Colin,

Explain to me how they are different?

Yes, these are interesting answers. Actually I think some people work best one way, some the other. Also if you are on a deadline you probably won't be carefully noting down your ideas with beautiful calligraphy on parchment by candelight.

Jazz (unless I am mistaken) is focused on improvisation, taking a chord progression and running with it through different phases. Classical is very structured, and planned out. We will see of the jazz greats are the same, but I believe that this is much of what seperates classical from other more contemporary forms, and gives it it's timelessness. It is perhaps less focused on what sounds good, but on what is right for the structure of the piece. In this way classical is less popular, but, somehow in the back of people's minds, they know that it is better. But I might be completely off with this, so tell me if I am.

Well, I would not say it is better. Some people think jazz is better than classical. It is true though what you say about classical being structured, and jazz not as structured. Unless we are talking about Big Band, a favorite of mine, which is highly structured. Though the entire idea behind jamming is that a new structure is created spontaneously, instead of being (basically) the same every time.

OK, let me add a "in my humble opinion" after that "better". And I know that there is a structure to jamming with chord progressions, and the spontaneous can give you some great ideas to structure later. But the spontaneous should not necessarily be the end product, IN MY HUMBLE OPION. [:)]

Oh, and I hope that I NEVER have to use a repeat sign (well, maybe that is a bit drastic). I usually try not to put a repeat in any of the pieces I write. Even if it is the same idea, I change the way it is expressed. So classical does not to have to be the same everytime. And I understand that you are probably talking about live performances, and that it will never sound the same when performed. But I believe that it is the same with classical, just on a much smaller scale, depending on the place of performance, the conducter, the musicians, the mood of the conducter, the mood of the musicians, etc.

I'm not a jazz guy, and always do everything with extreme, obsessive structure. But that is what those cats tend to think about it. Though yes, it is true that each classical performance in a sense makes the music new.

There are certain pieces that use repeats and it is good - like a Strauss waltz, or a Sousa march. Did anyone ever notice that those two guys, J. Strauss and J. P. Sousa, are remarkably similar in their musical genius, though from radically different countries/eras?

I happen to be "orchestrating" (for band) a march in the style of Sousa so am thinking about those two very nationalistic as well as brilliant composers.

@ColinThomson said:

But the spontaneous should not necessarily be the end product, IN MY HUMBLE OPION. [:)]

That really depends on the quality of the improviser, the same way among thousands of classical composers some are bad, but when we take the greatest improvisers I get a blast of listening to them, music is music man, when I hear Oscar Peterson's rendition of some tunes I put them as masterpieces, when I listen to Bill Evans I hear a modern Chopin, when I hear Charlie Parker I see the same spontaneous as Mozart. Apparently Beethoven's improvisations were even more impressive than his pieces, at least that's what I remember hearing. As long as we don't debate which is better more serious or more refined they are both very close to one another.

that is absolutely true - another example is Handel, who was known to be an extreme talent in improvising. He could do a four part fugue on any subject instantaneously. Also, Bruckner, who was a great organist and when he did his improv at a final exam, all of the professors said he should have been examining them.

I can live with that, Guy. [:)]

And I, too, love listening to most kinds of music.

Also, Guy, I really like you're new alto sax demo of themes from Charlie Parker.

So all that to say that I rarely notate my music. [[;)]]

And thanks for the alto sax demo appreciation!

@Another User said:

Jazz (unless I am mistaken) is focused on improvisation, taking a chord progression and running with it through different phases. Classical is very structured, and planned out. We will see of the jazz greats are the same, but I believe that this is much of what seperates classical from other more contemporary forms, and gives it it's timelessness. It is perhaps less focused on what sounds good, but on what is right for the structure of the piece. In this way classical is less popular, but, somehow in the back of people's minds, they know that it is better. But I might be completely off with this, so tell me if I am.

Surely sounding good would be the general goal of all music, no? Because there's a technical word for music that doesn't: "crap." [:)]

Anyway, as soon as you get away from "play the head, then take turns soloing, and then play the head again," it's actually very difficult to define what jazz is other than an attitude. In any case, all good jazz (all good music for that matter) has a very definite structure - even free jazz. And composing is improvizing to a great degree too.

OK, than:

All that to say: I would be more apt to notate classical music than jazz. But that is just my opinion.

Nick, have you ever listend to a piece that you know is a classical great, and been, quite frankly, bored. But then, as you listen to it more it grows on you and you see the genius behind it? This is what I mean by classical being less popular because it does not sound as good, or, perhaps a beter way to put it would be: it does not tickle the ears.

@Nick Batzdorf said:

My fingers find things my ears don't and v.v.

For me, this sums it up succinctly.

Fred Story

Colin - I must have had that experience at one time or another, although I don't know that there's anything special about classical music to increase the likelihood of that being my reaction. But we all hear music differently - I think, anyway - and of course some music takes a while to grow on you.

And sure, some music is more "difficult" to listen to, e.g. a pointilistic percussion ensemble piece is likely to take more work than smooth jazz.

@Nick Batzdorf said:

My fingers find things my ears don't and v.v.

For me, this sums it up succinctly.

Fred Story

Yes, and your painter comparison earlier in this thread was interesting as well, siince I don't think that there are these two antipodes. Also the concrete painter will be influenced by the feedback of his painting process.

This question of workflow - what/which to do first etc. - is a constant nag on my brain.
Very interesting reading all the comments here.

In the light of all the fantastic technology we have to hand.. sample libraries, soft samplers etc. - I've found it worthwhile to keep in mind something Boulez once said:

"The idea must be compatible with the material, and the material compatible with the idea".

I take that to mean that it's pointless beginning and progressing with a composition until you have at least a) an instinct of what the piece might be "about" - even if only in an abstract sense - and b) you have sound material/instrumental forces in mind that are likely to be well-suited to the exploration of a).

That may seem sort of self-evident, but I try and remind myself of it every time I sit down in front of a bunch of sample libraries, samplers, endless other bits of distracting music tech gear, and start getting intimidated about how I'm going to write and what I should do first (improvise on sounds? doodle on paper? etc.)

So these days I don't start writing at all until I have at least a sense of *why* I'm about to write.. i.e. what the purpose is. That purpose can be a deadline, or just something I'm excited to explore - but there has to be that something.

The very next thing I do is try loosely, freely and non-judgementally, to play around with sound material and instruments. Twiddling around on the keyboard etc., but with my choices of sounds guided only by the purpose I have in mind.

Only once I have those two pre-requisites - the idea and the appropriate material - do I feel that sitting down and writing dots on paper/Sibelius or going to straight to sequencer, makes any sense.

Adrian

What Mathis said is something I momentarily thought of - how interacting with the materials at hand can be a composing process. The exact opposite of writing everything out ahead of time.

@mathis said:

Yes, and your painter comparison earlier in this thread was interesting as well, siince I don't think that there are these two antipodes. Also the concrete painter will be influenced by the feedback of his painting process.

I'd be interested in having you elaborate on this.

Fred Story