-
To the guy who cited the Cry Me a River melody: the great Pepper Adams made a career out of quoting that phrase.
The problem with this discussion I'm having is that like all nerds we tend to over-think. What is the importance really (in actual real time playing usage) of making a distinction between two or more musical components? What does it really matter? It's being over-analytical IMO and won't make us play.
Creative people take the information and inspiration they need, put it in a funnel---and it comes out them. Analysis is cool, even necessary, in the practice room--but if you bring it to the bandstand---which counts way more---it can lock you and make you NOT play.
Just a thought...
-
10-04-2017 09:26 AM
-
It's very personal, over-thinking for one is just common regular thinking for another.The problem with this discussion I'm having is that like all nerds we tend to over-think. What is the importance really (in actual real time playing usage) of making a distinction between two or more musical components? What does it really matter? It's being over-analytical IMO and won't make us play.
Evrything is important... when I - as you said - overthink some musical problem... I am usually not at the process of actual musical playing or performance.
But when I am back to real-time playing I feel that it comes out better because everything I am is involved in this process.
It matters really much when there's really a distinction between these components and the player does not hear and does not play this distinction.What is the importance really (in actual real time playing usage) of making a distinction between two or more musical components? What does it really matter?
-
There's a notion of jazz pattern playing - i.e. learning a bunch of patterns. Coltrane patterns. ii-V patterns. Hipper lick playing. It all probably comes out the same. But for me, scales are patterns. Arppegios, melodies within the scale patterns are patterns. I saw patterns within patterns within patterns.
-
I really dig Pepper Adams, like a lot of the hard edged Detroit guys - why the hell isn't he as well known as (at the very least) Gerry Mulligan?... Anyway, Fass, I hear ya re the over analysing thing, and I appreciate the warning. But I have to say that almost every time I hear this kind of warning in life it comes from someone who has over analysed something themselves at some point in their lives, perhaps in the long forgotten past?....
Originally Posted by fasstrack
All I can say is that I look forward to the day when I can tell someone that I think they're over analysing something!....
-
I think I see what you're saying, but I think it does not hold up. Originally Posted by gator811
Im one of those people who has issues with the word language at all - I hate the term "the Jazz language" although it stems more from the way it makes some of my students think.
Language is delimited by and possesses prescribed meanings, which Im not going to get pedantic about - although its clear that the purpose of words as symbols can have both mundane and poetic qualities .....well maybe not all words
-- but more importantly language shares the property of syntax with music, especially given as some people have said, that patterns are a continuously emerging property within all organised forms. Its the nature of syntax to tend to some sense of order/sequence/ consequence/cause/effect, and regardless of the gesture, there is some tendency to order at play, even if its subversive, in both Coltrane and Cannoball.
First written (and spoken) language is crude and imprecise. Many written transcriptions of music fall FAR short of communicating effectively what is being played. Gunther Schuller states this a 100 X in his Swing Music tome in his attempt to analyze solos. I've read that many Chopin pieces presented difficulties in trying to notate them, when he first came up with them, but he heard them in his head, and played them....and the written (imprecise) musical notation part was figured out (fudged ?!) later.
Verbal language itself is a crude tool. I can watch highly trained athletes, or attempt to perform intricate athletic movements, and believe me, watching and repeating a movement, kinesthetically, is 50x times more effective than hearing verbal descriptions. Verbal expression is just one form of intelligence, and a pretty limited one at that. Maybe this is "kinesthetic syntax" ?!
Secondly, I could have different artists play the same notes at the same tempos, and you could tell them apart....tone, attack, behind or ahead of the beat...all vary a lot. You may say these are syntactical differences...if that's your argument, then indeed musical expression is a language.
I bet many jazz guitarists are unable to play rock music well. Probably the ones who fell off the classical guitar wagon, and switched to jazz will tend, in general, to have a "more polite" approach to the instrument...the types of playing are really different dialects. Some learn both---Larry Coryell for e.g., but they are "different bags", so to speak. I would call them different dialects of a larger musical language.
Further, there is a real danger in music of getting caught in conceptualistic traps. It may make sense to learn some mode, scale, or relationship (e.g. "slide up 3 frets and play a major scale pattern to access altered dominant tension notes") to readily organize information, but you end up mistaking the tool for the thing you're trying to do..."to a man with a hammer in his hand, everything in the world looks like a nail..." This kind of conceptualistic thinking can be disastrous.
Consider: In 1948, the USSR and the U.S. were the dominant world powers. Communist ideology posited the goal of worldwide domination, through various means. China was a new, and important member of the Communist fold. Vietnam was in danger of falling as a domino, into China's camp. This is conceptualism. It ignored 2000 years of history, and was a poor predictor of behavior. (The Chinese leaned on the Vietnamese to accept a settlement after defeating the French in 1954, that the Vietnamese did not want.)
To me, pattern-playing is fine for stimulating composition, and maybe even for an improv approach, but if it is substituting for audiation, and pre-hearing, it is probably not going to be successful.
I listen to some complicated Coltrane, and I can't see how he didn't work this out, and get the sense of the phrasing ahead of time, to make it compelling. A lot of people think Sonny Rollins' playing got sidetracked a bit, after listening (and paying too much attention) to Gunther Schuller's analysis of what he was doing on Saxophone Colossus.Last edited by goldenwave77; 10-04-2017 at 12:06 PM.
-
I met Pepper on the L train in ca 1980. We both lived in Canarsie. Sat next to him, said I was a fan and we were able to have a nice chat made longer when the train reversed itself to retrack b/c of construction. He was very warm and approachable and even picked MY brain to find out what young cats (I was about 25) were thinking about. Originally Posted by princeplanet
It didn't come up that day, but I've read a DB in interview where he said he enjoyed Gerry (played in the Concert Jazz Orchestra section), but wasn't too keen on Serge Chaloff. Also said he took some heat from white players b/c he emulated black players and not, say, Stan Getz---though I'm sure he appreciated Stan. There's also a very nice interview in Ben Sidran's Talking Jazz, where he talks about literature and mentioned reading a favorite book by a favorite author of mine, Josef Skvorky's The Bass Saxophone. A real thinker.
Great cat. Randy Johnston got to (I think) work with him at least once. Wish I did, too...
-
I think there is some confusion between being prepared (knowing you materials, scales, arps, melodic vocabulary etc.) and using these tools to build original melodic solo statements, and solos that consist of mainly interpolation of patterns across the harmonic structure of the tune of the moment. Both approaches have legitimacy as a means of expression, but they have very different intentions.
-
Oh wow, that's really interesting. I always wondered why Rollins "changed" by the late 50's... I thought it was because he became enamoured with what Trane and Ornette were doing?... Originally Posted by gator811
-
I don't recall exactly where I read this. I do think Rollins' 50's stuff (Saxophone Colossus; Way Out West) is just amazingly good, and is my favorite playing by him. Originally Posted by goldenwave77
I also recall from reading accounts (I wasn't there) that Coltrane starting expanding his conception, and caused a lot of sax players to reassess.
I think Coltrane was like Bjorn Borg in tennis. In tennis, Borg was the first successful, heavy topspin western-style forehand, and 2-hand backhand player. Supposedly, this was no good for grass courts. Well, Borg won Wimbledon 5X...so much for conventional wisdom. Pretty soon, there were lots of players like Borg...Agassi, Lendl, etc. Now it turned out that the Borg style was not obligatory, BUT players had to make the conscious decision of confronting his style, and deciding their path. This was esp. true with larger "blast style" tennis rackets which allowed decent 12-yr. olds to hit shots that Rod Laver had owned, solely, back in an earlier day. Someone like Federer played successfully in a hybrid style, whereas Nadal "out-Borged" Borg....even heavier topspin.
I'm not sure anyone has "out-Coltraned Coltrane", though.Last edited by goldenwave77; 10-04-2017 at 12:00 PM.
-
Yea... at least the discussion makes one think about what your playing.
If you read my first post... you know, there isn't a difference, just the skills of the performer etc...
personally I dig patterns.... if you want to make what you and the players your performing with lock into anything, you need something to repeat. I guess we should separate between practice and performance. Practice would obviously require repeating patterns etc... however one wants to label the process of practice. And performance would be more interaction etc..
-
Don't want to derail the thread, but since you brought it up and given that it involves the principals in this discussion: Originally Posted by goldenwave77
From my own perspective on the discussion, ultimately I agree with a comment Fass made in another thread, which I've heard others express before, paraphrased as "it doesn't matter how someone got there, it just matters where they are." Patterns? language? these are nuts-and-bolts issues. Good improv is good for more profound reasons, and so you can't judge advanced improvisors by these criteria, nor can you ascribe some percentage to each.
-
Indeed! There's a small handful of albums he played on from that period that are absolute God Head status, not only his best ever, but arguably the hippest playing ever! (ok- let's not argue about what is "hip" Originally Posted by princeplanet
). Around '56 he had his thing down! And it was language, patterns and all the rest, but he was surely a supreme melodist - with impossibly hip phrasing, off the hip whimsy along with that impeccable dash of daring... I guess I'll always think of his playing of the time as a sort of benchmark for Jazz improvisation, and I've certainly heard nothing like it from guitarists (apart from Wes perhaps...)
So with the patterns/language/melody thing, as has been said, maybe there is no one "better" approach.... But maybe pure melodic playing, where you play nothing at all from rote memory, is the most rewarding for the player, the caveat being that it may not necessarily for the listener (unless you're a Getz, Desmond, Rollins or Wes). Most audiences might might prefer note for note Joe Pass solos....
-
Haha! Way to make a point! Holy shit does that drive home the pointlessness of regurgitating jazz lines... I guess, to be fair, I suppose if you listened to these players in their own environment doing their own thing, throwing in the odd nod to their heroes, I'm sure it wouldn't come off so limp sounding, but.... Originally Posted by pkirk
Interesting how the player that sounds the most remote from the original is the Trane clone, I felt zero connection to it, zero! If you ever needed to say "It ain't what you play but the way that you play it", look no further than the above clip for all the proof you'd ever need....
-
The sax player on that clip by the way, Jon Irabagon, is a monster player with an incredible range and command of the tradition. Check out his stuff out in a context that matches your tastes. If I recall correctly, in interviews he said that he spent a long time studying Coltrane and others, trying his best to get every nuance. (The trumpet player Peter Evans is also insanely good, kind of post-woody shaw with stunning technique) Originally Posted by princeplanet
Haha! Way to make a point! Holy shit does that drive home the pointlessness of regurgitating jazz lines... I guess, to be fair, I suppose if you listened to these players in their own environment doing their own thing, throwing in the odd nod to their heroes, I'm sure it wouldn't come off so limp sounding, but....
Interesting how the player that sounds the most remote from the original is the Trane clone, I felt zero connection to it, zero! If you ever needed to say "It ain't what you play but the way that you play it", look no further than the above clip for all the proof you'd ever need....
That recording is controversial, but I think it gives some insight into the topics discussions like this thread touches on, among other things.Last edited by pkirk; 10-04-2017 at 03:11 PM.
-
My understanding was the Coltrane freaked him out. Rollins had been the dominant voice of hard bop, idolized by the young kid Coltrane, until Trane left him in the dust. I think it was Trane that left him paralyzed like a deer in the headlights. His good friend Mingus said it was so too. Mingus was also very good friends with Schuller. I never heard him mention that theory. Originally Posted by goldenwave77
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkLast edited by henryrobinett; 10-04-2017 at 09:09 PM.
-
I think that story of Sonny is one of the most inspiring and affirming ever. He imagined/shedded his way out of an existential crisis.
Going back to the OP - I'd like to re-order my own playing. Not a question of patterns but definitely a syntactical issue.
At another level its about time for me in every respect. Experiencing time while one plays - playing with time if you will,puts the focus back on the importance of rhythm in this discussion. Thats what Sonny mastered in his playing at a very deep level - and I'd love to have the time to drop out of the race and work on that!!
-
Red Rodney was who I quoted, talking about Charlie Parker on an interview on Bird Flight. He said 'I never felt Bird had the great knowledge attributed to him b/c no matter what I asked him about his playing he always said the same thing---Bb 7'. He went on to say 'It's not how you got it, it's what you got'---and rhapsodized about how 'tremendously self-educated' Gil Evans was. The interview was with Phil Schaap in '94, and I bet there are copies floating around. I had taped it and learned a lot---but, alas, 'long gone from Kentucky'... Originally Posted by pkirk
-
Do I have to split the royalty with you now? Damn---can't win for losin'. Originally Posted by princeplanet
Hey, look what Joyce did starting with 'Stately, plump Buck Mulligan...'
-
People in Maine don't sound anything like people in Louisiana, but they both speak English. Originally Posted by gator811
Cockney, East Enders don't sound anything like Ox-Bridge, "cut glass" BBC accents.
.................Different dialects, same language.
I'm not sure what, if any, utility there was in your original distinction or observation. It just doesn't seem to get us anywhere.
-
OP- For me at the moment, neither - just music...
-
A few thoughts on language:
Dialects are relatively easy to adjust to within a spoken language. You can get the hang of it quick observing and listening.
To bring it back to music: I myself might be somewhat uncomfortable (but still give my best shot) playing even Jobim songs I've played for years that are now ASB standards with or before Brazilian musicians who come from and live that culture. I have an 'accent' playing that stuff and why wouldn't I? I'm not from there. When I DO play these songs, since I love them, I just present the melodies with the approach and sound I'd use on any other songs.
I don't want to buy into self-limitation or doubt b/c it is counter to the creative spirit and/or human potential and therefore can lock you. People have the right to learn to do anything they fancy, even if it's not of their 'native' culture. Study, talent and hard work make anything possible. (Not to be a Pollyanna, but a case could be made that even racism could be countered and a person could even rise to the top of a field despite it by working twice as hard as a person in the same job of the dominant race). Gene Bertoncini and Paul Meyers determined they'd learn the Brazilian styles and repertoire on (amplified) Spanish guitars and have done a very good job. Like anything else if you want to master something ask someone who has how it's done---and I suppose that's what they did.
I thought for a long time that it's a fool's mission to 'play another man's game', but now feel languages spoken and musical, like any other thing we'd like to undertake are fair game. Study the masters, roll up your sleeves, achieve...
-
[QUOTE=fasstrack;807562]A few thoughts on language:
......
I don't want to buy into self-limitation or doubt b/c it is counter to the creative spirit and/or human potential and therefore can lock you. People have the right to learn to do anything they fancy, even if it's not of their 'native' culture. Study, talent and hard work make anything possible.
{QUOTE]
(Absolutely true....classical guys are fully capable of playing great jazz: Many, many e.g.'s of this---Herbie Hancock, Earl Hines, Chick Corea, etc. BUT, obviously it takes immersion and dedication, but it is certainly possible--it just takes effort.)
To cap my earlier point--I don't see that a written language (with syntax) vs. music (with or without syntax) dichotomy is useful.
Finally re: patterns vs. "not patterned" playing: I suspect that untutuored (but proficient) players may actually be playing with lots of internal logic, etc. Django R. is a great e.g. His playing is very accessible, and many novice jazz listeners love it--it makes sense and is easy to follow, but I doubt Django would have spent much time analyzing what he did, or thought about what he was playing, in those terms.
The truth is--with playing proficiency (or athletic skill)---we may get to a point of "knowing something" without being able to articulate (verbally) what exactly we're doing. (Actually this is why accomplished players are sometimes not great teachers---they can do---but may not be consciously aware of where their skill resides.)
It's a bit of a mystery, and Joel's earlier point, i.e "its what you have" is accurate.Last edited by goldenwave77; 10-04-2017 at 09:00 PM.
-
Side note - I wouldn’t call any of those guys you listed “classical guys.” They May have started with classical lessons when they were young, but I don’t think that makes them classical guys. Everyone starts someplace. Most pianists started with Chopin and Beethoven’s etudes. They learned to read, to interpret and to be exposed to a sophisticated library of classical music. For me you have to look at people who seriously engaged in a career in classical music and then changed course. Very rare indeed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I think it IS rare...and maybe foolhardy with someone who's established in one genre, to give it all up, and spend (5 Yrs. or more) "re-tooling" to become a jazz artist. But I think it could be done. Maybe some 12 yr. old prodigy will win PowerBall and try this.
I've read that Herbie H. had to "learn" jazz, as a pretty good prodigy-like teenager. Hines, I think, was 15 or 16 when he heard jazz, and many say he could have been a classical pianist, if he'd been able to cross the color line. Took him about 4 yrs. or so before he began playing with Louis A. Oscar Peterson, I think, played in national classical competitions when he was about 13 or so. Keith Jarrett is maybe another e.g.
I'm not downplaying jazz artists, and actually I believe the reverse. (I have this argument all the time with a friend of mine who is a serious classical guitar amateur....I keep telling him jazz is harder, as it requires real-time compositional ability (to improvise), as well as technical mastery. By and large, there are far, far fewer "jazz prodigies" than there are classical prodigies, where every year, there is a new crop of accomplished 12 yr. old pianists, violinists, and even some classical guitarists.)
-
Thats fine - I deleted the rest to avoid a ****ing match.I'm not sure what, if any, utility there was in your original distinction or observation. It just doesn't seem to get us anywhere.
Reply With Quote
Monk's Mood
Today, 04:25 PM in The Songs