-
Yeah, I love the "Live" album too. Matter of fact, Jim was kind enough to autograph the album jacket for me after a gig at the Jazz Bakery a few years back when he played with the same guys, Don Thompson on bass and Terry Clarke on drums.
That LP jacket has been hanging on the wall of my practice room ever since!
-
04-18-2010 06:52 AM
-
Hi,
I've just visited a concert of Jim Hall and his trio last Wednesday at the Konzerthaus in Vienna. He still has a voice leading to die for. I didn't care, that he missed one string or another from time to time (he's already 80 years old!).
In most cases, when I listen to those fast young cats coming out of certain schools or universities, I have the impression, that they all sound very similar. But I think, the reason for that may be the layout of the guitar. We shift so many patterns and when playing faster, we do it even more...
Cheers,
Chris
-
Well, he is very true and sensitive of a player, but he is one end of the spectrum. If you look at a guy like Dolphy, another "genious" who was EXTREMELY empathetic and sensitive as far as emotion goes in his playing, he was a completely different lyricist, wide intervals and false harmonics. His solos were also spontaneous. The same could be said with any of the true, sensitive players.
Those shredders, on guitar or the younger horn players who "tear it up." show no respect or sensitivity (IMHO)
-
I like taste. I also like dazzling, exciting "going for it" lines. Both at the same time I like especially, but usually not from guitarists. They're usually too clumsy, too undynamic, or just not as compelling as horns or pianos at a fast clip. There are definite exceptions like Django, Wes and Benson, but the rest of us should really keep our "fast" game at home until it's up to scratch- even if it takes 20 years. No-one likes to see people jerk off in public.
Mind you, there are a lot of "slow" players that jerk off in public too!
Jim Hall ain't one of them....
-
05-09-2010, 11:49 AM #30Baltar Hornbeek GuestCan you give us some evidence of "all those critics"? I'd like to read more from them.
Originally Posted by Jazzyteach65
-
Downbeat, I forget which issue it was, I think it was "75 most influential guitarists" where they say ....." for what he lack in speed....he makes up for in..." Originally Posted by Baltar Hornbeek
also countless forums, and Guitar World (not most credible source)
Even my current teacher says that back in the day, young players used to flock more to Pass and Martino b/c they played "hip shit" while guys like Raney and Hall played with more feeling
-
With all respect, neither of these examples really constitute a "criticism". Infact, I can't ever recall a reputable jazz or music critic ever complain that some one played too slowly. Now, there have been several complaints that certain players were too obsessed with playing too quickly, but even when they picked on guys like Johnny Griffin (sax), they were unfair, Griffin was as great back then as he is considered now. Originally Posted by Jazzyteach65
Maybe you hear these complaints you mention on the street? Kids for example are as obsessed with speed as they are with jerking off.
-
I'll never forget---once some years ago, I went round to a friend and her kid's friends were round--they were two lads about 18-20. I had this Carl Jobim CD (not him, but a beautiful CD of his music nevertheless)--I asked Rose was her name to put it on, and as it played the two lads were sat there awkward and I asked the lads if they liked it--there was this embarrasment with them, and one said it sounded like music you'd hear in a lift/elevator!!!!!!! Originally Posted by princeplanet
With all respect, neither of these examples really constitute a "criticism". Infact, I can't ever recall a reputable jazz or music critic ever complain that some one played too slowly. Now, there have been several complaints that certain players were too obsessed with playing too quickly, but even when they picked on guys like Johnny Griffin (sax), they were unfair, Griffin was as great back then as he is considered now.
Maybe you hear these complaints you mention on the street? Kids for example are as obsessed with speed as they are with jerking off.
-
Critics have a job to do, and it's one sign of a good article that you can tell whether a particular player or album is on your wavelength without your having to do the listening - it's a timesaver. We don't and shouldn't all enjoy the same things, and we don't and shouldn't enjoy the same things when we are mature as when we were younger - a seventy-year-old who likes his music fast and furious is probably overmedicated, and a seventeen-year-old who likes it laid-back and mellow all the time needs his arse kicking. There's room in jazz for all kinds of approaches, and Jim Hall's is not to everyone's taste - even if you appreciate all that space and feeling, it can become oppressive. I mean, Chet Baker is great for ten minutes, but how long can you keep listening before you get the urge to run screaming out of the room? Originally Posted by Jazzyteach65
-
meh....they criticize Parker for being too fast, and Jim Hall for being too slow. Just stupid.
Anyone who uses speed as musical quality criteria, is foolish. Speed can be used to positive ends as well as negative ends. And conversely, space can be used to positive ends as well as negative ends. Speed is a musical tool, nothing more.
But speed, when done right, can have an exhilarating effect on the listener, and that can often fool one into thinking something deeper is going on. The exhileration is easy to feel, and therefore some other more subtle musical art made by the use of space gets ignored because it is not so physical and corporeal.
But they are equal in their importance.....
-
Speed doesn't sound good all the time... but technique is really, really important. I don't think playing fast is as important insofar as it's important to be capable of burning at high tempos... Maximum control means you'll be a surgeon when you're trying to articulate the digestible stuff that you're hearing in your head. That quote that was posted earlier I think just illustrates Jim as a shrewder player than anyone here when he said that he'd like to be able to play super fast, and then not do it.
That being said, sometimes it's nice to hear fast stuff.
-
Originally Posted by Jazzyteach65
Yeah, I see your point. Jim Hall doesn't lack anything important at all. The critics you are talking about seem to have a certain bias toward technical virtuosity that is common in the world of guitar magazines and other guitar-oriented circles. I don't he is being "ostracized", but there is a little bit of a
bias revealed there (like a Freudian slip or something). You woulndn't hear someone say "Mr. Q lacks all melodic sense, but he makes up for it with his great memorized patterns and enormous speed!"
Anyway, Jim Hall is an absolute great. He doesn't need to play any faster than he has ever played. I think part of the reason he doesn't play so fast, in fact, is that his lines are so complex, intricate and interesting that it might not be possible! When I was younger, I was one of the types myself: Jim Hall....ahhhhh, what's the big deal? Now, I listen to him, honestly, and I can't get enough of the guy. Soporific? You're not LISTENING at all if you think that. I can't even think of a single Jim Hall lick (although I'm sure that he has a few too).
On the other hand, as I've probably said before, I don't think that playing fast is inherently evil or something. It can be done beautifully and interestingly like Tal, Pat Metheny and George Benson in the early years. I don't think such musicians should be ostracized on the other extreme. I once posted that video of Tal on a blog or something and I got slammed by a trombonist for being "immature"! Yet, if I posted a video of Art Tatum playing at ultra-lightspeed, everyone says "Man, there's no-one like Tatum". What is wrong with Tal or some great guitarist with great technique, but who uses it well? Then there is of course, the great Bird licks at 400bpm and Coltrane's brilliance at any speed. It turns out that both things are hard to do WELL with a sense of musicality and proper placement and so on.
-
I totally agree. It's about the music and being musical, not a race to the finish line.
-
That piece was in the February 2009 issue of Downbeat: Originally Posted by Jazzyteach65
Down Beat February 2009
If you choose "30" from the menu at top center, it brings you to the exact page. There is no mention of his speed. I searched through the rest of the issue as well, since a good portion concerns guitar.
Sidenote: If you go to 45, there is an interview with Wes from the Downbeat archive.
-
Jim Hall = Time.
A feel to live for.
Google Bimini, Power of 3. Accompaniment, taste, sound, melody, danger. groove.
I always give my rockers getting into jazz the 'Tangerine' solo from 'Jazz Guitar'. They can't believe i'm giving them this old timey 'easy' solo.
Until they have to play it. Oh dear. Warm my hands on those red faces.
Then they fall in love with Jim, as i did many a moon ago.
-
Originally Posted by Arnesto
I'm with you on that- I've been a fan of Jim's for many years. It seems only guitarists are concerned with speed. You never hear of a saxophonist or pianist bragging about speed. Jim is a musician, and he plays what is necessary.
-
I agree that many guitarists are overly concerned with speed. And many young guys too. Originally Posted by rongtr
There is a book by Wynton Marsalis called "Moving to Higher Ground: How Jazz Can Change Your Life". Great book. They put previews of some of the pages online to get you to buy it, and luckily the exact passage I wanted was one of those pages. See the attached thumbnail.
Wynton is talking about when he first got to NYC and thought he was hot s--t. The older cats let him brought him down to earth real quickly. The comment from Sweets Edison is particularly classic.
Jim comes from the wonderful school of "less is more".
-
Jim playing My Funny Valentine Take 2 on Undercurrent.
Jim shredding away.
The less is more thing has always been a totally bizarre thing fo me.
It isn't. Sometimes less is beautiful. Sometimes it was less, and it was terrible.
Just change 'less' to 'more' in the above. And ya have it.
Listen to Natural Elements by Shakti. A lot of notes. But the joy is palpable.
Bach, Scriabin, Jarrett, Clifford Brown, Coltrane, Shakti, Sco, etc etc.
Less is not more necessarily. More is not less necessarily. More or less.Last edited by mike walker; 07-28-2010 at 06:05 AM.
-
Jim is a wonderful player and one of my favourites. I think Mike Walker and others have eloquently covered everything I would say about him. I've been listening to 'Alone Together' (with Ron Carter) a lot this week. It's worth going to the effort to track down the other two albums they did together, 'Telephone' and 'Telepathy' (I think they might be out of print).
I found this hour-long video interview with Jim from last year. Enjoy!
Jazz Conversation with Jim Hall Webcast (Library of Congress)
-
Just playing Its Nice To Be With You JH in Berlin now - still think its his best
I got so much from this stuff 20 years ago whilst playing Alto and Guitar in a pop / jazz band and it still does it
However in the 70s as a kid I heard it and thought it was "background music" i didnt have the musical comprehension at the time .
Saw him in Duo w Brookmeyer in late 70s then last time at Wigmore Hall w Scott Colley.
-
Hmm? Music can sometimes be about pyrotechnics...but a little goes a long way.
FWIW, as much as I appreciate Art Tatum and Oscar Peterson, I have always listened MUCH, MUCH more to Bill Evans. I don't know how fast Bill Evans _could_ play, but he didn't play fast. He sure played well, however.
Everyone knows that Miles Davis lacked chops, but damned he sure was musical. He couldn't do the things that Dizzy could...in the same band. OTOH, it is unarguable that Miles was a unique, musical voice.
So, could Jim Hall burn like, say, Al DiMeola? Ah, no. However, I will long be listening to Hall when my DiMeola records are gathering dust.
About the only stuff from Hall that wears thin for me, these days, is the stuff where he added pedals to his signal chain in the 80s to "keep up with the kids." The playing is great, but the guitar sound is not my cuppa.
-
Hall is a "Musician's Musician".
Back in my big firm lawyering days, there was an expression, "He's a lawyer's lawyer, not a client guy".
What this meant was that clients often responded to someone who comes off as self-assured, and decisive, and energetic, rather than someone who is reserved, careful not to overstate or exaggerate, and maybe a little more reflective.
The former is "sometimes mistaken, but never in doubt" whereas the latter would be the one called to look at a thorny, difficult, or non-routine issue. Often if there was a question whether the firm was taking a position that could get it into trouble down the road, the "lawyer's lawyer" guy was called in to puzzle it out.
Hall is like that. As I learn more about the instrument, and music, his playing reveals more and more of itself to me. He studied composition and composed at least one string quartet as an undergrad.
-
People will always find something to criticize.
If a player can play fast, some will say, "He plays too fast."
If he doesn't play fast, they'll say, "He can't play fast."
I remember once when someone asked Jimmy Bruno about speed, he said, "You need to be able to play as fast as you need to play."
Yogi Berra couldn't have said it better, or made it any more true.
-
My instruction and my playing, somewhat bridge two schools; the artistic/expressive (such as Jim Hall) and the more technically driven (such as Johnny Smith).
Hall was exceptionally inventive and bounded only by his imagination, which was prodigious. Vols 2-4 of the Live! sessions are a great example of Hall operating as freely as possible, yet remaining melodic and musical. He's no slowpoke, but like a wizened old man that speaks slowly and chooses his words carefully, Hall never lets speed whisk him ahead of his ideas.
Johnny Smith was a technical wizard, whom played with incredible precision, speed and taste. It's a different paradigm entirely. I've heard some people opine that Smith was a bit sterile, but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that, myself. His speed and precision speak for themselves and his taste strikes me as quite good.
Jim Hall couldn't sound like Smith and Johnny Smith couldn't sound like Hall, their approaches to the instrument were different, they used different techniques and likely used a different thought pattern to orient to the fingerboard. I know that when I attempt to play in one or the other of their styles, my thinking and my approach are much different from one to the other.
Hall is a content-rich player, which is also how I would view Bill Evans, Paul Desmond and Art Farmer, to name a few. These people are some of my personal favorites, players that speak to their audience softly, but profoundly. I guess you might add Miles to the list if you exclude his forays into Fusion. While they may not have played machine-gun, rapid-fire passages, they all were masters of their instrument and, IMHO, well worth the time to listen.
Reply With Quote
Grant Green, What is This Thing
Today, 01:59 PM in Ear Training, Transcribing & Reading