The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Posts 76 to 100 of 119
  1. #76

    User Info Menu

    The other flawed narrative in this thread (in my opinion) is that these guys "sound so different from today's players who have all been schooled", etc. I'm sorry, but that's not a very astute or insightful observation.

    Why? Because:
    1. Yes, they played like what they were - players influenced by Charlie Christian in 1940. Nobody plays like that anymore. Nobody wants to - unless they're going out of their way to play in a historically specific fashion. I remember when I first heard these guys, and it was before hearing most all of the modern players, even Wes. I didn't think they sounded so unique. The only other players I'd heard were Charlie Christian and George Benson. I thought that they sounded more like Charlie, but less interesting.
    2. They were cloning Charlie, or partially attempting to. Herb is on record about that, while pointing out that Joe was following Bird. That happens with different instruments as well, obviously. Bird, Trane, etc. The overwhelming majority of players follow their musical heroes by choice, it's not some collegiate instructor telling them to clone Metheny or whomever.
    3. The music evolved after Swing. There was Barney, Tal, Joe, and Wes, then Benson, McLaughlin, Metheny and Holdsworth. The '60s happened. The '70s happened.
    4. There are many, many more electric guitarists today than there were in the 1940s and 1950s when these guys cut their teeth. It's much more difficult to stand out now.
    5. Jazz and its many styles evolved. The number of schools increased, and they continue to adapt (they have to).
    6. If a young player played like these guys today, and you had not been forewarned, you would likely respond with amusement upon hearing/seeing them for the first time. You'd probably say - "he's playing like an old timer, and playing the style of so-and-so".

    Complaining about all of that that is like complaining about the earth spinning around the sun.
    Last edited by Jazzjourney4Eva; 06-04-2023 at 12:09 PM.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #77

    User Info Menu

    Yeah I just tend to think school for music is not really different from any other major.

    Philosophy major: can teach you the tradition and logic, but can’t teach you to be an original thinker.

    Business major: can teach you management strategies but can’t teach you people skills or make you innovative.

    History major: can teach you how to research but can’t teach insight.

    English major: can teach you mechanics of writing but can’t teach you the poetry of building a sentence.

    Education: can teach you educational theory and content expertise but can’t teach you classroom management.

    it goes on and on.

    The dangerous thing is when people go into it thinking that the degree will teach things it’s not really positioned to teach. Or (even worse) when teachers or institutions convince students of that.

    We (myself included) really like to knock music school but it’s just not that different than other types of education. It’s certainly not for everyone and doesn’t need to be but honestly musicians are better about that than other fields. Lots of great musicians without any formal training and no one particularly cares, but not not a lot of executives at fortune 500s without the MBA. For some reason though, we always get weird and aggressive about music school being useless or not useless or what it can and cannot teach. It’s not that different than any other area of study, and generally I think musicians have a better or more realistic picture of how to balance that.

    I don’t know. It’s just kind of what education is. It gives you the tools but the mistake is assuming the point was EVER to make a person a creative actor in any field.

    EDIT: Don’t “at” me on that Fortune 500 comment. Y’all know what I mean.
    Last edited by pamosmusic; 06-04-2023 at 12:44 PM.

  4. #78

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzjourney4Eva
    So Christian - you say kids can skillfully improvise jazz solos on the guitar "for days". I've not seen evidence of that, but maybe I've missed it.

    For round numbers, let's say there are roughly 100 jazz guitar majors in the US as of now. Can you - or anyone really - provide 100 links that prove that jazz education is not needed by these kids (17 and younger)? And by that I also mean, they can skillfully improvise Bebop AND Post-bop, not just the latter. And no fusion allowed, lol.

    I'll get my popcorn ready. (but expect I'll need 100 bowls)
    I have no idea how to satisfy your standards of proof and in any case I don’t care really, but for the forum in general and those interested in it, I can say from personal experience students who can already solo to a high level at 18 are not necessarily getting their first choice of college. it’s been surprising to me.

    The standard is very high. In terms of educational input they are of course like sponges and will soak up everything they can pedagogical or not. Some of them had regular jazz guitar teachers, some didn’t.

    this music takes self directed learning and always has. Otherwise you won’t get far with it. It doesn’t matter who your guitar teacher is, you hat college you go to. Expert tuition can help of course but ultimately it’s down to you and the people around you. That’s no different now, and actually I think college curricula etc are an excuse for this to happen rather than an essential focus. The fact that people make money out of selling the curriculum shouldn’t fool anyone.

    in practice everyone is clear that info is useful but the music is really learned on the bandstand. Which is why people beat it a path to NY still.

    if you spent anytime at all in jazz and jazz edu circles you’d already know this.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 06-04-2023 at 01:51 PM.

  5. #79

    User Info Menu

    I initially moved to New York to go to grad school at Rutgers (it’s complicated). I really wanted to study with Vic Juris.

    I always loved that his bio — alongside all the other professors with pristine Music School pedigrees — listed his education as “Passaic High School.” I thought that was awesome, and putting aside that he was probably proud of his route to success, I think it was probably a little bit of a dig too. “School of Hard Knocks” or something like that.

    But the reverse side of that is that the dude is a LEGENDARY educator. He probably taught at every major music school in the tri-state at some point, whether in a quick masterclass or as a full-time professor. When he passed away me and a friend did an inventory of guitar players we knew who had had some kind of teacher student thing with Vic at some point and could count on one hand the ones that *hadn’t*

    So music school is a weird thing but we could probably all stand to just let it be what it is. Useful and good but one path of many.

  6. #80

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    I can say from personal experience students who can already solo to a high level at 18 are not necessarily getting their first choice of college. it’s been surprising to me.



    this music takes self directed learning and always has. Otherwise you won’t get far with it. It doesn’t matter who your guitar teacher is, you hat college you go to. Expert tuition can help of course but ultimately it’s down to you and the people around you. That’s no different now, and actually I think college curricula etc are an excuse for this to happen rather than an essential focus. The fact that people make money out of selling the curriculum shouldn’t fool anyone.

    if you spent anytime at all in jazz and jazz edu circles you’d already know this.
    on the first — what conclusion do you draw from that? Just that there are a ton on really high level young players? Or something else about university education?

    on the second — yeah this is the big thing. The quality of the education really only makes a difference for two people who practice the same amount. Practicing less with a better education won’t get you as far as practice more (and better) with a less rigorous education. The rigor has to be internal.

  7. #81

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller

    if you spent anytime at all in jazz and jazz edu circles you’d already know this.
    I have. And I don’t think that there are that many guitarists who are strong JAZZ improvisers at any age - and especially those 17 and younger.

    I have agreed that one needs to arrive with decent playing ability. Furthermore, your comment about self-starting and self-teaching is a salient one. I first heard that point being made in an emphatic way by Fred Hamilton. Fred headed up the jazz guitar department at UNT for a good number of years, grad, undergrad, doctoral. Is that ironic, or consistent?

  8. #82

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pamosmusic
    Yeah I just tend to think school for music is not really different from any other major.

    Philosophy major: can teach you the tradition and logic, but can’t teach you to be an original thinker.

    Business major: can teach you management strategies but can’t teach you people skills or make you innovative.

    History major: can teach you how to research but can’t teach insight.

    English major: can teach you mechanics of writing but can’t teach you the poetry of building a sentence.

    Education: can teach you educational theory and content expertise but can’t teach you classroom management.

    it goes on and on.

    The dangerous thing is when people go into it thinking that the degree will teach things it’s not really positioned to teach. Or (even worse) when teachers or institutions convince students of that.

    We (myself included) really like to knock music school but it’s just not that different than other types of education. It’s certainly not for everyone and doesn’t need to be but honestly musicians are better about that than other fields. Lots of great musicians without any formal training and no one particularly cares, but not not a lot of executives at fortune 500s without the MBA. For some reason though, we always get weird and aggressive about music school being useless or not useless or what it can and cannot teach. It’s not that different than any other area of study, and generally I think musicians have a better or more realistic picture of how to balance that.

    I don’t know. It’s just kind of what education is. It gives you the tools but the mistake is assuming the point was EVER to make a person a creative actor in any field.

    EDIT: Don’t “at” me on that Fortune 500 comment. Y’all know what I mean.
    Yes. One line of criticism about jazz school is (a) “so and so went there but already knew how to play and left early, so that means it’s worthless “, or (b), “so and so went all four years and wasn’t a star upon graduation, so it’s worthless “.

    There are some unrealistic expectations at play. The reality is that one SHOULD be a strong player when they arrive because they will have small time slices for practice while attending college. Another reality is that there is no reason to expect that you will be a seasoned, mature, master player by the age of 22, music school or no.

    On that latter point, one of my former big band directors recounted how there were a number of guys living in apartments in Denton TX throughout their twenties practicing their butts off just so they could be qualified to join the One O’Clock Lab band (not guitarists mind you). Once they had a stint with that band for a while, their career opportunities increased dramatically.
    Last edited by Jazzjourney4Eva; 06-04-2023 at 09:16 PM.

  9. #83

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pamosmusic
    on the first — what conclusion do you draw from that? Just that there are a ton on really high level young players? Or something else about university education?
    Good question.

    well here - and I’m sure in the US - the conservatoires are not universities - even now. The universities have a lot lower level for performance but the degrees are typically more academic and/or general although some uni jazz courses exist in the UK. I’ve taught at uni level but not conservatoire level. The conservatoire students are obivously on average a notch up from the uni students. I’m sure it’s the same in the US. But the US operates differently with respect to private and state/public universities and colleges and so on. I don’t really understand it so much tbh.

    The number of jazz guitar places in the the whole UK remains relatively limited, so competition is quite strong. Obviously it’s not just about people’s playing, but the playing level seems to be getting better and better in my experience. I’ve taught high school students who imo were playing at what I thought to be a precocious level and for whatever reason they got pipped by another even more precocious musician. They still got a place somewhere, but as you know, it happens. These monsters are out there…. And there are a lot of kids out there at specialist music schools increasingly taking an interest in jazz who as well as being able also know how the conservatoire system works, and have been given expert advice on that stuff. They posses what one paper I read called ‘habitus’ and ‘social capital’ which can help in audition situations and career building. I have a friend who teaches jazz guitar at one. I’m sure it’s similar stateside.

    But you never know what your cohort is like. Some years are really strong, other years less so. I know people who were in Jacob Colliers year at the Academy haha, lots of great musicians that year. He left after a year.

    tbh I think motivated UK jazz students with their heads together study in the US, in NY if possible. The international bursaries are generous (more so than if you are American apparently) and many players here seem to have managed to get a place and funding, at least for a year.

    on the second — yeah this is the big thing. The quality of the education really only makes a difference for two people who practice the same amount. Practicing less with a better education won’t get you as far as practice more (and better) with a less rigorous education. The rigor has to be internal.
    and I think that’s the thing that has remained consistent with jazz. Colleges haven’t changed that.

    People seem to have this idea of learning jazz in a classroom either positively or negatively. I’m not convinced it’s more than a strawman?

    Some classes are popular (people will talk about so and aos harmony class and is on) and students have individual instructors who leave a big impact, but the school side of it seems less vital. It’s not like there’s a step by step process for turning a young student into a jazz player; that doesn’t seem to be a thing. I don’t know how you feel?

    This is all a bit second hand for me because my own path has been outside of jazz school. I wouldn’t recommend it, but not because of learning any music knowledge. It’s good to be in the community, and schools are good for that. Otoh I can teach a student to play bop, but I’m not sure I’m the best help for knowing the ropes. I struggle with that even more than music tbh. I know I’m not unusual.

  10. #84

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    People seem to have this idea of learning jazz in a classroom either positively or negatively. I’m not convinced it’s more than a strawman?
    It sounds like you’re saying people argue about whether or not jazz can be “taught in a classroom” and that you think the argument is a straw man?

    I think I’m reading that right, in which case I’d agree … pretty strongly.

    There are classes for sure, but for the most part they’re the kind of classes for things that can be taught in a classroom. Harmony/theory, history, arranging, aural skills, etc.

    The “learning of jazz” or whatever would probably be mostly from private teachers and from ensembles which seem like perfectly reasonable ways to learn a craft. Obviously, bearing in mind all the caveats we listed earlier about what a school can and can’t teach. But it’s also hard for me to see how an apprenticeship or a bandstand education can teach a lot of those things too. You can get out and hit the bandstand and be a monster player whose style is on point but who doesn’t sound terribly “creative.”

    So anyway — yeah. That always seems like a strawman argument either way. A student with some creative spark probably needs some focused study and mentorship (however they get it; school or no) to get that out. A student without a ton of imagination won’t really get one implanted from being at music school (though they might become better listeners, better players, better musicians, etc, which can all lead to creativity down the way I guess).

    I always leave these conversations a little confused about what point either side of it is trying to make.

    EDIT: I should also say that I was a classical guitar major with a jazz minor so I guess what do I know.

  11. #85

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pamosmusic
    It sounds like you’re saying people argue about whether or not jazz can be “taught in a classroom” and that you think the argument is a straw man?

    I think I’m reading that right, in which case I’d agree … pretty strongly.
    Yes, because I think it’s something that the educators themselves seem not to think. They don’t seem to think jazz can be taught in a classroom either.

    Say, you go to NYC and you study with, I don’t know, Kenny Baron, Ron Carter or someone. What would they say?

    Maybe someone with a jazz professorship in a provincial uni music dept and has worked their way up within the system within a sort of campus bubble might not have that same view.

    Im sure some have drunk the Kool Aid. People get really into systems don’t they? I can imagine that happening with Barry’s approach if it gets cut off from the original context. And there is such a thing as ‘Big Jazz’ so to speak - Berklee fees, book sales etc. It’s kind of it’s own thing without anyone actually wanting it to come about (apart from the accounts dept maybe haha.)

    I’ll say no more. I don’t want to sound snobby, or NYC obsessed, but it’s the most obvious example of the jazz community. People go to study in NY, because that’s the real school, but the teachers will also be master practitioners. It’s not true everywhere.

    There are classes for sure, but for the most part they’re the kind of classes for things that can be taught in a classroom. Harmony/theory, history, arranging, aural skills, etc.

    The “learning of jazz” or whatever would probably be mostly from private teachers and from ensembles which seem like perfectly reasonable ways to learn a craft. Obviously, bearing in mind all the caveats we listed earlier about what a school can and can’t teach. But it’s also hard for me to see how an apprenticeship or a bandstand education can teach a lot of those things too. You can get out and hit the bandstand and be a monster player whose style is on point but who doesn’t sound terribly “creative.”

    So anyway — yeah. That always seems like a strawman argument either way. A student with some creative spark probably needs some focused study and mentorship (however they get it; school or no) to get that out. A student without a ton of imagination won’t really get one implanted from being at music school (though they might become better listeners, better players, better musicians, etc, which can all lead to creativity down the way I guess).

    I always leave these conversations a little confused about what point either side of it is trying to make.

    EDIT: I should also say that I was a classical guitar major with a jazz minor so I guess what do I know.
    yeah. I did do an MA research project in this stuff (at a conservatoire) fwiw which kind of softened my opinion of school in someways. (As a on and off Barry student I was always a bit dismissive.) It’s an interesting, complex area.

  12. #86

    User Info Menu

    Well that part of it … I think it’s something that the educators themselves seem not to think. They don’t seem to think jazz can be taught in a classroom either.
    Oh yeah. Didn’t mean to imply professors think that. Many are pretty realistic.

    Though many are most certainly not.

    Honestly that’s probably a function of how long anyone has been out of the day to day professional grind. Another thing I imagine transfers pretty easily to any other academic field.

  13. #87

    User Info Menu

    I don't know of a jazz "conservatory" in the USA. Universities and Colleges? Yes.


    If you skip school, you may never get to play in a band like this. And as stated above, there aren't too many 22 years old and younger faces there. What is one to do?






  14. #88

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzjourney4Eva
    I don't know of a jazz "conservatory" in the USA. Universities and Colleges? Yes.
    Conservatories? Julliard, Manhattan School, New School, NEC, Eastman, Berklee.

    And a lot of universities have music schools that function as conservatories anyway. Like if you go to Indiana or UNT, you’re going to be at a massive university but it’s not like you’re going to be diluting the intensity of the program. I’m going to guess a lot of those One o Clock dudes wouldn’t know how to find the Humanities building if you paid them to be a tour guide.

    So that’s kind of a semantic difference.

    If you skip school, you may never get to play in a band like this. And as stated above, there aren't too many 22 years old and younger faces there. What is one to do?
    Welp … if you go to school you also may never get to play in a band like that. Hell, if you go to UNT, you might never get to play in a band like that

  15. #89

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pamosmusic
    Conservatories? Julliard, Manhattan School, New School, NEC, Eastman, Berklee.

    And a lot of universities have music schools that function as conservatories anyway. Like if you go to Indiana or UNT, you’re going to be at a massive university but it’s not like you’re going to be diluting the intensity of the program. I’m going to guess a lot of those One o Clock dudes wouldn’t know how to find the Humanities building if you paid them to be a tour guide.

    So that’s kind of a semantic difference.



    Welp … if you go to school you also may never get to play in a band like that. Hell, if you go to UNT, you might never get to play in a band like that
    Thanks.

    1. Fair enough. One doesn't hear the term "Conservatory" used very much in the US. Even Berklee calls itself "College of Music". But yes, there are "music only" schools in the US. (although The New School ain't one of 'em).

    2. But then, I said "Jazz" conservatories. Even Berklee is terming itself a "contemporary music" school these days. And Julliard and the others in your list as "Jazz Conservatories"? No. All except Berklee have a classical heritage, but have a jazz department. UNT, USC, UCLA also have Jazz Studies as a special part of a music school, and are Universities and Colleges. Bottom line - the distinction between conservatory and college/university in the USA is moot. One either pursues a college degree in Jazz Performance, or they don't.

    3. You're quite right about the One O'Clock Lab Band. Most people don't get to play in that band. (Frankly, where the guitar is concerned that's OK). But - the criticisms that non-music majors make about "jazz school" are "there aren't any good bands in school", "you need to play with people who are better than you and you won't find them in school", "It's the music! It's not about improv class and the shed". Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.


    It's much more honest and accurate to say - "choosing a musical career vs. a white collar profession is a very dicey choice to make, indeed". Put another way - "if one wants to pursue a jazz career, it's best to be independently wealthy". There would be little disagreement on that point, lol.
    Last edited by Jazzjourney4Eva; 06-05-2023 at 09:32 AM.

  16. #90

    User Info Menu

    I didn’t grow up in the US system and my knowledge of it is patchy, so there’ll be some confusing use of terms.

    Conservatoire in the UK is interchangeable with specialist music college. The US term is more anglicised Conservatory. We like the French because it sounds posh or something (the Normans.)

    Conservatoire can also be used mean schools for drama and other performing arts.

    In fact there may not be that much to differentiate conservatoires these days from unis in practical terms. I did a fairly academic masters at Trinity Laban conservatoire of music and dance, as it is now called. it used to be two separate performance colleges - Trinity College of Music and the Laban Dance Centre so make of that what you will lol.

    As my course supervisor pointed out, conservatoires used to be primarily performance schools, not academic institutions. These days they have to have academic accreditation, so the differences may be fairly small and the need for a clear academic syllabus impinge upon the pure(ish) focus on performance, composition and so on these institutions were meant to have.

    traditionally university music courses are more focussed on academic music - musicology, music history, ethnomusicology, theory, composition etc - than performance. But again this is not a hard and fast rule. You wouldn’t study to be a concert violinist at Cambridge or Kings College London, but you might be a composer. (However at Oxbridge there is also the choral and organ scholar tradition which complicates things. I know at least one jazz organist who was an organ scholar.) There are also jazz performances courses at some universities much as there are in the states.

    However, the london conservatoires are generally more selective when it comes to students than the unis. I don’t know if it’s true there are always fewer places for students, but I think that’s true on average?

    College in the UK can mean pretty much anything (at least it did when I was in the system). I went to a six form college, with in the US would mean I was simply mean I was a high school senior (I think). Night school would be adult education college and so on. We don’t use ‘school’ to refer to higher or further education. A music college wouldn’t need afaik to offer degrees or be academically accredited like a university.

    So that’s confusing lol

    This reminds of the fact that as I understand it in the US at least to be called a college you do have to be academically accredited. In the case of Berklee, it became an accredited college (instead of simply Berklee School of Music) in 1970. I regard this as a watershed moment in the history of jazz and one that is rarely discussed.
    Last edited by Christian Miller; 06-05-2023 at 06:38 AM.

  17. #91

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzjourney4Eva
    It's much more honest and accurate to say - "choosing a musical career vs. a white collar profession is a very dicey choice to make, indeed". Put another way - "if one wants to pursue a jazz career, it's best to be independently wealthy". There would be little disagreement on that point, lol.
    I don’t know if that’s true or not. I daresay it mostly is, in the states. Fees are obviously higher in the US than elsewhere in the world (last time I checked it was free to study in Berlin for example) but I would imagine other factors would play a part too.

    I do believe Berklee had a problem relatively recently regarding a shall we say, accounts dept friendly admissions policy balanced against its reputation as a hotbed for the next generation of talent. This was reformed somewhat when it be became clear the school was losing status, as I understand it.

    The appearance at least of meritocracy is important in PR terms. It presumably did Berklee no good at all in the long term to gain a reputation among jazz students for being a haven for trust fund baby John Mayer wannabees (fair or unfair.) You need the Rosenwinkels and indeed the Mayers to attract the trust fund babies to start off with.

    This is of course one reason why bursaries exist in private education. Otoh it does seem anecdotally that they are more generous for foreign students wishing to study in the US.

  18. #92

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzjourney4Eva
    they played like what they were - players influenced by Charlie Christian in 1940. Nobody plays like that anymore.
    .
    You can take what Charlie did and apply it to any tune. I think that's the biggest problem in jazz ed...people think you can't.

  19. #93

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    You can take what Charlie did and apply it to any tune. I think that's the biggest problem in jazz ed...people think you can't.
    Early Jim Hall in a nutshell.

  20. #94

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pamosmusic
    Early Jim Hall in a nutshell.
    Yep!

    And obviously, as with Jim, you don't have to stop there. But man, there is so much value in starting there.

    I get it though, people want to play like Charles Altura or somebody hip and modern and Charlie sounds square and old fashioned. But Charlie was the hippest.

  21. #95

    User Info Menu

    Yeah, a lot of people still reference Charlie Christian in their solos, because it swings, it's energetic, and just plain old infectious fun.

    Back to music school in the USA - performance majors have to take a well rounded set of music courses, and those courses take away practice time, but that doesn't absolve them of their workload if they're performance majors. And because it's a college degree, some general education credits are required as well. Those also eat into shed time. Just for fun, I've attended a few performance major senior recitals. The players were NOT 22 yrs old. More like 28.

    But, a bachelors degree can lead to a masters degree in music, which helps career wise (i.e. college teaching gig). And - it can also lead to an MBA should one decide to pursue more steady income with opportunity for upward mobility.

  22. #96

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzjourney4Eva
    Yeah, a lot of people still reference Charlie Christian in their solos, because it swings, it's energetic, and just plain old infectious fun.

    Back to music school in the USA - performance majors have to take a well rounded set of music courses, and those courses take away practice time, but that doesn't absolve them of their workload if they're performance majors. And because it's a college degree, some general education credits are required as well. Those also eat into shed time.
    I don't think it's the best system tbh, but it is the same everywhere I expect.

    I suppose on the other hand we can't expect students these days to eat gruel, sit on wooden benches and shed counterpoint 8 hours a day at the age of 12, so... (I think that's pretty much what Debussy did IIRC)

    But, a bachelors degree can lead to a masters degree in music, which helps career wise (i.e. college teaching gig). And - it can also lead to an MBA should one decide to pursue more steady income with opportunity for upward mobility.
    TBH my main motivation for getting a Master's was for that reason, and the one I chose was pretty cheap. I reckon I got a bargain haha (around 6K GBP for 3 part time years, mostly distance learning.)

  23. #97

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzjourney4Eva
    Yeah, a lot of people still reference Charlie Christian in their solos, because it swings, it's energetic, and just plain old infectious fun.

    Sure, but I don't mean quoting or referencing...I mean the whole approach. Chord tones, enclosures, chromatics, shape based playing...people think it's kiddie stuff or something. They're wrong.

  24. #98

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller

    I suppose on the other hand we can't expect students these days to eat gruel, sit on wooden benches and shed counterpoint 8 hours a day at the age of 12, so.
    I don’t know man. You didn’t see what that dining hall pepperoni pizza looked like by the time I got it back to the practice rooms in those wet styrofoam to-go boxes.

  25. #99

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    Sure, but I don't mean quoting or referencing...I mean the whole approach. Chord tones, enclosures, chromatics, shape based playing...people think it's kiddie stuff or something. They're wrong.
    Ah, I see. So many players playing Bebop after him makes me overlook that a bit. Joe Pass - and his contributions to jazz guitar instruction - comes to mind.

  26. #100

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    I don't think it's the best system tbh, but it is the same everywhere I expect.

    I suppose on the other hand we can't expect students these days to eat gruel, sit on wooden benches and shed counterpoint 8 hours a day at the age of 12, so... (I think that's pretty much what Debussy did IIRC)



    TBH my main motivation for getting a Master's was for that reason, and the one I chose was pretty cheap. I reckon I got a bargain haha (around 6K GBP for 3 part time years, mostly distance learning.)
    When it comes to a lot of things, but especially music, I think that the European way of starting kids young works best - by far. American parents seem to wait until their kids are a bit older to start them, or wait until the kids become music crazy teenagers, then begrudgingly buy them a guitar or whatever. So for many, the music has to come together at some point and that means college age and older.