General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#21 |
|
I find this really interesting because I floated a few quite similar ideas on this board a while back and got sort of mildly jumped on by Terry Deane and a few others. What I was saying really was that since jazz has become part of the academy, people learn it differently and so are bound to play differently too. The opportunities to play every night, with the same people, before an audience (the Miles Davis quintet of 1956 worked at the Cafe Bohemia for 18 months before recording the "Cookin With-Workin With-Steamin-Relaxin" series of LPs, for example) are simply not there anymore. And the academic process sort of demands standardization, so jazz tenor sax students all wind up studying "Giant Steps" the same way classical clarinet folks all have to wrestle with that Mozart concerto sooner or later. The demise of the big bands, in my opinion, also contributed to this. If you're Chu Berry sitting in Basie's sax section, you're under pressure to sound like yourself, not Lester Young. They've already got one of him, sitting in the other tenor chair. With so many students nowdays "majoring in Coltrane" (as Phil Woods puts it) it's no surprise a few of them come damn close. Especially Pat Labarbera's, for some reason. I've heard a few where the resemblance is downright uncanny.
Anyway, I wasn't suggesting that modern players suck or anything, just that they play different than the old school guys. Not better or worse. Different. As I said, I took a certain amount of flack for this. Maybe I come off as being more serious in print than I am, although people who read this West Ender article I wrote a few years ago exploring similar themes http://www.johndoheny.com/JDjournalist_02.htm thought it was kind of amusing. I don't know what the answer to this is, but I think to a certain extent it's inevitable, maybe even desirable. It's what we wanted, after all, this admission of jazz to the halls of higher learning. We spent all that effort arguing that this is an ART music, dammit! not just a bunch of illiterate negroes playing some kind of crazy jungle ooga booga. So we can't really complain when it becomes respectable and loses some of the forbidden-fruit allure it once had. Personally I find the most interesting players are the ones who DON'T stick strictly to jazz, often through economic necessity. My favorite Vancouver tenor player, Dave Say, plays all kinds of gigs in lots of different styles, and finds a way to bring all that to the table when he plays a jazz gig. In that he's echoing the true spirit of Coltrane, who started his career honking the blues and walking the bar in Philadelphia beer joints. The best teachers I've encountered stress the basics (tone, time-feel, tempo,articulation, voice leading) and teach the common-practise vocabulary of jazz, but stress it's evolving and welcoming nature. Like the english language, the language of jazz is incredibly expressive and adaptable. The best players speak it fluently while continuing to re-invent it. |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
|
From what I've read, he found this an embarrassment later on. I don't recall reading anything about him rejecting the musical lessons learned in this environment, or in the navy band for that matter. If you do, please point me to it. I'm always interested in learning new stuff and my opinions have been known to change with new input.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
|
When I was studying with David Branter, I expressed resistance to doing a Coltrane transcription he'd assigned me because I "didn't want to turn into a little Coltrane clone."
His ascerbic reply was " You should be so lucky." Graham, Terry, I assure you I'm not tearing down Pat Labarbara. I was simply making reference to the fact that Pat's playing is heavily influenced by 'Trane's concepts and unique vocabulary, as are many of his students (I'm thinking of Alex Dean in particular). This does not mean these two do not have their own voice. This does not mean I think they suck. I write these things sitting at the computer with a benevolent smile of affection and appreciation on my face for the contribution these people have made to the playing and teaching of the music we all love. Now please put that rope down and back off. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
|
Do you think ('you' being any of us, that is) that originality should be encouraged only after students master some basic 'standard' idiomatic things, and have musicianship issues like time, form, and sound already well in-hand? Or do you think maybe young players need to be encouraged to make a habbit of thinking originally from the start, even as they gain basic proficiency?
Why exactly is originality a virtue? I have some idea how I'd answer this, but want to float it here first and see what comes up. I'd also ask the corollary; does a lack of originality constitute a vice? If someone's not particularly an original player, but still msuical and appealing to listen to, does their lack of originality make them somehow unworthy of listening to? Music educators? I know this question must evoke opinions from you. |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
|
I kind of think that "originality" is inevitable. If you work hard on fundamentals, you will assimilate them in a personal way, no matter what, I think. In some people, influences are going to be apparent. We can't get hung up on that... everybody is standing in somebody's shadow, y'know? But then hopefully you're going to have a vocabulary of stuff that you're trying to develop that is your own.
For some reason... maybe because you're a guitarist, Mike, I'm thinking of the one time I was fortunate enough to catch the great Bobby Broom, last time I was in Chicago. Bobby has this sound and guitar style that is very much coming out of the Wes/Benson school of swinging lines... big hollowbody guitar, etc... he obviously has mastered that vocabulary. Seeing him play in an Organ trio makes one think of a Wes comparison even more. However, the thing I was struck by was how much like and UNLIKE Wes he sounded, simeltaneously. He had Wes's rhythmic feel and a deep, deep, bluesy sound. But I also noticed how much of his harmonic and melodic vocabulary that I was hearing that I'd never heard from anybody before. So there's a balance there. So to sum up... fundamentals, fundamentals, fundamentals. A unique bent on the material will come with time and maturity... hopefully naturally, without the need for a contrivance to sound "original." |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
|
As a (struggling)trumpet player/high school music educator, I am sometimes surprised by the current trend in music training to expect students to learn how to play everything that's happened up til now. The idea that originality will come naturally after having absorbed influences from so many sources strikes me as, well, unrealistic, really. If we go with the model of imitation, assimilation, and finally innovation, we may be addressing a fundamental necessity as far as development in our craft is concerned; however, if we look so far and so wide as to address music history in its entirety, I think we run the risk of sacrificing originality for technique. There is such a heavy emphasis on technique now, in order for a music student to be able to play anything and everything, that originality in music college becomes secondary, if it gets addressed at all, to fundamentals. Furthermore, jazz students are expected to be well-versed in classical style, which has a uniformity of sound (particularly in terms of trumpet).
When I think of truly original jazz composers/players, I think of Monk. It's not easy to create a recognizeable voice on the piano, but most of us can recognize Monk's sound after a couple of notes. And yet, his flat-fingered, two-fisted approach to playing would have been derided by any self-respecting piano teacher. I would argue that Monk, instead of learning to play anything on the piano, used his limitations to his advantage. Now, I'm not saying that we can all be Theloniouses (Thelonei?) if we disregard technical proficiency, but I do believe that the conservatory approach gives more emphasis to fundamentals than is necessary to develop one's own unique voice. |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
|
John, you must like to argue. If you read my posts ,I never said you were putting down Pat. Actually, I said, I know you aren't. As far as walking the bar goes, I wasn't commenting on the merits of playing the blues. I asked you, what musical lesson is learned from walking the bar? You seemed to feel there was one.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
|
I used to have conversations about this with a saxophonist friend(sort of) in New York. He said that any saxophone player that practiced a lot and had a lot of chops, sounded white. I, of course, think that is ridiculous. He, of course, is black, doesn't practice and has no chops. His main argument was Mark Turner. He said he's black but sounds white because he is too schooled and doesn't sound street enough.
|
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|