-
Originally Posted by mrcee
Young players always seem to think they have to re-invent the wheel. Not so, you just find a new angle to turn it at. I don't understand this discussion, or, frankly, find it productive.
And I find that statement about 'jazz....more outside by nature' (unless you mean in a sociological sense---as in created by 'outsiders') patently absurd and just plain WRONG. Jazz was THE popular music of the '30s in the US. by virtue of its very 'understandablity' (and danceabilty). It became more harmonically sophisticated and less a 'peoples' music' in following decades. That was both good and bad IMO. Of course music has to evolve and grow---but the classic elements: swing, melody, good self-editing by good soloists (read: don't go on and on saying nothing just to play long), the ASB repertoire, blues and Latin influences will ALWAYS be the plasma of this music, whatever you do harmonically---or how 'hip' or 'out' or key-free you want to get.
If you forego the basics of ANYTHING....
-
02-24-2017 07:27 PM
-
I liked this a lot.
Within a piece, the tonal colour of where you're at harmonically at a given moment will always, at least partly, be determined by what preceded it. There's an implied key centre for reference, contrast, juxtaposition etc.
-
Such big words.
Oy vey. No wonder people don't like jazz anymore. Worry about playing for people and reaching them instead of these fancy-shmancy concepts that only musicians understand.
Ahh, I'm wasting my 'breath'. Youth is wasted on the young. Go ahead, do your thing...
-
There is relatively little activity in this sub-forum and I think we should welcome any original contributions. If they are not to our liking and we have no positive* criticism to offer, there is always the option to "keep it to ourselves". Being polite here.
(*I meant constructive)Last edited by Peter C; 10-05-2018 at 06:45 PM.
-
I never understand that reiterated fact in the forums: Somebody is not agree with Everybody and one from that mayority accuse Somebody of being negative and destructive.
Only because Somebody isn't agree with you? What the hell is that kind of reasoning?
The opinion that is contrary to your opinion is probably the one you'll learn the most. This modern and increasing culture of wanting likes everywhere is really unproductive
Originally Posted by fasstrack
About the video: it's really nice that any musician write and play their own music as they please. That's the base of the artistic creation. But let's not forget that we haven't invented neither the artistic creation nor the lack of a tonal axis nor the atonal paths nor the keyless thinking when composing (actually I hear a very clear tonal patterns in that solo guitar music).
Originally Posted by Peter C
It's not only about to write music with a certain theory in mind or not, but to write music having listened to thousands of diferent music styles from diferent countries from diferent centuries, etc.
-
Hi guys!
I see that this original post is gaining some discussion and there are some disagreement also. Every opinion is very welcome. Critical feedback invites reflection and gives new point of views. Also positive feedback develops because it gives believe to receiver's work IMO.
I will give my opinion to statements that maybe concerned about my video:
-About young players re-inventing the wheel:
I'm not trying to re-invent the wheel. My mission was personal. I wanted to challenge my self and examine method that is actually quite natural to me. I wanted to know can I compose whole song with this idea that comes every now and then in my other compositions. I thought that this is quite fun way to compose. I find it inspiring and I hoped that if I post it here some people will be inspired too.
And it's relative am I young or not. I'm turning to 36 this year and some concern me middle aged. To this age I have played several styles and I want always find something new to keep it fresh. This video was not indication how one should think and play. It was just one little idea in this wide sea of ideas we share.
-About atonality and tonality:
My goal wasn't to make atonal music. I have never done it and I don't even know how to compose actual atonal music. My goal was simply to surprise my self and compose music that sounds pleasant to my ears.
-About that people don't like jazz anymore was claimed here to be due to people like me who don't worry about playing for people and reaching them instead of creating these fancy-shmancy concepts that only musicians understand.
Actually most of my time I spend with dealing music related subjects goes to reaching the people. Finding gig opportunities, being in touch with gig orderer, finding people who can help in music field, finding students, making posters, arranging rehearsals etc. etc. When I have time after this and my day-job and taking care of my kids I might do these videos and maintain my website and Facebook group where I give my ideas with transcription and backing tracks for free to anyone. I play variety of styles and they don't all include this "fancy-shmancy concepts" but things within I want to give experiences to listeners.
And IMO people like jazz very much. We have a lot of players and jazz festivals here in Finland. But I think that since jazz's golden days there have been arose so many other styles to listen to. Focus of the majority population is somewhere else also the money is there. Unfortunately.
I hope this gave picture of my thought despite my English.
Have a nice spring and let those strings to sing!
kindest, Mikko
-
I think a lot of stuff that does 'connect' with an audience might start in a laboratory of some sort. People do appreciate creativity, and I see a lot of what we explore in this forum (at least for the more advanced players) as experiments. "Is there something here?" Is a good question. The alternative might just be playing Joe Pass solos over and over!
-
Originally Posted by MikkoKarhula
I actually replied to a couple posts in the disscusion.
Originally Posted by MikkoKarhula
IMO, the last 50 years have increased the obsession for the aproval of the listeners and this has radically changed the way composers do their stuff. When we are too worried of being accepted by the audience, the risk of not being ourselfs is the main killer of creativity. Due this I think we are living the poorest age of our music history in terms of creativity.
PS: As you can see, my english is worse than yours. Sorry
-
Chema, I think you're way off the mark (vas muy descaminado) regarding the definition of positive* criticism and this being the poorest age for creativity, though I found your music on youtube very interesting.
(*I meant "constructive" - must have been busy when I wrote it)Last edited by Peter C; 10-05-2018 at 06:40 PM.
-
Originally Posted by Peter C
And when I say "poorest age of music" I'm not replying anybody here. Just a thought of mine (divagando!) when I check the obsession people have nowadays with the "likes" of the global audience. It seems to me there are too many cliches, but, again, I am sorry, because, as you said I'm off the mark (meando fuera del tiesto :-).
And thank you very much for your comment about my stuff.Last edited by Chema Mrua; 02-26-2017 at 10:41 AM.
-
Originally Posted by Chema Mrua
I think experimentation/innovation is necessary---or music will NEVER progress. I DO think that people sometimes unwisely IMO get into what I term 'the culture of the new'---and that can be as big a dead end as doing the same old formulaic stuff ad nauseum.
I think it's best we HEAR something, and develop THAT---then worry later about what the tonality, # of bars, etc. are. Composition-by-number (or formula) never appealed to me. Hear something, write it down, make sure it's playable or singable and makes sense range and execution-wise for the players/vocalists involved. Figure out what it is theoretically later---or let others do the post-mortems. But at least SOME knowledge of what you are getting at in solid musical terms will definitely stand you in good stead, as you will be more confident and sure-footed writing your piece. As long as that knowledge doesn't take over and impede the flow.
I like Bill Evans's statement from a 1978 interview with Marian McPartland:
'Intuitition should LEAD knowledge, but if it's out there on its own you're gonna flounder at some point'.
And I DO apologize for coming off a bit opinionated, or even nasty. Let's all write our asses off---and bring some beauty into this messed-up world.
JoelLast edited by fasstrack; 02-26-2017 at 12:34 PM.
-
Originally Posted by fasstrack
I'm coming up with these methods instinctively and I have learned that it's part of my personality. Despite the attempt to find new things I play the very old music. Yesterday I was playing gypsy jazz acoustically in catholic celebration (althought I'm not catholic) and we had players who didn't know a bit of theory. Even no names of keys.So I'm not categorize things to new and old, bad and good. Every influence can be turned into knowledge. Like these posts.
Kindest, Mikko
-
I clicked on other stuff by our friend Mikko immediately after watching the first video and found this. Better than words:
-
Fantastic!
-
Yeah. By the way, I just played the first video to my 11 year old pop-loving daughter and she thought it was "a bit too jazzy for her liking, but pretty good".
-
Originally Posted by MikkoKarhula
I think, also, there's a difference---not always understood---between 'originality' and 'innovation':
A child spreading finger paint in a way unique to him can be said to be, in a sense, original. A musician who plays his own music his own way after years of work, introspection and study may come up with something new and unprecedented. But it may never have any influence on anybody---thereby not making music progress.
Innovators, OTOH, make a contribution by their originality both coming out of what was already there AND replacing that thing with something better. THAT'S progress: utility by others, and moving music (or fill in your own other endeavor) forward.
I know a talented guy who plays two saxophones fused together (no names, but some of you will figure his identity out). His foundation and justification to me is that he plays very well on one horn, knows harmony and tunes and the jazz tradition. But he 'hears' this other thing. It's not just the two-horn configuration (which he invented, BTW). His phrasing and spacing are unique to him---so much so that I find it hard to comp for him----better to lay out b/c he might come in anywhere, and I'm not a mind-reader.
The point, sadly, is that it's all for him----he's influenced NOBODY, and beyond some recordings he's made his music will likely die when he does. That's a classic case of definite and worthy originality----but NOT innovation.
Do you see my point?
As for myself: I had a college professor who suggested making up 'artificial scales' and basing pieces off those. I simply could not---WOULD NOT do it. And I found his music contrived and cold---like I found many of the serialists. (Milton Babbitt and the late Pierre Boulez were interesting at the least. {Sondheim studied with Babbitt, BTW})
I absolutely want to---NEED TO grow as a composer. But I believe that the materials already out there can still be worked with and reshaped and one still have one's individual and strong voice. I admit to being mostly an 'ear' person. I started a long piece years ago that had a black-humor story narrated by someone off-stage, and used modes that I didn't understand. I took it to my then-instructor, the late, great Bill Finegan. He said 'you have a lot of courage'. I never finished the piece, and once Bill told me I was gonna have a tough time b/c 'your music is too sophisticated for the average player'. He advised me to 'write a simple melody'. I was, naturally, crushed (I ADORED Bill), and wonder if my plunge into traditional ASB songwriting was at least in part a way of answering my teacher. (I think not---it's in my blood, my dad playing show music around the house when I was 3 or 4--and I memorized the scores to Porgy and Bess and West Side Story at that age)
But he ate his words when he heard my tune Not a Bad November---and was so impressed (NOTHING impressed that guy, he heard it ALL, and was friends with Strayhorn and Wilder) he told me to send it to Tony Bennett!
So, where I am now is that I want to be a successful songwriter, earning money at it, and believe there can NEVER be enough good songs in the world. But the 'curious child' is still alive, gets bored, feels often at a creative dead end (playing more than writing) and feels the need to grow and push the personal envelope---again, based on materials already extant.
Dizzy Gillespie called it 'evolution'...Last edited by fasstrack; 02-26-2017 at 04:33 PM.
-
Originally Posted by Peter C
Compliments from children can be so honest.
Thank you!
-
Originally Posted by fasstrack
It's not like classical where you play the page, this is like jazz where you make it up as you go along (!). That's the basis of any improvisation in any medium. If the basics aren't there it would just sound like a stupid mess, which it doesn't.
Psychologically, it might be an attempt to break out of the patterns inevitably formed by much ordinary playing, like a prisoner trashing their cell. Once you've got it off your chest you calm down again :-)
I find the best way to get freshness into the music is to leave it and do other things. Clear the mind, let some air in. Unfortunately most good musicians are somewhat locked into their interest and it can drive them too much.
Just my thought for the day
-
perception is about realations anyway...
When you look at some building you may not understand the archetectural theory... but somehow you can percieve it a single integral entity, you probably feel the balance of parts, rythm of details or arches or whatever...
Otherwise we just would not be able to identify it a mass...
Same thing with music.. if we can understand that 'this is the beginning of a tune and this pause is not the end yet' then that means it is alrea a language we understand somehow...
Actually it's not the theory that is an issue... we can exclude 'key-thinking' but excluding 'key-hearing' is much more difficult...
but it is the concept of using theory... and when we delibrately choose to ignore theory we then choose another concept.
I am not sure it would make me feel more free... in both cases 'concept rules'
tbh I never tried to get rid of theoretic concepts I know..
just because it was kind of personal ambition... I supposed that if I would be able to do something really worthy - a theory then would be a good tool for me..
If the theory somehow gets in... well then this is what I am really worth.
-
I'd just like to point out a single thing but often misunderstood: there are many theory perspectives from which we can write or think our compositions. Theory, as many people think, is not synonymous of tonality (or key); atonality is not synonymous of serialism, and composig music without a theory system in mind is not equal to a non analyzable result.
Sorry, I just needed to say it.Last edited by Chema Mrua; 02-27-2017 at 09:05 AM.
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
Among the players I know, many are tops in many, if not most departments---except, sadly, the most IMPORTANT: there are few REAL improvisors out there. I mean seat-of-your-pants-f' it-I'm gonna-let-it-rip-and-f-the-'mistakes'. Most players, especially in the last 50 years, have more going on with craft, slick harmonic moves, fill-in-your-own than real in-the-moment improvising. It takes COURAGE to do that, and looseness (which is one main reason why cats use 'recreational substances).
My friend Steve, an outstanding alto player who basically quit, once told me 'I've had a bellyfull of 'really good musicians'. I can dig that.
Why do people play it safe? Fear. Fear of 'failure', banishment from the herd (humans are the foremost of herd-thinkers---b/c among the animal kingdom they can actually THINK). That's both good news AND bad: Good b/c you can really break away from the herd mentality if you've the gumption and trust in what you are doing. Bad b/c the wrong kind of thinking can put us right back with that herd, and this is why real progress and creative breakthroughs in ANY endeavor are so slow in coming and so relatively rare.
The final irony: once real originality or innovation occurs, followers jump on the bandwagon---and in a matter of years it becomes conservative, safe, tried-and-true. It's always the followers---self-appointed 'keepers of the flame'---who turn diamonds into zircons.
And that's MY thought of the day...Last edited by fasstrack; 02-27-2017 at 07:22 PM.
-
Originally Posted by fasstrack
there are few REAL improvisors out there. I mean seat-of-your-pants-f' it-I'm gonna-let-it-rip-and-f-the-'mistakes'. Most players, especially in the last 50 years, have more going on with craft, slick harmonic moves, fill-in-your-own than real in-the-moment improvising. It takes COURAGE to do that, and looseness (which is one main reason why cats use 'recreational substances)
Why do people play it safe? Fear.
Fear of 'failure', banishment from the herd (humans are the foremost of herd-thinkers---b/c among the animal kingdom they can actually THINK). That's both good news AND bad: Good b/c you can really break away from the herd mentality if you've the gumption and trust in what you are doing. Bad b/c the wrong kind of thinking can put us right back with that herd, and this is why real progress and creative breakthroughs in ANY endeavor are so slow in coming and so relatively rare.
But I think you're really talking about ourselves more than music or any particular subject. It's the thinking that matters, the mindset that approaches the subject. We may have lost creative thinking, and creative thinking isn't just playing with novel ideas or copying other people. It starts with the person, whether they do music or anything else.
The final irony: once real originality or innovation occurs, followers jump on the bandwagon---and in a matter of years it becomes conservative, safe, tried-and-true. It's always the followers---self-appointed 'keepers of the flame'---who turn diamonds into zircons.
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
What I DO mean is that there is an inherent danger in CODIFICATION, NOT the above-mentioned. When you analyze (read: NAME, or, worse, COMPARTMENTALIZE) this or that aspect of it) something to death---or at least to the point where you think you've 'got' it, you've completed a twofold fool's mission: 1. You've eluded (and possibly killed) the original life and spirit of the thing---and quite possibly contributed to making it a cliche. 2. You're now wearing someone else's clothes---metaphorically. Copying is necessary in one's artistically inchoate formative stages. We gather our influences b/c we love these people and want to do something like that. Inspiration is the plasma of any art's (or any other pursuit's) continuance. Being 'retro' and fooling oneself into thinking one is a 'keeper of the flame' is an art KILLER.
And therein lies the problem: too many of us stop there, perhaps being too lazy or afraid to make the necessary 'leap of faith'---and continue the evolutionary cycle. To be a real creative artist (I'm not saying an 'original' or 'innovator---those are relatively rare) we take the people and things we love, put them in the funnel of our OWN feelings, experiences, etc., DISTILL them---and it comes out us.
I don't want to make this about me here, but I'll briefly posit that (after years of being uncomfortable with the term and calling myself instead a 'presenter' or 'interpreter' of melodies) I can now aver that I am an artist. Not a genius, CERTAINLY not an innovator----but I have a sound, an approach, a purposefulness in my playing and writing that is pure me. This, again, is the result of closely studying my models and then doing the above-mentioned.
To sum up: Codification happens when we pick a thing apart to the point of killing it as a viable thing or spirit. Art happens when we TRULY become ourselves---through our influences, naturally, and why should it be any other way?
'Be yourself'----Jesus Christ; Thelonious MonkLast edited by fasstrack; 02-28-2017 at 12:10 PM.
-
Originally Posted by ragman1
Miles Davis (a hero, but also one who was acutely aware of his image, and how to manipulate it, so one must sift through his various interview and other utterances and separate the wheat from the chaff) made a statement I very much like: He told his guys (this would be the '60s quintet) 'I pay you to practice in public'.
We do no one---ESPECIALLY ourselves any favors by getting up there and giving 'recitations'. Craft is important and necessary---and will get one through a night when the muse simply doesn't show itself. But if we're afraid to embarrass ourselves publicly, thereby never taking chances or playing in the moment (not in a selfish way, but feeding off the other players and audience) why even bother getting up there?
We learn and grow by losing the fear of public humiliation (being shunned by the herd)...Last edited by fasstrack; 02-28-2017 at 07:00 PM.
-
Analysis of a tune has its place but, I agree, not to death.
Probably most performers go through a certain anxiety but it helps if you're a professional doing it all the time. And there's a middle way between being over-confident and a nervous wreck :-)
Enharmonics
Today, 09:59 AM in Theory