Originality

[fasstrack]

This was inspired by the thread about the jazz audience and my own internal struggles.

People always talk about originality in music and generally-----but I wonder if they confuse it with other qualities that sometimes overlap with it but are not the same: innovation, personality ('personalness?), leadership, individuality, other things including strangeness.

I guess I should give my opinions to come clean and get it out of the way----since everyone else will hopefully give theirs: of course originality is good, but with certian qualifiers, i.e.: if it's based on what came before (since I know of nothing that comes out of nothing) and has some meaning to someone other than oneself. Here's where the confusion with 'personal' might come in. If someone can only play their own music, for example, I guess that's original, but that doesn't make them good musicians. Personal is different than innovative, which to me implies an improvement over something which usually is picked up on by other forward-thinking individuals----b/c it works and is better. To paraphrase John Birks Gillespie about the swing era guys finally having to change an accept bebop 'what were they gonna do, hide from the sun'? There's also a kind of self-absorbed, sticking one's ass out at the world brand of originality that may be original but has more to do with personal rebelliousness than beauty or doing any good in the world. I wonder how valuable this is other than for the person him or herself. I guess influence can be a hallmark of innovation, if not originality, but are all influences good? These are all personal choices and I guess the arguing will begin when I hit send. I think we can agree that history usually prove things' relative value.

Your thoughts?

Edited August 12, 2009 by fasstrack

[Larry Kart]

I'm sorry, Joel, but while there's nothing I could argue with in what you said, it's also so broadly based that I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with, say, your "of course originality is good, but with certain qualifiers, i.e.: if it's based on what came before (since I know of nothing that comes out of nothing) and has some meaning to someone other than oneself." Who doesn't fit that criteria that anyone of us here would want to pay attention to?

[fasstrack]

I'm sorry, Joel, but while there's nothing I could argue with in what you said, it's also so broadly based that I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with, say, your "of course originality is good, but with certain qualifiers, i.e.: if it's based on what came before (since I know of nothing that comes out of nothing) and has some meaning to someone other than oneself." Who doesn't fit that criteria that anyone of us here would want to pay attention to?

Plenty of people fit the criteria of the negative example (I'm not gonna name names, I don't think that shows class, and it's a matter of opinion) but few really pass the positive test to me. It's like someone said about excellence: it's as difficult as it is rare.

But to clarify: I'm definitely not trying to start a referendum on player A vs. player B----that just starts fights. I'm more interested in what people think about the idea of the personal vs. the 'useful' and how it impacts on music and society-----what moves things forward and what could be interesting but ultimately is an ego trip. That's all.

[Noj]

A personalized take is just about the only way to achieve anything "original" in any of the arts. Take something that's been done, but hasn't been done "your way." It seems to me that it is the only path to originality or innovation, and it naturally grows out of the exploration of things that have already been done.

[fasstrack]

A personalized take is just about the only way to achieve anything "original" in any of the arts. Take something that's been done, but hasn't been done "your way." It seems to me that it is the only path to originality or innovation, and it naturally grows out of the exploration of things that have already been done.

What about an original group effort?

[Noj]

When a group performs together for a spell, they synchronize their ideas and "speak" to each other in the context of sound. But, where do they begin? What's the "jumping off" point? How do they find their own voice but by playing what they all already know? They have to get on the same page first, and usually that's done by playing some standards or cover tunes, right? I'm not a musician, but I'd imagine this is just a necessary progression that in order for people to make new music together they have to know what each other are capable of. I mean, it's been done. The Jazz Messengers had an instantly recognizable sound behind Blakey's drums. Even the cutting edge musicians in the electro acoustic improvisation context must rehearse and discuss their ideas to make sure they have a common goal--and ultimately in what ways can improvisation be approached which have not yet been tread but in sounds yet to be selected?

Group efforts in the visual arts are common. Nearly every film is a group effort. Cristo conducts huge collaborative efforts in order to produce his sculptures. The Clayton Brothers are a collaborative fine art duo. I think that the individual voice and group voice are both the means toward developing a "personalized" take on creativity within the confines of art that has already been done.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Noj

[fasstrack]

When a group performs together for a spell, they synchronize their ideas and "speak" to each other in the context of sound. But, where do they begin? What's the "jumping off" point? How do they find their own voice but by playing what they all already know? They have to get on the same page first, and usually that's done by playing some standards or cover tunes, right? I'm not a musician, but I'd imagine this is just a necessary progression that in order for people to make new music together they have to know what each other are capable of. I mean, it's been done. The Jazz Messengers had an instantly recognizable sound behind Blakey's drums. Even the cutting edge musicians in the electro acoustic improvisation context must rehearse and discuss their ideas to make sure they have a common goal--and ultimately in what ways can improvisation be approached which have not yet been tread but in sounds yet to be selected?

Group efforts in the visual arts are common. Nearly every film is a group effort. Cristo conducts huge collaborative efforts in order to produce his sculptures. The Clayton Brothers are a collaborative fine art duo. I think that the individual voice and group voice are both the means toward developing a "personalized" take on creativity within the confines of art that has already been done.

Good points. That's why I also mentioned leadership. Usually a group, if it's any good, has a common purpose that's organized around the ideas of one, maybe two leaders. Usually cooperations don't work as well. But a wise leader asks the other members for input. As long as no one's ego gets out of line this usually works. I say 'wise' b/c no one wants his ideas stifled and everyone in a good group is there to help the music and, I believe, most people want to support the leader if they respect the leader. But they will also get antsy if they're not allowed to contribute.

In a jazz group the time for unity and listening never ends, if it's a real jazz group which stresses improvising, and responding. The rhythm section players can give ideas, too. You learn a lot about people's personalities being in a group----who's stiff and unyielding, who's cool and easy to work with, etc. I've been in the bandleader role a lot myself and my favorite part is turning some creative musicians loose with new material and watching what they do with it. They'll think of things I never would for my own tunes. I also have learned a lot from both good and poor bandleaders I've either worked for or observed.

Edited August 12, 2009 by fasstrack

[fasstrack]

Bump. Gonna give this one last shot, then accept your lack of interest..................

[AllenLowe]

just gonna add,and you can decide if it's relevant or not, that sometimes things do come out of nowhere, or at least seem to - which is like the way Joe Albany described Charlie Parker to me - and the way I feel about Duke Ellington and Louis Armstrong, Ornette Coleman, and certain writers - which does not mean that they have no history or frame of reference, but that their antecedents are insufficient to explain their particular power and innovations. Too often, I think, we assess things under the cliched concept of "continuum". It's like saying "there's nothing new under the sun." Personally I think there's lots of new things under the sun, things that, sure, can be seen in relation to other things, but which cannot be seen clearly and fully in this way. In many ways I take my cues from the old Susan Sonag essay "Against Interpretation" in which she says, essentially, that critics too often force their responses to new thing in terms of that which they already know. In doing so they tend to pull the work from its new and unfamiliar context, in favor of a form that they can more easily grasp.

Edited August 13, 2009 by AllenLowe

[Larry Kart]

Allen makes some very good points above IMO. Not all genuine "originalities" are the same kind of beast; sometimes a considerable sense of upheaval and/or "leaps" (both in terms of expression and language) is in the cards. For instance, this account by pianist Edward Steuermann, of Schoenberg's Five Pieces, Op. 23 -- Steuermann having given the first performances of all the Schoenberg's piano works:

"In the first piece ... the initial melody (in the upper voice) reappears after an accompaniment-like staccato phrase in a completely changed shape. The sequence of the tones is the same, but they appear in different octaves (changing this way the design of the phrase) and in a different rhythm. As the tones remain the same, the identity remains the same. This way a new principle of variation has been established: no matter how distant the spheres the expression reaches, the core of the music is unchanged. A new principle of variation: the deep desire of every new art!"

[fasstrack]

Allen makes some very good points above IMO. Not all genuine "originalities" are the same kind of beast; sometimes a considerable sense of upheaval and/or "leaps" (both in terms of expression and language) is in the cards. For instance, this account by pianist Edward Steuermann, of Schoenberg's Five Pieces, Op. 23 -- Steuermann having given the first performances of all the Schoenberg's piano works:

"In the first piece ... the initial melody (in the upper voice) reappears after an accompaniment-like staccato phrase in a completely changed shape. The sequence of the tones is the same, but they appear in different octaves (changing this way the design of the phrase) and in a different rhythm. As the tones remain the same, the identity remains the same. This way a new principle of variation has been established: no matter how distant the spheres the expression reaches, the core of the music is unchanged. A new principle of variation: the deep desire of every new art!"

*Schoenberg was still grounded in the traditional stuff. He made a conscious choice to change. That music, and its basis in rearranging the harmonic scenery, etc, FWIW did cause an upheaval, but mostly in universities where high-minded discussions among men with secure teaching gigs took place. It definitely passes the 'utility' test: Some composers, like Milton Babbit, still live by serialism. Some, like David Del Tredici (and increasingly many others) returned to tonality, and took knocks on their noggins from the eggheads. We all have to follow our respective stars. Personally, I think Schoenberg was very courageous, and his accomplishment as a musician is undeniable. In terms of beauty, I personally find much of his music (I like Moses and Aron, the Bach arrangements and a few early pieces best) about as listenable as that of another guru: Lennie Tristano----which is to say not very. Give me Berg or Warne Marsh. But I tip my cap deeply to Mr. Schoenberg (and Tristano) for being musical thinkers and sticking to their guns.

I wish someone would pick up on this idea of how the things I mentioned originally seem to get conflated/confused. Or maybe it doesn't matter to people............

* I am not, nor would profess to be an authority on classical harmony, especially serial music. I am a jazz guitarist and composer very satisfied (for now) to work within, while finding the wrinkles in the materials available in Western music. Take my comments on Schoenberg/serialism with as much salt as is needed.

Edited August 13, 2009 by fasstrack

[Larry Kart]

*Schoenberg was still grounded in the traditional stuff. He made a conscious choice to change. That music, and its basis in rearranging the harmonic scenery, etc, FWIW did cause an upheaval, but mostly in universities where high-minded discussions among men with secure teaching gigs took place.

The grounded part, yes, but otherwise I disagree: A good deal of Schoenberg, especially circa 1907-13, was and probably will forever be scary-strange (Erwartung, the final movement of String Quartet No. 2, much of Pierrot Lunaire and Five Orchestra Pieces, Book of the Hanging Gardens, Herzgewachse, Four Songs with Orchestra Op. 22, Die Gluckliche Hand). And the scariness and the strangeness are built right into the music; in the words of the late Carl Dahlhaus, these works still retain, a century of so later, an air of "for the first time." Uncle Arnold at that time often was in an out-on-the-edge state of mind. Likewise, any number of Charlie Parker recordings are never going to sound "normal."

I also disagree that the upheaval those 1907-10 Schoenberg works induced was essentially an academic affair. It took place back then and there and for a good time afterwards; the academic stuff you're referring to ("high-minded discussions among men with secure teaching gigs") took place much later -- almost entirely after WWII -- and primarily in the U.S.

Finally, about your "I wish someone would pick up on this idea of how the things I mentioned originally seem to get conflated/confused. Or maybe it doesn't matter to people............" The problem is, as I think I almost said before, that your initial statement of the idea was so benign in tone that no one could find anything there to disagree with.

[fasstrack]

*Schoenberg was still grounded in the traditional stuff. He made a conscious choice to change. That music, and its basis in rearranging the harmonic scenery, etc, FWIW did cause an upheaval, but mostly in universities where high-minded discussions among men with secure teaching gigs took place.

The grounded part, yes, but otherwise I disagree: A good deal of Schoenberg, especially circa 1907-13, was and probably will forever be scary-strange (Erwartung, the final movement of String Quartet No. 2, much of Pierrot Lunaire and Five Orchestra Pieces, Book of the Hanging Gardens, Herzgewachse, Four Songs with Orchestra Op. 22, Die Gluckliche Hand). And the scariness and the strangeness are built right into the music; in the words of the late Carl Dahlhaus, these works still retain, a century of so later, an air of "for the first time." Uncle Arnold at that time often was in an out-on-the-edge state of mind. Likewise, any number of Charlie Parker recordings are never going to sound "normal."

I also disagree that the upheaval those 1907-10 Schoenberg works induced was essentially an academic affair. It took place back then and there and for a good time afterwards; the academic stuff you're referring to ("high-minded discussions among men with secure teaching gigs") took place much later -- almost entirely after WWII -- and primarily in the U.S.

Finally, about your "I wish someone would pick up on this idea of how the things I mentioned originally seem to get conflated/confused. Or maybe it doesn't matter to people............" The problem is, as I think I almost said before, that your initial statement of the idea was so benign in tone that no one could find anything there to disagree with.

I repeat, nothing comes out of nothing. Creativity is arranging what's there in new ways. The 'new ways' is what like-minded people respond to, but if the language---the conveyance---isn't at least familiar precious few people will get on board, b/c it has nothing to do with their lives or their art. You know more about the specifics of Schoenberg's work than I, so I will yield to your statements. But the more I think about it the more I come down on the side of 'usefulness'. If you're just playing some weird music just b/c, IMO it's sort of a waste b/c it means nothing to anyone else but you. There are many people in many fields who are very accomplished, even brilliant, but their work exists in a vaccuum. I repeat, I personally find this sad. But maybe their chief value is as teachers, and we definitely need teachers.

Sorry if this is an uncontroversial or benign statement to you, Larry. It happens to be what I believe, and I don't ask anyone to declare me profound. I think it's a lot easier to get into discussions that lead nowhere about whether guy A is better than guy B, and why. I'm a musician and know how hard it is, how much work is involved in merely being good, let alone 'original'. One time, many years ago Jaki Byard really straightened me out. I was so young and stupid I actually thought I was saying something to this great musician (to this day I've never met anyone heavier in terms of knowledge, scope, or control over his art as an improvisor) that meant something----when all I was doing was what a lot of musicians who should know better, and fans do: shit talking about some musician or other. Jaki looked at me and said 'everyone's a big time critic, but no one....' and he started to say 'plays shit', but was too polite, so he stopped himself. But I got the message, and it took me some years before I realized both the wisdom of his statement and how lucky I was to be exposed as a musician to someone so knowledgeable. So I try to play more now and talk less.

Since you're undeniably smart, make a statement yourself to get me thinking. I mean it, I'm not trying to be a smartass. On the contrary, this is exactly why I put this up: I already know what my own opinions are.

Edited August 14, 2009 by fasstrack

[JSngry]

"Meaning" is not in the thing itself, it's in what you do to the thing and what it does to you after you find it.

So, yeah, the same thing can be profound to one, utter bullshit to another, and both will be right within themselves, if they are both being wholly honest in their intellect and emotion. Outside of themselves, hey, it's ultimately evolution and consensus, as much as we'd like to think otherwise.

To thine own self, etc, because there is no Number One.

[danasgoodstuff]

I guess I kinda sorta agree up to a point that "originality", etc. are kinda problematic concepts, but I don't have time to parse it all out right now, maybe I'll try later...

I know how frustrating it is to post hoping for a response and be disappointed, so I'm not trying to be a smart ass either.

Dana

[Larry Kart]

*Schoenberg was still grounded in the traditional stuff. He made a conscious choice to change. That music, and its basis in rearranging the harmonic scenery, etc, FWIW did cause an upheaval, but mostly in universities where high-minded discussions among men with secure teaching gigs took place.

The grounded part, yes, but otherwise I disagree: A good deal of Schoenberg, especially circa 1907-13, was and probably will forever be scary-strange (Erwartung, the final movement of String Quartet No. 2, much of Pierrot Lunaire and Five Orchestra Pieces, Book of the Hanging Gardens, Herzgewachse, Four Songs with Orchestra Op. 22, Die Gluckliche Hand). And the scariness and the strangeness are built right into the music; in the words of the late Carl Dahlhaus, these works still retain, a century of so later, an air of "for the first time." Uncle Arnold at that time often was in an out-on-the-edge state of mind. Likewise, any number of Charlie Parker recordings are never going to sound "normal."

I also disagree that the upheaval those 1907-10 Schoenberg works induced was essentially an academic affair. It took place back then and there and for a good time afterwards; the academic stuff you're referring to ("high-minded discussions among men with secure teaching gigs") took place much later -- almost entirely after WWII -- and primarily in the U.S.

Finally, about your "I wish someone would pick up on this idea of how the things I mentioned originally seem to get conflated/confused. Or maybe it doesn't matter to people............" The problem is, as I think I almost said before, that your initial statement of the idea was so benign in tone that no one could find anything there to disagree with.

I repeat, nothing comes out of nothing. Creativity is arranging what's there in new ways. The 'new ways' is what like-minded people respond to, but if the language---the conveyance---isn't at least familiar precious few people will get on board, b/c it has nothing to do with their lives or their art.

All I'm saying is that in some cases, and Schoenberg IMO definitely would be one, the something that comes out (and comes out, in the view of many, out of deep inner emotional necessity) is related to what's already there, in language terms, along the lines of extreme novelty and/or upheaval. This certainly plays on "what's already there" (you couldn't have a sense of upheaval, except perhaps in terms of sheer noise, if one didn't feel that prior habits and norms were being [so to speak] "upheaved"), but probably it doesn't play on "what's already there" in ways that you would regard as legitimate. About the "like-minded people respond to" it part, are we going to take a poll? Some did respond to this music with great passion, including (for two) Alban Berg and Anton Webern. Pretty notable company, no? And they did not respond to it because they belonged to of a clan of beard-pulling academics; this music excited them to the soles of their feet. It did so and still does so to me, and I am not alone. Again, are these things to be settled by polls or concert attendence or record sales? What is there about the existence of what may be rightly (in some senses) called a "minority" music that is so wrong? BTW, do you know trumpeter-composer Steve Lampert's work, which could be said to yoke Schoenberg and electric Miles?

[AllenLowe]

I think, also, fasstrack is talking about two different kinds of new music. There certainly are hundreds of academic composers who sound exactly like that - like musicians who have spent too much time on the inside, and their music (and I am treading a fine line here between a certain critical idea of living forms and anti-intellectualism) sounds it - dead, no sense of real life, an intellectual pose. But I would stay away from the term "useful" which, to me, summons up visions of Stalinist demands that a work of art must fit into some pre-ordained sense of social order and purpose.

There are many other great composer, jazz and otherwise, some even academics, whose music is much different than that which I described above. And there was Jaki Byard who was one of the lucky ones - a great modernist and re-caster of traditional materials into forms that were not only challenging but thrilling musically.

Now of course I have seen the reverse kind of snobbery, of musicians who, working with newer ideas, look down upon the old as automatically dead and limiting. This is usually related to ignorance and just plain lack of any historical frame of reference.

Edited August 15, 2009 by AllenLowe

[fasstrack]

*Schoenberg was still grounded in the traditional stuff. He made a conscious choice to change. That music, and its basis in rearranging the harmonic scenery, etc, FWIW did cause an upheaval, but mostly in universities where high-minded discussions among men with secure teaching gigs took place.

The grounded part, yes, but otherwise I disagree: A good deal of Schoenberg, especially circa 1907-13, was and probably will forever be scary-strange (Erwartung, the final movement of String Quartet No. 2, much of Pierrot Lunaire and Five Orchestra Pieces, Book of the Hanging Gardens, Herzgewachse, Four Songs with Orchestra Op. 22, Die Gluckliche Hand). And the scariness and the strangeness are built right into the music; in the words of the late Carl Dahlhaus, these works still retain, a century of so later, an air of "for the first time." Uncle Arnold at that time often was in an out-on-the-edge state of mind. Likewise, any number of Charlie Parker recordings are never going to sound "normal."

I also disagree that the upheaval those 1907-10 Schoenberg works induced was essentially an academic affair. It took place back then and there and for a good time afterwards; the academic stuff you're referring to ("high-minded discussions among men with secure teaching gigs") took place much later -- almost entirely after WWII -- and primarily in the U.S.

Finally, about your "I wish someone would pick up on this idea of how the things I mentioned originally seem to get conflated/confused. Or maybe it doesn't matter to people............" The problem is, as I think I almost said before, that your initial statement of the idea was so benign in tone that no one could find anything there to disagree with.

I repeat, nothing comes out of nothing. Creativity is arranging what's there in new ways. The 'new ways' is what like-minded people respond to, but if the language---the conveyance---isn't at least familiar precious few people will get on board, b/c it has nothing to do with their lives or their art.

All I'm saying is that in some cases, and Schoenberg IMO definitely would be one, the something that comes out (and comes out, in the view of many, out of deep inner emotional necessity) is related to what's already there, in language terms, along the lines of extreme novelty and/or upheaval. This certainly plays on "what's already there" (you couldn't have a sense of upheaval, except perhaps in terms of sheer noise, if one didn't feel that prior habits and norms were being [so to speak] "upheaved"), but probably it doesn't play on "what's already there" in ways that you would regard as legitimate. About the "like-minded people respond to" it part, are we going to take a poll? Some did respond to this music with great passion, including (for two) Alban Berg and Anton Webern. Pretty notable company, no? And they did not respond to it because they belonged to of a clan of beard-pulling academics; this music excited them to the soles of their feet. It did so and still does so to me, and I am not alone. Again, are these things to be settled by polls or concert attendence or record sales? What is there about the existence of what may be rightly (in some senses) called a "minority" music that is so wrong? BTW, do you know trumpeter-composer Steve Lampert's work, which could be said to yoke Schoenberg and electric Miles?

What I mean by 'like-minded people' is when a movement starts, or even individuals picking up on ideas that excite them or feel right. There are certain artists who have a me-against-the-world attitude and it works for them. It's a loney life, though. Also, if you are a writer (literary or music) you can work in isolation, at least while you're writing. Jazz, and most popular musics are collaborative----again no great insight needed to see that. Also, sometimes the student eclipses the master, as IMO Marsh over Tristano and especially Berg/Schoenberg. I think, especially with Berg his music was more felt. I admit I've listened to more Berg tahn Schoenberg, but maybe that's b/c Schoenberg's music was less appealing to me. It's hard for me to get into music that's mathematically contrived, including even Trane's Giant Steps. I don't enjoy playing it and prefer to listen to other things of his, though it was a hell of an achievement. You can tell he worked on it for a year. This is all personal, and to me it's more exciting to take something there and really find something either new or rearranged. But I never force anything. That sort of can kill art. Stretch, yeah, but don't pull. I realize people get bored, I just personally don't respond to artificial forms. Maybe I should try. I like Miles' statement 'if a note doesn't sound good to me I can't play it'. I really believe in that, hearing being the best way to discovery and everything else. Of course you have to study and have push yourself sometimes. Woody Shaw got a lot out of working with certain intervals and things discovered by 20th century composers.

You mentioned Bird coming from left field. In very important ways he did, but he also quoted a lot, which sort of sums up a lot of what I mean. There's something I call 'musical memory'. Bill Evans called a 'universal musical mind'. It's almost like you have the entire history of music in your brain and consiousness, and so many melodies and chord changes in Western music are so similar that when you learn 5 you learn 50, etc. I've taught children and adults successfully drawing this out of them. What a really creative musician does is listen, think, stir the pot, and it comes out them. Life experience doesn't even enter into it often, otherwise there wouldn't be young geniuses who are so influential. This is one reason this level of talent is called a 'gift'. But the most exciting creativity, again, and I won't beat this to death anymore, is when people see something in their lives in the end product, and it's new somehow. Everyone (I mean fans, not Fletcher Henderson and his band) loved and understood Lester Young, yet he was entirely fresh at the time. Smoother rhythm, lighter sound. I just think melody is a life force in music and is a large part of why people listen.

No, I never heard Steve Lampert. I like some of Miles electric stuff, though.

Edited August 15, 2009 by fasstrack

[fasstrack]

I think, also, fasstrack is talking about two different kinds of new music. There certainly are hundreds of academic composers who sound exactly like that - like musicians who have spent too much time on the inside, and their music (and I am treading a fine line here between a certain critical idea of living forms and anti-intellectualism) sounds it - dead, no sense of real life, an intellectual pose. But I would stay away from the term "useful" which, to me, summons up visions of Stalinist demands that a work of art must fit into some pre-ordained sense of social order and purpose.

There are many other great composer, jazz and otherwise, some even academics, whose music is much different than that which I described above. And there was Jaki Byard who was one of the lucky ones - a great modernist and re-caster of traditional materials into forms that were not only challenging but thrilling musically.

Now of course I have seen the reverse kind of snobbery, of musicians who, working with newer ideas, look down upon the old as automatically dead and limiting. This is usually related to ignorance and just plain lack of any historical frame of reference.

Refusing to check out either the new or the old can equally lead to dead ends. It's standing on ceremony and stupid.

[Larry Kart]

Also, sometimes the student eclipses the master, as IMO Marsh over Tristano and especially Berg/Schoenberg. I think, especially with Berg his music was more felt. I admit I've listened to more Berg tahn Schoenberg, but maybe that's b/c Schoenberg's music was less appealing to me. It's hard for me to get into music that's mathematically contrived, including even Trane's Giant Steps.

Schoenberg's music from 1907-13 was as far from being mathematically contrived as could be -- if anything, one could argue that at times it was bit too much an "outpouring from the soul." About S's later twelve-tone works, and there are different periods there too, even the "strictest" of those pieces comes across in a good performance as driven by inner necessity (which was the case), not as a product of calculation. Then, in his final period, there was his String Trio for one -- which was inspired by a near-death experience of S's and sounds as though it had been.

[fasstrack]

Also, sometimes the student eclipses the master, as IMO Marsh over Tristano and especially Berg/Schoenberg. I think, especially with Berg his music was more felt. I admit I've listened to more Berg tahn Schoenberg, but maybe that's b/c Schoenberg's music was less appealing to me. It's hard for me to get into music that's mathematically contrived, including even Trane's Giant Steps.

Schoenberg's music from 1907-13 was as far from being mathematically contrived as could be -- if anything, one could argue that at times it was bit too much an "outpouring from the soul." About S's later twelve-tone works, and there are different periods there too, even the "strictest" of those pieces comes across in a good performance as driven by inner necessity (which was the case), not as a product of calculation. Then, in his final period, there was his String Trio for one -- which was inspired by a near-death experience of S's and sounds as though it had been.

I told you I haven't studied his music closely. I can't say anymore until I do.

[fasstrack]

"Meaning" is not in the thing itself, it's in what you do to the thing and what it does to you after you find it.

Right. Also, a thing can't exist without its opposite.

I would only add: it's what it does to (for) other people. Especially in the social/communucation arts.

[Larry Kart]

Also, sometimes the student eclipses the master, as IMO Marsh over Tristano and especially Berg/Schoenberg. I think, especially with Berg his music was more felt. I admit I've listened to more Berg tahn Schoenberg, but maybe that's b/c Schoenberg's music was less appealing to me. It's hard for me to get into music that's mathematically contrived, including even Trane's Giant Steps.

Schoenberg's music from 1907-13 was as far from being mathematically contrived as could be -- if anything, one could argue that at times it was bit too much an "outpouring from the soul." About S's later twelve-tone works, and there are different periods there too, even the "strictest" of those pieces comes across in a good performance as driven by inner necessity (which was the case), not as a product of calculation. Then, in his final period, there was his String Trio for one -- which was inspired by a near-death experience of S's and sounds as though it had been.

I told you I haven't studied his music closely. I can't say anymore until I do.

OK, but you have been saying a lot of dismissive stiff about it that is, apart from matters of taste, factually not accurate. Why not hold off on that kind of thing until you do become more familiar with his music? Or if you don't want to do that, just make your points while leaving S. and his music out of it.

[Larry Kart]

Some Steve Lampert here:

http://www.bridgerecords.com/catpage.php?call=9235

[Larry Kart]

Also, a thing can't exist without its opposite.

Art very often is not a matter of "opposites." To think that it is IMO implies a belief in an almost mathematical-like rigidity of discourse, plus a belief that historical processes are based on underlying and more or less "eternal" principles.