The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Posts 26 to 50 of 93
  1. #26

    User Info Menu

    Parts of it are quite pretty. Much if the time it looked like he was stopping to reset his hands, totally killing any sense of fluidity. So it wouldn't be that it was rubato (which it isn't) but that it's stop and go.

    Which is as distracting as his face, which honestly looked like someone getting a colonoscopy without anaesthetic.

    The melodic and harmonic ideas, those are good.

    Which is not to say it's bad, just not *my* fav thing.

    Stumbling fingers still need love ...

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by R Neil
    Parts of it are quite pretty. Much if the time it looked like he was stopping to reset his hands, totally killing any sense of fluidity. So it wouldn't be that it was rubato (which it isn't) but that it's stop and go.

    Which is as distracting as his face, which honestly looked like someone getting a colonoscopy without anaesthetic.

    The melodic and harmonic ideas, those are good.

    Which is not to say it's bad, just not *my* fav thing.

    Stumbling fingers still need love ...
    Thanks for taking the time to listen. I agree that this playing is not rubato, and I don't think he was going for rubato. Is rubato the only valid form of liberally interpreting time? I understand we may come to a disagreement, but I appreciate the effect created by his pauses (probably because I hear the jaggedness of texture as intentional).

    I can see why you hear his expression of time as an imperfection of technique. How about this? I don't think you'd be able to find fault in his technique. But again he is far outside of the criteria that seem common here of "playing fluidly" or "swinging". So I'm still curious about the same question. Does it have to be fluid? Monk wasn't "fluid", but he was on time when it counted.


  4. #28

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by omphalopsychos
    Thanks for taking the time to listen. I agree that this playing is not rubato, and I don't think he was going for rubato. Is rubato the only valid form of liberally interpreting time? I understand we may come to a disagreement, but I appreciate the effect created by his pauses (probably because I hear the jaggedness of texture as intentional).

    I can see why you hear his expression of time as an imperfection of technique. How about this? I don't think you'd be able to find fault in his technique. But again he is far outside of the criteria that seem common here of "playing fluidly" or "swinging". So I'm still curious about the same question. Does it have to be fluid? Monk wasn't "fluid", but he was on time when it counted.

    That makes far more musical sense to my ears. But that is different for every human on the planet. In similar vein I can appreciate the 12 tone compositional theories of Schoenberg, and occasionally find a piece written in that as musical to *my* ears. Others I know love much of it.

    I have friends who even love "Nixon in China", in the very ... um ... modern something style used in that opera.

    I will not enjoy NIC or most 12-tone either but that doesn't mean I think any less of those who love it. We're just different.

    Stumbling fingers still need love ...

  5. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by omphalopsychos
    Thanks for taking the time to listen. I agree that this playing is not rubato, and I don't think he was going for rubato. Is rubato the only valid form of liberally interpreting time? I understand we may come to a disagreement, but I appreciate the effect created by his pauses (probably because I hear the jaggedness of texture as intentional).

    I can see why you hear his expression of time as an imperfection of technique. How about this? I don't think you'd be able to find fault in his technique. But again he is far outside of the criteria that seem common here of "playing fluidly" or "swinging". So I'm still curious about the same question. Does it have to be fluid? Monk wasn't "fluid", but he was on time when it counted.
    Oy. I certainly wouldn't drag Thelonious Monk into this. I don't think Monk was great in SPITE of his rhythmic sensibilities, or because he somehow abandoned them?

    I can appreciate most things on a musical level, even if it's not something I particularly like, but that first clip just feels disorganized to me. The Ben Goldberg example sounds great to me, but he's a horn player. Sadly, I think you have to be a guitarist to get away with just completely playing out of time. You can slow down, speed up, change feels , whatever, whatever, but you have to start SOMEWHERE, don't you?

    I don't care what the melodic, harmonic (or any other) content IS...If it lacks rhythmic organization (be it groove, swing, rubato, "free" or otherwise) what's the point?

    I honestly feel that so often guitarists are trying to approximate something musically which they think they hear others (like pianists) playing.....and in NOT understanding what is actually going on rhythmically, they then produce something musically nonsensical. Most pianists and horn players learned this stuff in school and basically understand what they're playing.

    A guitarist should be able to abstract pulse, as perceived buy the listener, through basic phrasing and rhythmic devices BEFORE you go monkeying around with everything else. You should basically be able to play "in time for rubato" where if the listener heard the click in your head it all lines up.

    Sure. THEN work with the ebb and flow of tempo and feel variations, but for many guitarists, rubato just seems to mean "whatever I can get out of my instrument in a given time frame".

    Sorry. Need to call it a night...

  6. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by destinytot
    The first part's rubato (tripped up, but repaired it), 'saying' the lyrics in my head:
    Great time feel/phrasing on the solo as well, Mike. Thanks for posting.

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    I really don't mean to start an argument or upset anyone. I'm just very curious about how music is heard and critiqued. Since I'm new to the forum, I like hearing your opinions. I hear you when you say it has to have a pulse. I acknowledge the statement that music must be rhythmic, that jazz must swing. I'm simply asking if this is a necessary attribute of enjoyable jazz based on some music I'm presenting as an example of jazz that very deliberately doesn't do what you're describing. One of them sounds more "musical" to someone because it's less interrupted. To me they both sound musical, but one has a very different contour.

    I rescind the Monk comment if it complicates things.

    I'm curious what delineates straight jazz vs free jazz. Ben Goldberg and Jeff Parker are both playing Monk but they're more known for their "free" styles, and their interpretations exhibit traits of the genre.

    In a similar vein, maybe some horn players think Steve Lacy was not a competent sax player because he never really learned or practiced the bop approach to playing changes.
    Last edited by omphalopsychos; 03-30-2017 at 11:59 PM.

  8. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by omphalopsychos
    I really don't mean to start an argument or upset anyone. I'm just very curious about how music is heard and critiqued. Since I'm new to the forum, I like hearing your opinions. I hear you when you say it has to have a pulse. I acknowledge the statement that music must be rhythmic, that jazz must swing. I'm simply asking if this is a necessary attribute of enjoyable jazz based on some music I'm presenting as an example of jazz that very deliberately doesn't do what you're describing. One of them sounds more "musical" to someone because it's less interrupted. To me they both sound musical, but one has a very different contour.

    I rescind the monk comment if it complicates things.

    I'm curious what delineates straight jazz vs free jazz. Ben Goldberg and Jeff Parker are both playing Monk but they're more known for their "free" styles, and their interpretations manifest this.
    You're fine. It's not you, really. Just me being pissy.

    Cadenzas, recitative and other freer rhythmic forms are not without organization. I don't think it necessarily has to swing always to be jazz. I don't think it has to have a pulse that you necessarily tap your foot to the whole time. There are a lot of 21st-century avant-garde styles which are very free. But usually there's some kind of organization rhythmically.

    I just think there's a difference between TRYING to do something "different" versus doing something "different" out of a failure to do something else you THOUGHT you were doing.
    Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 03-31-2017 at 12:03 AM.

  9. #33

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    You're fine. It's not you, really. Just me being pissy.
    No worries. You're the guitar teacher. I'm a student. I'm probably going to ask you the same question after you've gotten some rest.

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    Cadenzas, recitative and other freer rhythmic forms are not without organization. I don't think it necessarily has to swing always to be jazz. I don't think it has to have a pulse that you necessarily tap your foot to the whole time. There are a lot of 21st-century avant-garde styles which are very free. But usually there's some kind of organization rhythmically.

    I just think there's a difference between TRYING to do something "different" versus doing something "different" out of a failure to do something else you THOUGHT you were doing.
    This is exactly where I'm confused. An apparent lack of organization doesn't mean a conceptual lack of organization. It's very possible that the artist executed exactly what they intended. In defense of the first clip, if you listened to more of Parker's music you'd hear that he applies stylistic choices like this quite deliberately. If you listened to other musicians from the same scene (the AACM), such as the Art Ensemble of Chicago, Fred Anderson, Matana Roberts, you will notice similar aesthetic characteristics. I have trouble thinking that the similarity is coincidental among a group of musicians who share a common lack of organization. And I'm not just talking about amateur musicians with no training. Parker studied at Berklee and his records are highly regarded. His last record, The New Breed, showed up in a lot of 'Top Jazz Albums of 2016' lists. Just a few months ago he shared a stage with Peter Bernstein playing Monk tunes (sorry to bring up Monk again). So there's something being appreciated by people purchasing his records, and by musicians willing to play in public with him. I only asked my questions because I'm curious about this style of music. Clearly I have trouble describing what draws me too it. I didn't mean to cause any disruption.

  11. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by omphalopsychos
    This is exactly where I'm confused. An apparent lack of organization doesn't mean a conceptual lack of organization. It's very possible that the artist executed exactly what they intended. In defense of the first clip, if you listened to more of Parker's music you'd hear that he applies stylistic choices like this quite deliberately. If you listened to other musicians from the same scene (the AACM), such as the Art Ensemble of Chicago, Fred Anderson, Matana Roberts, you will notice similar aesthetic characteristics. I have trouble thinking that the similarity is coincidental among a group of musicians who share a common lack of organization. And I'm not just talking about amateur musicians with no training. Parker studied at Berklee and his records are highly regarded. His last record, The New Breed, showed up in a lot of 'Top Jazz Albums of 2016' lists. Just a few months ago he shared a stage with Peter Bernstein playing Monk tunes (sorry to bring up Monk again). So there's something being appreciated by people purchasing his records, and by musicians willing to play in public with him. I only asked my questions because I'm curious about this style of music. Clearly I have trouble describing what draws me too it. I didn't mean to cause any disruption.
    Like I said, and I'm serous: I very well may not be sophisticated enough. I'm not a *jazz* teacher by the way. Just a dude on the internet. I'm just arm chair quarterbacking on this, maybe being an ill-informed internet snob.

    I *would* be interested in hearing a well regarded player of an instrument other than guitar who somehow evokes this "style". The clarinetist was doing something much different IMO.

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher
    Great time feel/phrasing on the solo as well, Mike. Thanks for posting.
    Thanks for this very kind - and very supportive - comment.

    (Back to battling dragons.)

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher

    I *would* be interested in hearing a well regarded player of an instrument other than guitar who somehow evokes this "style". The clarinetist was doing something much different IMO.
    I agree the second clip has a different rhythmic contour, but I think it owes to each musician's personal style. What they have in common is that the both approach a Monk tune as a piece for improvisation and they disregard the meter, the tempo, the form, and even the harmony and melody when they improvise. The Goldberg clip has moments where he isn't even playing notes. You can find clips of Ben Goldberg and Jeff Parker playing together, and you'll hear that their approach is complementary although different.

    I really can't think of a lot of musicians who play solo with the same rhythmic style as Parker, but here's a clip of him playing with another AACM musician. If you compare their two solos you'll hear similarities in their approach to rhythm. Again, they're pretty different, but you'll hear the same looseness in time (and this is with a rhythm section!). You'll also hear Parker's voice come through in the rhythmic contour that's unique to his style.


  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    Actually this comes to mind. How would others describe Bernstein's rhythm here? It's not rubato. It's disrupted, coarse, scattered. I think his music is more familiar and respected on this forum, however, than the other things I posted. Interestingly, in the comments one person says it's his worst playing while another considers it to be his best.


  15. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by omphalopsychos
    I agree the second clip has a different rhythmic contour, but I think it owes to each musician's personal style. What they have in common is that the both approach a Monk tune as a piece for improvisation and they disregard the meter, the tempo, the form, and even the harmony and melody when they improvise. The Goldberg clip has moments where he isn't even playing notes. You can find clips of Ben Goldberg and Jeff Parker playing together, and you'll hear that their approach is complementary although different.

    I really can't think of a lot of musicians who play solo with the same rhythmic style as Parker, but here's a clip of him playing with another AACM musician. If you compare their two solos you'll hear similarities in their approach to rhythm. Again, they're pretty different, but you'll hear the same looseness in time (and this is with a rhythm section!). You'll also hear Parker's voice come through in the rhythmic contour that's unique to his style.

    I can relate to that a lot more easily for sure. Of course the rhythm section really helps with context. I just personally think that if you're playing solo, well.... that's *your* role as well. I wouldn't want to listen to very much of the kind of solo playing he was doing before.

  16. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by omphalopsychos
    Actually this comes to mind. How would others describe Bernstein's rhythm here? It's not rubato. It's disrupted, coarse, scattered. I think his music is more familiar and respected on this forum, however, than the other things I posted. Interestingly, in the comments one person says it's his worst playing while another considers it to be his best.

    Yeah. I can hear the monk in that one for sure.

    Still a lot more rhythmically concrete to my ears. Basically abstracting strong sense of beat by rhythmically emphasizing offbeat patterns. A lot of offbeat quarter note triplets etc.

    Definitely doesn't sound random, or just "not straight". Bernstein also gives enough context (rhythm section -like) to let you know what's going on. He also sub divides a good bit. there's enough there for Mira mortals to at least appreciate what is going on.

    I'm an amateur myself, but I just think, re. the other clip, if other musicians are the only ones who understand what you're doing, again, what's the point? It's the old non-Jazzer joke about jazz being "just play whatever you want".

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    Surprised to find so many like minded guitarist that don't dig JP's Virtuoso records. They always seem to be held up as the grail of guitar playing and I find them unlistenable. Particularly the boom-chick-boom-chick bass chord fills he does. Bad tone, constant wanky runs, endless rubato. No thanks.

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    There's a real point between rubato playing and metronomic. I played a couple of times with a great rubato cocktail pianist. Fine player. Knew any tune you could throw at him. He sat in with the band and COULD NOT PLAY IN TEMPO to save his life. Could not do it.

    Knowing how to work with a metronome doesn't mean without it, you will sound like a robot. Metronome just keeps you honest while you practice. It doesn't mean you must NEVER fluctuate your time. I think the living and breathing, ebb and flow of music in time and tone, dynamics, emotion, is what music is all about.

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    Yeah, I dunno...they're "guitar player music." I guess, you name an album "Virtuoso" you should know what to expect. My guess is that was a record label idea, not Joe's. It's a record that makes "Guitar World" lists of greatest guitar albums, sandwiched in between Yngvie's "Rising Force" and an Allman Brothers album.

    It's an awful tone, but also not Joe's fault...they had an idea to blend a mic and the electric tone...but it didn't work. At least that's the story.

    I play a lot of solo guitar. I hardly ever listen to it. Generally, if I do want to hear solo guitar, it's gotta be nylon string...Gene Bertoncini, Luiz Bonfa...that stuff keeps my ear interested.

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by matt.guitarteacher

    I'm an amateur myself, but I just think, re. the other clip, if other musicians are the only ones who understand what you're doing, again, what's the point? It's the old non-Jazzer joke about jazz being "just play whatever you want".
    Given the number of views on the Jeff Parker clip, there must be some non musicians digging it. But I think musicians might get more out of it. For example on his latest album he plays a melody from a Stravinsky cantata over a soul groove. Anyway thanks for the discussion.

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    I think the Parker and Bernstein clips are pretty outstanding. Those guys are really improvising, reaching for some shit. That's listening music, not the tame, in-time stuff I play at the local spaghetti house as background wallpaper.

  22. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    That's listening music, not the tame, in-time stuff I play at the local spaghetti house as background wallpaper.
    meanwhile, some of us are still striving to achieve your level of spaghetti restaurant artistry....

    :-)
    Last edited by matt.guitarteacher; 03-31-2017 at 11:28 AM.

  23. #47

    User Info Menu

    Liberals! Always wanting to use up someone else's time. You do know rubato means robbed?

  24. #48

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by omphalopsychos
    I'm really curious to know what people think about this performance. There is something very jagged and reflexive about Jeff Parker's playing, both in his ensemble and solo playing. I've taken a few lessons from him and I know it's an intentional element of his aesthetic. Knowing that there's a wide variance of styles and preferences in this forum, I'm curious to know what the more traditional players think of this approach. Does it turn anyone off? If so what about it does? Is anyone really into it like I am?

    The tone is great! The dude was just having a bad day, thats all.

  25. #49

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
    The tone is great! The dude was just having a bad day, thats all.
    I take it I'm not among a crowd that would have gone to see an Ornette Coleman solo concert.

  26. #50

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    Yeah, I dunno...they're "guitar player music." I guess, you name an album "Virtuoso" you should know what to expect. My guess is that was a record label idea, not Joe's. It's a record that makes "Guitar World" lists of greatest guitar albums, sandwiched in between Yngvie's "Rising Force" and an Allman Brothers album.

    It's an awful tone, but also not Joe's fault...they had an idea to blend a mic and the electric tone...but it didn't work. At least that's the story.

    I play a lot of solo guitar. I hardly ever listen to it. Generally, if I do want to hear solo guitar, it's gotta be nylon string...Gene Bertoncini, Luiz Bonfa...that stuff keeps my ear interested.
    I'm listening to Virtuoso as I type, and I think it sounds great (though there are issues with the recording itself, e.g. clipping and eq). I know there's the story of them having not recorded the amped sound by mistake, and maybe that's true. But this recording sounds like a Joe Pass live solo performance. So yeah, there are true ad lib /out-of-time interludes and extra bits of back cycling, runs that extend the form, etc., but that's what he did when he performed by himself, and this recording documents that. He also would turn down the volume on the guitar all the way and play un-amped (I saw him solo twice, and he did this both times), so maybe it wasn't entirely an accident (Here's that Rainy Day sounds amped to me). I like Pass's solo playing better than most other solo guitar. To me, his stuff sounds more like complete, intentional, performances serving a real aesthetic purpose than "hey, look at this really hard thing I'm doing!" (as can be the case with a lot of other guys). A lot of guys who pull off true improvised counterpoint, IMO, do so at the expense of being boring (e.g., George Van Eps). But JP is constantly striving to go where the songs take him on his solo stuff.

    OK, now I'm listening to some Art Tatum. It seems pretty obvious to me that that's what JP was striving for.

    John