white people are too good at making music, we need affirmative action in orchestras!
(media.patriots.win)
Comments (692)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
Tell that to John Coltrane, Charlie Parker, Sonny Rollins, Lester Young, Coleman Hawkins...
The fact of the matter is, Jazz wind parts are typically far more demanding and technically difficult passages than a typical orchestral piece.
There are plenty of people with bigger lips that play wind instruments. Which style of music they prefer to play is a bigger factor in whether or not they end up pursuing a career in an orchestra.
Of course it's also relevant that Orchestra work is much more demanding, and much less interesting while paying far less than most other genres. It's just a less desirable career all around.
Knowing several classical musicians who play professionally in ensembles it is extremely hard work and extremely difficult to qualify for a spot. They practice all day for many years and so do the people they compete with for jobs. They are very talented, very few jobs, only the best of the best get a spot
Very true, but unless you're the best of the best of the best, you're never going to be making a hell of a lot of money at it. Even those that do make it to that point, spend a very long time getting paid very little money considering just how much hard work and time they have to put into it.
And you're talking about ensemble work which is more available and better paying than orchestra is. Heck, until you get out of college, you have to PAY to play in an orchestra, and the level of dedication it takes doesn't leave a lot of time to work a part-time job to support yourself.
Which is exactly my point. The most important factor is upbringing. If you don't have a love for classical music specifically, you're NEVER going to make it. You're going to need a supportive family both emotionally and financially for a very long time.
Good post, I stand corrected.
This is what I love about this place... arguments are actually debated and we can accept when a good one is put forward!
Yes! Totally agree.
The way I spot the troublemakers on here is that they are the ones who try to disrupt the normal, respectful argument / debate process.
Thelonious Monk, Herbie Hancock, Cannonball Adderley, Jimmy Heath, David Sanchez...
I was a Jazz musician before before I went in the military (Bari Sax) and at no point did anyone give a shit about the color of their skin...they were/are great musicians and Americans...that is all.
Damn straight. And only a pompous ass who knows nothing about music would claim that playing a score full of quarter note fundamentals and thirds at 88 bpm takes more musical ability than playing a spiraling jazz solo at 120.
The layman misunderstanding of soloing is huge...improv is anything but improv. You still need to adhere to tempo and chord/key changes, on top of technicality, and on top of fitting into the actual style of the composition. No one gets up on a set and just belts out whatever they feel.
I appreciate orchestral pieces, and great fundamentals. I respect and love jazz and how technical it is. The level of skill of the greats is astounding.
Fun fact! I went to breakfast with Jon Faddis at 2am at the Lionel Hampton Jazz festival in 1999. He had a huge ego, but bought our whole high school jazz band breakfast and hung with us for a couple hours. Played a great set the next day too!
Lol. 88 bpm is the tempo for the Scherzo from Mendelssohn’s Midsummer Nights Dream, a piece that is unplayable for so many people that failure on it in an audition means no job. And since this all began from auditions, that particular piece is on every audition for many of the orchestral instruments. It’s a deal breaker at 88bpm.
You spout off nonsense about tempos that many people probably won’t understand, but you aren’t fooling any real musicians.
I’m pretty sure you must be some amateur musician troll. Saying that orchestral parts aren’t as technically demanding as Jazz is hilarious. They are completely different and require different approaches.
I’m a classical musician and have played some jazz in a jazz band. Jazz is very difficult for me because of my training and my unfamiliarity with the style. I can imitate it but it’s not quite right. The finger technique required doesn’t even come close to the wind parts of Ravel, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Strauss, Mahler, etc. A great example of just how difficult classical music is for jazz musicians are the recordings of classical concertos made by famous jazz musicians. With the exception of Winton Marcellas and maybe some other person I’ve never heard of, the performances made by the jazz musicians are just awful. Benny Goodman comes to mind. Love his big band stuff but his attempts at classical are hilarious.
The same could be said for classical musicians playing jazz, like in my case. Most of us just don’t have the training or the background in jazz so we sound “off” when we try.
Sorry I threatened your ego by pointing out that mastery of long slow repetitive parts isn't that impressive. People like you who crave exclusivity over art are a big reason orchestral music is less popular than it could be, but you don't really want it to be popular, do you? You're psychologically no different from the hipsters listening to upstart noise bands just so they can say, "you've probably never heard of them".
You go on about me writing 88 bpm while ignoring the rest of the sentence to try and make some nonsense point without realizing that you just said playing a more complicated piece than the one to which I referred at that speed was the bare minimum for employment, not the height of professional achievement. If you think the utility horn player in any given orchestra is a better musician than Benny Goodman based on how long they can maintain tonal clarity then you've completely missed the point of playing music.
At least you admit that you can't play the more complicated and difficult jazz parts right. I'll give you a hint why and maybe it will help you. If you really are a professional orchestra player as you claim, then there's no reason you should lack all the requisite skills and technical proficiency. The reason it sounds off is because you lack soul. You're too hung up on the aspects of music that non-musicians barely even notice. Loosen up a bit, stop obsessing over "perfect" embouchure as defined by your teachers and pay more attention to how the music is supposed to make the audience feel. It's art not calculus.
I think it’s safe to say that you play jazz. And that’s cool, but don’t kid yourself in thinking you understand what it takes to play classical well.
Loosening up a bit for jazz makes sense, but loosening up in classical is what makes you sound like a clown.
Lol, I have the technical ability to play complicated jazz riffs. Usually once I see them written, they are laughably easy. Once a while back I thought I’d take some time to learn some jazz and started playing from a Charlie Parker book. It was very difficult but also very playable. I don’t enjoy that style of jazz, so spending time in that book was not for me.
Never said a horn player in an orchestra (utility horn? You made that up) was better than Benny. Apples and oranges.
My comment about 88 bpm was to highlight that your comparison of 88 bpm to 120 bpm as somehow being easier to be meaningless. The opening to Daphnis and Chloe is about 50 bpm and is as hard as anything. Tempos do not necessarily determine a piece’s difficultly. In fact, some music is easier to play faster.
Your first paragraph is pretty funny but wrong.
Again you mention tempo in isolation ignoring the fact that I didn't. I contrasted a very simple piece at a slow tempo to a very complicated piece at a faster tempo. The fact that a piece can be slow and complicated or fast and simple is irrelevant to the point.
Because orchestra is about the combination of all the instruments' sounds, often individual instruments are playing very simple parts. That doesn't mean it doesn't take any effort, nor does being simple mean the part isn't important to the whole. It just means that there's no reason to presume membership in an orchestra is relegated solely to world class musicians while other genres are for lesser musicians.
If you've never heard the term "utility" I guess that just means your experience isn't very broad. I recognize that the lingo changes from region to region. Just because you've never heard a term doesn't mean it isn't real. It just means you don't know it. Five seconds on the search engine of your choice and you could have proved yourself wrong.