-
Richard's mantra is pontificating about building solos and telling a story and about solos having an arc to them, etc.
Ironically, Richard's always talking about folks being caught in the yesteryear of jazz guitar.
However, in my experience a modern jazz solo isn't the same thing it was 40-50 years ago. Much of the "soloing" is interplay between the guys in the rhythm section and generating excitement and interest between the band members and the audience.
Not that building a solo and interplay aren't important but IMO you can't judge a modern "solo" vehicle by the same standards you used in 1955.
-
09-12-2011 09:30 AM
-
This is an interesting thought that is sure to garner responses.
Personally, I don't see the idea of interplay and solo development as mutually exclusive. When someone solos, it implies they have the lead and others are in a supporting role. Trading fours or the "free" thing is a bit different, but I enjoy soloist who can develop an idea, and end their solo with a sense of compositional completeness. Interplay is still necessary but I don't think it is really the object, basis or "standard" by which to measure a solo. modern or not. The soloist always has to take the lead and responsibility, thenn hand it off to someone else.
-
i don't think they are mutually exclusive either. I'm just saying you can't apply 1950 rules to a solo. What constitutes a solo is something different.
Take a listen to McCoy Tyner's solo on Moment's Notice from supertrios. Can you sing the melody on his solo ?
-
I do think the vocabulary has changed--but it's still about tension and resolution--
A lot of modern players play stuff you can't "sing." It's sometimes successful and sometimes not...it seems to work best with strong resolution, even if it's a one note climax (trane and shorter come to mind as masters of this)
David Sanchez's newest record, 90 miles, is a great example...the rhythms are tricky, yet the groove is undeniable...you latch onto the groove and the adventurousness (is that a word? if so I'm sure I misspelled it) doesn't effect your ear because you still have something to grab on to. Sanchez will do a lot of the one note climax too, as well as balance the intense stuff with some more singable lines...
I agree totally you can't judge improv on a modern tune by 1950's standards...there's less chords to hit, notes that were considered dissonant are fair game...the rules have changed--i think it was a pretty gradual process really (with a few jagged spikes like Ornette...)
I still look to Jim Hall as having one of the hippest vocabularies and as a cat who has one foot planted in the past and (at 80!) one foot moving forward...hearing Jim play "out" and then come back in with something classically melodic is just the best of both worlds to me...I hear it in quite a few current guitar players, those that can "toe the line." That balance is my favorite thing about modern jazz...
-
The other factor is that the nature of the jazz solo has changed. No longer do you have 7-8 minutes to develop a sweeping, arcing thematic piece in many cases. When I heard chick corea recently, the solos were mostly less than a minute long.
On an unrelated note, is David related to Antonio?
-
I have no idea--I'll have to look it up...David's stuff is great though, if you haven't checked it out...I love when a band can make odd time sigs feel natural...
Originally Posted by jzucker
I think a lot of modern groups are still using longer forms for improv...got to take in a lot of acts last week at jazzfest here (including Sanchez) and most were still stretching out...
I have heard some groups taking shorter solos though...I think about records like Paul Motian's "Garden of Eden" as sort of a masterpiece of that...but oddly enough, the soloists there opted for very melodic statements...takes a lot of restraint to start out with two whole notes when you know you only got 12 bars to say something!
-
picked up ninety miles. Thanks for the rec
-
I also heard Chick Corea this summer with RTF (Gambale, Clarke and White). It was a good concert on a nice evening but the solos were short and a bit disappointing from a development sense. They seemed to be giving what the audience expected which is OK with me. I guess they have to adjust to the short attention span of the Jazzfest audience. Originally Posted by jzucker
On the same day i saw Redman and Meldhau, totally different story. When they were soloing, it was clear who was in the supporting role and the soloist took you on a real journey. When they interacted it was dynamic and unpredictable ... a real treat all around.
Must catch a flight now, but I would be curious as to what attributes you gus look for in a modern soloist.
Cheers
-
i agree with you richard for the most part but differ philosophically from your myopic view of conformance to your "taste of the day". A few years ago you said coltrane was shiite and benson was the epitome of improv. Not that I don't appreciate benson but sometimes you get out ahead of yourself.
-
I don't know if people could ever really get away with "blowing anything out there" so to speak, but I do agree with the rest of this. Originally Posted by Richb
These days, you have to be really good. There are a lot of players out there.
-
I think you could still judge a solo with the same standards, in a way. As Beaumont said, it's still about tension and resolution. It's just that the vocabulary is different. More open sounds, larger intervals more complex rhythms and time signatures, and in many cases even the swing is gone. But still, soloing is based on the same thing.
I can actually give you a great example of this. I saw Jonathan Kreisberg about a week ago with Will Vinson, Joe Martin, and Mark Ferber. I was so amazed on how the interplay between all of these guys works. There's a song Kreisberg wrote called Stir The Stars where they completely went out of the form in the solos and just played by looking at each other to know what to play and when. There's a point where Mark was playing such strange rhythms that I seriously cracked up in the middle of the gig and Will gave me a mean look, haha.
But my point is, it's still about interplay and following the changes. It's just that the format is a bit different from the 40s.
-
Seriously though...Some of this posting was just me trying to raise the hackles on RichB's neck. I do agree with much of what he says. However, he does have a very myopic view of what constitutes good music and / or jazz. The fact is that the great improvisers do have an arc to their playing and do tell a story but that accounts for about .001% of music in the world. For every Jon Kriesberg telling a 10 minute story/solo there are 10,000 players out there taking 30 second breaks. At some point you need to re-evaluate what it means to play a solo or to improvise. It doesn't mean the same thing to everybody and as much as he'd like to Richard Bornman doesn't get to make the call for what is and what is not a valid solo.
-
I like when a solo sounds good.
-
I still want to hear some kind of story. Some folks got nothing to say, some folks got lots of nothing to say.
-
There are still many ways to develop solos... if your unaware of the method... does that pull the plug. There are obviously methods or concepts that are easily balanced or at least easy for the listener to believe are constructed, developed or what ever method we use to justify the solo... oh yea, we call that pop. What's the latest flavor.
I cover more pop gigs that I care to ... when those gigs are covered by good jazz players... they can be pretty hip, on the edge of fun... and of course there's the other side...
From a simply selfish point of view... there's nothing worse than soloing over a rhythm section that simply follows... plays their part with no chances. As compared to players that can go in a moments notice or add to or even push a concept that might develop... I dig live music... Part of the difficulty is you need to have your skills together. Reg
-
I dig all kinds of solos. I'll take adventurous and exciting with a few spills along the way over a perfectly executed but safely told 'story' any day of the week.
-
I've been working a lot away from the guitar, hammering out notes on a piano. trying to work on my singing.
Not to be a singer. But the goal is two fold: to be able to SING everything I play and to be able to PLAY anything I can sing. To me, a beautiful solo is a lyrical solo--and the ultimate form of lyricism is the human voice.
What else to develop? the maturity to use silence and space in a structured compelling way, to make the actual notes I play mean more, as opposed to a "stuttering, stumbling what the fuck do I play next" sort of way.
Jim Hall is a great example of less is often more---I loved the quote I heard when someone he was playing with played note after unnecessary note in a rapid-fire, machine-gun like fashion--he said, "don't just do something, stand there!"
I'd rather not just take the "Yellow Pages' approach to music making-- Full scale Roberto Frickin Duran (i.e., "no mas, no mas") to letting the fingers do the walking.
-
Wait a minute. I just connected the guy referred to here with another thread on the AAJ boards from a couple of years ago. This post created a lot of strum und drang there.
Originally Posted by Phil Kelly
"sometimes I get a kick out of the younger ( mostly guitarists ) dudes here
who's entire relationship to jazz guitar seems to be PM or Kurt Rozenwinlel
( or however its spelled )
What they fail to remember sometimes is the great tradition of guitarists
( beginning with our own monster Vic Juris ) who have influenced the instrument in a positive fashion and with a variety of approaches including
( but not limited to )
Jim Hall
Tal Farlow
Herb Ellis
Wes M
Kenny Burrell
Grant Green
John Abercrombie
John McLaughlin
Ralph Towner
Sco
Cal Collins
Lenny Breaux
Tommy Tedesco
Jack Wilkins
Egberto Gismonte
i could go on ..but y'all get the picture
oh yeh ..they ALL have (or had ) good time ...."
RBisanerd replied to the above with the following:
"I'm afraid that in your list there, only 5 could play decent time. And of those 5, only 3 went beyond just "decent time" into great feel. All the rest range from barely ok to off the charts lame....
Seems to me you aren't sure what great time actually is. Some of the names on your list, I regret to inform you, couldn't play decent time or swing if their lives depended on it. Seriously.
And I think this fact has actually been VERY bad for gtr players generally. It has held them back, and kept them as second class jazz citizens. Thank god for the modern school where the players now alll play w/ great feel and time....Which is why we are now seeing the gtr players starting to have an influence instead of being the "red-headed stepchildren of jazz"..."
Famous musicians with bad time? - Page 3 - Jazz Bulletin Board
-
Um, solos are a part of the music where the player can put his personality into the music. I have no problem with a personal tic or crazy interpretation of the material if the player has brought great feel and great expression to the part. Not all leads need be a story, or perhaps the story is a chapter of a Burroughs novel, or a scream for release from stress and duress, or maybe some giddy glee that can be interjected into the music.
All players are great guitarists now and they weren't in our past great players with something to say? That's just dumb, and jazz is full of fatheads with this kinda "I know what best for music" bullshit.
Piano players sure don't mind making an strange open ended statement, some of my fave soloists include Cecil Taylor, Don Pullen, Matthew Shipp, Brad Meldau, Thelonius Monk, Chick Corea, Bill Evans, Keith Jarrett.
Each brings there unique approaches to the music and leave their mark, and make all different kinds of solos with all kinds of forms and ways.
Pedagogue has smoothed out some rough edges in the music, but it has also contributed to the extreme ability to bore you mad that a lot of new jazz has down to a science.
-
That is a good line. Originally Posted by cubistguitar
I think there are lots of avenues that a good soloist can use to take a listener on a musical journey, with a start point a middle and a climactic end. Unfortunately, many solos of today tell a weak story that aims to display "technique and theory" rather than speak to the listener, or the mood of the tune for that matter.
-
I am not sure I get the OP's point...is there that much of a difference...?
I've heard both straight soloing now and in yesteryear.
I've heard what the OP is describing as give and take interactive soloing both now and then as well.
There's room for it all.
It comes back to quality more than particulars and quality was just as evident (or perhaps more so) 60 years ago as today..
-
As a young developing improviser, I have a few questions to this reply. Do most players these days have solos already planned out for certain tunes? Do players have resolution notes at certain points in a tune, in which they leave open space for pure improvisation? And what is the best approach to up tempo soloing (are people just shooting off random muscle memorized ideas or can someone actually think at 300 BPM)? Originally Posted by Richb
-
Ill address your question as two separate ones, as i believe you asked: Originally Posted by tyjbeck
1) it depends how you define "planning out". If by planning out, you mean memorizing a solo note for note, absolutely not. If by planning out, you mean you sing the tune in your head and structure out your solo in the moments before you play, then some do. I forget who I'm referring to, but there was a much older musician who said he used to play the whole tune in his head (with solos, he would imagine himself soloing and the others as well) in about 4-5 seconds before counting the tune down. At the same time, many don't do any planning and go ahead and jump right in. Some people have really well developed ears that naturally structure a solo for them with little brain work. What many bop musicians did back in the day (and I'm not a huge fan of this) is memorizing a few licks for a set of changes, so when those changes came up, they would play these licks. The reason I don't dig this approach is because it limits creativity and is almost like a cushion to fall on of you feel like youre going to mess up. Charlie Parker would do this a lot, listen to hos different takes on Shaw Nuff and there's no way you'll miss him repeating the same licks on the different solos. Grant Green also does this. I'm not saying they're bad players, or that they do this as a first resort thing or anything, i just don't like hearing, in Grant's case, the same lick played 20+ times in a solo (ex: he starts his solos on ezz-thetic and minor league with the same lick. His solo on I'll Remember April also repeats the same lick dozens of times). I'm more of a stream of consciousness player, and play what I am hearing at the moment. Now, that doesn't mean you should, as a beginner improvisor, play like this from thebatart, it will cause problems in controlling what you play later on. That's why we have many exercises such as transcribing, or moving a single phrase, lick, or motive through the whole changes to learn how to really improvise on changes.
2) as far as playing uptempo, no, players don't play by muscle memory. Just as I mentioned above, your ear develops to a point where you can hear at faster tempos, not like you're playing in slowmo, but you have more clarity in translating what is in your head to your fingers, less catch up time, if you wanna call it that. The biggest issue with uptempo stuff for me was technique, since I've always had a decent ear. This is ideal, since technique is an easy fix and it's almost all mindless practice to increase dexterity. If your ear has trouble hearing at faster tempos, that's a lot more work. Usually takes a lot of active listening, transcribing, singing, and translating to the instrument, and mosy of this will have to start at a very slow speed.
Hope that answered your questions.
Reply With Quote
Giving the Loar some love
Today, 05:05 PM in The Builder's Bench