-
So I've been listening to thier "Undercurrent" album a lot this week. I've noticed, that they feed off each other, and communicate so well as a duo, when one comps louder or certain rhythms, he pushes the other to play lines a certain way, ect.
I can't think of another duo setting where two musicians are "talking" so well.
Can anyone?
-
04-05-2010 10:30 AM
-
actually, no.
it's pretty much the finest example of duo playing i can think of (intermodulation, their second record together, is also good, but IMHO, not recorded as well)
jim hall's records with ron carter are pretty excellent, and ed bickert and don thompson's "at the garden party."
but the way those two chordal instruments mesh on "undercurrent" is magical.
to throw one more name out there-- chet baker and paul bley's "diane" is a pretty special album. mind you, the communication can't be the same, since the trumpet isn't really a "support" instrument, but paul bley's accompanyment is about as good as it gets, IMHO. spare, yet colorful, and hauntingly beautiful...a wonderful album, great for driving around at night.Last edited by mr. beaumont; 04-05-2010 at 12:10 PM.
-
Well, when non-harmonic instruments play in duo-sit.'s like Johnson/Pass there is more an agressive kind of playing from the horn, like on the album Kenny Barron/Stan Getz "People Time" it's like at times they spur each other on, not necissarily trading lines.
I do love when horn players comp with lines during others' solos ala Ornette or Curtis Fuller
-
BTW, when Wes referred to a "cat in Canada that could solo using nothin but chords real fast" you think he was referring to Bickert? It just dawned on me
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
I agree about Alone Together by Jim Hall and Ron Carter. The common denominator between these is of course, Jim Hall. I think the man can make anyone sound better.
The interplay between Joe and Ella on the 4-5 recordings they did together is just incredible also. My favorite guitarist and favorite vocalist doing what they do best.
-
I would say Kessel/Julie London-but Julie London had no musical flexibility/musicalisty to interact with Barney. I guess that's why she was an actress first
-
I like duos so I could rattle off a few, but I agree that Undercurrent is sublime. I was listening to two good examples today: Paul Bley with Gary Burton (Right Time - Right Place), very beautiful and intense; and Bela Fleck with Edgar Meyer (Music for Two); eclectic, and fun. Originally Posted by Jazzyteach65
-
-
Undercurrent is my all time favorite album. It was the album that got me into jazz guitar.
-
Undercurrrent is fine indeed. Played it until I nearly wore it out and it is a CD.
Currently listening to the Joe Pass and Niels-Henning Orsted Pederson disc called "Chops." They are definitely in each other's kitchen.
-
I'm a big fan of Jim Hall and Ron Carter/s Telephone side as I like the selection of tunes better then I do on Alone Together. The Evans/Hall Duets really are a hallmark of early Chamber Jazz as I think you'd be hard pressed to find many modern day Guitarists/Pianists who haven't torn into those recordings. They are flawless.
If you're interested in another example of inspiring Piano/Guitar albums, I'm a fan of some of the Abercrombie/Lavern albums as I think they play off each other very well. As for Bass/Guitar, the Ralph Towner/Gary Peacock sides on ECM are beautifully recorded and masterfully performed.
-
abercrombie did a nice record with don thompson too, don plays bass on most track, piano on some. called "witchcraft."
-
Listening to it even more, the way these two players feed each othe'ss ideas, mimic and finish each other's sentences, how they do things at the same time, it's ALMOST like either they're telepathic or they've rehearsed together for 25 years.
Jim Hall seems to never over play or play nonsense notes, no busy meaningless gobbldygook. He makes his points clear with his motives and lyrics, and Bill does the EXACT same thing here. The sharp stop-and-go, darting jabs of lines they throw at each other, reminds me of why I love music in the first place.
Ho could something so mellow be so intense yet relaxed at once?
-
it almost reminds me of Carnatic or Indian music, where sitar or sarod and tabla speak and can communicate for hours on end.
It's mind-boggling when things happen spontaneoulsy, but sound like a damn composition with these two. It's like I wonder ow the hell did Bill Evans know to inject a sus chord to create that tension and compliment Jim Halls' idea PERFECTLY?
-
The duo that is of the most pleasure to my ear would have to be Herb Ellis and Joe Pass. These men were definately on the same page, period. They send a powerful blues inflected message throughout, meshing with great modern jazz subtlties. Simply beautiful. I agree 100% that Jim and Bill are one of the best, but Joe and Herb are my cup of Tea.
Amazon.com: Two for the Road: Herb Ellis: Music
-
I will agree with you, Joe and Herb. Them together is unbelieveable. Originally Posted by Gambrosius1984
Barney and Jim Hall, ect those masters all compliment each other SO well.
I recently saw a duet with Jimmy Bruno and Andreas Oberg, and it was a near train wreck. Jimmy Bruno was obviously frustrated that the two couldn't get "together" like he wanted. When this happens no one can really express thier ideas correctly. From what I hear, "listening" and interacting with other muscians is a lost art amongst today's younger top players
-
Could you elaborate? Originally Posted by Jazzyteach65
I just checked Oberg recently (few days back) and really wasn't impressed at all by the few vids I caught. He can run rings around me on the fretboard, but I didn't like his lines that much and he seemed to have really little sense of touch/tone. I'm not overly surprised tbh to hear you comment about him having listening 'issues' when it comes to interacting as well.
But then (and maybe this is just nostalgia for a time I never knew), it seems like the days of yesteryear were full of jazz musos and just musos in general getting together and jamming all over the place. These days, there's still plenty of musos, but my experience is a lot are so committed to whatever their current project is that they don't really do as much impromptu jamming as in the past. And a lot of people are more into just doing projects with their own material which makes jamming it a little more difficult. Although I can sit in at jazz spots with guys way more experienced than me, I've really struggled to find people around my level of ability who want to get together and just jam a few tunes on a regular or not-so-regular basis. I'm sure my playing would have come on a lot if I'd had that. The work I put in counts, but every time I'm on the bandstand I learn a lesson, and the same goes for every time I jam. And those lessons are usually things no book or tutor can really prep me for properly.
Still didn't like his tone/touch tho.
-
Oberg is a jazz "shredder," and honestly, Bruno is IMHO too. I find Bruno more listenable because I tend to like the playing situations he finds himself in more than Oberg's but I'm also not surprised these cats couldn't play together nicely. Reminds me of that Joe Pass/ NHOP record "Chops."
I know some people love it, and I'm sorry in advance for saying it, but that is a complete mess of an album IMHO. Sounds like a competition, not a duo.
-
[
I know some people love it, and I'm sorry in advance for saying it, but that is a complete mess of an album IMHO. Sounds like a competition, not a duo.[/quote]
[quote=Scrybe;74348]Could you elaborate?
well Bruno is a FAR more lyrical and sensible player, he has nice ideas and phrases, but he can "shred" too. Oberg might be a monster, but he seems more of a technician than a musician.
It's funny, (AND I HOPE THE PUBLICIST IS READING THIS, BECAUSE I COULDN'T CARE LESS) I had a chance to play with Bob Conti at a clinic I put on here about a year ago. We started off playing a simple I-ii-iii vamp, trading lines. Before the thing, I told him I don't play fast, and his showmanship is intimidating, so take it easy on me. What does he do, taked the first solo and blows me the f*ck away. THANK GOD it was taken off youtube. Then I come back here posting a thread about Conti being too much of a chromatic pyrotechnician, devoid of motives and lyrics. I get a threatening email from his publicist, but that's a whole nother story. I guess shredding=pride with some.
What the hell ever happen to guys like Kenny Burrell or John Abercrombie, who would admit to not playing fast licks or gimmicks, but "keeping it real and sensible?" Are players becoming too technical in place of musical these days?
The work I put in counts, but every time I'm on the bandstand I learn a lesson, and the same goes for every time I jam. And those lessons are usually things no book or tutor can really prep me for properly.Last edited by Jazzyteach65; 04-09-2010 at 11:20 PM. Reason: spelling
-
[quote=Scrybe;74348]Could you elaborate?
Sure, before they even start, you could tell there was tension, and who would be "top dog" could arise. Oberg didn't comp ideas that would push Bruno, nor did he feed him rhythmic ideas/melodic ideas. There really wasn't ANY dialogue until the end when they traded lines. Oberg did his whole "gypsy comping thing, WHICH TOTALLY DIDN'T FIT," and also did his best Django tremelo stuff with one chord that had little effect on Bruno.
Basically, the two were out of sync, not rhythmically, but musically, and IMHO, this is what one of my teachers Fred Hamilton, (Jake Hanlon and I both had him at UNT) once said: in a trio or duo, there is enough space that dialogue is VITAL. Bruno and Oberg, even though it was there first time playing together, should have talked about how they would approach tunes, rather than just give it a go and sound like two young teens in school. IMHO Jimmy is much more intellectual than how he played, and he came from alot of dialogue-based playing situations in the streets of Philly.
It just made me realize yet again how players like Barney and Jim, Herb and Joe ect could feed each other so well, breath as one and sound like they've know each other for 25 years, when they've only known each other for a day
One of my friends used to be George Benson and Lionel Hampton's bassist (my friend is in his 70's) once told me during a jam session that back in the day, you had to lie at weddings or formal gigs when you just met the band earlier in the week or day, when someone asked "how long have you guys been together?" because players knew how to communicate back then.Last edited by Jazzyteach65; 04-09-2010 at 10:57 PM.
-
Thx fam, that made for an interesting read. I'm hoping my quarter will develop much more dialogue so it's interesting to bear in mind for that, but also cos the jazz I love the most seems to fit what you're saying. It's so hard to pull off tho - my chops and ear need a lot of work, but creating that interplay and having the confidence/comfort to do it isn't something you can really practice without the jam sessions to test it in, imvho. I wish I could get something like that going around my way, but it seems everyone just wants to focus on having a tight band and gigging. That's great and all, but there's less growth from it, esp when the arrangements get pretty pinned down (e.g. it surprises other players when you change your part). Jam sessions seriously need resurrecting, or jazz will die out.
The Conti thing sucks man. Can't believe someone would be such a prat.
-
The Conti thing sucks man. Can't believe someone would be such a prat.[/quote]
It showed me that you can be considered great, been playing for over 40 years and still not be a musician in a sense.
It's funny, because the liner notes to the "Undercurrent" record talk about how non-musicians and general public don't listen to jazz the same way musicians and avid fans do. You can be a goreat shredder, and dazzle the non-players with your tricks, but that's how these "monster" players sell dvd's and method books.
What REALLY pissed me off was Conti's attitude towards music. When I met him, I told him where I had studied, who I had studied under ect. He responded "so you wasted your money going to college learning modes and theory."
I could go into more detail, but I basically learned the man is a lick player, and even in his teaching, he teaches licks and not concepts. I remember once watching a class that Herb Ellis was running, and he showed how to outline thirds in a turnaround over a blues. He was basically like "this concept makes a different shape of your solo, take it from there."
I guess there's a reason why Ellis is a first-ballot Down Beat hall-of-fame player, and guys like Conti and Oberg have to sell DVDs to make money
-
Originally Posted by Jazzyteach65
It showed me that you can be considered great, been playing for over 40 years and still not be a musician in a sense.
It's funny, because the liner notes to the "Undercurrent" record talk about how non-musicians and general public don't listen to jazz the same way musicians and avid fans do. You can be a goreat shredder, and dazzle the non-players with your tricks, but that's how these "monster" players sell dvd's and method books.
What REALLY pissed me off was Conti's attitude towards music. When I met him, I told him where I had studied, who I had studied under ect. He responded "so you wasted your money going to college learning modes and theory."
I could go into more detail, but I basically learned the man is a lick player, and even in his teaching, he teaches licks and not concepts. I remember once watching a class that Herb Ellis was running, and he showed how to outline thirds in a turnaround over a blues. He was basically like "this concept makes a different shape of your solo, take it from there."
I guess there's a reason why Ellis is a first-ballot Down Beat hall-of-fame player, and guys like Conti and Oberg have to sell DVDs to make money[/QUOTE]
I dunno man, I've seen Herb Ellis (RIP) and Barney Kessel videos where it's just one big lick fest, each trying to outgun the other. But that's ok, it can be exciting and still quite valid musically when done well. And that's pretty much it for me at the moment, I don't favor restraint and "real" improv (ala B Evans) over fast line playing (say Oscar P.), cos each can be done beautifully. "Slow" and "restrained" can be boring and unadventurous too, right?
I hear you guys about Oberg, his chops are monstrous indeed, but his playing doesn't move me like Wes, Django or Benson. If his guitar was a woman, it would complain that it needs a little more foreplay....
-
a woman, it would complain that it needs a little more foreplay....[/quote]
Exactly. There is technical ability, then there is musical feeling/intuition, that which reflects the human life itself. Emotion, drama, ect. All the moods can be created by musical intuition, via dramatic effects like space, time, wide intervals, direction, change of direction, flow, stop, go, call response. It's all part of an emotional conversation.
Wes, just like Thelonious was able to take one idea, move it through changes, call and respond to the call with it, and create music, even if it didn't have all the dazzling technical stuff in the world
Here's another good one by a former teacher of mine in a duo setting
Welkom op Facebook
-
The main problem I had with Oberg was that although he played lots of notes on the stuff I heard, he didn't seem to care about any of them, his touch was off, and that's what made it sound mechanical to me. Compare it with someone like Coltrane or Sonny Rollins and when they burn each note is there, it's clear and defined and beautiful. Martino is the same. Actually, Martino is one of the few "shredders" I care for - his fast lines are harmonically interesting, but each note is also given commitment, for want of a better word. I can say the same thing about Pass's fast line, though I care for the actual lines a little less than with Martino. Love some of McLaughlin's line choices and general compositions, but his habit of picking everything fatigues my ears after a bit. Originally Posted by princeplanet
I've listened to a bit of Bruno and found his playing to be more musical, to my ears. There was more dynamic interest and strong tone on the stuff of his I heard than with a guy like Oberg.
But then, my oeverriding influences are Jim Hall and blues guys, so I tend to put a high value on interesting phrasing and harmony. I'm also heavily into getting a good level balance, both between instruments and on any given instrument. I hear Oberg as playing so hard all the time that there's nowhere to go with that. There's no sensitivity to it, imvho.
Took me a while to really get hip to Montgomery, think I checked a few really low quality recordings years go, but I've been listening a lot the last year, and especially these last few months, and every time his playing grows on me. Great feel to it.
Reply With Quote
Soul Serenade
Today, 05:23 PM in The Songs