Theory & Impro Do we really need theory?

[ProfJames]

My definition of good music is it stands the test of time and repetition. Being popular does not make music good. A great deal of popular music to me is like paper plates and plastic utensils. It serves it purpose, but quickly loses its value. A piece of music is good to me if after hearing it 20 times, I want to listen to it again. Also if I hear it again after 20 years, it is like getting reacquainted with an old and dear friend. Another aspect is that I grow and change in my taste in music. What I like is much broader and diverse today than when I was a teenager.

What makes good music then? How do you define...good music?

 

[richardr]

What makes good music then? How do you define...good music?

Is there an absolute definition and does it matter? It's likely that you, or jbtsax or anyone else would consider some pieces of music that I would call "good" according to jbtsax's definition to be absolute rubbish. So what? Also, when I think of a piece of music I think of a certain recording. Others think of the composition; to them who plays it and how is of secondary importance.

 

[jbtsax]

Green Onions was a blues shuffle very common in the early 1960's. That was before rock-n-roll permanently adopted even eighth notes and rock music still swung. My favorite version came out in 1963 a year after Booker T's recording. It featured my guy Plas Johnson on the tenor solo.

 

[Alice]

It says "not available" @jbtsax
Green Onions is one of my all time favourites.

 

[aldevis]

My dearest friend Michael Perry Allen (Al Green's pianist) worked for 12 years at Stax.
Band C was rehearsing twice a week, for the sake of it
Band B was recording demos.
If the demo was good, Booker T would do the album.

Michael writes beautifully for string quartet, by the way.

 

[richardr]

Green Onions was a blues shuffle very common in the early 1960's. That was before rock-n-roll permanently adopted even eighth notes and rock music still swung. My favorite version came out in 1963 a year after Booker T's recording. It featured my guy Plas Johnson on the tenor solo.

Thanks for introducing me to this. I like it.
A few years ago Steve Cropper stayed at my regular pub. For a couple of nights he propped-up the bar, nattering to us regulars. At one point someone brought in an Green Onions album sleeve for him to autograph, which he did, but he cringed. He told us that he hates most of his early stuff because all he hears is his mistakes. I thank that's rather sad because I think his Memphis Atlantic recordings are wonderful, definitely good music. Or am I sad for liking them?

 

[richardr]

It says "not available" @jbtsax
Green Onions is one of my all time favourites.

Same for me but I went straight to Green Onions Mancini on Youtube and got it that way. It's a good track, well worth the effort.

 

[jbtsax]

What makes good music then? How do you define...good music?

"Good" is not the best adjective to use. I should have said music of value. Music of value stands the test of time. Some examples would be Pachelbel's Canon, Bach's Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring, Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, Beatle's Yesterday, Brubeck's Take Five, etc. These and thousands of other works will be listened to generations from now. Each genre of music has its "standards" that are timeless. These standards go beyond one's individual tastes like famous works of art and like these works of art they are timeless. Some are not well accepted when they are first performed like Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, because they are ahead of their time, but society has a way of catching up. Anyway that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Alice]

Same for me but I went straight to Green Onions Mancini on Youtube and got it that way. It's a good track, well worth the effort.

I just wanted to mention it because of the dead link issue. Yes, I will listen to it that way.
I just listened to this version and don't like it as much as Count Basie's or Booker T's.

 

[aldevis]

"Good" is not the best adjective to use. I should have said music of value. Music of value stands the test of time.

How can't I disagree?
I have a very partial opinion of what is "good" and what is not. There are good things that I don't like (like Wagner) and bad music that I like (like a song called "Vespa 50")

Referring to the free improvisation few posts earlier, it's my opinion that some music (in particular improvised music, even more free jazz) is to be consumed "on the spot". Hic et nunc.

Often live recordings are good, but the musician's attitude when playing live is different.
A classical example: I laugh at a live performance of "Le nozze di Figaro", I listen more to the music on record.

Different contexts affect both the performers and the listeners.

 

[ProfJames]

"Good" is not the best adjective to use. I should have said music of value. Music of value stands the test of time. Some examples would be Pachelbel's Canon, Bach's Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring, Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, Beatle's Yesterday, Brubeck's Take Five, etc. These and thousands of other works will be listened to generations from now. Each genre of music has its "standards" that are timeless. These standards go beyond one's individual tastes like famous works of art and like these works of art they are timeless. Some are not well accepted when they are first performed like Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, because they are ahead of their time, but society has a way of catching up. Anyway that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

You regard that music "valued". Other people value other music of "value". Maybe society will catch up with Kanye West! Ha ha ha! A fine example.....

 

[Alice]

You regard that music "valued". Other people value other music of "value". Maybe society will catch up with Kanye West! Ha ha ha! A fine example.....

Very true Prof!

 

[Nurrdeer]

It is my humble opinion that both are important, as others have pointed out. After all, we learn to talk and to read english, but we don't need reading to talk... At the same time, reading is important.

 

[Wade Cornell]

I find this all very interesting. It's an argument in slow motion that goes round and round. However I find that what's lacking is the notion of the listener/viewer. Defining art is generally fraught with problems. I'm happy to simply think it's some kind of communication. Does the degree of complexity or knowledge of the creator necessarily mean that it's great art or even communicates? OK, if you have an advanced degree in any of the arts please stop reading NOW as we do not wish to offend.

Can anyone name a great artist, musician, or composer who has a PhD? These are people who society has conferred accolades to for their knowledge of the arts. Do you need to have skills in your field of the arts in order to practice it. Yes, of course! Will understanding the precise chord structure of an improvised solo from 60 years ago make you a good improviser or just a cut and paste copier? The academic method of analysis (after the fact) does not = creating those improvisations. Recognizing that someone is copying a particular form or pattern also does not = that being a great or creative moment.

It's certainly true that most of the commercial music offered to the public is dumbed down formulae that is sonically impressive but vacuous. So what the alternative? Should we huddle in small enclaves acting as the Illuminati with superior knowledge of complex chord structures that 99.99% of listeners don't care about? If we want our instrument of choice to have a future it's not gong to happen by trying to brow beat the public with our superior knowledge. It will have to come about by communicating. As long as jazz continues to try and codify and dictate how music must sound it will continue to die. The great musicians of the mid 20th century weren't copying musicians from 1900. They moved on. It's time once again to move on.

 

[richardr]

As long as jazz continues to try and codify and dictate

Is it jazz that's doing this or is it colleges and universities trying to find something to offer to their students in much the same way that people study English literature?

 

[Wade Cornell]

Depends if you have a limited definition of jazz. Universities do what they do. It's an academic institution. Knowledge is gained and passed on. This works spectacularly well for science, engineering, law and many other absolute and definable disciplines. It's not been very successful in the arts. As said how many PhD great artists or musicians do you know of?

Studying the history of Jazz at a University would be excellent. It's a definable thing. Studying how to be creative is not really something that universities are very good at. They can, and do teach technique, and that's OK. The problem may be that the syllabus is too closed in its perspective. If you are fed a strict diet of playing standards and judged by your conformity, then this is setting up a mental pathway that continually gets reinforced. Students spend (or their parents) a lot of money chasing the piece of paper that's the culmination of years of work. In order to do well one must jump through the academic hoops. It's easy to say that once a student has done this they can go on to play whatever they want. This is true, but to a much lesser extent than many think. Humans. like many other animals imprint. It seems that with music and our tastes for many things this imprinting happens between 12 years old and 20-something. Coincidentally the same years we are learning. Radio stations are more than aware of imprinting and have done very nicely from playing music from specific decades that people have imprinted on. It also gives them a definable demographic for their advertisers. If the only music you learn and play is in a particular style, that's likely to be what you continue to do thereafter. It's certainly possible to retrain yourself, but this takes time and dedication, and you need to have a different goal that can be visualized/heard.

The limitations of academia in teaching creativity are obvious. They do have the ability to teach technique, but need to ensure that they are giving students a very widely based tool kit without overly influencing how it will be used. This has not happened. Part of the problem arises from an act of the US Congress which recognizes Jazz as an American art form that deserves support. This has = $$ for mainstream jazz education. It was an honest attempt to foster jazz, but has had an unfortunate bias that dictates American "mainstream and standards". The unforeseen result has been a plethora of mainstream educated musicians who have no future.

 

[Targa]

Can anyone name a great artist, musician, or composer who has a PhD?

Brian May.

 

[Caz]

Brian May.

Good one 🙂

 

[Jeanette]

Well done @Targa but @Wade Cornell makes a valid point, it's hard for someone trying to play jazz to make a living as the audience is so small. Plus Brian's PhD wasn't in music was it?

Jx

 

[Targa]

Well done @Targa but @Wade Cornell makes a valid point, it's hard for someone trying to play jazz to make a living as the audience is so small. Plus Brian's PhD wasn't in music was it?

Jx

I answered the question precisely as asked.
Astrophysics.