-
This whole "Jazz is separate from Classical" is a very new attitude, definitely from the 1960's onwards. Classical performers hardened into pure memorization of repertoire, and saw themselves as bizarre custodians of fixed works. Jazz musicians started getting weird about improvisation, where it becomes a sort of idol or strange quasi-religion. (Barry Harris said it best when he lamented that Jazz was no longer "dance music", no one was really dancing to jazz anymore and so musicians nowadays have switched to making improvisation the thing to obsess about. Improvisation was supposed to be like this fun cherry on the top of a fun tune for people to dance too)
But pre-1960 it wasn't so cut and dry..
Even Jimmy Raney remarked when listening to Bartok with Charlie Parker on the couch drinking gin that Bartok sounded close to Bird in terms to the rhythm. Charlie Parker of course devoured classical music. So it's so funny when people remark "Wow! Bird came out of nowhere!"
Oops, too much history.. guess I'm a musicologist. We're not supposed to know anything. All hail romanticism!Last edited by humphreysguitar; 03-22-2023 at 12:41 AM.
-
03-22-2023 12:09 AM
-
Nobody forbids anyone from dancing to the music of Miles Davis, for example.
I even signed up for a ballroom dance class. Better late than never.
-
This was a common refrain with Barry - who incidentally kept his hand in with classical recitals of his favourites, Bach and Chopin, and although I never heard him do it, could apparently improvise in a Chopinesque vein very well. I think the 8 note scale of chords takes you into a very Romantic harmonic world in any case.
Originally Posted by humphreysguitar
Barry represented an older conception of the value of jazz that it represents a successor music to that of the Western Tradition that has fallen out of fashion for various reasons. In those days institutions like the Cass Technical School (which Barry didn’t attend but many of his colleagues and associates in Detroit did) maintained orchestras and Saturday morning classical music tuition serving the cultural aspirations of the Black middle class in the 50s, and is where Kenny Burrell, Tommy Flanagan, Paul Chambers and many others learned music. So I can imagine there was a natural continuity in their minds with the Western Canon and jazz, self consciously defining itself as an art music during this era - although Barry always noted his experience in dance halls and playing for Burlesque dancers… These organic intellectuals knew the western canon. Barry read Schopenhauer, and so on. Nowadays those aspirations would probably seem Eurocentric.
I would say that there are many unique features of jazz that do not come from European music - such as the rhythmic language (not just the swing), the layered approach to harmonic substitution, the use of non-quite parallel harmonisations (such as block chords) which can trace West African influences (there’s some compelling albeit limited musicology on the distinctively West African roots of jazz harmony) which means I’m never comfortable describing Jazz as classical music or accepting statements like ‘Bach was the first jazz musician’ that you sometimes hear older musicians say. But in Barry’s case I feel it’s his call, not mine.
I agree about the cult of improvisation. But I tend to lay this more at the door of 20th century classical musicians and their hang ups than the jazz community who during the mid century continued to get on with making music. Later it had a real effect as jazz education needed to define itself in opposition to Classical Music. So improvisation was an obvious point of difference. But the baleful effect of this - the veneration of this chimeric beast ‘true improvisation’ is a seperate screed. Steve Swallow put it really well in a video I could dig out if you want.
To me the big shake up in classical is the division of labour between composer and performer. This means that performers no longer have any agency in ‘the construction of music’. On the other hand composers don’t tend to construct music at the instrument so much. so performers don’t invent music, and composers don’t extemporise so much. Otoh composers delegate fewer decisions to performers and performers become more dependent on the dots, editorial decisions and performance conventions passed on by teachers in the case of pre classical music in particular - this is the RIGHT way to play Bach!
OTOH if you compose AND play improvisation emerges naturally IMO. It’s not a big deal. It’s just one side of spectrum with composition and all points in between.
Mozart, Beethoven and Chopin played their own piano works, and it would have been thought a bit odd if they didn’t perform. Even Brahms who I don’t think of as a performer-composer so much as Chopin (whose music was much more focused around the piano exclusively) was also a celebrated pianist, of course.
Wagner is an obvious example of the non performing composer - he could play piano, but wasn’t a recitalist - it may be simplistic to lay this division at his feet, as with so much we take as read about music today, but he’s an obvious and incredibly influential example not just for Schoenberg, Mahler, Strauss etc but even for those such as Debussy who ultimately rejected him.
This is a simplification, Bartok can be heard on record performing his own works for instance, but it seems to hold some truth. Otoh I think American Minimalism and all that followed started to reverse this trend. (Again it’s not a bad thing per se - complex and lengthy romantic operas and symphonies need more division of labour than solo piano works, baroque concerti or a work for a small electro acoustic ensemble.)Last edited by Christian Miller; 03-22-2023 at 06:15 AM.
-
"Liszt wrote a book about Chopin. Of course, Chopin didn't have to write books about other musicians, but why didn't he write at least two sentences about the art of other artists to his friends and family? Why did he not describe any of his inspirations, thoughts, adventures of a higher order than receiving parcels, etc.?"
"Of course, there have been great musicians who had little to say verbally. Such was Mozart to some extent, the complete lack of expression even amused Bruckner's contemporaries. A musician does not have to have poetic impressions, he does not have to speak fluently, he can think simply with music, without words. I believe that Mozart, Bruckner and Chopin thought so, in sounds and not in words. They were brilliant in sounds, clumsy in words, maybe even handicapped"
"Instead of turning letters of very average value into relics (even Chopin's biographer can feel bad about these letters, because a biography cannot be based only on the fact that someone had dinner or received a package), one should consider what it is like to think with music ? What is it like not to name your impressions, thoughts, discoveries, but only to “sound” them…?"
-
I don't know if this is transcribing but one thing I like to do is to put on a record and play along with it as if I was in the rhythm section. I'll put on an album that I've never played along to before and then imagine that I'm playing in the band. No sheet music, just using my ears to find parts that fit in with the drums/bass/piano. Then play along again with the record a few times. No soloing, just pretend I'm in the rhythm section. I don't necessarily learn the whole song, but I'll learn enough of the structure, rhythms, motifs, key tonalites, etc. to get through the tune intact. Originally Posted by Yair Matayev
-
Marinero has a successor, I see. The dogmatism of individual "taste." Originally Posted by JimmyDunlop
-
Good taste everyone...;-) Originally Posted by lawson-stone
-
"I don't want tuna with good taste; I want tuna that tastes good!"—Starkist
-
Comparing music to a fish... I don't know if it's a good idea. Originally Posted by lawson-stone
By the way,
Nice to see You
-
Nuts and bolts here. My teacher recommended I transcribe single lines and initially learn them in one position using familiar chords shapes as a way of visualizing the line. Play them really slowly at first. Spend time with them. Then start plugging the line into tunes. If you’ve learned a ii-V-I line, stick it into every ii-V of every tune you know. Loop the harmony and start mutating the line. Think of it not so much as a static line that you will regurgitate, but a template for creating your own lines. If the line was originally played over a long ii-V, play around with compressing it to work over short ii-Vs. One line can go a long way.
-
There is no question about the benefits of transcribing lines or chordal phrases as a source of new ideas to assimilate. The real debate to be had is if there is a benefit of learning whole solos or even choruses.
I have in the past transcribed and memorized solos some of which I completely forgot after a couple of months. A few solos that I benefited from were the ones I learned individual ideas from that I could've done by just transcribing these smaller segments.
Of course any practice activity is better than not practicing at all but is transcribing and memorizing whole solos beneficial enough to be high on the practice list?
-
It all depends on what level of playing you are at. Originally Posted by Tal_175
It's different when you're a beginner and different when you're an advanced player.
When I started learning to play jazz music, I played Parker's solos.I practiced it with backing tracks and tried to understand why these notes are the way they are .
Then gradually think in scales - where should be what scale.I developed the so-called inner hearing.
Currently transcribe small excerpts - not whole soles.
I listen to jazz music a lot and analyze it aurally in terms of phrasing.
-
Yes, I think someone who is very new to jazz and struggle to sound like jazz as how s/he hears the music can benefit from learning solos or bebop heads and playing them with the recordings. This does help with absorbing the general feel and phrasing nuances of jazz for someone who is coming from a different style of music. Originally Posted by kris
Perhaps players at any level can learn something about masterful solo composition at a residual or subconscious level from memorizing entire solos. I just don't know a systematic way of learning compositional ideas from long solos. I mean other than individual phrases, motivic development and call response patterns. But these can be obtained from shorter segments of the solos.
-
Well, I suppose I can comment, even though I'm still coming back to guitar as an entirely new instrument. Originally Posted by Tal_175
It sounds dogmatic and maybe a bit stupid, but I really believe in transcribing down to the smallest subdivision of rhythm, on paper, with a pencil, at least a chorus at a time.
I could make up some fancy stories about neuroplasticity or whatever, that I know nothing about, but for me that's how the sausage is made. Write it down so you don't forget it, and ideally put it all in a nice little "book" or folder or whatever.
Yes, sometimes I think to myself, "Well, some distant relative is going to have fun with these when I'm gone for and buried!" but it's a discipline, and it keeps me organized.
For me, to respond to the question, it's a matter of staying organized and focused. If I want to play "Actual Proof," I can look it up in one of my folders and recognize my own handwriting on staff paper.
-
Yea... I always notate it out... at least that way I'll remember.
But...
I'm taking it that the OP has some ideas how to go about transposing. I'm not a fan of the slowing down approach, seems backwards personally... but that's my hangup.
Anyway... And this from someone who did it for $.... had to be fast LOL
The Form, then the rhythm and harmony then the melody or solo..
Obviously... Forms become simple.... but that's the point. As well as rhythmic figures and harmony. They become simple and after filling in a few blanks the notes also become obvious.
The composition thing... I don't agree that Jazz isn't different from Traditional serious music. I've composed orchestral and symphonic works, new and old sonata form etc..., lots of string quartets and modern versions of, music for tv and film, the big difference personally is the Big tonal references, the tonal organizational reference. it's always vanilla, and by that I mean the reference is always Maj and embellishment, even with modal music. I've worked in pits in jazz rhythm sections with orchestras playing jazz arrangements and compositions...it's different.
As Humphreyguitars mentioned, the views have changed... anyway his point seems logical. I'm old, was working gigs in 60's and 70's. I still sub for working dance BB's ... they're really straight, vanilla. Not bad or wrong... but I usually don't think of them as jazz gigs. They're dance gigs... almost pop.
Back when we edited with moviolas and while recording in studios trying to get the rhythms and intonations right... Even with some Big bands.... the results, the performances... were and still seem different.
In the end... who cares. It will be figured out later, right. Stupid story from gig last week... a Monk tune was requested, Blue Monk..oh boy, right. So on the fly...I changes it into a latin blues feel with a V13 sus, IV13sus, bIII13sus, II-7 V7alt. turnaround. Simple and typical etc...
It worked because I changes a few notes of head in last 3 bars on the fly... pretty straight ahead.
Bar 10... 4th beat...C# to D became C to Db
Bar 11... + of beat 2 .. G became Gb... the + of beat 4 became Bb
Bar 12... 1st beat became C D#
Requester probably didn't even notice and we could at least have a little fun.
-
I used to have what I thought to be "good taste" in music. Now I have no idea what taste is meant to be. I tend to be open to liking stuff more than when I was young. Make of that what you will. Originally Posted by kris
If someone said I had terrible taste in music, I think I would quite enjoy that.
I mean I'm still confused the people are allowed to like Dire Straits now. I wanted to like Dire Straits in the 90s but THEY WOULDN'T LET ME.
-
I don't want to refer to the food but just tastes are different. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Taste in music can be shaped in a way but I don't know if it's easy for everyone.
One friend of mine started buying beautiful expensive clothes, expensive music equipment - he listened to Coltrane, bought an expensive piano... maybe he had a good taste in it all.
-
Which was nice! Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
It's always very interesting to read your comments Reg and I almost always notate what I have transcribed. However, on the basis that there's always more than one way to skin a cat, Christian had once mentioned a book by Peter Ind, an English bass player who lived and played in New York in the late 40s and 50s. Because of his comments I bought it, and I'm very glad I did. Originally Posted by Reg
Ind studied with Lennie Tristano, who some may not know was blind. Tristano's method involved learning to sing jazz solos before attempting to play them in order to develope the ability to play what you hear. I've been dabbling with it and while it's a lot more difficult than I had expected to learn to sing specific solos, it does have it's advantages when it comes to finding those solos on the fretboard and relating them to particular harmonic structures. I think I'll persevere with it for a while.
p.s. sorry I can't wield the cudgel for or against classical versus jazz. I did a classical arranging course with the expectation that I would finally realise it's superiority to jazz but I merely realised that I loved both.
-
This is what I've always written about. Originally Posted by Irishmuso
Why are you transcribing?
Just to hear better.
Hearing music is a broader issue.
-
That’s the long and the short of it….
The point of it is not in fact to play other people’s solos on YouTube to impress yer mates, though you can certainly do that.
re the Tristano thing - once you have the solo in your ear you transpose to all keys… Warne marsh used to do that with prez solos. Good warm up!
-
Sorry if posted earlier in thread:
5 Reasons You Shouldn't Transcribe Jazz Solos - Learn Jazz Standards
-
Yea... most of us are somewhat normal. By that I mean... we don't have perfect pitch, photographic memory and all those freaky skills. I sure don't, I generally have always needed to work hard and be extremely organized. And ...I'm average...
I transcribed to learn tunes and have a record of them. Later... for $ Anyway where I'm going is... you need to understand yourself, at least... believe you know where you want to go... and then do what you believe will work best for you or whatever reason your doing it.
The hearing thing.... well if your blind, what else is there. I always respected Tristano's playing... yea his Wow album with Konitz and Marsh was smokin... I always heard his playing as just too straight, too vanilla. That's not a bad thing obviously, just personal tastes. Just was always difficult to hear the Blue thing in his bebop playing. Again not bad or wrong... just personal taste. That being said... played gig last night, that didn't didn't seem to have that Blue thing either... (too loud also). At least it wasn't recorded. LOL
-
I would say the value of learning whole solos or whole choruses is that we get the logic of the solo. A good solo is more than just a set of "vocabulary" phrases strung together. The great players have a logic, a flow, to their solos that embraces the whole. I hear this especially in someone like Jimmy Raney. That solo of Kenny Burrell "I'm Old Fashioned" has a lovely overall architecture that I never really noticed until I transcribed it. Originally Posted by Tal_175
I also think this is where transcribing takes us beyond just learning licks and vocabulary, and opens up the more comprehensive sense of how a specific player builds a solo, how tension is created, how suspense builds, how they resolve the tension climactically, how they transition between ideas. That's more than learning a few phrases, it's getting a bit more into the player's head.
-
Actually, for some of us really bottom-feeding amateurs, impressing our friends is really what it's about! I mean, I called "I'm Old Fashioned" in Ab with some friends, who could do that, and then I busted out Kenny Burrell's solo and blew their minds. It's not a mind-blowing solo, but they were really wowed at what I played. I never told them it was totally plagiarized...er... transcribed. They were saying things like "soulful" and such, things nobody has said about my playing since! Originally Posted by Christian Miller
Never, ever underestimate the importance of impressing your friends and band-mates!!!
Reply With Quote
mclaughlin sound here
Today, 12:26 AM in The Players