-
Useful? Or essential? ? ...
Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
-
12-15-2019 12:28 PM
-
Originally Posted by paul.trapanese
Concur.
-
Essential? I think we're in the margins now. Originally Posted by princeplanet
Taste - sure, but that's very, very, subjective.
Originality - Many great players "kept it between the lines" so to speak and weren't trend setters so much as they were "keepers of the flame". On the other hand we're talking about improv, so originality? Sure, goes without saying.
Responding to others on the stand. Again, sure - but - there have been many strong lead players who would expect that everyone else's job was to respond to them. Not very democratic perhaps, but they didn't ask us.
-
It's no small point, many Jazz players have strong opinions about this very question. If we go back to Stitt vs Rollins in Oleo, in the red corner we have tradition, memory, technique and the ability to chain lines artfully - up against the southpaw challenger, relying more on originality, unpredictability, spontaneity and the ability to weave newly minted motifs while spinning variations on the spot. Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
Which we prefer is of course down to our own taste. FWIW, personally I preferred 50's Rollins to 50's Stitt, but curiously Stitt over Rollins by the time the 70's rolled around ...
-
12-15-2019, 02:32 PM #105joelf GuestNot in all cases. Believe it or not, certain self-appointed 'hip' jazzers were actually going around saying Rollins was 'awkward'. What a laugh! Of course, not one of those guys left anything of musical substance behind to say they were anything but jealous fat-mouthers. Today they'd thrive as Web trolls. Originally Posted by princeplanet
Interestingly, in that battle of the Sonnys (Oleo), I found that jazz players preferred Rollins, discerning casual listeners preferred Stitt, and the non discerning listeners couldn't tell the difference!
(Yup, I really did run this " listening test" a while back
) ...
There oughtta be a law...
-
12-15-2019, 03:14 PM #106joelf GuestIn my years (first gig at 14 in '68---with my cool paisley gold Nehru jacket at a local temple for $7!) I've learned that 'casual' listeners hear way more than players credit them for. I've been corrected, 'gotten', many more things by strangers listening. Was a street player from '80 on, and still go out there as needed---no BS. They may not know the nomenclature---but that in itself gives them an unencumbered perspective. They know the original solos! They know when a band is deviating. Originally Posted by princeplanet
But the casual listener doesn't always care if a solo is composed or not. Even in Rock, I always got the impression than fans of bands that featured guitar solos didn't care if the solo was pre composed, and sometimes complained if the live improvisation was unlike the recorded version!
Do you guys remember Larry Lucie? He was a guitarist/banjoist for Lady Day and other stars going back to the '20s. Interviewed by Phil Schaap, he said (I was listening) he didn't like it when a soloist deviated from the recorded solo. Audiences were very picky, even with Basie's 'New Testament' band: Thad Jones had to play that April in Paris Pop Goes the Weasel solo ad infinitum.
And so what? That's entertainment...
-
12-15-2019, 03:21 PM #107joelf GuestNot me. I love Alfie, East Broadway Run Down, Out Man in Jazz, On Impulse, Sonny Rollins's Next Album---on and on up until ill health forced his retirement---a sad day for all us fans. Originally Posted by princeplanet
I also feel Rollins was one of the truly great 'out' players. He studied it, he mastered it. The difference between him IMO and someone like Ornette (who was great at what he did) is that he not only didn't go around tradition, he worked his ass off to own it. Just a master, period.
Gotta give it up for Mr. Stitt, though. Badass himself---just of a different ilk...
-
I are. Originally Posted by emanresu
I'm not a brain scientist but luckily probably no one here is
Well, I'm a psychologist. It's almost like a science!
Some of it is "hippie science," but some of it is along the track of the "parallel distributed processing model" (also called "connectionism") of the brain.Memory in the brain.. say we have a billion cells of memory in the brain (there is more of course but whatever). I believe that would mean we have 1 billion multicore processors instead. The memory cells are like CPUs themselves. That's far from a science but think about it: in the morning, when we get rapid flood of "things to do" - this has to mean that those memories are fighting for attention. We dont have a central CPU in the brain that calls for a memory. All the memories are ACTIVE, with some "emotional" charge. Well, doesn't have to be even in quotes.
So, if some memory unit has more charge, it can propose itself (and will do so) when there is a need.. when it feels it is needed. And if too much, bubbles up when it is not needed even. If it doesn't have much of that, it would feel like mere suggestion. Therefore, we must pack a say, a C9 chord with all kinds of positive musical emotions and it will jump up whenever such is needed.
Yeah, that's hippie science!
Connectionism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
I think that as research proceeds we are finding that simple neural networks are surprisingly powerful. Bees, for example, with tiny brains of a few thousand neurons can learn to navigate a maze using letters (as shapes rather than as having the abstract meaning of the letter) as cues- something that does not occur in nature for them. Crows, with brains larger than bees but only about a 10,000th the size of ours, show remarkable cognitive agility in problem solving, memory, communication and intergenerational teaching. Octopi can figure out how to open jars to get at food, etc. The human brain has many, many neural sub-networks, some of which are identified with specific areas or structures (amygdala, pons, occipital lobe, Broca's area, motor strip, etc.) and which connect with other areas to send or receive information.
The Human Connectome Project has fascinating, beautiful images of those connections between different areas:
Human Connectome Project |
Mapping the human brain connectivity
A few minutes into this PBS News Hour clip on Mickey Hart, there are some images of his brain while playing music with a EEG cap on, rendering a fascinating image of his brain in real time while playing.
PBS NEWSHOUR - The Science of Mickey Hart - YouTube
-
Hmmm.... 50 years ago some of the jazzbos I hung out with talked about great players having 'Elephant Ears', meaning they could hear things others couldn't and play off that. Much to the chagrin of us mere mortals.
And now we're talking about one of the other great elephant characteristics: the highly regarded memory....
Are they somehow unusually suited to jazz? What other secrets are they hiding? :-)
-
Reorganizing a computer chip: Transistors can now both process and store information
I goes off topic but was so funny how it popped up just after I posted my strange comparison between brains and computers.
-
12-16-2019, 09:53 PM #111joelf GuestAll this is well-written and interesting---BUT it's always the same problem for me on this board: involved nomenclature for things instead of simple, understandable explanations for the rest of us. It happens with music, even though I'm versed in THAT, thank goodness, all the time here: using $5 words to explain things that can be communicated on a bandstand in 30 seconds by playing or singing them. Originally Posted by Cunamara
I are. Well, I'm a psychologist. It's almost like a science!
Some of it is "hippie science," but some of it is along the track of the "parallel distributed processing model" (also called "connectionism") of the brain.
Connectionism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
I think that as research proceeds we are finding that simple neural networks are surprisingly powerful. Bees, for example, with tiny brains of a few thousand neurons can learn to navigate a maze using letters (as shapes rather than as having the abstract meaning of the letter) as cues- something that does not occur in nature for them. Crows, with brains larger than bees but only about a 10,000th the size of ours, show remarkable cognitive agility in problem solving, memory, communication and intergenerational teaching. Octopi can figure out how to open jars to get at food, etc. The human brain has many, many neural sub-networks, some of which are identified with specific areas or structures (amygdala, pons, occipital lobe, Broca's area, motor strip, etc.) and which connect with other areas to send or receive information.
The Human Connectome Project has fascinating, beautiful images of those connections between different areas:
Human Connectome Project |
Mapping the human brain connectivity
A few minutes into this PBS News Hour clip on Mickey Hart, there are some images of his brain while playing music with a EEG cap on, rendering a fascinating image of his brain in real time while playing.
PBS NEWSHOUR - The Science of Mickey Hart - YouTube
No disrespect here, I promise. You're a smart guy like most here. But I for one am neither brain scientist nor psychologist. And I have GREAT respect for the field of psychology. I also lean more toward scientific data explaining the universe than religious 'visions', etc.
But I have no talent or acumen in either. NONE. So would you please indulge me, and---quoting from Denzel Washington's character in Philadelphia---'explain it to me like I was a 4-year-old'?
Thanks in advance (:
-
Are you sure the term wasn't "Ears like Dumbo". At least that was the term I heard from the old timers back in the 1970s (I mean they were old in 1970s or seemed old to me at the time.). Originally Posted by ccroft
Last edited by fep; 12-17-2019 at 10:56 AM.
-
12-16-2019, 11:15 PM #113joelf GuestFWIW, I've heard them both used---by Eddie Diehl and probably others... Originally Posted by fep
-
Yea... I'm just a musician... but I liked a comment back a page or so, I believe in one of Jazzst's post he mentioned Cogitative skills, or a version of... cognition. Which when playing Jazz in a Jazz style... is incredible helpful. That skill..... mental action or process of acquiring Knowledge and understanding ....through Thought and the senses.
Using existing Knowledge and generating new Knowledge.
The more references one can use, (the memorized thing) and then through understanding of what you've memorized and being able to pull and combine... create through, thought and the senses, create new knowledge. That's how and why i always try and use that... Reference(s), relationship(s) and the development(s) approach when playing/composing music.
I know I brought up this approach before. The difference between being on a ride during those, "Being in the Moment" etc... for many players, and being aware of what created those... "Being in the Moments"... and knowing how to create them, and where to take them etc... anyway, I'm always conscious of what's going on and where the music can go, or where it can't go, depending on context, blaw, blaw, blaw, I enjoy listening, trying to be aware of what's going on and what might happen... and checking out how audiences are reacting to live music. (one liner... if your in the moment, your late).
Again... that cogitative approach to playing becomes much easier when one has their Technical Skills, (listed above) and performance technical skills together. So Depending on one's performance approach... memory is just one of those basic skills. Almost Mechanical.
-
Yes, I love that about Sonny Rollins -- he's out, but with phrasing, warmth, dynamics, and articulations that make it almost seem in. Joe Lovano strikes me as another in that mold, Either of them can be playing something that from a pitch-collection/harmony perspective seems almost nowhere near the changes of the tune, yet it always sounds melodic and musical. Originally Posted by joelf
John
-
Yeah, plenty love out there for non 50's Rollins, but he lost something for me from The Bridge onwards. I mean, the guy had already achieved perfection - the 50's albums are stone cold God Head - but when he started chasin' the Trane ... dunno, sounded contrived or something, IMVHO... Originally Posted by John A.
-
So back to the Memory thing, and another way to postulate - So, back in school ,memory was pretty important, if you forgot your lessons and learning, you failed the exams. Now, the most intelligent kids were not always the ones that did the best in tests - just because someone found it easy to remember things, it didn't make them necessarily intelligent or creative. Some kids could remember entire plots from films they hadn't seen in years, in obsessive details, yet were a bit dim in several respects (remember those kids?)...
So I don't see a correlation between memory and intelligence or talent, however, you obviously need a reasonable memory to get good grades, and to play an instrument where your goal is to play lots of tunes. But I think you can be highly talented, creative and even intelligent with an average, or perhaps even a below average memory. I think you can be a great "in the moment" improvisor if memory isn't your strong point, just as I think you can be a great improvisor if memory is your strong point., albeit in a different way...
When I taught guitar years ago, I noticed some kids had less difficulty remembering their lessons and seemed to progress faster than those that needed more reinforcement. Some advanced faster than those who even practiced a lot more. I was tempted to conclude that the better performing kids were more musically gifted, but I also noticed in many instances that some of the slower learners were far more original composers and /or improvisors. The kids with good memories got proficient quickly, but did not always progress to be wonderful or special in any way. If I recognised that a student was not one to memorise things easily, I tried to encourage the development of different skills.
Now, 2 of these students knew each other and went to the same school, one was a flashy fast learner, the other a pensive struggler. The latter once admitted to me that he wished he was as good as his friend, who was getting all the attention, but I remember confiding to him that he was already the superior musician in that he was really hearing and feeling what he was playing, and that years of developing those skills will put him miles ahead of those that peaked early...
Of course, a prodigious memory and prodigious talent can be a lethal combo, but (especially in these time challenged times) I sense that players are less inclined to develop their musicianship if they can feign the semblance of it via their ability to memorise songs, grips, scales, arps, licks etc...
When I hear young Jazz players fresh outta Jazz school, I wonder if I'm hearing the players that were the best at remembering the mountain of material the years of college challenged them with, instead of the players that might have had something unique to say, but dropped out because they couldn't keep up.
I get why society rewards those with strong memories, but learning to be an artist should be different than learning to be an accountant...
-
Psychologists give memory tests for a variety of reasons. Some people score higher than others and it's a bell curve.
Based on my experience, recalling, for example, my friends who are trying to memorize a show -- with the bassist doing better than the composer of the tunes -- this bell curve almost certainly applies to music.
And, I can't see it as anything but an advantage to have a better memory.
That said, the ability is intertwined (confounded is the technical term) with other abilities.
For example, I think that people who know a lot of tunes actually memorize them the same way a non-musician does. You hear it a few times and then you can hum it. The difference is, I think, that the NYC wedding musicians of yore could instantly reconstruct the harmony on the fly from that kind of memory, for any tune they could hum, in any key. Not everybody can do that. But, it appears to be trainable, at least to some degree. What they're memorizing is the melody and then the feeling or sound of the harmony. They are not, I don't think, memorizing the kind of bandstand shorthand used when one musician has to brief another on changes on a song he doesn't know.
-
"What separates the great improvisors from the rest of us?" princeplanet
Talent!
Good playing . . . Marinero
Last edited by Marinero; 12-17-2019 at 03:32 PM. Reason: spacing
-
By "talent" do you mean innate abilities passed on from one's ancestors? Originally Posted by Marinero
For musicians what would those abilities be? E.g. Perfect pitch?
-
That's the tricky thing with that word. Almost anything can be ascribed to "talent". Originally Posted by jameslovestal
So, for music or musicianship:
- Perfect pitch,
- Good ear,
- Good rhythm skills,
- Great reflexes/speed (physical talent),
- Creativity/spontaneity
- Prolific output
-
Originally Posted by jameslovestal
Hi, James,
Genetics is a prime consideration as witnessed by generations of scientific studies and the long, recorded history of musical families. However, even when there appears to be no genetic connection for, say, two generations, it is likely to have been a recessive gene in the maternal/paternal lineage that became dominant in successive generations. This is basic science for the study of genetics. However, let's bring it down to the language most of us speak. Talent, in my opinion, is the ability of a human being to use his/her 5 senses to interpret the human condition/knowledge/physicality to a high degree that is not accessible to the general population. We see it in the musical magic of Beethoven, the theoretical physics of Einstein, the moving psychological portraits of Vermeer, the profound understanding of human nature in the stories of Joseph Conrad and even the physical mastery of hand, body and eye of Michael Jordan in shooting a ball through a hoop. Talent is what most of us DO NOT have but rather highly honed skills and abilities accumulated over a lifetime. I don't mean to diminish these learned skills but ,rather, to portend they, in themselves, do not define talent. Good playing . . . Marinero
If my words have failed, here's an example from our world.
-
Originally Posted by Marinero
Boy, I really have to disagree with that. I think genius is what you are referring to.
I believe that most all of us possess talents, and also possess weaknesses.
-
So you're implying that, for example, if Doug Raney had been separated at birth from his father (i.e. raised in a household with a different 'dad', where Doug had NO contact with Jimmy Raney), Doug would have the same "talents" since these were passed on to him from Jimmy, verses picked up by being raised in an environment that included a first-rate musician. Originally Posted by Jazzstdnt
Note: I understand the answer to this question isn't binary; so the better question is what percentage is passed-on and what is learned. I don't think mankind can ever know the answer even with the genetics studies mentioned and that percentage has a lot of variance on a per individual basis.
-
actually!! doug was estranged from his dad jimmy!!! and did not get much guitar instruction thru his dad..other than osmosis..eddie diehl was a huge influence on dougs playing...doug and jimmy didn't reconnect until much later..tho they remained extremely simpatico in style...was just pointing out in recent thread that on jimmys last release while alive- but beautiful- (rec 1990)...he sounds more modern... like doug!! Originally Posted by jameslovestal
so by your particular example, you have inadvertently proved the theory ^ correct!
haha
cheersLast edited by neatomic; 12-18-2019 at 10:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
Playing live and getting the best sound from the...
Yesterday, 02:08 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos