Do we really need jazz guitar licks?

**JensL** · 07-31-2015, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by MarkRhodes

I agree that others define jazz differently. I'm fine with that. I won't get into arguments about whether "X" is jazz or not. I don't care about other people's definitions of jazz. (I don't even care about my own definition of jazz----I don't have one.) But I will say that when I say "I want to learn to play jazz" it was like when I said earlier "I want to learn to play Delta blues" (or rock'n'roll) or what have you. The music was already there, outside me. I didn't invent it. I always wrote my own songs---well, since the third grade--but those are just that, my own songs. They're not jazz.

I write my own music too. I consider it jazz (I am quite sure some people don't, but nevermind that..)
I don't understand what you are trying to say? that it is impossible to write a jazz song because jazz already exists? It's also odd to not have a definition of jazz and yet your own songs are not jazz

There is nothing wrong with checking out licks as a part of your practice, and there are lot's of things you can learn from them, but that does not mean that you have to play them in your solos or that a certain amount of them have to be present in a solo for it to be jazz.

All the guys we love from the 50's and 60's were the ones that came up with new stuff, not the carbon copies (or maybe that's just me).

Jens

**mr. beaumont** · 07-31-2015, 10:39 AM

At the risk of opening a whole new wormel chili can...

We say Parker had licks. Ok. Did Charlie see it that way? What if Charlie was thinking big macro comcepts when practicing, and what came out in performance, analyzed after the fact, were said "licks?"

**pamosmusic** · 07-31-2015, 11:15 AM

That is true of Orwell's essay but it is a poor analogy for instrumental music, which asserts nothing. It conveys feeling but makes no claims. (Imagine someone trying to translate Orwell's essay into a tenor saxophone solo.)

Well ... a moment ago you were using the language analogy weren't you?

In a way this is like saying I want to adopt a British accent but I don't want to sound like anyone who actually has one. Well, other that sounding British, what does it mean to adopt a (particular) British accent

Obviously language is not a perfect analogy. Analogies - by definition - will rarely translate perfectly since you're applying the logic of one set of circumstances to a different set of circumstances. I was just using the analogy that was already offered up to show that it can be taken to a different conclusion.

If I were you I would've argued that it's a bad analogy because - when one writes - one has the ability to go backward and edit. Whereas - when one improvises - they don't have that luxury. The Orwell analogy probably applies more to composition and arranging than to improvising. Though I still think it does apply. I get the feeling from some guys like later Jim Hall that they are almost going through and cleansing their playing of the automatic riffing and fluff. I don't personally play that way but there's a lot of validity to it.

Jim Hall doesn't play many jazz cliches or licks or quotes. Does that make him not jazz?

**mr. beaumont** · 07-31-2015, 11:21 AM

I've decided I hate the "jazz is language" analogy and i vow to never use it again.

**grahambop** · 07-31-2015, 11:22 AM

My licks are secret and I'm jolly well not going to tell you what they are, old chap. (said with a British accent).

**goldenwave77** · 07-31-2015, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by setemupjoe

When someone says "For goodness sake" or "what in the world..." Or any number of well worn phrases we are using "licks" within our speech patterns. .. In music it's very similar. We borrow language from others we hear that is pleasing to us and reinterpret it to fit our own experience. People that do it awkwardly and without any style or grace make the practice seem "fake" but when employed well it is seen as a natural extension of your own style.

The best def'n. I've ever heard of a cliché, is that it is an originally evocative phrase (or metaphor) that has been so overused/outdated/superseded... it no longer succeeds in calling up the original image/metaphor. Or, the original reference is no longer common parlance: I read through the Bible once, both Old and New Testament, but I don't remember Jehosophat jumping, so the expression "Jumpin' Jehosophat" doesn't mean anything to me. Or something can be so overused, that its original meaning is lost...when everyone says everything/everyone is "chill"---that expression is no longer "chill"...its just empty words.

But a good lick or phrase is one that works... To me, one sign of C. Parker's greatness is his memorable phrases ....the first phrase of "Scrapple From the Apple" or "Parker's Mood" (the descending bluesy part)...As Jordanklemons noted, take these phrases apart and FIGURE OUT why they work...it's the same rationale for apprentice painters in the Renaissance copying Giotto or Michelangelo...a bunch of them "covered" the same material (an Annunciation painting, for e.g.) but they didn't end up painting the same. Nobody mistakes Bronzino for Michelangelo, if they've spent a little time looking at both of them. It's unlikely you'll end up sounding exactly like someone else--at least if you're conscious of the danger, but as Jimmy Raney pointed out you first have to be able to play... and mimicry can be the precursor to mastery.

Another way out of the "aversion to licks" dilemma: Analyze lick variations, and figure out--- do they still work?...maybe they work better, or not at all. (Jerry Coker said take a lick, make it minor, major and dominant, and start it on the root, 3rd and 5th, and you now have 108 licks: 12 keys times 3 times 3): Well, sometimes this doesn't work so well....why not?

... Or take contrafacts, I like the head of "Ornithology" better than "How High the Moon" and its interesting to see how C Parker changed it...some like "Koko" better than "Cherokee"....or take a different version of the same tune, and see how it is treated differently.

(I wonder what Monk listened to...in his formative years...clearly he has an advanced notion/understanding of harmony...I'd read that he played mean stride piano, and also gospel church stuff ....maybe a strong style, will teach one about style itself...even if one goes in an opposite direction, as Monk did.)

**MarkRhodes** · 07-31-2015, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by JensL

I write my own music too. I consider it jazz (I am quite sure some people don't, but nevermind that..)
I don't understand what you are trying to say? that it is impossible to write a jazz song because jazz already exists? It's also odd to not have a definition of jazz and yet your own songs are not jazz

There is nothing wrong with checking out licks as a part of your practice, and there are lot's of things you can learn from them, but that does not mean that you have to play them in your solos or that a certain amount of them have to be present in a solo for it to be jazz.

All the guys we love from the 50's and 60's were the ones that came up with new stuff, not the carbon copies (or maybe that's just me).

Jens

Oh, no, I don't mean that you (or anyone else) cannot write a jazz song because jazz already exists. I just don't write jazz tunes. (Well, a blues head or a rhythm changes head, maybe.) I think the point I wanted to make is that I'm not at all interested in expressing "me" when I play jazz; I just want to play jazzy things I enjoy playing. I don't think it's about me at all, frankly. It's about playing the music I love as best I can.

As for new stuff that was come up with by guys in the '50s and '60s, I'm not sure what that means. When I think of Herb Ellis and Joe Pass, for example, I don't think of them as being original or new but as being great. (I appreciate the staples of that era: diminished chords as subs for dominant ones, lost of b5 subs, moving lines up in minor thirds to go from, say, C Major to C minor 7, and also moving lines up in minor thirds to cover a ii-V-I progression, and of course, a deep well of ii-V and turnaround lines. Not that they invented these things either, but they solidified what David Baker called 'common practice.')

**MarkRhodes** · 07-31-2015, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by goldenwave77

But a good lick or phrase is one that works... To me, one sign of C. Parker's greatness is his memorable phrases ....the first phrase of "Scrapple From the Apple" or "Parker's Mood" (the descending bluesy part)...As Jordanklemons noted, take these phrases apart and FIGURE OUT why they work...it's the same rationale for apprentice painters in the Renaissance copying Giotto or Michelangelo...a bunch of them "covered" the same material (an Annunciation painting, for e.g.) but they didn't end up painting the same. Nobody mistakes Bronzino for Michelangelo, if they've spent a little time looking at both of them. It's unlikely you'll end up sounding exactly like someone else--at least if you're conscious of the danger, but as Jimmy Raney pointed out you first have to be able to play... and mimicry can be the precursor to mastery.

Well said! I like all that, especially the reference to painting and serving an apprenticeship.

**JensL** · 07-31-2015, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by MarkRhodes

As for new stuff that was come up with by guys in the '50s and '60s, I'm not sure what that means. When I think of Herb Ellis and Joe Pass, for example, I don't think of them as being original or new but as being great. (

I meant Joe Henderson, Bill Evans, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Wayne Shorter, Ahmad Jamal etc.

I was indeed not really referring to Joe Pass or Herb Ellis.

Jens

**MarkRhodes** · 07-31-2015, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

I've decided I hate the "jazz is language" analogy and i vow to never use it again.

I'm no fan of it either, except when Mike (destinytot) uses it, and that because he's a linguist and uses it with insight and nuance.

Nevertheless, it's a common expression and can be understood well enough for casual conversation, especially in a Forum with members from many nations for whom English is a second (or third) language. As the saying goes. "all analogies limp." But when used normally, I don't think this one confuses anyone.

destinytot · 07-31-2015, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

I've decided I hate the "jazz is language" analogy and i vow to never use it again.

I'm glad to read that. 'Jazz' isn't language, though I'd argue that music is.

But I don't intend to proselytise that view.

Actually, I don't approve of functional grammar and syntax metaphors for music, but I do find some parallels to be not only useful but inevitable - for example, terms such as 'phrase' and 'articulation', or qualities such as 'coherence' and 'cohesion'.

But, being (mostly) self-taught, I'm bound to. We used two languages in my childhood home (excluding non-standard English) for basic interpersonal communication, and today my family use three for that purpose at home. (I use further languages in academic, professional contexts - and for pleasure.) There's a lot to be learned from multilingualism (and from raising a trilingual child), 'ears' being the least of it.

I really like how you manage not to be at all dismissive of anyone's viewpoint - now, that's 'jazz'.

destinytot · 07-31-2015, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by MarkRhodes

I'm no fan of it either, except when Mike (destinytot) uses it, and that because he's a linguist and uses it with insight and nuance.

Nevertheless, it's a common expression and can be understood well enough for casual conversation, especially in a Forum with members from many nations for whom English is a second (or third) language. As the saying goes. "all analogies limp." But when used normally, I don't think this one confuses anyone.

That is an extremely kind comment and I'm moved by it. Thank you, Mark. None of us live on this forum (though I'm spending as much time as I need to - by agreement - while I have the opportunity), and such kindnesses matter - but who am I telling.

**Stevebol** · 07-31-2015, 03:20 PM

How bout a 'Words We Don't Like' thread.

'Funk'. I don't like that word.

**MarkRhodes** · 07-31-2015, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Stevebol

How bout a 'Words We Don't Like' thread.

'Funk'. I don't like that word.

That could work, the thread idea, I mean. Why not start it? "Terms I Never Want To Hear Again" or whatever. (I would caution against 'Words We Don't Like' because, to take your example, you don't like the word 'funk' but I'm fine with it. Some other word you and I both dislike might be loved by another member. And so on.)

**mrcee** · 07-31-2015, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by goldenwave77

The best def'n. I've ever heard of a cliché, is that it is an originally evocative phrase (or metaphor) that has been so overused/outdated/superseded... it no longer succeeds in calling up the original image/metaphor. Or, the original reference is no longer common parlance: I read through the Bible once, both Old and New Testament, but I don't remember Jehosophat jumping, so the expression "Jumpin' Jehosophat" doesn't mean anything to me. Or something can be so overused, that its original meaning is lost...when everyone says everything/everyone is "chill"---that expression is no longer "chill"...its just empty words.

But a good lick or phrase is one that works... To me, one sign of C. Parker's greatness is his memorable phrases ....the first phrase of "Scrapple From the Apple" or "Parker's Mood" (the descending bluesy part)...As Jordanklemons noted, take these phrases apart and FIGURE OUT why they work...it's the same rationale for apprentice painters in the Renaissance copying Giotto or Michelangelo...a bunch of them "covered" the same material (an Annunciation painting, for e.g.) but they didn't end up painting the same. Nobody mistakes Bronzino for Michelangelo, if they've spent a little time looking at both of them. It's unlikely you'll end up sounding exactly like someone else--at least if you're conscious of the danger, but as Jimmy Raney pointed out you first have to be able to play... and mimicry can be the precursor to mastery.

Another way out of the "aversion to licks" dilemma: Analyze lick variations, and figure out--- do they still work?...maybe they work better, or not at all. (Jerry Coker said take a lick, make it minor, major and dominant, and start it on the root, 3rd and 5th, and you now have 108 licks: 12 keys times 3 times 3): Well, sometimes this doesn't work so well....why not?

... Or take contrafacts, I like the head of "Ornithology" better than "How High the Moon" and its interesting to see how C Parker changed it...some like "Koko" better than "Cherokee"....or take a different version of the same tune, and see how it is treated differently.

(I wonder what Monk listened to...in his formative years...clearly he has an advanced notion/understanding of harmony...I'd read that he played mean stride piano, and also gospel church stuff ....maybe a strong style, will teach one about style itself...even if one goes in an opposite direction, as Monk did.)

On the subject of cliches, aren't such chord progressions as ii V I s, Rhythm Changes (the Sears Roebuck Bridge alone),
the Montgomery Wards bridge, the I IV RnB vamp, the 12 bar blues and any number of montunos, turnarounds and stock AABA and other progressions, cliches? The Jimmy Nolen 9th chord scratch. Bo Diddley's Shave and a Haircut beat. Blowing free over a Am7 funk groove. Just for starters. Cliches aren't confined to single note lines, licks and melodies. Even little me, sometimes when I'm comping a standard in whatever genre of music, I'll roll my eyes and think "you've got to be kidding". This stuff is flippin' Corny! But I guess that's what's motivated jazz musicians forever. Trying to make something fresh out of stereotypical melodic and harmonic concepts.
I believe that many if not virtually all people listening to music that's outside of their normal zone hear or at least process it mentally in cliche form. These cliches are part of the collective consciousness, sub or un. The typical westerner listening to Hindustani classical music is going to hear and remember the buzzing and maybe some microtonal stereotypes. Someone from way outside the culture might hear Bluegrass as the squawking of a bunch of hillbillies, and just hear it all as Turkey in the Straw. I've heard intelligent people, who weren't jazz fans, describe jazz in very prejudicial and narrow minded ways. West End Blues sounds like Salt Peanuts to them. I played Charlie Christian at Minton's for a guy that was a fan of music from the African Diaspora and he thought it was Dixieland. He could only hear and think in terms of cliches.

**Stevebol** · 07-31-2015, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by MarkRhodes

That could work, the thread idea, I mean. Why not start it? "Terms I Never Want To Hear Again" or whatever. (I would caution against 'Words We Don't Like' because, to take your example, you don't like the word 'funk' but I'm fine with it. Some other word you and I both dislike might be loved by another member. And so on.)

I'll call it 'Word's You Don't Like'.

**goldenwave77** · 07-31-2015, 08:54 PM

[QUOTE=mrcee;554357]On the subject of cliches, aren't such chord progressions as ii V I s, Rhythm Changes (the Sears Roebuck Bridge alone),
the Montgomery Wards bridge, the I IV RnB vamp, the 12 bar blues and any number of montunos, turnarounds and stock AABA and other progressions, cliches? The Jimmy Nolen 9th chord scratch. Bo Diddley's Shave and a Haircut beat. Blowing free over a Am7 funk groove. Just for starters. Cliches aren't confined to single note lines, licks and melodies. Even little me, sometimes when I'm comping a standard in whatever genre of music, I'll roll my eyes and think "you've got to be kidding". This stuff is flippin' Corny! But I guess that's what's motivated jazz musicians forever. Trying to make something fresh out of stereotypical melodic and harmonic concepts.

It's entirely possible for any set of conventions to sound stale, or trite. (Not that I'm telling you anything...as your post implies.) I guess then it's up to the artist/performer to find something new to puzzle through. Melville wrote South Sea adventure stories that were best sellers--and then got tired of them...and wrote Moby Dick and Billy Budd which were ignored. 150 yrs. later his "weird" later stuff is what people read, not Omoo or Typee.

I remember reading a quote by Pat Martino where he said something like...as a young man, "straight" harmony sounded more and more unpleasant to him...and unconventional (out) stuff sounding weird, initially, but then started sounding more consonant.

Maybe if they do a remake of "Wayne's World", there'll be a scene taking place in a fine jazz guitar shoppe with expensive archtops and a sign on the wall that says "NO Autumn Leaves!" or maybe a poster of Clint Eastwood with a 357 Magnum pointed at you, saying "Feeling lucky...go ahead...make my day...and you'll be playing 'All The Things You Aren't'." (Well, Clint E. is a jazz fan, and plays himself, so maybe not.)

**Lazz** · 07-31-2015, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by pamosmusic

along came David Baker to turn coltranes language into a series of digital patterns and "matrices" ... A touch ironic

I don't get that irony.

For me, as for David Baker, it is demonstration only of the simple truth that theory is retrospective.
I mean, no-one can convince me that Joe Henderson or Herbie or whoever were consciously articulating any a priori guiding notions about fourths or dissonance in pentatonic patterns when they were just chasing the melody of their mind's ear. But I sure appreciate an ex post facto analyst who can provide me with a way of making sense of what they do that I can apply beneficially to my own humble and pathetic essays.

**mrcee** · 07-31-2015, 10:15 PM

Theory is descriptive not prescriptive.

**mrcee** · 07-31-2015, 10:27 PM

[QUOTE=goldenwave77;554418]

Originally Posted by mrcee

On the subject of cliches, aren't such chord progressions as ii V I s, Rhythm Changes (the Sears Roebuck Bridge alone),
the Montgomery Wards bridge, the I IV RnB vamp, the 12 bar blues and any number of montunos, turnarounds and stock AABA and other progressions, cliches? The Jimmy Nolen 9th chord scratch. Bo Diddley's Shave and a Haircut beat. Blowing free over a Am7 funk groove. Just for starters. Cliches aren't confined to single note lines, licks and melodies. Even little me, sometimes when I'm comping a standard in whatever genre of music, I'll roll my eyes and think "you've got to be kidding". This stuff is flippin' Corny! But I guess that's what's motivated jazz musicians forever. Trying to make something fresh out of stereotypical melodic and harmonic concepts.

It's entirely possible for any set of conventions to sound stale, or trite. (Not that I'm telling you anything...as your post implies.) I guess then it's up to the artist/performer to find something new to puzzle through. Melville wrote South Sea adventure stories that were best sellers--and then got tired of them...and wrote Moby Dick and Billy Budd which were ignored. 150 yrs. later his "weird" later stuff is what people read, not Omoo or Typee.

I remember reading a quote by Pat Martino where he said something like...as a young man, "straight" harmony sounded more and more unpleasant to him...and unconventional (out) stuff sounding weird, initially, but then started sounding more consonant.

Maybe if they do a remake of "Wayne's World", there'll be a scene taking place in a fine jazz guitar shoppe with expensive archtops and a sign on the wall that says "NO Autumn Leaves!" or maybe a poster of Clint Eastwood with a 357 Magnum pointed at you, saying "Feeling lucky...go ahead...make my day...and you'll be playing 'All The Things You Aren't'." (Well, Clint E. is a jazz fan, and plays himself, so maybe not.)

Read Melville's The Confidence Man (his masquerade) or at least google it. It's been called the "parting shots of a jaded misanthrope." A must read for the contemporary hipster. You've gotta love lines like "Many a speculator has mistaken the spectrum on a bubble ready to burst for a rainbow leading to a pot of gold." There's at least one cliche in there, the rainbow leading to the pot of gold, but it in no way ruins the eloquence of the sentence.

**Irez87** · 07-31-2015, 10:35 PM

[QUOTE=mrcee;554444]

Originally Posted by goldenwave77

Read Melville's The Confidence Man (his masquerade) or at least google it. It's been called the "parting shots of a jaded misanthrope." A must read for the contemporary hipster. You've gotta love lines like "Many a speculator has mistaken the spectrum on a bubble ready to burst for a rainbow leading to a pot of gold." There's at least one cliche in there, the rainbow leading to the pot of gold, but it in no way ruins the eloquence of the sentence.

I love that book! Read it in college, studying my English literature (I teach high school English, or I used to. Now it's SPED math).

We should start a thread on authors who have a musical lilt to their prose. I wrote a paper comparing Hart Crane, Walt Whitman, and Allan Ginsberg to Pendericki, Stravinsky, and Brian Eno. I could go on and on about Ralph Ellison, my favorite author! He played jazz trumpet, ya know?

**Lazz** · 08-01-2015, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by Irez87

authors who have a musical lilt to their prose

Nelson Algren.
Oh yeah!

**MarkRhodes** · 08-01-2015, 03:50 PM

[QUOTE=mrcee;554444]

Originally Posted by goldenwave77

Read Melville's The Confidence Man (his masquerade) or at least google it. It's been called the "parting shots of a jaded misanthrope." A must read for the contemporary hipster. You've gotta love lines like "Many a speculator has mistaken the spectrum on a bubble ready to burst for a rainbow leading to a pot of gold." There's at least one cliche in there, the rainbow leading to the pot of gold, but it in no way ruins the eloquence of the sentence.

I remember reading Melville while young. It took me the longest time to finish "Moby Dick" because I kept putting down the book to marvel over passages. I just put in a request for "The Confidence Man" at my library; I haven't read that one yet.

destinytot · 08-01-2015, 04:00 PM

[QUOTE=mrcee;554444]

Originally Posted by goldenwave77

Read Melville's The Confidence Man .

On my list - thanks!

**mrcee** · 08-01-2015, 05:19 PM

[QUOTE=MarkRhodes;554696]

Originally Posted by mrcee

I remember reading Melville while young. It took me the longest time to finish "Moby Dick" because I kept putting down the book to marvel over passages. I just put in a request for "The Confidence Man" at my library; I haven't read that one yet.

You'll love it. And should be marveling over many passages. I haven't read much Melville but with this one you can savor one phrase for several moments. It's been called The Handbook of the American Problem. At least we Yanks have a handbook. The human race in general needs one IM(very humble)O. Give us a review when you can.