Getting hung up on rhythms when transcribing

[Christian Miller]

Well I think that's good. It all depends on what you're going after. As a writing exercise transcribing it is great. As a learning process for what the soloist is doing - it's just too long winded. You get too caught up in the details that are less pertinent to studying improv. Remember the solo or performance contained little THOUGHT in and of itself. It flowed out. I think learning it by ear is a similar process, particularly if you train yourself to HEAR IT in your head rather than try and mimic the audio one note at a time. As students of jazz I think we forget this and want everything calcified like Bach or Beethoven. We are studying IMPROVISATION.

With respect I have to take issue with this conflation between jazz and improvisation.

I mean I did a free improv class with a noted European free guy and he told me off for playing jazz, so there is that. Obviously not all improvisation has to do with jazz. An oud player improvising a Taqsim in Arabic classical music is no more playing jazz than when Chopin improvised a waltz, at least as I see it.

Do you need to improvise to be a jazz musician? I think that’s unquestionable- although again just because something isn’t written down doesn’t mean it is made afresh each time. (But just because a musician might play the same or similar solo every night doesn’t mean they can’t come up with anything new.) otoh I see more value in variation of material these days rather than creation of material carte Blanche and would say that qualifies as real improv too.

I wonder how much of this comes down to jazz being primarily an oral tradition and its processes being opaque to European trained observers back in the day. Certainly some influential educators were primarily focussed on improv - such as Tristano.

There’s a big spectrum in terms of just how spontaneous players are in performance. Some are disappointed by famous players who tend to play the same solo every night, but I wonder how much that comes from their expectations of what jazz is, rather than what it actually is historically?

All that said I passionately believe improvisation is a natural human inclination. We do it every day in our interactions with other humans, and the urge to do this in music follows naturally from that. The only reason why classical musicians don’t improvise it is because they are intensively trained not to. But it doesn’t quite work because they can still be tricked into it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

I always like the Branford thing of jazz being …

Swing
Blues
Improvisation

in that order

So essential, but maybe not the most important thing.

Like wheels on a car or something … a car needs wheels but it’s not enough to know whether or not a thing is a car to know that it has wheels.

[Christian Miller]

I always like the Branford thing of jazz being …

Swing
Blues
Improvisation

in that order

So essential, but maybe not the most important thing.

Like wheels on a car or something … a car needs wheels but it’s not enough to know whether or not a thing is a car to know that it has wheels.

Yeah I mean I say all this, but I can still get a bit carried away by article three... what can I say?

[henryrobinett]

With respect I have to take issue with this conflation between jazz and improvisation.

I mean I did a free improv class with a noted European free guy and he told me off for playing jazz, so there is that. Obviously not all improvisation has to do with jazz. An oud player improvising a Taqsim in Arabic classical music is no more playing jazz than when Chopin improvised a waltz, at least as I see it.

Do you need to improvise to be a jazz musician? I think that’s unquestionable- although again just because something isn’t written down doesn’t mean it is made afresh each time. (But just because a musician might play the same or similar solo every night doesn’t mean they can’t come up with anything new.) otoh I see more value in variation of material these days rather than creation of material carte Blanche and would say that qualifies as real improv too.

I wonder how much of this comes down to jazz being primarily an oral tradition and its processes being opaque to European trained observers back in the day. Certainly some influential educators were primarily focussed on improv - such as Tristano.

There’s a big spectrum in terms of just how spontaneous players are in performance. Some are disappointed by famous players who tend to play the same solo every night, but I wonder how much that comes from their expectations of what jazz is, rather than what it actually is historically?

All that said I passionately believe improvisation is a natural human inclination. We do it every day in our interactions with other humans, and the urge to do this in music follows naturally from that. The only reason why classical musicians don’t improvise it is because they are intensively trained not to. But it doesn’t quite work because they can still be tricked into it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well FOR ME the art of jazz is the art of improvisation. And I didn’t mean to imply no other music doesn’t have improv as a fundamental. Obviously the other elements of swing etc are crucial for jazz. And there are some section players who perhaps never knew how to solo. Obviously they played jazz and played in perhaps historic jazz bands. Fine. I’m just not interested in that. Jazz FOR ME is an art that is improvised. This is me. It doesn’t have to apply to anyone else. But in all my years of teaching jazz it was this, the improvisational aspect of jazz, that I taught. And although I did teach from time to time in university, I often took exception to their methodology and went my own way, designing methods for improvisation, since this is the hardest thing to teach, I believe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[AllanAllen]

I think my improv vocabulary develops at its own pace and all I can do to fill that time is learn heads and steal licks. This way I have something to play when I’m with other people.

I think I meditate by running scales on the guitar. It’s such a peaceful and relaxing thing now.

[Christian Miller]

Well FOR ME the art of jazz is the art of improvisation. And I didn’t mean to imply no other music doesn’t have improv as a fundamental. Obviously the other elements of swing etc are crucial for jazz. And there are some section players who perhaps never knew how to solo. Obviously they played jazz and played in perhaps historic jazz bands. Fine. I’m just not interested in that. Jazz FOR ME is an art that is improvised. This is me. It doesn’t have to apply to anyone else. But in all my years of teaching jazz it was this, the improvisational aspect of jazz, that I taught. And although I did teach from time to time in university, I often took exception to their methodology and went my own way, designing methods for improvisation, since this is the hardest thing to teach, I believe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Well it’s a paradox isn’t it? Improvisation in jazz is not quite the impulse to play anything you want in the moment, or rather that impulse is focussed through a tradition and social context that also allows for individual and progressive expression.

Improvisation is itself a slippery word. Often I think it refers to a refinement of a personal statement in music as much as a spontaneous response to the moment. Or it can mean recombination or juxtaposition of precomposed elements which is often where we start. I think learning another tradition has been helpful in helping me focus on the steps in between …

I’ve worked enough in “free” improv spaces (as distinct from “free jazz”) over the years to get a feel for that are even though I don’t actually feel drawn to that approach. Apparently free improv does not include the freedom to play jazz licks haha (tbf I think the teacher was trying to get me away from those well worn ruts. But what he did like was when the sax player gargled into a microphone, so that made me think it wasn’t really my sort of thing.)

In a way it’s the simplest thing, because a child does it when they pick up an instrument. The improvisers of the European non idiomatic tradition say that as a great and wonderful thing. An untutored child could participate meaningfully. In fact my dad who doesn’t play an instrument jammed with Derek Bailey. The skills to be a good improviser in this world are to an extent extramusical - at least they don’t map to the ability to operate your instrument really well or read music or any of the other skills venerated in mainstream music.

I also have studied what I would call fiercely idiomatic styles of improvisation. Historic jazz styles are a good example. At first it feels constricting but after a while you sort of internalise it and it feels weirdly freeing. Or at least I stop caring so much.

What we might call progressive or contemporary jazz is somewhere in between. If pressed from my own understanding, such as it is, I would say you have to assimilate the feel of the music into your being. If you can do that you don’t really need ‘vocabulary’, but vocabulary is a way into it (and some are happy to play vocab.)

[henryrobinett]

Well it’s a paradox isn’t it? Improvisation in jazz is not quite the impulse to play anything you want in the moment, or rather that impulse is focussed through a tradition and social context that also allows for individual and progressive expression.

Improvisation is itself a slippery word. Often I think it refers to a refinement of a personal statement in music as much as a spontaneous response to the moment. Or it can mean recombination or juxtaposition of precomposed elements which is often where we start. I think learning another tradition has been helpful in helping me focus on the steps in between …

I’ve worked enough in “free” improv spaces (as distinct from “free jazz”) over the years to get a feel for that are even though I don’t actually feel drawn to that approach. Apparently free improv does not include the freedom to play jazz licks haha (tbf I think the teacher was trying to get me away from those well worn ruts. But what he did like was when the sax player gargled into a microphone, so that made me think it wasn’t really my sort of thing.)

In a way it’s the simplest thing, because a child does it when they pick up an instrument. The improvisers of the European non idiomatic tradition say that as a great and wonderful thing. An untutored child could participate meaningfully. In fact my dad who doesn’t play an instrument jammed with Derek Bailey. The skills to be a good improviser in this world are to an extent extramusical - at least they don’t map to the ability to operate your instrument really well or read music or any of the other skills venerated in mainstream music.

I also have studied what I would call fiercely idiomatic styles of improvisation. Historic jazz styles are a good example. At first it feels constricting but after a while you sort of internalise it and it feels weirdly freeing. Or at least I stop caring so much.

What we might call progressive or contemporary jazz is somewhere in between. If pressed from my own understanding, such as it is, I would say you have to assimilate the feel of the music into your being. If you can do that you don’t really need ‘vocabulary’, but vocabulary is a way into it (and some are happy to play vocab.)

Yeah. Well I have absolutely zero vocabulary. At least not in the traditional sense of the word. My improv is, or tries to be, heat of the moment reaction. I've had some people comment on my vocabulary - like man, you have a great vocab. But I don't. I never went through any stage of collecting bits and regurgitating learned things. I just hear and see chords or modes and play. I try to be more "zen" about it. So I've kind of taken the term improvisation, if not literally, then more seriously. Not to the extent of Jarrett. But learning systems and licks and solos is just antithetical for the way I play. And it seems to have worked for me. I do get hired from time to time. I do have my own language of things I've used to work through. Not patterns per se - or perhaps they've become my own patterns. But at the core for me is about NOT THINKING. So the more figure-figure systems, theoretical thingamabobs, the more stuck in the thinking mire I get and further away from actual improvisational zone. It just won't flow. For example I have practiced Coltrane changes quite a bit. In taking a solo I might get the concept of those changes over Cherokee. Well I can't THINK ABOUT THAT. I just have to do it. And in order for me to do it I had to have practiced doing that a lot. But I can't go "Ok ii-V-I in Eb. OK. OK, Gb, B, D7, G, Bb7 Eb!" No, no. Way too long. I just have to see it and react. But me ever pulling out a bit of a Trane solo? It would never happen. Nor would I ever want it to.

More over, by now I know my shit. Going back and doing something else, like whatshisname Barry Harris just isn't in the works. I'd have to start thinking again! LOL. And I play so much bop, modern hip shit from guys who came out of Eastman, Manhattan School, Berkeley, Julliard and other schools as arrangers, (drives me nuts, but that's another thread) crazy poly-chords and rhythms. And my own stuff, a lot of those guys find equally difficult. I figure I know my stuff enough to play all that stuff, including funk, pop and rock sounds, I'm good. It's just about playing and doing my zen thing. And having fun and not worrying.

[AllanAllen]

. But what he did like was when the sax player gargled into a microphone, so that made me think it wasn’t really my sort of thing.)

Sounds awful

[pamosmusic]

Yeah. Well I have absolutely zero vocabulary. At least not in the traditional sense of the word. My improv is, or tries to be, heat of the moment reaction. I've had some people comment on my vocabulary - like man, you have a great vocab. But I don't. I never went through any stage of collecting bits and regurgitating learned things. I just hear and see chords or modes and play. I try to be more "zen" about it. So I've kind of taken the term improvisation, if not literally, then more seriously. Not to the extent of Jarrett. But learning systems and licks and solos is just antithetical for the way I play. And it seems to have worked for me.

I don’t mean to challenge you here, but earlier in the thread you’re referring to a method you use for learning stuff off records (I’ll avoid the t-word) that you’ve developed over decades of doing that … so what would you consider that, if not collecting and absorbing the language?

I think maybe there’s a misalignment in the terminology people are using here. I say I learn licks, but all of the stuff you describe about how you play sounds about like how I try to.

I absolutely spend time learning and playing and transposing and dissecting lines that I learn of recordings. Lotttttssss of time, but I put next to zero time into trying to force them into my playing and I absolutely never think about them while I’m improvising. I don’t think any really serious musician does. I think what you’re describing here as a sort of iconoclastic way of developing a language—coupled with the listening and learning off records you’ve described upthread—is pretty well in line with what a lot a people do.

[Christian Miller]

What makes “classic jazz vocabulary” anyway? Much or most of the time it’s a strong rhythmic phrase hooked up to simple musical devices - chord tones, scales, neighbour tones etc.

What I have learned (slowly) is that if you absorb the rhythmic language and can improvise strong and idiomatic rhythms, it becomes no great issue to make jazz lines out of the resources you happen to have in your bag.

(A lot of people are still looking for the jazz notes.)

And a lot of this is learned intuitively by exactly the process Henry outlined above.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[henryrobinett]

I don’t mean to challenge you here, but earlier in the thread you’re referring to a method you use for learning stuff off records (I’ll avoid the t-word) that you’ve developed over decades of doing that … so what would you consider that, if not collecting and absorbing the language?

I think maybe there’s a misalignment in the terminology people are using here. I say I learn licks, but all of the stuff you describe about how you play sounds about like how I try to.

I absolutely spend time learning and playing and transposing and dissecting lines that I learn of recordings. Lotttttssss of time, but I put next to zero time into trying to force them into my playing and I absolutely never think about them while I’m improvising. I don’t think any really serious musician does. I think what you’re describing here as a sort of iconoclastic way of developing a language—coupled with the listening and learning off records you’ve described upthread—is pretty well in line with what a lot a people do.

No. No. Absolutely. True. The difference is I don’t memorize anything. I internalize it, I hope. I’m not trying NOT to copy. I’m just never been interested in regurgitation. So yeah. Not sure which post you’re referring to. It’s probably the method I wrote above. That’s the only thing I’ve done. I may have gone into more detail. It’s like ear training. And learning what those MFers are doing. Right? I’m not trying to reinvent the wheel. But when my mind is hovering around lines over changes I look at the possibilities of where my ear takes me. I’ve done this with Dexter , Herbie, Chick, Jarrett, Coltrane, Hubbard, Rollins, Miles and Brecker. Liebman and Grossman. Different periods two periods where I made this part of my practice program. I should do it some more. But I listen to the phrase over and over until I think I have it. Pick up my guitar and play it to the best of my ability. Play the recording back. Chances are I didn’t get it 100%. So I listen and listen. Until I can play it back in my mind. Play what’s in my mind of the solo. Repeat until I have the phrase. Move on to the next phrase. If it’s a smaller phrase connected to a larger small phrase I put them together. But generally I just forget what I just did. But yeah somewhere the phrase lurks inside. Like Rollins Airegin solo with Miles. Such a great solo. I can just sing that along with Rollins. Or Chick Now He Sings, Now He Sobs. The whole album. But I don’t LEARN these solos. I could never play them start to finish. I just learn little phrases at a time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[henryrobinett]

The thing I find different is almost everyone I know studied licks, memorized solos, phrases, patterns. The guys in my band, phenomenal players all learned and continue to learn this way. And they’re, the pianist and saxophonist teach jazz in college. This is how they teach. “Go transcribe three Bud Powell solos. Go learn five Bird solos and five Rollins solos and write a comparison between the two. Show me some devices they use.” ACH! Not for me. The process is memorization. I would argue that THAT process has nothing yo do with the process of improvisation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[RLetson]

(Raises hand from the back of the classroom where the not-for-credit students lurk.)

If I hear a through-arranged big-band piece that does not include improvised solos, is it "jazz"? And if it sounds like "jazz" to me, what exactly am I responding to? For that matter, what about recorded performances (which are by their nature permanently fixed experiences)? The example that pops up, unbidden, is the theme for the US TV series "M Squad"--though there are many similar examples of jazz-rooted soundtrack compositions from the early 1950s onward (lots of Henry Mancini material).

[pamosmusic]

The thing I find different is almost everyone I know studied licks, memorized solos, phrases, patterns. The guys in my band, phenomenal players all learned and continue to learn this way. And they’re, the pianist and saxophonist teach jazz in college. This is how they teach. “Go transcribe three Bud Powell solos. Go learn five Bird solos and five Rollins solos and write a comparison between the two. Show me some devices they use.” ACH! Not for me.

Okay. I think from your last post, I don't really think that the process you describe is super different from others, but I see the distinction here.

I definitely learn and memorize licks and solos ... I just make no effort to maintain the memorization after I move on. So it's different, I guess, but not terribly different than what you describe for yourself.

I would, however, have a bit of disagreement with this:

The process is memorization. I would argue that THAT process has nothing yo do with the process of improvisation.

I think it absolutely does have everything to do with improvisation. If the point is to create, the next question is "with what?" And the answer, I think, across the board would be that you create with all the stuff you've listened to and internalized. Memorization may not be the same thing as internalization, but it's a good way to check to make sure its internalized.

I used to write (words) quite a bit and there's an old truism that if you show me a good writer, I'll show you a good reader. Good writers get inside the words of the people they admire. Find a great fiction writer and they'll be able to quote whole passages of Shakespeare back to you––recite Dickinson––narrate from memory entire Toni Morrison novels, etc.

Sure, not universally. People read differently and do different things, but overwhelmingly great writers collect great words. Still, in that community, there is absolutely a small subset of people who resist reading great literature or reading new writers, or deep study of poetry, or whatever it is, because they think it's going contaminate their own originality in some way, and that has just never really been bourn out by reality.

I would say the same of music. The crucial difference being maybe that person who consciously tries to play that language in a solo. Though I'd argue the bad part of that isn't that they're playing someone else's language; rather that they're "consciously trying" to do anything at all while they improvise.

[pamosmusic]

(Raises hand from the back of the classroom where the not-for-credit students lurk.)

If I hear a through-arranged big-band piece that does not include improvised solos, is it "jazz"? And if it sounds like "jazz" to me, what exactly am I responding to? For that matter, what about recorded performances (which are by their nature permanently fixed experiences)? The example that pops up, unbidden, is the theme for the US TV series "M Squad"--though there are many similar examples of jazz-rooted soundtrack compositions from the early 1950s onward (lots of Henry Mancini material).

See the above description:

1. Swing
2. Blues
3. Improvisation

I would also say of a lot of jazz that contains no improvisation ...

1. are you sure? Say Ella Fitzgerald singing a ballad where she doesn't solo ... she's improvising allllll over the melody. That's not true of all singers, but still. Or maybe in a big band, listen to what's going on in the sections. A Mingus tune, for example, that doesn't have stand-up solos will still be chock full of group improvisation.

2. I think there's a useful distinction to make between popular swing music and jazz jazz. Not that I particularly care to make it. Just being aware though, that there is a lot of what Adam Neely somewhat usefully called Mid-Century Pop that has a ton of jazz aesthetic but is missing that improvisation element (and often is light on the blues) and might not be called jazz. You can still call it jazz, and that's totally fine. Again. It's not a distinction I try to get terribly hung up on.

[henryrobinett]

(Raises hand from the back of the classroom where the not-for-credit students lurk.)

If I hear a through-arranged big-band piece that does not include improvised solos, is it "jazz"? And if it sounds like "jazz" to me, what exactly am I responding to? For that matter, what about recorded performances (which are by their nature permanently fixed experiences)? The example that pops up, unbidden, is the theme for the US TV series "M Squad"--though there are many similar examples of jazz-rooted soundtrack compositions from the early 1950s onward (lots of Henry Mancini material).

Sure. I'd say it's jazz. There are several jazz pieces that are through composed. Venus De Milo, or is it Mood Dreams. No improv. It's a style. But at it's core is improv. At least normally. But there are no absolutes. Chick Corea wrote an early poeccee as a duet with Hubert Laws. It I think. Not a note of improv. Still jazz or a cross between modern classical - Bartok/Prokofiev influence and jazz. My opinions only. They don't mean anything.

[henryrobinett]

Okay. I think from your last post, I don't really think that the process you describe is super different from others, but I see the distinction here.

I definitely learn and memorize licks and solos ... I just make no effort to maintain the memorization after I move on. So it's different, I guess, but not terribly different than what you describe for yourself.

I would, however, have a bit of disagreement with this:



I think it absolutely does have everything to do with improvisation. If the point is to create, the next question is "with what?" And the answer, I think, across the board would be that you create with all the stuff you've listened to and internalized. Memorization may not be the same thing as internalization, but it's a good way to check to make sure its internalized.

I used to write (words) quite a bit and there's an old truism that if you show me a good writer, I'll show you a good reader. Good writers get inside the words of the people they admire. Find a great fiction writer and they'll be able to quote whole passages of Shakespeare back to you––recite Dickinson––narrate from memory entire Toni Morrison novels, etc.

Sure, not universally. People read differently and do different things, but overwhelmingly great writers collect great words. Still, in that community, there is absolutely a small subset of people who resist reading great literature or reading new writers, or deep study of poetry, or whatever it is, because they think it's going contaminate their own originality in some way, and that has just never really been bourn out by reality.

I would say the same of music. The crucial difference being maybe that person who consciously tries to play that language in a solo. Though I'd argue the bad part of that isn't that they're playing someone else's language; rather that they're "consciously trying" to do anything at all while they improvise.

Totally fine. I won't argue. I think the process of improvisation is entirely internal. Knowing and trusting the shapes, intuition, colors, sounds, emotions that spring from where ever. Internal. Influences abound of course. But in order for ME to contact that internal dialogue I had to find out how to listen and trust my instincts. And for me they didn't come from outside. I would doubt myself if I compared or tried to pull someone else out of me.

But I'm not here to argue. Only to share my experience. You are right in terms of how you do things. I'm just saying how I do things. That's all. No argument from me. But take issue. But you can't really take issue with how I do things/. I'm not saying how you should do things. LOL.

[Christian Miller]

I don’t have much to add, but I wanted to note Barry harris approach offers a more organic alternative to the common ‘cut and paste’ licks approach used to play bebop.

The reason I suppose why cut and paste bop is taught so often is it gets players sounding good quickly, and has a long pedigree going back to the second generation bop players… once mastered and the student is playing gigs, the Elders can step in and tell the students off for sounding like they learned jazz from records and they can go and develop their own thing from there.

It strikes me important aspect of jazz education is to get the student to the level where they will be told off by older master musicians. Very important.

They wouldn’t bother if they thought you were a lost cause I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

Totally fine. I won't argue. I think the process of improvisation is entirely internal. Knowing and trusting the shapes, intuition, colors, sounds, emotions that spring from where ever. Internal. Influences abound of course. But in order for ME to contact that internal dialogue I had to find out how to listen and trust my instincts. And for me they didn't come from outside. I would doubt myself if I compared or tried to pull someone else out of me.

But I'm not here to argue. Only to share my experience. You are right in terms of how you do things. I'm just saying how I do things. That's all. No argument from me. But take issue. But you can't really take issue with how I do things/. I'm not saying how you should do things. LOL.

Noted.

[Bobby Timmons]

To me, both are important. Knowing vocab and being able to create from the raw materials. Some players emphasize 1 approach more than the other but I think doing both is the best. If you listen to Bill Evans, he doesn't use any line cliches at all, it's pretty much all him making up his own stuff. So that is an example of a golden age player who wasn't a lick guy. I wouldn't want to learn by doing only 1 approach. If you only work with the raw materials, you don't get how the music is supposed to sound. If you only learn licks, you don't learn how to create for yourself.

[RLetson]

Peter, building on your posts: From the listener's side, jazz is an aesthetic--that is to say, a bundle of qualities/response triggers to which we attach a label and (inevitably) then try to describe and anatomize. And given how the range of exemplars that a range of audiences (and practitioners) has expanded over the century-plus of its existence, inevitably not every trait that (attempted) exhaustive definitions list will be strongly present--or even present at all. (Those big-band charts that may or may not include spots for improvisational solos.)

There's more that I'd like to get to in this conversation, but a list of errands beckons and I must not be late. But you've not seen the last of me (though the first of me may turn your stomach). I go, but I shall return to darken everyone's towels again.

[pamosmusic]

Peter, building on your posts: From the listener's side, jazz is an aesthetic--that is to say, a bundle of qualities/response triggers to which we attach a label and (inevitably) then try to describe and anatomize. And given how the range of exemplars that a range of audiences (and practitioners) has expanded over the century-plus of its existence, inevitably not every trait that (attempted) exhaustive definitions list will be strongly present--or even present at all. (Those big-band charts that may or may not include spots for improvisational solos.)

There's more that I'd like to get to in this conversation, but a list of errands beckons and I must not be late. But you've not seen the last of me (though the first of me may turn your stomach). I go, but I shall return to darken everyone's towels again.

Improvisation has aesthetic properties too.

Things a listener might pick up on without knowing they're picking up on it.

Now those things might take a slightly trained ear, but I can absolutely listen to a big band, for example, and tell if it's show band musicians playing the heck out of a great arrangement, or if it's jazz musicians playing it the way they would. The process isn't evident to the listener, but it does leave traces on the finished product that are.

[RLetson]

Here's a hypothetical situation: Take a big-band chart (from the book of any outfit known for doing jazz) and give to 1) a working jazz-centric big band (or a pickup band composed of, say, first-call LA studio musicians) and 2) an ensemble composed of high-end classical-orchestra players, preferably first-chair players (it might be necessary to raid several orchestras to get enough for a 17-piece). Give both enough rehearsal time to absorb the chart, then have them play it for an audience.

Which band would sound more like "jazz"? I suppose a good bit would depend on the leader, so maybe have the same one for both ensembles and see what happens.

Peter: As it happens, I spent a couple decades trying to teach undergrads to write, and I came to the conclusion (based on recalling how I developed as a writer) that such skills can be learned but not, perhaps, taught, at least in the way that, say, the times table or bureaucratic procedures are. A teacher is actually more of a coach--that is, one who provides useful exercises and practices and points out bad habits and dead ends, suggests exemplars, and provides feedback. There might even be a regimen in there somewhere--godknows I encountered enough how-to books in my teaching years. I came to think that the core of a writing pedagogy had been established in classical times: imitate and iterate and eventually (when you get the chance and can make it stick) innovate. Or, to put it another way, developing high-order skills starts with modeling. Students who refused (or had never been encouraged) to read always had the hardest time with writing because there was nothing in the hopper to imitate. As I write (and as I play or sing) my mind is always kicking up remembered material that for whatever reason stuck. Even if it's only snatches of Groucho.

And now, hello, I must be going.

[pamosmusic]

Here's a hypothetical situation: Take a big-band chart (from the book of any outfit known for doing jazz) and give to 1) a working jazz-centric big band (or a pickup band composed of, say, first-call LA studio musicians) and 2) an ensemble composed of high-end classical-orchestra players, preferably first-chair players (it might be necessary to raid several orchestras to get enough for a 17-piece). Give both enough rehearsal time to absorb the chart, then have them play it for an audience.

Which band would sound more like "jazz"? I suppose a good bit would depend on the leader, so maybe have the same one for both ensembles and see what happens.

Without a doubt the jazz ensemble. Not even a question of a question.

So much of what makes a piece sound like jazz is in things like articulation and those flourishes and things that aren’t written down.

I went to a music school where the jazz band was always half jazzers and half music Ed majors who were required to be there for a semester and maaaaaaaaaaaybe by the end of the semester they would start learning how to interpret the parts authentically but often not even then.

[sgcim]

Here's a hypothetical situation: Take a big-band chart (from the book of any outfit known for doing jazz) and give to 1) a working jazz-centric big band (or a pickup band composed of, say, first-call LA studio musicians) and 2) an ensemble composed of high-end classical-orchestra players, preferably first-chair players (it might be necessary to raid several orchestras to get enough for a 17-piece). Give both enough rehearsal time to absorb the chart, then have them play it for an audience.

Which band would sound more like "jazz"? I suppose a good bit would depend on the leader, so maybe have the same one for both ensembles and see what happens.

Peter: As it happens, I spent a couple decades trying to teach undergrads to write, and I came to the conclusion (based on recalling how I developed as a writer) that such skills can be learned but not, perhaps, taught, at least in the way that, say, the times table or bureaucratic procedures are. A teacher is actually more of a coach--that is, one who provides useful exercises and practices and points out bad habits and dead ends, suggests exemplars, and provides feedback. There might even be a regimen in there somewhere--godknows I encountered enough how-to books in my teaching years. I came to think that the core of a writing pedagogy had been established in classical times: imitate and iterate and eventually (when you get the chance and can make it stick) innovate. Or, to put it another way, developing high-order skills starts with modeling. Students who refused (or had never been encouraged) to read always had the hardest time with writing because there was nothing in the hopper to imitate. As I write (and as I play or sing) my mind is always kicking up remembered material that for whatever reason stuck. Even if it's only snatches of Groucho.

And now, hello, I must be going.

It all depends on the conductor. If he, she or it knows how it should sound, it's their decision as to how things are interpreted.
If they don't know how it should be played, it's all their fault AFA interpretation goes.