Author: mrn
Date: 2008-09-10 18:08
Tony Pay wrote:
<<The way you put that seems to imply that the very best jazz players are more sensitive than the very best classical players to delicate issues of intonation. I don't think that's even remotely true.>>
No. That's not what I meant. Sorry if it came across that way. What I meant was that the best jazz players are oftentimes the *jazz players* with the most sensitive ears for intonation. I wasn't comparing jazz players to classical players in that sentence. (Of course, this might just reflect my own biases as somebody who plays mostly classical--I tend to favor players who are more sensitive to intonation.)
There are some jazz players with really rotten intonation out there, but the *best* jazz musicians, in my opinion, have a good sense of intonation and when and if they deviate from equal temperment, they know what they are doing. In other words, you can be an mediocre jazz player with questionable intonation, but to be really great, I think you have to be sensitive to tuning, too, much like a good classical player, but certainly not any more so.
To make an analogy with classical music, anyone can play dissonant notes and throw common practice harmony to the wind, but that won't turn you into a Stravinsky. Non-standard intonation is part of jazz, and it can sound terrible or wonderful, depending on who's playing/singing it.
I realize this sort of modulation happens in classical music, too, but as you suggest, it is usually much more subtle to the ear and is (usually) not a defining characteristic of the style, like it is in jazz.
And of course intonation is now a non-issue in a lot of pop music, thanks to "Auto-Tune," but that's a whole other story, one you don't want to get me started on.... :-)
Post Edited (2008-09-10 18:45)
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
