Phil Treloar writes about music, being Australian, and how the two might interact. He also makes music I enjoy very much. His "Other Narratives" series are well-worth acquiring; I eagerly await the next instalment.
http://feeling-to-thought.com/index.html
One of my favourite essays discussing the plight of classical music in today's society, using the (in)famous Joshua Bell experiment as a point of departure:
http://www.tnr.com/article/the-musical-mystique
Showing posts with label hearing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hearing. Show all posts
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Schenker
Lately, due to the influence of my incredible piano teacher, Donna Coleman, and some reading of this book, I've been considering Schenkerian analysis and the way if could effect my thoughts on and approach to improvising.
For those of you unfamiliar with this method, Heinrich Schenker (1868-1935) proposed that all western music could be analysed in terms of it's "structural framework". This framework can be reduced to a I-V-I progression. Therefore, all movements within this framework are merely moving towards to next one. They may seem like an arrival point when analysed using conventional harmonic analysis, but Schenker argues that this method is really losing sight of the forest for the trees. Veiwed as part of a larger structure, they are merely or prolongations of passing chords between these larger points. Herein lies their true structural function. There are many excellent examples in the book, from a variety of composers, that illustrated this point extremely well.
Schenker was not without his predecessors in this way of thinking, what he really did bring to the table was the potential this way of thinking had for interpretation.
Therefore, unlike some other, more traditional, methods of analysis, Schenker's method is really geared towards performance, and specifically, hearing music of long periods.
Jump forward to my masters study, which revolves around improvisers hearing large-scale rhythmic frameworks, and consequently how surface rhythm interacts with these. If we think of Schenker's tonal concepts and replace them with rhythmic ideas, we can see how this suggests that this 'structural hearing' approach could be used as a means for someone (such as me) to deal with large rhythmic structures while improvising. This doesn't do the work for me, of course, but it sure gives an insight into the type of thinking that may be needed in preparation for, and during it.
Think now of jazz ensembles, what sort of percentage of players in those groups (or even leaders) would be concerned with tackling these sorts of ideas? I'm not talking about doing anything as specific as what Schenker/Salzer expounds, but I am interested as to how this way of thinking and hearing could effect people's approach to making spontaneous music together.
Think of Miles' 60's quintet in it's final stages (this anyone?). One of the things they were really able to do (that to the best of my knowledge not many other groups have really touched) was structure an entire performance of a piece so that it could encompass solos by most of the members of the group while still having an arc that wasn't just a series of ups and downs that corresponded with each member's solo climaxes. I'd argue that this approach could yield a much more satisfying performance, on a much deeper level.
For those of you unfamiliar with this method, Heinrich Schenker (1868-1935) proposed that all western music could be analysed in terms of it's "structural framework". This framework can be reduced to a I-V-I progression. Therefore, all movements within this framework are merely moving towards to next one. They may seem like an arrival point when analysed using conventional harmonic analysis, but Schenker argues that this method is really losing sight of the forest for the trees. Veiwed as part of a larger structure, they are merely or prolongations of passing chords between these larger points. Herein lies their true structural function. There are many excellent examples in the book, from a variety of composers, that illustrated this point extremely well.
Schenker was not without his predecessors in this way of thinking, what he really did bring to the table was the potential this way of thinking had for interpretation.
Therefore, unlike some other, more traditional, methods of analysis, Schenker's method is really geared towards performance, and specifically, hearing music of long periods.
Jump forward to my masters study, which revolves around improvisers hearing large-scale rhythmic frameworks, and consequently how surface rhythm interacts with these. If we think of Schenker's tonal concepts and replace them with rhythmic ideas, we can see how this suggests that this 'structural hearing' approach could be used as a means for someone (such as me) to deal with large rhythmic structures while improvising. This doesn't do the work for me, of course, but it sure gives an insight into the type of thinking that may be needed in preparation for, and during it.
Think now of jazz ensembles, what sort of percentage of players in those groups (or even leaders) would be concerned with tackling these sorts of ideas? I'm not talking about doing anything as specific as what Schenker/Salzer expounds, but I am interested as to how this way of thinking and hearing could effect people's approach to making spontaneous music together.
Think of Miles' 60's quintet in it's final stages (this anyone?). One of the things they were really able to do (that to the best of my knowledge not many other groups have really touched) was structure an entire performance of a piece so that it could encompass solos by most of the members of the group while still having an arc that wasn't just a series of ups and downs that corresponded with each member's solo climaxes. I'd argue that this approach could yield a much more satisfying performance, on a much deeper level.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
The Difference in Listening between Then and Now
I am having an interesting experience at the moment picking takes from trio session I did almost a year ago. When I recorded this I was just about to head overseas to attend the Banff Jazz workshops and was feeling pretty dis-enchanted with "jazz," and didn't really enjoy the recording session.
My inner voice after the session was done went something like: "well that wasn't a very good session, it was good to do, but it's one that'll just live on the hard-drive." However, Ronny Ferella approached me regarding putting the music out on his new label, Downstream, so I've had occasion to revisit the music: now I actually like it!
So what this really confirms for me is that judging while playing is impossible. Objectivity is highly unlikely while 'in the moment' of music making. In this case, it seems my negative thinking at the time didn't result in totally unusable music and in some cases it may have actually (dare I say) added a certain aggression to my playing that I enjoy.
Here's the crux of my point though: abstaining from judgment while playing can help achieve a state of flow. When one gets stuck in the details—"Oh that line was no good," "Why can't I play in time?," "Why is the drummer doing that?"—it is difficult to let the music emerge through collaborative improvisation.
Douglas Hofstadter, in his books "I am a Strange Loop" (2007) and "Godel, Escher, Bach" (1979), argues that intelligent beings such as ourselves are designed to comprehend the world on a macro level—we don't think about the vitamins and proteins being carried through our blood-stream, but we do think about the concept of being fit and healthy, for example. For Hofstadter meaning—in every sense—is created and perceived at the macro levels, where the interaction between large symbols takes place, not at micro level where we 'can't see the forest for the trees.'
Being stuck in moment-to-moment 'micro', judgmental thinking while playing is the exact opposite of how humans create and perceive meaning. I need to focus on getting to the macro-level of listening when improvising.
My inner voice after the session was done went something like: "well that wasn't a very good session, it was good to do, but it's one that'll just live on the hard-drive." However, Ronny Ferella approached me regarding putting the music out on his new label, Downstream, so I've had occasion to revisit the music: now I actually like it!
So what this really confirms for me is that judging while playing is impossible. Objectivity is highly unlikely while 'in the moment' of music making. In this case, it seems my negative thinking at the time didn't result in totally unusable music and in some cases it may have actually (dare I say) added a certain aggression to my playing that I enjoy.
Here's the crux of my point though: abstaining from judgment while playing can help achieve a state of flow. When one gets stuck in the details—"Oh that line was no good," "Why can't I play in time?," "Why is the drummer doing that?"—it is difficult to let the music emerge through collaborative improvisation.
Douglas Hofstadter, in his books "I am a Strange Loop" (2007) and "Godel, Escher, Bach" (1979), argues that intelligent beings such as ourselves are designed to comprehend the world on a macro level—we don't think about the vitamins and proteins being carried through our blood-stream, but we do think about the concept of being fit and healthy, for example. For Hofstadter meaning—in every sense—is created and perceived at the macro levels, where the interaction between large symbols takes place, not at micro level where we 'can't see the forest for the trees.'
Being stuck in moment-to-moment 'micro', judgmental thinking while playing is the exact opposite of how humans create and perceive meaning. I need to focus on getting to the macro-level of listening when improvising.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)