veery715

Flathead75

I have been called worse!!

gsmonks

H'm . . . if I didn't know better, I say yours was the attitude of a toady.

Don't get mad! I mean that in a humorous way.

It's "proficiency", by the way.

Let me give you a little history example to demonstrate how incorrect your view is:

People used to say the same thing about classical music and the so-called "great masters". Then along comes Arnold Schoenburg who says (I'm paraphrasing here), get all that old baloney out of my face. I don't need it, I'm doing fine without it, thank-you very much, and I'm perfectly capable of creating my own systems. He did it. Hindemith did it too. His "Harmony with a minimum of rules" was the result (today just called Harmony, and one of a number of books he wrote on the subject).

My "knowledge base", as you call it, got started in the fifties and is still growing. Much of what I learned a long time ago might be (and admittedly probably is) very much out of date, but several decades of composition and hard work have pretty much inured me to all the disparaging stuff you could possibly hurl at me. I may be covered with pigeon dung but am otherwise undamaged.

Markie

1)Monk sez:
I'm always reluctant when it comes to methods and studying "the masters". Sure, if you want to sound like everyone else.

2)Monk goes on to say:
Then along comes Arnold Schoenburg who says (I'm paraphrasing here), get all that old baloney out of my face. I don't need it, I'm doing fine without it, thank-you very much, and I'm perfectly capable of creating my own systems.

------------------------------------------------------------------

A brief investigation of the literature about "avoiding the "masters" and how Shoenberg follows that advice renders the following which supports the opposite of Monk's claim:

Here's an excerpt from (Schoenberg, 1984, ‘National Music (2)’, p.173)
Schoenberg’s very theoretical understanding of his role in the evolution of the German tradition drove him forward into what he felt was an inevitable course. It is evident from his writings that he felt quite isolated, but felt very justified in what he was doing. While his opponents denied him a place in the Viennese tradition, Schoenberg saw himself as an heir to that tradition.
Schoenberg writes in 1931: ‘My teachers were primarily Bach and Mozart, and secondarily Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner.’

-------------
As for Hindemith not studying the "masters" (AGAIN) the literature suggests just the opposite of Monk's claim:

Here's an excerpt from Giselher Schubert: 'Hindemith, Paul: Early Life', Grove Music.
"Rather than following one particular compositional school, he
adapted many varied influences, including the styles of Brahms,
Dvoøák, Tchaikovsky, Mahler and Reger.”
----------
While it is true that Shoenberg and Hindemith are originals, they did study the "masters"(imitate) inorder to become the masters (innovate) they became.
I'll stick with my original claim "a rude arrogance that far outweighs your knowledge base"

Bay Area Brass

Innovation is built on the accomplishments and innovation of those that precede them. The "masters" understand the history and lineage that came before them. Miles was an innovator but drew from Lester Young, Louis Armstrong, Diz, Roy Eldridge and others. Sun Ra and Cicil Taylor also drew from the work of musicians that came before them. Coltrane, in the middle of his most progressive period stated in interviews that he felt the need to go back and study older players that laid the groundwork for him. In my opinion, a player can only benefit by putting in the work to get a solid foundation of the style- what they do with that context is up to the individual artist.

__________________
Bill Ortiz
'56 Matin Committee Deluxe Trumpet/Schilke 15 mouthpiece
'60's Couesnon Paris Flugelhorn/Custom Kanstul mouthpiece
billortiz.com
myspace.com/billortizmusic

gsmonks

Markie, Markie, Markie . . .

I'm not going to waste time responding to your . . . ahem . . . comments . . . until you spell my name right. Your deliberate misspelling is pretty childish and doesn't merit a response of any kind.

gsmonks

There is truth in that to the extent that all knowledge is governed by the same rules of taxonomy that govern pretty much everything, including, say, evolution. In nature things does just pop into being. Their changes (or innovations, if you prefer) are contingent upon the existing state of the organism in question. The same is just as true of ideas, and therefore musical development. The study of the history of musical instruments is likewise largely one of taxonomy. Arnold Myers (curator of the Edinburg University Museum) is currently in charge of the Brasswind Taxonomy Project, which is a recent application of this type of approach to brasswind history.

I just find the superfluous adjective (like "great masters") really irritating.

Markie

No disrespect ment. Monk is just a common jazz name and its easy to type.
My apologies