My 3 rules for playing standards

[Mark Kleinhaut]

1) make it your own
2) do something interesting
3 keep it simple.

That’s it.

[Onlyserious]

As a great admirer of your playing, I am nonetheless forced to conclude that you and I have vastly different definitions of the word "simple."

[Mark Kleinhaut]

As a great admirer of your playing, I am nonetheless forced to conclude that you and I have vastly different definitions of the word "simple."

Please note I’m talking about the process of playing standards, not the result or anything to do with how the performance winds up sounding. What I play might sound complex, but the performance is very simple for me to execute. I make no effort to do anything “hard” for me or outside my normal maneuvers.

[Bob_Ross]

1) make it your own
2) do something interesting
3 keep it simple.

Hmm...

I definitely agree with #1 ...I mean, why play it at all if you're not going to make it unique to you? (Note, just talking about "jazz" here, I understand the motivation for doing note-for-note emulation in other genres.)

#2 almost sounds like a variant of #1 ...but it also sounds like it might be excusing an approach that runs contrary to rule #4 (see below)

#3 is entirely context-dependant, and there are some contexts where I would disagree vehemently. "Simplicity Is Overrated!" ...I forget who said that*. There are some tunes that warrant a complex interpretation. There are some tunes where what appears to be a complex interpretation is actually a simple interpretation. The materials should dictate the most effective approach.

*...but I do remember it was Robert Fripp who said "There's a big difference between 'simple' and 'simplistic' ."

==========

(my) Rule #4: Make it recognizeable.
Maybe not necessarily upon first listen...but be sure the original tune is in there somewhere.

[deacon Mark]

I agree with making it your own and that should just happen in the way each player plays different. I say this because for me these days the standards are all about the melody and I want to hear the melody as much as possible. Finally, I have limit they are not particularly long renditions of the tune About 3 minutes tops. Not sure about the simple I like voice leading and interesting moves but for me these are not simple. Others probably fine them simple.

[Rolf Field]

Hej Mark,

Keep it simple. Hmm, i guess your simple is way beyond mine. So keep up the simple work it's an inspiration to me.
For me , i'll try to do hard to push my boundaries

[Mark Kleinhaut]

Hmm...

I definitely agree with #1 ...I mean, why play it at all if you're not going to make it unique to you? (Note, just talking about "jazz" here, I understand the motivation for doing note-for-note emulation in other genres.)

#2 almost sounds like a variant of #1 ...but it also sounds like it might be excusing an approach that runs contrary to rule #4 (see below)

#3 is entirely context-dependant, and there are some contexts where I would disagree vehemently. "Simplicity Is Overrated!" ...I forget who said that*. There are some tunes that warrant a complex interpretation. There are some tunes where what appears to be a complex interpretation is actually a simple interpretation. The materials should dictate the most effective approach.

*...but I do remember it was Robert Fripp who said "There's a big difference between 'simple' and 'simplistic' ."

==========

(my) Rule #4: Make it recognizeable.
Maybe not necessarily upon first listen...but be sure the original tune is in there somewhere.

I love the cartoon-especially since the guy’s a clown. So appropriate. That’s my problem with your rule 4- make it recognizable to whom? Your average clown? As the one playing the tune- I can always recognize where it’s at- hear the melody, form etc. but to make it generally recognizable you’d have to pander to (gasp) an audience. And who can that be? And on what given day? It’s an endless rabbit hole, in my opinion, to even consider changing yourself to suit some perceived audience.

[joe2758]

I'm with Mark on most points here, but I think number 3 would be more clearly stated as "easy to play" or something.

I love your playing, but I wouldn't call it simple. Tasteful and not flashy, but not simple.

For example, imagine someone transcribed that performance and asked someone else to learn it

[Bob_Ross]

I love the cartoon-especially since the guy’s a clown. So appropriate. That’s my problem with your rule 4- make it recognizable to whom? Your average clown? As the one playing the tune- I can always recognize where it’s at- hear the melody, form etc. but to make it generally recognizable you’d have to pander to (gasp) an audience. And who can that be? And on what given day? It’s an endless rabbit hole, in my opinion, to even consider changing yourself to suit some perceived audience.

Right, I'm not sure I would ever advocate "changing yourself to suit some perceived audience" ...the point of my Rule #4 is more about "be true to yourself but also be true to the material". I've heard some performances where the musicians seemed intent on obfuscating the source material; that's very different from, say, deconstructing the source material.

[joe2758]

Right, I'm not sure I would ever advocate "changing yourself to suit some perceived audience" ...the point of my Rule #4 is more about "be true to yourself but also be true to the material". I've heard some performances where the musicians seemed intent on obfuscating the source material; that's very different from, say, deconstructing the source material.

I agree with this too. At a certain point it's like a contrafact isn't it? And that's cool too. I do it.

[Mark Kleinhaut]

I'm with Mark on most points here, but I think number 3 would be more clearly stated as "easy to play" or something.

I love your playing, but I wouldn't call it simple. Tasteful and not flashy, but not simple.

For example, imagine someone transcribed that performance and asked someone else to learn it

“easy to play” is definitely another way to describe it. Or, as Kenny Werner would say; “effortless”. When I thought of simple I meant it along those lines, but it means mentally as well as physically. Maybe even emotionally too. The best music I ever play is when it feels like it’s playing itself.

[Strat-itis]

My 3 rules for playing standards:

1) make it your own
2) do something interesting
3 keep it simple.

That’s it.

I'm a fan. I definitely agree about 1 and 2. Imo, the whole point of jazz is to be individualistic to some degree. Same with doing something interesting to you or the listener. I might disagree about 3. To me, jazz is more on the complex side even tho it can have a simple framework. At the same time, you can't bite off more than you can chew. Other things important to me are it's played soundly. I think the emotion side of it should contain a consistent message, which is kind of subjective but also really important in music. Finally, I think the 'form' of the music should be respected, not the changes, the form as in the essence of the music.

[Mark Kleinhaut]

I'm a fan. I definitely agree about 1 and 2. Imo, the whole point of jazz is to be individualistic to some degree. Same with doing something interesting to you or the listener. I might disagree about 3. To me, jazz is more on the complex side even tho it can have a simple framework. At the same time, you can't bite off more than you can chew. Other things important to me are it's played soundly. I think the emotion side of it should contain a consistent message, which is kind of subjective but also really important in music. Finally, I think the 'form' of the music should be respected, not the changes, the form as in the essence of the music.

Even things that seem very complex about jazz can actually be very simple. Form is simple. The changes are simple. The melody? What’s the problem? Then, the Improvising, harmonic substitutions, multi line-counterpoint, metric modulation and all that sort of advanced stuff seems complicated but all of it is only relative to your experience in dealing with these things. Sticking with what’s simple really just means what’s simple for you. If it sounds complex to someone else is irrelevant. That’s the nature of this endlesss journey, and pushing on to make things which now appear complex become simple for you is what drives us onward.

[Strat-itis]

Well I agree, but that's not really keeping it simple. That's more like learn an extremely deep fractal system incrementally so you internalize it well and then play within yourself.

[Mark Kleinhaut]

Well I agree, but that's not really keeping it simple. That's more like learn an extremely deep fractal system incrementally so you internalize it well and then play within yourself.

. I agree, but that’s not a neat pithy thing that one can just say at parties.

[Aiq]

From an interview with Bill Griffith, Zippy’s creator.

You’ve said you structure a lot of the strips around jazz riffs, at least in your recent work. Has that always been the case?
I think that’s always been the case. It’s not a conscious thing, it’s something that… I kind of noticed it and I thought it was an analogy that might help some people understand what I’m doing. That when Zippy speaks, to some degree, he’s playing his instrument. He’s riffing. He’s improvising. In the middle of a jazz conversation, each instrument will have its solo to play with the melody or deconstruct it or whatever they want to do with it. I think that analogy helps me, and maybe it helps some other people get what I’m doing.


Who are you into, jazz-wise?
Well, the old jazz, the stuff that Crumb introduced me to. When I first met him, I was kind of aware of it, but I didn’t have a huge taste for it. Early pre-swing jazz is the big seat of pleasure for me to listen to. In terms of Zippy, the correlations are more Charlie Parker-ish, Miles Davis-ish. I remember trying to talk to Crumb once about Charlie Parker and the conversation just died in a second. But it’s early be-bop especially. Not Sun-Ra, not crazy experimental atonal jazz, but just that kind of free-form be-bop jazz.

[Strat-itis]

. I agree, but that’s not a neat pithy thing that one can just say at parties.

[Sam Sherry]

Please note I’m talking about the process of playing standards, not the result or anything to do with how the performance winds up sounding. What I play might sound complex, but the performance is very simple for me to execute. I make no effort to do anything “hard” for me or outside my normal maneuvers.

Charles Mingus concurs: