Original_To:  ALLM
Original_cc:  OLIVOTTO
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.allmusic
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 10:58:00 N
From:         "OUT,
              OUT - YOU'LL NOT FEEL THE FALL-OUT..." <OLIVOTTO@ITNCISCA.BITNET>
Subject:      Theory and improvisation (was RE: perfumed ambience)

Mike Masuda follows the composition vs improvisation thread and says:

>Might I add an aside about Classical Indian Music.  It too is structured
>in the same manner (i.e., only certain notes can be sounded, and when
>doing runs up or down, the notes are bent in a certain fashion).
>Given the structure and the main theme (which would include some of the
>manners the notes are to be bent or played), the rest is improvisation.
>Of course, there are certain parts where structure comes to foreground,
>as in the locking of time between the drum and solo instrument, but
>for the most part, it is a jazz piece within the constraints of
>time and modal pattern.

        I think Indian music is a perfect example. I am not quite sure
what you mean as "classical", but Indian music as I know it *is* a really
interesting mish-mash of structure and improvisation. I once attended a
show of Katakhali dance at school, which was more an "alternative lesson"
than a real show. It was interesting to get "forced", so to say, to recog-
nise the ragas as they appeared again and again under the improvisational
layer. It's a sort of "fractal music", we should say. It's not very easy
to swallow at first, since the concept of harmony itself is light years
away from what we are used to, but it's great once one's been able to
walk through the door.

>I have worked with classically trained musicians, and have found that they
>can be extremely boring when it comes to jamming, because they tend to play
>only what they can remember off the top of their head.  Sure, they
>can play very well when some sheet music is placed in front of them,
>but they are basically helpless in coming up with their own ideas
>(meaning a mix of what they've been exposed to and what they can play).

        No flames meant towards classical musicians, whom I respect a lot,
but I have to agree here. The silliest thing ever happened to me was when
an operatic singer telling me that "unless you sing correctly [in *her* own
terms, of course] you're only making noises". Of course I started to say
I didn't agree -- there are *emotional* aspects of singing that cannot
be just a matter of technique. She replied that "whatever emotional level
can be emulated when one has the right technique". And this really started
a discussion of course. When I definitely got bored, I said: "OK, now do
this...", and made a high-pitched modulated note in the Qawaali style
(well, I am no Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, but I got along well that time!).
She was momentarily stunned, and then she senteced: "not singing". I said
"True, but as for you - not living", and walked off. Vibrate, vibrate o
strings inside my mouth :)...

>They don't know how to play from their heart, which is truly
>an oxymoron, since music is supposed to reflect the soul of the person.
>They can play someone else's music with a lot of heart, but not theirs.
>That's where I think Western classical music training went astray.
>The teachers don't teach you from the very start that music is
>supposed to be enjoyable to the expressor--that it's supposed to be
>another form of communication.  Rather, its cold form is rigid in theory,
>and frowns upon "dicking around" on the instrument.

        There are glorious exceptions, though. Some performers really "live"
what they play, even in classical music. But I found it stunning when a
piano student (8th years!) told me he wouldn't dare write anything because
he felt he didn't have sufficient theoretical knowledge to do it. And he was
a hell of a performer! He could play almost anything he wanted to... so,
I wonder if there's something missing here: more or less any strummer on
a cheap guitar will try to blast out his/her own chords sooner or later,
without caring much of the technique and the form but merely going after
their own feelings and ideas. Why is there such a chasm between the two
worlds?

>Western classical training isn't like that at all--at least, not in my
>experience as a student of piano for one year.  I had more fun after I
>quit, when I was able to play what I wanted to play when I wanted to play.
>Music is expression of the soul, and if you go about all your life
>expressing other people's souls, well, I think it's unhealthy.

        Isn't this the real and serious danger of every artistical expres-
sion after all?

>On the other hand, if you like playing other people's compositions, you
>shouldn't be forced to improvise.  There's another sense of satisfaction
>that comes from getting through a Chopin piece without making any mistakes,
>and making it sound really elegant.  I understand that side too.
>But I think the former is a really cool thing to have in you if
>you have the creativity to do so.

        The best compromise is being able to do both things, I believe.
I know at least one pianist who started as a classical player to turn to
jazz in the end. He's been studying for the last 15 years, and is excel-
lent at both ends of the spectrum. Wide-minded too... :)

>Also, I've found that often, non-trained musicians have the most incredible
>ideas for music.  Classical training can't provide that, but there's a
>dilemma.  Non-trained musicians don't know a good idea from a bad idea--
>they aren't trained to pick up on these things.  Solution:  Theory-
>trained musicians should hook up with non-trained musicians sometimes,
>to collaborate on creating NEW music.  What a concept, eh?

        The problem is, probably, which "code" one uses to "read" music.
I mean: I've tried for weeks to arrange a part for a brass section; and
it did sound decent, but not really good. Then I asked for help from a
friend of mine who's been playing in a brass section for ten years... he
wrote down a full arrangement in 10 minutes and *that* sounded good. This
is obvious, there is a contribution from experience and craftmanship in
everything one does. But the point is that one shouldn't take the form
too rigidly: classical harmonies, alas, does. Any classical musician
can tell you that you should never have two voices moving in parallel
an octave or a fifth away; and, also, you should take care of those nasty
little bugs called "hidden octaves/fifths", which are "never written, but
actually - well, er, that is...".
        This is definitely the wrong attitude -- feeling "often wrong, but
never in doubt" :)... How about jazz? Brass sections more or less always
have voices moving a fifth away. It's a trademark, indeed: even the crap-
piest synth has a "Brass 5th" program... and still one hears "naah, it's
prohibited!!!". Ask Gershwin, as for that :).
        More unpredictably, I like to remember Peter Gabriel's "Intruder".
The opening chord, endlessly repeated is a diminished fifth. This more or
less "officially" means: 1) harmonic disaster; 2) resolution (usually on a
major 3rd). Gabriel brings it on without any problem, without disasters and
without resolving it. Ten thumbs up!

        Ciao, Marco "strange spaghetti in this solemn city"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU