Jazz as a medium of self expression

[destinytot]

I believe in the cultivation of growth mindset.

On one level, we live in shared space. The path of individuation is a painful one. I come to music not to suffer but to find comfort from my sorrows. (Unbridled joy is an added boon.)

In shared space, who I am is of less significance to me than how. Not to make light of existential angst or adolescent struggles that can continue throughout adulthood, but they're no fun at parties; I'm talking not about being the 'life and soul', but cooperation, collaboration and - above all - communication.

Coherence in art occurs in shared space.

(I find interesting differences between the English noun 'art' and the German noun Art. The latter means 'manner' or 'way'.)

Growth mindset is about 'becoming', not 'being'. "Being is an empty fiction." (Nietzsche)

[Jonah]

Well most famous painters spent years copying others before coming up with their own style, Rembrandt and even Picasso did so.

Picasso's father was also a painter and Picasso first paintings are cows and other domestic animals which can be seen in Lisboa. Not fantastic. One point though, he was no more than a few year old when doing so and very quickly became so evidently good that his father stopped his painting practice !!

I guess the key point may not be to copy or not copy licks but instead to practice them initially as an education process, until sufficient material has been deeply absorbed and music phrases can be created without much thinking.

This concerns more adjacent topic about the licks... and it's tru of course - it is one of the methods to learn - especially for kids who learn through imitation much faster...

But we should not forget that concepts of art and learning too are changing... in times of Botticelli and even Rimbrandt there was an establishe system, school of painting... that's why these periods gave possibility even for mediocre painters to create outstanding pieces of arts: the language was cultivated to such an extent that almost anyone could learn it... The same period in music imho was baroque... (But of course to be Botticcelli or Bach is anyway another story).

But later things changed... when common school or systemn decline and the new one is not yet coming - then every artist has to develope his own languge... that's what we can see in painting and classical composition in 20th century...

In 15th century painters had to master existent language first and then to develope it individually - it was great luck and advantage for them to do so...
In 20th century they have first to find concept or to elaborate personal languge...
take music of Xenakis for example - he does not need to study classical composition at all

Picasso probably needed it - with his passion for distruction he needed some reference point... but Braque or Chagall for example... they did not need it at all...
Probably they tried in young years and it gave some experinece too... but you cannot tell them: 'first learn academical drawing then do whatever you want'...

It's diferent concept of artist even



As per copying or not... I am not sure one can really choose... at least in common sence.. (in existential sence we always make choices of course)

it is passion, you're in it before you can think 'to copy or not to copy'... if you start thinking about it means that you're propbably already beyond it... at least this how it was for me...

What Henry stated in initial post has - imho - direct connection with individual spiritual practice... so-called 'self-expression' is not possible without cultivating your soul...

But what's important on this way - that there's no reference to check if you're doing it right or not...
Because it's your way - nobody's been here before...

That's why self-confidence is one of the important features of talent

[destinytot]

Well most famous painters spent years copying others before coming up with their own style, Rembrandt and even Picasso did so.

Picasso's father was also a painter and Picasso first paintings are cows and other domestic animals which can be seen in Lisboa. Not fantastic. One point though, he was no more than a few year old when doing so and very quickly became so evidently good that his father stopped his painting practice !!

I guess the key point may not be to copy or not copy licks but instead to practice them initially as an education process, until sufficient material has been deeply absorbed and music phrases can be created without much thinking.

I've been reading (in Spanish) about the strategic archipelago that developed in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea under the protection of the Order of St John of Jerusalem (linking Aragon to Sicily and Naples) - The Knights of Malta. I'm really enjoying it because the art in the old buildings around me takes on new meaning (and so does the movie The Maltese Falcon).

What I find striking is how the Knights' presence in Valencia influenced the teaching of art. While teaching came to be concentrated in the workshops of the masters - I think apprenticeship is a wonderful thing - it was also subject to strict regulation by powerful Guilds. Obviously, this is not unique to Valencia - or to painting and sculpture.

'Everyone's apprentice, disciple of none.'

[destinytot]

What Henry stated in initial post has - imho - direct connection with individual spiritual practice... so-called 'self-expression' is not possible without cultivating your soul...

But what's important on this way - that there's no reference to check if you're doing it right or not...
Because it's your way - nobody's been here before...

That's why self-confidence is one of the important features of talent

+1

"Ne te quaesiveris extra"

[destinytot]

Steve Martin said it best (EDIT perhaps Joni said it better when she wrote "The virtue of your style inscribed on your contempt for mine" in The Boho Dance.)

[Stevebol]

I'm going to get a drum machine and program an R&B show. Nothing fancy. I'm moving to LA. After I whip people into a frenzy on the dance floor they're going to need some jazz.
There's a method to my madness.
I know this doesn't interest jazz musicians but like they used to say in the 60's- do your own thing.

[henryrobinett]

Steve Martin said it best (EDIT perhaps Joni said it better when she wrote "The virtue of your style inscribed on your contempt for mine" in The Boho Dance.)

LOL! Well ok. Once again I never said I wanted to be different or unique. I just don't want to copy. I don't want to BE LIKE that other guy. But if in doing so I sound just like that other guy, fine. But the music derived not form copying, but from pulling things out internally.

[Patrick2]

I guess I'm a weird one here. But, I just dig music and I dig playing music. If I'm playing music that someone else created, that pleases me. If I'm creating my own music, that pleases me too. But, I do have a realization that what I'm playing and calling my own, is really a combination of what others have created and an interjection of my own ideas as well . . . and that pleases me even more.

I just don't get this BS that *real jazz musicians* have to religiously play something that virtually no one has ever played before them, even as it relates to an improvisation. I certainly do understand that jazz is about improvisation and creativity. But, it's also a reference to and of the history of . . . jazz and jazz artists. How can anyone possibly create jazz improvs, without referencing the masters that came before them? Maybe that's why I have a hard time accepting the concept of new or modern jazz. I don't hear anyone in it. I don't hear any reference in it. I hear mostly creativity and most of what's being created is new and foreign to me . . . and I don't like it and it isn't what I come to jazz for.

I don't need for jazz to be any medium of self expression. I actually frown on such a concept. I need for jazz to be musical, melodic and a reference to the history . . . not just harmonically correct and being played in correct time/meter. I draw upon a comparison between a beautiful painting by a master artist of a perfect replication of an immediately recognizable object or place (think Michaelangelo) . . . and some abstract depiction of a bunch of colors on a canvas, from which 100 people derive 100 different interpretations of what the artist was trying to say or accomplish . . . (think Kandinsky) Jazz for me is in between those two extremes, kinda like the Van Gogh paintings of something immediatley recognizable. But, not quite a photographic snap shot replication. Instead, it has the personal flare that a creative artist might put on what he was looking at . . . and how he was interpreting what his own eyes were seeing. For me, that's jazz!

[mr. beaumont]

Which begs the question, are they not referencing the masters, or can some folks just not hear how?

Patrick, could you post an example of "jazz" that doesn't have this reference?

[Patrick2]

Which begs the question, are they not referencing the masters, or can some folks just not hear how?

Patrick, could you post an example of "jazz" that doesn't have this reference?

That's a good point, Jeff . . . and a good question too. I can probably post an example or two when I have a chance to pull one or two up. But, in response to your first question; if I can't hear it, then regardless of whether or not I can or can't hear how, for me it's simply not there. But, your question also begs another question, in response to it. Is jazz being played only for those learned enough to be able to weed through all of the non musical BS, to try to find or hear some reference to melodic musicality? God man, I certainly hope not. Because given the time I have left in this world and the amount of that time I have available to avail myself of such an education . . . I'll never really be able to hear or understand why some people refer to some of this stuff as jazz.

It also begs another question; those who claim that can and are hearing how some of this *stuff* might be referencing the masters . . . are they actually hearing the masters in there? Or, are they interpreting what they hear to be what they think might be referencing the masters? Kinda like those 100 people interpreting a Kandinsky work 100 different ways.

Many people here like to make note of the fact that . . "there are only 12 notes". So, even in the most avant garde improvising, players are bound to be occasionally stringing 3, 4, 5 notes together similarly to something that might have been done before by others. Can that not be interpretted as referencing, even if the artist did it by accident?

[mr. beaumont]

Too deep of thinking as far as I'm concerned.

If somebody says tthey're playing jazz, that's good enough for me. Doesn't mean I have to like their music. But I don't see the term "jazz" as some crown or medal only bestowed on the "worthy." It's just a descriptor, and a vague one at that.

[Patrick2]

Too deep of thinking as far as I'm concerned.

If somebody says tthey're playing jazz, that's good enough for me. Doesn't mean I have to like their music. But I don't see the term "jazz" as some crown or medal only bestowed on the "worthy." It's just a descriptor, and a vague one at that.

"Too Deep of thinking" ??? lolol Not at all. Certainly not at all deep, when spoken in the context of a thread titled "Jazz as a medium of self expression"?

As I see it, the vagueness of the descriptor is, [IMO], the crux of the problem. For me . . and I do see this as a personal issue . . . the term jazz is indeed a crown or a medal only bestowed upon the worthy. But, as I said, that's for me and I'd not ever attempt to force that upon anyone . . . the way some here try to force the concept of only complete uniqueness in creativity in an improvisation is worthy of being called jazz.

[destinytot]

LOL! Well ok. Once again I never said I wanted to be different or unique. I just don't want to copy. I don't want to BE LIKE that other guy. But if in doing so I sound just like that other guy, fine. But the music derived not form copying, but from pulling things out internally.

That's pretty clear, and I wasn't inferring otherwise. Just sharing the humour of the paradox. Actually, letting go of the external is a big issue for me. I used to think that's what's meant by 'detachment', but now I understand it as 'not grabbing for anything'. Purposeful equanimity.

[mr. beaumont]

Controversial only if you want it to be.

I mean, you meet somebody, they say they play jazz. Do you stop there and book 'em for a gig? Of course not...you say "cool, who are you into?"

[Stevebol]

Controversial only if you want it to be.

I mean, you meet somebody, they say they play jazz. Do you stop there and book 'em for a gig? Of course not...you say "cool, who are you into?"

I guess controversial is the wrong word. Making a 'fuss' might be better. I make a fuss about R&B. I'm not alone.

[Patrick2]

Controversial only if you want it to be.

I mean, you meet somebody, they say they play jazz. Do you stop there and book 'em for a gig? Of course not...you say "cool, who are you into?"

If I'm the club owner booking the gig, and someone tells me they play jazz . . I ask to see their proposed set chart for the night. Then, I ask what the instrumentation of the band will be for that night. If I don't recognize any of the tunes on the set list, or if they say they do all originals and the instrumentation seems kinda . . . . strange, I ask for a demo tape or an audition, or a chance to see them perform else where. If I get push back from the guy, I ask him if he'd like a drink on the house before he leaves.

[henryrobinett]

I think, regarding playing internally, is if one can HEAR the music, one should be able to play the music. Hearing the music is a lifetime of listening. But I could hear it very early. Maybe that's because I heard it all of my life. All I needed to do was play it. I never needed to learn where the lines came from beyond certain scales. And the more I references scales the worst it sounded. I could already hear it. MINGUS was in the house since the day I was born. As was Oscar and Louis and Miles and Frank and Fats. So hearing it wasn't a problem. All I had to do was direct my fingers to the notes.

[Stevebol]

I think, regarding playing internally, is if one can HEAR the music, one should be able to play the music. Hearing the music is a lifetime of listening. But I could hear it very early. Maybe that's because I heard it all of my life. All I needed to do was play it. I never needed to learn where the lines came from beyond certain scales. And the more I references scales the worst it sounded. I could already hear it. MINGUS was in the house since the day I was born. As was Oscar and Louis and Miles and Frank and Fats. So hearing it wasn't a problem. All I had to do was direct my fingers to the notes.

Clifford Brown had a huge vocab of phrases that he practiced. I think many of us have tried that route, jazz or not. It doesn't work for me. I come up with something and play it all over the neck with different fingering, octaves, etc..Improv is speaking to me. I try to remember the chords and hope for the best. It's going to be a lot of noodling.
I have some licks I like but I forget them. Improv has always been easy for me. I'm just not that worried about screwing up because I do all the time.
A former bandleader of mine used to say- those jazz cats are capitalizing on their mistakes! That used to crack me up.

[Patrick2]

I think, regarding playing internally, is if one can HEAR the music, one should be able to play the music. Hearing the music is a lifetime of listening. But I could hear it very early. Maybe that's because I heard it all of my life. All I needed to do was play it. I never needed to learn where the lines came from beyond certain scales. And the more I references scales the worst it sounded. I could already hear it. MINGUS was in the house since the day I was born. As was Oscar and Louis and Miles and Frank and Fats. So hearing it wasn't a problem. All I had to do was direct my fingers to the notes.

"If one can hear the music, one should be able to play the music".

That assumes that the technical facility is there to do so.. And, even if it is, does one actually know what they're playing?

What happened to your stringent attitude of being your own person and musician??? I guess there is a need for a point of reference. . . isn't there? Even if it isn't cop'ing lines or licks. You just nailed the whole concept of a reference point to, and from the jazz masters. It got into you mind, into your head, into your melting pot. Then you took what you heard all those years . . . married it with your own style and crerativity . . . and what came out of you was yours. It was and is . . . henryrobinett. IMO . . . that's how it happens. You want to call it you and your own. That's fine. But, acknowledge that some of it did come from somewhere ans some one else.

[henryrobinett]

"If one can hear the music, one should be able to play the music".

That assumes that the technical facility is there to do so.. And, even if it is, does one actually know what they're playing?

What happened to your stringent attitude of being your own person and musician??? I guess there is a need for a point of reference. . . isn't there? Even if it isn't cop'ing lines or licks. You just nailed the whole concept of a reference point to, and from the jazz masters. It got into you mind, into your head, into your melting pot. Then you took what you heard all those years . . . married it with your own style and crerativity . . . and what came out of you was yours. It was and is . . . henryrobinett. IMO . . . that's how it happens. You want to call it you and your own. That's fine. But, acknowledge that some of it did come from somewhere ans some one else.

Yes, technique has a LOT to do with it. And analyzing what the music is is just as important, or even more so. I've spent most of my time over the years on technique.

I keep trying to explain it but it keeps getting misinterpreted. Please go back and try and read what it is I said. I never said it was about originality. I had no real stringent attitude beyond what I had indicated.

Not copying to me means not sitting down and transcribing a bunch of solos and memorizing and trying to emulate a player. Or working on vibrato, bends or technique so I can emulate how Robben Ford does it. No, never done that. Never tried copying a tone. Boring but true.

For ME I sit and play what I hear. What I hear is the sum total of everything I listened to - indiscriminately. It's what wells up from the fathoms. I mentioned Dexter Gordon, Chick Corea, Coltrane, Jarrett, but also Herbie, Miles, but also Penderecki, Brahms, Bartok, James Brown, Eddie Harris, Cedar Walton, Metheny, Scofield . . . But in no case have I TRIED to emulate a player.

You have misinterpreted this idea of being MY OWN MUSICIAN. I keep trying to bring folks back on track, but I guess it's far too complicated. There is a world of differences between NOT copying a style or a musician and TRYING to be original. I'm not concerned with originality. I'm not concerned with being MY OWN PERSON. I'm not concerned with being innovative. I just don't want to be someone else. And IF I play a style that sounds EXACTLY like someone else THAT'S TOTALLY OK. I don't care about that. I came about it honestly because it was what was welling up from inside, not outside. I have spent ZERO time learning to play like another artist. Zero. Now I have tried to play bop. I've tried to play funk, blues, R&R, modal jazz. But I've done it generally. And almost always thought of horn players or piano players when referencing style. Learning guitar parts for funk or rock tunes has always been a revelation. Wow. I learn so much. But that's because I don't learn guitar parts as a rule.

For ME it's about owning the music that's inside. Validating the music within and not getting confused as to it's origin. But I'm not saying it springs from the genius that is me, completely not influenced by the musical world around me. Of COURSE it is! I listen to music all the time, or I used to. And that's what comes out. But it comes out because it's THERE, not because I practiced copying. I get impressions of Bird, Coltrane, McCoy, Walton, Miles, Rollins . . . These guys influenced me to ridiculous degrees, but not because I sat I tried to copy their style, or take them apart note by note. But rather because I listened to them and those impressions came up. I HEARD them. I worked on trying to play WHAT I HEARD. And by and large what I hear is not other guitar players anyway. So on the other hand it didn't really make sense for me to copy Rollins because I'd never sound like him. But I loved his lines and rhythm.THAT'S what made the impression. That was in my heart and supposedly has come up in my playing, from time to time.

I hope that makes more sense. For me the art is all about improvisation, not stringing licks together, or patterns. It's a very spiritual process for me personally. Not much different than actually talking to people. My emotions and the full breadth of my experiences comes to bear when I talk to someone -- not online talking. That's much different, but when you can feel the presence, expressions, emotions, humor, ideas -- it's like playing music. When I talk I'm not parroting a string of prearranged, memorized phrases I learned out of some long ago book of phrases to say when at a loss for ideas or something better to say. I never learned to talk that way. With music it's the same thing. I play. I just play. Whatever comes up is what I have to say. Not licks. Not patterns I learned from some Bergonzi book or Coltrane book. I think at some point it takes a courage and an inner trust to go that far. Most people don't have the courage to do that. I decided, as an experiment, from the beginning, that I was going to do that, to either prove that it could be done or couldn't.

I'm satisfied that I did it.

[Irez87]

I often hear people say you can't play what you've never practiced before. However, after 8 years of intense ear training, I find myself quoting solos I loved to listen to but never figured out on the guitar. I think jazz ed has it backwards. Start with the ear and then do the theory and licks (if even). Wish I had the ears I have now when I was in college. They ain't golden, but my ears are a hell of a lot better than when I was in college.

[destinytot]

I think, regarding playing internally, is if one can HEAR the music, one should be able to play the music. Hearing the music is a lifetime of listening. But I could hear it very early. Maybe that's because I heard it all of my life. All I needed to do was play it. I never needed to learn where the lines came from beyond certain scales. And the more I references scales the worst it sounded. I could already hear it. MINGUS was in the house since the day I was born. As was Oscar and Louis and Miles and Frank and Fats. So hearing it wasn't a problem. All I had to do was direct my fingers to the notes.

Truth talking - love it. "Each heart vibrates to that iron string." (from Ralph Waldo Emerson's ​Self-Reliance)

[targuit]

Music is self-expression. You - the self - are playing the instrument. That does not mean that you are being uniquely creative if you are playing tunes composed by other musicians. After all, they came up with the chords and melody. You are interpreting.

I don't believe I have ever heard one totally unique musician. Everyone is influenced by their predecessors. But some develop a 'signature style' like Miles or Wes or Metheny. In fact each of them sounds like themselves and are recognizable. Just as each of us sound like ourselves when we play, though our 'signature' may not be as recognizable and distinct. Of course, that is where the money is.

Actually, in terms of uniqueness of style, the first time I heard John McLaughlin play live with his Mahavishnu Orchestra, I was struck by his signature approach - I had never heard a guitarist play such blistering sheets of notes so intensely. That is the characteristic of these great players - they have a stylistic imprint.

As far as copying other musicians, that is not how I approach things. The last time I really focused on copying "licks" was trying to learn certain Steve Howe solos in Yes back in college days. And I did, but licks are for kids and ice cream. Today I approach the song and give it my 'signature'. Because I play what I hear and respond to the tune. That simple, though I have learned from listening and playing along with the musical giants. Not from imitating them.

[christianm77]

I often hear people say you can't play what you've never practiced before. However, after 8 years of intense ear training, I find myself quoting solos I loved to listen to but never figured out on the guitar. I think jazz ed has it backwards. Start with the ear and then do the theory and licks (if even). Wish I had the ears I have now when I was in college. They ain't golden, but my ears are a hell of a lot better than when I was in college.

I think that kind of it for me. I transcribed quite a few solos and can't remember any of them, but the process was a good one. I always HATED the idea of imitating other music, of jazz being a regurgitation of past ideas, that I avoided transcription for years. In fact it's really not about that at all...

I think it should train you to listen closely and play what you hear. I think after a while you don't need to transcribe so much because you can hear the detail in music and, on the other hand, you can play what you hear much better. I feel this hasn't reached and endpoint for me (will it ever?) but there's less of a desire now to learn and regurgitate solos. As Emily Remler said - 'who does that?" (Answer loads of people on youtube haha.)

(I think the playing solos thing is a bit fetishistic. There's a thing where people play solos exactly with the record and show their work on youtube. Known players too! Some educators advocate this.)

Some people do this right away (Gary Burton said he'd never transcribed, I don't Peter Bernstein has done much transcription) but it was necessary for me. I'm aiming to get to the point where I can just play things right away. But I find listening to some music can really get the ball rolling. Classical music, jazz, pop. Whatever...

I don't see that as any different to what Henry is saying, if if understood it right?

[Patrick2]

Yes, technique has a LOT to do with it. And analyzing what the music is is just as important, or even more so. I've spent most of my time over the years on technique.

I keep trying to explain it but it keeps getting misinterpreted. Please go back and try and read what it is I said. I never said it was about originality. I had no real stringent attitude beyond what I had indicated.

Not copying to me means not sitting down and transcribing a bunch of solos and memorizing and trying to emulate a player. Or working on vibrato, bends or technique so I can emulate how Robben Ford does it. No, never done that. Never tried copying a tone. Boring but true.

For ME I sit and play what I hear. What I hear is the sum total of everything I listened to - indiscriminately. It's what wells up from the fathoms. I mentioned Dexter Gordon, Chick Corea, Coltrane, Jarrett, but also Herbie, Miles, but also Penderecki, Brahms, Bartok, James Brown, Eddie Harris, Cedar Walton, Metheny, Scofield . . . But in no case have I TRIED to emulate a player.

You have misinterpreted this idea of being MY OWN MUSICIAN. I keep trying to bring folks back on track, but I guess it's far too complicated. There is a world of differences between NOT copying a style or a musician and TRYING to be original. I'm not concerned with originality. I'm not concerned with being MY OWN PERSON. I'm not concerned with being innovative. I just don't want to be someone else. And IF I play a style that sounds EXACTLY like someone else THAT'S TOTALLY OK. I don't care about that. I came about it honestly because it was what was welling up from inside, not outside. I have spent ZERO time learning to play like another artist. Zero. Now I have tried to play bop. I've tried to play funk, blues, R&R, modal jazz. But I've done it generally. And almost always thought of horn players or piano players when referencing style. Learning guitar parts for funk or rock tunes has always been a revelation. Wow. I learn so much. But that's because I don't learn guitar parts as a rule.

For ME it's about owning the music that's inside. Validating the music within and not getting confused as to it's origin. But I'm not saying it springs from the genius that is me, completely not influenced by the musical world around me. Of COURSE it is! I listen to music all the time, or I used to. And that's what comes out. But it comes out because it's THERE, not because I practiced copying. I get impressions of Bird, Coltrane, McCoy, Walton, Miles, Rollins . . . These guys influenced me to ridiculous degrees, but not because I sat I tried to copy their style, or take them apart note by note. But rather because I listened to them and those impressions came up. I HEARD them. I worked on trying to play WHAT I HEARD. And by and large what I hear is not other guitar players anyway. So on the other hand it didn't really make sense for me to copy Rollins because I'd never sound like him. But I loved his lines and rhythm.THAT'S what made the impression. That was in my heart and supposedly has come up in my playing, from time to time.

I hope that makes more sense. For me the art is all about improvisation, not stringing licks together, or patterns. It's a very spiritual process for me personally. Not much different than actually talking to people. My emotions and the full breadth of my experiences comes to bear when I talk to someone -- not online talking. That's much different, but when you can feel the presence, expressions, emotions, humor, ideas -- it's like playing music. When I talk I'm not parroting a string of prearranged, memorized phrases I learned out of some long ago book of phrases to say when at a loss for ideas or something better to say. I never learned to talk that way. With music it's the same thing. I play. I just play. Whatever comes up is what I have to say. Not licks. Not patterns I learned from some Bergonzi book or Coltrane book. I think at some point it takes a courage and an inner trust to go that far. Most people don't have the courage to do that. I decided, as an experiment, from the beginning, that I was going to do that, to either prove that it could be done or couldn't.

I'm satisfied that I did it.

What you're stating here is definitely a more clear reflection of your feelings. It's also exactly what pretty much everyone here was saying all along. It's also representative of the whole concept of jazz improvisation. I think where you went contrary to (or was perceived as having gone contrary to) what most were saying, is your misinterpretation of why people were actually taking the time to cop and learn licks. You've also clarified that you did indeed learn licks, even if subconsciously and not actually sitting down laboring over a 33-1/3 long play vinyl album. lifting and resetting the needle arm 100s of times to learn it. You heard if often enough that it registered. So then, some of what you play is not created. It's actually recalled from your subconscious retention of what you heard. Isn't that true of all of us?

With regard to your comment on not wanting to string together licks to form a solo/improv, heck man . . I can't recall ever hearing anyone do that. I do hear licks referenced, I hear lines from heads and/or melodies quoted. Heck, I heard Dizzy quote "Pop Goes The Weasle". How many people quote the first and most iconic line of the wonderful head of St. Thomas? The creativity of jazz is also in how these licks and quotes are implied and interjected into an improv.