-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
12-25-2023 01:52 PM
-
Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
12-25-2023, 01:54 PM #53joelf GuestOriginally Posted by RLetson
Also, arranging and composing do overlap, but arranging is very detail and craft oriented. You can't improvise whether or not a part lays under a player's fingers or when to leave space for breathing or what practical ranges are. Those things are craft.
As for me, I ain't Thad Jones, but I do write a lot of music. I can tell you that my best jazz writing is the kind I do quickly, no self-criticism while writing, as if I were playing a solo and having a good time. The next afternoon is the time for tweaking. You do need to look at your stuff somewhat in the light of day.
The stuff I struggle with more stays on my piano the longest. Then determination and stick-to-it-ness kick in. But I'd bet anything that under a microscope the seams and sweat and 2nd-guessing would show...Last edited by joelf; 12-25-2023 at 02:33 PM.
-
Originally Posted by James W
The problem is we don’t tend to listen to historic musicians in the context of the music of their era, and the pieces we remember tend to be the ones that are unusual and break the mould.
Mozart is perhaps an unhelpful point of comparison here. He’s a legendary figure of course. It’s hard to separate the man and his music from the prestige and myth. (He also fit a useful role for the Germans in their own history writing.)
If I said instead the likes of Paisiello, Durante, Sallieri, the younger Bachs, even Chevalier St-Georges (all feted in their lifetimes) there’d perhaps be less cultural baggage. All were masters, but none exactly ‘original’ in the way we’d think of it through out post-c19 c20 progressivist mindset.
Even Mozarts music was often highly conventional (as Glenn Gould pointed out in his own inimitable way.)
Music meant something different back then and it was valued for different reasons. Now we rate Bach over Corelli perhaps, precisely because Corelli was more conventional, but during Bach’s era this stood in Corelli’s favour.
OTOH there are some brilliant film composers. The old school ones of course have a tremendous level of craft and skill in the dots on paper world (although of course this is increasingly less the world of film music today). If their work is often generic and unmemorable this may have a lot to do with the conditions they have to work under, such as writing to temp tracks of other film music.
But the most widely heard modernist music is film music.
EDIT: in jazz, I tend to think of 50s bop as highly conventional and 60 jazz as more progressivist and romantic. Not sure how fair that is. But it was a big era of common practice 1948-1959. Parker did kind of kill off quite a few avenues of jazz and focussed everyone into doing basically the same thing for a while.Last edited by Christian Miller; 12-25-2023 at 02:30 PM.
-
Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Originally Posted by orri
-
I recently posted a vid to this thread: There is something special about improvisation.
Hoping that people would pick up on it for it's presented piece's similarity to improvisation on a simple form. "goes nowhere" being the key.
There you have a piece that is brilliant and beautiful... but goes nowhere.
The point (imho), when treating this as a composition (what it is), I totally get what the narrator says about it. Almost claustrophobic.
But switch the listening mood to "impro", it would kick ass so much.Last edited by emanresu; 12-25-2023 at 02:47 PM.
-
12-25-2023, 02:22 PM #58joelf GuestOriginally Posted by AllanAllen
Then there's the one-liner he famously made about how his own style came about: 'I tried to play bebop but it was too hard'.
I went to hear him at a place called Greene Street, in duo with Gil Evans. I was able to talk to him on break. I think the subject of Bird was broached by myself. Anyway he replied without equivocation or hesitation 'He was a master'.
He just realized, and probably Tristano goosed him too, that it would be too easy to 'go there'. To his credit he resisted becoming another Bird acolyte and was 100% himself. He didn't follow Parker around or become a slavish devotee like so many others. But deep respect was there...Last edited by joelf; 12-25-2023 at 02:39 PM.
-
Originally Posted by joelf
-
12-25-2023, 02:37 PM #60joelf GuestOriginally Posted by AllanAllen
'3 hail Marys, my son---and 80 worked out solos'...
-
Originally Posted by joelf
I don’t believe this is opposed to self discovery, I think it can lead to it in fact. Otoh I think it is entirely possible to think you are embarking on a journey of self discovery only to end up trapped in your own navel. I’ve had a fair bit of that over the past few years.
We are all different. One actor can find a truthful performance through technique (the English school) another through self exploration (Stanislavsky) - both manifestly work for some people.
For me music is a kind of ritual or magic spell. If the details are observed the magic can happen and something can pass into you and the audience.
It seems self-limiting and self-defeating---though I may be not getting it, in which case I apologize.
I’ve learned to follow something I can’t really explain- an impulse to learn this solo, this song. Study this. Practice this. If it feels a certain way…
The guys you cite knew they stood on the forefathers' shoulders, but definitely were on their own journeys.
A lot of people here cite Barry Harris as guru, hero---whatever
Well, I knew him well, since 1976. Loved him too. He was a great man. But once he called me when I was in-hospital. I was feeling doubtful about many things. In that discussion I mentioned that I have (musical) limitations.
'There are no limitations'.
Now this is a guy who everyone seems to think did best systematizing what was already out there. Maybe so, but he also knew his worth and, frankly, had quite the ego about it when you peeled past the 1st layer. So he advised me that day to maybe have more ego, or anyway more faith in myself, what I, Joel Fass, could bring to the table. It's almost as if he was putting the masters, who he certainly revered highly and fought for their recognition, in a certain perspective. One of his heros, Thelonious Monk, insisted we be ourselves, even as he knew whose shoulders he stood on.
Anything can be taken too far, slavish devotion and blind following as well as blinders-on self-worship.To me at least in somewhere in-between, maybe closer but not all the way to the self side of the equation lies the key to artistry...
I don’t think it’s egotistical to have confidence in your work. It takes self acceptance. We all want to be as good as x or y, but we are not x or y. We are something else entirely.
(But I say all this and I haven’t put my work out there for a long time. It’s easy to say this stuff.)Last edited by Christian Miller; 12-25-2023 at 03:34 PM.
-
Claiming that improvisation is overrated because "you aren't good at it" is basically BS. When you're in the moment in a jam and you maybe accent a particular beat and the drummer picks up on it and throws something twice as cool back at you as if saying, there, is that what you meant?, that's magic. Be a good accompanist by all means, but don't knock something just because it doesn't come naturally to you.
-
12-25-2023, 03:34 PM #63joelf Guest
Christian:
It's like it's been said about falling in love:
'There are 2 kinds: the kind where you lose yourself and the one where you find yourself'.
Monk had no choice but to be totally himself in every way. He was just too weird and special for it to go any other way.
Barry was only a man, and flawed like any of us. What made him a great man to me was his generosity towards musicians he believed in. I witnessed him come back from Europe and spend great sums of the $ he made supporting his peers with gigs at the JCT and in many other ways. What made him less so to me was his narrowmindedness about what is and isn't jazz and unseemly contempt towards certain musicians who were his equal at least. I felt it was unwarranted and perhaps based in jealousy. But I'll go with the great man assessment over the other in a heartbeat.
(And it's not like it's only him: Joe Zawinul said some mean, self-justifying shit about both Barry and Wynton Marsalis---who'd just featured his music at JALC, fer Chrissake!. Talk about balls).
Big egos go with big talent. If musicians were that humble they'd go into ashrams to meditate by their lonesomes, not perform in front of people and get pissed when they feel they're not sufficiently revered and/or loved.
3 quick personal Barry experiences, the 1st 2 in case ill-informed people think he was married to his teaching or classes in general :
1. one night at the JCT he saw me sneaking out to sit in at a toilet with great music, the Star Cafe. He was about to start his improvisation class.
'You're not game at all, are you?'
'I'm going to the Star'.
(Smiling broadly) 'Oh, sittin' in with the cats, huh'?
2. I did go to class one time, and the next day felt I may have been 'vibing' my general displeasure with classes and large groups other than ones making music. So I called him to sort of apologize if there had been any perceived static.
'I didn't get any vibe at all, and it's cool not to be a "class person". Not everyone is'.
3. The 1 time he ever put my work down was at a wedding party. He said something negative and that I ought to go back to class. I was pissed and hurt but did go to a class. I happened to demonstrate something that time he said he hadn't thought of.
'Thank you, my son'. He had the class play it. Then
'I'm sorry I said what I did that time'. To apologize to a delinquent student like me in front of his worshipful class took real balls and humility. And showed the kind of man he really was.
Finally, my ego gets out of bounds once in a while too, until I or someone else reins it in. Oh, and I've said and done many things, made mucho mistakes I've regretted in my life in music and generally. But I think I finally shot that person dead. Now I'm just an Asshole Emeritus---mostly retired but available for consultation...Last edited by joelf; 12-25-2023 at 10:09 PM.
-
Originally Posted by joelf
Monk had no choice but to be totally himself in every way. He was just too weird and special for it to go any other way.
Barry was only a man, and flawed like any of us. What made him a great man to me was his generosity towards musicians he believed in. I witnessed him come back from Europe and spend great sums of the $ he made supporting his peers with gigs at the JCT and in many other ways. What made him a mere man to me was his narrowmindedness about what is and isn't jazz and unseemly contempt towards certain musicians who were his equal at least. I felt it was unwarranted and perhaps based in jealousy. But I'll go with the great man assessment over the other in a heartbeat.
Actually when he was holding forth about Stitt not really having the triplet in his playing or some such (I love Stitt BTW) the general impression I got was - these people Barry is critical of are our musical demigods, but to Barry they were just guys he used to do gigs with. I guess that helped humanise the whole thing including Barry. They all had their own view of things. I got something from his irreverence, even when it seemed a little mean spirited. Those old guys could be BRUTAL.
Sometimes young men try to put that on as a hat, and it always looks ridiculous.
3 quick personal experiences, the 1st 2 in case ill-informed people think he was married to his teaching or classes in general :
1. one night at the JCT he saw me sneaking out to sit in at a toilet with great music, the Star Cafe. He was about to start his improvisation class.
'You're not game at all, are you?'
'I'm going to the Star'.
(Smiling broadly) 'Oh, sittin' in with the cats, huh'?
2. I did go to class one time, and the next day felt I may have been 'vibing' my general displeasure with classes and large groups other than ones making music. So I called him to sort of apologize if there had been any perceived static.
'I didn't get any vibe at all, and it's cool not to be a "class person". Not everyone is'.
3. The 1 time he ever put my work down was at a wedding party. He said something negative and that I ought to go back to class. I was pissed and hurt but did go to a class. I demonstrated something he said he hadn't thought of.
'Thank you, my son'. He made the class play it. Then
'I'm sorry I said what I did that time'. To apologize to a delinquent student like me in front of his worshipful class took real balls and humility. And showed the kind of man he really was.
Finally, my ego gets out of bounds once in a while until I or someone else reins it in. Oh, and I've said and done many things, made mucho mistakes I've regretted in my life in music and generally. But I think I finally shot that person dead. Now I'm just an Asshole Emeritus---mostly retired but available for consultation...
tbh I think the questions are more important than the answers. Probably change my views again in a few years....
-
12-25-2023, 03:52 PM #65joelf GuestOriginally Posted by Christian Miller
-
When I compose and then rehearse the band, sometimes I feel in control of the result. That is, to some extent, I'm dictating what the music is going to sound like, at least, until the solo section. Of course, it does depend on how much detail the charts contain, usually in terms of how specific the rhythmic content is in the chart.
When I improvise, it's more interactive, at least, on a good day. To some extent the solo dictates, but a big part of it is reacting aind interacting.
Comping actually strikes me as even more interactive. It's easier to lead when you're soloing, but comping is, more often (not always) akin to a committee making a decision.
-
Originally Posted by nyc chaz
I admit, for a long time I didn't get it. Then the more I worked with lyrical line and personal sense of phrasing, from totally inside to free improvisation, the more I really came to love Sinatra. After him I see Mark Murphy, Shirley Horn and Blossom Dearie as great instrumentalists who don't need to scat to improvise and compose. Rebecca Martin, Jill Seifers, Theo Bleckmann are also vocalists who have taken the jazz form and genre and made their own defined mark within it.
-
But but Frank isn’t a jazz mu…. Oh I’m dead of boredom already
who cares?
music is the BEST
-
Cheeky Ethan Iverson opinion
Is Jazz Improvised? and, What About McCoy, Herbie, Keith, and Chick? (Twitter Files 1) | DO THE M@TH
starts
“The more I learn about the tradition, the more I think jazz is NOT improvisation. It’s a repertoire, including what gets played in the solos. Billy Hart calls it “America’s Classical Music” for many reasons.”
the rest is peak EI.
Kind of agree? Tbh I’m over thinking about whether what I do is improv or not.
If it’s tolerable music I’ll take that as a win.
-
Not just Frank, but bunches of standards singers whose way with a song is clearly informed by the way jazz--and especially swing--shapes a tune. Goes back to Bing, who admired Armstrong and the Boswell Sisters. Hard to hear Tony Bennett or Keely Smith without hearing jazz time and phrasing even in their most ballad-y performances. (I figured out how to manage "Sunny Side of the Street" from Keely's version on Politely.)
-
Also EI says
‘In general, there is simply too much improvisation at the student level. Enough already. Learn the repertoire’
haha I have to agree. Student level jazz musicians need no encouragement in this area
This is interesting
‘[Gary] Bartz says he is a composer, not an improviser, and Billy Hart says this is America’s Classical Music. Why? It’s one way of protecting black music writ large. Jazz education frequently starts in the most Caucasian parts of America with kind of a casual attitude: “Here’s a chart on ‘So What.’ Any of the white notes are ok for the first 16 bars. Play what you feel!”
Treating the jazz greats as composers with specific languages enforces some kind of helpful gatekeeping. It’s fun to play jazz, of course, but it’s not only fun.”
I think I would fail to get through EI’s gate lol. And yet I think he’s right. All of that BS in the academic papers I mentioned, it boils down to this. Jazz absolutely has an aesthetic and aesthetic objects (most often recordings) and I actually find it really offensive when people make out that it’s just ‘play what you feel’ (I mean tell me you don’t like jazz without telling me…) The emphasis on improvisation from the early stages really plays to this.
-
Was it Branford Marsalis who said the thing about jazz being swing, the blues, and improvisation, and in that order of importance?
-
12-25-2023, 06:16 PM #73joelf Guest
Little Jimmy Scott.
A major influence not only on Nancy Wilson, but............................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ......................... JOE PESCI!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvdzVkdVvKs
-
There is also a downside to describing jazz as ‘americas classical music ’ of course. You pick up a lot of bad things from classical music if you’re not careful….
-
I do think it’s interesting that if you ask a person why they’re attracted to jazz, most of them will say “improvisation” or creativity or something like that. Which I tend to think is almost certainly not true. Loads of improvisational music that doesn’t attract listeners so readily (free jazz, being an obvious example). Anyway … it seems like it should be a no brainer that people tend to find themselves attracted to jazz because they like the way it sounds. So it would follow that folks might be well served by trying to sound like jazz before getting too hung up on improvising.
This coming from someone (me) who loves improvising in just about any context and thinks that’s by far the most fun part of playing. Trying to sound like what you like tohear is still the best way into improvising, whether you call idiomatic jazz playing improvising or not.
Home, guitar playing and travel
Today, 06:11 PM in Everything Else