Newsgroups: bit.listserv.allmusic
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:48:59 PDT
Comments:     Resent-From: Mike Masuda <MASUDA@SJSUVM1>
Comments:     Originally-From: "OUT,
              OUT - YOU'LL NOT FEEL THE FALL-OUT..." <OLIVOTTO@ITNCISCA.BITNET>
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was ALLMUSIC@AUVM
From:         Mike Masuda <MASUDA@SJSUVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perfumed ambience

Marco says, says he:

>        One of the most fascinating listening experiences in the ambiental
music field is, IMHO, the famous "Music For Airports" (aka "Ambient 4") by
Brian Eno. But, no doubt, there *is* a structure. It can't be put on stave,
or at least this is not the best way to write it (just look at the rear cover),
it's as elastic as you can think, but there is a structure. The players are
not tightly bound to it -- and there's even a random element in the final
result since they know they must play a certain sound, taken from a certain
well-defined set, (e.g.: play either E, or G or B or F# -- but not other
notes), but they can play it *whenever they want*. Is this improvisation?
Yes. But the structure is there.  <

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.

>       Composition is not always a work for pencil and paper. When one sits
at the piano and starts to hum a tune he's "writing" and, at the same time, he
thumps more or less blindly in search for the right chords, he/she actually
both improvises and composes. There is an interaction, though both the extre-
me positions of the spectre are available (pencil and paper, total chaos --
respectively). <

Very well put, Marco.

>       Of course, different worlds are actually different: classical musicians
usually find it hard to improvise; jazz players sometimes can't even read music
(Satchmo was one of them). <

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).
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.

Let me ask the classical musicians out there, when was the last time
you just up and jammed on your instrument at a jam session?  If you
got that far, did you find yourself playing in a single modal structure,
blues, because you were afraid to try another?  Most guitar jams are in blues
scale, because most people are familiar with its modal structure.
Why not try a different mode?  Try something like D minor dorian or
a persian mode for a change.  With a little practice, you will be
playing (unbelievable) jazz!  You'll pick up on what notes sound better
together in each mode, and you'll use them as your signature motifs (riffs,
as guitarists would say).  As you start personalizing your motifs, you
will be able to play them with more feeling and in any key.

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.

I'd rather be the typist than the teletype.

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.

What do you think?
Marco, Sonia, anyone?

Y'know, to back up my side of the argument, a lot of classically trained
musicians have said to me, "Boy Mike, I wish I could come up with stuff
like that."  They could if they "practiced" the other way.

Maybe then, classically trained musicians
 will be playing your compositions for a change.

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 theory-trained musicians could pick out the good stuff
and manifest it into a new genre of music.  I know enough theory
so I can do this with my beginning musician friends with whom I jam.
It's oft frustrating, but occasionally, there's a jewel that comes out
of the ore.

That's enough for now,
sleep on it.

Peace.
Mike Masuda.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU