we end up make their sphere the arena of comparison.
There are lots of brilliant minds out there, maybe a Beethoven squared, but why would they necessarily compose for the classical orchestra??

[xvimbi]

Writing as another composer:

Have anybody else of you heard of the test they did with Bach's music?
A panel of professionals had to identify a piece by the authentic Bach.
They had to listen to a couple of Bach-copies made by other composers and one of them was made by a computer.
The majority thought the computer generated piece was the authentic one!!

We have entirely different capabilities today, Bach didn't have a piano, Beethoven didn't have an electric guitar etc. But nevertheless we end up make their sphere the arena of comparison.
There are lots of brilliant minds out there, maybe a Beethoven squared, but why would they necessarily compose for the classical orchestra??

Abolutely true. The Bach example is just one of many. To re-iterate it, and to shake those ivory towers a bit more , it is trivial to write in the style of Bach, Chopin, Beethoven or any of the other Great Masters. Their music is not difficult to comprehend, nor is it difficult to imitate. In fact, one could go so far as to say that any scholar who can't copy Chopin doesn't really understand what s/he is doing. No offense, Monk, but imitating Mozart is just a Fingerübung (excercise). Students get yelled at if they can't do it (I don't know what the standards are in your Music Department). Same thing about Beethoven sonatas.

The Great Masters were great for different reasons. They pushed boundaries, came up with new structures and concepts, changed the face of music. Sure, they sometimes found ways to express a story in a particularly compelling fashion, or came up with pleasing melodies. There will only be a few of those pieces in anybody's life (Lennon/McCartney had a few more). But to be honest, they also wrote a lot of bad-sounding "crap" and simpler pieces. To look with an awstruck face at every poop that Bach produced is really ridiculous and is a reflection of a rather simple mind.

[monk]

xvimbi, please show me ONE example of a sonata in Mozart style written by a scholar which I would mistake for a real Mozart sonata and which I would equally enjoy.

If you can't do that directly, please name me the composer so that I can contact him and listen to his composition.

I'm ready to be convinced by you - but I will regard your claims as crap until I myself HEAR that what you say is true.

Composition students that I know can only compose "technically correct" poor (or just O.K.) copies of a style, but not masterworks.

You don't seem to comprehend that a masterwork is more than certain techniques, structures and sounds.

Best Wishes,
Monk

[Antnee]

I have to agree with monk...

It's very easy to compose in the similar style of a composer because they're styles are so evident...

That's why they were famous. They had they're own obvious and enjoyable musical style...

But, I don't think anyone would have the genius capacity to compose like one of the greats. I can't imagine anyone today composing an Appassionata sonata or anything remotely remarkable... To say people today can compose as well As beethoven could is pure Bullshit. Anyone can imitate anybody... But Someone can only imitate somebody to a certain point. If you were to listen to the imposters long enough, and then hear a Beethoven... You would notice...

"Oh, it sounds just like Beethoven. How boring!".

Who the f**k would say that!!  If I heard a symphony or sonata that was evenly remotely comparable to he genius of Beethoven I sure as hell would not find it boring... I would find it remarkable...

But I've never read or heard anything about anybody composing any symphonies rivaling Beethoven's since Brahms and although he was influenced by Beethoven's writing, he developed his own style as well and became popular for what he himself was capable of.

Why is it not impossible that any Genius composers haven't been born?? Franz Liszt was born almost two hundred years ago and there has not been one human being to match him technically on the keyboard. Just the same with composing. Maybe no one has come along with the equal musical genius of the great composers. Even the great performers of today are serious musical geniuses but they don't compose much. Do you compare what they compose to that of Beethoven?
No. No one does such things. It's not possible. No matter how hard they try to imitate someone, they will only mirror some of the elements in their music.

As monk says though, if you can provide a score or recording of a modern composition comparable to that of a great composer's. Go ahead...

-Tony-

[xvimbi]

xvimbi, please show me ONE example of a sonata in Mozart style written by a scholar which I would mistake for a real Mozart sonata and which I would equally enjoy.
If you can't do that directly, please name me the composer so that I can contact him and listen to his composition.

You know quite well that this is not fair. You probably know all Mozart sonatas, so you would be biased

Many works have been discovered posthumously and then assigned to the wrong composer. This is proof enough. You want a name: Fritz Kreisler wrote many pieces himself that every scholar accepted as coming from other composers. The Bach example above is another proof.

I'm ready to be convinced by you - but I will regard your claims as crap until I myself HEAR that what you say is true.

Composition students that I know can only compose "technically correct" poor (or just O.K.) copies of a style, but not masterworks.

You don't know the right people And only a few of Mozart's sonatas can be considered masterworks.

You don't seem to comprehend that a masterwork is more than certain techniques, structures and sounds.

I do quite well. So let me ask you: What makes a Mozart sonata a Mozart sonata? The answer is: Original sheets that were clearly hand-written by Mozart Seriously, it's his style and technique, the way he built up variations around a theme, used harmonies, nothing else but technical aspects. He had a great ability to come up with particularly gorgous melodies, but many people had that. He applied his technical style to them and, boom, had a sonata. There are quite a few composers from the same time who wrote excellent pieces, but they are not regarded as well, because they didn't get the publicity. A lot of it is in the name.

[monk]

As I suspected:

You can name no example of an existing composer who can do that.

Your claim is not more than an assumption.

To take Kreisler as an example is not valid, because:

1) He doesn't live in our time, but he lived in the time when great composers were alive,

2) "The scholars" accepted his pieces as coming from other composers - but a) are scholars not the criterion, because often they have unlearned to hear unbiased and naturally (worst are theory teachers at university - they often have unbelievably bad taste) and b) if a work is really good, it is played and heard - where in the repertoire are those Kreisler pieces?
So I doubt very much that his pieces were on the level of the "originals".

For example, Prokofiev's "Symphony Classique" or Stravinskys neo-classicist works or some things by R. Strauss ape older styles - but they are in the repertoire and regarded masterworks because the composers really knew what, above technical things, makes a masterwork.

Best Wishes,
Monk

[xvimbi]

Why is it not impossible that any Genius composers haven't been born?? Franz Liszt was born almost two hundred years ago and there has not been one human being to match him technically on the keyboard. Just the same with composing. Maybe no one has come along with the equal musical genius of the great composers. Even the great performers of today are serious musical geniuses but they don't compose much. Do you compare what they compose to that of Beethoven?
No. No one does such things. It's not possible. No matter how hard they try to imitate someone, they will only mirror some of the elements in their music.

We are going in circles. You don't find composers writing in the style of Beethoven or Mozart, because of the reasons I laid out above. Brahms did not try to imitate Beethoven, only at the beginning. Then he was pressured to deviate, but this is not proof that he would not have been able to. Today's composers won't do it, because it won't fly. Even if people agreed that a piece sounds just like a Mozart sonata and is just as fullfilling, people will always know it's not a true Mozart, so it won't be accepted. Composers are well aware of all that, so they won't waste time on a futile task. The only way to get it accepted is to declare that it was miraculously discovered and then assign it posthumously to a certain composer. There are many pieces assigned to the wrong composer (including Bach), so why the resistance?

There is simply no proof that nobody today is able to compose like to Great Masters. It's an opinion. You would only be able to find out if you gave everybody on the planet a couple of years to try. However, there is a lot of evidence already out there that demonstrates that people are well capable of writing pieces that can pass as the pieces of any Great Master. I feel I have said everything I wanted to say about this subject. It seems, no one is going to budge, so then let's end the discussion.

[Baron_Clavier]

Haha, this discussion turned out so funny!

We coul put it in another way:
Show me any of those old composer being able to compose like xxx today!
(which DOESN'T necessarily mean CLASSICAL orchestra)

Give Beethoven Logic, a sampler and some music warez and see what he will create..

I feel sad that the most gifted persons of the human history and future were born within five hundred years ago - I have nothing left to live for, I'll throw myself and my grandpiano out of the skyscraper. :-/

@Rondo
How do you know? All we have left is mostly stories about Liszt. There's no recordings or similar out there to actually prove how good he was. This feels like one of the other axioms out there that you just blindly have to accept.
Yes there are comparable pianists, take Art Tatum for example.

@monk
The experiment with Bach involved a posthumous piece. The panel consisted of professional musicians, Bach-interpreters, knowers etc.
Are we coming to an conlusion that it's possible to copy the style of Bach but not Mozart??

To be recognized you have to have more than excellent composing skills, you need to have publicity as well.
Today it's not just a matter of  writing "a new masterpiece comparable of Beethoven". You have written a new symphony (or whatever), now what? Just because you have some sheets of paper with blurbs on on your desk doesn't make you into a god of classical music.
In fact, even if it is better than anything that Beethoven ever wrote, you still need to get people to listen to it, i.e. get a symphony to play it ($$), record it and try to spread it.
But who *** would care?? There is zillions of new music out there great and bad, dying slowly because "why would we listen to that when we can listen to some good old Beethoven?"

[JK]

The experiment with Bach involved a posthumous piece. The panel consisted of professional musicians, Bach-interpreters, knowers etc.
Are we coming to an conlusion that it's possible to copy the style of Bach but not Mozart??

Just a last thought. Surely it would be theorectically easier to try to imitate the music of Bach due to the mathematical nature of his music. His music is based on rules of strict conterpoint and as long as these rules are followed then it is possible that a machine could copy his style. For example I don't know how many of you have studied Bach Chorales but when given the top line and asked to fill in the others it is very often possible to create something that isn't that dissimmilar to what Bach himself did.

Lastly I think what is most important to say is that although people can write chorales just like Bach and sonatas like Mozart, this ability is not very impressive as it is simply copying the methods and techniques of past composers. What makes these composers such as Bach and Beethoven and Brahms great is the context in which they were composing, the resources that they had available and especially in Beethovens' case the accepted ideas as to what music should be at their time. The fact that Beethoven went against these ideas and wrote his great Eroica symphony is just one of many things that makes him one of the greatest, this piece was revolutionary and is considered by some to  be the start of romanticism. What I would argue is that a lot of the music of Beethoevn and Brahms is not simply based on certain mannerisms that they had but is much more about an expression of their personal emotion, consider Brahms' unrequited love of Clara Schumann as an example. This alone is a reason as to why composers can't really properly imitate past masters, simply because they aren't Beethoven and they aren't Brahms.

[Antnee]

This was a good discussion guys... We should have more like this...  

-Tony-

[stevie]

This was a good discussion guys... We should have more like this...  

-Tony-

true.

i also believe that some people alive today are as musically gifted as mozart and beethoven, its just their talent is directed in a different way, thats all.

[prometheus]

Improvisation in the european classical style has been sacrificed. If it is revived it will need to be build up from the ground. I have thought about it, and I don't see how the refinement of the compositional tradition can be used in improvisation. So a whole new tradition and style with it's own refinements will need to be developed.

[randmc]

Speaking of classical improv, i posted some in the audition room.

[leahcim]

The majority thought the computer generated piece was the authentic one!!

EMI isn't it? It's done Mozart's 42nd Symphony and Chopin as well.

I think the program is more akin to Deep Blue w.r.t chess though - not so much an adaptive artifical intelligence program that can play chess or compose music - more a brute-force data processing program that's searching for moves from a database or chopping up music and reassembling it and thus owes most of its success to the fast processing and algorithm [i.e the programmer, who is a composer, not the programming or program]  it uses.

Although to me it seems questionable why experts on particular classical composers wouldn't know the repertoire well enough to know which pieces weren't genuine - although I guess a composer with prolific output might have some obscure pieces you can dig up.

Computer AI and composition is interesting though - just the fact it angers folk shows that.

edit: oops, didn't see this was years ago

[abell88]

I think organists are still expected to improvise...at least in France...

[c18cont]

Wish I hadn't missed this thread....,

I would not play if I did not improvise also....It was and is a means to better music and enjoyment, and for me is related to some areas of composition. At the same time, as a limited composer and retired composition teacher as well as other teaching in other music areas, it is I would think, easier for me to do than for someone who has studied only piano....I went to school to become a teacher and had to learn many things to a LIMITED level...

While I studied both private and university for my music, even those never going through advanced education can learn the methods, and there are historical methods available , including J.S. Bach....It is surely worth some time to learn.

Improvisation makes for a better musician in my experience.

John Cont

[principe7613]

xvimbi, please show me ONE example of a sonata in Mozart style written by a scholar which I would mistake for a real Mozart sonata and which I would equally enjoy.

If you can't do that directly, please name me the composer so that I can contact him and listen to his composition.

I'm ready to be convinced by you - but I will regard your claims as crap until I myself HEAR that what you say is true.

Composition students that I know can only compose "technically correct" poor (or just O.K.) copies of a style, but not masterworks.

You don't seem to comprehend that a masterwork is more than certain techniques, structures and sounds.

Best Wishes,
Monk

Dear mister Monk, i like to dare you....I'm a scholar in both piano (major) and composition and i tried last year to write a classical sonata that could stand next to mozart and haydn. Now I must add that up 'till now i only finished the first movement, because this job turned out to be extremely difficult and I'm like thinking days about whether to add here or there a extra septime or not, ... But if you want i can make you a recording of this piece. I played it some times for teachers or friends and a lot of them took it for a sort of undiscovered Haydn or Clementi piece..so i'm curious what you would think about it.

as for improvisation I think it is part of the natural swing between ratio and emotion (or, to use Nietschze's terms Appolonian and Dionysian elements) in art: we live in a extremely rationalized world, where indeed perfection from a intellectual view is considered a highly important feature of music. It's true that one needs an almost genius mind to be able to control áll musical parameters during a improvisated performance: jazzmusicians for example (and excuse me this generalisation) often lose control of soundquality and resonance when the climax is reached and start banging the keyboard. But since jazzmusic often the part of interest is the building up and originality in harmony, we are (subconsiously) looking for that in an intellectual way, and we forgive the pianist his too harsh playing.

apart from the question of improvisation as an art, for me personally it is really important, since it allows you to develope a technique of playing which is very natural and suited to the fysiology of your body; for myself i've developed this as far as that i often first compose a piece in a certain style, and than look to what's the closest written in the conventional repertoire.

on the quality of improvisating i think it has a lot to do with developing your imagination and fantasy: i doubt that someone who's main next hobby is watching TV will be able to improvise very well: he's just passively getting impulses, while improvising is maybe one of the most active and allround ways of playing music, at least when one tries to do it well. The strange thing though is that it seems that there's a lack of good literature on this subject. A lot of books dealing with improvisation are quite narrowly focused on the harmonic and vertical aspect, while actually the most difficult thing is to improvise a very nice melody and to keep it more or less intact/sustained while performing formal operations on it (trough variation, counterpoint, etc.) If anyone knows a book who deals with this horizontal aspect, I'd sure be really interested.

yours sincerely,

Joost from Belgium

[c18cont]

Composition Major's should improvise; It is a growing thing that allows the development of expression in the abstract canvas that is music...

I have no doubt with study and effort you may closely relate a style from a master; now it is to develop the style, and that must be for a reason and worth it for you, as that requires even more work...It is wise to develop a few general areas of interest, in my experience..

I never found composition to be easy, nor did most of my students....But I will say that it did seem to come quite naturally to a very few....

My Regards,   John Cont