22 Jun
2010
22 Jun
'10
8:13 p.m.
Hello everyone!
So here's my first real Bach piece. The one I learnt back in 98, because we
worked on it at school. I found it so lovely, that I wanted to learn it: The
2-part invention in D minor.
http://juliencoder.de/nama/j_s_bach-d_minor_invention.ogg
Or the dinosaur version :-)
http://juliencoder.de/nama/j_s_bach-d_minor_invention.mp3
Or of course the website:
http://juliencoder.de/nama/music.html
I played it using the Tubed Keys Rhodes 73 gigasampler library from
Sampletekk and the jreverb (standford reverb), from the CAPS LADSPA collection
(unique ID: 1778).
I hope you enjoy it. It's played a bit differently and I'm afraid a little
sloppy. But that's art. :-)
Feedback as always very welcome!
Kindest regards
Julien
--------
Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles)
======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ========
http://ltsb.sourceforge.net
the Linux TextBased Studio guide
======= AND MY PERSONAL PAGES AT: =======
http://www.juliencoder.de
25 Jun
25 Jun
4:32 a.m.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 08:13:47PM +0200, Julien Claassen wrote:
Hello everyone!
So here's my first real Bach piece. The one I learnt back in 98,
because we worked on it at school. I found it so lovely, that I wanted to
learn it: The 2-part invention in D minor.
http://juliencoder.de/nama/j_s_bach-d_minor_invention.ogg
Or the dinosaur version :-)
http://juliencoder.de/nama/j_s_bach-d_minor_invention.mp3
Or of course the website:
http://juliencoder.de/nama/music.html
I played it using the Tubed Keys Rhodes 73 gigasampler library from
Sampletekk and the jreverb (standford reverb), from the CAPS LADSPA
collection (unique ID: 1778).
I hope you enjoy it. It's played a bit differently and I'm afraid a
little sloppy. But that's art. :-)
Feedback as always very welcome!
Kindest regards
Julien
Heh, converging the thread about the swing plugin and the thread about Bach, perfect.
I totally hear a ride cymbal there, and comping on snare, crashing on cymbals and kick as
an accent. Swingin'!
-ken
6:54 a.m.
Hello Ken!
Feel free to take the piece and add, what you think necessary. :-) But let
me hear the result. I'm afraid, you'll have to find the tempo and most
certainly adjust it again. This is completely without metronome, as is all the
Bach I've done. :-)
Warmly yours
Julien
--------
Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles)
======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ========
http://ltsb.sourceforge.net
the Linux TextBased Studio guide
======= AND MY PERSONAL PAGES AT: =======
http://www.juliencoder.de
9:09 a.m.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 06:54:54AM +0200, Julien Claassen wrote:
Hello Ken!
Feel free to take the piece and add, what you think necessary. :-) But
let me hear the result. I'm afraid, you'll have to find the tempo and
most certainly adjust it again. This is completely without metronome, as
is all the Bach I've done. :-)
Thanks, but I'm no jazz drummer, and if I tried to do it in Hydrogen it wouldn't
work.
Maybe there's someone on list who has jazz drum chops and would like to attempt it.
-ken
4:47 a.m.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Julien Claassen <julien(a)c-lab.de> wrote:
Hello everyone!
So here's my first real Bach piece. The one I learnt back in 98, because we
worked on it at school. I found it so lovely, that I wanted to learn it: The
2-part invention in D minor.
OK Julian, sorry to gush, but this kicks ass! I have a bit of a
Rhodes fetish, so I dearly loved the choice of instrument.
I believe that Bach has much, much more in common with expert jazz
musicians than he might with classical musicians. When I hear his
lines, I hear bebop. Maybe he would approve of some of the great
improvising musicians of our time? I hope he would.
Anyway, I *love* your Bach output - please do more!
--
Josh Lawrence
http://www.hardbop200.com
6:59 a.m.
Hello Josh!
Thanks for this kind feedback. I'm glad you enjoyed it. Yes Bach certainly
did the first jazz pieces, yet he didn't know it. As Jacques Lycier once
pointed out, he has the singing base (demonstrated with the Ari on a g
string).
I think my next Bach project is clear, it's an old one again and one I
already did on the Bach page. But I think some different instrumentation is
called for. :-)
Kindest regards
Julien
--------
Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles)
======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ========
http://ltsb.sourceforge.net
the Linux TextBased Studio guide
======= AND MY PERSONAL PAGES AT: =======
http://www.juliencoder.de
9:38 a.m.
On 2010-06-25 04:47, Josh Lawrence wrote:
When I hear his
lines, I hear bebop.
Exactly!
Listen to someone like Bud Powell, it's very clear.
I'm often asked "what kind of jazz scale did you play there", and I have
to answer that I don't know any "jazz scale", I was simply playing
F-major (because the tune is in F-major) or something. But the "secret"
is to handle consonance/dissonance the right way, which is very similar
to Bach.
--
Atte
http://atte.dk http://modlys.dk
10:59 a.m.
Atte André Jensen wrote:
On 2010-06-25 04:47, Josh Lawrence wrote:
This is an interesting discussion.
I agree, partly, that Bach wrote music which can be interpreted as
jazzy. However, it's in my opinion the other way around. In jazz we use
sometimes phrasings which are equal to what Bach did and I agree: listen
to Bud Powell but also Brad Meldow (to mention a current pianist).
However, the harmonic complexity we use nowadays was not invented then.
Bach's music is primarily polyphonic (listen e.g. to the Brandenburger
concerts or the Goldberg variations) using, sparingly, simple chords.
One of the most "jazzy" elements in Bach's music is the "Basso
continuo"
(often written with figures) and the greatest difference with jazz
bass-lines is the absence of rhythmic content.
In de realm of the classical music we have Debussy to thank for modern
harmonies together with the extensive use of the 6-tone scale and other
modern musical ideas. However the use of -9, -13 and many other
combinations in chords are 20th century ideas invented by jazz-pianists,
arrangers and "classical composers" alike and one of the latter is
Skriabin Take a look at his scores!).
The greatest difference between classical music and jazz, however, is in
my opinion simply the timing which is unbreakably related to jazz
melodies and harmonies. Try playing Bach with swing (the most horrible
example which springs to mind is Jacque Louisier) or Chopin or even Debussy.
Sorry for this rant on something which is part of my daily activities
and I love dearly.
Joep
When I hear his
lines, I hear bebop.
Exactly!
Listen to someone like Bud Powell, it's very clear.
I'm often asked "what kind of jazz scale did you play there", and I have
to answer that I don't know any "jazz scale", I was simply playing
F-major (because the tune is in F-major) or something. But the "secret"
is to handle consonance/dissonance the right way, which is very similar
to Bach.
11:38 a.m.
On 2010-06-25 10:59, Joep L. Blom wrote:
This is an interesting discussion.
I agree, partly, that Bach wrote music which can be interpreted as
jazzy.
That's not really what I meant. Also I don't think it's especially
tasteful to swing Bach. I'm just saying that the basic melodic
principles of baroque and bebop is very similar. There's a lot of
differences or course, but melodically and harmonically there's a lot in
common.
However, the harmonic complexity we use nowadays was
not invented then.
Hmmm. Complexity... I think I understand what you're aiming at, but (and
as I say this a a jazz pianist about my own music) jazz is for the most
parts quite simple harmonically speaking compared to classical music. A
lot of II-V and II-V-I with only a few standard secondary functions
(mostly dominant) and almost exclusively root position chords.
Yes, we use bigger chords and accept greater dissonance in the
harmonies, but that has the unfortunate effect of blurring the
functions. Like in C, the dominant triad is G (G-B-D) and the
subdominant triad is F (F-A-C), no notes in common. In jazz you would
often use the II as subdominant as 7th chord, Dm7 (D-F-A-C) and at least
a dominant 7th chord, G7 (G-B-D-F), not the two chords have two notes in
common. More realistically a pianist would voice this as Dm9 (F-A-C-E)
to G13 (F-A-B-E), now with three notes in common.
I'm also not saying that jazz is stupid, but I don't think it's fair to
consider it more complex than classical music in general.
And of cource we could start talking about the more advanced jazz (Wayne
Shorter or something), but then there's Wagner :-)
Bach's music is primarily polyphonic (listen e.g.
to the Brandenburger
concerts or the Goldberg variations) using, sparingly, simple chords.
You don't have to play more notes at the same time to have a chord. Even
a single melodic line will suggest underlying harmony. Bach used lots of
b9's and stuff...
In de realm of the classical music we have Debussy to
thank for modern
harmonies together with the extensive use of the 6-tone scale and other
modern musical ideas. However the use of -9, -13 and many other
combinations in chords are 20th century ideas invented by jazz-pianists,
arrangers and "classical composers" alike
...but of course (as I mentioned) I understand what you mean :-)
Debussy's harmonies (or actually "chords") are different to Bachs and
had large impact on jazz. But I still feel that "the core of jazz" has
more in common with "the core of baroque" than anything else.
The greatest difference between classical music and
jazz, however, is in
my opinion simply the timing which is unbreakably related to jazz
melodies and harmonies.
Fast bebop is almost even 8ths :-)
An even more fundamental difference is the irregular phrasing and
emphasis on lifts in jazz. This is something that you won't find too
much of in classical music.
Try playing Bach with swing (the most horrible
example which springs to mind is Jacque Louisier) or Chopin or even
Debussy.
Oh no...
--
Atte
http://atte.dk http://modlys.dk
12:20 p.m.
Atte André Jensen wrote:
On 2010-06-25 10:59, Joep L. Blom wrote:
Nice discussion! I agree with most what you write. However, the minor
fifth chords reharmonizing even a simple melody is not found in
classical music (in sofar as I know), use for example C7+9
((E-As-Bes_Es) and only change the root-note to Ges and you have the Ges
7/9 which you can play consequently. Also the II-V-I progression (you
even find it in Gregorian songs) sounds completely different when played
with th minor fifth chord progression. And that's one of the simple
things you can do.
In jazz you also often turn chords around (I mean instead of C in basic
position you play it in first or second) and e.g. the use of a minor
D-chord in 2nd position with a B as root(minor 7 also written as B(Ø) or
B(-7-5) give you much freedom accompaniment, especially when playing solo.
But another point of equality between jazz and "classical" mosic that
the old composers were all excellent instrumentalists and improvisers
pur sang. Nowadays classical musicians cannot improvise one bar but in
19th century it was rule that everybody improvised. Well known of course
by Mozart but also Chopin and Liszt were formidable improvisers.
Excellent books on chords and progressions are of course the 2 books by
Marc Levine, Jazz Piano Theory and Jazz Theory. I try (for myself!) to
write notes (some call it a book) on chord theory as my original
profession was neuroscientist and I have done some work on the auditory
system, However, it is still a chaos of notes, some short length
chapters, etc. Hopefully one time it will fall it into something I can
understand and use in writing and arranging.
But maybe we can continue this discussion individually as we digress, I
think, a lot from the original subject.
Joep
This is an interesting discussion.
I agree, partly, that Bach wrote music which can be interpreted as
jazzy.
That's not really what I meant. Also I don't think it's especially
tasteful to swing Bach. I'm just saying that the basic melodic
principles of baroque and bebop is very similar. There's a lot of
differences or course, but melodically and harmonically there's a lot in
common.
However, the harmonic complexity we use nowadays
was not invented then.
Hmmm. Complexity... I think I understand what you're aiming at, but (and
as I say this a a jazz pianist about my own music) jazz is for the most
parts quite simple harmonically speaking compared to classical music. A
lot of II-V and II-V-I with only a few standard secondary functions
(mostly dominant) and almost exclusively root position chords.
Yes, we use bigger chords and accept greater dissonance in the
harmonies, but that has the unfortunate effect of blurring the
functions. Like in C, the dominant triad is G (G-B-D) and the
subdominant triad is F (F-A-C), no notes in common. In jazz you would
often use the II as subdominant as 7th chord, Dm7 (D-F-A-C) and at least
a dominant 7th chord, G7 (G-B-D-F), not the two chords have two notes in
common. More realistically a pianist would voice this as Dm9 (F-A-C-E)
to G13 (F-A-B-E), now with three notes in common.
I'm also not saying that jazz is stupid, but I don't think it's fair to
consider it more complex than classical music in general.
And of cource we could start talking about the more advanced jazz (Wayne
Shorter or something), but then there's Wagner :-)
Bach's music is primarily polyphonic (listen
e.g. to the Brandenburger
concerts or the Goldberg variations) using, sparingly, simple chords.
You don't have to play more notes at the same time to have a chord. Even
a single melodic line will suggest underlying harmony. Bach used lots of
b9's and stuff...
In de realm of the classical music we have
Debussy to thank for modern
harmonies together with the extensive use of the 6-tone scale and other
modern musical ideas. However the use of -9, -13 and many other
combinations in chords are 20th century ideas invented by jazz-pianists,
arrangers and "classical composers" alike
...but of course (as I mentioned) I understand what you mean :-)
Debussy's harmonies (or actually "chords") are different to Bachs and
had large impact on jazz. But I still feel that "the core of jazz" has
more in common with "the core of baroque" than anything else.
The greatest difference between classical music
and jazz, however, is in
my opinion simply the timing which is unbreakably related to jazz
melodies and harmonies.
Fast bebop is almost even 8ths :-)
An even more fundamental difference is the irregular phrasing and
emphasis on lifts in jazz. This is something that you won't find too
much of in classical music.
Try playing Bach with swing (the most horrible
example which springs to mind is Jacque Louisier) or Chopin or even
Debussy.
Oh no...
1:10 p.m.
On 2010-06-25 12:19, Joep L. Blom wrote:
But maybe we can continue this discussion individually
as we digress, I
think, a lot from the original subject.
You're right...
--
Atte
http://atte.dk http://modlys.dk
3:15 p.m.
Hello!
I don't know why you so generally complain about Bach played in swing style.
Last christmas I heard a very lovely swing interpretation by the WDR bigband
with the King's Singers. As I said: nicely interpreted. and while listening to
it, I found, that in some cases they didn't have to do a lot to make it work
fabulously. It didn't sound artificially created, if you know what I mean.
Kindly yours
Julien
--------
Music was my first love and it will be my last (John Miles)
======== FIND MY WEB-PROJECT AT: ========
http://ltsb.sourceforge.net
the Linux TextBased Studio guide
======= AND MY PERSONAL PAGES AT: =======
http://www.juliencoder.de
6:11 p.m.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Atte André Jensen <atte(a)email.dk> wrote:
Fast bebop is almost even 8ths :-)
yes! you have no idea how long it took me to figure this out. and I
agree with your earlier statement that Bach sounds better when played
straight.
I think too many people think jazz = swing. I'm not even going to
attempt to define jazz, but I think restricting it to only swing is
wrong.
also, I hear a lot of complicated harmonies implied by even the
simplest of bach's pieces (as you said, b9, etc.). I guess to him
they were all passing tones...but I guess they are to us, too.
I'm getting dangerously close to spitting opinions on things and
revealing my ignorance here, but in my mind, bach is what jazz
could/should grow up to be, that is if it hasn't already.
tl;dr - bach would dig charlie parker :)
--
Josh Lawrence
http://www.hardbop200.com
26 Jun
26 Jun
8:28 a.m.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:11:32AM -0500, Josh Lawrence wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Atte Andr? Jensen
<atte(a)email.dk> wrote:
Fictionary is almost all straight 8ths, and that's some fantastic complex jazz.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObTvXg5P7t0
So is all the jazz/funk fusion magic of the 70s. Definitely jazz, but it's not swing
for sure.
To drift off topic even further: it took me a while to figure out that the "secret
sauce" of Medeski, Martin, and Wood, is Billy Martin's hinting at swing by
accenting upbeats.
-ken
Fast bebop is almost even 8ths :-)
yes! you have no idea how long it took me to figure this out. and I
agree with your earlier statement that Bach sounds better when played
straight.
I think too many people think jazz = swing. I'm not even going to
attempt to define jazz, but I think restricting it to only swing is
wrong.
also, I hear a lot of complicated harmonies implied by even the
simplest of bach's pieces (as you said, b9, etc.). I guess to him
they were all passing tones...but I guess they are to us, too.
I'm getting dangerously close to spitting opinions on things and
revealing my ignorance here, but in my mind, bach is what jazz
could/should grow up to be, that is if it hasn't already.
tl;dr - bach would dig charlie parker :)
5063
days inactive
5067
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
13 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Atte André Jensen -
Joep L. Blom -
Josh Lawrence -
Julien Claassen -
Ken Restivo