Classical Musicians who dabble in jazz.

[some jive turkey]

I'm not trying to be a troll, or deflate anyone's spirit here. But I'm just simply wondering if others have had similiar experiences as I have had with classical musicians who dabble in jazz.
It seems that a large number of classical musicians are taught to play jazz on the side, maybe because they already have the necessary chops to do so. But a lot of the time, somethings lacking in some of these players. It's as if they don't view jazz seriously, or they don't have enough imagination to make it interesting, so they end up playing it by the book, just like some recording they've heard. In a lot of things I've read on the web , people have complained about boring combos who play standard standards, without interesting arrangements, or much innovation.

I don't know, I'm leaning towards the conclusion that (good) jazz requires some type of devotion to it, rather than being something you just dabble in among other things.

I'm just wondering what your thougts are on the subject.

[FillInTheBlankHere___]

Though as a violinist and percussionist, I love both jazz and classical perforamance, the general consensus that I've seen is that there simply aren't enough hours in the day to properly devote the amount of time required for the two artforms.

This seems to be the case for me, as though I've been dedicating myself much more to my classical studies on violin recently, as a result, my drumming has suffered and I don't get much chance to play outside of what ensembles I perform with due to my commitments to violin and my non-musical school work.

[Zappa]

Music is never great if the people making it aren't devoted and passionate about doing so.

[what]

My main study is classical guitar and composition... I play jazz for fun I know quite a few tunes and I can sometimes play an interesting improvisation... but it's not like I have my own original conception for jazz...

[fingerstyle]

I think I garee. In my experience, jazz is a music that uo need to be absolutley devoted to. It has to be THE way you express yourself. I mean, I've met many a great jazz musician who have amazing chops and can play VERY high level classical pieces, but alot of primarily classical players CAN play jazz, but there seems to be something lacking- like thry don't take it seriously or soemthing.

or, maybe I just had a bad upbringing...

[Dave de Sylvia]

Classical musicians are taught to read and re-create music but with little room for variation; some would call it cold. We're taught scales, composition and even improvisation, but we don't inherit the tradition of personalisation and addition that jazz musicians are. I guess the classical musicians you've come across approach jazz not in an unserious way, but merely approach it the way they were taught, to have reverence and respect for great music not by adding their own ideas to it but by preserving as much of what was there as possible.

[what]

Classical musicians aren't just taught to "re-create" music it's a big proccess of interpretation and personalization as much as it is in jazz, otherwise it is cold.

[Eman Ruoy]

Classical musicians aren't just taught to "re-create" music it's a big proccess of interpretation and personalization as much as it is in jazz, otherwise it is cold.
true dat

true there are some that do do just that. I agree classical music has much more subtle variations, but it's there. Be it the articulation or tempo.

[Zappa]

Classical musicians are taught to read and re-create music but with little room for variation; some would call it cold. We're taught scales, composition and even improvisation, but we don't inherit the tradition of personalisation and addition that jazz musicians are. I guess the classical musicians you've come across approach jazz not in an unserious way, but merely approach it the way they were taught, to have reverence and respect for great music not by adding their own ideas to it but by preserving as much of what was there as possible.

This is so far off the mark, as far as classical musicianship is concerned, it's insane.

[cedar]

yeah i was actualy offended on the innernets by that post

[Dave de Sylvia]

This is so far off the mark, as far as classical musicianship is concerned, it's insane.
Why? Are you telling me I'm not a classically trained musician?

Classical musicians aren't just taught to "re-create" music it's a big proccess of interpretation and personalization as much as it is in jazz, otherwise it is cold.
Cool, that's what I said.

[rockinbass17]

What if you turn the tables? Maybe jazz musicians trying out classical would not play it with as much dedication as they would playing jazz. It's just different people feel passionatly about different types of music, some find calssical strikes them more so than jazz, and others vice versa.

[Eman Ruoy]

yeah i was actualy offended on the innernets by that post
I hope that's sarcasm, cuz i know some stupid people who actually write stupiod things, like that.


And for you, whoeve ryou are, the classically trained musician. I don't think he ever said you weren't classically trained. Maybe you are. I tend to ignore that term though, because it's over used. Every time on teh grammy awards, i think, there is some douche who was "classically trained".

But Zappa, if you read the whole paragraph, it isn't too off the mark. There are plenty of musicians who play the Bach prelude the way they think Bach wanted it. Who play certain concertos they think the composer wanted it played. Some view that adding their own touches to the piece just ruins the original flavor. I dont think that view is necessarily wrong. Some might think it's limiting, but it takes just as much creative energy to try and replicate what they beleive Bach wanted the cello to sound like, or Rachmaninov wanted the piano to sound like. I do it. I don't use the pedals for Baroque pieces. Some do, but I think that's taking it too far. I guess it's kind of like playing Ellington but adding alot of dissonance. Sure it's jazz, but if you play Ellington in a very modern interpretation, every time you play it, you lose the original taste of the piece. Why not play Ellington, just as the Duke played it??

[Zappa]

Why? Are you telling me I'm not a classically trained musician?


I feel like the only way one becomes a "musician" is by reaching a point where they can interpret a composer's piece of music in a way that makes it their own, to an extent.

I was harsh, and I didn't read your post very thoroughly, but still. Coming from a line of professional classical musicians, I have never gotten a sense that classical music is about "reading and recreating" by any stretch.

As for Mr. Name's post:

It is my belief that "playing Ellington like Ellington did" is not possible, and it would not be a worthwhile exercise anyway. Dots on a page become "music" when a musician interprets them and expresses him or herself through them.

[Dave de Sylvia]

I tried to choose my words carefully to avoid such confusion, but I can see why they were unclear. I agree with what you've said, Zappa; I'm not trying to say classical musicians are mechanical. It's more like classical musicians look back, while jazz musicians look forwards; conservation vs reorganisation- if that makes any sense.

[Eman Ruoy]

I suppose it is impossible, but that's no good reason not to attempt it. Another thing that's important is that one should have his own voice, yet one of the best ways to find that voice is by imitating others and figuring out what you like. So the "useless" exercise of playing Duke like Duke, I find, is important.

[Eman Ruoy]

I tried to choose my words carefully to avoid such confusion, but I can see why they were unclear. I agree with what you've said, Zappa; I'm not trying to say classical musicians are mechanical. It's more like classical musicians look back, while jazz musicians look forwards; conservation vs reorganisation- if that makes any sense.
I get what you're saying, but unfortunately it's not true in many cases. It all depends on what you define as being "classical music". It's true though, that many have to study the past and the basics, to improve on their own performance. However, the same is with jazz. My teacher was telling me the other day, in jazz, the farther back you go, the more you learn.

[Animus Light]

My girlfriend is a classical musician. She absolutely cannot stand listening to readaptations of pieces, even jazz pieces, because it "ruined the original." Now, I obviously disagree... She's not one for improvisation or anything of the sort... She says that playing in a symphony is one of the most magical experiences in existence because you're part of a whole and if one little piece is out, then everythign falters... But if every tiny little piece is doing what it's supposed to be doing, you get this immense, magnificent, and gargantuan beauty.

Classical musicians try to capture the beauty and transcendent nature of what the original composer attempted. If there is variation, a lot of the times, it is up to the arranger to decide how things should be... arranged. In the field of jazz, a classical musician does not like to melodically or harmonically step too far out of the box. Much of the changes are very very subtle...

I had my girlfriend listne to Coltrane's version of My Favourite Things, one of her favourite songs... And she couldn't stand all the improv on it and she couldn't stand that it was in a swing feel. To me, those variations made it so sooo much cooler, but I do think were it kept closer to the original, it would've been much much prettier.

So I guess the difference would be... classical musicians play for beauty whereas jazz musicians try for beauty, but also look to just playing the coolest thing possible where someone can go, "Wow, that's really awesome," but sometimes, it sacrifices the "Wow, that's really gorgeous" reaction.

[Zappa]

I suppose it is impossible, but that's no good reason not to attempt it. Another thing that's important is that one should have his own voice, yet one of the best ways to find that voice is by imitating others and figuring out what you like. So the "useless" exercise of playing Duke like Duke, I find, is important.

Of course imitation for education's sake is important. I was speaking strictly of playing either in a performance or on record, as an artistic statement. There's nothing inherently wrong with imitation,—in fact it's an important part of the young musician's development— but I don't believe there's anything truly MUSICAL about it, either.

[Hunted By a Freak]

My girlfriend is a classical musician. She absolutely cannot stand listening to readaptations of pieces, even jazz pieces, because it "ruined the original." Now, I obviously disagree... She's not one for improvisation or anything of the sort... She says that playing in a symphony is one of the most magical experiences in existence because you're part of a whole and if one little piece is out, then everythign falters... But if every tiny little piece is doing what it's supposed to be doing, you get this immense, magnificent, and gargantuan beauty.

Classical musicians try to capture the beauty and transcendent nature of what the original composer attempted. If there is variation, a lot of the times, it is up to the arranger to decide how things should be... arranged. In the field of jazz, a classical musician does not like to melodically or harmonically step too far out of the box. Much of the changes are very very subtle...

I had my girlfriend listne to Coltrane's version of My Favourite Things, one of her favourite songs... And she couldn't stand all the improv on it and she couldn't stand that it was in a swing feel. To me, those variations made it so sooo much cooler, but I do think were it kept closer to the original, it would've been much much prettier.

So I guess the difference would be... classical musicians play for beauty whereas jazz musicians try for beauty, but also look to just playing the coolest thing possible where someone can go, "Wow, that's really awesome," but sometimes, it sacrifices the "Wow, that's really gorgeous" reaction.


Have fun breaking up.


Plath: where in MI are you from?

[fingerstyle]

I cannot see the sense in striving to preserve another composers piece of work without creating your own art.

Whether it is by interpreting and improvising (jazz), or composing and arranging classical music, I think musicians should at least attempt to create their own contribution to the art.

I don't believe that one should 'strive' to be no more than a tool at the hands of a composer, and be proud of it at that.

[some jive turkey]

What if you turn the tables? Maybe jazz musicians trying out classical would not play it with as much dedication as they would playing jazz. It's just different people feel passionatly about different types of music, some find calssical strikes them more so than jazz, and others vice versa.

I think that's a good point. People play what they really love best with the most conviction and with the most natural grace. It's just dissappointing when you're searching for people to play jazz with, and you can only find classical musicians trying to pose as jazz musicians.

From a professional standpoint it's puzzling. I love jazz more than any other kind of music and I'm kind wrestling with, do I want to be "a musician", or "a jazz musician".
I enjoy playing other styles, but I know that it just doesn't have the passion that my playing has when people call me for a jazz gig.

I think there is something in us as musicians that lures us to try out other styles. Sometimes it's fun, sometimes it's educational, sometimes it's experimental, sometimes it's profitable, but a lot of times it just reaffirms my love to playing jazz. And this is what I think is absent, sometimes in classical musicians who also dabble in jazz.

I'm not saying that this makes me better or anything, I'm just recognizing and appreciating the musicians I play with who love jazz, and like the same music that I like. I'm realizing how important it is to compare record collections with your bandmates.

[Hunted By a Freak]

What about Herbie Hancock and Kieth Jarrett? I believe they were both classically trained as beginners, and I wouldn't say they have any problems playing jazz.

[what]

But they're not classical musicians... I've heard Keith Jarret play some classical Shostakovich's Preludes and Fugues, and I can't say I loved them.

[Hunted By a Freak]

I don't know... reading interviews with Jarrett, and having heard him play I would have to say I have a differing OPINION. He devotes a lot time and energy when he decides to make a classical recording, whether on organ, harpsicord, piano, etc.

Plus, Herbie was playing in concert halls as a child prodigy. I would think this qualifies him to some degree, but I don't really care to argue the point any further.

[some jive turkey]

I think that being a child prodigy is somehow different than, being a mature performer. They're amazing, but it usually seems like child prodigies go in some different direction when they grow up. That's a lot different than being a dedicated classical performer.

I'm certainly not one to categorize people or things, but just I don't really think of Jarret or Herbie as classical musicians. They're jazz musicians obviously (who .....maybe....dabble in classical music).

[Hunted By a Freak]

I sometimes dislike the attitude that musicians have that an artist is either one thing or the other. Perhaps the artist performs one genre popularly, but still studies another.

[Animus Light]

Have fun breaking up.


Plath: where in MI are you from?

Beent ogether four years... Getting married int wo. I think I'm fine. :p

[Hunted By a Freak]

Oh man I was joking

How old are you?

[Animus Light]

Oh man I was joking

How old are you?

Twenty.

[edhara]

Perhaps the artist performs one genre popularly, but still studies another.
Well said. I don't think that the fact that someone will get recognized more heavily in one genre than the other is uncommon.

Eddie Daniels' opening track on his album "Breakthrough" comes to mind as an incredible mix of classical and jazz on the clarinet, but he's mostly known for his sax work. Nelson Rangell, IIRC, also plays flute in symphonies and I've heard that carry over into his smooth jazz stuff.

I gotta say, classical and jazz are just two completely different beasts with different disciplines. Some of the best jazz guys I know have some classical behind them and I have a heavy respect for it.

[Animus Light]

Well said. I don't think that the fact that someone will get recognized more heavily in one genre than the other is uncommon.

Eddie Daniels' opening track on his album "Breakthrough" comes to mind as an incredible mix of classical and jazz on the clarinet, but he's mostly known for his sax work. Nelson Rangell, IIRC, also plays flute in symphonies and I've heard that carry over into his smooth jazz stuff.

I gotta say, classical and jazz are just two completely different beasts with different disciplines. Some of the best jazz guys I know have some classical behind them and I have a heavy respect for it.

As far as I know, Eddie Daniels is known and famed as a clarinet virtuoso in both classical and jazz fields. I had no idea he played sax.

[edhara]

I had no idea he played sax.
Oh yeah! He has a bunch of credits on tenor sax, including having played with Thad Jones, Freddie Hubbard, etc.

Although after doing some web searches, it looks like he is more well known for the clarinet. It looks like he pretty much focused on it after his album "Breakthrough". My bad. :o

[Flamencology]

I'm a classically-trained pianist and multi-instrumentalist - not like Alicia Keys is classically-trained, but I play at a graduate level and was offered full-scholarships at a couple of prestigious music schools... and I've been playing jazz since my early teens (I am now 20-years-old)...

Here are 4 clips... the first is the Rondo from a Haydn piano sonata in C major. The second is something I composed myself. The 3rd is me at 17 performing Waltz for Debby at a live gig with bass and drums. The 4th is me playing a Django-style original on guitar, with overdubbing and guitar-synth-produced upright bass. I think it's pretty evident that my classical playing is stronger than my jazz, but the point is that I'm comfortable gigging in either form.

1) h--p://s8.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=3CYV2AIQUWV9E3L7I6ORMIZWAG
2) h--p://s43.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=268A77G9ALHDZ0I3QKEM0NPWUO
3) h--p://s43.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=3RLDZKPJ71ZWC0G7GRPRQW1QVI
4) h--p://s42.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=2RPELXBOMOSR1108FTIFC1R4IS

So I certainly think it's possible to excel at both (not saying that I do)... but it seems to me that the musicians who do it best don't compartmentalize their abilities, but rather use them to create something different that draws heavily on both - people like Uri Caine, Don Byron, Maria Schneider, etc.

I think it's important to note, however, that almost every significant jazz player of the past 50 years has studied classical music to some extent, and it shows in their playing.

[some jive turkey]

I think it's important to note, however, that almost every significant jazz player of the past 50 years has studied classical music to some extent, and it shows in their playing.

It's also important to note that almost every significant jazz player of the past 50 years has also studied quite a bit of jazz,...and THAT shows in their playing. It's possible to think of jazz as a main course, not just a side dish.

It can be every bit as deep as a pursuit as classical music. It isn't about just flipping open the real book, playing what's on the page, a running through a few choruses, and then passing the torch. It's a way of doing things, and a few of the classical players I've played with just do not get this. Note: I'm not saying every classical player is like that, I'm just writing about my experiences here.

[Flamencology]

It's also important to note that almost every significant jazz player of the past 50 years has also studied quite a bit of jazz,...and THAT shows in their playing. It's possible to think of jazz as a main course, not just a side dish.

I think you're missing my point entirely here... yours goes without saying.

It can be every bit as deep as a pursuit as classical music.

It isn't about just flipping open the real book, playing what's on the page, a running through a few choruses, and then passing the torch. It's a way of doing things,

I've never once implied otherwise

and a few of the classical players I've played with just do not get this.

This only speaks for the classical musicians that YOU'VE played with... do you think that sample is good enough to extrapolate a generalization?

Note: I'm not saying every classical player is like that, I'm just writing about my experiences here.

???

[some jive turkey]

Relax man, don't get so defensive.
I'm just acknowledging their differences and trying to say that they aren't as interchangeble as people act like they are. Playing either style with any kind of authority requires a lot of devotion, and being devoted to one doesn't automatically make you devoted to the other.