No I don't. Some music is composed and non-notated. Some music is composed and notated. For that matter, some music is improvised and notated, some is improvised and non-notated. I'll be happy to provide examples. Anyone with the slightest level of musical sophistication knows this.
> Anyway, you will
> also know that improvisation was a part of the baroque practice:
Yes I do know. Improvisation was but also is part of baroque practice for countless chuch organists and musicianship instructors, among others. The same goes for renaissance practice, romantic/classical practice, atonal practice, post-tonal practice, minimalist practice, post-minimalist practice, rock practice, punk practice, country practice, etc. Jazz is by no means unique in having a monopoly on improvisation. The repeated claim that it is is only accurate in the most superficial and trivial sense.
> is it
> Bach's Fifth Brandenburg Concerto that has an improv section?
No it does not. It does have the famous "tail wagging the dog" harpsichord cadenza which sounds, indeed probably was at one time, improvised.
> This wasn't
> unusual. However, you can have the word "composition" if you want it. I
> willa lso give you "virtuoso." Any other words you want? Btw, I don't know
> the Parker pieces you are referring to. --jks
How about an apology for describing my opinions as "extraordinarily ignorant" and not making an attempt to support your characterization with a shred of evidence?
Before we beg off on this thread (mercifully):
Why is it that those with decent politics feel so comfortable making ignorant and baseless statements about music. Why can't those with truly reprehensible politics, like Leo or Nathan, or Leon Wieseltier or Hilton Kramer make them instead? Is it that principled leftists share the assumption that music and the arts generally really don't matter very much? A reasonable assumption, I suppose, but disappointing in any case.
John