Improving[hopefully] "Rating Improvisation"

[White Knight]

In an effort to render my original 11-18-10 thread on jazz improvisation conciser and easier to follow, I will simply pose the following question: Should a piece of jazz music be "judged" as "successful" or not by using the criterion of trying to assess the amount of improvisation that went into it?
Although I suspect what the answer of many of my fellow jazz enthusiasts on this forum to be--and being fully cognizant of how subjective the matter is--I would find input on this issue/question to be quite fascinating and helpful.

p.s. I do hope that this slight "tweaking" has made my thread more readable, understandable--and most importantly of all--more enjoyable and interesting.

[gord]

hi steve, this seems to be the most difficult question to answer. is a solo, whether short or lengthy more successful. coltrane did many lengthy solos, they were considered successful and in some cases masterpieces. then charlie parker played mostly short solos and they have been called masterpieces also. if you listen to birds night in tunisia (the break down tape) all you can do is shake you head in wonder it is so good. if you listen to giant steps by trane i get the same reaction. but which is better i dont know, only some jazz fan more knowledgable than i am could probably give you an answer to this question. gord

[White Knight]

Hi gord and thanks for your considered response to my poser.
Are you saying that whether in fact the solos of such greats as Trane and Bird were somewhat improvised or not at all--in the final analysis--detracts nothing whatsoever from their "effectiveness" as jazz statements? Or am I misunderstanding what you were trying to say?

[gord]

hi steve, this question is becoming a problem for me.i thought you wanted to find out if short or lengthy solos were more effective and creative. i guess i am misunderstanding the question. maybe someone else will give you a more direct answer. gord

[White Knight]

Thanks, gord; I think I'm having a problem with it myself.

Cheers--Steve

[JHC]

Should a piece of jazz music be "judged" as "successful" or not by using the criterion of trying to assess the amount of improvisation that went into it?

No 123456

[White Knight]

No 123456

Hi Colin. Besides the fact that you don't like this thread, is there anything else in your cryptic numeric response that you are trying to get across to me? After all, I can count and write fairly well, after spending almost sixty years on this earth--at least I hope I can.
Based on my career in law enforcement, the only other usage I have seen numbers in that sequence used for is NYS inmates' ID numbers. And I'm quite sure--even if of nothing else--that that is not what you intend for them to signify in this context.
Correct? Or am I--once again--perhaps missing something {besides my brains, of course}.

[JHC]

Steve, if you try to post the word "no" you are severely reprimanded and reminded that the message must be a minimum of 8 characters hence a quick response on my part to what was at hand and it did not have any paticular meaning
A great performance of any type of music is not down to one particular thing e.g. A fine performance of a classical piece may contain mistakes but the overall effect is one that makes you say bravo or in today’s terms wow, I remember hearing of a recording session with Artur Schnabel I can’t remember what the particular piece was ( Beethoven or Chopin) but the engineer said to Schnabel “maestro could we do that again there were some wrong notes here and here” Schnabel replied “of course I can but it wont be as nice” The same with jazz or any genre “it’s the effect the performance has on the listener.
So, its not the amount of improvisation that went into it? but the quality of the performance as a whole. Colin