-
Couldn't disagree more on that, but I think we may be arguing perspectives... HOW to look at it, because as you'll see... I agree with everything else in your post!
Originally Posted by christianm77
I've never said to not learn other's music, or certainly the basics/mechanics. But without being original, music at large would be very boring and pedestrian indeed. And I don't think being original is a burden.... I think it CAN be, if you overthink it... if you TRY to be original... instead of just letting what will be, be. If everyone could get out of their own way (ego), and just play, they would BE original, because it would be impossible NOT to be, because there is only ONE of them in the entire world.
Agree with all that! Originally Posted by christianm77
-
02-22-2020 01:37 PM
-
It really is just that simple. But the ego, expectations of others, and "norms" must be left at the door. Originally Posted by ragman1
I wish we could get away from this idea of trying to be like somebody else. We'll never be like somebody else and, even we did, we'll only ever be a poor imitation so what's the point?
This doesn't mean we ignore what others have done, though. Stealing's fine but only when it corresponds with one's own feeling. Staying true to one's own feeling is the quickest way to finding one's own voice.
-
Also - define original.
-
Maybe it all come down to how people learn?
“I don’t know what’s the matter with people:
they don’t learn by understanding;
they learn by some other way – by rote or something.
Their knowledge is so fragile!”
R. Feynman
-
Quite - repeating isn't the same as learning.
-
To me, original means "not done before". It could be a song, a lick, a poem... as I said about Jim Campilongo, there are things in his playing that I have never heard anyone else play- and I listen to many of the players that influenced him... he learned, copied, but then explored until he broke new ground. Originally Posted by ragman1
Also, original does not automatically = good. I could probably come up with something (a lick, a noise, etc) no one has done before, and while that would make it original, it doesn't necessarily mean it's musical. Of course, liking or not liking something is subjective/opinion. So perhaps the term "musical" is better than "good." I'm sure many people think Vai is nothing but noise tomfoolery and wankery... but there's no denying that he's original.
-
what I’m arguing is we get effects and causes, the destination and the road, confused. Originally Posted by ruger9
of course originality, or perhaps less dauntingly phrased, individuality is a highly desirable end goal. However, I don’t think being aware of it as a goal actually helps. At all.
which is difficult because I am aware of it and desire to be it very much.
-
I thought Bruce Formans point was interesting. Basically it was a lot harder to get things right in the days of vinyl, let alone 78s.... so people made mistakes that contributed to their original take.
so maybe with software like Transcribe we have squeezed out that natural evolution, the mutations in the musical DNA.
what are we left with? I think eclecticism is where it is at now. And perhaps a less obsessive desire to get it exactly right; as horrifying as that is to many people! Culture has become a tribute to itself.
and I’m aware that might seem like I’m contradicting myself. So much of this depends on where a budding musician is in their journey. Some things are appropriate for the beginner, others for the intermediate and so on.
-
Sounds about right Originally Posted by ruger9
-
I'll venture another comment on this subject, although I'm not certain about it.
It seems to me that there is more than one way to approach playing something at least vaguely recognizable as jazz.
It seems to me that some players are more "lick-based" than others. Some seem more theory-based - and I can almost hear the click when a scale plugs into a chord.
Other players strike me as more rooted in melody -- the sort of thing that happens when you scat sing. At least, when I scat sing a solo, I'm a lot less likely to produce a melody that lays well on the instrument, or a lick I've heard/played before, or a manifestation of a theoretical device. I think of the scatting as more purely "melody" - and that's my goal when I play.
The result, at least in my hands, does not sound to me like classic jazz guitar. Not enough notes, not enough jazz vocabulary, not enough variation in sounds, etc. I've wished I could do that for years, but I've given up. But, on a good night, I think the scatting based approach produces better melody and more feeling.
Occasionally, I've been surprised when something that sounds like pure melody is explained by the player as conforming to a theoretical device, usually a specific scale, not that they are mutually exclusive. I'm aware that these are not discrete categories, but, rather, amorphous trends.
-
I can go with "individuality"... because that's exactly the same thing, since there is only one of each of us, it can't help but be "original". Same point. Originally Posted by christianm77
Still think I disagree with the striving for (I think one should, at some point at least)... but again- it does not have to be a hurdle. We're getting into Taoism now, LOL.... people who try to be happy aren't happy, happy people JUST ARE.
When an archer is shooting for fun
He has all his skill.
If he shoots for a brass buckle
He is already nervous.
If he shoots for a prize of gold
He goes blind
Or sees two targets –
He is out of his mind.
His skill has not changed,
But the prize divides him.
He cares.
He thinks more of winning
Than of shooting –
And the need to win
Drains him of power.
-Chuang Tzu
(the point being, you have to learn how to shoot for the joy of it, even if in competition... be true to yourself. Lose ego.)
Life is a school,
where you learn
how to remember
what your soul
already knows.
-
Hmmm, if I had to answer rag's question I'd have to say in music it often boils down to a sound and a feel. I'd recognise either of those players from one note. And sure they have their own licks etc, but I think that's the really deep element. Originally Posted by ruger9
Originality is a problematic concept for me because - it's extremely subjective based on what music you are familiar with. Someone might seem completely unprecedented and left field simply because they have imported something from another style of music into a genre unfamiliar with those aspects. You might think Satriani was a blazing original if you'd mostly paid attention to heavy rock and blues rock players up to that point, for instance, but if you know your mid 70's Holdsworth with Tony Williams - you can instantly hear where the style and sound came from. He tells you that himself - check out his interviews with Jude Gold.
Satch isn't a rip off of course - he adds his own special sauce to the mix, and brings it into the pop/rock sphere in a way that Allan simply wouldn't have in a million years, plus Joe does indeed have his own sound.
Vai? His basic lead style - Beck, Holdsworth, EVH and Zappa gets you right in the ballpark. That's his own special combination, but it's clear where he's coming from. Also the physicality of the way people play... Often what people think of as originality or individuality is a certain combination of influences.
(Now Holdsworth has more claim to originality than either, but he was borrowing from diverse influences again - classical, jazz sax players, violin (which he played) and on guitar players like Jimmy Raney who had already pointed jazz guitar in a more hornlike, legato direction.)
Campilongo too, had his forebears in Western swing and Country/Jazz fusions that go back a long way. And a hefty helping of Roy Buchanan. At least that's what he says.
One of my favourites, Peter Bernstein told me a lot of his chord stuff comes straight out of Monk. No-one else does that stuff on guitar much, so it sounds original to me.
EVH's tapping thing seems wildly original until you realise that Steve Hackett was doing it 5 years before. Did EVH listen to him? Maybe not... Either way, that's an interesting physical idea that occurred in isolation to more than one person. Eddie himself, like Bernstein was inspired by piano - in this case Debussy and Bach. Hackett too, as I understand. They found the same solution to playing rapid, single note arpeggios.
So yada yada, anyway I'm sure you aren't arguing the opposite, but it's always worth bearing in mind, every one of these very individual and unmistakeable players has spent a lot of time checking shit out, not necessarily just their own instrument or genre. We know Vai listens to all sorts of stuff, Campilongo too, Charlie Hunter makes a point of talking about how eclectic Satriani's tastes were.
That's really important. Originality in music, if we must use that term, doesn't emerge in vacuo. So that's what I'm talking about. I don't think when Vai sat down with his first Holdsworth or Jeff Back LP and tried to work out what the hell was going on, that he was concerned with being original. I think he just loved the sounds and wanted to work out how to make them.
I don't think you can begin with the destination in mind (there is no destination anyway). So that's my takeaway as a teacher and learner. I think as a teacher - encourage diverse interests, make suggestions, turn people on to shit, but don't get ahead of yourself. As a student or teacher... creativity emerges if it's left to do so. You can't force it out...
Another way of framing it is - how would anyone know if something was original if they didn't have other stuff to compare it to? I mean originality can't be completely random or it's just - random. It has to be a take on something that already exists. Even Derek Bailey... (to some extent)
The other problem I have with it is the myth of the lone genius. Everyone operates in a community. Einstein, no less than any musician. If you study relativity for instance - it's full of the names other mathematicians and scientists - Ricci, Schwarzchild, Riemann, Minkowski and so on. All of them are important to the modern formulation of the theory, and while no one disputes Einstein's genius, he was also a celebrity. He's the guy people have heard of. No-one gives a shit about James Clerk Maxwell lol.
Environment is important too. Everyone of the musicians I listed developed in a rich musical environment.
-
In terms of the brass tacks of teaching jazz, the same thing is true, you have to start with the music. Like if you were teaching rock.
I think it should be a priority of the teacher to prepare the student to make good sounding, professional musical statements in the genre that someone would pay to hear. They don't have to be improvised. They don't have to be the student's own invention, though that's fine if they sound good. That will come naturally anyway as they learn how to play more and more stuff. Think Wes Montgomery.
That's the buy in - to the real learning experience, which is the community of practice. The bandstand.
To some people that might be heretical, but at the moment from my experience students are being failed in this regard by educators, because they imagine it is possible to teach improvisation, while it is actually only possible to learn it, and it is best learned - in the wild. On the bandstand, from the records and from experienced musicians.
That's the start. Later, there are other phases. But you can't jump them.
-
I could talk about the Zen gardens of Kyoto and how the arrangement of rocks show you that perfection is unattainable, but who am I kidding? It's all Yoda and the Matrix down this end. Originally Posted by ruger9
I think striving to be original is a self defeating exercise of ego. And yet, I still grapple with it. Good quotes anyway.
-
It's possible to be a lick player and not get past this phase, but I think it's also important to be a lick player at some point. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
The secret is most people make their chunks too big, which makes them easier to identify. Trade secret - never learn a lick longer that about 7 notes. Then you can secret them about your playing and no-one will be any the wiser. (At least that's what Scott Henderson says, and hey he's a pretty origi... I mean individual player.)
Oh god I know that, it is the most boring thing. Sometimes I hear myself do it. Argh it's painful. I blame the teachers.Some seem more theory-based - and I can almost hear the click when a scale plugs into a chord.
Maybe you are, I dunno, an individual and unusual player? Classic jazz guitar has been done anyway. It's nice to do it again, but there's no necessity.Other players strike me as more rooted in melody -- the sort of thing that happens when you scat sing. At least, when I scat sing a solo, I'm a lot less likely to produce a melody that lays well on the instrument, or a lick I've heard/played before, or a manifestation of a theoretical device. I think of the scatting as more purely "melody" - and that's my goal when I play.
The result, at least in my hands, does not sound to me like classic jazz guitar.
OTOH maybe you need to get deeper into the music and learn more about it. Well actually, that's always true for everybody. It's just really good players don't need to be told this because it's their favourite thing.
Well I used to be a 'hear everything' fundamentalist. I think it's a phase it's good to go through, locks everything down, cuts through the noodly noodly guitarist finger wiggle bullshit, gives your playing more intention and honesty. After a while, it's fun to adopt a more playful and experimental approach.Not enough notes, not enough jazz vocabulary, not enough variation in sounds, etc. I've wished I could do that for years, but I've given up. But, on a good night, I think the scatting based approach produces better melody and more feeling.
Occasionally, I've been surprised when something that sounds like pure melody is explained by the player as conforming to a theoretical device, usually a specific scale, not that they are mutually exclusive. I'm aware that these are not discrete categories, but, rather, amorphous trends.
-
Another perspective is to think about this from the point of view of the composer.
I doubt that composers of great melodies were thinking about licks or theory.
It seems to me that, if, hypothetically, you were presented with a certain set of changes and played the melody to ATTYA (in an alternate universe where that tune hadn't been written), that would be an excellent solo.
In this view, you generate melody from an unconscious internal process.
If the melodies you generate get stale, you can work on training your ear to hear more sophisticated things. Traditionally, this is done from listening and lifting, but can also be done, at least by some players, via theoretical constructs.
A player I've seen up close and personal for hours (and who made the cover of GP), who is an absolute encyclopedia of jazz guitar, is impressive in technique and vocabulary, but, to my ear (and I'm probably in a minority), melodically less interesting because, I think, of a lack of feeling. Nothing is a guarantee.
My idea of greatness is Jim Hall, to name one player.
-
There's some real wisdom going down round here ....
thanks everyone , I hadn't heard the Tao stuff before
love it
I also like
"do or don't do , there is no try"
-
Oh yeah , thought of another thing ....
play the thing you hear (or as close as you can)
(that's why you practice a lot)
don't let your hand play what it wants ....
the hand just wants to play the same old stuff
it always plays , which is very boring
-
I remember a Tony Rice quote in Frets circa’87: “Play what you hear. If you make it your goal to play what you hear, you will find a way to get it onto your instrument.”
I would add to that a Robert Fripp quote in Guitar Player: “Begin at the beginning. Therefore, we begin where we are.”
Obviously, people begin in different places. That leads to unique playing, whether one starts as a copyist or not.
-
I recall an interview with Jeff Beck in which he was asked what scales, etc., he used. He replied "I just play the notes I want to hear."
All the training on scales and arpeggios and chords, etc., is just to introduce your ear to what can be heard and to develop some ear-hand coordination. Music is singing whether with your voice or your instrument. Howard Roberts (IIRC) pointed out in his Guitar Player column back in the early 80s that "when you sing you automatically get the sharps and flats, playing should be just like that."
Also, "melodicizing your thought" is a wonderful phrase. I really like it.
-
again I think this is certainly true, but as an educator I got to point out - most students are not Richard Rodgers or Jerome Kern. They haven’t acquired that level of familiarity with the material. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
You don’t obviously start our day one writing GASB classics. You write a thousand songs and develop an internalisation of melody and harmony that is deep and profound.
which is not to say the man who wrote ATTYA wasn’t self consciously setting himself a little project... but this is done agains the background of having thoroughly assimilated the idiom of Tin Pan Alley songs and wanting to subvert the form a little bit.
so for me it comes back to the same thing - Vai, Chet Baker, Cole Porter, whoever floats your boat does x, but that doesn’t mean you are ready to. It’s the same thing as why Bach can break the rules of Bach harmony... ‘he is allowed, you are not’ as they say
OTOH there has to come a point where you are able to let go. I’ve been studying jazz and learning solos and tunes for decades now. And yet it is hard for me to chuck that stuff out and go on instinct. I’ve personally found that learning melodies helps with that a lot. It’s also great for the earlier stages.
it is quite possible that this level arrives much sooner than we think, too.
Mine too.It seems to me that, if, hypothetically, you were presented with a certain set of changes and played the melody to ATTYA (in an alternate universe where that tune hadn't been written), that would be an excellent solo.
In this view, you generate melody from an unconscious internal process.
If the melodies you generate get stale, you can work on training your ear to hear more sophisticated things. Traditionally, this is done from listening and lifting, but can also be done, at least by some players, via theoretical constructs.
A player I've seen up close and personal for hours (and who made the cover of GP), who is an absolute encyclopedia of jazz guitar, is impressive in technique and vocabulary, but, to my ear (and I'm probably in a minority), melodically less interesting because, I think, of a lack of feeling. Nothing is a guarantee.
My idea of greatness is Jim Hall, to name one player.
tbh I think ‘ear training’ as a seperate thing one works on is missing the point. The ear should be involved in everything. Recognising intervals is useful, but hearing melodies and chord voicings is where it is at for the working player, and it’s been my experience that this improves the more you listen to and learn music. So comes back to the same thing.
im pretty certain than formal training aside this is the cornerstone of Jim’s music. How many standards do you think he knew? He grew up in the dance band era (just about) so that’s 15-20 songs a set no breaks, no charts. Maybe 4 sets a night. Got through a lot of material, learned to blag really well by ear. And so on.
The enshrinement of ‘transcription’ as a learning activity separate from just doing music is revealing too, and I think unhelpful as an idea. I find it hard to imagine an Irish traditional musician use the the t word for learning a new tune by ear. But jazz is now a literature as well as an aural tradition, and that’s changed the process.
You actually have to learn to hear your ‘theoretical concepts’ to some extent because otherwise they won’t actually come out on the bandstand. I mean, everyone surely has realised that, right? As soon as you think ‘I’ll do this clever thing’ your playing comes off the rails. So they stop being theoretical concepts and start becoming chunks of music to be useful. Or for more meta/philosophical ideas, very well internalised.
(which is why you should never expect to be able to apply what you do in the practice room to the bandstand of course.)
there is another thing where you become relaxed about how things sound sometimes. But usually you end up audiating the rhythm very strongly, and relax somewhat on what pitches come out. actually suspect this happens a lot with jazzers.Last edited by christianm77; 02-23-2020 at 06:28 AM.
-
Lots of people skiing about architecture here
.
As a student and as a teacher ....1) I couldn't agree more with this- the most revealing lesson I took with a very well known guitarist from 'up North' was when he suggested I sing the line I was improvising (developing). The results were really surprising to someone who has valued originality all his musical life. I have a pretty good framework in a sense of knowing what positions sound like so that enabled me to take the line for a walk. So, a lot of historical woodshedding has enabled me to see/hear where to go, but my singing made the line interesting and emotional and creative. If I relied on this scale over this chord it would have sounded like improvisatory appliqué. Make a jazz sound here, as most do.To me, melody comes from scat-singing, or some other form of musical imagination.
2) I have a student who is very talented though she is very un-keen to learn all the single line stuff. We have had the most success with shaping a motif around chord shapes. It's limited but the student still has choice and can develop phrases through the incoming harmony. There is also the payback from the guitar being predominantly a visual instrument. When all is lost you can hang off a chord tone.
3) Not sure about the learning standards approach; there may well be dividends to playing lines, fluency, geography but I suspect, like a lot of stuff in jazz pedagogy, it's axiomatic. Impro is not playing someone else's tunes.
4) Some intersting impro: Scott Henderson playing Lady P? Fantastic. Brad Mehldau's impro in Not You Again with J. Scofield? I looked at the notes and he played NOTHING that related to the chords (maybe the odd note :-) ), yet it was beautiful.
-
I talked about "training your ear to hear more sophisticated things" rather than ear training. The latter term brings to mind exercises. The former, to my way of thinking, is everything you do to expand your musical imagination and improve your ability to distinguish sound. Originally Posted by christianm77
I used the term "lifting" to avoid the term "transcription" - which brings a pencil to mind. I could have said "incorporating", or some other word, in my search for the less restrictive term.
If you can't write a good melody for a song, working slowly with every opportunity for review and editing, what chance do you have of improvising one on the fly on the bandstand? Same for scat singing. it seems to me that a lot of exercises build the ability to play, instantly, the melody in your mind, but they don't directly impact the melodic gift. That's a matter of musical sophistication at an unconscious level. That comes with time, focus on the music and allowing the unconscious process to manifest.
-
yeah sorry my post may have come across as if it was criticising what you were saying. The term ‘lifting’ I actually really like, but that refers more to solos afaik. I think learning songs is a good preparation for that, also. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
-
Of course it's not, it's playing something else over them (like Sco on Not You Again) :-) Originally Posted by Hugo Gainly
Reply With Quote
Mental check on buying a good guitar
Today, 10:38 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos