Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Classical improvisers


Re: Classical improvisers
March 17, 2010, 05:37:51 PM
i personally feel that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven were all renowned improvisers in performance.

Re: Classical improvisers
April 01, 2010, 09:16:33 PM
i personally feel that Bach, Mozart and Beethoven were all renowned improvisers in performance.

Not only that, but it was confirmed by others at the time, as it was with Bruckner, Locatelli and Brahms.

Not sure on Wagner, Schumann and Respighi.

Re: Classical improvisers
June 14, 2010, 05:00:26 PM

I don't think U2 could compose a symphony.

I don't think your average folk musician could pull off a death metal tune.


I don't think that tells you anything about the worth of their art. I don't think Beethoven could have used the Z-complement of the PC set [0146] in a non-combinatorial context: does that mean Schoenberg is more valuable a composer than Beethoven?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RBXp2YNG2k&NR=1

And Pierre Cochereau, possessing the skill to improvise fugues and symphonies, could of course not be expected to improvise a metal riff.

And yet I think this is all, ultimately,  irrelevant to the task of ascertaining a piece's value. Style and background plays a large role in the ability to improvise: you need to play a hundred sonata first movements or more before you can write one in under an hour, and more than that if you want to improvise a good one. Similarly with all types of music, and yet even that ability will still tell you nothing about whether their art is good or not.

Musicality is a quality independent from the technicalities that you point out: riffs, symphonies, etc. are all forms and technicalities that contain something more essential, from which many artists, even folk musicians, could create impactful music.