No, you never said that. I listed examples of pop musicians that I think most would call great, will be classics, etc.fmr wrote:Did I say that I consider those great?Where did I say that?
It's your opinion that an improvisation would never produce anything worthy of mentioning in terms of art. I disagree strongly, and there are plenty of examples recorded throughout time on many records.fmr wrote:Music is an art form, yes. But music as a build, created with a purpose. The "here's the charts, now let's improvise on it" attitude, while it may be fun, and give you a lot of fun, will hardly produce anything worthing mention in terms of art. If a painter go to the Louvre, and decide to "improvise" over the Mona Lisa, he/she may come over with a good paint (hardly, but we have to consider that as a possibility), but it will be a strike of pure luck if something worthing the "art" classification would come out of that action. So, why would I trust the "let's improvise" as a way to come out with something artistically and musically meaningful?
A painter improvising over the Mona Lisa is a poor analogy. The Mona Lisa is a completed painting - the colors are there, the lines are there, everything is already there. An improv'd music performance gives you the chord sequence and lets the musicans decide what and how to play it in a way that they all rhythmically and harmonically work together.
No, your statement is ignorant because you make the claim that you have nothing to learn from these great or non-great musicians - however you look at them. The musicians I listed are great because they helped define a genre and grow and expand a genre. They're great because they have repertoires of music in the genre that are defined as classics by most anyone that knows anything about the genre. They're great because their techniques and performances were attempted to be emulated by many that came after them. There is no comparison to anyone. Just because a musician is great in one genre doesn't mean musicians in another genre are not great, and vice versa. The composers you mentioned - I enjoy a great deal. I would call some great, while saying I don't know enough of the body of work of the others to make that kind of determination.fmr wrote:Now, regarding your "compliments". Ignorant why? Because I don't agree with you, and dared to say that your sacred monsters may not be so sacred, after all? Why are they great? Compared to whom? Would you consider any of the quoted greater than, for example George Gershwin? Charles Ives? Elliott Carter? Aaron Copland? Leonard Bernstein? Take note I am just mentioning these as they are all american, not because I consider these the greatest.
Classical music often entails the use of a lot more musicians than a jazz trio.fmr wrote:As I wrote, improvisation was present in music during the Renaissance, Baroque, and the first classics. It was abandoned because composers decided that they couldn't trust on the musician "moment" to come up with something on pair with the written parts. Bach (which was reportedly a fantastic improviser) didn't trust on musician abilities to improvise. Mozart left the cadenzas unwritten in his piano concertos because he was supposed to play them himself (and Mozart was... well, Mozart). Beethoven was the first one to write everything. And he even wrote cadenzas for many of the Mozart piano concertos.
I wouldn't trust a section of violins to all improvise well together either, and that's just one section...I would say that one can convey a very good sense of where he/she wants to go from the chord progression outlined in a chart, and most charts also have a defined melody and gasp, sometimes even words!fmr wrote:Someone who simply writes a chart has no idea what he/she wants from that (or just have a musical idea, but going from that to a music composition is a long way to go).
I don't consider this debate dangerous at all - you've not shaken my scale of values. If you yourself can make the claim that these musicians I listed may be great in the jazz context, but not in the overall musical context, then you really know nothing of jazz at all. Again, your statement of not being able to learn anything from them is an indication of your lack of knowledge - something I call ignorance.fmr wrote:The dangerous... Maybe you consider this dangerous because I shake your predefined scale of values, but that's the way it is. For me, the ones you mentioned may be great in the jazz context (which is not the greatest thing on earth to me, as you probably already guessed), but in the music absolute context, not so much. And I have little to learn from them in terms of rhythm, arrangement or anything else (I would need to be very little knowledgeable to have to). Apparently, you are the one who needs to know more to have something to compare to.
I'm humble enough and experienced enough to know that I can always learn more. You're either God or some kind of arrogant.
OP stated previously he just wanted to know how to communicate the chord - or the notes in the chord to others he may be playing with or talking about the music, which is why I replied that way. I answered his/her question. And surprise, surprise - I agree with you. Without the musical context there's really not much more to know. Look, I came from a classical background and have since branched out into jazz. I didn't grow up listening to Bill Evans, but rather classical. My initial response to OP has absolutely nothing to do with my admiration of jazz musicians, but moreso to answer a question.fmr wrote:I will finish quoting something in your reply to the OP: "But if all you want is to tell someone who asks you what chord that is - you can say Em9 and they'll know what notes they are". This is exactly the point - they will know what notes they are - but they will not know anything else. This is a pretty reductionist and meaningless way to look at music, yet it's pretty common in people used to charts - everything is reduced to notes, chords and chord progressions.
