Signs of promise - a salute to Jim Baker (1)

[ted]

This month I shall post a complete improvisation in high quality, possible owing to Johan's generous increase in allowable file size. I split it into three sections with overlapping of around a minute. Unusual for me, it is a continuous recitative, formed from the stimulus of Jim Baker's evocative album, "More Questions than Answers", and its powerful associated imagery of ritualism and formalism within a cityscape, a "Land of Lit-upness", a "bona fide hell zone" as David Thomas Roberts puts it, rather like the paintings of Edward Hopper. The title comes from the opening of Ives's fourth symphony.

I probably shan't do it again as nobody has time these days to listen to anything longer than a few minutes, a fact I was tactfully but firmly reminded of by the Pianoworld crew concerning my contributions to the adult beginner recitals.

[ranjit]

I like the part starting at around 18:00. To me, it feels like you fish around for ideas for a while, relying on muscle memory and patterns initially, and your improvisations gain complexity and interest after around 10-15 minutes, when ideas arise "from the fog", so to speak. Would you agree?

[ted]

Yes, that is what I think too, and I have never been able to do much about it. I consider my openings weak, with very few exceptions, although a number of listeners disagree with me. Perhaps they just like "foggy" music, which I suppose is a perfectly valid preference. Thanks for listening, your analysis is very perceptive.

[aclaussen]

Hey ted,

Listened to the first 3-4 minutes multiple times. I really liked what you were doing harmonically, if my ear is right you were sometimes playing a blues scale over some really dissonant chords ins in the left hand, maybe the scale was diminished/melodicminor more often? I don’t have a piano in front of me so I’d check if I did. As you can tell my ear training is not where it needs to be but I can still say that harmonically it was interesting to me personally.

However I was trying to listen as an average listener, cause from the point of view of a classical composer, they would say this is interesting. I’ve been going through the process of putting my music out there on Spotify, iTunes, submitting to blogs, etc. Perhaps you might do the same, or perhaps you are happy submitting to this forum and sharing with friends. Personally I’m trying to make music that is accessible to everybody, specifically listeners that haven’t really been exposed to jazz or classical. You might not care what these kinds of people think but I thought I’d say that before I went it to other thoughts cause that’s the context of what comes after..

Seriously the things you do harmonically are really interesting and I haven’t heard before (or at least cannot recognize). The more and more I listen to it I like it. But I thought I’d share my very first impression, because I think that captured more closely what your typical average joe listening to it. Initially I was thinking “ok where is this going, I don’t feel it” in the same way I hear some people say about modern classical music. The problem is I’m writing this now on listen 3-4 and I actually think I understand what you’re trying to do and am enjoying it more, but I suspect average joe on his first listen (and in 21st century joe is only going to give it one listen for a brief time before moving on if he cannot get into the listening exerpeience) needs some kind of more regular pulse.

I’m saying this cause I think my music has the same problem. While I think this could be a respectable piece of classical composition, average joe will not care. Like I listen to your improvisation now and I think the opening is cool, but I think average joe needs something that he can understand right away and maybe a steady danceable pulse for him to like it. This has that pianistic sense of rhythm, but it won’t make you want to get up and dance. It’s not easy to get into for average joe. Like I listen to Phillip glass, one of the most successful modern composers, and my head starts nodding (like you see in those rap videos) within the first seconds of listening to those Etudes. I think it’s possible to get into with that pianistic rhythm and not danceable but still accessible to average joe (albeit less so) for example the piano solo opening in grandfathers waltz (Evans).

Just my 2 cents. Things I’ve been thinking about for my own music having similar issues, I’m trying to move my music in that direction. But seriously back in my college/high school days  if you had put this out as a classical piano solo compositionand I was looking for repertoire to put on a program, I would have seriously considered putting this on my competition/recital program, especially if it was shorter like 3-4 minutes.

Edit: also I think you should consider published call of thousand isles on spotify, etc. I think average joe would be able to get into that easier because of the runs, consonant harmony, sense of rhythm, ect. I like your music, it gets a good response on this forum, I’m curious what a broader audience would think. Maybe I’m off base on my earlier assessment, it’s basically what I’ve been thinking about my music. I thought it applied more to this improvisation than thousand isles (that seems to have been more of a finished work) but even that one, I wonder if joe can really, easily get into it in a manner that a Spotify algorithm or pandora algorithm would sense user engagement/ listening and want to add it to users recommendations.

I’m starting to care more what average joe thinks about my music (opposed to before where it was classical competition judges, professors, other piano students), you may not care. If so then I suppose much of this comment does apply but I think if you actually published your music on those platforms you would care a bit possibly. I suspect we are in different points/places in our lives so you might not care.

TLDR: I think your music would do very, very well in the context of the concert stage in a traditional classical piano context, but I wonder how well it’d do in the medium of music streaming. If you were targeting those platforms, would it affect what you would be putting out?

[ted]

Thank you for listening and for commenting in such observant detail. It deserves a sincere attempt at reciprocation. You have mentioned the harmonic aspect before and so have a number of people on forums and on the rare occasions I play at piano parties. This has always been a puzzle to me because I have little knowledge of harmony and rarely base my music on it. I enjoy it, of course, and have a reasonable keyboard vocabulary but, aside from the really simple ones, I do not know the names for most of the combinations I use. I am sure you are right about which scales I used in this piece but I would not have known that at the time I was playing.

I do actually pay a lot of attention to the comments of naive listeners, the ones you refer to as "Joes". There is good reason I do this, namely that they will not hesitate to say exactly what they think. Professional musicians, academics and very knowledgeable people will tend to comment as they imagine others might expect them to comment, and will refrain from saying things which appear inconsistent with their standing in the musical world. I therefore take considerable heed of the remarks of the naive listener.

Truth be told, I do not address my music to anyone in particular, it is just something I feel compelled to create, for reasons I have already outlined in various places here. Anybody who likes it is welcome to the entire output of recordings and scores. I have never wanted to be in the music business although my teacher in my youth wanted me to become professional. He was a very prominent pianist and composer of immense talent but the horror stories he told me of his own life in music completely dissuaded me from taking that direction. In any case, I do not possess even a scrap of the necessary ability and temperament for it. 

It seems to me that many of the musical issues you discuss come down to a matter of personal preference. In the end all art is completely free and each of us just produces the sounds he enjoys. Is there really any more to it than that ? To what degree are perpetuity and supposed universality actually dependent on musical sound itself ?  As I approach old age I come increasingly to the the conclusion that most of these properties emanate from social, economic, even memetic forces. I cannot listen to very much Glass, and do not understand Evans, for precisely the same reasons you enjoy them. It doesn't matter, there is no right or wrong about it.

I do not have any connection with the internet music facilities you mention, those which claim to discern my taste and make suggestions about what I should listen to. Suffice it to say that I tried one of them and it didn't work very well for me. I am suspicious of them for the same reason I am wary of musical theory and magisteria such as classical and jazz and their associated panoply of rules. The nub of the matter is that they all presume to usurp my rightful creative volition, the delightful serendipity which lies at the core of all musical creation. Rules are for fools.

I am sorry to read that you consider our music has a “problem”. Never in my seventy-two years have I embraced this assumption. Indeed, prior to my membership of music forums, about seventeen years ago, I was blissfully unaware of the appalling degree of competitive angst in the minds of pianists and musicians generally. I find enough to worry about in everyday life without adding my music to the quagmire.

In any case, I wish you well with whatever direction you take your music.

[aclaussen]

I am sorry to read that you consider our music has a “problem”. Never in my seventy-two years have I embraced this assumption. Indeed, prior to my membership of music forums, about seventeen years ago, I was blissfully unaware of the appalling degree of competitive angst in the minds of pianists and musicians generally. I find enough to worry about in everyday life without adding my music to the quagmire.

Your music may not have the “problem” I’ve described, only if you measure “success” (whixh is a term some might not like to be used with art/music) by this very specific metric I’ve described (traction on the likes of Pandora), which very few composers today do. you’d only know if you tried to publish on these platforms.  Even if those algorithms/curators  for platforms do not promote your music, the “problem” (which they might, I do not know) I’ve described is only my theory to explain my personal lack of success thus far, with success very strictly defined as getting traction on these platforms. It very well could be you put your body of work out there and there could be traction right away or slow but steady organic growth that I haven’t had thus far.  I might have jumped the gun but that would be my guess. Of course, many musicians do not define success this way and only recently have I done this. Like you said, it might not be mental healthy or productive to do so.

What exactly do the “joes” tell you?

Also while I would say that “competitive angst” is part of what is behind my motivations, I would say it’s more of hoping to be in a situation where I could actually make a living off of making music, specifically original music these days. It seems you decided not to go this route and have no desire to do so. Growing up I would always look a bit at the people teaching music as frauds because they couldn’t make a living entirely off of it, and that phrase “those who can do, those who can’t teach” rang in my mind. now I feel like the fraud now that I’m teaching. It’d also be nice to not have to punch a clock and have the power of “*** you, I can walk away” that’d come with that kind of passive income. Money isn’t only motivation here, as I was pursuing music for a long time never expecting to make a living off of music.

But great recording and improvisation, I’ll definitely be continuing to listen to your music. I actually am more entertained/intrigued by your music that Phillip glass, but for some reason he seems to capture “joes” (but like I said yours might to if you published it). The question for me would be how do I capture what makes glass’s  music accessible while making music that is still coming from me.

[aclaussen]

 

It seems to me that many of the musical issues you discuss come down to a matter of personal preference. In the end all art is completely free and each of us just produces the sounds he enjoys. Is there really any more to it than that ? To what degree are perpetuity and supposed universality actually dependent on musical sound itself ?  As I approach old age I come increasingly to the the conclusion that most of these properties emanate from social, economic, even memetic forces. I cannot listen to very much Glass, and do not understand Evans, for precisely the same reasons you enjoy them. It doesn't matter, there is no right or wrong about it.

“ To what degre are perpetuity and supposed universality actually dependent on musical sound itself?”

I mean look at the job of a film director. You could ask why has the original Star Wars trilogy had such success as it’s basically gone down as a classic. Suppose A film producer today who wants to recreate that success. I think while yes there there are social/economic/memetic elements there is a universality/perpetual element to why that original trilogy gripped people like it did. For example, It followed the monomyth the hero’s journey very strictly (George Lucas talks about this), while storytelling/writing that falls short might be missing elements of this classic template. I think good film directors try to break things down like this. Similarly I think on some level it’s possible to ask “what makes this a good jazz solo” or “what makes this composition work”. If  perpetuity has no dependence on the musical sound itself, what’s the point in getting a music education as a composer or trying to improve at all? Also that would make the job of the music theorist absolutely valueless.  That belief would go against a “growth mindset” that psychologists say is vital. It’s pessimistic for someone looking to improve their music making.

[ted]

 
..If  perpetuity has no dependence on the musical sound itself, what’s the point in getting a music education as a composer or trying to improve at all? Also that would make the job of the music theorist absolutely valueless.  That belief would go against a “growth mindset” that psychologists say is vital. It’s pessimistic for someone looking to improve their music making.

That makes me ponder a great deal. Perhaps it has something to do with age. As a kid I loved Beethoven's music (I don't now) and saved my pocket money to buy Tovey's analysis of the sonatas. What a disappointment. It is just a bald description of facts that anybody could see for himself - now he's using so many bars of this chord, then so many of that - nothing at all about the actual creative process.  Then, just over three decades ago, I tried to "improve my music making" by studying with a prominent local composer of academic distinction. He told me things I was doing wrong in my compositions and I made a sincere effort to understand why. However, after the course had finished I still preferred my "wrong" sounds to his "right" ones. Therefore yes, I think theory is in fact valueless to me personally; might not be to other players, of course, I wouldn't presume to extrapolate that assumption.

As to your first post, I am simply not qualified to pass an opinion on what it must be like to be a professional musician; it must be horrendously competitive and unpredictable. I have a young friend, a recent honours graduate in composition, who is setting out on that path and he is finding it very difficult. Except for a select few, art and money have always exhibited a fundamental incompatibility. I am glad I happened to be good enough at something else to earn a decent living for my family while playing and creating how I pleased. It might have resulted in my being a musical happy pig rather than a wretched Socrates but I accept that.

What do the "Joes" tell me ? Naive listeners frequently tell me about things I was previously unaware I had been doing, and they invariably do it in a direct, unsophisticated way. A case in point was William Harris, alas now gone, professor in some other discipline, not music, at Middlebury College. He said of my playing, "Were you aware that you repeat all sorts of things exactly four times ?" He was right, but the fact had escaped musicians of my acquaintance. That is the sort of precise, simple comment I find very helpful. 

[quantum]

I have listened to this a few days ago and gave it some time to sink in before commenting. What strikes me the most is the way you select material.  Sometimes you are just browsing the shelf of the library, some books are interesting but you do spend much time on them, while others catch your attention.  You open them up and investigate further, locating themes you wish to further develop.  It is very admirable that you share the larger picture of your workflow here.  This day in age so many want to present that perfect recording. 

I need to listen more to this. 

[ted]

Thanks for listening Neil. I think it a pity that many more players do not cultivate recorded free improvisation as their principal medium. However, my seventeen years on forums has told me that pure improvisation, spontaneous creation in the sense of not trying to imitate structures of the past, is still very much regarded as a poor man's music. Perhaps I am just lacking something, maybe a bit shallow, but I have never understood why a recorded improvisation cannot qualify as a work of art as much as notated music. I see my music as a mapping of my psyche, soul, consciousness, whatever the fashionable name for it is, onto abstract sound. For me the most fluent process to effect this is unfettered stream of consciousness. People have told me that is all wrong, lazy and so on, "anybody can do that", they say. But I have worked extremely hard, especially over the last decade, and laziness really has absolutely nothing to do with it. Also, since most listeners haven't the faintest clue whether they are hearing a spontaneous improvisation or a scrupulously composed piece, I find most arguments against it spurious. Also if anybody can do it, why are 99% of trained executants hardly able to express even one or two ideas of their own ? There is still a mystery here somewhere, but at seventy-two I cannot be bothered attempting to discover it any longer.  Thanks again for your insights.