Re: Re: Re:

[jerry and judy <jerbidoc@zianet.com>]

>On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, jerry and judy wrote:
>
> |>Gee, I thought Bach improvised, too.
> |>
> |>SH
> |
> |Yes, but he didn't see fit for any of his 'these musings' to become
> |representative of his developmental outpouring.
>
>But what about the 3-part ricercar in A Musical Offering?  It's allegedly
>based on his improv before the king.

The improvisation of a fugal subject is surely a very different thing from
the total 'improvisation' of a representative piece, in a long and proud
line of developed works!

> |Even <I> can sit down and endlessly outgas chordal relationships and
> |melodic 'fragments' that would be hopefully entertaining.  But what JSB,
> |Mozart and Beethoven allowed to part of their permanent 'record' was in
> |line with their general vision.  Improvisation was a means to an end, but
> |it was never THE art form.
>
>Just like there may be un-improvised jazz, but it's surely not yet the
>dominant form of jazz performance---people listen to jazz for the
>spur-of-the-moment inspirations and darings.  I should think that
>improvisation is meant for live, rather than recorded, performance.

Jazz, even at its highest expression, is resolutely and unashamedly based
upon a popular form.  There is no intellectual basis for it, it is a higher
offering of entertainment (without academic significance).

>Similarly, I think that people listen to art music mainly for the
>refinements (the breadth and subtleties) that come only after SOME
>contemplation and elaboration.  I believe JSB, Mozart, and Beethoven did
>use some good ideas from their improvisation in their "written-out"
>compositions.  But we'll never know.

Yes, of course, playing music is what they did best, but their lasting
contribution was intentional, and certainly not improvisational.

Jerry

Some of my greatest friends are jazz players, with whom I seat in with
(when they let me), and they would not argue with what I've said, but they
would cringe a little, because this is not what jazz is about, in the main.
It's so much more!  It's feelings and expression within a universal
tradition, but it's also a specific tradition, AND it's individual
expression.  It's more modern and up-to-date communication, so it can be
more relevant to more people.  On and on...


>---
>Clifford