Klarinet Archive - Posting 000748.txt from 2000/12

From: Jennifer Jones <JJONES@-----.EDU>
Subj: Re: [kl] Roger speaks
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:04:52 -0500

Roger Garrett wrote:
> At 02:59 AM 12/13/2000 +0000, Tony Pay wrote:
> > > > ....I regard my own contribution to music, and the contribution of
> > > > my fellow performers of written music, as in one way on a much lower
> > > > creative level than the level of the best jazz players; which is
> > > > perhaps why I become rather testy on this list and elsewhere when I
> > > > feel that what we do is relegated even further, to the level of mere
> > > > technical expertise, as in 'making it all seem easy'. We are
> > > > creative too, but under a different interpretation of the word,
> > > > 'creative'.

> The problem here, is that you don't own the definition to the word
> creative. Yet you appear to feel comfortable making conclusions about
> creative issues. The problem here is that your definition is not well
> supported. Therefore, conclusions based on such a definition may be
> flawed. Beyond that, what you have written above has literally nothing to
> do with the opinion you have presented regarding jazz as a lower level of
> artistic achievement.

Isn't it more a matter of language being limiting rather than the individual
"owning" the language? So, if one wants to say something particular but a word
doesn't quite fit what they want to say, they modify the word with explanation
to say what they want to say. I think in a sense we all collectively own
language, and can modify it to suit our needs, but not too much or it loses
it's communicative function.

As for Tony's argument that performers are creative in a certain sense, I'm not
sure I understand completely. It seemed to me to be a bit of a stretch at
first, but it worked once I divorced my thinking from creativity only in the
sense of composing. The situation of performers then appeared to be on a
rather fuzzy borderline between creativity in terms of composers and the
imagination to show how pieces "live" another person referred to earlier. But
then, my thought went full circle and made me ask if composing wasn't the
imaginative assembly of many preexisting isolated elements to synthesize a
"new" pattern? Thus performance would be analogous in that it is the
imaginative assemblage of a performer's previous experiences and knowledge of
music to synthesize a new performance.

> > Tony Pay wrote:
> > > This feeling of myself operating at a lower level of creativity than
> > > the jazz performer, however, is somewhat offset for me by the
> > > feeling that the end result of the jazz enterprise is not on such a
> > > high level of artistic achievement.
>
>You can judge for yourselves whether the 'comment' has been taken out of
>context.

> Based on your standards of "out of context" as presented by past responses
> to other posts, I would say your own statement is not supported by your
> actions. Using your cut and paste method - well documented in the
> archives, your comment is more of an attempt to draw a reader's attention
> away from the issue rather than provide anything that is supportive in
> terms of actual information.

> > Tony Pay wrote:
> > > The best composed/performed pieces are for me on a different
> > > level from the best improvised pieces.

> Spontaneous music making is not something that is judgeable or even
> comparable to something that takes months, sometimes years to create. They
> are different creative endeavours. That you choose to compare them in the
> context that you do is your choice. But the end result is not at all
> dissimilar to me stating to the list in front of you that playing a 6 key
> clarinet is not as interesting or as difficult as one on a 5 key
> clarinet. Or a 32 key clarinet. Apples and oranges. Or better, cat poop
> and dog pee!

Yes, I think I agree.

> >My opinion.

> Yup. And you need to remember that........

Didn't he just indicate that he remembered it by stating that it was his
opinion?

> > > More often, I find jazz players play classical literature much more
> > > readily and accurately than classical players trying to play jazz.
> >
> >OK. Doesn't invalidate what I said.

> I wonder if it doesn't. It provides a perspective that your's didn't -
> therefore being more complete and informative. Subsequently, it makes the
> original appear less than valid.

Just because one post provides a perspective that a previous didn't doesn't
mean that the latter is more complete and informative, unless the latter post
reiterated the previous perspective. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that didn't
seem to be the case for those posts, rather more a matter of one post
contributing it's perspective to the other. Come on, we're a bunch of
blubbering humans here. Can we seiously condemn eachother over such a minor
thing? I seriously doubt that any of us can provide a complete perspective
100% of the time, or even 10% of the time. But I think collectively, we can.

Sincerely,

Jennifer H. Jones

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org