Keith Jarrett a umbria jazz 07

[soultrane]

Originally Posted by Plush

I find the commentary that says that classical performers are less "creative" than jazz performers to be absurd. Those who espouse it have a lot of explaining to do in order not to seem provincial and naive.

It seems that those people with this point of view have no conception of what is involved in playing a string quartet, a piano concerto or sonata or singing a version of Strauss's Four Last Songs.
It's mindboggling. It's also arrogant.

why is it absurd?

a classical musician, say, richter, "creates" nothing, except interpretations of pieces. to do this, he practices hours and hours a day with the printed score.

another musician comes along, lang lang or someone, and he gives another interpretation of the same score.

maybe he plays it at a different tempo;

maybe he plays with different articulation;

but he is certainly not creating a new piece of music.

the composer is the one who does the actual creative work. as horowitz said, "we do not have a crisis of pianists, but a crisis of composers."

the unique thing about jazz is that often times, the composer and the performer are one and the same, at the same time.

i know many good classical musicians who perform at a high level, yet nevertheless they would be at a loss to improvise anything whatsoever.

[soultrane]

Originally Posted by Sharp11

This is what I love/hate about the web, I make a point, you mischaracterize it in an insulting manner, and around and around we go.

What Billy Childs writing a commissioned piece for orchestra has to do with this thread is beyond me - we already determined early on Jarret couldn't master the written composition (sometimes it's a good idea to go back and re-read earlier posts).

We had been discussing Jarret's contributions as a PIANIST, not an orchestrator.

I never equated record sales to "quality", I was responding to your claim Jarret had somehow helped jazz to wither on the vine because of his "attitude", a silly claim considering his enormous popularity. I'd rather believe jazz sucks really bad at the moment because nothing meaningful has happened in the idiom for say, oh 25 years or so.

You didn't understand my reference to how a newer generation of jazz musicians (of which Keith Jarret was only a part of) brought a new language to jazz, far beyond where Bill Evans had been. That would be the whole lot of players from Brecker, to Metheny, to Burton, Hancock, Corea, Jarret and only a few hundred more.

Jarret comes at it from that perspective - a perspective I personally relate to.

For some reason you felt "privileged", compelled even, in reducing my point to an insulting comment about Jarret having listened to the Beatles and playing an ostinato.

Do you not see that as insulting?

Anyway, this is pointless and not worth engaging any further - you just sound envious of the man and more than a little bitter - why else post the same tirade over and over again...

Oh and a post script:

Yes, I've "heard" Roland Hannah - for only about 150 years (i'm 50, how the **** old are you anyway?) and Miller (who does nothing at all for me, jeeeze, the less said there the better).

Ed

wow, you are old!!

but, just a few points. i am not envious of jarrett in the least. i am thankful for his success, and indeed, in this climate, the success of any musician.

the reason i mention childs, or anyone else for that matter, is to show that jarrett's genius is not singular. hannah does nothing for you? miller does nothing for you? ok, well, that's fine;

but certainly, you cannot say keith jarrett is a "better" pianist than mulgrew miller; you can only say you like keith jarrett better than mulgrew miller, as they are both, as it seems to me, virtuoso pianists.

if you think that holding down an ostinato for 30 minutes while playing some gospel riffs all the while groaning and otherwise making pseudo-obscene body movements at the keyboard is the height of music making, by all means, enjoy jarrett's playing, as i have done, and may do again in the future.

but can we at least agree that as talented as jarrett is, it is bad form to criticize the audience after they have paid for the tickets?

cannot we agree that there are other musicians that might have been worthy of hearing at the umbria festival, and that JARRETT is the one who should feel privileged that people plunked down their discretionary euros to hear him?

jarrett's sales are tiny compared with the sales of some of the heros of jazz from days gone by...

this "you're so lucky to be hearing me" attitude is one of those reasons...

[soultrane]

the bottom line is class...

wasn't there a classier way to say "i don't want people taking videos or pictures" then to berate and cuss out the audience?

even having someone else come out and say "mr. jarrett requests that all video devices be shut off at this time" would, as it seems to me, have done the trick much better.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

Well I never said, nor would I, that jazz was more musical. I said that, for the musician, for the player, it was more creative.

The issue we made was that your definitions are biased (more creative sounds like a 'better' thing) and a red herring to what's important, musicality.

There is no doubt that single note choice exists in jazz and does not in classical, but that's not defacto "creativity". Most of the time it's paraphrasing, which is interpretation, and so too is classical interpretation. Jazz can be wanking and empty ego, where classical can simply be lacking. The idea of choice, like the word creativity, is a red herring ... it's like assuming all Americans are "free". We're getting to the esoterica here.

For the player, there is always a preference between genres. For the audience there are only degrees of musicality from any genre, and their ability to enjoy what's presented.

[butterfly]

Henry you seem to have opened a very large can of worms here. This is and has always been a point of intense contention between jazzers and classical musicians. I have found in my dealings with both camps that many jazzers seem to wear a large chip on their shoulders which seems to stem from the belief that what they are doing is somehow more intense, meaningful, creative, individual and perhaps more valuable than those musicians who merely read the notes on a page. As doorknocker states "playing what's on the page is never enough" Sure there are hundreds of professional classical musicians all over the world doing just that in orchestras throughout the world counting down the minutes to the final curtain so they can get to the pub before last orders just as there are thousands of 16 year old school girls boring their music teachers to death and murdering "claire de lune" whilst thinking about downloading the new Akon ringtone. However Just playingh the notes would not get you a job in the concertgebouw or the met opera orchestra most of these players are supreme soloists in there own right who undergo a rigorous audition process. At the same time I know many very talented classical musicians who would claim that they can't improvise or that they don't have an origonal musical thought in their heads and have a genuine admiration for those that can. Thats all well and good but as plush points out singing Strauss' 4 last songs and getting anywhere near to what the composer intended or what an informed audiance might expect of a performer is an enormous responsability that can only really be prepared for by years of study and dedication.......it's not an option if you really don't feel you can make that crucial diminuendo on the penultimate high B flat to substitute it with another less difficult note that you have decided might sound better anyway. Anyway forgive my ramblings.......it's a subject about which one could hypothesize all night.......so many insightful postings on the subject from other gearslutz.....I'm a big fan of jarret as I am of Bill Evans just as I am of Kisssin, Vengerov, Jean Yves Thibaudet, Renee Fleming, Ella Fitzgerald, Notorious Big, Donald Fagen.....and a hundred others from al styles and disciplines what do they have in common....well doorknocker, Lucey, Plush and Dale al stated it in their own ways.

[henryrobinett]

I don't think I opened a big can of worms at all. I don't have a chip on my shoulder about this at all. That my statement that jazz is "more creative" for the player than classical music, seems to be a "red herring" isn't what I think. I cannot interprete how I will be misinterpreted. If folks want to read between the lines rather than the lines I speak or write, I cannot help that.

It seems utterly clear to me. But maybe I'm missing some very important and salient point. I'm speaking as a musician; a player. Reading notes and interpreting great works of art may be very fullfilling for some. For ME, I love creating those notes. I have a field where I can do this nightly, gigs permitting. I have an audience who enjoys listening to me create. I'd have to write for an orchestra or an accomplished classical musician, get grants and pay musicians to rehearse, or be a student or teacher to have said works performed. But that's as a classical composer, not the avrage classical musician that I'm speaking about. Or I can try to write for films.

But with jazz I can just create; my own state of grace. And creating like this is a phenomenal experience for me. That's why I do it. Once again I am NOT saying one is better than the other, except for me personally. I like to create. I LOVE to create. I love throwing notes against others and listen to what I've never heard before. But that's me, from the point of view of the player.

I've played with jazz groups in front of symphony orchestras. I remember one guy, the first violinist asked after a rehearsal, "You keep playing those solos differently each time. Are you making that up?" I told him I was and he said that it was simply amazing. Somehow this never ocurred to him. I've had many, many guys say they wishde they could do this.

I was brought up listenig to classical music. I love classical music. Everything from Bach to Berlioz, to Stravinsky to Penderecki to Bartok, Hindemith, Brahms, Debussy. I played a lot of classical guitar and transciptions of various pieces for electric guitar.

We used to have guys from the city symphony orchestra come out and listen to us all the time. Many of those guys are jazz fans and appreciated what we were able to do. No competition. Several of our musicians were classically trained, most notably our pianist who got a double major from Eastman in classical performance and jazz. He still gets called to perform and back up travelling classical performers. Rght now he's on the road with Bobby Hutcherson.

There's a lot more respect between the fields than you guys seem to believe. Once again I'm not saying one is BETTER than the other. But they are different. This difference lies in the very act of creativity. One is creative and the other interpretive, in the main.

I see no conflict, I see no red herring I see no can of worms. This can of worms is not mine, but perhaps belongs to others who think I'm pushing their buttons. But the button isn't mine, I assure you.

I love creating music. That's how I define playing music. That's me. That's my only issue with also being an engineer. I'd much rather create music than polish it.

[henryrobinett]

I can only assume that there's a misunderstand of what jazz is. Or maybe a misunderstanding of what improvisation is.

Jazz, by definition, is MAINLY - improvisation.

Classical music, by definiton is NOT improvisation.

Improvisation is an act of creativity where upon you bring all of your resources to the fore to create something new. It doesn't, by definition have to be great or even good. It's merely improvised.

Improvise = creative.

Creative means - relating to or involving the imagination or original ideas, esp. in the production of an artistic work.

This coes from the word CREATE which means to bring something into existence.

ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense [form out of nothing,]

Mingus told me, "Play your own shit, even if it stinks." It's about bringing your personality through by your choice of notes, articulations, style, tonal and rhythmic sensibilities, good or bad.

Creative is not a qualitative word. It's not judgemental. It has to do with creating.

[Dale]

henry
"Once again I'm not saying one is BETTER than the other. But they are different. This difference lies in the very act of creativity. One is creative and the other interpretive, in the main."

I think that both are creative, jazz allows you to create through notes composition,
classical makes you create through note playing, shaping the tone, balancing the interaction. it requires a "practiced" musician to excel with classical creativity.

[butterfly]

Henry, I wasn't actually directing the comment at you I said I knew a lot of players with chips on their shoulder....I wasn't being presumptious. I completely take your point about it being liberating to create "new music" every night, and sure the practical requirements for a composer wanting to get his music heard can be daunting. I would hate to think that what I or anybody else has said on the subject has driven a wedge between the camps or disciplines. But I think there is a degree of suspicion there....I have met it before and I'm sure I will again. But I think comments such as that made by soultrain kind of miss the point....sure Richter or others may spend weeks with the printed music......to learn the notes and understand the composers intentions but that process is really just the beginning of the process and is the groundwork required to facilitate a performance or interpretation whereby the performer can forget about the mechanics and focus on the personal communion with the composer and the music and hopefull bring something unique and beautiful out of that. You mention that classical players were often in awe of the fact that as a jazz player you never played anything the same way twice.....I agree many are. However That initself is not a quantifier of quality, insight, inspiration or genius is it? Likewise There are classical players who never perform a piece of music in exactly the same way every time.....that is what it is I suppose to be a human being....a feeling, living, breathing individual whose experiences or emotions shape their the way they feel about the world or a piece of music at a given time. Sure there are great virtuousoi in every field with masterful techniques who fall well short of ever saying anything meaningful or connecting with their audience.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by Dale

henry
"Once again I'm not saying one is BETTER than the other. But they are different. This difference lies in the very act of creativity. One is creative and the other interpretive, in the main."

I think that both are creative, jazz allows you to create through notes composition,
classical makes you create through note playing, shaping the tone, balancing the interaction. it requires a "practiced" musician to excel with classical creativity.

Yeah, but what is that creativity? You're all hemmed in with someone elses notes. For me it would kind of be like havnig to go outside in someone elses clothes, drive their car, live in their house for a time. For me the question is why do I want to do that? It's just a creative choice. Once again I'm not saying one is better. I'm saying that for certain types of individuals who have an enormous creative bent perhaps doing music where someone elses notes are given to you might not be the best field for you to be in.

Of course it takes a very, very accomplished and practiced music to play classical music. Technically more than your avreaqge jazz msuican. But they both require different tihngs.

[Dale]

"Yeah, but what is that creativity? You're all hemmed in with someone else's notes"

when using traditional instruments, all notes are someone else's ....

micro and macro tunings or noise shaping are pushing the borders of exploring a new vocabulary. Cage & Schaeffer both brought a new aesthetic to the music table.
Jazz still follows traditional tunings / traditional instruments which "hem" you in!

and as an aside, the Doors hated committing a song to tape as it limited their live performance.

[soultrane]

Originally Posted by butterfly

sure Richter or others may spend weeks with the printed music......to learn the notes and understand the composers intentions but that process is really just the beginning of the process and is the groundwork required to facilitate a performance or interpretation whereby the performer can forget about the mechanics and focus on the personal communion with the composer and the music and hopefull bring something unique and beautiful out of that.

yes but richter will never, for instance, play the first movement of the "waldstein" in 3/4, where as a jazz musician might decide to change the time signature right in the middle of a piece.

or, richter would never play the waldstein in d-flat just on a whim, but a jazzman can change the key of the piece whenever and wherever he sees fit.

when you say personal communion with the composer, you hit it right on the head. but communion is not the same as "dialogue" with composer.

i have great respect for the best of classical musicians... but we must now admit that the only thing worse, financially speaking, then being a jazz musician is being a classical soloist.

who is going to hear an unknown 18 year old competition winner play chopin nocturnes, when, with near perfect fidelity, they can hear a recording of rubenstein playing the nocturnes from the comfort of their own sofa?

at least in jazz, with someone like jarrett, you really don't know what you're going to hear... especially in his solo concerts...

(except that you will hear grunting...)

it is almost impossible for the upcoming classical soloist to compete with the mountains of top level recorded performances available to the audience... the jazz man can still fall back on the fact that what he plays in concert will be nothing like he played on the recording.

[Remoteness]

Awesome thread!!

[lucey]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

Improvisation is an act of creativity where upon you bring all of your resources to the fore to create something new. It doesn't, by definition have to be great or even good. It's merely improvised.

Improvise = creative.

Creative means - relating to or involving the imagination or original ideas, esp. in the production of an artistic work.

This comes from the word CREATE which means to bring something into existence.

ORIGIN late Middle English (in the sense [form out of nothing,]

With respect to you, and I've never heard you play, my point is that what is to you "creative" may be to others not much more than variations on a theme. If I saw you play 10 nights, some would be more inspired than others, some would be more habitual. You're not always creative as it's impossible to be creative all the time. You're going to have themes, ideas in various stages of process. Licks and riffs and habits in disguise to most people. To be truly creative all the time would kill a person, literally, as it's that hard to maintain. So yes, it feels creative to be off the chart, but there are only a few real moments of "bringing something NEW" into existence. The rest is variations of pattern and interpretations of the past no different than classical.

To say you're bringing something new into sound is a very high bar, and not the same as changing the notes from last night around a number of established and interwoven patterns. New means truly inspired and fresh, not based in habit and pattern of any kind. Most jazz is a derivation from a pattern. Nothing special in that sense unless the player is really ON that night. Same for a classical player except it's the exact same notes no matter the night.

Classical players can't improvise as a rule, and so yes, they are impressed. But it doesn't make it truly new and truly creative, even as you've defined it, and no offense to your skills, which I've always wanted to hear.

[Dale]

"who is going to hear an unknown 18 year old competition winner play chopin nocturnes, when, with near perfect fidelity, they can hear a recording of rubenstein playing the nocturnes from the comfort of their own sofa?"

the instruments do not sound right on most classical recordings do to limitations of the technology and each live performance is _different_!

"(except that you will hear grunting...)"

shades of Glenn Gould

"it is almost impossible for the upcoming classical soloist to compete with the mountains of top level recorded performances available to the audience..."

hell, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Sun Ra, why not stay home and play the recordings ...
no one can touch them....

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Henry, I wasn't actually directing the comment at you I said I knew a lot of players with chips on their shoulder....I wasn't being presumptious. I completely take your point about it being liberating to create "new music" every night, and sure the practical requirements for a composer wanting to get his music heard can be daunting. I would hate to think that what I or anybody else has said on the subject has driven a wedge between the camps or disciplines. But I think there is a degree of suspicion there....I have met it before and I'm sure I will again. But I think comments such as that made by soultrain kind of miss the point....sure Richter or others may spend weeks with the printed music......to learn the notes and understand the composers intentions but that process is really just the beginning of the process and is the groundwork required to facilitate a performance or interpretation whereby the performer can forget about the mechanics and focus on the personal communion with the composer and the music and hopefull bring something unique and beautiful out of that. You mention that classical players were often in awe of the fact that as a jazz player you never played anything the same way twice.....I agree many are. However That initself is not a quantifier of quality, insight, inspiration or genius is it? Likewise There are classical players who never perform a piece of music in exactly the same way every time.....that is what it is I suppose to be a human being....a feeling, living, breathing individual whose experiences or emotions shape their the way they feel about the world or a piece of music at a given time. Sure there are great virtuousoi in every field with masterful techniques who fall well short of ever saying anything meaningful or connecting with their audience.

Once again it's not me who has the chip on his shoulder -- oh oh. I don't mean to offend.

I've known many jazz musicians who had this chip on their shoulder and gave all of us bad names, but to be truthful they were the students, young players, by and large not the seasoned pros who know better. There's always some old guy who is resentful of young whippersnappers who actually can't play (by their definiton) who are making all of the money and getting all of the gigs. But you know, that's the nature of the beast.

I already said there was nothing in the definitons pertaining to quality, didn't I? I thought I did.

I will say this, as arrogant as it may sound -- I can play. I've always played from a purely improvised state. I find it impossibe to play the same thing twice. I cannot do it. It's not part of my DNA, so to speak. I never learned licks. I never learned patterns to speak of. To me jazz has always been a game of create, create, create. Sometimes it's good. Sometimes it's not. But that's the fun and that's the challenge.

It's not part of my make up to think of one thing being better than the other. I just don't do that. I don't think Chick's better than Jarrett and I don't think Jarrett's better than Teddy Wilson. I don't think Dukes better than Stravinsky and I don't think Stravinsky is better than Bach. That's just not the way I think. I see each thing as being different and unique unto itself. If someone else wants to read that into what I say, that's their interpretation, but it would be wrong.

Jazz is jazz and classical is classical. They are not the same. Those who wish to be creative, meaning to make up their own music, they either become classical composers or jazz composers/improvisors. That is if your bent is virtuosity, otherwise you can go into rock/hip hop/country and be a songwriter or producer.

But for practical reasons it makes more sense to do jazz, if you like jazz, because it's easier to get gigs and get recognized. Plus you can still create and not be a composer.

Once again I'm not saying that THERE IS NO CREATIVITY with classical musicians. It's just so limited. You're beholden to your conductor, teacher/coach (you forever have these) and the music itself. There are copious instructions on how to interprete the composers music. I've had arguments with certain classical musicians who swear there is no such thing as emotion in music! They say it's all DYNAMICS. That by interpreting the dynamic markings they give the feel of emotion, but there's no actual emotion present. Its all an illusion of loud, soft, legato, sticcato, etc..

To me that's just plain stupid. But I can see their point. But too much thinking makes Jack a dull boy. All the more reason I like the immediacy of improvised music. It has "right now" moment of that human benig playing with all his emotions, feelings, thoughts fleeting across his/her instrument, giving forth sound that was created then.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by lucey

With respect to you, and I've never heard you play, my point is that what is to you "creative" may be to others not much more than variations on a theme. If I saw you play 10 nights, some would be more inspired than others, some would be more habitual. You're not always creative as it's impossible to be creative all the time. You're going to have themes, ideas in various stages of process. Licks and riffs and habits in disguise to most people. To be truly creative all the time would kill a person, literally, as it's that hard to maintain. So yes, it feels creative to be off the chart, but there are only a few real moments of "bringing something NEW" into existence. The rest is variations of pattern and interpretations of the past no different than classical.

But I'm not talking about the listener. I'm talking about the player. I'm not talking about what is good/bad. I'm talking about what is creative. I'm not talking about quality of creativity. I'm not talking quality of anything. Some nights may be more creative than other nights. So nights may be repetitive. Some uninspired. But it's still creative.

To say you're bringing something new into sound is a very high bar, and not the same as changing the notes from last night around a number of established and interwoven patterns. New means truly inspired and fresh, not based in habit and pattern of any kind. Most jazz is a derivation from a pattern. Nothing special in that sense unless the player is really ON that night. Same for a classical player except it's the exact same notes no matter the night.

I don't think it's a high bar particularly at all. If I did I'd be incredible intimidated every night. But it's a game, you know? It's what I do and what I've always done. And I've played with some of the best and been trained by some of the best.

That you may have a standard that's different from mine in terms of what is truly new and truly fresh is not important to me. What's important is my standard, not anybody elses. And I have a very high standard. But to someone else my standards might be shit.

I'm not here to talk about my playing. I can't do that. I will say that most people recognize my style as me and do not get my style confused with anybody else, within a few notes. But it's not for me to say whether my standard will satisfy your criteria. I do know I play different from song to song and night to night, performance to performance. But it's not something I think about. Thinking about it fuks up the process. The process is being here and now and not thinking at all.

[Dale]

Henry

I accept the feeling of being entrapped within music that does not trigger me.
rote memorization is not my forte
traditional tunings / scales / notation are for dead art forms.
music theory is for dead music.
all music that is formalized and taught in a university is dead.
art museums show work by dead people.
by the time someone records a piece of music, it is dead.

do you build your own picks and strings ????

ps colleges teach jazz and rock and country and bluegrass and classical

the last musical instrument is the SPEAKER
what tuning/triggering do you use???

[lucey]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

But I'm not talking about the listener. I'm talking about the player. I'm not talking about what is good/bad. I'm talking about what is creative. I'm not talking about quality of creativity. I'm not talking quality of anything. Some nights may be more creative than other nights. So nights may be repetitive. Some uninspired. But it's still creative.

Creative is a real quality, recognized by an audience, or not ... it's not a subjective intention. It's not a feeling for the player, it's real for the world. It's not enough to be changing notes in the moment and to call that creative and "new to the world". The intention has to be joined with discipline, serious ability, inspiration and awareness, and just maybe you'll have a creative something or other result for part of the set, or a long moment in the set if you're great.

This is more than semantics, so I'll go on. You're saying that what Jazz is, is creative. Then you've defined creative as being new to the world. That's too bold and self aggrandizing to connect up as self evident just because you feel it and wish for it.

Now if you mean Jazz is "in the moment" and "new to this moment in this place" then I agree, Jazz is in the moment. Yet so is classical music new to this moment in this place with these people. If you want to say Jazz is new and creative by definition, simply because there are not defined notes, then I'd say you're dreaming of creativity but not seeing it fully.

To say "I prefer to play Jazz" is totally cool. I'm not a classical player, and as a player I could never do the written word! But I don't have less respect for the creative moment of classical vs. jazz for the player. It's always up to the player and the moment, the creativity, it's not a style based quality of work.


And as far as being "intimidated every night" I actually think you should be, we all should be intimidated and intent on greatness as performers. There is no point to go on stage, in front of 1 or 10,000 and be less than amazing, given the history of music and the importance of people's time. If for nothing else than our own development toward creativity and away from comfort and habit ... be intimidated and excel.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by Dale

"Yeah, but what is that creativity? You're all hemmed in with someone else's notes"

when using traditional instruments, all notes are someone else's ....

micro and macro tunings or noise shaping are pushing the borders of exploring a new vocabulary. Cage & Schaeffer both brought a new aesthetic to the music table.
Jazz still follows traditional tunings / traditional instruments which "hem" you in!

and as an aside, the Doors hated committing a song to tape as it limited their live performance.

Ha! Well that's the game. There are only 12 notes. They're not someone elses notes. If they belong to someone tell me who to return them to. But the wonderful challenge is what to do with these 12 notes? Creativity doesn't mean INVENT SOMETHING SO NEW AND STARTLING PEOPLE WILL LOSE THEIR MINDS AND SHIT THEIR PANTS AT THE FANTASTICALLY NEW MUSIC!! LOL!

No. It's really simple. Create something. We do it all the time. We're doing it now. We're writing messages. Maybe they're not aesthetically pleasing messages, but it's creativity. And if I put restrictions on myself that it had to be like nothing else that's every been created, well that'd be just stupid. Create. Just create. Everyone can do it. Talk. That's creating something. It's not magic. It's just that some musicians do it with their instruments. Jarrett tries to spin it as this high minded, magical thing only he can do. I don't think there's anything any human being can do that another human being can't also do.

[butterfly]

.....this is a healthy debate and many very valid points have beeen made. I'm sorry Henry I'm kind of with lucy on the matter of improvisation and agree that many improvisers are merely reinterpreting patterns which they have learned. I just get this impression even though you say have no chip on your shoulder that to be an interpreter is somehow pejorative whereas those who improvise are on some higher spiritual plane. Now this may seem peculiar but in the end as a listener I really don't care whether the performer has written the music himself, improvised it from another source, stolen it made a pact with the devil etc etc. It just doesn't matter I think we probably all agree. I write music, I perform music by other people.....and I reinterpret the music of others.....I really don't have a preference. However what does annoy me and I'M NOT referring to you henry are people who live in the "jazz bubble" who eat, sleep and shit "jazz" likewise classical snobs or "HIP HOP" heads. In short anyone who label and thus restrict themselves.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by Dale

Henry

I accept the feeling of being entrapped within music that does not trigger me.
rote memorization is not my forte
traditional tunings / scales / notation are for dead art forms.
music theory is for dead music.
all music that is formalized and taught in a university is dead.
art museums show work by dead people.
by the time someone records a piece of music, it is dead.

do you build your own picks and strings ????

ps colleges teach jazz and rock and country and bluegrass and classical

the last musical instrument is the SPEAKER
what tuning/triggering do you use???

Dale --

I don't share your senitments, but I think I can understand them. I don't think theory is dead or traditional tunings are dead. Or traditional music.

They way I interprete music forms my theory of music. I use standard tunings because I don't like to guess what notes are coming from my guitar. I like to know. I use to build my picks, but I can't get tortoise shell any more.

I think music is very much alive. I mean I play it and breath it practically every day and I play with musians I very much respect. I'm alive last time I check so music must be alive. I assume you too are alive and make music, so it must be alive for you too, no?

[GearBit]

Originally Posted by soultrane

is it any wonder our music, jazz, a once vital art form, is now a tiny elitist turd circling the bottom of the toilet bowl one last flush from being washed away forever?

ROFL!
Quote gold.

Just saw thie clip and like most I am not really that suprised. I did wonder for a second if this level of a$$holism could be the beginnings of jarretts alzheimers?
If it gets any worse the 30 minute ostinatos will turn into 30 hours.

It is sad the most poignant memory from his last Toronto appearance was his behavior and not his playing.

Maybe he is taking his cues from popular culture?

I have been a fan of jarretts since the colon concert.
The songs heartland and country (where he steals the page that aaron copland pulled from the shakers) are some of the very few that have brought a tear to my eye.
I have also read his ramblings of the past and as much as he has taken popular music to task I just allowed him that.
This however, is a new level for which I really don't think there are very many consequences. It's not like jazz fans are gonna riot.

Regarding the classical/creative part of the thread.
Classical is like painting by numbers. Some will do it better than others but it will still be the same picture (music).
Improvised jazz is painting the picture. Maybe it looks(sounds) like jackson pollack but it is created on the spot.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by butterfly

.....this is a healthy debate and many very valid points have beeen made. I'm sorry Henry I'm kind of with lucy on the matter of improvisation and agree that many improvisers are merely reinterpreting patterns which they have learned.

So? Many composers do too. There are patterns which are like patterns of speech. They form a style. I mean if you play a Bb and follow that with C, uh, don't NOT do that because you did it last night. There are only 12 notes.

The point, for me, is the being is playing himself? He might repeat himself all night long for all I care. You might also talk to him and he might repeat himself all night. My mother does. For me, I don't know what this has to do with creativity or not.

The definition of creativity Lucey is referring to came from the dictionary, not me. And the quote about "from nothing" was where the word derived from, middle english, not what it currently means. Creativity, as I understand it, is merely a product of the imagination.

[lucey]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

Creativity, as I understand it, is merely a product of the imagination.

Like I said, you can imagine that something is creative, when in fact it's simply play.

"Play" is a major component of Jazz, and is not a component of classical. You seem to be calling play creativity, and there is much more to creativity than playing in the moment.

Discipline is the major factor in all musicality and musical greatness, and Play is an element in Discipline. The degree of play varies in each musical format. But Play alone? Not enough to be called creative. If that were the case than every Jam Band would be self-evidently creative. They are all playful, as are all jazz groups to a varying degree based on the era they do.

[butterfly]

....Henry we could go round in circles all night....in the end it's all kind of subjective. I think what comes across in your posts is that you are passionate and thoughtful about your art and I imagine this comes across when u play also. I think it's kind of interesting to get the perspecive of someone like Lucey whose discipline demands a degree of objectivity. All in all a fascinating debate but must go to bed as I'm working in the morning. Thanks fellas.

[Sharp11]

Originally Posted by soultrane

but certainly, you cannot say keith jarrett is a "better" pianist than mulgrew miller; you can only say you like keith jarrett better than mulgrew miller, as they are both, as it seems to me, virtuoso pianists.

Then you follow with this......

if you think that holding down an ostinato for 30 minutes while playing some gospel riffs all the while groaning and otherwise making pseudo-obscene body movements at the keyboard is the height of music making, by all means, enjoy jarrett's playing, as i have done, and may do again in the future.

Mixed messages....

At this point I don't know what it is you're trying to say except you continue to Jarret up then bash him by being dismissive of his career and contributions.

Btw, I did say he was an asshole and I cut him no slack for that, again, you need to read more carefully.

What bugs me about Miller is it's all rehash - I'd rather listen to real 60's post bop, but that's me.

I never said I didn't like Roland Hannah, but he's from another generation - he has his place, so did Evans and Hank Jones; people I love, but they're not germane to this discussion.

Here's the thing, you made the charge Jarret was undeserving of the praise he's gotten over the years, you claim to be mystified as to why that's so, and you offer, as "proof" it shouldn't have been so, three people you happen to like better, as if the say this is "fact" that they are "better", but toil in obscurity, and challenge anyone who's listening to disprove your strawmen, Hannah, Childs and Miller.

Then to further confuse the issue, you say no one is "better" than anyone else (something I disagree with, technically speaking, but that's a whole 'nuther thread).

Accept the fact that Jarret has built quite an audience for himself over a long career - no one says you have to like him, I admire many musicians who wouldn't like nor understand Jarret's contributions - for instance, I doubt highly a brilliant composer like the late Aaron Copland would've found anything worthwhile in KC's meanderings, but so what? AC was from a different era and genre (in fact, he HATED jazz) - yet I love his music.

Ed

[Dale]

Henry

my prose was a little off the wall ...
I was trying to follow your logic on jazz vs classical ...
It is good to hear you are a traditionalist !!
locked into your form and enjoying it.
music is an art form that needs the performer who feels empowered by their role.

Kick out the Jams ... moth... er ... brothers and sisters

[henryrobinett]

Lucey -- I cannot debate with you, ever. You don't listen. You have to make your point and never the twain shall meet. Maybe I resemble that remark! LOL.

I don't know where you're making this distinction between play and creativity. But you can do that. To me it's always been creativity. Yo can call it "pushcart" for all I care. For me it's the act of creating something that I haven't played before. Or maybe I have, but it's not memorized. It's coming from my fingers, or my mind. It's coming from my imagination and my fingers are bringing it out. Play? Sure? Creativyty? Sure. Pushcart? Sure. I don't understandhow you are distinguishing them, but for you, just so you can be right, sure. I don't care.

I write music as well. I'm a composer. I once lived from my BMI statements. I see the process as the same. Jarrett said a composer is an improvisor with an eraser, or something like that. I agree with this.

[Sharp11]

The "row" I got into with Jarret I alluded to earlier in this thread, was at a q and a session (something unusual for him and generous as well) back in 1988 after a concert series in NYC.

He was doing his harpsichord recordings then, but also a separate tour of solo piano improvs.

I challenged him on his position he pulled everything out of the sky, fresh, every evening as if the spirits drove him. As a reference, I cited his most recent recording at that time (escapes me which) and the week or so of concerts I'd attended. What I heard was a development of a certain theme and structure; it changed over the course of a week, but it's clear he was working on something.

He got annoyed with me and said something like "sure man, even Bach repeated himself...."

It was an interesting exchange, I saw it as a positive composerly thing, he saw it as a challenge to his credibility.

It gave me great insight to the man.

Ed