-
True. I heard a rumor that during outtakes of some video of him performing with horns he had no trouble communicating all the chord changes, breaks, section changes, etc with proper terminology.
Originally Posted by whiskey02
-
07-08-2011 09:35 PM
-
To me, saying you UNDERSTAND theory, and that you overthink explains why it sounds boring, you shouldn't understand theory, you should have practiced every aspect of it in so many different ways that when you play and shut your brain off, what you learned by theory goes through your 'singing' and expression. theory is only a guide on how you will spend the next 984784789798 hours of practicing the instrument. Originally Posted by jazzjew7890
To me, it's not a thread about theory VS feeling, it's a thread about 'Theory and feeling' VS 'feeling only'.
Indeed, we ALL agree that cold and overthought playing isn't cool, so why ask what we prefer? The question is: is it possible to play with feelings AND use theory?
otherwise, it's just a way to get converging advices saying that theory is not cool and people learning it are not 'talented' and that we should all play with feeling to play well. i see that as a way of saying 'i work on theory and don't sound cool, so i should stop all that work and just play and let the hidden genius in myself play. When i myself tried to do that, the experience was very frustrating
My point of view is that the concept of geniuses or talented people is very seducing and typical of the society we live in. some are geniuses, some arent. for the geniuses, everything is easy and flow, they HAD to have this level of musicianship that we all admire. the others, however do not have that special thing, because apparently, the work they do isn't enough. in fact these talented guys often played 100 times more than the others, and often with a specific method to allow them to use the time on the instrument to learn faster than when you're just noodling.
When you think about it, that's much easier if you aren't on the geniuses side. you can accept the fact that you aren't one of the best because you were wired that way. and those who play well are.
I think that's both an insult towards yourself and towards those guys you 'admire' and who worked for countless hours, day after day, to be as good.
Charlie parker, coltrane, miles, we all know that at one point of their life, they worked obsessively on the instrument. mozart played so much that at 20 his hands were painful and deformed. rosenwinkel said in a masterclass that is on youtube that when he was at berkelee he would practice 8 hours a day during the weekdays and 12 hours a day during the weekends. playing with all the bands he could find, then practicing everything he could understand from what the others played. i think the list could extend to ALL the guys who play good on an instrument, with or without feeling, i just don't know their biography
To me (my opinion again), the ONLY difference between those people and other who do not get that level is that the time spent on the instrument is better used. they learn faster than some other people. And i am sure that there is a reason for that: good method, clear mind on what to work or not, not trying to go too fast and know your basics before trying to do hard things. and a huge focus on practice, not understanding. In fact, this has become one of the most interesting questions to me. Martina Hingis is a top level tennis player at 16, she stops playing tennis, starts golf, 3 years laters, she's in the top 10 golfers. why do some people learn that fast, and others spend years on a thing and do not progress? To me it's just a question of methodology.
But again, it's very confortable to say 'wes couldn't read and SRV too', so that puts them 'under' where you are, BUT they play better, so you're not responsible if you don't play well enough, that's life. I see that as a way to avoid taking responsability for your playing and developement as a musician.
I am not trying to be insulting or agressive here, i am just trying to share some thoughts i've had about myself. i thinkg i would have liked to have someone saying that to me at the time i had this kind of thinking. the goal is to open up new possibilities, sharing thoughts i've had recently, trying to have feedback on them to make them grow/evolve
Hope that helps a bit
PeaceLast edited by add4; 07-09-2011 at 03:23 AM.
-
+1 Originally Posted by add4
-
Nice discussion here that motivated me to contribute my own thoughts after having been a jazz enthusiast and jazz guitar player for many years. Here my opinion:
- You cannot play jazz (I mean high-quality jazz) without (at least) a rough understanding of theory (some free jazzers did but they were only playing for themselves, hoping that the audience likes it, too)
- You cannot play jazz without feeling, soul and emotions - means: you have to find your own way to express your personality, because that's it what jazz made strong (compared to some types of classical music, where the range of personal expression is rather limited and musicians are like roboters).
- You cannot play jazz without having some technical skills, otherwise you only can play at garden parties or ... for yourself. Thats why practice is important, too. Trial and error is a good thing when you don't know much about theory - but theory is nothing without practicing (I don't know a theoretical jazz musician).
- You also cannot play jazz when you don't know about the development/the history of jazz. You don't have to start with Scott Joplin or the Original Dixieland Jazz Band but you should have an understanding of how and why the different styles developed and what the differences between them are. So read and listen, listen, listen!
I think the secret is a mix of these four prerequisites - and you have to find your own mix by yourself! The best jazz musicians found their mix, their balance. You of course can compensate one aspect by another - but not totally.
Wes Montgomery for example had all of these ingrediences at a maximum (although not knowing much about theory - but I think he had his own theory!) also Lenny Breau or Kenny Burrell, Joe Pass (just to name a few guitarists) and of course Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Miles Davis etc.
Another thought: Berklee (and other jazz colleges) "produced" a lot of great musicians in the meantime but I have that feeling that when I listen to one I already know what the next one will play. Since jazz education has been focussed to teach (theoretical) scales the concepts are commutable and unique personal styles of instrumentalists are not so important anymore (of course some developed their own styles and I really like them, Kurt Rosenwinkel for example). The personal styles nowadays are not as individual as the personal styles were before (listen to Eric Dolphy, Fats Waller, Louis Armstrong, Booker Little, Oscar Peterson - or the guitarists Grant Green, of course Wes!, Baden Powell, John McLaughlin, Johnny Smith, T-Bone Walker, Charlie Christian, John Scofield .... - not in chronological order).
But: doesn't jazz also sometimes live from the unsufficiency of musicians?
For example: Erroll Garner played after the beat (also Wes did, but he wasn't behind that much), Ada Brown sang a quarter note too low, Coleman Hawkins wasn't very firm when he played bebop tunes, Booker Little played dissonant (according to classical music theory), Archie Shepp's technical skills and timing was not always great, Charlie Mingus wasn't the best bass player but a great leader, Django Reinhardt was not that great playing electrical guitar but he did it with soul etc. etc.
I don't want to be misinterpreted: They all made interesting and great music because they had found the balance for themselves and (hopefully also) for the audience (although the commercial success was different - but thats another problem). But it was much more individual than today, I think.
Another question to you all (perhaps we should start a new thread about that):
Why did guitarists never develop a total new jazz style/haven't been recognized as innovators in jazz? I don't mean instrument styles but major styles as bebop, cool, hardbop, modal jazz, fusion, free jazz, world music or whatever?
Was it the dominance of horn players or the ignorance of jazz enthusiasts or the personality of jazz guitarists ???
I hope to have given you some more thoughts, too :-)
-
Django did, lots of people are playing exclusively his music nowadays, with his vocabulary, without drums and piano, only guitars and double bass, in the style of his quintet. This might be the only 'guitaristic' jazz style i'm aware of Originally Posted by ncs
-
I'm sorry, but interpretation and being expressive is one of the pillar of classical music. In jazz you express your own ideas, sometimes with a rough tone, "mistakes", you're allowed to do whatever you want. In classical music you have to be expressive, play with tempo, dynamics, intentions, because it's the only way to be distinguished. You can be unique in jazz with what you write, your solo ideas, etc. Not in classical music. The tools you need is a brilliant technique, and a huge amount of expressiveness to make it alive. Doesn't mean jazz isn't played with tempo, dynamics, etc but you surely can't be a good classical musician if you play "like a robot". Originally Posted by ncs
Cheers,
FBLast edited by Fast Bebop; 07-12-2011 at 12:37 PM.
-
There are also tons of guitar players (I won't use the word 'musician') who don't know theory and can't read music who suck. You can head to your local blooze jam for confirmation of this fact. Originally Posted by jazzjew7890
IMO, knowledge will not make a creative person any less creative. You either have something inside of you to express or you don't.Last edited by Jazzpunk; 07-14-2011 at 08:26 PM.
-
Hi add4 & fast bebop & all!
Of course I exaggerated when I wrote "playing like robots", just to point out the difference between classical music and the freedom you have in jazz. I've grown up with classical music and also played it (long time ago). But do you really think that all 120 people in a synphonic orchestra play with passion & feeling and can play what they want and how they want?
They play exactly the notes they have to play and each instrument has to sound like that "ideal" someone defined long time ago - so: where is the freedom for personal expression or changing notes or even improvisation? I don't think there is none but I think it's very limited. Thats what I meant...
Friedrich Gulda for example (famous austrian classical pianist, bach & beethoven interpreter) was tired of that classical routine and also played jazz and even some kind of avantgarde. (listen to his jazz recording at birdland in 1956 or his recordings for MPS in 1970) - but he broke with the classical music community and was called an "enfant terrible" when he did these things (in duos with chick corea for example) - he did it just because he needed a bigger range for expressing himself.
Another point from an economic view (I'm an economist, sorry!): "How much" music do you get when a jazz soloist plays and how much music do you get when 120 musicians of a symphonic orcherstra play? 1 multiplied with 120? I doubt ...(but the 120 people have to be paid).
That gives me the tag: Here in europe and probably also in most parts of the civilized world classical music is subsidized very much more than jazz - yes, we pay taxes for music we rarely listen too! I'm concerned about that - not that classical music is subsidized, but that high-quality "living" music like jazz is largely ignorated (I'm not talking about popular music - this is mainly just a short-term and market-driven business).
And concerning Django: Sure he was europe's most noticed contribution to jazz in the 30ies. But in my opinion (I like Django's music very much and don't want to get misinterpreted) it was a sub-style of swing mixed with hungarian/romanian gipsy music and french influences - and mainly a guitar style. Django was great and open to other influences (I also like his electric guitar recordings very much although they were not perfect). He was an innovator - but he wasn't an innovator who influenced jazz in total - unfortunately it was/is just a niche in jazz.
Sorry if I have been too ironical/critical but sometimes it's necessary to get to the point. And: If we all would have the same opinion it would be boring - or?
But before getting too deep into this serious discussion here is a joke for you:
The trombone player had a New Year's gig with his quartet. It was going very well. The band was enjoying it, the audience was digging and the club owner was ecstatic. "Hey, you guys are great!" the club owner exclaimed, "I'd like book you for next New Year's Eve next year. Are you available?" "As a matter of fact we are," answered the trombonist. "Well, consider it booked then!" "Thanks very much," answered the trombonist, "Is it alright if I leave my horn here?"
-
Nice NCS. I know that joke in reverse.
What do you call a musician without a gig?
A Trombonist! Groan
-
The one I heard was "What do you call a jazz trombonist without a girlfriend?" Originally Posted by brwnhornet59
HOMELESS.
-
Nice. And I would like to add that learning blues scales counts as "theory" as much as learning modes does. In response to the SRV and BB King referances. Don't get me wrong, SRV is my favorite guitarist of all time, but he still limited himself to a cirtain small number of notes per tune....... theory. Originally Posted by fep
-
i have def been given a few "thoughts"...not to single you out here...but i found a few parts of your post on the questionable side. Originally Posted by ncs
im guessing, but my gut tells me that Bird didnt spend much time thinking about theory. i think a big part of the issue we are talking about here is the disconnect between what a musician HEARS and what they UNDERSTAND. by that im saying if you asked Bird to play a "subdominant ii V" substitution he would probably have looked at you like "whats this crazy cat jiving?". but then he would have played it and actually have played cyclical things off of it as well. THEN he probably could have told you the very FIRST time he HEARD it done. nobody cared about things on paper (since most of the time there WASNT any anyway), the theory was on records and at the gig. i would say that that qualifies as MORE than a "rough understanding". these days how many people "KNOW" what a tritone sub is compared to how many could HEAR it IMMEDIATELY AND REACT TO IT when somebody does it on a gig?
next...Hawk was one of the main harmonic influences to ALL the bebop cats. if anything his time was more old school, but harmonically he was pretty much there. booker little played no more "wrong" notes than Bird or Coltrane. there arent any "wrong" notes if you hear what you are doing. this is a HUGE problem today. lots of young players will avoid notes like the plague because they are "wrong". then years later they finally transcribe the "hip" Bird solo and they are all over the place. if anything there are even more RIGHT "wrong" notes nowadays then there were back then (any Joe Henderson solo). what is the disconnect here then? only on paper in schools and internet forums...
Mingus!!!??? (to me) is probably the best bass player to have ever taken a solo! the reason there arent more bass players playing like him is because they CANT! On top of that he is one of the swingingest dudes EVER and hands down one of the greatest composers in Jazz. Ever heard his solo piano album?
as to why there arent more "forefathers" of jazz on guitar. simple timing...no amps meant no guitarists playing solos. (Django just "had soul"? What? Then give me sum a DAT!!!). I would say that guitar has been at the forefront of jazz since the 70s. Debatable whether that has been a good thing for jazz, but its pretty much been elevated to trumpet/sax status as an accepted instrument. Rosenwinkel is probably considered one of the top 3 "young" players in jazz for good reason as he is one of the few that plays more shit than most horn players.
i submit that if you have enough passion to practice, play and listen enough, theory in the context of a RIGHT/WRONG may be more of a annoying hinderance than anything. paper is the enemy. the music is in the air. Bird wasnt even playing the chords on the page where they were written and most guys still cant grasp that. simple tension release. Bird probably wouldnt have played half the stuff he did if he had read a bunch of stuff from a book or EVEN learned the tunes from a lead sheet. Thats at the heart of the problem (at least the start of it) i think. lead sheets!
Coltrane was probably one of the first guys to get into ANY kind of book stuff. Even still, he obviously did it with more of a "How can i use this?" approach more than a "Do it this way" type of thing. there is a BIG BIG difference. yet guys nowadays tend to look for a "golden equation" that they can plug in. ("Play like Eric Dolphy..." in Jamey Aebersold voice.) Passion can only happen when you stumble on something that excites you. I can copy and paste a transcription of a Trane solo from the internet and read it a few times. That doesnt mean I have even remotely LEARNED it until i can sing 20 of them AND they STILL excite me.
ive learned way more from smoking a doobie by myself with the curtains drawn listening to records than from any theory class. ever wonder why its called "music theory"? i think because theoretically you can figure out what it is, but not really.
"With music, once you play it, its gone. Its in the air..." Eric Dolphy (paraphrased) Its and interesting thing and so true. Explains why sometimes you hear something and it totally kills you and then you go backand listen to it a few days or a week later and you cant even remember what it was that you got so excited about. I love that. Its because it was just what you needed at that exact moment.Last edited by mattymel; 07-17-2011 at 04:57 PM.
-
You made some valid points mattymel. The last one hit home.The same thing that gives us freedom and power can be the same thing that shackles us into mediocrocy. That is why real time experimentation, with a group preferably, is paramount to developing not only as a musician or a band, but also taking a given genre to it's outer edge. Pushing the envelope is usually how break through's occur. If we stay within the box, no matter how vast or developed the box is, then seemingly unorthodox approach's would never be attempted. This kind of "testing the waters", has occurred routinely throughout the history of music. That is why, IMHO, there are no wrong notes in the hands of a master. Everything resolves into everything, if played like it should. ie, rhythmically and in context, resolving to a stated target.Bird probably wouldnt have played half the stuff he did if he had read a bunch of stuff from a book.
So go ahead. Play those forbidden notes. I know I try to!
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Yesterday, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions