Jazz for aficionados
Newbee: Thanks for the post. The more posters the better. I agree with almost all of what you said. I do disagree with your last sentence. I never meant to say that I have 'NO' knowledge of music. I realize that it is a rarity on this site, for a person to admit that there is something they do not know, so when it happens, people tend to think of them as complete dumbasses. That is not the case here. I just appreciate the fact that The Frogman has had education and work experiences in the music field that I have not had. Because of this I seek information from him, and defer to him on many music questions. I still like what I like, and ANY reason a person gives for preferring certain music is legit. This thread is not about converting folks. It's just a bunch of guys talking about Jazz. I think that was the OP's intent. This is the statement I am not sure I understand. *********"Consider, Rok, that if you have no knowledge you can only express a subjective opinion which can limit discussions and make them one dimensional.********* All musical preferences are subjective. You cannot give me a 'logical / factual' reason whay I should like Ornette Coleman. Plenty of people do, but i don't. And that opinion is as legit as any professor's at Julliard. So I don't understand why you say 'subjective' opinions limit the discussion? Make the discussion one dimensional? Far from it. We all have opinions, so the discussion should be lively. One dimensional would be for all of us to be 'lectured to' by one person, or, all agree on every opinion expressed. Nothing kills a thread like boredom! Lets not forget the purpose of the thread. Or the intent of the OP. Again, thanks for your input. Cheers |
Rok2kid, I too share your technical ignorance about music form, etc. In fact mine ignorance is rather profound, at least so I'm told. :-) That said, consider that most folks, and I assume you as well, have grown accustomed to wearing 2 hats in 'audio', i.e. you have lots of knowledge about audio components, set ups, and the results of careful attention to the details. Obviously in order to really enjoy listening to music you must learn how to disregard your audio achievements. Some folks do get hung up on listening to soundstage, detail/resolution, and such but for the most part they will risk burning out on the audio hobby if they can't get past this and learn how to listen thru and focus on the music. I think as much can be said about listening to music. You can have a lot of knowledge about music, appreciate the theory and practices of composition and performance, yet be able to listen beyond that and just enjoy. As Frogman indicated the best part of having some knowledge is that when you find music you really love if you have some knowledge you will know why you love it. It has become clear from recent posts that A-Gon's music forum has some participants that speak to the subject, not so much about themselves. A breath of fresh air! Consider, Rok, that if you have no knowledge you can only express a subjective opinion which can limit discussions and make them one dimensional. FWIW. |
Rok, excellent and very honest post! First of all, thank you for your service. ****You get used to blunt, straight talk. No tap dancing or sugar coating. Thin skins don't survive. I have no modesty, and I cannot be offended.**** I respect that; and probably the reason that in spite of the fireworks in this and in other threads we can joke about hog calling. ****how to call in artillery support or how to defend against Chemical, Biological and Nuclear attacks or where to place the Machine Guns or where to dig the Fighting Positions, there is a good chance you would not know. **** Very true. But, I assure that in the scheme of my world as a working musician it has often felt as if I have had to defend against similar attacks (bad time and intonation. :-) **** I wonder if that is not a two edged sword. Sure I could have better understanding as to what I am hearing, and what the musicians are doing. But, at the same time if seems as if it would take more to impress me.**** Probably. But, you will be that much more impressed when you are. ****I have at least 10 differnt performances of LvB's 7th. I love them all.**** Do you like some more than others? Can you isolate what it is that you like about the ones that you listen to most? I understand your concern and it proves my point about the aversion to learning more. You mentioned the Mingus recording. I love that cut! Not sure why you would think that I am less impressed with it than you are, other than the fact that I did a simple analysis of Rahsaan's solo (which is fantastic) and was able to describe some aspects of it. That in no way detracts from my enjoyment of it; in fact, it only increases it. But, it also serves to lay bare the bullshitters who honk and squawk and try to impress with their "individuality" and "energy". That is a good thing, IMO. Regards. |
Learsfool & The Frogman: Let me make a few points: 1. You do not offend me when you correct me or display knowledge that I don't possess. I spent 30 years in the U.S. Military. You get used to blunt, straight talk. No tap dancing or sugar coating. Thin skins don't survive. I have no modesty, and I cannot be offended. Now I would bet, that if I asked you how to deploy a platoon in the field or how to call in artillery support or how to defend against Chemical, Biological and Nuclear attacks or where to place the Machine Guns or where to dig the Fighting Positions, there is a good chance you would not know. Does not reflect on your intelligence. It's just that you have not been trained to do these things. I hope you get my point. I view your participation in this type thread as an oppourtunity to pick your brains. With the full realization that you two must be bored to tears. 2. I was just thinking about gaining more musical knowledge. I wonder if that is not a two edged sword. Sure I could have better understanding as to what I am hearing, and what the musicians are doing. But, at the same time if seems as if it would take more to impress me. I hear CDs now and I am in awe of what I hear. The Frogman not so much. He knows too much. I marvel at 'hog calling blues' but I don't think the Frogman was as impressed as I am. He can disect the action. To me it's just wonderful confusion, that somehow never quite flys apart, and comes together in the end.! When I was a kid growing up, I loved military movies. Didn't miss a one that came to my town. I also worked at the movie house, so I saw them all free. Then later, I was drafted and went into the real military. Loved everyday of the 30 years. No greater life. BUT, I can no longer bear to sit thru a military movie. Why? Because they are 99% BS. I now know too much. Will the same thing happened if a person increases his knowledge of the making and playing of music? Esp Jazz improvisation. It's one thing to know and then play. Another to know and just listen to others play. Or so I would think. Learsfool: I have at least 10 differnt performances of LvB's 7th. I love them all. I bet you would not. Just thinking out loud. Cheers |
@Rok2id - I would like emphasize something Frogman said - "I think that the point is how little most non-musican music lovers/audiophiles understand, how much there is to learn (if wanted), how much learning can improve appreciation, and that there is often a visceral aversion to learning more." First, it is sometimes very difficult for us musicians to speak to non-musicians about music without coming off as condescending, so we truly are always concerned about people thinking we are insulting their intelligence. We have all heard the phrase "music is a universal language," and this is true. However, it is a language that most people think they know much more about than they actually do (which recalls another famous saying, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"). You talk about the visceral part, and HOME, etc., and we are not saying you are wrong. What we are saying is that this is just the starting point for the musician. The more one understands about music intellectually, the more one appreciates what the musicians are doing (in any genre), and the deeper then becomes one's visceral appreciation as well. We know this to be true, yet this concept is often fiercely resisted by the music lover/audiophile who is non-musical. I would submit to you that if you took some time to take an ear-training course, or a fundamentals of music theory course, or even a music appreciation course at a local university or community college in your area, it would enrich your appreciation of the music you already love, and probably introduce you to whole new musical loves, far beyond what you could possibly imagine now. Folks like you and Orpheus and Charles1dad would be perfect students for such courses. Don't be afraid of it turning music into an academic exercise - in fact, I guarantee, assuming a decent teacher, that the very opposite will happen - your love and appreciation for music will deepen more than you think it possibly could. You would not regret it. Another directly related personal story - for nine years, I taught French horn lessons very part-time (obviously my symphony job is my full-time job) at a major university. However, I did not teach the horn majors (another one of my colleagues did this) - I taught the non-majors, kids who had a band scholarship that required them to take the lessons, or kids who just wanted to keep playing but weren't necessarily in the music program otherwise. I have also had many adult students in my career, which frankly was not intended by me, but has become something of a specialty - two of my three current private students are adults. I was/am very much of a maverick as a teacher - I did of course help them play the horn much better, but I also insist on my students learning at least the rudiments of music theory, and I help to train their ears better (something my theory major in college taught me to do, by helping with music students who needed the extra help). I am in touch with many of my former students, all of whom thought it was a little strange at the time, but all of whom now greatly appreciate it, even though most of them don't actually play anymore, and almost all of them have continued it on their own. In every single case, it increased their love for music. One of them was actually a guy who also played some guitar, and I helped him learn some of the scales and chords he needed to learn to begin to learn to improvise - which was great fun for me, too, as it had been a long time since I had done any improvisation myself. Though we started it on the horn, he has since transferred it to his guitar playing, and last I heard he was in a jazz combo now in New Orleans, though I don't think it is his main job. Helping this type of student can often be as rewarding as helping the very most talented ones. |
@Orpheus - that's a nice story. By the way, I have never heard of a repairman who was not a musician - not all of them ex-professionals, of course, but all of them played something at some point, at least in high school. They have to be able to play test the instrument, after all, to make sure it is good to go. Many of the top brass repair guys around the country, the ones who work on the very high quality instruments, are still playing a little bit professionally too, as free-lancers. As far as your question about how people pick who they play with, well, one person in the group is always the leader, who takes care of the business end of the group and is the person dealing with whoever is hiring the musicians, whether it is a group that plays together all the time, or it is truly a pick-up group, and he/she hires musicians he is familiar with, or come highly recommended, if they are trying someone out for the first time. Or the employer may go through a professional contractor, who hires a pre-existing group, or puts one together. I have done a small amount of that type of contracting work, hiring a brass quintet for a church for Christmas and Easter gigs. It is alot of work, especially when the church only tells you a few weeks before, and you are scrambling to find people and having to hire people you don't know, because everyone you do is already working (usually we are hired for such holiday jobs months in advance). Wouldn't want to do that full-time, but I have done it here and there. One of the first things many young musicians will do who want to get their free-lance careers going is figure out who these big contractors are in their area, and send them their resumes, etc. Hope that answers your question somewhat. |
And now for something completely different.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcOnbzq40pY Notice the age of the Polish audience. Jazz is cool again. Who wants to listen to Grandpa's music? |
I googled Kenny G. I cannot belive it. You are right. It's hard to believe there are 75, let along 75 million people, on the planet that would buy his stuff. But it is interesting, that you know a lot about Kenny G! :) hmmmm get that duotones outta that CD player. You are busted!!! I was wrong. Your recommendations have been almost as good as mine. And blues based. OK? Cheers |
Rok, c'mon now. With all due respect, you have a way of skirting the issues. What on earth does the fact that the discussion, at one point, veered into the area of the influences on jazz other than the African one have to do with anything? How does that lessen the fact that, yes, most of my recommendations are, in fact, rooted in the blues. There is strength in conceding when when one is mistaken. You are mistaken. Kenny G a one hit wonder? I suggest you get your facts straight. He is the biggest selling instrumental recording artist (?) in modern times with record sales of more than 75 million !!!. artist |
Kenny G Kenny was a one hit wonder. Not the first or the last. I own a Christmas CD by Kenny G. Given to me as a Christmas present. Nothing else. He got lucky with a catchy tune, and he never claimed to be a Jazz musician. BUT, If I had to be locked in a cell with a choice of Kenny G or Ornette Coleman playing non-stop!! Guess what? Cheers |
The last paragraph in your post. I have no problem with it, if you mean: The players sort themselves out, declare someone DA MAN, then the kingmakers weigh in, and select the ones that they think can make it all the way, and make money for everyone, then I agree. BUT, if the anointed ones do not impress the public, then the process starts all over again, until they find a more acceptable candidate. Not more talented, not more respected by his peers, but more acceptable to the ignorant, fickle, know nothing, public. So in the end it still comes down to the public. (me) Musicians / Artists HATE this. Too Bad! That's the way of the world when it comes to the Entertainment / Music business. BTW, I am not a musician, so I find it curious that you think I would be offended by not knowing the details of music theory. Cheers |
********"Are you kidding me? What was the very first recording I recommended in my first post to this thread? "Blues And The Abstract Truth"; and many others have their roots in the blues. Focus, man, focus :-)"******* After considerable focusing, I Seem to recall certain folks talking about, and singing the prasies of the ARAB and the SPANISH and the AFRICAN influences in Jazz. Seems like I remember YOUTUBES of examples of these 'influential' folks flying back and forth. The term 'World Jazz' was used a lot. Some how, Southwest Pakistani Folk 'Jazz,' comes to mind. All in all, not exactly hotbeds of the blues. Could I have imagined it all??? Cheers |
"Music appreciation of the 'high end' seems to stop at 'Kind of Blue', and then only if it's an 'audiophile' pressing." If I hear that mentioned one more time I'm going to have twins. Rok, I'm not sure we're communicating when we talk about "Blues", because I never liked what we called "gut bucket" blues. As a matter of fact we're talking about a whole different culture of people, not just music. Many people who like "gut bucket" blues don't seem to be aware of that. Enjoy the music. |
Here's how it was explained to me by a working musician -- you don't actually know 1,600 songs. What you do know are standard harmonic devices which are the basis of popular music. You know these in different keys and can work them in various modes. With a few exceptions the structure of most songs are fairly standardized. It also helps if someone in the band actually knows the melody. And if you start to get lost, you can always play some blues. Finally, he said you have to study specific tunes from people like Ellington, Monk or Shorter because they are different enough to require individual study. The way I understand what he was saying is that once you understand what form the music is in, playing the song becomes relatively easy, assuming you have talent and you've put in the hours of practice. |
I think that it is importantly to stay on focus in these discussions. I said nothing about "formal" training being a prerequisite for anything. To understand what "form" is in a tune, and to be able to explain the rudiments of improvisation is something that, even if one doesn't "study" it, is one thing that becomes part of any competent musician's (any genre) sphere of knowledge simply through assimilation, and what the process of (for instance) memorizing a tune demands of a musician. I think that you are mistaken about this. I have met many non-musician music "geeks" without any "formal" music education who have a very deep understanding of all this and much more. All I am saying is that it is a very worthwhile pursuit, and that (going back to the issue of the romanticizing of the process) there is no need to fear the learning; it will do nothing but heighten the enjoyment of the music. ****but I am surprised you would use that, because a lot of the Jazz that you have presented on this forum,as being your favorites, has no blues element at all**** Are you kidding me? What was the very first recording I recommended in my first post to this thread? "Blues And The Abstract Truth"; and many others have their roots in the blues. Focus, man, focus :-) ****But in the end, it is the non-musical, the non-artistic, who are the final arbitrators. They decide who is great and not so great. They decide who is saying something and who is not. Lack of knowledge of the blues notwithstanding.**** Really? Two words; well actually one word and one letter: Kenny G OK, that was trite; sorry. Look at it this way: if it weren't for the scene itself (the players) promoting certain players who they like to play with, and who the established cats feel will be important voices, the corporate dudes would not know who they are. Obviously, at some point the politics of it all starts to take on more and more importance, but usually by then the foundation has been laid out by the scene itself; not the other way around. With some exceptions as to merit; of course. Again, two words...... |
****'You would be surprised'**** Nope, don't think so. I stand by what I said. When it comes to the REAL blues, you might be surprised. **********but IMO, if a jazz lover doesn't know (for example) that most blues tunes are 12 measures long, I would suggest that the love doesn't go quite deep enough.****** I am not offended in the least. I know about the Blues thingy, but I am surprised you would use that, because a lot of the Jazz that you have presented on this forum,as being your favorites, has no blues element at all. Which pretty much sums up what's wrong with so-called MODERN / WORLD Jazz. And lastly, there is no prerequisite or requirement, to have any formal education, or training, or experience, or talent, in order to appreciate music, or any other art form. If there were, the concert halls and art galleries would be empty. But in the end, it is the non-musical, the non-artistic, who are the final arbitrators. They decide who is great and not so great. They decide who is saying something and who is not. Lack of knowledge of the blues notwithstanding. So the consumers of all this effort by the creative musicians, are the most important folks in the entire scheme of things. Your post was very informative to me. Rudimentary or not. Cheers |
If I said anything to give you the identity of my "jazz friend", I would appreciate it if you just forgot it. His heirs, who I respect, might object to my revelation of the fact that he never practiced. Maybe Frogman, or Learsfool could tell us how he selected the musicians to accompany him on what they called "pick up gigs". Although none of them were famous, they were accomplished jazz musicians. These sets were always in what I call "deep in the pocket" jazz clubs, no requests of standards, all improvisation, where the musicians had to really be down with it. "If you can't git down, don't git up". That last note reminds me of a local jazz musician I knew. When I asked him why he wasn't famous, he explained that he preferred the life of a family man to being on the road, and then he opened a large album of photos which contained photographs of him accompanying many very famous musicians when they came to town. The last time I saw him, he really put on a show. Since he knew all my favorite tunes, not only did he nail them, but he added his own licks which indicated, not only did he have what it took, but that he knew he had what it took. I recall an interview of Horace Silver by a famous DJ, where Horace was telling him about problems with his bass player. "He told me that he was tired of playing that same old "beeng bong", I told him that's what makes my sound, I've got to have that "Beeng bong". he wanted to stretch out and make it known that he could play more than "beeng bong". I don't recall how Horace resolved that issue, but if you listen to the 1956 version of Senor Blues, with Hank Mobley, tenor sax; Donald byrd, trumpet; Doug Watkins, bass; Louis Hayes, drums; you'll hear how "beeng bong" blends in with the piano and makes that jam so spectacular. Maybe Horace gave him a raise, I don't know, but this is a remarkable revelation to both sides of that "beeng bong" coin. |
*****These folks are as far away from understanding music theory on your level, as a person can get. But they do indeed get the visceral part. To me it says, HOME.***** You would be surprised. What I described above is as rudimentary as one can get when one considers just how much there is to learn. The folks you mention would most certainly have this knowledge and more. I think that the point is how little most non-musican music lovers/audiophiles understand, how much there is to learn (if wanted), how much learning can improve appreciation, and that there is often a visceral aversion to learning more. I hope that this does not offend anyone, but IMO, if a jazz lover doesn't know (for example) that most blues tunes are 12 measures long, I would suggest that the love doesn't go quite deep enough. |
************"A visceral, non-analytic, appreciation of music is great and truly the bottom line; but, understanding the proces better can clear the way for a deeper understanding of the art".********* Your post was very informative. You should be a teacher. Maybe you are? But the quote above is the most IMPORTANT thing you said. It just so happened that I was listening to to the following CD as I read your post. Fred McDowell -- Amazing Grace Mississippi Delta Spirituals by the Hunter's Chapel Singers of Como, Mississippi These folks are as far away from understanding music theory on your level, as a person can get. But they do indeed get the visceral part. To me it says, HOME. BTW, I do pause every now and then to make a joyful noise to The Lord. In that spirit let me recommend: Various Artist -- Say Amen, Somebody Org Soundtrack Chanticleer -- How sweet the Sound Robert Shaw -- American Hymns and Spirituals Chanticleer -- Where the Sun Will Never Go Down Fairfield Four -- Standing in the Safety Zone As Cannonball once said, "it's all the same thing" Cheers |
******"On the right equipment, classical music sounds very good. I suppose that's why classical musicians are always into the high end."****** Not so fast my friend! All music can be appreciated on almost any system worthy of the name. Even table radios. I remember many enjoyable sunday afternoons listening to classical music broadcast by Bayerischer Rundfunk on a portable / table Grundig radio. All the in-laws gathered around. Stereo review once did a series on the stereo systems of professional musicians. I was shocked. My little run of the mill stuff was the equal of them all, at least price wise. Do not connect or associate music appreciation with the so-called 'high end'. The two are not related in the least. Those people have done enough damage as it is. Music appreciation of the 'high end' seems to stop at 'Kind of Blue', and then only if it's an 'audiophile' pressing. Just saying. Cheers |
Learsfool, your description is excellent; no need for qualifiers. I would contribute to it only by approaching it from a somewhat different angle. There is no possible way to exaggerate the level of skill possessed by an excellent jazz musician. Their understanding of, and ability to move around within the world of harmony, is simply astounding. As you point out, there exists a fairly well established "repertory" of tunes that working jazz players tap for their performances. This list of "standards" grows over the years with more modern tunes by contemporary/current composers. Learning the melodies of tunes seems like child's-play when you consider what it takes to improvise (spontaneously compose) a credible solo (new composition) within the unique harmonic framework of any given tune. Consider a typical "standard" jazz tune with a 32 measure, AABA form such as "Cherokee"; a tune that is 32 measures long, with an 8 measure verse (A) which is then repeated (A), followed by another 8 measure section (B) referred to as the "bridge" which harmonically bridges the two A sections to the returning and last (A). This bridge is usually recognized by a seemingly harmonically abrupt and even unrelated harmonic center; but, usually sets-up the return to the harmonic center of the "A" section. Now, consider that each of those 8 measure sections is made up of a sequence of harmonic "changes" (chords). Each of those eight measures will have one, two, three or even more chord changes within that measure. The choices of harmonic changes (chords) that a composer chooses create a "harmonic rhythm" which gives a tune harmonic pulse or momentum; a sense of forward movement. Each of these chords, while related, has it's own "palette" of color choices (note choices) that it offers the improviser as he travels through this sequence of palettes in real time. The improviser then has to choose from each individual palette (chord) and play notes that not only are found in that particular palette, but also relate to the palette before it, the palette that follows it, and most importantly the entire "box" of palettes (AABA/32 measures). The best improvisers can choose colors (notes) that are not found in any given palette (they are outside the harmonic center of that particular harmony) and still make them relate to the overall harmonic scheme. Consider just how little time an improviser has to react to the constantly changing harmony, and still choose notes that are more than simply "correct" notes and actually add musical meaning to the improviser's spontaneous composition. Musical meaning; THAT is what seperates the "good" improvisers from the greats and what defines a true artist. It's possible to master the mechanics (physical and intellectual) of the process of improvisation to an extent that can be very impressive, but still shortchange the listener with an absence of music. While this can be subjective, the educated listener usually knows it when he hears it (or doesn't). This is the main reason that a more in-depth understanding of the music making process helps to appreciate who the real artists are. A visceral, non-analytic, appreciation of music is great and truly the bottom line; but, understanding the proces better can clear the way for a deeper understanding of the art. |
Learlsfool, That explanation really Cleared up a lot of questions I`ve always had regarding the ability of jazz musicians to play so many different songs.I have seen on "rare" occasions where a requested song was not able to be played.I appreciate you sharing your considerable knowledge and experience with the rest of us interested music loving folks here. Charles, |
Learsfool, I want you to know that I respect your comments as a classical musician. There was an event that made me think about classical music and high end equipment. When I went to sell my son's sax, the music store owner told me he would pay a lot more if I took it to an instrument repair shop and got a clean bill of health for the horn. Although there was only one person in front of me, the clerk took a long time explaining what was wrong with their horn. While waiting, I noticed photographs all over the walls; they were taken in this very same shop with the owner, famous musicians with recognizable faces. There were jazz musicians, classical musicians, popular musicians, blues musicians, and local musicians that I knew personally. He certainly had the right recommendations. Classical music emanating from high end horn speakers made the wait a pleasant one. Normally I don't like classical music, but not only did I like this, I wanted to know everything about it. I suspect the equipment that was generating the music had something to do with this. Since no electronics were visible, I had to rely on my "audiophile sensibilities" to make a determination; old tube high end with a "golden glow" similar to CJ, but possibly older, was my conclusion. It was a really large room, and all the workers were out in the open at their work stations repairing brass and reed horns of every description. There was a serene expression on their faces as if there was no place else they would rather be, and nothing else they would rather do; it was a very relaxed atmosphere. They actually played music on each horn after a repair; this indicated they were musicians as well as repair people. On the right equipment, classical music sounds very good. I suppose that's why classical musicians are always into the high end. When the clerk beckoned that my horn was ready, I almost wasn't ready to leave. It's absolutely amazing how your description of a one night club gig, fit the description of my friend's gigs, and what I didn't know. I saw them talking "musical gibberish" and making sounds less than an hour before a performance. There's no way this can come out right, is what I thought; but they always sounded like they had been playing together for years. Enjoy the music. |
@Orpheus - I appreciate your passion for jazz. What I don't get is why you think I am having trouble "accepting" anything?? I was merely trying to explain to you the kind of work it takes to become a professional musician of any kind - my comments were in no way specific to classical music, and I am sorry if this was not clear. I will let Frogman's great answer stand - he writes much more clearly than I, that's for sure. @Charles1dad - yes, some classical musicians do still improvise, though this is largely becoming a lost art in the classical world. Even well into the 19th century, almost all musicians had to develop some ability for it, but after that point, the incredible technical advances in both instruments and players brought about such specialization that the focus now is almost entirely on learning to play the instruments as well as possible. It also has to do with the sheer size of the "standard rep." There is so much music out there that the orchestral musician must know now that most feel there is no time to develop improvisational skills that they would probably never be called upon to use. This is a very sad thing, IMO. That said, there are still many who do on a regular basis, though in a different way from the jazz musicians. They are mainly keyboardists - those who perform baroque music are the best example. A harpsichordist must do what is called "realizing" the figured bass. Basically, the composer has written down some figures (numbers) below the bass note that tells the performer what chord is required. It is entirely up to the performer how this chord is spaced, or voiced, and sometimes even the chord required is flexible. None of the rest of the part is written out, just a bass note and these "figures." So the harpsichordist is making up his entire part above the bass note, often elaborating it. Singers and instrumental soloists also often improvise ornamentation of their melodies in baroque music, as well, and there are many musicians very adept at this - much of the time, it is done on the spot, not written out beforehand. There are also still some soloists who improvise cadenzas on the spot in their concertos, but this is becoming more rare. Stephen Hough is one example. In undergrad, besides my horn performance major I also did a music theory major, and had to take a course in keyboard harmony, including learning to 'realize" figured bass. It was fun, though I have not done it since, and would have to brush up on it to try it - that's not something I could just sit down and do anymore. This is not so different from what jazz musicians do as you might think. Once you know more about how jazz works, musically, much of the mystery goes away. To grossly simplify it, (and Frogman, feel free to jump in and help me out here) let's say you have a group getting together in a club to play a couple or three sets of standards, a typical one night club gig. Yes, they are improvising, but within a strict framework. There are standard harmonizations and forms for all of the standard tunes, which these players all know (a significant part of their study and practicing). If they haven't played a tune before that is going to be played that night, they also have resort to what are called "Fake Books," which list songs and their standard harmonizations, etc. This is how people who haven't played together before can still get together and sound as if they have - they can study up beforehand, and also talk through stuff beforehand and even on the spot if necessary. So they are actually working within a strict system, though it does not appear that way. This is why even a group that has played together a very long time and that takes requests sometimes has to refuse one, if they don't all know the obscure tune requested and don't have time to figure it out because of lack of a "book" on hand. I've witnessed that happen before in jazz clubs (and I will admit to have mischievously thrown out an obscure tune at my friends, in fun), though usually experienced players will have an almost encyclopedic knowledge of the tunes. Some groups that have been playing together for a very long time would be very hard to "stump" that way. Hope that somewhat answers your question, though Frogman could give a much better description, I'm sure. |
I am a Jazz musician,but I was trained as a classical musician as well.I lived for a short period in "both worlds"but the last 20 years I have with a few exceptions made a living playing jazz and jazz related music. In my experience the amount of study time put in by both musician types is more or less the same.one funny thing though, all my jazz musician friends study classical pieces but very few of my classical friends study jazz or improvisation. |
O-10: I think we can agree that 1. Wynton is not the best Jazz player in the world. 2. Wynton is not the worst Jazz player in the world. So, that begs the question, why are we talking about him? You answer that, think before you answer, and you are on the road to understanding what this 'wynton' thingy is all about. hint, hint, Skill at Improvisation has nothing to do with it. Frogman: Your comment about Branford was really funny! I betcha Wynton would not have missed a beat! Cheers |
"....but they did not practice..." Orpheus, am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying Jazz musicians don't practice, or just this group of guys you know personally? 'Cause I'm sure you know there are Jazz musicians that practice to the point of obssesion. John Coltrane had a rep for shedding that I've read bordered on annoying! We all know the legends about Sonny Rollins shedding on the Brooklyn Bridge. You obviously have an above average knowledge of Jazz so my guess is that I'm misunderstanding you. If you're saying that steady gigs is 'enough' practice, I'd disagree. Not if the musician is striving to heighten his art. |
Frogman, believe it or not, I agree with you on all counts, that's why I'm going to return this subject back where it belongs. Do you remember "Johnny Smith", who put out an album titled "Moonlight In Vermont". I was listening to that late last night, and it sounded every bit as mellow as when the first time I heard it. Stan Getz sure sounds good on the title track. There are a total of 3 tenor sax men of this CD including Stan Getz. It's a must have, with Zoot Sims, and Paul Quinichette. (that's pronounced Quin-a-shay) also on tenor sax. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xf3rAXoYjA Enjoy the music. |
Not intended to imply judgment of the value of one discipline over the other, but simply to underscore my comments above. Two absolutely true stories that I have first hand knowledge about: During his tenure as conductor with the NY Phil, Zubin Mehta, while on a flight back to NYC, met the great Gerry Mulligan and invited him to take part in an upcoming performance of Ravel's "Bolero". The piece, as some may know, features instrumental solos for, among others, soprano (actually sopranino, but that's a different subject) and tenor saxophones. Soprano, being Mulligan's second instrument of choice, was to be played by Mulligan. I can't emphasize enough how often I have heard excellent jazz players downplay the difficulty of that seemingly easy solo. After all, it's not technical, easy key, etc.; but, it requires good intonation, control, and rhythmic accuracy (with it's displaced rhythmic emphasis) while all the time allowing for individuality of expression. To say that Mulligan's performance during rehearsal was a disaster would be an understatement. But, this was the great Gerry Mulligan, and surely he will come through in the end. At the performance, the first phrase of the solo was fine, then he got off by a beat and played the entire last two thirds of the solo off by a beat. At the end of the performance, during the obligatory bows, Mulligan turns to the soprano sax player and says: "We played the shit out of it, didn't we? Clueless! During the 1980's, Sting was the star of a Broadway production of Kurt Weill's "Three Penny Opera". Branford Marsalis was saxophonist for Sting's touring band. Can you see it coming? :-) Players on Broadway are allowed to "sub-out" a certain number of performances during the run. Well, Branford thought it would be cool to sub on the show, and being Sting's horn player, well..... Instead of doing what a player needs to do to be successful subbing on a show, he went in without sitting through the show (without playing) nor studying "the book"; he went in cold, thinking: how hard can this possibly be? By intermission, the conductor wanted him to go home. |
Orpheus10, this thread continues to be, without a doubt, one of the most interesting on this forum. Your passion for jazz is palpable, and you and I actually have very similar sensibilities re which performers are truly capable of communicating something to the listener. I am in basic agreement with you about Wynton in that respect, although I share Rok's feelings about Wynton's overall relevance. I am somewhat surprised we have returned to the subject of Wynton and have other thoughts about this which I will contribute when I have a little more time. For now, I would like to address your comments about the "musician's world". I have found that there is an understandable tendency among non-musicians to romanticize the process of being a musician; I emphasize "process". The idea that in every creative musician there is a force within that is guiding, dictating, and controlling the process required to make music come out of his chosen instrument as if it were all beyond the control of the player is as romantic as one can get; the "Muse". This notion is very far from reality. We have discussed this subject previously so I am surprised that we are here again. Surprised because if we read the biographies of the great players like Bird and Trane we learn that they were incessant practicers ("shedders" as musicians, themselves, call it). They also studied a great deal; recordings, formal harmony studies, or piano wether that was their main instrument or not. I don't know who the jazz musicians you know (knew?) were, and I acknowledge that some players (have to?) devote more time to shedding than others. But, at some point, if not currently, every great player has put in a tremendous amount of practice time. Additionally, one of the things that hour upon hour of practicing teaches a player is how to achieve what previously may have taken two hours, I fifteen minutes. You would be amazed what an experienced player can accomplish in a ten minute "warm-up" before (or during!) a gig. With all due respect, some of your comments directed at Learsfool and "his world" are not simply inaccurate, but unfair as well. Yes, a classical musician's "world" is different in many respects than a jazz musician's world. But, not nearly as different as some might think in many key respects; not the least of which is what it takes to develop the mechanics of playing an instrument (any instrument in any genre). I would encourage you to consider the fact that while they may be different worlds, they are most definitely part of the same universe; while musicians (all musicians) live in an all-together different universe than non-musicians. Great jazz players are no less mesmerized by the beauty of phrasing, elegance, tone and ultimate control of the instrument that a great classical player offers in a performance, than a classical musician is of the amazing understanding of harmony, musical looseness, and individuality that a great improviser offers. Because they live in the same universe, if not the same world, none of these are mutually exclusive; simply emphasized to different degrees. |
0nhwy61, maybe that would explain why Guatam Chatterjee is such a good jazz player. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtYwiSiGRMs That chick swings, and now I know why. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WvQ7BMws1M Enjoy the music. |
Learsfool, I understand the point Opheus10 is making. My passion is definitely jazz but I respect all skilled and talented musicians. Do classical musicians also improvise Learsfool? I`d like your perspective.It fascinates me when jazz musicians play an entire set(or the full evening) with no sheet music to be found anywhere. In no way do I want this to become a jazz vs classical battle(pointless arguement).I`m asking strictly for a musician`s unique vantage point.I`m convinced it takes much work and ability to master either. Regards, |
I've got a DVD "Garth Fagan, Griot New York" , that has music composed and arranged by Wynton Marsalis. Since I had seen Garth Fagan's dancers, there was no doubt in my mind, this was going to be spectacular. The music killed it. For confirmation I stuck it in the player, and it still sucks. Youse guys found You tubes of Wynton playing someone else's music, and it was fantastic; but nobody said Wynton couldn't play the trumpet, all of Wynton's critics said he could play the trumpet very well. I even stated that he might be the worlds best trumpet player, especially since he plays classical and jazz; but classical is not his own music. It's just when he composes and arranges that the music totally sucks. That is something that can not be debated because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and that music is one ugly duckling to this beholder. Enjoy the music. |
Rok, I wish Wynton all the success and happiness in the world, but in regard to "the music", I agree with his critics, and this is what I thought a long time ago before I even knew he had critics. As far as I'm concerned, his critics are agreeing with me, as opposed to me agreeing with his critics. Enjoy the music. |
learsfool, you are a classical musician. You think and speak like a classical musician. By now you should realize that "all" musicians don't even live in the same world, even when they only live blocks apart. I'm sure the jazz musicians I knew had to learn their skills somewhere, but they did not practice. As often as they performed, they didn't need to. Yes the kind of musician I knew was rare, but I have no reason to fabricate. Your world as a musician, is so different from the the jazz world, that you're having a hard time accepting it. You stated that all the musicians you knew were into the high end. Now I know why, "Classical music sounds like noise when it's played on less than high end equipment", but that's another subject. According to Branford Marsalis, he was the only jazz musician he knew who was into the high end. John Lee Hooker had several homes before his death, and he had Kenwood rack systems in all of them, he said he liked a "funky" sound. Musicians I knew were either working on a gig, or digging a set, and rarely sat down to listen to recorded music; of course we were both young then. Wynton Marsalis could be one of the most perfect "Classical" trumpets ever as a result of all the things you have stated about musicians, and he could be the best "side man" ever. If you call that "Wynton bashing", so be it; but I'm using him as an example of what you think the most accomplished musicians have to be. Erroll Garner was self taught and remained what's called an ear player. Learsfool, you are imposing your reality on a world that's foreign to you. We all do that at times. Enjoy the music. |
Orpheus10 wrote: "No amount of practice, school or many other musical attributes will enable a musician to mesmerize a crowd of people with his improvisational skills on his chosen instrument night after night. "Only" jazz musicians can do this, and not all of them; it's a gift that's reserved for those who are recognized as being at the very highest pinnacle of musicianship." There are a couple of things not true about this. Leaving aside the statement that only jazz musicians could do this, which is frankly insulting to a great many professional musicians, and not deserving even of the mention I give it here, I want to reply to the first part of the statement. No amount of talent, no gift, no matter how great, will be of any use whatsoever if the musician does not work VERY hard, all through his whole schooling and subsequent career, to develop these natural abilities. Period. Yes, there are geniuses, in all fields of music. But every single one of them has worked, and continues to work extremely hard to continue to develop and maintain the craft you are speaking of. The ones you mention who mesmerize audiences night after night are these individuals. For every one of them, I guarantee you there were many others equally gifted, who did not have the work ethic, or the discipline, or the drive to make it. I have known many incredible players and musicians in my life of whom this was the case, and I am sure Frogman does too. I know, Orpheus, that you think you are complimenting these artists by talking of their gifts, but many of them would consider it insulting that you are belittling their very hard work, because THAT is the reason they are at the very highest pinnacle of musicianship, without which their natural gifts would avail them nothing. |
This is the prefect example of why Wynton is under attack. http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=29820 It has nothing to with his playing, it has to do with his definition of Jazz. That's what they cannot stomach. He does not cave to the free / avant garde / world, crowd. He sees them and calls them for what they are. The want politican correctness, they get brutal honesty. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, he is defending the music! Read this article carefully. Really carefully. And then tell me what is this guy's complaint. He speaks for all the Modern, free, and world, noise makers. The envy and the hatred is almost palpable!! With this article as evidence, I rest my case. He says it all. I assume all he said about the awards etc.... are correct. He made the case FOR Wynton in the process of trying to discredit him!!! Desperation!!! hahahahahah Cheers |
When I first heard Wynton Marsalis, "We've got a new worlds best trumpet player" are the thoughts that ran through my mind. Wynton was playing with Blakey at that time. After he went on his own, I bought every album as soon as it hit the record store. I had acquired 5 of his albums before realizing, I didn't really like them. Although I couldn't put my finger on exactly why I didn't like them, why bother? I sold 4 of them at a good price and I still have one. It's been so long since I heard it, that I've forgotten what it sounds like. When you sit in your listening spot, you're the king, and it should not matter what I think. Enjoy the music. |
Tenderly, Love For Sale, Summertime, Laura, Round Midnight; those are songs somebody wrote. They've been around for ages, and played by jazz musicians, popular musicians, rock musicians, and possibly even country and western musicians. A person can go to school, practice, and perfect his skills on his chosen musical instrument, learn how to play all of those songs perfectly in his chosen musical style; but none of that will enable a person to write one of those songs. No amount of practice, school or many other musical attributes will enable a musician to mesmerize a crowd of people with his improvisational skills on his chosen instrument night after night. "Only" jazz musicians can do this, and not all of them; it's a gift that's reserved for those who are recognized as being at the very highest pinnacle of musicianship, Charles "Yardbird" Parker for example. One step down from this pinnacle, are the musicians who have successfully led groups of other musicians over the years and written music as well; Horace Silver, Thelonius Monk, Dave Brubeck, and Art Blakey come to mind. And last on this ladder of success are musicians who have simply excelled on their chosen instrument. Since this group is so arbitrary, I won't give any examples because there is too much disagreement as to how we should rank them overall as jazz musicians. If a "jazz" musician can excel on his chosen instrument, and play someone else's music better than it's ever been played before, that's fine; but it drops him down a notch if he can't create "original" music of his own that excels in the ears of other "jazz" musicians and aficionados. Fame and fortune might be the determining factors in other endeavors, and music even; but not in "jazz". If that were the case, Kenny G would be "Da man". Unlike any and everything else, the high priests of jazz are determined by aficionados and other jazz musicians. Charles "Yardbird" Parker, the recognized high priest of jazz, was relatively poverty stricken. While it's almost impossible to compare current and past jazz musicians because of the generational gap, one of the most important factors is the stability of current musicians who also reject drugs and alcohol. That certainly helps their economic success. "Jazz" musicians are still rated the same way now, as they were when "Bird" was blowing his horn, they're rated by other jazz musicians and jazz aficionados, not by Newsweek, Time, or MSNBC. Jazz is the only anything, where the unofficial word on the street is the last word. "They've had no real experience with the real essence of those guys (Miles, Trane and Monk) -- the way they help their instruments, the way they acted, what really caused this music. Most of the cats trying to play hardcore contemporary jazz don't have their own style. Or there are some people like Wynton [Marsalis] who play the horn, but don't play no hip jazz. They're just into playing the instrument good. They're not creating ideas." That was a quote from Freddie Hubbard and my own personal opinion as well. His statement and my opinion have absolutely nothing personall to do with Wynton Marsalis, that's just the way it is. Enjoy the music. |
