brianvds
Well-known member
- Messages
- 951
What Are You Listening To?
- Thread starter stlukesguild
- Start date
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,524
I'll be definitely headed in the opposite direction today when I get into the studio. I'm thinking Wagner, Led Zeppelin, and the Rolling Stones. 
Artyczar
Moderator
- Messages
- 12,440
Not to bore the hell out of you classical folks--I don't usually contribute to this thread because I really only listen to Mozart, Chopin, and Mendelsohn as far as classical is concerned. I'm not very educated in the genre otherwise. So, my contributions would be out of sync and I feel like my listening choices would be a bore to some of you. I tend to get into an album and play it to death over and over for a good long time before I change out the CD. I am odd like that. I don't get sick of it, I like it more and more and find new things about how great it is. I do this with great albums and go back to them again and again.
I've been into Amiee Mann's Bachelor No. 2 lately. I stuck in in my car (where I listen to most of my music) a little over a week ago and can't stop listening to it. I think she is an incredible songwriter.
I've been into Amiee Mann's Bachelor No. 2 lately. I stuck in in my car (where I listen to most of my music) a little over a week ago and can't stop listening to it. I think she is an incredible songwriter.
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,524
I think a good deal of classical music aficionados listen to other musical genres as well as the "potboilers" by Mozart, Chopin, Mendelssohn, and others. After the mellow music Saturday I was listening to this while painting yesterday:
Artyczar
Moderator
- Messages
- 12,440
You don't have to call Mozart a potboiler. Whatever he wrote and/or for whatever reason, it's all amazing and as aesthetic, if not more, than any other composer out there. But whatever. I knew better than to post my musical tastes in here. I figured I hear something like this.
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,524
By "potboiler" I'm simply referring to those perennial favorites... of which Mozart has more than a few, but I think most would include Beethoven's 5th, Vivaldi's Four Seasons, Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto no. 1. Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto no. 2, and many more. They are all favorites with good reason and while I may listen to some more obscure classical works that doesn't mean I don't still love these favorites or that I would roll my eyes at anyone suggesting they love Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto or Chopin's nocturnes... let alone Mozart who I listen to more than any other composer with the exception of Bach.
Artyczar
Moderator
- Messages
- 12,440
I thought you meant he made music to suit his paid backers and listeners (as if no one else ever did that). I listen to all of him, his entire collection of music, not just what was popular by the way. But classical is not my go-to music by any means. I'm more of a contemporary music person.
I have a pretty large collection of classical composers, but I don't like most of them and rarely put on anyone but the three I mentioned. I also don't like Beethoven, but someone once turned me on to his piano concertos that were kind of nice.
I have a pretty large collection of classical composers, but I don't like most of them and rarely put on anyone but the three I mentioned. I also don't like Beethoven, but someone once turned me on to his piano concertos that were kind of nice.
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,524
One of Mozart's "problems" was that far too often he didn't do as was expected by his patrons or potential patrons. A lot of the finest works by Mozart or any other composer/musician is found outside of the most popular works or the "greatest hits". The Beatles never released "Yesterday" as a single as they felt it was too far outside of their norm. I'd be hard-pressed to choose a single music that I listen to most. I have far more classical music than anything else when it comes to sheer volume of CDs... but then classical music tends to be much larger and longer than popular songs. Classical Music also covers 1000 years or more of music. But I listen a good deal to pop/rock from the 1950s onward as well as to a good deal of jazz and standards as well as bluegrass and classic country. Sometimes I get in the mood for Blues, Indian/Persian music, or Folk music.
Brian and I used to frequent a Classical Music forum a good deal. Many of those who loved Beethoven were not all that fond of Mozart and vis-versa. I can see why you'd like Beethoven's piano concertos if you like Mozart. Those were earlier and more "classical" works. Chopin and Mendelssohn were also strongly influenced by classical forms in spite of being Romantic-era composers. I love Chopin... but I lean far more towards Mahler, Wagner, Brahms, Bruckner, Richard Strauss, and even Tchaikovsky for that era. Honestly... I'm all over the place in my musical tastes.
Brian and I used to frequent a Classical Music forum a good deal. Many of those who loved Beethoven were not all that fond of Mozart and vis-versa. I can see why you'd like Beethoven's piano concertos if you like Mozart. Those were earlier and more "classical" works. Chopin and Mendelssohn were also strongly influenced by classical forms in spite of being Romantic-era composers. I love Chopin... but I lean far more towards Mahler, Wagner, Brahms, Bruckner, Richard Strauss, and even Tchaikovsky for that era. Honestly... I'm all over the place in my musical tastes.
brianvds
Well-known member
- Messages
- 951
StLukes will be pleased to learn that in my ongoing attempts to broaden my taste, I tried out this:
And not only did I listen right through it, I actually enjoyed it so much I promptly downloaded it for my collection. If I can acquire a taste for jazz I might end up listening to Wagner too... ;-)
Based on having listened around on YouTube a bit, it seems I enjoy particularl types of jazz rather than all of it. I like the sensuous, smoky sound of noir jazz, of the kind you find in some film soundtracks. And Mr Brubeck above creates very interesting and intricate structures. I notice with jazz that it does not stir my emotions at all (is it supposed to, I wonder), but at least some of it sure feeds the intellect. I can see why Stravinsky enjoyed it, and was influenced by it in some of his own work.
And not only did I listen right through it, I actually enjoyed it so much I promptly downloaded it for my collection. If I can acquire a taste for jazz I might end up listening to Wagner too... ;-)
Based on having listened around on YouTube a bit, it seems I enjoy particularl types of jazz rather than all of it. I like the sensuous, smoky sound of noir jazz, of the kind you find in some film soundtracks. And Mr Brubeck above creates very interesting and intricate structures. I notice with jazz that it does not stir my emotions at all (is it supposed to, I wonder), but at least some of it sure feeds the intellect. I can see why Stravinsky enjoyed it, and was influenced by it in some of his own work.
brianvds
Well-known member
- Messages
- 951
On to the soundtrack of one of my favorite films, Mulholland Dr.:
It suffers from the same thing lots of soundtracks (and, of course, Wagner) do : beautiful moments, awful quarters of an hour. With a film soundtrack, this is inevitable, because however well some music works to support the action on screen, it will not automatically serve well as standalone music. (I must admit it stands to Wagner's credit that his part of the soundtrack of Apocalypse Now worked so well for both the film and as standalone music. )
Alas, would that more film composers take the trouble to rework their film scores into suites suitable for concert performance.
It suffers from the same thing lots of soundtracks (and, of course, Wagner) do : beautiful moments, awful quarters of an hour. With a film soundtrack, this is inevitable, because however well some music works to support the action on screen, it will not automatically serve well as standalone music. (I must admit it stands to Wagner's credit that his part of the soundtrack of Apocalypse Now worked so well for both the film and as standalone music.
)Alas, would that more film composers take the trouble to rework their film scores into suites suitable for concert performance.
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,524
Brian, I can easily see how Brubeck is a smooth transition from classical music to jazz. You can easily recognize a link between someone like Brubeck and chamber music. Let me give you a few suggestions that might work for you:
Benny Goodman was a classically trained clarinetist to such an extent that several composers wrote pieces for him. His small ensembles are his finest works... especially the trios.
This is Brubeck's masterpiece. Every selection was intentionally structured around a time signature removed from 4/4 common time.
MJQ is a quartet and here they build upon or allude to classical music.
If you are exploring jazz you eventually have to get around to Duke Ellington. This selection is as fine as any to start with. But this set (3 discs) is quite likely the finest collection of Ellington's earlier work at his peak:
Ellington and Miles Davis are my two favorite jazz artists... and undoubtedly two of the finest. Coming from a classical background I would probably avoid Louis Armstrong for the present... although he is another towering figure. Miles Kind of Blue is frequently cited as the single greatest jazz LP ever. I wouldn't disagree:
The record was perhaps the first work of popular music to employ modal structures. But you might find Sketches of Spain... which re-interprets Spanish Classical and Folk music through the trumpet to be even more immediately accessible.
Coming from Brubeck you should check out Bill Evans (who also performed on Kind of Blue). You can't go wrong with a good many of Evans' recordings. I particularly like Waltz for Debby:
Miles can be wild and Ellington and Goodman both swing... but all the discs here showcase the bluesier more "mellow" side of jazz. The same is true of Paul Desmond, Brubeck's longtime sax player. Take Ten may be his best LP... but I also recomend this:
Thelonious Monk was one of the most innovative of all jazz artists... frequently going against all your expectations. This may be the best starting place with him:
As with any body of music or composer that is new to you jazz really demands you take your time and really listen... often repeatedly. There are very few musical forms or styles I have not been able to appreciate over time.
Benny Goodman was a classically trained clarinetist to such an extent that several composers wrote pieces for him. His small ensembles are his finest works... especially the trios.
This is Brubeck's masterpiece. Every selection was intentionally structured around a time signature removed from 4/4 common time.
MJQ is a quartet and here they build upon or allude to classical music.
If you are exploring jazz you eventually have to get around to Duke Ellington. This selection is as fine as any to start with. But this set (3 discs) is quite likely the finest collection of Ellington's earlier work at his peak:
Ellington and Miles Davis are my two favorite jazz artists... and undoubtedly two of the finest. Coming from a classical background I would probably avoid Louis Armstrong for the present... although he is another towering figure. Miles Kind of Blue is frequently cited as the single greatest jazz LP ever. I wouldn't disagree:
The record was perhaps the first work of popular music to employ modal structures. But you might find Sketches of Spain... which re-interprets Spanish Classical and Folk music through the trumpet to be even more immediately accessible.
Coming from Brubeck you should check out Bill Evans (who also performed on Kind of Blue). You can't go wrong with a good many of Evans' recordings. I particularly like Waltz for Debby:
Miles can be wild and Ellington and Goodman both swing... but all the discs here showcase the bluesier more "mellow" side of jazz. The same is true of Paul Desmond, Brubeck's longtime sax player. Take Ten may be his best LP... but I also recomend this:
Thelonious Monk was one of the most innovative of all jazz artists... frequently going against all your expectations. This may be the best starting place with him:
As with any body of music or composer that is new to you jazz really demands you take your time and really listen... often repeatedly. There are very few musical forms or styles I have not been able to appreciate over time.
brianvds
Well-known member
- Messages
- 951
StLukes: Thanks for the suggestions; many of those names are familiar. Of course, I'll have to go look what's available on YouTube; I do not even own a device that can play disks (which are so 20th century. ) Speaking of YouTube, I see there is a HUGE documentary series on there about the entire history of jazz, which might help me to put everything in a broader context, as I like to do.
I remain a bit mystified about the whole thing. Apparently improv plays a very large role in jazz, but it is not entirely clear to me what is improvised and what is composed. Would someone like Brubeck or Ellington have improvised entire pieces, and then presumably mostly forget them again, or remember the main themes and when asked to play the same piece, improvise a new one with the same main ideas, or is much of it written down, with some sections improvised, etc. ? How in this world can a jazz quartet improvise together without anyone ever playing what sounds like a wrong note? (I notice, mind you, that lot of jazz chords are complex and dissonant, which might make it easier to disguise "wrong notes"!)
You are right about repeated listening; I discovered that in my teens, and it is how virtually my entire taste in music developed. I remember a time when I thought I was being very daringly avant garde when I listened to Liszt or Rachmaninoff, and indeed, I would find it hard to like a lot of any particular work - I basically listened from one beautiful moment to the next, several minutes later. But by repeated listening, I would sooner or later find myself humming bits from a work, including bits that just a week earlier I could not make sense of, and then, suddenly, a work would "click."
In this way I also learned to enjoy a lot of stuff (though here and there, some works keep on eluding me - Messiaen's Quartet for the End of Time comes to mind.
) Speaking of YouTube, I see there is a HUGE documentary series on there about the entire history of jazz, which might help me to put everything in a broader context, as I like to do. I remain a bit mystified about the whole thing. Apparently improv plays a very large role in jazz, but it is not entirely clear to me what is improvised and what is composed. Would someone like Brubeck or Ellington have improvised entire pieces, and then presumably mostly forget them again, or remember the main themes and when asked to play the same piece, improvise a new one with the same main ideas, or is much of it written down, with some sections improvised, etc. ? How in this world can a jazz quartet improvise together without anyone ever playing what sounds like a wrong note? (I notice, mind you, that lot of jazz chords are complex and dissonant, which might make it easier to disguise "wrong notes"!)
You are right about repeated listening; I discovered that in my teens, and it is how virtually my entire taste in music developed. I remember a time when I thought I was being very daringly avant garde when I listened to Liszt or Rachmaninoff, and indeed, I would find it hard to like a lot of any particular work - I basically listened from one beautiful moment to the next, several minutes later. But by repeated listening, I would sooner or later find myself humming bits from a work, including bits that just a week earlier I could not make sense of, and then, suddenly, a work would "click."
In this way I also learned to enjoy a lot of stuff (though here and there, some works keep on eluding me - Messiaen's Quartet for the End of Time comes to mind.
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,524
There are many sources for Jazz including African-American slave spirituals, call and response of work hollars, the Blues, Cuban and other Caribean Island sources and even Islamic chant. One of the earliest sources was that of African-American classical musicians. There were Black musicians, ensembles, and orchestras in New Orleans prior to the Civil War. After the war a good number found themselves working in cabarets or even strip clubs to make a living. One suggestion for the term "Jazz" is that it came from the Jasmine perfume that many of the strippers and prostitutes wore in these clubs. The music preferred by the strippers and dancers was that of popular songs of the time. Improvisation began in part from the musicians stretching these short songs out the suit the dancers' or strippers' performances.
Wikipedia offers some insight into Improvisation in Jazz:
Improvisation is one of Jazz' defining elements. The centrality of improvisation is attributed to the influence of earlier forms of music such as the bluee, a form of folk music which arose in part from the work songs and field hollers of African-American slaves on plantations. These work songs were commonly structured around a repetitive call-and-response pattern, but early blues was also improvisational.
Classical music performance is evaluated more by its fidelity to the musical score, with less attention given to interpretation, ornamentation, and accompaniment. The classical performer's goal is to play the composition as it was written. In contrast, jazz is often characterized by the product of interaction and collaboration, placing less value on the contribution of the composer, if there is one, and more on the performer. The jazz performer interprets a tune in individual ways, never playing the same composition twice. Depending on the performer's mood, experience, and interaction with band members or audience members, the performer may change melodies, harmonies, and time signatures.
In early Dixieland, a.k.a. New Orleans jazz, performers took turns playing melodies and improvising countermelodies. In the swing era of the 1920s–'40s, big bands relied more on arrangements which were written or learned by ear and memorized. Soloists improvised within these arrangements. In the bebop era of the 1940s, big bands gave way to small groups and minimal arrangements in which the melody was stated briefly at the beginning and most of the piece was improvised. Modal jazz abandoned chord progressions to allow musicians to improvise even more. In many forms of jazz, a soloist is supported by a rhythm section of one or more chordal instruments (piano, guitar), double bass, and drums. The rhythm section plays chords and rhythms that outline the composition structure and complement the soloist.
The comments on Classical Music downplay the improvisation that often existed in Classical Music. Many of the composers were also virtuoso musicians. They frequently employed improvisation in the performance of their own works. Cadenzas were often included in compositions for the composer/performer to improvise. These exist in compositions by Beethoven, Mozart... and even Bach. One of the most intriguing Jazz performers is Keith Jarrett who is a masterful classical as well as Jazz performer. Some of his finest works are wholly improvised live concerts that employ Classical and Jazz elements such as the Paris Concert:
Unfortunately, due to copyright, I assume, you can't find the actual performances by Jarret from the Paris Concert or his finest work, the Köln Concert.
Wikipedia offers some insight into Improvisation in Jazz:
Improvisation is one of Jazz' defining elements. The centrality of improvisation is attributed to the influence of earlier forms of music such as the bluee, a form of folk music which arose in part from the work songs and field hollers of African-American slaves on plantations. These work songs were commonly structured around a repetitive call-and-response pattern, but early blues was also improvisational.
Classical music performance is evaluated more by its fidelity to the musical score, with less attention given to interpretation, ornamentation, and accompaniment. The classical performer's goal is to play the composition as it was written. In contrast, jazz is often characterized by the product of interaction and collaboration, placing less value on the contribution of the composer, if there is one, and more on the performer. The jazz performer interprets a tune in individual ways, never playing the same composition twice. Depending on the performer's mood, experience, and interaction with band members or audience members, the performer may change melodies, harmonies, and time signatures.
In early Dixieland, a.k.a. New Orleans jazz, performers took turns playing melodies and improvising countermelodies. In the swing era of the 1920s–'40s, big bands relied more on arrangements which were written or learned by ear and memorized. Soloists improvised within these arrangements. In the bebop era of the 1940s, big bands gave way to small groups and minimal arrangements in which the melody was stated briefly at the beginning and most of the piece was improvised. Modal jazz abandoned chord progressions to allow musicians to improvise even more. In many forms of jazz, a soloist is supported by a rhythm section of one or more chordal instruments (piano, guitar), double bass, and drums. The rhythm section plays chords and rhythms that outline the composition structure and complement the soloist.
The comments on Classical Music downplay the improvisation that often existed in Classical Music. Many of the composers were also virtuoso musicians. They frequently employed improvisation in the performance of their own works. Cadenzas were often included in compositions for the composer/performer to improvise. These exist in compositions by Beethoven, Mozart... and even Bach. One of the most intriguing Jazz performers is Keith Jarrett who is a masterful classical as well as Jazz performer. Some of his finest works are wholly improvised live concerts that employ Classical and Jazz elements such as the Paris Concert:
Unfortunately, due to copyright, I assume, you can't find the actual performances by Jarret from the Paris Concert or his finest work, the Köln Concert.
brianvds
Well-known member
- Messages
- 951
For a big band, it makes sense that it will have to be pre-composed, or it will end up sounding like Yoko Ono.
Perhaps the aural equivalent of those ephemeral wroks of land art, that are here today and gone tomorrow, unless they are recorded.
Not sure what modal jazz is - how do you go about abandoning chord progressions without the music ending up sounding like chaos?
But there he sits, following what looks suspiciously like sheet music. I assume there may be just a broad harmonic outline on there...
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,524
Not sure what modal jazz is - how do you go about abandoning chord progressions without the music ending up sounding like chaos?
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,524
But there he sits, following what looks suspiciously like sheet music. I assume there may be just a broad harmonic outline on there...
That's not Jarrett. I can't find his recording of the Paris Concert on YouTube. That's another musician performing Jarrett's work.
That's not Jarrett. I can't find his recording of the Paris Concert on YouTube. That's another musician performing Jarrett's work.
stlukesguild
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,524
I think we should remember that the painting form that was dominant at the same time as later Jazz was Abstract Expressionism which was equally rooted in improvisation. But I think we can say the same of Impressionism... and even Van Gogh... who were responding directly to observed nature in many instances with a preconceived or planned composition.
brianvds
Well-known member
- Messages
- 951
I rather like that, though it is still not clear to me what exactly it is they are doing here.
brianvds
Well-known member
- Messages
- 951
Ah, okay - I thought that guy does not look familiar. Not that I can remember what Jarrett looks like, but I have seen a photo of him somewhere, and that's not him.
