Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner - Non Classical Free improvisation - what do you think?

My last comment in your recurrent ‘improvisation’ threads.

Making music in a society for a society is the only way you can do something with your natural talents. Otherwise you will be for ever confined into your auto complacent and ‘therapeutic’ imitative, formless, chaotic musical inventions, like this you have presented in the forum.
If that’s your aim, OK, what can I say? Stick to it. If not, you need serious academic studies in musical composition. You need to compare your achievements with others achievements. Unless you want to reinvent the wheel, you need to write your music on paper, and correct it, and write it again, and work on the form and the structure searching the proper musical narration that fits you message. And you need also to comprehend musical theory and musical history.
There’s no other way out, not for you, not for me, not for Wynton Marsalys, and not even for Mozart, go figure.
It seems to me that you don’t want to pay the price of time and effort.
It's a pitty because your music is heading nowhere.

Hmmm...

Kreisler, if you could move this to the non-classical forum I would appreciate it.

Good advice for Keith Jarrett.

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to "say," Colin, in this improvisation.

There were moments when I thought: "That's interesting," or "I like that effect," but I couldn't find a structural, thematic or harmonic peg to hang those passages on. They seemed to come out of nowhere and lead nowhere.

I suppose that improvisation may be considered the musical equivalent of "stream of consciousness," but I'm still listening for some theme or structure or harmonic progression on which this might be built. I feel I should have the sense that this is "going somewhere" and that didn't come across for me.

Regards,

oh come on, his improvisations are out of this world! if you prefer shorter stuff, listen to "Radiance" or "Dark intervals", or the standards trio. I love the long improvisations

I like the comment about a woman's skirt and comparing it to improvisation. It is an interesting metaphor if nothing else.

Colin I think that there's something about your other improvisations I like a lot more. There's something about it that grabbed me emotionally a bit (which is very hard to do and rare). This improvisation doesn't really do it. It is cool though and it's always good to experiment. (I don't want you to think I'm putting you down.) And yes Cultor, compositional study can be helpful, BUT sometimes the science and mathematics of music doesn't feel right to the performer.

It does sound like eternal befuddlement with reality though. It is very chaotic with that confusion.

Just my bloody luck. Kreisler moved this thread into the non classical section -where I almost never post- literally moments after I mentioned Jarrett. Now I suppose the non-classical blokes are going to have me for lunch!

Colin - "reaper" - You will know I have been a supporter of yours - and pretty much everybody here is very nice and polite to you. But I notice two things.. first, you are interested in other people only insofar as they boost your ego, and secondly, your playing seems to be getting less interesting.. this latest effort is.. well.. politeness fails me..

Well I suppose I have nothing else to add. When my greatest efforts fail, what more can be done?

The post was moved at the request of the original poster. Sorry Argerichfan.

I don't like it if somebody shrugs off my creations (something I've worked long and hard on to develop) as "nonsense." Call that an "ego" or "self-indulgent" all you want, I really don't care.

What is uninteresting about it? Does it not breathe? Does it not have a heartbeat? Does it not hit a climax then come falling down to a resolution?

Do you not hear the figures, implying different things at once? Do you not hear the nods toward tonality and conventionalism while retaining its fundamentally different textural qualities?

Is it not beautiful in its own way? Can't you hear the sighs of despair, the cries, the anger? It thrives in its own strange yet human landscape. It crawls, it sings, it calls, it vibrates. It is alive. It is organic.

Regardless of musical conservatism that is hyper critical of anything without a recurrent motif or central theme, this is indeed music, and it is indeed interesting. Interesting, I suppose, only to those who are willing to actually listen.

It doesn't surprise me that people who are fundamentally raised in a world of strict tonality and easy melodies that this sort of music is seen as formless trash, when really the problem is that people aren't willing to just let go of rigid guidelines and see music for what it is: an emotional expression.

I put every fiber of my being into this improvisation, and it is spat on by classical conservatism and graceless rigidity. Constructive criticism is one thing, shrugging off my music as nonsense and formless garbage is entirely another. Correct, I did ask for an opinion, but must I also ask for constructive answers or is that a given?

I don't need the negativity, I really don't. My music functions in its own landscape, outside of others. It is music that flows and breathes. It has its influences, yet has minimal use for standard compositional devices... haven't they been used endlessly by composers of old anyway?

At least I am creating something rather than spending all my time perfecting a piece of music written by some guy 150 years ago that has been recorded by somebody else hundreds of times anyway. This is my music and my interpretation of reality. It may not be accessible to most, but it is absolutely valid and me thinking this does not make me egotistical or self-centered. I respect tonality and the composers of old. Most of what I listen to is classical music from all periods. I also respect myself. This isn't narcissism. Can I not love my own work lest I be considered a self-indulgent *****?

This is also not my way of sidestepping tonality or conventional composition, it's just the stage I'm at right now. It's very easy to shrug this music off as not having a clue about what I'm doing, but I assure you that is not the case. I have studied the scales, chord progressions, basic forms, etc.

Say what you will about my interpretation of my own emotions and reality, but never stomp on my heart and call my efforts self-centered and narcissistic unless you have a very good reason to do so.

Forgive me, maybe I should ask for "constructive criticism" now instead of just "opinions." You can really hurt somebody's feelings and sense of self-worth when they pour out their heart and soul into a piece of art only to have it thrown out the window because of such and such conservative "classical" view of things.

What more can I really say? I'm appalled that new ideas and the people who create them are treated like expendable nuisances and disgraces to your sacred classical music. I love classical music, but I can't say I enjoy the immense rigidity, conservatism, static attitudes, and a fundamental denial of the self in favor of composers who would probably be sickened by modern classical methods.

A concert pianist with a tuxedo walks on stage with a straight face as the crowd applauds, he takes a bow, sits, effortlessly tears through yet another rendition of a Chopin ballade, the crowd applauds loudly, the pianist stands, stern-faced, bows, and walks abruptly off the stage.

This is what classical music has become. It is no surprise for me, now, to see why younger people don't like it who otherwise would have had it been presented differently.

-Colin

The same establishment which utterly smeared Erik Satie's ambitions is very much alive and installed completely today. A rigid system of rhythmic, harmonic, and melodic qualities. While the establishment and its music are always beautiful, the language of the individual soul is always indivisibly most important. From the ghostly whisps of death of Scriabin to the developing chromaticism and atonality of Rachmaninov and Schoenberg, right up to Mr. White, there has been utter swill dumped upon people who wish to express their innermost ideas.

Yes, melodic lines and block chord progressions are fine, and (my goodness!) they are used in Colin's improvisations. People always seem to fail to look for what's behind the lines, and what it means. Rapid arpeggiations and variations on a theme are excellent to hear when executed, but so are tone clusters and sevenths mixed with everything else in-between. Of course a person is allowed to dislike music; it is your right to voice it, but why INSULT someone's creation?

"Nonsense" is a scathing thing to say when someone obviously pounded the keyboard with something in mind. At least.. when I listen to it, I feel an emotional programme, at the very least. There is so much bashing and hatred that the very fundamental concept of ART is lost amongst the rubble of the bombed-out cities of the poor artist's mind. For me, this entire piece is a landscape of flowing death and violence, of a sunken hope and beauty attempting to GET OUT. Laying under the hatred is the vaunted melody and harmony that classicists so crave, but cannot hear because they refuse to take it ALL in. They wish to hear the notes, and not the things below the notes.

What the heck is wrong with you, who actually call this person egotistical simply because he wishes to advance in the world. Classical pianism and even "normal" pianism (which is beautiful in its own right) are hardly altruistic vessels of love for other people. An artist performs and trains for themselves, to get the thrill of performing, or the thrill of making a new piece, or the thrill of finally "getting" that tough piece. It's all self-centered, and it SHOULD be, for without strong willed artists to push forward the boundaries, we'd all be stuck with Mozart's hellish repetitions for ALL ETERNITY.

I'd have to kill myself if Schubert's darkness hadn't come in or Shostakovich's brooding dissonance and playful experiments hadn't have been generated. Don't get me wrong; all music is beautiful! However, Mozart and Rachmaninov are totally different beings, and I prefer the latter because he put soul into EVERYTHING. Mozart feels much more light and fluffy, except for a few things, notably the C minor concerto, and those directly following his mother's death.

Technically, things advanced. Advance is beneath the move from Gregorian Chant to Medieval music to Renaissance to Baroque to Classical to Romanticism and beyond. If we didn't have people who had new, original ideas, we'd all play Rondeau alla Turca on Steinways in some Dante-esque waiting room for the rest of our collective musical existences. Thank HUMANITY for people like Ravel, Scriabin, Wagner, Prokofiev, and later progenitors of CHANGE into the worlds of dissonance, looser structure, and pure feeling.

Coincidentally, this reminds me of Vers La Flamme.

Heh...Vers La Flamme came to my mind, too. Something about the texture and overall shape...

Colin,

Some miscellaneous thoughts:

1. If you enjoy creating this type of music -- because it's interesting to you, because it's challenging for you, because you like the sound, because it's therapeutic, whatever the reason -- then carry on. Who cares what people think? Being able to create something that you yourself enjoy is a great gift.

2. If you want to make a career out of creating music, accept this fact and get over it: Only a small percentage of people are likely to find this particular music enjoyable, whether here in PianoWorld or out in the real world. That doesn't make your music unworthy, or your efforts wasted. But it makes your audience limited. Decide how you want to deal with that fact, artistically and financially. Countless musicians and other artists before you have had to come to grips with exactly this same realization.

3. Every moment you spend bemoaning #2 above is a moment you could have better spent practicing the piano.

4. If you're interested in increasing the appeal of your music, a number of posters in this and other threads have offered you excellent advice. If you're not, that's fine, but see #2 above.

5. The fact that someone doesn't care for your particular brand of music doesn't make that person stupid, narrow-minded, unenlightened, unsophisticated, unmusical, unfeeling, or untalented. People like and dislike things for a host of reasons, conscious and unconscious. Tastes differ.

6. People will express their dislike for particular music or other art in a variety of ways, some charitable, some not. If you want to be a public performer, better get used to it. And if you want to perform music that appeals only to a small audience, better really get used to it. That's life.

7. The fact that a great deal of emotion and work went into creating something -- whether music or some other form of art -- is not a reason for people to like it. It might be a reason for them to respect the person who created it, at least if emotion and hard work are coupled with some genuine humility. But it doesn't make them like the music or art that results. Pick any type of music that you yourself don't like. No doubt a lot of it was created with a great deal of emotion and hard work. And yet you still don't like it. Again: Tastes differ.

8. Writing favorable reviews of your own work, and trying to argue people into liking what you've created, as in your post above, are both considered poor form. Also pointless. People like it or they don't.

9. You asked above, "When my greatest efforts fail, what more can be done?" Answers: (a) If you yourself enjoyed your efforts, they *didn't* fail. See #1 above. (b) If you're disappointed that your efforts didn't have greater appeal, see #2 above or #4 above -- your choice. (c) The most important answer: Recognize that your greatest efforts of today are just that: your greatest efforts of today. With discipline, study, practice, emotion and hard work -- and some genuine humility -- your greatest efforts on some future day will delight and amaze you.

I liked it. I felt it was very disorganized though. But maybe you wanted it to be that way, I dunno. You said you wanted to convey an emotion and I think you succeeded in that.

I felt a very good organization and sense of form, a sense of moving structure. There were definitely sections that stood out for me... I don't see where people find all this lack of colouring and sections.

Mike A, your post was outstanding.

I want to second Monica, Mike. Your post is an excellent account of every point I wish I had made:-) Read it and Reap.. Colin:-)

Mike, your post got me thinking as well.

Good music, to me, has at least two functions: expressive and communicative. The expressive one, of course, is to express the thoughts and feelings of the composer-- that's the relatively easy one. The communicative, that is expressing them in such a way that the listener ALSO can get a sense of the feelings being conveyed and follow the composer's thought process, as complex as that may be, is a lot harder. It's what makes the difference between disciplined musical creativity and simply self-expression. Colin, I think you have a handle on the expressive side but the communicative is the one to start really moving towards as you mature as an improviser. I also think it's where really learning the craft of composition will pay off for you and hopefully help you get the kind of results you are looking for. Good luck!

Sophia