-
Just a quick point that confirms what you are say - most jazz pianists have classical training, many of them to a pretty high level. BUT that doesn't make them 'classical guys' per se (Chick Corea is not a concert level classical artist - as my wife was quick to point out on hearing him play Mozart) but it does mean they have a strong grounding in the history and technique of their instrument.
Originally Posted by fasstrack
There are examples who straddle both world to a high level, too. Jarrett is an obvious example... Ethan Iverson has performed Schubert with Mark Padmore, for instance.
Yep I agree... It's funny that so many Gypsy players are lick players though - Django doesn't sound like that to me... Anyway...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.
-
10-05-2017 04:57 AM
-
In general, the instiutional racism of the classical music establishment has forced the best black musicians to stay in jazz, soul and so on. There's hundreds of examples from the history - how about Minnie Riperton? She took her Mozart colaratura high notes into soul because the opera stage wasn't interested in her. Originally Posted by goldenwave77
(Anyway I don't know the ins and outs of the racial politics.... I don't know if its got better. Screened auditions are becoming the norm, so it must still be a problem.)
As jazz guitarists we have a disconnect from classical tradition (the same can be said of most sax players and drummers) because we play our instruments mostly in a different way - that is not fingerstyle... The entry point for guitar into jazz is in general the blues - I'm generalising hugely here of course...
But classical technique is a great bedrock for most instruments. In fact the right hand technique used by Django is - AFAIK - classical mandolin technique - I think it was actually taught to him... So GJ right hand is the nearest thing we jazzers have to a legit classical technique for plectrum guitar.
It makes sense - you learn Western instruments using Western pedagogy because that's where the instruments come from. I think most musicians get that... The repertoire is a rich resource to be used for inspiration too.
I think string players find bowing jazz tricky though.
In terms of classical music v jazz? Well I think classical music is at least at the stages of 'getting yer shit' together, something very structured and that can work for some children. The onus is not on you to develop your own voice... That comes later in early adulthood as you master the repertoire (this might be bollocks though, feel free to correct.)
Jazz is not so structured and places an emphasis on the student driving the process creatively. I think it's something that suits those looking to express an identity - teenagers and young adults for instance.
-
I only read some of the posts and OP here but have a few observations.
When I saw the title I thought it was making a distinction between pattern based ideas and melodic/lyrical playing. Those are clear distinctions and there are a number of players that are known for one more than the other.
Lester Young and Dexter Gordon for example were very melodic players. I suppose people would think of Trane as a more pattern based player - at least sometimes.
One question might be - how melodic can most people be when they play busy? The busiest and fastest passages, at least if they last awhile, tend to make use of patterns.
But "Jazz language"? I have always understood that to be much more comprehensive. It includes ALL of the above (melodic playing AND patterns), phrasing, style, rhythm, articulation, swing feel, blues, on and on.
-
If you take a thing apart so much that you can't Originally Posted by fasstrack
put it back together , you've got a problem
I know someone like that , he understands everything
intellectually , mathematically , but can't hear/play
much of it
-
Let's put it this way: If you want to be a watchmaker or repairer it's probably a good idea to take a watch apart and have a good look inside. Do it until you know in your head what the inside of a watch looks like, then do your work. Substitute sound and listening 'inside' and I feel that's what we do when we're doing it right... Originally Posted by pingu
-
Aha! You see what I mean Fass - you obviously have taken the watch apart once upon a time, and that's why you can recommend the value in it. Originally Posted by fasstrack
Just sayin', cos you were accusing some of us earlier for doing, well, pretty much the same thing, no?
...
-
I never played classical, and wouldn't try. Maybe I'd improvise on the themes or, better yet, close a concert with the Chopin Prelude #4---and not blow on it. I've heard fine jazz players play on these pieces and somehow it didn't wash to my ears. Originally Posted by goldenwave77
Somebody mentioned Herbie Hancock. I've read that his first public appearance was playing a classical piece in Chicago at (I think) age 11. It's hard to say how that early training carries over to improvised music, but the two certainly are quite different---especially since the fact that the great composers up to the Romantic period were fluent improvisers and routinely improvised cadenzas on their pieces---then something happened maybe with the publishers or something---I'm not sure---and everything was written only. Remember, this was before recordings, so we'll never hear what Chopin or Liszt did on these cadenzas. And I don't know Herbie Hancock personally and cannot speak for him. I DO know that he has acknowledged the early influence of Chris Anderson---and I KNOW Chris was brilliant, know it firsthand. And he grew up in a great jazz town (and his ears seem to work well)!.
The harmonic language in jazz is not only similar to but comes from both classical music and the work of American songwriters (who not only were also influenced by classical, but in many instances not only wrote classical before writing for shows or movies but were in fact European emigres---particularly during WW II). What does make jazz its own music to me is blues and swing. At least for myself if you don't do the latter two, if it's not in your music in a basic palpable way----I ain't the jazz police and sort of hate them---I have to put it on a different tier. I might get other things out of it if its a great player. But rhythm, blues and ASB are, at least for me, what makes it jazz. Classical players, I'm guessing, are not always taught that or raised in that culture, so maybe they have problems switching. Just a thought.
I guess the best face to put on it is let's all learn from each other, 'take the best and leave the rest'. It'll probably come out alright that way...Last edited by fasstrack; 10-05-2017 at 01:14 PM.
-
Seems like the 'classical music is racist' meme coming from jazz musicians will never get old. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
Back to the OP. It might be interesting to reference a sample song and point out the passages that are melodic vs. pattern based.
Maybe I'll start, be back in a sec.
OK here it is. Firstly, Dex went out of his way to be lyrical/melodic so it was only for brief moments where he ran patterns, the rest of the time he weaved melodies. Heck, even his patterns were debatably lyrical. So here are some brief moments when he could be said to be running patterns - but this is highly subjective with him so you tell me!
His solo starts at about 1:00 in:
1:36, 1:51, 2:11, 2:16, 2:43, 3:05, 3:45, 4:16, 4:26...
Last edited by Jazzstdnt; 10-09-2017 at 11:52 PM.
-
For those who have not read it, here is the review (of Blue 7) that may have provoked Sonny Rollins to take his first sabbatical.
http://jazzstudiesonline.org/files/j...aticImprov.pdf
Regarding this thread's topic, the reviewer's terms were "paraphrase" and "chorus" to describe what he called the "two broad and sometimes overlapping categories" of jazz "improvisatory procedures".
-
In a general sense, music is always a mixture of repetition and variation.
A pattern is a repetitive cell varied by pitch. For instance - taking a four note melody and putting it on each degree of the scale. Hanonization...
I don't see much of this in Charlie Parker - though maybe I just can't spot them because they are varied and disguised. I can see them in Hank Mobley OTOH.
You could practice lots of patterns, or you could practice creating patterns from motifs as you improvise.
-
FWIW, I've never been in love with everything Dexter plays, though I do love a lot or most of it. One Day in Copenhagen, his playing on that Herbie Hancock Blue Note date---I forget the name, the one with Freddie Hubbard and Watermelon Man---and going back to The Chase w/Wardell Gray---that's my favorite Dexter, and some great stuff.
I don't know if he's a pattern player, but I do agree with Jim Hall's public assertion that Dexter can be predictable---you can sort of hear it coming before it gets there---and also prefer Ben Webster, as did Mr. Hall. (I realize that it's 'apples and oranges'). That 'behind the beat' thing---though I'm sure he felt it---can also be a bit predictable, like a 'shtick'. Just my opinion.
But what a sound! One for the ages..
-
It's true and that's one of the things I loved about Dex. Hi incredible ability to weave antecedent/consequent motivic/melodic phrases. That's a strength not a weakness. Playing behind the beat is a big Wes Montgomery thing too. His melodic skills were similar. Originally Posted by fasstrack
Dex's stature (and Wes') in Jazz history are of course much higher than Webster's or Hall's, and that's as it should be. People relate to their music.
-
Wes behind the beat? He played on top---that's what made him so exciting to me... Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
It's true and that's one of the things I loved about Dex. Hi incredible ability to weave antecedent/consequent motivic/melodic phrases. That's a strength not a weakness. Playing behind the beat is a big Wes Montgomery thing too. His melodic skills were similar.
Dex's stature (and Wes') in Jazz history are of course much higher than Webster's or Hall's, and that's as it should be. People relate to their music.
-
The reason I love Dexter G. is his ability to play long phrases. Coltrane, too, has this quality. Yes, they're both making the changes but distilling them down to something essential, and then creating something on top of it.
(Sadly, I don't hear this in many guitar players.) Some of Dexter's lines seem to last an entire chorus.
Miles D. also had this quality but in a different way....he subtracted out what wasn't needed and then put his spin on it....very compositional quality to his improvising. (Maybe necessity dictated this: Dizzie G or Freddie H. could play rings around Miles, technically. Both of these guys are great ballad players, too.)
Actually, I think Freddie H. was a guy who was so talented, it almost worked against him, as far as audience appreciation. I think he could play practically anything, and sometimes did...and yes he went through his periods where he had a certain sound and approach, but I think overall he was pretty varied in what he did.
-
Yes, Dexter had a way of hanging it together and making it sound inevitable. Never meant to imply otherwise. But---and, maybe BECAUSE he did it so well, for me at least it has the effect sometimes of being predictable. And it doesn't make him any less a player. I just like to be surprised, that's all... Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
-
True, most guitar players don't. But, having been in the jazz guitar game myself for many years and having to be a keen observer of other players to learn what to do and what not to, I feel that the jazz vocabulary does not lay well on guitar, and wasn't intended to. When the first innovations were made by the great horn players, pianists and singers going way back---guitar was an unamplified rhythm instrument. It took some standout and innovative soloists to bring the guitar to where it is now---and it's still not at the forefront, let's face it, though there have been some great players. Charlie Christian and Wes Montgomery are leading players, period. In my experience it's been the players, Christian among the first, who get a horn sound and find a way to simulate an air column and phrase like a horn that helped bring guitar to a more respected jazz soloing instrument. It's sort of an auditory illusion b/c of course we don't 'breathe' like horns. But the guitar is also piano-like in quality---and less 'cold' b/c we can shape notes with bends, glisses, etc. where they can't. Originally Posted by goldenwave77
Some that HAVE achieved what you speak of on a guitar to me are Jimmy Raney, Jim Hall and Eddie Diehl. Of course there are others, but those are my guys anyway...
-
You references my Dexter! A Day In Copenhagen was the record that flipped me out first. The Slide Hampton My Blues. I transcribed every solo on that. Are you talking about "Driftin', the Herbie tune with Hubbard? And The Chase! I heard those on 78s! My uncle used to play me jazz. WE'd listen. He was a tenor player. There's also The Hunt. But I bought The Chase on CD and ear-transcribed both solos on that Rhythm Changes tune. Originally Posted by fasstrack
I loved Dexter. I saw him many times and even had dinner with him twice!
-
Yeah, Dexter doesn't sound predictable to me, he never seems far away from pulling a surprise. The true greats can do the "through-composed" thing and not sound contrived, Rollins, Dex, Wes ... if they use "patterns" (or motifs, really ), they make them sound like melodies. Now some might argue that so can Hawkins, Getz, Desmond, Stitt, Turpentine, Mobley etc - all top tier motherfuckers - but there's a stiffness with these players, as though the lines are pre composed to a degree.
With the great altoists, Bird, Cannonball and McLean, these guys don't usually sound stilted to me, despite a lot of pre composed lines they all had, so you can't say that having a large vocab necessarily leads to predictable playing (like it does with Sonny Stitt)... Mmmm, Stitt, now there's a player that has caused me to head scratch a bit. The guy's flawless, has possibly more weapons in his arsenal than Bird (except rhythmic), as much technique, played everything with everyone and killed it every time, I mean whaddya gotta do to get in the Hall of Fame fear chrissakes? It must have been so frustrating when guys like him and Art Pepper just couldn't understand why they weren't put on the same pedestal as some of the others mentioned earlier. Or a Nat Adderley who probably thought he could out Miles Miles and give Clifford, Morgan and Hubbard a run for their money. What were they missing, that even non musicians could somehow detect?
I like to think it's simply the same thing that attracts us to certain people, in real life or the movies (or even youtube!)- its Personality. We like surprising, witty, original, uncontrived, off-the-hip, loose, happy-go-lucky people. People who couldn't say a wrong word or pull a wrong face if they tried. Effortless. And we can't fake it, you got it or you don't got it. All the practice in the world won't get it. The great communicators got to be likeable with their playing pretty quick, just a few years. Coltrane probably took the longest to develop, but then his "personality" was more complicated....
So if we're not "great" by the time we're 25, we never will be. But as Fass says, we can still go for "good"- a good pattern machine, or a good language or melody machine. OK, Machine is an unkind word, but as many point out, a lot of preparation for "good" playing is indeed highly mechanical. So let me reconsider my earlier ideal breakdown for my own playing, it's still 60% patterns, 20% vocab/language and 20% free wheeling, but with 100% personality! (I'll even settle for around 10...)
-
@princeplanet I kind of feel you are thinking about it in the wrong way in a sense. It’s not about being ‘good’ or ‘great’ or anything else; it’s about enjoying and engaging with music and enjoying working on new stuff. None of us will ever be Parker, John Coltrane, Dexter, Sonny Stitt even or anyone else like that.
But music from the inside looks different to the outside.
-
Regarding this maxim that if you're not great by the time you're 25 you never will be... Originally Posted by princeplanet
That's a myth. On the other hand, there is a lot of practical truth to it in terms of how people run their lives.
As long as you have a sound mind, sound body and some musical talent, you can theoretically become a great musician. The trouble is finding the time.
Most people aren't independently wealthy so must work as adults. There goes the spare time. But starting young and growing up playing music is a huge advantage for many reasons, beyond time and financial support (physical, mental). We can't underestimate that.
But it's still a myth.
There are any number of examples of great musicians who played/play better in their 40s and 50s than they did in their 20s and 30s, especially when it comes to the more artistic considerations, if not physical. And I'm referring to players who played as children too. The mastery comes through with the virtuosity.
There may be a corollary in acting. It helps to have looks as an actor, yes? But just look at the improvement in acting chops that most actors display as they grow in years - while they lose their youthful beauty. They become "seasoned" as they say, and no longer resemble their comparatively amateurish youthful selves.Last edited by Jazzstdnt; 10-15-2017 at 11:40 AM.
-
I think that's a great perspective. I particularly like what you say about 'seasoned.' Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
A few points about the whole thing
1) The world has changed. Being a great jazz musician now in 2017 is something quite different to what it was in the 50s and 60s.
2) Jazz musicians must be self promoting to get any work now. You can't just be great and expect to pick up gigs. So jazz performers need to have a wide skill set. It's no good being great in a hut somewhere.
3) Social proofing, hype etc has an important part to play. We might not like it, might think we are immune to it etc, but it has a massive effect (see also the unfortunate flip side - musicians bitching about successful players! OMG!)
4) There's a lot more music to learn. Once upon a time you just need to know how to blow on changes on blues, rhythm and standards. That's basically what Bird did. Now, the music is much more involved - you have to be able to play all types of things beyond standards (and yet all the recognised current players are also very comfortable on standards.) This takes more time. Even if you decide to specialise in one area, most players spend some time learning what that area is.
Anyway, 'greatness'? Well to me anyone who has spent the time to learn to play jazz to a professional level gets a huge amount of respect from me. The amount of work and heartbreak required to get to that level is beyond most people.
But I don't think there is a line that you cross and become 'great' - that's a myth in our heads. I don't think the players we look up to are psychologically different to us. In fact what they say reminds me of the type of things I feel. So, I don't find myself feeling like I am all that different really. Obviously I think they play better than me, but then I play better than I did 10 years ago.
Musicians are always in awe of other players, always working on their stuff, and quite often deeply ambivalent and critical about their own work. I find it's worth bearing that in mind when examining one's own motivations for learning and playing.
In terms of the profession - well it's a job. If you don't do certain boring non-music things, you won't be earning money from playing. That goes for a lot of the big names too, it seems.
-
tuning back into this thread:
Part of the problem here is the multi-level aspects of these discussions. At some point one comes to understand and accept one's playing, and also understand one's weaknesses, and one gets to know whether working on a particular weakness is likely to bear long-lasting fruit. But at first one needs to gain some competence.
Princeplanet, if I have gleaned his path correctly from his posts here (apologies if I got it wrong), is someone who "discovered" Blue Note/hard bop after gaining competence in some other musical area (rock?), and told himself "this music is awesome, I wanna be part of it. This music is highly formalized, so I should be able to woodshed it for a while, and then I'll be able to play in this style with others." But maybe PP is surprised how slow it's going, and how the conventional wisdom and hard work is not leading him directly to his goal. I've never heard his playing, so the problem of "patterns v language" might be important at his stage with his goal, whereas a player at a different level or with a different goal might not think this is a distinction worth bothering with.
I'm not sure I agree with Vladan. What comes naturally typically has to do with what one has listened a lot to. That's why so many jazz guitar beginners (in the US) revert to inappropriate rock licks, or stilted "country music" swing feel, etc. These basic problems can be corrected. Jazz players from cultures where odd meter is part of the musical culture (eg india, middle east) may be natural at complicated rhythms but have to work at the blues. Latin American jazz musicians might be natural at straight 8th grooves but might have to work on swing, etc. Once a certain competence is attained (the only way to know is to play with others), then other musical issues become important.
-
Hehe, I suppose I deserve this "summary" of my path these last 10 years, but I hope I'm not as naive as I appear to be to you! I mean, no, I'm not surprised at how slow it's going, haven't been for years. It's a journey and I dig it all, certainly in no rush. But I'll always remain curious about how, say, Sonny Rollins got so good so darn quick, or any of the "greats" for that matter. Fun to discuss, but I certainly don't expect that anyone on this Forum can answer for said "greats". "Thinking In Jazz" (Berliner) is one book that went close to giving some insights there, with quotes from the horses mouth, so to speak... Originally Posted by pkirk
But getting back to being concerned with a discussion about "Language vs Patterns", yeah, advanced players don't need to consider this, they don't need to consider the nuts and bolts of anything any more, maybe? But that's not to say that the rest of us need not, especially on this Forum where surely 95% of us seem happy to analyse (over analyse?) many aspects of our playing! pkirk, you're obviously one of the advanced players among us, along your own journey, didn't you ever analyse your own tendencies? If so, did you find it useful in any way?
-
Interesting discussion.
Brought to mind Blade Runner (of which I'm looking forward to the newly-released sequel) and the role of memory in the perception of identity.
Because - and I believe this is the elephant in the room - blues is cultural memory. (I think it ought to be obvious that diversity exists within culture, but - regrettably - I don't think it's obvious at all.)
My own reasons for eschewing 'rock licks' in the past are therefore complicated, but - having examined and sorted myself out* - I no longer find those reasons compelling.
So I'd like to make the point that, much as I agree (because of the context) with pkirk's assertion about 'inappropriate rock licks', those same licks can be used - not just appropriately but to powerfully exciting effect - by the right hands.
And what are the right hands? Well, for one thing, they're disciplined. ('Survival of the fittest' sounds cliché - I think it's about flexibility and adaptation.)
But what warrants discipline is down to each individual, and I see that as more important than (yet another) 'consumer choice'.
For me, it's more than whimsy: it's a matter of conscience. 'Language' over 'patterns' for me.
*not complacent, this is constant and on-going. (Hubris? ?No, thanks!)Last edited by destinytot; 10-16-2017 at 03:41 AM. Reason: *
Reply With Quote
I concentrate on you
Today, 06:40 AM in The Songs