-
One's man's intellect is...... well we might be fencing with semantic swords here, John.
Originally Posted by JohnRoss
Let me change the wording then. Not so much 'less academic' as 'less intellectual'. When it has been most relevant, jazz has been more a visceral music than a cerebral one. Your 'let it flow naturally' is perfectly in keeping with this, but so is 'don't dedicate too much time to scales' (and isn't that the same thing as "I wouldn't tell a student to 'flog away at scales'," anyway?).
Wouldn't doubt that for a second, and all credit to you and to them, but I can't see the future of jazz being any more popular, unfortunately, unless something changes.
If we think about Parker, Coltrane, Bill Evans, Herbie Hancock, to name but 4 players from a particular 20 year period... are you saying that their visceral wasn't in fine balance with their cerebral?
If you want to reduce it to a particular kind of Jazz (New Orleans, Blues, Trad Jazz for instance) then we might, at a push, have some ground on which we can agree,
But you know Jazz has broader shoulders and is, and always has been, far too restless to slumber under the weight of a definition that fits into our own personal taste.
-
11-16-2012 11:35 AM
-
Hope I won't offend anybody with this off topic. I know about Robert Conti. I like what he says, it pleases my mind and my soul. It's amazing to watch him playing, I think I could make real progres if I'd follow his "method", cause his playing is million miles ahead of mine. Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
However, somehow, I do not get touched by his playing.
-
I don't see how anyone could take offense to that. I think it is the same for everyone--we see / hear players with great skill but don't connect with their music. This may change too; a player who leaves you 'cold' now might thrill you later. (And one who thrills you now may not do much for you five years from now.) My favorites are Charlie Christian, Herb Ellis, Wes, Joe Pass, and Barney Kessel and Kenny Barrell. Originally Posted by Vladan
-
I expect you're too young to have caught the Great Guitars, thirty-something years ago: Herb Ellis, Barney Kessel and Charlie Byrd. Totally awesome, I still remember that concert often. Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
-
Love to. Originally Posted by Tony DeCaprio
-
I wasn't too young, though I wasn't into jazz at the time. A friend of my dad's had an old album called, I think, "The Soloists," a compilation of various players / groups, and for some reason I asked if I could borrow and and she said yes. The opening track was Clifford Brown & Max Roach Quintet playing "Cherokee." I had no idea what they were doing but I loved hearing it. I listened to jazz for quite awhile before developing a taste for jazz guitar. (My attitude at the time was why NOT use a Tube Screamer on everything?) Originally Posted by JohnRoss
-
People always pull out the 'semantic' word as if there were something wrong with it, but there's nothing wrong with semantics, semantics is meaning. Originally Posted by mike walker
Let's say their balance was nearer their head than the feet. No, that doesn't sound right - their visceral was outweighed by their cerebral. Or something like that.If we think about Parker, Coltrane, Bill Evans, Herbie Hancock, to name but 4 players from a particular 20 year period... are you saying that their visceral wasn't in fine balance with their cerebral?
Well, this may be an example of semantic swords, but you think blues is a kind of jazz?If you want to reduce it to a particular kind of Jazz (New Orleans, Blues, Trad Jazz for instance) ...
[Sharp reverse whistle sound as of breath drawn in through pursed lips]
I wouldn't want to reduce it to any one kind, there have been many kinds of jazz, including the ones you list (except blues, which isn't jazz) which have had a popular, non-intellectual appeal - swing, particularly.
-
I think Parker played the Blues. Originally Posted by JohnRoss
People always pull out the 'semantic' word as if there were something wrong with it, but there's nothing wrong with semantics, semantics is meaning.
Oh I agree. Not a negative judgement, just an observation.
Let's say their balance was nearer their head than the feet. No, that doesn't sound right - their visceral was outweighed by their cerebral. Or something like that.
Well, you are free to say that of course.
But for me their cerebral was practiced in a way, that allowed it to filter through a delicious labyrinth of pathways into the visceral and beyond, to the magical.
Well, this may be an example of semantic swords, but you think blues is a kind of jazz?
Hey there's that word again!!!
I absolutely think blues and Jazz are kindred spirits. The impro, rhythm, use of dominant, and notes that sit outside the chord, not to mention the obvious fact that it's been kicked around by just about every jazz musician I can think of.
I wouldn't want to reduce it to any one kind, there have been many kinds of jazz, including the ones you list (except blues, which isn't jazz) which have had a popular, non-intellectual appeal - swing, particularly.
I don't understand the 'non intellectual' debate. I find it a little bit of a cheap shot.
Actually I'm not even sure what it means. It feels kind of snobbish to me.
-
I could/should have stopped reading with this fine application of Occams's Razor. Thanks Mr. B. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
As interesting as it was, the rest of the thread read like an exercise in generating false complexity.
Then again, maybe that's what makes jazz, jazz.
I don't know - I still have so much to learn.
-
I have to say, I'm in agreement except for some lovely suggestions from Tony D, and a couple of choice words from Mr B. Originally Posted by onetruevibe
I could/should have stopped reading with this fine application of Occams's Razor. Thanks Mr. B.
As interesting as it was, the rest of the thread read like an exercise in generating false complexity.
Then again, maybe that's what makes jazz, jazz.
I don't know - I still have so much to learn.
But on the other hand, having the freedom to kick it around often brings up ideas that can lead folks to try new things. And that leaves me in two minds
as to the merits or otherwise of such threads.
It's like lots of cats come in and give a drive by comment, but they can't help having a sneaky look back again.
-
Ha! No, I totally get it and see the value here. I was mostly laughing at myself anr my own newness to this journey...and perhaps being a bit snarky.
While these threads go well beyond me, I always find myself reading through them...I do pick up tons of ideas. I just have to constantly distill what I'm reading into more chewable portions...otherwise I get overwhelmed by the enormity of the topic.
Please, carry on. Myself, I'm going to plunk Mr. B's thought around on my new-to-me piano..
Brian
-
It's no big deal here, but that's not an example of applying Occam's Razor. I read William of Occam in seminary and the gist is this: between two explanations that account for a phenomenon, prefer the simpler one. For example, if A says water is made of hydrogen, oxygen and pixie dust and B says it is made of hydrogen and oxygen, the latter explanation is to be preferred. (Some misapply Occam's razor by preferring an answer because it is the simple, regardless of its inadequacy. For example "water is made of hydrogen alone" is simpler than "water is made of hydrogen and oxygen" but it is the wrong explanation. The mistake is obvious in this case but not so obvious in other ones where it is often made.) Originally Posted by onetruevibe
I could/should have stopped reading with this fine application of Occams's Razor. Thanks Mr. B. .
In this case, Mr. B was admonishing, not explaining. (Which is cool with me. What you said is cool with me too, but I wouldn't want you to use "Occam's Razor" that way in a context--a school paper, a letter to the editor, or when trying to impress a brainy chick--that could hurt you!)
-
There are lots of 'tools' to use when improvising, scales, stacked triads, arpeggios, modes, licks patterns. But what you need to do is feel what you are playing. MarkRhodes's signature 'Herbs quote' captures it perfectly. You need to learn to play what you can hear, If you can't yet hear it, you need to listen some more.
We are all trying to get there, some of us will and some of us won't. Enjoy the journey.
-
I agree. One reason there are several approaches / methods is that different players want to play different ways. Some want to play nice chord melodies and melodic solos over changes; some love experimenting and want to create new standards; others are trying all sorts of things and seeing what suits them best. Some want to add elements of jazz (-such as swing comping, or playing walking bass lines on guitar) to styles that incorporate blues, rock, funk and other styles. We're not all after the same thing beyond wanting to play music we love to hear. Originally Posted by stevel
-
Yeah- I studied Billy-O, too but in a different context. Regardless, thanks for looking out. Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
-
"Don Gato."
Oh man, can you dig it? It's true jazz...
It's about a cat who is sitting on a roof when he discovers that his true love has agreed to marry him. In his excitement, he falls off and injures himself. The doctors are unable to save him and he dies. However, as his funeral procession passes through the market, the scent of fish from the market is so strong that he returns to life.
It's like Jesus. And Jesus is like totally like jazz. Yeah he trips the blue fives and the flat 3rds and the Montgomery octaves.
Don Gato..the Cat was bad.
-
You're welcome. It's why they pay me the big bucks Originally Posted by onetruevibe
Yeah- I studied Billy-O, too but in a different context. Regardless, thanks for looking out.
-
I think there's more to improve than being able to hear and feel what your playing. Those are basic requirements of playing... in this thread, improve, Jazz Improve.
If you haven't developed those skills, you need to put more time into the developing and internalizing technical skills area of playing. That does involve all the components...
I was explaining how I physically comp on another thread and became aware of a very functional use of scales... I don't really do this, but nice verbal method of describing...
So I'm soloing... I'm somewhere on the neck. What ever I'm playing, a melody with melodic development, chord tones with some harmonic embellishment, similar use of arpeggios or scale type of improve... whatever I'm hearing... in the moment or consciously in the moment and aware of where I'll be in a few moments...
I always have a reference... you can call it a single note tonal reference, harmonic... whatever, you can call it magic, divinity... even if your unaware of what your playing.... I'm always aware... so to explain this improve verbally... take that reference note, melody, chord etc... and have the ability to impose a template or position scale pattern over that note in whatever position your playing from... hopefully not staring at your neck.
Obviously that position scalular template can change at any moment and more than one are usually going on at the same time, but I like the ability to verbally explain what I'm playing. Somewhat after the fact...
So if your a melody improver ... you can easily see and explain harmonically or melodically what your melodic sources are... not just the notes your playing.
The rest are simple... almost mechanical...you might even begin to see and hear logical choices reflective of different system or styles of playing...soloing. Or not... stay in your safe zone.
Still, nice use of scales...
Reg
-
Hey Badjazz,
I just thought of something. It's pretty funny. There are a bunch of great players who have reached stellar heights in jazz but don't know how to read, and don't know a lick of theory.
They'd be totally lost in this thread
Wes Montgomery, Charlie Christian I think, Django, Chet Baker, Erroll Gardner, some say even Dave Brubeck!
That's crazy isn't it? How could they get so good with no idea of the fundamentals?
-
No way, Dave Brubeck? That dude was so freaking technical! I can't believe it. Originally Posted by 3rdOrbit
Hey Badjazz,
I just thought of something. It's pretty funny. There are a bunch of great players who have reached stellar heights in jazz but don't know how to read, and don't know a lick of theory.
They'd be totally lost in this thread
Wes Montgomery, Charlie Christian I think, Django, Chet Baker, Erroll Gardner, some say even Dave Brubeck!
That's crazy isn't it? How could they get so good with no idea of the fundamentals?
I've got some others...Joe Pass and Buddy Rich. That's insane, but I've looked it up. Joe could read, but like really slowly. Not good enough to make it through a session. He just read the chords on the chart and improvised. Guess it worked out pretty well, eh?
Buddy had to have a reading drummer tap out the rhythms for him before hand at a recording date. Wow. You'd never know it. He was one of the best drummers of his time in my humble O.
-
When I can play like any of those guys I'll gladly give up knowing what I'm doing.
-
I heard some old guy say if it sounds good it is good. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
Last edited by BadJazz; 11-18-2012 at 01:03 AM.
-
Fifty years go there weren't Internet forums, not that many discussion about jazz theory and most of us had to figure out jazz musical concepts ourselfs.
Give it a try...
Reg
-
You're right. And this is a great forum for jazz guitar upstarts trying to learn a thing or two. Hopefully I haven't offended anyone with my comments. In my defense the devil (3rdOrbit) made me do it Originally Posted by Reg
.
-
[quote=3rdOrbit;270350]
I just thought of something. It's pretty funny. There are a bunch of great players who have reached stellar heights in jazz but don't know how to read, and don't know a lick of theory.
They'd be totally lost in this thread/quote]
I think "don't know a lick of theory" goes too far and that "had no formal training" would be better. Remember,theory is a study of how music works. So is listening intently and figuring things out on your instrument and picking things up from other people doing the same thing. If you know a few dozen standards well---and the people you mention knew many more than that; most of them also wrote tunes--you know a lot about how music works. That's what it's all about. If you don't need a book to get it, that 's great; if you do need a book to get it, that's fine too. (Many get a lot on their own and supplement that with informal study of things they can't get a handle on alone. No shame in that.)
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Yesterday, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions