Why Perfection is The Enemy of Jazz

[Jonah]

just don't think it's that complicated.

You hear stories about guys back in the day in big bands being told to play the same solo as on the record.

It was popular music. People wanted to hear what they knew.

But this is a living enviroment.

Jazz is at the breaking point imho... it is not so distant as renaissance historically for example for example... but still distant enough that we could look at it from outside...

I still believe that there is more chance that good musician who grew up in traditional protestant German family listning and playing traditional music has more chances to penetrate Bach's music than Japanese or Korean prodigy kid.
The problem is that Europe itself does not keep up living tradition any more...
I come to Venice and I finc out that I feel related to local tradition more that locals there.

Does it happen with jazz in the States? I do not know...

We live in the postmodernistic time - people want to be someone else somewhere else... it is almost a norm for a cultural person to look for a cultural enviroment different than the one he grew up in.

people used to stick to their roots, now they first have to find their roots... and moder artistic world is so globolized that they can look for the roots anywhere.

in that sense the historical conceptions become very vague..

[ragman1]

OK how about this for a TL;DR

Its OK to work shit out.

It's easy to work shit out. Harder to work something good out.

[MarkRhodes]

When I started playing guitar, I was playing rock. I'd improvise ideas in band rehearsals and stick to the ones that I thought sounded good and then that would become part of the song... It was no big deal. No one had to teach me how to improvise, but I didn't place the expectation on myself that everything I came out had to both sound good and be spontaneous. I think this is normal for most rock guitar players?

It certainly was for me. I didn't have a good ear when I started.
My mother has a phenomenal one and said she could always play anything she wanted to since she was in fourth grade and watched an older girl play the school piano and thought, "I could do that." She could. Not the best technique but a phenomenal ear.

So I started out thinking that 'my thing' would be to come up with a cool riff or a better blues lyric or a funnier country lyric or a snarkier rock lytric. I thought of myself as a songwriter even though I wanted to be a great all-around rock player like Hendrix (my hero).

Anyway, I made up songs. And making up a song meant messing around on the guitar and hitting on something that sounded good, playing it over and over (a riff, a progression) and later finding another part to go with it. And a big part of that----which I didn't regard as a skill or a talent or even a 'thing'---was recognizing when you'd stumbled onto something good. Anyway, songs were the-parts-that-hung-together (intro, verse, chorus, perhaps an interlude). And solos were pretty much the same thing, built up bit by bit but not necessarily written out.

Another thing I didn't think of as a 'thing' was that the parts would need to be fun to play. This doesn't mean hard, or dead simple, but satisfying (even if---as was often the case when I was a kid--the guitar part was challenging for me).

When I play my own songs now, I want to play them 'that way' (-even if 'that way' has morphed over the years as my tastes and talents have, I hope, improved) because that's what it means to play them. I don't 'jam' on them. Jamming is something else. (Like jamming on a blues or rhythm changes.)

One might say it's the difference between shooting the sh*t and telling a story. Both can be enjoyable but they are not the same thing. And if you tell a story several times to friends and family (-how you met your wife, the time you got fired, or a car wreck you were in, or the time you bumped into so-and-so at a pharmacy) it tends to take a memorable shape. It's not memorized, exactly, but you know all the main parts and where you want to end up. You can emphasize this or that aspect as ocassion demands but the basic story has been internalized.

Anyway, that's how I started writing songs and it's pretty much the way I write them now, though I don't write them often anymore. Once upon a time I felt a tremendous need to write new songs; I no longer do.

[christianm77]

But this is a living enviroment.

Jazz is at the breaking point imho... it is not so distant as renaissance historically for example for example... but still distant enough that we could look at it from outside...

I still believe that there is more chance that good musician who grew up in traditional protestant German family listning and playing traditional music has more chances to penetrate Bach's music than Japanese or Korean prodigy kid.
The problem is that Europe itself does not keep up living tradition any more...
I come to Venice and I finc out that I feel related to local tradition more that locals there.

Does it happen with jazz in the States? I do not know...

We live in the postmodernistic time - people want to be someone else somewhere else... it is almost a norm for a cultural person to look for a cultural enviroment different than the one he grew up in.

people used to stick to their roots, now they first have to find their roots... and moder artistic world is so globolized that they can look for the roots anywhere.

in that sense the historical conceptions become very vague..

I think this is absolutely true.. part of the reason why more people are obsessed with nailing a style or historical practice. They can't organically develop what's around them because there are no organic roots in this part of the world (apart from maybe in folk music, but even then people go to college.)

I'm naturally an electic anyway, that's the way I grew up. So p*stm*dernism is my jam I guess!

[Jonah]

I think this is absolutely true.. part of the reason why more people are obsessed with nailing a style or historical practice. They can't organically develop what's around them because there are no organic roots in this part of the world (apart from maybe in folk music, but even then people go to college.)

I'm naturally an electic anyway, that's the way I grew up. So p*stm*dernism is my jam I guess!

Interesting... I am definitely not eclectic. But I am interested in very differnet areas of arts and culture. I envy peopel of strict dedicaction.
I am not purist either though... it is strange but I cannot describe it properly.
I often confront hostorically informed performers exactly because if the scientific approach they developed (whic is against living artistic tradition) but at the same time i support historical investigation of styles..

On the other hand if I analyze it I see that behind my interests there are only a 2-3 general flows, ideas... so basically I develope only these 2-3 ideas.

besides.. I think we all more or less look for authencity... but this authencity could express itself in an unexpected way for us.
The most true to me - authentic - things I did seemed to be very far from my general interests... but I guess it only seemed so.

I think the most dangerous thing that happens now in culture is that it is often heard 'they heard it differently those days, their rythm those different, their thought differently' - ok... it is fine for a historian.. but as musicians we must focus on what we hear and think

[mr. beaumont]

But this is a living enviroment.

Jazz is at the breaking point imho... it is not so distant as renaissance historically for example for example... but still distant enough that we could look at it from outside...

I still believe that there is more chance that good musician who grew up in traditional protestant German family listning and playing traditional music has more chances to penetrate Bach's music than Japanese or Korean prodigy kid.
The problem is that Europe itself does not keep up living tradition any more...
I come to Venice and I finc out that I feel related to local tradition more that locals there.

Does it happen with jazz in the States? I do not know...

We live in the postmodernistic time - people want to be someone else somewhere else... it is almost a norm for a cultural person to look for a cultural enviroment different than the one he grew up in.

people used to stick to their roots, now they first have to find their roots... and moder artistic world is so globolized that they can look for the roots anywhere.

in that sense the historical conceptions become very vague..

Roots are important, but not as important as immersion, imho.

Roots with immersion at a young age...well that's priceless.

[bonsritmos]

sure , roots with immersion...

its funny for me, with out even being my original objecive , i started these ketu candomble rhythms to really tighten up my brazilian thing , but, amazingly , i started seeing all these things that absolutly defined the grooves that early jazz was all about.

all of a sudden it was a huge push to go back and check out what was really happening instead of the obligatory nod to the greats who brought jazz into existance. and it wasnt forced, it was this incredable energy to discover . i mean i never would just put on some scott joplin, jelly roll, even louis wasnt on my listening schedule, i would watch the ken burns docu to cover that, but it was that docu too , that after i learned these ketu beats, that started ringing home that there were big connections. so ive listened to more of those artists now than in my entire life before.

now im not going to start a louis revival band , but it just blew my mind how much stuff is hiding in front of my face until a light goes off or something jump starts it

so my feeling now, the lessons from the masters is anything but a relic to study afar, its powerful , relevant to today , actualy more badly needed to be understood for what it really is , today, than ever, and i feel there are many powerful things from early jazz yet to be discoverd and its a latent force just waiting to be flushed out. yes it will be differant , but influenced greatly by their never ending lessons.

not telling anyone they should change anything they are doing, but just know there are huge hidden treasures yet to be discovered that the masters gave us

[joelf]

In the very well worth reading Conversations on the Improviser's Art (a collection of Lee Konitz interviews about the process and his comments on various players, with interviews of others interspersed) Konitz refers to Charlier Parker as a 'composer'---one who accumulates a body of ideas that can be cross-referenced and modified in flight. That's a good middle ground between what Konitz calls 'prepared playing' and literally starting with next to nothing.

But to me the most thrilling Parker moments are when he plays things I'd never heard him play before---like on Bird at St. Nick's.

Still, a back-up reservoir for those less-than-inspired nights ain't a bad idea. Everyone needs a little 'glue' sometimes...

[rintincop]

Coltrane worked out his Giant Steps solos at home, he played it almost the same on three different recordings of the tune.
Chick Corea described improvisation by saying "you play what you know."
My favorite piano player, Monty Alexander, is a lick player.

[christianm77]

I suspect we are all lick players. The question is whether we know it or not, and what we choose to do with that knowledge.

[mr. beaumont]

I suspect we are all lick players. The question is whether we know it or not, and what we choose to do with that knowledge.

I am for sure.

I'd rather know 5 things really well than "know of" 50 things.

[MarkRhodes]

My favorite piano player, Monty Alexander, is a lick player.

I like Monty Alexander too. Here's a live excerpt with Herb Ellis and Ray Brown---they were a great trio.

[MarkRhodes]

I suspect we are all lick players. The question is whether we know it or not, and what we choose to do with that knowledge.

I think this is why some players with little (or no) schooling have done well: they started out learning licks off records, maybe whole solos, got gigs, and developed a style of shuffling those licks around. Maybe added a few things of their own. Over time it all blends.

[christianm77]

I think this is why some players with little (or no) schooling have done well: they started out learning licks off records, maybe whole solos, got gigs, and developed a style of shuffling those licks around. Maybe added a few things of their own. Over time it all blends.

No it’s a little more complicated than that. I think that is some of the truth, but there’s more going on. The way we talk about jazz education and training often focuses on the individual, this is not the whole picture.

to start: Schooling/self taught is kind of a BS distinction because if you go back and read carefully how people like Metheny actually learned there’s a very important element of community and mentor input as well; private lessons, if the student has them are just one side of it. that’s what the bandstand is; situated learning and all of that. That still exists in some capacity...

one important job is for elders to tell the student off when they get to a certain point of imitation of other players licks and get told to start coming up with their own stuff. So the sense of taking twenty Wes licks and simply shuffling them about - that’s not cool... you have to have your own stuff... Your own licks included..

[cosmic gumbo]

I look at jazz in the light of creativity and spontaneity. Willingness to take risks is part of the attraction. It has to do with being an artist and accumulating and exploiting the tools and skills to express what's inside of you, in the moment in real time. Maybe this will communicate to somebody else, and touch them in a profound way. Post swing jazz certainly isn't about speaking to the masses, it's the wrong genre if that's what you seek.

Especially with guitarists, it seems to me that being a jazz musician is more about being a skilled technical craftsman than being an artist. I make no judgements, each to their own. I know the kind of jazz I like to experience, and everyone has to decide for themselves what they like and seek. That's called diversity, and jazz is the most diverse music there is, IMO.

[digger]

I'm enjoying this thread, because as I alluded to above, it's making me feel better about my own limitations.

Something that strikes me as a listener, as a jazz consumer, is that I was unaware of all this composing / pre-work. My assumption was/has been that it was all improvised (*). The fact that it isn't does actually answer quite a few questions that have been bubbling along in the back of my mind. Nevertheless, does this knowledge make any difference to me as a consumer? Not at all. In the moment, I rarely (never, until now) stop to think about whether a particularly enjoyable solo was composed, or not. I just enjoy it. Last night I was listening to a wonderful solo by George Van Eps and I was thinking how can someone come up with that? My assumption was that it was improvised, but as a fan, as a listener, I'll enjoy it just as much whether it was composed or improvised. With a guitar-player's head on, yes, it's more impressive to imagine it was improvised (bloody incredible, really) - but really, it's the communication with non-players that is important. After all, there are a lot more of them and if one wants to keep the tradition alive, make a living, do a few gigs, etc etc then it's the non-players that are most important to keep happy and appeal to.

(*) Clearly that are lines that I've heard before and there are solos that are played note for note that I do recognize - I remember the first time I heard Minor Swing (on a professional CD) played by someone other than Django and I was a bit shocked to hear them play Django's solo note for note. But who's to say Django didn't rustle that one up over a number of months?

Derek

[christianm77]

Another way of framing this is point out that composing is a way of working on improv. The more things you have pre baked and the more technique you have to vary what you come up with the more free of an improviser you will be.

[Jonah]

I suspect we are all lick players. The question is whether we know it or not, and what we choose to do with that knowledge.

ah.. the last part of it is tricky thing)))

Could seem a bit protective in advance... like 'you also play licks - you just do not know it' (meaning - I know you do)))

To be hoest I think -not... the best players I hear do not play licks... recently we had a short intercourse about Sco... I do not hear him playing likcs in his later records... I understand that it can be analyzed as licks but I do not hear him 'thinking licks'... I think you know what I mean

[christianm77]

ah.. the last part of it is tricky thing)))

Could seem a bit protective in advance... like 'you also play licks - you just do not know it' (meaning - I know you do)))

To be hoest I think -not... the best players I hear do not play licks... recently we had a short intercourse about Sco... I do not hear him playing likcs in his later records... I understand that it can be analyzed as licks but I do not hear him 'thinking licks'... I think you know what I mean

Nah. I think the tendency to play well worn licks is common to everyone...

So the bit where I say ‘what you do with that knowledge ....’ you might choose to

- learn more licks and become badass at licks
- become adept at combining and recombining small bits of info into longer musical lines
- get good at varying and developing the material you have until it no longer sounds like licks
- refusing to play the lick and playing the next thing to come along - self editing

just some ideas.

but you have to be aware, and fashion your reaction to it...

[christianm77]

(So, I think melodic variation of existing material is one of the most important compositional/improvisational techniques. And a bit neglected because everyone is so hung up on making new music using the pitch sets on existing chords.)

[Jonah]

(So, I think melodic variation of existing material is one of the most important compositional/improvisational techniques. And a bit neglected because everyone is so hung up on making new music using the pitch sets on existing chords.)

This is where I agree totally.

In general I often compare music with literature... it is maybe true that meusi is more abstract (but also lately I began to feel a bit strange to speak about music and linterature in abstracy .. there is no music as it is.. there is music odf Schubert, Mozart, Wes or Bird... I mean that to be real the idea should be realized in practice and it is being realized in so many different ways that to speak of it as of just general 'music' begins to lose sense to me... or at least I should be very cautious with it)....

I think what moves a great writer is the passion to create a reality (not alternative - this is good for average writers - but the one and only real one)... the passion to tell a story about living people, passion to make it live, to discover it...
And I think there is not difference in taht sense with the musician...

But as music is considered to be more abstract - there is lots of practical talk about techniques: licks, lines, development of this or that.... I do not say it is wrong... but there is always a risk that all these things become more important that just the need to be real, to tell a story... which should be at the basis of it.

Sure you can learn through copying and from integrating different ideas or methods...

licks in that sense are great reference to teh style and tradition becasue they contain all in real impersonification: rythm, phrasing, harmony, articulation... and which is more important they often contain contextual meaning.

Lick is not an idea... lick is realization.

But I still think that at thinking licks is ruining integrity... generally all teh great players in jazz seem to me almost to fight for integrity of their solo... I remeber Wes even talked about it... it is very challenging in jazz to keep the integrity but also a sensitive artist has always inspiration for it...


By the way that is why I think that 'partimenti' are overestimated today speaking of baroque... I think it was mostly a toy for amateurs... musical thinking of those days was much more integral than modern.. they just did not need that stuff

You wont compose Rinaldo or Ich ruf zu dir, Herr with partimentin (however great it can be analyzed through partimenti - I swa it on you tube)...

You can't play solo like Wes did on Misty or Come Rain Come Shine or Bill Evans on Like Someone in Love just using a bunch of licks...


I know we speak about pedagogical process... but this is also important.. I think the contents should be at the basis of the process... if we teach the language - we teach fto say Hello - Goodbye...

But here we teach artistic language - it is for different purposes...


And another point - being practical in art does not necessarily mean to speak only of technique... an dall the rest is just a philosophy or ideiology...

[christianm77]

You can’t escape the lick, it will come for you in the night.

[Jonah]

You can’t escape the lick, it will come for you in the night.

and lick me?

[christianm77]

This is where I agree totally.

In general I often compare music with literature... it is maybe true that meusi is more abstract (but also lately I began to feel a bit strange to speak about music and linterature in abstracy .. there is no music as it is.. there is music odf Schubert, Mozart, Wes or Bird... I mean that to be real the idea should be realized in practice and it is being realized in so many different ways that to speak of it as of just general 'music' begins to lose sense to me... or at least I should be very cautious with it)....

I think what moves a great writer is the passion to create a reality (not alternative - this is good for average writers - but the one and only real one)... the passion to tell a story about living people, passion to make it live, to discover it...
And I think there is not difference in taht sense with the musician...

But as music is considered to be more abstract - there is lots of practical talk about techniques: licks, lines, development of this or that.... I do not say it is wrong... but there is always a risk that all these things become more important that just the need to be real, to tell a story... which should be at the basis of it.

Sure you can learn through copying and from integrating different ideas or methods...

licks in that sense are great reference to teh style and tradition becasue they contain all in real impersonification: rythm, phrasing, harmony, articulation... and which is more important they often contain contextual meaning.

Lick is not an idea... lick is realization.

But I still think that at thinking licks is ruining integrity... generally all teh great players in jazz seem to me almost to fight for integrity of their solo... I remeber Wes even talked about it... it is very challenging in jazz to keep the integrity but also a sensitive artist has always inspiration for it...


By the way that is why I think that 'partimenti' are overestimated today speaking of baroque... I think it was mostly a toy for amateurs... musical thinking of those days was much more integral than modern.. they just did not need that stuff...

this speaks to my earlier point. People are trying to teach stuff that does not need to be taught. Apprenticeship does not necessarily involve pedagogy (Lave and Wenger) and we are probably guilty of projecting our own experiences onto past eras, even as we try to escape that trap.

can’t comment on the scholarship. Obviously with all due massive respect you are a bloke on the internet, and I’d have to read the literature to make my mind up.

(I would think that things like basic harmonisations of the scale and common contrapuntal combinations and their idiomatic treatment would form a very basic part of a musicians background at a very young age. I imagine few of these things would have been written down... because why? Neapolitan conservatories were not academic institutions.)

And yes, baroque music is full of licks... it’s not just that. But then neither is jazz....

Anyway back to improvisation. I think Improvisation is only strange to classical musicians because most of them have never tried to invent new music. If they did improvisation would become a natural outgrowth of composing.

Even Pierre Boulez could improvise...

Within Jazz it’s well documented that their was a considerable grey area between ‘heads’ and ‘solos’ in Parker’s music. One naturally bled into the other.

[christianm77]

and lick me?

like a giant slobbery Golden Retriever tongue