Everyone can play jazz - yes or no?

[richb2]

The singer reminds me of my sax player. Every time he starts snapping I remember how little he understands about timing. But he is a very good reader.

[fumblefingers]

In some things yes. In music no.
You can call it ability too, but the question is whether ability or a component of it is genetic.

does it matter?

[fumblefingers]

In my first post I did mention physical talent.
I maintain that with appropriate resources and conditions, one can overcome a lack of talent or genetic fortune and become a sportsman - as in the case of Lionel Messi, who was told to give up football at age 11 - who then went on to become the greatest footballer of all time, surpassing many other players who may have been more blessed genetically.

outlier.

[pushkar000]

does it matter?

Well you tell me - you were the one who responded to my initial post. I assume this means you thought it did matter.
Also the topic is whether everyone can play jazz. I think part of the discussion should involve consideration of any possible genetic influence on musical ability.

Is there something that Charlie Parker was born with that was part of what made him so great? If so, how did it manifest itself? Is it some gene that allows him to lock into rhythms better, or hear chords easier? Rhythm may not be, but harmony is a construct of the human mind, not of nature - it is difficult for me to imagine a DNA strand(a creation of nature) that allows anybody to decipher it better than others. We know that perfect pitch =/= great musicianship.

Rhythm however is a natural phenomenon. Night and day, seasons, hunger, heartbeats, flapping wings all follow time-based cycles. As far as my current understanding allows, I think if there is any kind of gene that actually contributes to musicianship, it must have something to do with understanding rhythm.

Or maybe there is some kind of "melody gene" which stems from mating calls amongst animals.

outlier.

I'm sure there are more examples - this story just happens to be my favourite. The overall point being that effort ultimately has much more influence than DNA does in deciding the outcome of a persons chosen path. I don't think anybody has disputed this actually, so maybe there was no need to post the story.

[destinytot]

The singer reminds me of my sax player. Every time he starts snapping I remember how little he understands about timing. But he is a very good reader.

He's a very good reader. but...

[snoskier63]

The question is can everyone play jazz. To that the answer is yes! Perhaps the implied question was can everyone play jazz well? No. Likewise, not everyone can play blues, rock, country, folk, classical, or (insert your genre of choice here) well. Playing music well, regardless of the genre, requires an inherent talent that is either present or absent. Likewise, becoming a good mathematician, engineer, physicist, accountant, geologist, doctor, lawyer, author, politician, builder, etc, requires certain inherent skills and abilities. Anyone can do anything with enough effort, but doing something and doing something well are two different things. As for me, I play jazz every day. However, no matter how much I practice I will never played like Jimmy Bruno.

[vintagelove]

An interesting thing about talent. Many times the most naturally gifted end up falling behind, as they relie on talent rather then hard work. Sometimes they realize too late that it takes both to be great.

[destinytot]

An interesting thing about talent. Many times the most naturally gifted end up falling behind, as they relie on talent rather then hard work. Sometimes they realize too late that it takes both to be great.

The Tortoise and the Hare

[goldenwave77]

An interesting thing about talent. Many times the most naturally gifted end up falling behind, as they relie on talent rather then hard work. Sometimes they realize too late that it takes both to be great.

I think the real "talent" in talent is the ability to work...intelligently.

My gf's son just finished a BA in psychology and told me many think perfect pitch is present in almost everyone at an early age...but that it gets eroded. (This is an interesting and counterintuitive phenomenon.)

Any form of musical training, it seems to me, is neurolinguistic programming of a sort...whether practicing chops or learning to hear stuff....and then being able to execute in real time.

Thus, the road to Carnegie Hall really is practice, practice, practice....imprinting pitch relationships, etc. Django, etc. and others could do this without theory, etc. which most of the time is just a label to organize....as Reg constantly points out.

For those who "can't swing"...."can't phrase, etc."....I think they just haven't listened enough or haven't listened enough to the right stuff....once this is "in your mind" you have at least a CHANCE of trying to execute it/replicate it.


The rub is this: Thoughts become deeds, deeds become actions, actions become habit, character is mostly habits....and this is true in music, as well as ordinary life, so if we practice non-swinging, theoretical stuff....we'll probably get good at doing that...but not at playing against the beat....phrasing without resolving tension to extend the line, etc. etc . Anything that we overdo threatens to dominate our outlook and playing---the "sorcerer's apprentice" phenomenon where the tool ends up dominating the process.

Further, technique can be a trap....and the greatest artists are those who have chops/technique, etc. but have the maturity, judgment, etc. to throttle it back, for a greater artistic goal. Personally, I think Chopin is one of the greatest musicians of all time....because he has power, finesse, rigor and economy of expression...he can say more in a 2 minute piece than other composers can in an entire symphony, at least to me...I think he would have been an amazing jazz musician in addition to being a great performer, composer, and improviser in the classical vein. Dizzy and Clifford B. are also examples of artists who "self-edit" well, also Hank Garland, Stan Getz, Sonny Rollins, Dexter Gordon, Horace Silver, Lester Young, .....Coltrane, Pat Martino, and John M. not so well, at times, at least to me.

Music that is based around dance forms imposes economy of expression, as does vocal-based stuff....and folk-based forms.

[medblues]

No but anybody can play basketball. Not everyone can be a pro jazz guitarist either.

Some interesting analogies can be drawn from this short movie. Background music is worthwhile too.

[fumblefingers]

You are born with or without a talent. Ability can be learned. You don't actually need talent to have ability although it certainly helps

ability and talent are synonyms.

the way you've defined ability is what i call capability (which implies skill/practice/experience).

but then that could be argued too...

[fumblefingers]

can everyone play jazz? no.

playing music is hard enough without requiring improvisation, syncopation, and swing.


not everyone can play music, period. (and not everyone can play basketball either. HR has never met my sisters, apparently).


i don't think the question is "can anyone play it - poorly?". common sense tells us that there's no point in asking if people can do something poorly, or functionally incompetently. if you're incompetent at something you're not really "doing it". the question is can anyone play it, and that means reasonably well/competently. if it would mean less than that it would just be a stupid, pointless, question.

[fumblefingers]

Well you tell me - you were the one who responded to my initial post. I assume this means you thought it did matter.
Also the topic is whether everyone can play jazz. I think part of the discussion should involve consideration of any possible genetic influence on musical ability.

Is there something that Charlie Parker was born with that was part of what made him so great? If so, how did it manifest itself? Is it some gene that allows him to lock into rhythms better, or hear chords easier? Rhythm may not be, but harmony is a construct of the human mind, not of nature - it is difficult for me to imagine a DNA strand(a creation of nature) that allows anybody to decipher it better than others. We know that perfect pitch =/= great musicianship.

Rhythm however is a natural phenomenon. Night and day, seasons, hunger, heartbeats, flapping wings all follow time-based cycles. As far as my current understanding allows, I think if there is any kind of gene that actually contributes to musicianship, it must have something to do with understanding rhythm.

Or maybe there is some kind of "melody gene" which stems from mating calls amongst animals.



I'm sure there are more examples - this story just happens to be my favourite. The overall point being that effort ultimately has much more influence than DNA does in deciding the outcome of a persons chosen path. I don't think anybody has disputed this actually, so maybe there was no need to post the story.

i see what you mean.

on the question of talent and genetics. i don't believe that every characteristic or ability that a person is born with or without is genetic, i.e in the genes.

[eh6794]

Anyone can play jazz, only a few can play it well. Time and time again, the masters talk about the emotions a few chosen musicians can pull out of us when we hear something truly amazing. It is not the emotion the musician puts into the tune, it is the emotion we feel, regardless of how many, or how few notes are put into 1 bar.

[kris]

The question is can everyone play jazz. To that the answer is yes! Perhaps the implied question was can everyone play jazz well? No. Likewise, not everyone can play blues, rock, country, folk, classical, or (insert your genre of choice here) well. Playing music well, regardless of the genre, requires an inherent talent that is either present or absent. Likewise, becoming a good mathematician, engineer, physicist, accountant, geologist, doctor, lawyer, author, politician, builder, etc, requires certain inherent skills and abilities. Anyone can do anything with enough effort, but doing something and doing something well are two different things. As for me, I play jazz every day. However, no matter how much I practice I will never played like Jimmy Bruno.

If you do not play like Jimmy Bruno it dosen't mean you play bad.You play just different. Jim Hall never played like Pat Martino. Great guitarists.

[kris]

Anyone can play jazz, only a few can play it well. Time and time again, the masters talk about the emotions a few chosen musicians can pull out of us when we hear something truly amazing. It is not the emotion the musician puts into the tune, it is the emotion we feel, regardless of how many, or how few notes are put into 1 bar.

no....not a few play well. There are a lot guitarists playing well and a lot playing very well.

[snoskier63]

i don't think the question is "can anyone play it - poorly?". common sense tells us that there's no point in asking if people can do something poorly, or functionally incompetently. if you're incompetent at something you're not really "doing it". the question is can anyone play it, and that means reasonably well/competently. if it would mean less than that it would just be a stupid, pointless, question.

So if you go to a restaurant to have a nice meal, and your food comes out overcooked and poorly seasoned, are you saying that the chef that prepared your meal isn't really a chef? They clearly aren't good at what they do, but that makes them no less a chef. Jazz is not the holy grail of musical ability. In fact, I would argue that much of what people call jazz is no more than random notes being played with a random sense of time. Of course, that is coming from one that needs at least some sense of melody to appreciate and understand music, regardless of the genre.

The world is full of accounts, lawyers, doctors, contractors, etc, that simply suck at what they do, yet they still do it, and in some cases still make a good living. Jazz is no different

[snoskier63]

If you do not play like Jimmy Bruno it dosen't mean you play bad.You play just different. Jim Hall never played like Pat Martino. Great guitarists.

Very true, Kris. What I should have said was that I will never earn a living playing jazz, because I don't have that inherent ability. Nevertheless, I get together once each week with several others, we play through a bunch of jazz tunes with the guidance of a professional musician regarding arrangements and suggestions on how to best play something, and every now and then we perform at a local jazz club for fun. I at suck at playing relative to some of the great players out here, but I consider what I play to be jazz.

[destinytot]

Anyone can play jazz, only a few can play it well. Time and time again, the masters talk about the emotions a few chosen musicians can pull out of us when we hear something truly amazing. It is not the emotion the musician puts into the tune, it is the emotion we feel, regardless of how many, or how few notes are put into 1 bar.

I totally agree. It's one thing to play with feeling, but quite another for one's playing to influence the feelings of others. (Although my neighbours might argue that the latter never happens in ways that are positive, I'm always hopeful that it might - so I feel that's what I'm preparing for.)

[fep]

No, not anyone can play jazz. Some people can't walk (I can walk but can't run without pain), some can't hear, some are not even capable of simple tasks like brushing their teeth... Some can't and will never be able to play jazz.

[fumblefingers]

So if you go to a restaurant to have a nice meal, and your food comes out overcooked and poorly seasoned, are you saying that the chef that prepared your meal isn't really a chef? They clearly aren't good at what they do, but that makes them no less a chef. Jazz is not the holy grail of musical ability. In fact, I would argue that much of what people call jazz is no more than random notes being played with a random sense of time. Of course, that is coming from one that needs at least some sense of melody to appreciate and understand music, regardless of the genre.

The world is full of accounts, lawyers, doctors, contractors, etc, that simply suck at what they do, yet they still do it, and in some cases still make a good living. Jazz is no different

i agree to a point. but incompetence has its own accountability, although it may take a while.

oh, and sometimes the chef is off that day. regardless, yeah, i usually "fire" that restaurant.

[Solo Flight]

The world is full of accounts, lawyers, doctors, contractors, etc, that simply suck at what they do, yet they still do it, and in some cases still make a good living. Jazz is no different

I would say that that's where making a living as any kind of musician is different. Someone said to me once, "what do you call a doctor who got all D's in med school?" Answer: a doctor. With music, the bar is much higher - you can have lots of fun playing any kind of music but if you want to make a living at it, you've got to be pretty advanced. Not a lot of room in the working world for musicians who don't have their stuff together.

[goldenwave77]

The world is full of accounts, lawyers, doctors, contractors, etc, that simply suck at what they do, yet they still do it, and in some cases still make a good living. Jazz is no different

There is a difference here....most of these people are specialists, and for better or worse, the average lay person cannot really tell how good their lawyer, acct., doctor, golf pro, etc. is. There are professionals who are good schmoozers or "client getters" who are not esp. good at what they do. Abraham Lincoln was a pretty fair lawyer for his day, but most of the business in his firm was generated by a guy named Joshua Speed, which is surprising as Lincoln was a good story teller and jokester....but wasn't really a life of the party extrovert. Amongst lawyers, some of them are known as "lawyer's lawyers" or "good/careful lawyers" and then there are rainmaker types--client getters.

In music, the "consumer" is a lay person, and even a person untutored in music can tell the difference between at least competent and someone awful, or just not good. I was married years before I took up guitar seriously, but I'd listened to a LOT of music....I remember going to audition wedding bands. One guy had a video of his band playing, and I was amazed at how awful it was....flat trumpet player on "In the Mood", draggy rhythms on "Johnny B. Goode"...vocalist who was on pitch---occasionally....I remember sitting there thinking "How can this guy be showing this to anyone who even listened to the radio growing up?". I politely thanked him, walked out, said I'd let him know, and of course, never called back.

From your post, it sounds like you have advanced musical understanding, probably expect more, and are less impressed by merely competent or pattern playing. I think the advanced player has higher standards, which is one reason I find interviews with musicians interesting, when they single out one or another as someone they esp. like.

[Average Joe]

I believe most players within the normal range of talent can learn to play idiomatic jazz.

Where is the bar set here exactly? I think that's the real question in this thread. For me, it seems the reasonable answer is this: You are playing jazz if you play in a way that you and those listening recognize as idiomatic, and of an average quality within that medium.

I speak and write idiomatic english. It is my second language. I read, speak and write it as an average second language user. I will never write great, timeless literature, nor is there any certainty that I will ever express a new, original idea. Yet, it is not meaningfull to say that I do not express ideas, thoughts, etc in a medium that I and those around me recognize as servicable, idiomatic english. Originality and excellence aren't necessary conditions - rule following and an understanding of the basic language games are. If I do that, and perform the activity of speaking english I speak english. If people perform the activity of playing jazz in accordance with the written and unwritten rules of that language, they play jazz.

Most people can, like me, learn to express their unremarkable ideas and thoughts in english. Most players can learn to express their unremarkable ideas in jazz.

[kris]

any can learn any can play but not any can feel it...it is simillar to the blues. just my 2 cents.