-
Do androids dream of electric jazz?
The difference between a rock lick and a jazz lick is phrasing and sound. There’s a great mymusicmasterclass seminar when one of the players - I forget who but I think it’s fuze - demonstrates how a ‘blues lick’ would sound played with Hindustani, Carnatic and American blues phrasing.
The pentatonic scale is a constant throughout the world.
-
10-16-2017 04:54 AM
-
Sorry, didn't mean to suggest you were naive: you seem better informed about the music itself than many. But I wonder if you play with others enough. One thing that does is that it changes the focus of what you work on. Suddenly issues like "How does one lock in with a bass player who plays on top of the beat" or "how do I keep a groove without stepping on the soloist" or "how do I contour a solo" become infinitely more important than how to approach note choice.
Originally Posted by princeplanet
Originally Posted by princeplanet
(I must be the only one who read this book and found it superficial. I should probably take another look at it) I don't know how the greats of that era or any other got great, but my guess is that already as teenagers they played in groups and sessions non-stop, and hung out, talked, shared, and competed with their buddies and then practiced like mad. I work at a university that has a good jazz program. The students who leave great players are always the ones who play obsessively with everybody they can, and form serious groups that explore different parts of the tradition. Those that just practice by themselves tend not to have a balance in their performances.
I'm not that advanced. A bit more experienced than some, perhaps, so I've dabbled a bit with every new improv approach that I come across. My self analysis is limited to: "my time sucks" and "I suck", in keeping with my personality. Originally Posted by princeplanet
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?
For me, being a jazz guitarist is all about being in the moment. On the bandstand, time is 99% of what matters to me, because playing interesting note choices while losing the beat or the form, or playing tentatively, or not locking in with the bass player or drummer is infinitely worse (to me) than playing rudimentary note choices while totally locked in.
So time is the issue I grapple with and wish I had focused on from the beginning, but being self taught (and a hobbyist) it took me a long time to come to that, so I probably prosletyze for this perspective a bit too much on the forum. This *is* nuts-and-bolts stuff, incidentally, it's just that its also the nuts and bolts stuff in any groove based music. Probably the best way to become a good straight ahead jazz player is to practice gospel and R&B first......
Second in importance to me is basic musicianship: sight reading, familiarity with the repertoire, knowing how to arrange music for a group, getting decent tone, knowing the basics of the other instruments, etc, namely the things I need to get others to want to play with me.
As far as note choice goes, woodshedding some Jimmy Raney solos 40 years ago got me 80% of the way there. Of course, along the way I learned a certain amount of what people call jazz theory, enough to keep me busy exploring for a lifetime. Patterns and language is certainly a part of that, but there are lots of other examples too.
-
Cool, and yeah, I try to play with others, but their time sucks! I look forward to playing with better players, but until then, I use backing tracks which is fine for where I'm at presently. As for Thinking In Jazz being superficial, it's interesting how what I gleaned seemed to be reading between the lines. No one really stepped forward and whispered their secrets into the reader's ear, but after a while, upon reading different perspectives on the same issues, it became apparent that there is a lot of consensus about things like what to practice, how to practice, how to not think on the bandstand etc. It's clear there was a fierce competitive spirit which brought the very best out in the very best players. Also, it seems the "street" was their University...
-
This last sentence is hugely important, whether applied literally or philosophically. Trying to relate jazz rhythms from advanced players to straight ahead rock or classical styles is an impossibly long journey toward ever hearing what is really going on rhythmically. I think most never get there that way. If you have to take a "shortcut" and skip this step, at least start with Lester, Billie and co. as your short cut. The degrees of separation between blues and jazz are at least in the same universe. Originally Posted by pkirk
Very thoughtful and insightful post as a whole by the way. Thanks.Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 10-18-2017 at 09:37 PM.
-
I can understand the distinction of language versus patterns in order to gauge yourself.
It's all about patterns to me. I get nothing out of listening to solos in jazz. Melodies are everything.
Our minds/memory all work differently. What works for me or seems to work for me might make no sense to someone else.
-
Patterns make great sense as means - but not end.
Unless you're a robot:
-
I haven’t listened but Oliver Nelson is all about patterns. I like his writing a lot, for the most part, except for the face that almost everything is done pattern. Drives me a little nuts. A did a concert playing the entirety of Blues and the Abstract Truth arranged by Bill Cunliff. Really great arrangements. But some were a little too pattern-y.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Very clever man, Mr Nelson - and that album is/was an honourable project. I thought the four-minute-or-so podcast a dignified appreciation of meaning as abstracted by sympathetic listeners.
But regarding patterns, I'd forgotten that I had a copy of this book.
Looking at it now, I find myself judging it by its cover - which, besides inducing vertigo, could too easily lead to the costly mistake of excluding from exploration of its content any consideration of the effect on listeners.
And that wouldn't do at all. For me, at least.
(Fortunately for me, I'm naturally averse to the Mechanical - except in my kitchen.)Last edited by destinytot; 10-16-2017 at 07:42 PM. Reason: cumulative syntax
-
I think patterns can sound great! Check out the transition from clarinet solo to piano solo starting around 2:30 in this litty ditty:
...wow, such a great solo.
One of the classic jazz improv books said something like x% of a solo should be "expected" and the other y% should be "unexpected"; seems like some patterns can help with that... (assuming you buy into that approach)
I think most of us can agree that rhythm, time, sound and expressiveness are very important and probably more so than "the notes". Sometimes patterns can help make those goals a bit more achievable or allow an interesting idea to be emphasized.
But personally I don't really play patterns to then apply to real musical situations (as opposed to licks, which I'll admit I do practice for this at least as a launching point). However I find that practicing patterns helps me come up with original ones on the fly.
-
Nice - 'rhythm/rule of three'. Originally Posted by coolvinny
-
My current thinking is that it takes an advanced player to make patterns sound like music.
An intermediate player (perhaps by definition) tends to make them sound mechanical.
My personal experience is that I'm playing and, if I'm lucky, I get a melodic idea. Sometimes I'll cycle the idea through the changes.
I've never been able to do what, say, Coltrane did, of taking something as geometric as 1 2 3 5 and moving it through changes (well, I can do that)... and make it sound great (there's the problem...).
-
Last edited by destinytot; 10-16-2017 at 08:04 PM.
-
What I said was 'it's HARD to be good' Being good is hardly a shame---it's hard won, even by the talented, and takes a lot of work and sweat. One of the nicest compliments I ever received was when James Moody heard me play at a party with Kirk Lightsey and a bassist I can't remember. He told someone, and made sure I heard, 'He's GOOD, isn't he?' That meant more to me than some well-meaning sort who just can't hear on the level of and lacks the wisdom and experience of a James Moody telling me I played or sounded 'great'. Moody heard me as I was, good, not great. And that meant something because we both knew how hard it is to be good at something, especially improvising and fitting into a group. Originally Posted by princeplanet
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...)
Still, I always aim for the fences---and let others determine if its good, great, poor, indifferent. I think we should TRY for greatness, b/c everyone is capable of it sometimes, especially if we remove 'blockage' and go straight ahead into the music we can then hear.
One of my pet peeves is 'self-limitation'. You know: 'music stopped in 1600, 1950, 1970', etc---or 'sorry, I don't hear that'---or, worst of all 'I'm just not talented enough to be great, so why bother trying?'. Self-limitation stems from self-defeating beliefs (sometimes handed down by poor or frustrated teachers, sometimes just a trip we take ourselves on).
Remember Wes Montgomery saying 'I knew I could do what (Charlie Christian) did, b/c I played a six-string too'. Hear hear. THAT'S the way to think, IMO...Last edited by fasstrack; 10-19-2017 at 07:32 AM.
-
So... everything comes down to how we fill the space. You can takeaway any note(s), use patterns or speak from the heart or your soul... whatever you choose to call your playing. But you can't take away time... sure you can screw it up and many players do.
Not every note is perfect or has to be called a melody or have perfect melodic placement etc... generally, there are target notes which have specific relationships with harmony and are played at specific target points within the form of a tune... the spatial thing. The patterns or language, whatever works for one personally, that fill the space between those target notes... are just another aspect of creating relationships with some type of reference.
Some players play more than one melodic idea at the same time... like myself, I like to have a melodic/harmonic theme going on ...which develops, and may also have a few other melodic and harmonic aspects going on also. Somewhat like writing in a contrapuntal style, two, three or more parts all going on and being developed at the same time. So instead of thinking about one note at a time, we think in phrases, melodic/ harmonic melodies that basically function just like simple single note ideas. It may sound complicated... but it's like most things... once you begin it get easier. When you get down to it... once I play or imply some melodic or harmonic idea... I'm telling the rest of the band, hey this is what and where I want to go musically. It's never just about being in the moment... that's just some personal justification type of thing... I guess. I mean we're always in the moment... that's a very physical thing.... good players are also in the past and future... at least aware. I could go on and break this down etc... but who really cares. Most players may never really develop these skills... it's not like they're required to play music.
BUT... the rhythmic thing is, I've said this many time, most players don't have good time... they become good followers of time, which may lead to the being in the moment thing, maybe. I don't know... but I perform with thousands of musicians, many are followers of time. They seem to loose the pulse, unless it's constantly reinforces or implied etc... Obviously not everyone, or anyone on this forum, my disclaimer.
Personally... the trick to developing good time it to practice hearing longer rhythmic figures or patterns. It's again the same approach... working on technical skills. Technically working on what rhythm and time is.... Which I see and hear as the organization of space within the form of music.
So most can keep time with quarter notes at mm160. Which could be just the subdivision of a whole note. Where as feeling or playing whole notes could get loose. Take 4 musicians and have them play whole notes together... with out anything else, what usually happens.
They start screwing it up... and forget about locking etc... My point, when you teach yourself to to hear longer phrases... longer organized spaces... your time begins to improve. It's not magic etc...
And all this leads to the pattern language thing, patterns are just a learning tool to increase the capabilities of your language... to begin to be aware of the past and future as well as being in the moment... so what your playing... your language will at least feel natural and sound like sweet melodies etc... You get that, right... patterns help you be aware of where your starting and where your going within the space of your melodic tonal targets, eventually becoming all soulful beautiful melodic language.
-
You know, there a few things where I just have to go with my gut and run 180 degrees counter to the conventional wisdoms, and the "don't play along with play alongs" is one of them. I've spent many years playing with others (simpler modal music) so I know the push-pull feel of playing and reacting to others. But as I've been teaching myself more complex ideas, I find myself unprepared to play with top players who can play complex stuff, but also that I'm too advanced for players who play too simply for what I'm chasing. A no-man's land if you will. So I say that BIAB is my friend for now. It has "real" performances across many styles. You can mix and match styles to keep you on your toes. The time is solid without being Midi- metronomic, I can change tempos and keys at will.... It's light years from the old Aebersold discs/tapes. Originally Posted by pkirk
Sure, maybe light years away from playing with top players too, but the only way I can see myself getting good enough to play with top players is to do the prep work with my BIAB. It has improved my skill set over these past few years, and any habits formed at the same time I'll be sure to know about when I bring my bag on to the bandstand, but I look forward to dealing with that part of the journey the most, where I re learn what it's like to play with humans again!Last edited by princeplanet; 10-17-2017 at 12:28 AM.
-
The dream: to get good enough that the people you admire call you for gigs!
I found that practicing with IRealPro, all 12 keys, is enormously helpful in developing fluency. So, I'm not thrown as easily by unfamiliar chord changes.
I don't know if it's been good for my time or not.
I even think that I started getting some more calls because of some progress I made with IRealPro.
I assume that the same progress can be made with Aebersold or BIAB.
But, to get called by top players requires more. Just every planet has to line up. Great ears, great feel for comping, great knowledge of the repertoire, impressive soloing, great sound, great ability to blend with a band, etc etc.
I think the way to get there depends on the individual. Intense work on the fundamentals, booking gigs and hiring the players you admire, hosting jams with interesting charts, and, probably business skills I don't' know anything about.
-
I used to think this way. Possibly it works if you play bass. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
You are a guitarist. Metheny had to book gigs. Ergo, so do I. (Or end up playing music I didn't like with players of about my level lol.)
Practice, gigs and bands are a virtuous circle. One big mistake people make is to look at it as a purely individual thing. Actually, playing in a working band that gigs is terribly important, you all develop together - that's something music schools do well. That will give you the ability to be a stronger individual player so when you play with the heavy players, you learn something.
You have to shed this stuff. Same as anything. Hustling is something I've been practicing.I think the way to get there depends on the individual. Intense work on the fundamentals, booking gigs and hiring the players you admire, hosting jams with interesting charts, and, probably business skills I don't' know anything about.Last edited by christianm77; 10-17-2017 at 05:41 PM.
-
I play bass; and I don't think it really works this way anymore, at least not for me or anyone I know. all the best bass players I know (SF bay area) do a lot of hustling and hanging out in addition to just being good. Sounding good is obviously critical, but no one is going to even hear you in the first place unless you do a fair amount of hanging, going to shows, sitting in, etc. The best thing I did when I moved to SF from NYC was to make friends with other good bassists, go hear people, occasionally sit in, and I started to get calls. Originally Posted by christianm77
I was listening to an interview with Mark Giuliana and he mentions getting the Avishai gig basically because he was at every show and was always hanging. He obviously practiced his ass off as well, but in the interview he was pretty clear that he didn't think that just practicing was enough. Ethan Iverson said the same thing about getting a gig with Kurt and Mark Turner, they told him it was because he was at a lot of shows and knew the music. A good friend of mine had a very successful NYC career as a trombonist and even though there were zillions of more skilled trombonists, my friend was/is definitely better at networking than almost anyone I've ever met.
I think the Bill Evans line about "practice and everything else will take care of itself" is total BS and pretty harmful to young musicians. certainly was to me.
-
I have a song based approach. All my practicing is done to a backing track of a tune in my repertoire. 50% of the time I work on pure melodic development, and 50% is trying to lock in short phrases/licks.
-
Coming from left field, in semantics and other fields there is a distinction between a pattern and a code. A pattern is simply a configuration that seems functional and meaningful, like a crystal formation. It could be the result of chance, or other forces, but a recurring sequence, for example, is a pattern (on this view). On the other hand, Aa"code" is a pattern that conveys information. "Language" is a set of patterns in sound or symbol that conveys information (loosely defined!).
I wonder if the difference then between pattern playing and "language" playing might go to whether the playing conveys something, some kind of information, either mental, emotional, soul-based, experiential, whatever? On that view, "pattern" playing would risk being clever, convoluted, and potentially devoid of anything it really conveys to the hearer, where "language" playing would of course employ patterns, but in a larger way to put something across to the hearer.
I always heard that a good solo tells a story.
-
Thanks for an interesting thread.
Having used a whiteboard and colourful magnets to train myself to 'see' shapes, I've returned to imagining the fretboard as a dark runway - and 'seeing' the shapes light up and connect.
That obviously requires concentration (which is no small requirement and of benefit in itself), but I'm finding it most effective to do it away from the guitar.
Areas where I'm weak soon reveal themselves; I either get stuck, or I spot mistakes when I pick up the guitar to check.
However, since my recent commitment to developing my trumpet embouchure, the visual nature of guitar, with its movable shapes, appears as both a blessing and a curse - especially when it comes to acquisition of vocabulary resources for the playing of 'jazz' on guitar (*as distinct from what I'm content to call 'guitar jazz').
For trumpet, I'm going back to studying at the piano - and to transcription of short phrases (by hand, and on large-scale manuscript paper). And if analysis doesn't come easily on guitar, I know I'm not ready to play - though I've got plenty of playing to work on as it is.
I want all the advantages offered by guitar - who wouldn't? - and, at the same time, I definitely don't want to over-think (which I have a tendency to do) or 'over-monitor' (which I.... er...- don't).
Lawson's terrific post about Polanyi (for which, thank you) confirms my own view that the effect on the listener is paramount.Last edited by destinytot; 10-29-2017 at 07:40 AM. Reason: *addition, and correction of typos
-
I find that playing bebop phrases on piano helps them make sense. I should go back to doing that!
-
What I'm calling 'homework' is so important to me that I 'bunked off' my regular solo gig last night (one advantage and prerogative enjoyed by those of amateur status) and spent the evening getting high instead - on pentatonics at the piano. Originally Posted by christianm77
Running before I can walk, of course - mostly out of reverence for what messrs Tyner and Shaw are saying. I think guitarists are advantaged when it comes to that sound.
Trumpet's hard work but the articulation is 'trumps' for me.Last edited by destinytot; 10-29-2017 at 09:23 AM.
-
You mean chords, right? I find quartal single line playing on guitar to be very challenging! Originally Posted by destinytot
-
I've enjoyed the thread.
On the one hand,I think that to reduce language to a set of patterns is to trivialise it. On the other, I find that what works in theory only works in practice if its message lands home.
I think that, in 'jazz', hitting below the belt ought to be de rigueur.
Last edited by destinytot; 10-29-2017 at 09:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
Shipping Catastrophe
Today, 07:27 AM in Everything Else