Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Posts 51 to 100 of 105
  1. #51

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    In fact, I can't think of another art form that is more under appreciated than Jazz improvisation. It seems the skill required for high level visual arts (including dance) are more self evident, as is the case with the written word.
    Artists are told that a child could have done it; dancers are mocked for supposed pretension; writers are disparaged as hacks. So it goes.

    I wonder how many of the audience at the Half Note in this 1964 TV programme were listening to Lennie Tristano and his combo. Did they appreciate the difficulty and novelty of the music? They seem to be enjoying themselves, at least.




  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #52

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    Jazz guitar is the hardest thing I've ever tried to do. I've been at it for 56 years and I'm still learning about how difficult it is to do really well. I am confident that I can still hear something new and not realize how difficult it was for the player to accomplish.
    well of course I appreciate things that are difficult ...

    but mostly I believe that artistic appriciation is based on different criteria.

    The original idea is strange to me: they do not appriciate difficulty.
    I agree that jazz audience often do not really appriciate the performance just because they do not follow it... but it is not abou difficulty.

    it is not the acrobats in the circus (where it is appropriate really) to appreciate difficulty.

    I talked to young jazz guitarsit (already a teacher) - quite accomplished and I mentioned Bernstein and he said: Oh he plays really difficult things... it was so strange to me: Peter is a master and ginuine musician... he has his own touch and even I dare say - own language... but it is not really difficult what he plays.
    On the contrary it is quite easy...
    What Frisell and Sco do is also not diffuclt...

  4. #53

    User Info Menu

    I wonder how many of the audience at the Half Note in this 1964 TV programme were listening to Lennie Tristano and his combo. Did they appreciate the difficulty and novelty of the music? They seem to be enjoying themselves, at least.
    Same thing happens on classical recitals... people have a year ticket for concerts, visit Philarmonic Hallsa, discuss speed and expressions of faces and gestures but then you put on music and they can't distinguish Mozart from Haydn (or even Schubert!) without seeing the name on CD

  5. #54

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by jameslovestal
    Well this isn't the case with most of my friends who are amateur musicians like myself but don't play jazz (well expect for the few 'easy' tunes (e.g. no key changes) I have shown them over the years).

    They clearly appreciate my knowledge of so called jazz chords, as well as key changes. As long as I "accept" (for lack of a better term), that they don't wish to go in a jazz direction we can make some nice music together playing blues and rock.
    Understood, of course, but anyone who plays rock and blues, etc, can look at a jazz guitarist zooming about playing stuff they can't understand and be totally mystified, if not awestruck.

    But the implication of the thread is that they should feel sorry for the poor jazz soloist struggling manfully with this impossibly complex music and needs their sympathy. They just don't realise how damn hard it is!

    But, as I said, why should they?

    There's an emotional implication in the title. If I was a blues/rock player, and I had a friend who played very complex jazz stuff, and I said 'Hey, man, I really appreciate how hard this is for you' I'd expect them to look at me and say 'What are you talking about? Sure it's hard but I love this stuff! It's my choice! You're giving me sympathy???'.

    See what I'm saying? And if the jazz player did expect his rock friends to bolster him up and encourage him because his road was so hard, I'd say that was all wrong.

    Mind you, I'd agree completely with this from the OP. Probably very true.

    I can't think of another art form that is more under appreciated than Jazz improvisation

  6. #55

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by NSJ
    LOL. Go on. A sticky wicket, all gone pear-shaped, has it? Irrelevant and, to paraphrase one of Miles’ most famous tunes “So What”.

    Quoting, quite frankly, Mr. Shankly: “Get stuck in, lads!” I mean, I have no idea if he ever said that, but I suspect that is the classic line from many a Half-time team talk in the Changing Room.

    *pats self on back for throwing some British expressions nobody around these parts has ever heard of in their lives*
    I literally have no idea what this post means

  7. #56

    User Info Menu

    Pop listeners have no idea how involved and complex pop production is.

    Film goers have no idea how difficult acting, direction, cinematography and special effects are.

    And so on.

  8. #57

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Paulie2
    I literally have no idea what this post means
    He's thrown a lot of Brit expressions in together. He means nobody in other places (like the US) has ever heard them in their lives. Hardly surprising :-)

    A sticky wicket means an awkward situation. Comes from cricket. 'The world's on a sticky wicket with this virus at the moment'. It's quite old-fashioned, though.

    Something that's gone pear-shaped means it's all gone wrong. Don't know why they use pears but I think it might be an RAF thing where you're supposed to loop the loop in a neat circle. If you get it wrong it starts to look like a pear. I think.

    'Get stuck in' just means 'Get down to it/work hard' About any task really.

    That should do it

  9. #58

    User Info Menu

    He’s having a giraffe m8

  10. #59

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Pop listeners have no idea how involved and complex pop production is.

    Film goers have no idea how difficult acting, direction, cinematography and special effects are.

    And so on.

    Otherwise watching a comedy they would not laugh but would be sitting in the movie theater quite and with respect and sympathizing hard toil of movie makers.

    'What a great comedy!' they would say 'so much difficult work to be appreciated here!'

  11. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    Otherwise watching a comedy they would not laugh but would be sitting in the movie theater quite and with respect and sympathizing hard toil of movie makers.

    'What a great comedy!' they would say 'so much difficult work to be appreciated here!'
    Nah, most people know that a lot goes on "behind the scenes" with these things these days. I don't think many know how many hours of specific practice goes into learning Jazz improv at the elite level. No offence to the members here, but I think that many of us probably don't even know, and we'd be expected to have a better idea...

    Until it gets surveyed, then we'll never know, but if you chose 10 highly skilled disciplines, with elite Jazz musician among them, and people ranked them in order of difficulty and / or required time to acquire the related skill set, I'll wager that not many would put Jazz musician on top.

    Brain surgeon? Rocket Scientist? Championship Chess player? Olympic Gymnast? Most people would have an idea of the degree of difficulty and might guess that something like 6 years of hard, uninterrupted study can get you near the top (provided you are already "gifted"). Do you think you could improvise as well as Wes, GB, Joe Pass etc after just 6 years? Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Cannonball Adderley, Michael Brecker, Freddie Hubbard, Keith Jarret ?? ... Maybe they only needed that much time, but how rare is that? One in a million? One in a Billion? ...

  12. #61

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    Nah, most people know that a lot goes on "behind the scenes" with these things these days. I don't think many know how many hours of specific practice goes into learning Jazz improv at the elite level. No offence to the members here, but I think that many of us probably don't even know, and we'd be expected to have a better idea...

    Until it gets surveyed, then we'll never know, but if you chose 10 highly skilled disciplines, with elite Jazz musician among them, and people ranked them in order of difficulty and / or required time to acquire the related skill set, I'll wager that not many would put Jazz musician on top.

    Brain surgeon? Rocket Scientist? Championship Chess player? Olympic Gymnast? Most people would have an idea of the degree of difficulty and might guess that something like 6 years of hard, uninterrupted study can get you near the top (provided you are already "gifted"). Do you think you could improvise as well as Wes, GB, Joe Pass etc after just 6 years? Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Cannonball Adderley, Michael Brecker, Freddie Hubbard, Keith Jarret ?? ... Maybe they only needed that much time, but how rare is that? One in a million? One in a Billion? ...
    You see I do not like the idea that something like Art is difficult... as a musician I would not like to be in a conmpany of Rocket Scientist, Olympic Gymnast and Chess Champion...
    And I do not like when people stress how difficult playing jazz is... the question 'Do you think you could improvise as well as Wes, GB, Joe Pass etc after just 6 years? Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, Cannonball Adderley, Michael Brecker, Freddie Hubbard, Keith Jarret ?? ' make no sense to me.. .and to them too I believe... on simple reason: truely playing like one of them is not achivable in any quantity of years (unless you put a task to mimick everything they do - then it is probably possible -- but it will some kind of 'imitator degree'
    (imitating is part of learning - but it is not what it seems to be here)...

    I also do not like measuring in specif quantity of years for learning anything...

    It is all just irrelevant to me...

    Once I was reading John Ruskin and he had a beautiful conception '7 light of architecture'. If I expand it to art there was one liked called Virtue (he was Victorian Christian moralist of course)...
    He said that one of the important stipulations for expressing Virtue for Art is expressing aethetically the work that was put into it...

    That means that if it was difficult to make (not to learn or study but to make) it should be a part of its aesthetic impact (plot, expression, idea)...
    I do not remember the examples but some Michelagngelo's statues can be good example of it... in jazz some Coltrane works really have this quality.

    All the rest is irrelevant to me...

    it should not worry our minds..
    Last edited by Jonah; 05-21-2020 at 05:28 AM.

  13. #62

    User Info Menu

    As Robert Browning has Andrea del Sarto say,

    Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp,

    Or what's a heaven for? All is silver-grey,

    Placid and perfect with my art: the worse!


    I am not sure he is right. Maybe some jazzmen were prodigies who did not need to try hard. How would we know otherwise?


  14. #63

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    Nah, most people know that a lot goes on "behind the scenes" with these things these days. I don't think many know how many hours of specific practice goes into learning Jazz improv at the elite level. No offence to the members here, but I think that many of us probably don't even know, and we'd be expected to have a better idea....
    I lack sufficient inside knowledge of other areas of the arts to comment on their relative difficulty.

    TBH people pour the same number of hours into anything, so I suspect it's broadly equivalent. You know all those writers who do 9-5 every day?

    Beware of Dunning-Kruger when looking at areas outside of one's own expertise....

  15. #64
    .. yeah, I try t be aware of DK as often as I can remind myself. I still say elite level Jazz improv must surely be one of the hardest arts to master, and among the most poorly rewarded.

    In saying that, I certainly don't want sympathy from others! However, I do have sympathy for others who do it very well, and seem to be unappreciated for it, whether they want my sympathy or not.

    It just is what it is...

  16. #65

    User Info Menu

    Last night I watched Frisell's online gig from home for Blue Note (it was way better setup than it was for that Festival at the biginning of lockdown) --- really he does not look for any reward and I can't imagine he would ever say something about hard work he did or does to abieve that)))


    The reward thing is a different stuff - I have a friend who is in my opinion greates living composer and being modest person he still know the artistic value of what he is doing... but the acknowledgement is so small
    I feel like with years he is just getting tired in social sense.. getting to 50 he begins to feel he wants a reward finally... but again there's nothing about hard work...

  17. #66

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    Championship Chess player?

    That is actually an interesting example .. The amount of work that goes into mastering chess is absurd. Like music it is about mastering a language and at the core of it is is visualizing stuff, patterns long lines structures, planning and all sorts of things. Not much different from musics tho instead of Ear you develop "Eye" I suppose.


    But there are maybe a few places musicians could be inspired by chess players


    Chess players are 100% about the performance and nothing else. It's about giving it your all those 4-5 hours a game last. The ride that gives you, the joy of a great performance or the self shattering disappointment a bad performance can lead to.

    There are no chess players going around saying stupid stuff like, I've invested 8 hours daily for 20 years into this, so now I demand to be paid for my art. Chess players are not constantly insisting on being admired on their ability to perform art (vague term). It's 100% in the moment. Did you beat the competition and land the prize or not. If someone else grabs the prize instead of you then you need to perform better next time.

    And also chess evolves, if you don't keep up with current trends then your performance will suffer. Sure inate skill will keep you at a high level, but you're going to lose your edge and drop in ratings.


    Chess players don't claim that chess was better in the 70s and that Bobby Fischer made better chess than current players like Magnus Carlsen or Fabio Caruana. The respect each player for being a product of their time and know well that current players as a whole have much better chops than players of yesteryear. Players of yesteryear usually had one thing they did amazingly but where weak in a lot more areas than what is average for current players that are much more versatile

  18. #67

    User Info Menu

    I know a FIDE master and the way he talks about chess has a lot in common with jazz. Learning a big repertoire of openings etc, studying the masters and so on.

  19. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Lobomov
    ...

    There are no chess players going around saying stupid stuff like, I've invested 8 hours daily for 20 years into this, so now I demand to be paid for my art. Chess players are not constantly insisting on being admired on their ability to perform art (vague term). It's 100% in the moment. Did you beat the competition and land the prize or not. If someone else grabs the prize instead of you then you need to perform better next time.
    ...
    Yes, there are parallels, training, chops, memory, strategy, spontaneous reaction, preparedness for curve balls, and, perhaps, even some improvisation!

    But I'm talking about one's talents going unrecognised through non awareness on the part of the casual observer. In chess, the non expert spectator has a clue about how good a chess master is because:

    A / He/she probably has played the game and understands it to a degree, and

    B / There is usually a winner! This tells the spectator that the winner is good at chess. If the winner always wins, then the spectator knows and appreciates that this chess master is "great".

    In other words, like many disciplines (including sports and even some arts), it is Quantifiable. Fine Jazz improv, to the casual listener, is not.

    Mind you, if you took your EDM loving girl friend to a Jazz show to see a multi award winning Jazz artist, explaining how this Jazz artists has won every every Downbeat poll for Jazz vibraphone for the last 20 years straight, they would probably accept that that artist's skill has at least been quantified by others, and will probably be psychologically influenced by this information. It may make them pay more attention, or it may even prepare themselves to actually want to enjoy what they are listening to.

    Sure, a bit of that goes on in Jazz, but nowhere near the extent of many other endeavours. It's like how everyone likes to go on about how great an actor Robert de Niro is, but probably only because of how many times it's mentioned in the media. Or Brando. Yet John Gielgud or Laurence Olivier are probably far superior actors not acknowledged as much by the general public. Imagine how they must have felt to see ham actors like John Wayne or Red Buttons making Oscar acceptance speeches! Probably choked on their own vomit!
    (without showing, natch, no doubt because their acting was good enough to pull off pretending to be humble ) ...

  20. #69

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    Sure, a bit of that goes on in Jazz, but nowhere near the extent of many other endeavours. It's like how everyone likes to go on about how great an actor Robert de Niro is, but probably only because of how many times it's mentioned in the media. Or Brando. Yet John Gielgud or Laurence Olivier are probably far superior actors not acknowledged as much by the general public. Imagine how they must have felt to see ham actors like John Wayne or Red Buttons making Oscar acceptance speeches! Probably choked on their own vomit!

    That is the great thing about chess. When Mikhail Tal became World Champion in 1960 he was at the time an inferior chess player than his opponents in all facets of the game .. that is all but one. He had a livid attacking imagination and that carried him to the crown. He was like the hard hitting boxer that didn't have anything to offer apart from pure strength. So in theory all his opponents are far superior to him, it's just that they never make it past round 1 of the fight.

    That is John Wayne. He lacked the breath and finesse of someone like Sir John Gielgud or Sir Laurence Olivier (the Sir in front of both names really underlines how underappreciated they where), but he delivered a knock out punch that was unsurpassed at the time. Neither Gielgud or Olivier could have carried a blockbuster western.


    But nooo ... that is not good enough ... no no no .. we're choking on our womit

  21. #70

    User Info Menu

    Speaking of Sir Laurence Olivier and his opinion of an actor:

    "Actor Laurence Olivier once called Rooney "the greatest actor of them all". ... "Rooney is not just an actor of genius, but an artist able to maintain a stylized commentary on the demon impulse of the small, belligerent man:".

    As for Wayne; He clearly had a bigger-then-life screen persona, but related to music; when he soloed he often used the same licks, over and over again.

  22. #71

    User Info Menu

    DeNiro is really one of the best dramatic actors. Sometimes I think he - hisself - just does not exist

  23. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Lobomov
    ...Sir John Gielgud or Sir Laurence Olivier (the Sir in front of both names really underlines how underappreciated they where)...
    Indeed, knighted by the peerage, certainly not by the peasants , hehe ...

  24. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by jameslovestal
    Speaking of Sir Laurence Olivier and his opinion of an actor:

    "Actor Laurence Olivier once called Rooney "the greatest actor of them all". ... "Rooney is not just an actor of genius, but an artist able to maintain a stylized commentary on the demon impulse of the small, belligerent man:".

    ....
    Haha, a backhanded compliment?

  25. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonah
    DeNiro is really one of the best dramatic actors. Sometimes I think he - hisself - just does not exist
    ... another backhanded compliment? ...

  26. #75

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    Indeed, knighted by the peerage, certainly not by the peasants , hehe ...
    I'm old enough to remember Gielgud and Olivier at the height of their careers tho .. appreciated only by their peers is maybe overdoing it


    Claiming that the peasants don't determine who gets knighthoods within the arts is also wrong. If you're not loved by the people you don't get it. .. or are you claiming that Sir Richard Starkey was an extraordinary skilled musician?

  27. #76

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobomov
    I'm old enough to remember Gielgud and Olivier at the height of their careers tho .. appreciated only by their peers is maybe overdoing it


    Claiming that the peasants don't determine who gets knighthoods within the arts is also wrong. If you're not loved by the people you don't get it. .. or are you claiming that Sir Richard Starkey was an extraordinary skilled musician?
    Non Beatles musicians cannot appreciate how difficult Beatles drumming can be...

  28. #77

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    ... another backhanded compliment? ...
    Sorry... I do not get it. I am very straightforward.

    There are stars that can act like Clooney, Pitt, Redford etc. but they are still stars... they follow their public image and cant get rid of it, even when Clooney or Pitt takes a comic part, he still somehow keeps very positive image. But they are good anyway.


    There are lots of great dramatic actors - if we speak about America or UK here: for example Hoffnan, Hopkins, Nickolson, sometimes Pacino (but often he like himself too much, does not he? I cant blame him, all the actors flirt with the audience), DiCaprio and others.


    I saw fantastic actors of Russian school... I won't go into that because it will hardly tell anything to anyone here.


    DeNiro is very special. He seems to be not the actor but the impersonification of dramatic acting.
    His mimicks and expressions are always the same but the personality is different.
    It is even scary he is just a different person.
    Yes there are some cliche gangster parts of his but even there where he seems to repeat the 'licks' it is different personality, people in real life may have the same social behaviour but they are still different.
    With DeNiro it is like like another character comes from the very essence.
    Even in Meet The Parents... he wa3s the only actor who did not comic but acted as a character, if you watch carefully you will see that his character is the only really living one, his motivations and all.. it us interesting complex person and it is not DeNuro, sometimes if you forget the context it looks like drama because if that
    I read a lot about his crazy and a bit straightforward techniques but I do not care it is his kitchen.

    DeNiro himself is very reserved and does not seem to have any particular interests, even when he speaks about acting, he speaks without traditional actor's pathos. He does not seem to like it or not. It seems like he does not exist and needs to be someone else all the time.
    But he would never admit it as it is too ambitious. He is very practical.

  29. #78

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobomov
    Neither Gielgud or Olivier could have carried a blockbuster western.
    How could you know that? Look at the range of parts in which they excelled. And yes, they were the most popular actors of their day. Their knighthoods did not come from the peerage, but from the state.

  30. #79

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Litterick
    How could you know that?
    Intuition?


    Just like I don't expect Pat Metheny to carry a chart topping album of four chord pop songs

  31. #80

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    Haha, a backhanded compliment?
    I highly doubt Olivier was dishing Rooney. Most actors working in Hollywood were jealous of him, based on his wives.

    E.g. Ava Gardner (her first marriage at 21), Bette Jane Baker - Miss Alabama, Martha Vickers (actress that played Carmen in The Big Sleep), Elaine Devry (another beauty). In these 4 were fro 1942 - 1952.

    He had 4 more wives and they were all good, if not, great looking.

    Ok, Olivier was married to the very beautiful Vivien Leigh (Scarlet in Gone with the Wind), but she had mental health issues and wasn't much of a joy to be around after the 1951.

    Here is Martha Vickers (my favorite, with Ava a close second).


    Non Jazz musicians cannot appreciate how difficult Jazz imrov can be...-marthav4-jpg

  32. #81

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pauln
    Non Beatles musicians cannot appreciate how difficult Beatles drumming can be...
    I'm not ashamed to say Ringo is my favourite Beatle.

  33. #82

    User Info Menu

    I am sad that the world did not provide us with a Geilgud Western. That would have been.... something

  34. #83

    User Info Menu

    Ringo was not known for incredible chops. But, he is known for incredible taste. He created the perfect drum parts for song after song.

    I recently played two sessions with a Modern Drummer poll winner. He has incredible chops - simply incredible. And, he used them in demonstrating some things. But, for the songs we played as a group, he played simply and perfectly.

  35. #84
    Arise Sir, er... Ringo! The people's choice. 50 million people can't be wrong...

  36. #85

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
    Ringo was not known for incredible chops. But, he is known for incredible taste. He created the perfect drum parts for song after song.

    I recently played two sessions with a Modern Drummer poll winner. He has incredible chops - simply incredible. And, he used them in demonstrating some things. But, for the songs we played as a group, he played simply and perfectly.
    I’ve noticed drummers are a lot less dismissive of Ringo than ..errr.... other members of the Beatles. There seems to be a consensus that while he was no kind of technical player he was kind of a genius at coming up with quirky but perfect drum parts.

  37. #86

    User Info Menu

    In my own listening, I don't gravitate towards speed, but the dimensions of music that do attract my attention are not so easy either. Clever harmony, for example. Some of Jim Hall's hippest sounds are made with this shape xxx232, but not against the same major chord.

    I use that shape but think of it as xx1232 or 'diminished add Jim Hall'

  38. #87

    User Info Menu

    That quote was from rpjazz's original post. I'm sorry it didn't appear as a quote

  39. #88

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    I’ve noticed drummers are a lot less dismissive of Ringo than ..errr.... other members of the Beatles. There seems to be a consensus that while he was no kind of technical player he was kind of a genius at coming up with quirky but perfect drum parts.
    My close friend in student years was classical and fusion drummer and he always admired Ringo... when he listened to The Beatles he used to say that 'it was so blatantly primitive and straightfroward as if a kid would just take a can begin to bump on it with a spoon... but at the same time so genuine and effective' ...
    Ringo impressed him with uncoventional appraoch that probably trained and educated drummer would never go for...

  40. #89

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet
    Arise Sir, er... Ringo! The people's choice. 50 million people can't be wrong...
    they can... even more... majority is mostly wrong

  41. #90

    User Info Menu

    Don't get me wrong, I think Ringo was great. It's commonly accepted that his minimalist drumming is a huge part of what made Beatles songs stellar ... and that a busy drummer would have taken away the magic .. Not to mention that he swings

    But for the sake of making a point, mentioning Sir Richard Starkey seemed appropriate and like a fun thing to do

  42. #91

    User Info Menu

    Ringo had a groove. I think that’s the simplicity of it. It wasn’t even the coming up with parts. It was his groove. That’s hard to teach.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by henryrobinett; 05-22-2020 at 08:48 PM.

  43. #92

    User Info Menu

    Everything about The Beatles was infectious. Listen to She Loves You, I Wanna Hold Your Hand. The groove Ringo plays is infectious. It's not chops. I think in many ways Ringo MADE the sound of that band. It might be overstating, but his contribution is continually ignored because John, Paul and George wrote such great music and sang like nobody. And then the rock instrumental monsters came on the scene like Ginger Baker, John Bonham, Mitch Mitchell - he got buried. Then later Paul just played a lot of the drum parts. But those early Beatles records - Ringo man. Ringo.

  44. #93

    User Info Menu

    Jazz improv is nothing other than normal improv. If you can hum an improvised melody you should be able to play it on your instrument. I think we get caught up in the theory too much and while playing our brain says that something doesn't fit over the structure. Your brain is always wrong and your ear is always right.

  45. #94

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by S F
    Jazz improv is nothing other than normal improv. If you can hum an improvised melody you should be able to play it on your instrument..
    I can hum much faster and more complicated bebop style lines than I could ever hope to play on the guitar. In this respect, jazz is way more difficult than say blues or folk music or the average TV theme or English hymns. (Speaking as someone new to jazz but who has been playing blues and folk guitar for years.) The aspects of jazz playing related to speed, the expectations of density (a near-constant stream of notes - canonical jazz players considered 'minimal' aren't all that minimal compared to instrumentalists in other forms of music) when soloing - the amount and length of solos too - that's all very different from other forms of music. I can hum you loads of Thelonious Monk heads, as I've listened to his music more than any other jazzer, but I couldn't just pick up a guitar and play them all. However, I have no problem playing folk melodies on the spot at folk sessions, for the simple reason that they are lot less complicated, fewer notes in them, more repetitive, far more symmetrical.

  46. #95

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Milton
    I can hum much faster and more complicated bebop style lines than I could ever hope to play on the guitar. In this respect, jazz is way more difficult than say blues or folk music or the average TV theme or English hymns. (Speaking as someone new to jazz but who has been playing blues and folk guitar for years.) The aspects of jazz playing related to speed, the expectations of density (a near-constant stream of notes - canonical jazz players considered 'minimal' aren't all that minimal compared to instrumentalists in other forms of music) when soloing - the amount and length of solos too - that's all very different from other forms of music. I can hum you loads of Thelonious Monk heads, as I've listened to his music more than any other jazzer, but I couldn't just pick up a guitar and play them all. However, I have no problem playing folk melodies on the spot at folk sessions, for the simple reason that they are lot less complicated, fewer notes in them, more repetitive, far more symmetrical.
    Its probably more a matter of practicing getting the music out on the instrument then. It does get easier. Practice scales and arps for technical preparation but focus on playing the lines you hear.

    I was trying some Irish style accompaniment the other day. Lot of nuance in that music. Couldn’t quite get the groove.

  47. #96

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by S F
    Jazz improv is nothing other than normal improv.
    Perhaps on some level, but plenty of improv is not jazz, because the improviser has no knowledge or ear for jazz harmony. If it isn't in your head, you can't play it. Blues, rock improv is often very different in harmonic, rhythmic concept.

  48. #97

    User Info Menu

    Sure, if it isn't in your head you can't play it. That is true. (There is the a side-alley here, which is that often when improvising it's the mistakes, or hitting a string when you're not 100% sure if it's where you should be going, that open new doors, but that's a whole other discussion)

    But I can think up an improvisation in my head that is really easy to play... I'm playing what I'm thinking, so long as I don't think of anything too difficult for me to play!

    I can agree that if you are really serious about mastering jazz you should work to get to a point where you can play what's in your head. But that's a massive 'should'! If you told John Coltrane to play what he played on the sax on the guitar, it would take him a while... He would know what to play, but technical facility on an instrument is a bigger deal in jazz than in other forms

    If you're a fantastic bluegrass soloist you'd probably have fewer problems in learning jazz language and then coming up with jazz soloing ideas and then being able to execute them than if you were coming from a pop or rock background. I say probably cos there are always exceptions but think it's just silly to pretend that jazz doesn't go to a lot more melodic and harmonic places than other popular music forms; it requires an expertise that is generally a bit higher than those other forms in terms of musical dexterity and changes in direction over the course of a tune.

  49. #98

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by S F
    Jazz improv is nothing other than normal improv. If you can hum an improvised melody you should be able to play it on your instrument. I think we get caught up in the theory too much and while playing our brain says that something doesn't fit over the structure. Your brain is always wrong and your ear is always right.
    Correct.

    Its really a simple process, but it takes a long time to get good at this. You have to be humble and patient.

    It is also very important to work out how to sing other people’s lines to give you an idea of how the music is meant to sound.

    Students today seem
    to have a big problem accepting this. I think they want it to be a more complicated pursuit. But all the other stuff is just mean to help with this basic process not replace it.

  50. #99

    User Info Menu

    When we consider art in its higher character, we might wish that only masters had to do with it … that amateurs might feel themselves happy just to reverentially approach its precincts. For a work of art should be the effusion of genius, the artist should evoke its substance and form from his inmost being, treat his materials with sovereign command, and make use of external influences only to accomplish his powers.
    Goethe

  51. #100

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Correct.

    Its really a simple process, but it takes a long time to get good at this. You have to be humble and patient.


    .
    Don't get caught in this... you have to be daring and ambitious.