Posted by Rick Denney on May 05, 2001 at 19:17:56:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Contra-Octave in band playing posted by Joe 'stirrer' S. on May 05, 2001 at 03:31:24:
Improvisation is not appropriate in all musical situations, though it was probably more frequently done in past years than today, even for stuff that we wouldn't dare modify now.
I feel the same way about that as I do about abstract art or free verse poetry. Some people paint abstract scenes because they are incapable of drawing realistically, and some people compose poetry in free verse because they don't understand rhyme and meter. The artists are the ones who understand that stuff but CHOOSE to "break" the rules to achieve an artistic end. Sometimes we will or won't like their results, but that's the subjective part. We may dislike Picasso's work, but he built abstract expressionism on a foundation of realism, as his early work demonstrates. Schoenberg's early work doesn't sound like the 12-tone stuff for which he is famous. Other examples abound.
Sure, some great improvising musicians could not read music, but few of those really pushed the boundaries, and to me their stuff sounds a lot like others of the same situation. But even non-reading improvisers learned to play melodies written by others, they just had to learn them the hard way.
But even though the jazz may be mostly improvised, it is still based on the melodies (and often chord progressions and rhythms) of the original composer. Otherwise, it wouldn't be Jelly Roll Morton we are listening to. Each genre has its rules, and it seems to me we choose the break them after we understand them, not before.
Rick "who probably just explained why he is so bad at improvisation" Denney