|
Post by freddy on Apr 17, 2007 13:44:03 GMT 10
Well, I don't agree with that musician. I think he's wrong. And if he is wrong, where does that leave your musings on modern jazz then, Captain?
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on Apr 17, 2007 14:03:25 GMT 10
yep, whoever said that is a total fuck with no idea. It's easy to look at something after the fact, analyze it and then go, there, it's just maths. Sure the exploration of the techniques involve in music can be explored and developed in a mathematical way, but they will never make a computer that plays music, it will play maths.
Capitain, one thinks you have an issue with modern? Maybe a symptom of classic blues, country and swing is the lack of exploration and complexity? Of course that is bullshit too, but you can say anything the way you want to if you have no idea.
|
|
|
Post by captain on Apr 17, 2007 14:08:36 GMT 10
I'm glad you don't agree with that musician - but you have to admit that Big Bill Broonzy probably didn't practice playing 7 notes in the space of 5... ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on Apr 17, 2007 14:11:34 GMT 10
yeah well, that is maths, but I will use it for good, not evil.
|
|
|
Post by captain on Apr 17, 2007 14:14:33 GMT 10
'Modern' is a stupid word to apply to music in the first place, (yes I know I did it first...) I don't have any problem with 'modern' music, I was just having a cheap crack at the expense of people who practice more than I do. The 'maths' element is present in alot of music, but like all elements its about finding the balance of the maths with the other important things.
I just thought it was worth pointing out to Kenny that the person who made that comment originally was having a bit of a crack at contemporary Jazz too.
|
|
|
Post by captain on Apr 17, 2007 14:16:29 GMT 10
Its too easy to have a go at people who enjoy exploring systematic rhythmic approaches when I know they'll be reading...
Let's not forget the most mathematical of genius' Johann Sebastien...
|
|
|
Post by ironguts on Apr 17, 2007 14:18:42 GMT 10
woof!
yes, and he could improvise too.
|
|
|
Post by captain on Apr 17, 2007 14:26:19 GMT 10
In a way learning harmony and rhythm is all maths, its just about whether maths is a means or an end I guess.
cylce of 5ths, quavers, triplets - this is no less maths than Steve Coleman or Philip Glass, at all levels there will be maths...
Looking forward to no maths on sunday at Bennetts...
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Apr 17, 2007 14:28:31 GMT 10
The 'maths' element is present in alot of music, but like all elements its about finding the balance of the maths with the other important things. Yep.
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Apr 17, 2007 14:30:19 GMT 10
In a way learning harmony and rhythm is all maths, its just about whether maths is a means or an end I guess. Yeah I like this - and for me the reviews in question emphasise the means rather than the ends.
|
|
|
Post by captain on Apr 17, 2007 14:52:52 GMT 10
I've never read a review of contemporary music where it says "Mr X plays some wonderful septuplets grouped in 5's, it really highlights the use of the 9 note symmetrical tri-scales."
Improvising is a means, systematic rhythm is a means, unusual scales are a means. Music is always greater than the sum of its parts.
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Apr 17, 2007 15:27:30 GMT 10
I've never read a review of contemporary music where it says "Mr X plays some wonderful septuplets grouped in 5's, it really highlights the use of the 9 note symmetrical tri-scales.". The Oz reviews are not that extreme.
|
|
|
Post by captain on Apr 17, 2007 15:54:18 GMT 10
Have you read other reviews that are actually like this?
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Apr 17, 2007 16:00:58 GMT 10
Have you read other reviews that are actually like this? Yeah I have, but I'm afraid I can't offer you specifics.
|
|
|
Post by captain on Apr 17, 2007 17:52:29 GMT 10
Sometimes Tim's veer in that direction, which is possibly why I enjoy them so much. He does focus more on the macro-compositional rather than what scales and polyrhthms are being used, which I think is wise.
|
|