-
I didn't know about the hexagrams. To me that (and techniques like it, i.e. using note names to spell words, or number games) has validity on a compositional level for the purpose of encoding and imposing secret or personal meaning onto music that can still be analyzed by traditional theoretical methods without understanding or even detecting the secret code.
Originally Posted by JohnW400
It's just a fun thing for a composer or improviser to do. Often, in my head, I put words to my solos. And I deliver them as if to an individual in the audience. It's just a trick I use to keep help me avoid my own chiches. If I look at a different person, I think of a different message, and what I play spontaneously changes. But if someone were to record one of these solos, and bring it to me asking how I played it, then I would just transcribe it in the traditional way without telling the student that he would have to superimpose onto the notes some words that I was making up in my mind in order to get the right feel.
The hexagrams may be meaningful only to Pat. The rest of us who are interested in his music should simply learn it in the traditional way.
-
01-10-2011 10:29 AM
-
In all fairness, it's the "narcissism of fundamental differences." Originally Posted by orasnon
Isn't much of this discussion a "narcissism of minor differences"?
But isn't that what the internet is for?
Not to be a jerk, but can you point out a single thing that I couldn't arrive at without his crypticism? Originally Posted by JohnW400
My feeling when I first listened to him is that "Wow, I'm having trouble understanding him - he must be really smart!" But the more I listened to him I began to realize that it was all pretty standard stuff that was being hidden behind cryptic theories and bizarre language.
But if you can point out even one thing that he came up with that was truly original that could not be arrived at by not going down the rabbit hole, I'll tip my hat to him. If not I'll have to continue to think of it as much ado about nothing and well overblown.
Again, I'm not saying that the approach is worthless - it may make you think of things in different ways. But I worry about people who use this cryptic abstractionism as the core of their musical thinking.
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 01-10-2011 at 12:03 PM.
-
The phrase was new to me, and pleasing enough for me to find it worth investigating, or at least Googling, and I came across "narcissism of minor (or small) differences" straight away, said by Freud (Wikipedia tells me), though your wording may well have been used by someone else before or since. Wikipedia says it bears "relation to the application of the inborn aggression in man to ethnic (and other) conflicts - a process still considered by Freud at that point in time as 'a convenient and relatively harmless satisfaction of the inclination to aggression.'" Sounds almost like what this forum seems to be all about, sometimes. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
-
Interesting. I didn't catch the reference. Makes it worth the price of admission to learn something new. Originally Posted by JohnRoss
Peace,
Kevin
-
You don't understand him because you're thinking about it with the wrong side of your brain. Honestly. I've listened to your playing at your website and find it very left brained. Pretty stiff, actually. But if that floats your boat than more power to you. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Cheers.
-
Chord tones connected with scale tones with a few chromatics for added interest.Gingerjazz music philosophy,Done.Goodnight.PS.Kevin i love your playing and dont care which side of your brain it comes from.Oh yeagh sorry Kevin nearly forgot to mention also a bit of nice voice leading/resolutions to smooth out the changes.
Last edited by gingerjazz; 01-10-2011 at 01:12 PM.
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
In all fairness, it's the "narcissism of fundamental differences." But isn't that what the internet is for?
Not to be a jerk, but can you point out a single thing that I couldn't arrive at without his crypticism?
Peace,
Kevin
I don't know about crypticism. How about his diminshed chords and working them back to be major sevenths. I think that is pretty interesting (although that's not how I learned them). And it breaks down the neck into sections.
Listen man I can tell you're young. What are you ? Generation X? Maybe a millenial?
You missed the 60's and the 70's. All those things about mysticism, inner spirit, finding yourself, the Maharishi. All that metaphysical stuff. Players like John McLaughlin, Santana and Pat Martino amongs others sought a more spiritual means to get in touch with their inner selves. Some guys took drugs , some searched for spiritual enlightenment. If that's what you mean by crypticism, than this is where it came from. You should bear in mind that this stuff came about back then , 40 or so years ago.
-
Well....the anonymity of the writer on the internet engenders such dialogues....but I'm sure none of us would look Pat Martino in the eye and tell him: "You are confounding profundity with complexity, Pat." And though I'm not a baby-boomer, I'm down with right-brain, mysticism, inner spirit, however you want to call it. I'm a classical pianist ("dabbling" with jazz guitar), and I feel that my best playing is when I'm in this almost mystical zone, "at one" with the music. Call it mystical BS, its legit to me...
-
I didn't, but I wouldn't want to go back, and I'm certainly glad I didn't get stuck there. I mean, honestly, the I Ching? Originally Posted by JohnW400
-
Are you familiar with the hexagrams that Pat uses or how he arrived t the idea? Have a look at them and then see how they are applied to the guitar. That's all. No more and no less. No hocus pocus or what have you Originally Posted by JohnRoss
Like it or not there are a lot of musicians that find their inspiration in the metaphysical. I don't want to get into a debate or anything because I'm not a believer but you may be surprised to find a ton of musicians that do follow 'some' spiritual thing.
Look at some of them. Maharishi, Hare Krishna, Sri Chimnoy, Buddism, Daoism, all eastern beliefs. That was the thing. There are plenty of western believes represented as well (just go ask Dr Bobby Jones at the BET Gospel Network). And lets not forget that religion about Coltrane.
Remember the days when it was Mahavishnu John McLaughlin and Devadip Carlos Santana? How about all those symbols on George Harrison's solo lp's?
I'm not doing or saying anything here other than stating information. I'm neither pro nor con.
What I am saying here is that before anyone starts going on about these types of things in music they might want to take a minute to find out where it came from. That's all.
I notice that people tend not to know what went on before they 'arrived'. Those of us who have passed through it tend to scratch our heads and ask "What , you never heard of this?" When things come up that are common knowledge to us but not so common to the 'youngster'
I'm sorry to hear your not fond of that time period. The two biggest things I remember about it was all that talk about PEACE and LOVE.Last edited by JohnW400; 01-11-2011 at 10:09 AM. Reason: bold to avois further confusion
-
I'll ignore the personal attacks against my playing.
Well, I find his need to reinvent new scientifical language to redefine already understood concepts to be overly cryptic. I struggled through his bizarre terminology, and in the end realized that he was just inventing knew words for old concepts so that he could claim that they were his ideas. I found that insulting. Originally Posted by JohnW400
There is a part of me that is unsure. Was it a marketing stunt? He certainly couldn't sell material if it was just a rehash of old concepts. And, I hate to ask, but did he talk this way before his brain surgery/amnesia? I hate to be insensitive, but that has always been a question in the back of my head .
Well, I'll be 42 in a few weeks, not that it should matter. No offense, but I'm a bit sick of people talking about how great the 60s were - I've been having that rammed down my throat my whole life. Any idea that was so great from that time period should be able to stand on its and not require me having "been there." Personally, I mistrust any knowledge system that makes arguments like, "It won't make sense until you accept it." To me, that isn't science, that's religion. Originally Posted by JohnW400
Being an atheist, I don't care for mysticism. (Although I did go through a spiritual phase when I read the Tao Te Ching, the Mahabharata, the Upanishads, Go Rin No Sho, studied Zen meditation, etc. - so I know of what you speak.) Being a skeptic, I distrust it and any "scientifical" language masking something that is not scientific. And being scientifically trained, I look at concepts and terminology with a microscope. I don't mind the concept that sometimes you need to build abstract structures in order to understand something better (or just differently) - that could be a definition of music theory. I just think that PM goes too far and is abstracting just for the sake of abstraction - and I fear that abstractions of abstractions of abstractions ultimately lead people away from what's really important - the music. Again, can someone please show me something that this complex system leads me to that I cannot get my more standard, simpler means?
Again, I'm not saying that we should burn the PM books. I just think that it is an overly complicated system that gives nothing new that you cannot easily get from simpler, more traditional systems. I think he's worth listening to. I think that his system is interesting to study. But I think that it is also much ado about nothing and should be taken with a grain of salt.
I would love to ask PM about why he felt the need to repackage old ideas with bizarrely complex, Dan Brownian, language. I probably would temper my language a bit, out of respect, but I would still ask the substance of the question. Originally Posted by orasnon
Look, apparently you like PM or you don't. You can take the red pill and enter the PM matrix, or you can take the blue pill and stay in our world. I guess you see the world differently whichever you do.
Again, maybe we should start a new thread.
Peace,
Kevin
-
To reply Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Ah so your not a kid.
.
Talking about bizarre terminology read a Carlos Santana interview.
I'm pretty sure Pat had this idea prior to his illness.
Pat has his own thread at AAJ. You could ask him anything you want
I only learned about Pat's methods after I had already studied with Harry Leahey. As a result it was easier for me to see what Pat is talking about.
Some of his ideas are real helpful like the one about learning chords starting with the diminished and working backwards. That and the part about the hexagrams showing other possible string combinations. Past that point, I don't know much more about it other than his minor conversion idea which as I said, I like it on major 7ths
Pat is a legend. No doubt about it.
-
No, I'll take your word for it. Originally Posted by JohnW400
Oh yeah, you're totally right about the importance of this stuff from a sociological or historical point of view, maybe even ethnomusicologically. In terms of actual music, I just don't see it. And again... that was then.Like it or not there are a lot of musicians that find their inspiration in the metaphysical... Maharishi, Hare Krishna, Sri Chimnoy, Buddism, Daoism... western believes represented as well... Remember the days when it was Mahavishnu John McLaughlin and Devadip Carlos Santana? How about all those symbols on George Harrison's solo lp's?
Which is fair enough, but the most superficial acquaintance with most of these ideas is enough to tell you they aren't worth going into in any detail.What I am saying here is that before anyone starts going on about these types of things in music they might want to take a minute to find out where it came from. That's all.
Ah, no, even though there was an awful lot more talk about LOVE than actual getting it on, I had a ball. I just don't want to relive it (you can't go home again, as the man said). And I find people who are stuck in a bygone age odd - it means they are disconnected from reality. This can be fun when it's only pretending - I know and like a bunch of kids who do rock 'n' roll dancing, great, but look at the people who have never stopped doing it, aren't they creepy?I'm sorry to hear your not fond of that time period. The two biggest things I remember about it was all that talk about PEACE and LOVE.
-
This is starting to veer into a more distant tangent than PM's methodology, but as a person who also devoted many years to understanding human rationality, I arrived at the conclusion that it is irrational to believe in the infallibility of rationality (partly due to music and art - activities that, in my mind, are not bound by reason). This is whether reason leads one to arrive at the apodictic truth that there is no God (which presupposes that nothing lies beyond human understanding), or that art is ultimately reducible to the "knowable" (ie. analysis "under a microscope"). Besides, too many great artists -- Joe Diorio, PM, Coltrane, to name just a few in the jazz world -- refer to "estatic states" that are quasi-religious or quasi-mystical. And personally I've experienced the same thing, in my own small way. To claim that such states of mind are ultimately reducible to phsyicalist terms is missing the whole point. Einstein's space and Van Gogh's sky - the same referent, but also at fundamental variance in its relation to (non)reason....
Last edited by orasnon; 01-10-2011 at 03:15 PM.
-
You mean like all those Dead Heads at a Phish concert? Originally Posted by JohnRoss
Hey, I'm getting a blast out of watching Soul Train reruns lately. Now there's some serious dance moves
-
Even if I accept that as true (which I partially might), then that does not prove that the opposite is true - that the answer must be found in irrational/mystical thought. Maybe there is no answer or that it cannot be understood. Originally Posted by orasnon
If you want to look there (partially or completely) for answers, you're welcome to, but I have never found an answer there that I couldn't find with reason (for art or life.) All I ever found in irrational/mystical thought was a fleeting feeling of sanctimonious pride in pretending to know the answers.
But if you find something there (that cannot be achieved on Earth), let me know. Or maybe it just makes the world makes sense to you. Maybe that leaves me a bit jealous.
Peace,
Kevin
-
I took 2 lessons with Pat Martino in the mid 70's when he was working on his first book.
This hardly makes me an authority but I will share my impression.
He came across as a highly organized person with multi faceted interests. My feeling is that these theories grew out of a fascination for life and the interrelationships between the details of different subject matter. They emerged as part of who he is and not as a marketing strategy.
In my lessons we scratched the surface of deriving other chord types from diminished and augmented symmetrical structures.
He also presented the idea of string group combinations. The hexagrams were shared as an interesting visual correlation.
He showed me how to use a matrix to generate permutations of a starting harmonic structure.
He wrote out several minor runs with multiple fingerings but I ran out of money and never found out where he was going with that.
Sitting across from him in his living room was a different experience than hearing a great musician on a stage or a recording.
Here was another human being playing in a way that I couldn't even imagine possible. I was thankful to still be able to form a sentence.
-
"People need to get over the damn 60s. The events of the last 20 years (fall of communism, globalization, dawn of the IT age, rise of non-state actors like AQ, and reemergence of China and India) dwarf the provincial teenage rebellion of that decade in historical importance."
Au contraire. "Provincial teenage rebellion" is a poor caricature of the 60s youth movement. Seismic historical changes occurred amid the tumult and political ferment. Jim Crow apartheid collapsed (de jure, at least), the status of women advanced, decolonization continued apace and the US lost its first war. Young people of that generation were critical actors on this stage of world history on an unprecedented historical degree. Globalization, IT, post-nationalism: indeed, the very conditions of possibility for such contemporary developments were created via innovations made by these very same "provincial teenage rebels".
Its no coincedence that art and music from this decade eclipses that of succeeding generation in importance and innovation. Who today (under 40) is elevating jazz to a new plateau, the same degree that Coltrane, Miles, Mingus, Tyner, et al did in the 60s? Which musicians under 25 are impacting music in the same way the Doors, Hendrix, etc did during their mid-20s? Can't think of one really, and my young friends (late teens, early 20s) tend to agree with me. Please let me know so I can check it out....Last edited by orasnon; 01-10-2011 at 06:36 PM.
-
Musicwise? Originally Posted by ingeneri
-
I don't feel 'interesting' = 'innovative'....And this debate hardly began in the 1960s; its a perennial controversy going back to Plato...
-
Well, this is getting to be fun, isn't it? I shall declare now that I have no real stance with regard to the actual subject of the thread (maj 7 as a dominant chord). I am, let's say, sceptical, but I couldn't really care less. And lots of jolly interesting if not entertainingly eccentric ideas are being thrown around which amuse me more.
Sorry to disagree with you first, ingeneri, who are evidently destined to join the ranks of reasonable discourse here. But no, most of this stuff is just a continuation of what was already happening, whereas the sixties, like them or not, represented change, shifts in society. The IT age? If anything, it's a shift in the opposite direction - put the working class in offices in front of computer screens and they're still the same poor exploited stiffs they always were. Globalization is not much more than the underdeveloped world becoming less so combined with the same old rampant capitalism we've always had. Not even the hysterical Western paranoia about AQ is really new. Originally Posted by ingeneri
Beg pardon and it's only a side-note, but you don't think you won in Korea, do you? Originally Posted by orasnon
'Unprecedented' is becoming one of my least favourite words. Young people weren't, particularly, 'actors' in world history in the sixties, that would mean they were calling the shots, in charge, and they weren't.Young people of that generation were critical actors on this stage of world history on an unprecedented historical degree.
Yes, almost, see above.Globalization, IT, post-nationalism: indeed, the very conditions of possibility for such contemporary developments were created via innovations made by these very same "provincial teenage rebels".
Oh, give over. Sixties music is for the most part best forgotten, especially its discovery of the blues scale, a curse on everything since. And even that had already been done. And sixties art was so totally awful it makes even the eighties look good.Its no coincedence that art and music from this decade eclipses that of succeeding generation in importance and innovation.
Dunno why you think it important what people under a certain age do. Perhaps the most negative thing that came out of the sixties was that veneration of youth culture, the idea that there is somehow something special about what kids are interested in. There isn't. Kids don't know diddly squat, that's part of being a kid, you haven't had time to learn anything, and if you were a sixties kid, you were probably a snotty brat who thought you didn't need to, either. But back then the media got in the groove of catering to them and they can't get out of the rut now, when kids are far less important demographically (except, of course, Arab kids, or Indonesian kids). It's as if this quotation worked on its head:Who today (under 40)... in the same way the Doors, Hendrix, etc did during their mid-20s?
“From the earliest times the old have rubbed it into the young that they are wiser than they, and before the young had discovered what nonsense this was they were old too, and it profited them to carry on the imposture.” — Somerset Maugham, Cakes and Ale, 1930.
-
@John Ross: an admirable attempt at an intellectual riposte, yet ultimately you provide nothing substantive in terms of concrete evidence or unassailable argumentation. 1) the US didn't lose the Korean war; it was a draw; 2) professional historians (my profession, actually) generally acknowledge the degree of political agency of youth during the sixties as historically unprecendented. Witness the SDS, '68 May events, the Cultural Revolution in Maoist China, anti-war movement, etc - not to mention artistic/cultural production. The term "agency" (ie actors) I employ in a qualified sense found in academic discourse: as volitional shapers of the trajectory of history; 3) see #2; 4) If I'm wrong that 60s innovators such as coltrane and hendrix are deemed more important than current artists, and if you're correct that an inducement of historical amnesia surrounding the 60s should ideally be adminstered, then please adduce concrete examples of artists/musicians in our contemporary era that are MORE relevant than coltrane, hendrix. etc. I look forward to my Damascene conversion to the "ranks of reasonable discourse", as you say, here on an online jazz guitar forum...
On second thought, this is getting silly... peace out, fellow jazz-lovers...
Last edited by orasnon; 01-10-2011 at 08:32 PM.
-
Every generation in the history of mankind has thought that it was the most important generation in the history of mankind. I am not aware of any objective measure by which the 60s could be considered an historical turning point, especially when you consider cultures other than self-absorbed American/European baby-boomers. Originally Posted by orasnon
Every generation felt that their music was the music was the most important and that succeeding generations paled in comparison. The only different with the 60s is that the baby boomers became such a dominant force that dominates the media so that they've convinced other generations of their importance. But there are two generations of people, many of whom couldn't name 2 Doors or Hendrix songs. I was teaching a chess class to seven teenagers and was amazed that they couldn't name one Beatles song - they'd heard of the group and new the name and were sure they'd heard them, but just couldn't think of a song. Try that with Dylan, the Dead, Baez, etc - and you'll get similar results.
But that's the nature of pop culture. It is sooooo important to the generation that creates it, and sometimes for a few others after and they think that it is soooo magical and soooo relevant and soooo transcendant that it will last forever. But eventually it fades as new pop cultures emerge. It's the way it's always been. And every generation thinks that its pop culture will be the one that lasts forever. And so far, they've all been wrong.
Relevance is subjective. People like Hendrix and Lennon were deemed relevant by the generation that created them, and the generations that inherited that reverence. With people like Trane, it is a little different since we are getting out of the realm of "pop" culture - he wasn't just trying to cash in on a cultural zeitgeist but trying to make something more transcendental. But listing off a few musicians is not an avalanche of 60s inspired musical revolution. Only time will tell of their continued relevance and what might be considered relevant from this generation.
But this topic is getting boring even for me. It's not that it's not a fascinating topic, but it is one on which people make up their mind and refuse to take an objective look at actual anthropology and history, preferring feel good "our generation was the best" demagoguery. These type of discussions go nowhere.
Peace
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 01-10-2011 at 10:55 PM. Reason: typo
-
IMHO relevance is not always entirely subjective. Most people would agree that Coltrane is a more relevant artists than Ace of Base or the Osmonds. Granted this is a standard that admits to degrees, yet in these cases the received doxa bespeaks an objective tendency. I am hoping to be schooled about young contemporary artists who I can judge in comparative terms with the established greats of the past. I mean, I really dig BradM, KR, Chris Potter, and even enjoy MMW when the mood strikes, but just can't believe that its a subjective standard that puts Coltrane, Miles, and Hendrix ahead of them - when speaking of musical relevance and innovation.
-
I don't think that we have the historical perspective to judge the relevance of today's artists. But looking back, how can you say that Trane and Jimi are "objectively" more relevant than Armstrong, Ellington, Goodman, Diz, Bird, Monk, etc? They are only more relevant if you live in a baby-boomer centered universe - but I don't live there. Originally Posted by orasnon
Again, every generation thinks that it's stars are the most important. But the baby-boomers are such a cultural juggernaut (by sheer numbers and unrelenting egocentrism) that they've fooled themselves into thinking that culture is somehow the singularly most important thing in the history of the world. They've dominated the media for so long that they've managed to fool succeeding generations too. But if history tells us anything, in 50 years they will just be a chapter in the history books.
Peace,
Kevin
Reply With Quote
Mosaic Select's great remastering of Johnny Smith...
Today, 02:05 AM in The Players