Herbie Hancock: jazz is not a higher kind of music
sum1
"I was making a hierarchy out of music, and it's ridiculous. It's like
saying steak is great, but peas and carrots are not. It's ridiculous.
You need it all, you know. I mean each thing can have its place in
your life, and you could choose what it is that you want. But to try
to say that one is higher and one is lower is ridiculous."
----------------------
http://www.sfbayview.com/121703/herbiehancock121703.shtml
Jazz giant: an interview with Herbie Hancock
Part 1
by JR
After his four decades of performing professionally, eight Grammys and
40 music and film awards, I had the opportunity to speak to one of the
biggest musical trailblazers of our time, Herbie Hancock. He's played
behind some of the jazz world's eternal giants, like Miles Davis, John
Coltrane and Donald Byrd, and Herbie Hancock has also fastened his own
nails to the wall of music's hall of fame - opening the doors, with
his experimentation, for modern jazz, hip hop, drum ‘n bass, techno,
electonica and a gang of other genres to be respected. Before Prince,
Herbie Hancock is one of the main ones who inspired the keyboard
musical revolution of the ‘80s.
With jazz being the classical music of Black people in Amerikkka, we
should know about Herbie Hancock and our own Black history, including
musical and cultural history, because if we don't, it will be watered
down and repackaged and sold back to us a few years later with
performers like Elvis, Eminem, Kenny G, Sean Paul or Justin Timberlake
being credited as the pioneers instead of the imitators that they
really are.
When I was 14 or 15, Herbie Hancock's "Watermelon Man" seduced me into
listening to jazz while I was in the high school band, playing
trumpet. We used to look at films of jazz concerts that featured
musicians like Miles Davis, Dizzy Gillespie, Tito Puente, Pete
Escovedo and Herbie Hancock in the same way that football players
watch NFL games to study the grace, passion and technique of every
play.
So to meet and interview an international cultural icon like Herbie
Hancock at an awards banquet for some youngstas in Hunters Point,
where he was donating his time, was big to me, because he was using
his fame to bring attention to these innercity, mostly Black youngstas
who had made a movie, "Hunters Point Heroes." It was good to know that
the fame didn't make him forget about the rest of Black Amerikkka who
are struggling to survive. Check him out in his own words …
JR: I know that you were around when Miles, Coltrane and Byrd were at
the top of their game and you've also seen the emergence of hip hop
and have played a part in that. Can you briefly explain how you got
into music and how you have seen the music game change for Black
people?
Herbie Hancock: I started playing piano when I was 7. And I started
with classical lessons. Then I really got exposed to jazz. Although my
parents were playing jazz for me when I was a kid, I didn't pay much
attention until I saw someone my age improvising, playing jazz. That
was when I was about 13 or 14. That was at Hyde Park High School in
Chicago.
And I said, "I want to learn how to do that, ‘cause this is my
instrument and this guy can do something on my instrument that I can't
do." So that's when I first started getting exposed to jazz. It opened
up like a floodgate of interest in my soul for music in a whole
‘nother way. It pulled me like a magnet, jazz did, because it was a
way that I could express myself.
It's very different from classical music. In classical music, you are
playing something that is written by someone else. But in jazz, the
song may be written by somebody else, but how you treat it is entirely
with your notes and your expression. And so that pulled me into jazz.
So later on, as I began to get more involved in jazz, (I was) less
involved with classical music, and less involved with R&B, which was
the music from when I was a kid (that I was into) before I got into
jazz and classical music. You know, I was listening to the Sparrows,
the Parrots, the Ravens and a bunch of groups that were around -
singing groups, do-wop groups - back then.
So what happened was, by the time I started my real career in jazz and
I was playing with Donald Byrd's group - he's a great jazz trumpet
player - I had stopped listening to R&B, and I was only listening to
jazz and classical. But then I joined Miles Davis' band in ‘63, and I
noticed that Miles was listening to everything, and he was the coolest
of the cool, and he was my hero. So I said, "If Miles is open about
music, why am I so closed about it?" That's when I started then
listening to James Brown and later Sly Stone, because it still moved
my soul. Although I had stopped listening to R&B, it still would move
my soul.
JR: Did it feel commercial? Why did you stop?
Herbie Hancock: Well, I was becoming more of a jazz snob, in thinking
that jazz was a higher kind of music, and that R&B was, yes, for the
body and more commercial. I was looking at the direction of art and
creativity from here to that standpoint. And jazz is also for the body
because it is rhythmic, but it's also for the mind and for the soul,
and it is very creative.
So I saw this hierarchy, and this was my mistake. I was making a
hierarchy out of music, and it's ridiculous. It's like saying steak is
great, but peas and carrots are not. It's ridiculous. You need it all,
you know. I mean each thing can have its place in your life, and you
could choose what it is that you want. But to try to say that one is
higher and one is lower is ridiculous.
So when I opened up, that was a great change in my life - it was a
very important one - and that made me open - to be exposed to hip hop
when it was still underground. I went through several developments of
my own music, including a more avant-garde form of jazz, which in a
way has kind of come back through the electronica scene, because I
found out that a lot of people who are kind of in the electronica
scene, which kind of grew out of hip hop too, they are referring to
some records that I made when I was in my avant-garde period.
When I first heard scratching, it was a record by Malcolm McClerran, a
guy from England. It was like a minor hit, but it didn't really open
the thing up to the general public. But I liked the sound of
scratching, because it reminded me just of the kind of sounds that I
was looking for when I was with my avant-garde band.
So I said, "I want to do a record that uses that." Anyway, I got
together with Bill Laswell and we made "Rockit," and the whole record
was called "Future Shock." Scratching was on it. DST is a giant; he's
a great musician. Not only does he play the turntables, but he can
play the drums; he can play a little bit of keyboards and the guitar.
So when "Rockit" hit, we had no idea that it would go the way it did,
but somehow it opened a big door to the general public, and hip hop,
from that point on. It was really the beginning of the impact that hip
hop has made on the world today. I've seen, in Bali, rappers rapping
in Balinese. And I went there a few times, and they're rapping in
Balinese. I mean, that's very far from where we are at, right?
JR: Where are they getting it from?
Herbie Hancock: Hip hop has just permeated the whole world. They've
heard rap records from the states; then they try to do their own
thing, based off of what they are hearing.
JR: Do you think that it is similar to jazz?
Herbie Hancock: It definitely has a relationship to jazz, because when
guys are doing freestyling with their rhyming, they are actually
improvising with words. That's something that I can't do. I can
improvise with notes, but they are improvising with words and doing it
in a rhythmic way that is not set. So they get a chance to exercise
some of the same things that I do with jazz, so that relationship is
there. It is improvising, and it is rhythmic.
Another thing that I noticed is a lot of people in the hip hop scene
have a great respect for jazz and have incorporated by sampling some
elements that come from jazz. And a lot of times (they) have made
rhymes that are an acknowledgement and in homage to jazz musicians.
So the ideas is not to shut out jazz - but it is very inclusive, which
is great - because jazz is also an inclusive music. Jazz has borrowed
from other genres of music and also has lent itself to other genres of
music. One of the greatest attributes of jazz, I think, is that it is
that open.
Steve Cooper
"sum1" <su...@lycos.jp> wrote in message
news:544b2430.03121...@posting.google.com...
> are struggling to survive. Check him out in his own words .
Luke Kaven
music" is intended in a different way from what is said here, and
unsupported anywhere within this interview. He certainly does not say
that there is no bad music. He is espousing a pluralist and inclusive
notion of jazz. I don't have anything against R&B or Hip Hop, and
don't consider it low per se, and neither do bebop musicians that I
know. [And I agree with his remarks about freestyling.] It still
comes down to what one has to say, and in many cases, as in music that
has lyrics, that is meant literally. There are brilliant instances of
R&B and Hip Hop, and there are ghastly instances of it. There are
ghastly instances of even the core jazz idioms. But your position,
which apparently involves erasing most value distinctions, is much
more radical, and there's nothing in this interview to support that.
Luke
Interesting to note that the interviewer does some editorializing
here:
Michael Laprarie
???
The author's initials J.R. must stand for "Jive-Ass Racist"
Herbie's comments, though, were interesting and informative.
--
Michael Laprarie
"sum1" <su...@lycos.jp> wrote in message
news:544b2430.03121...@posting.google.com...
> Herbie's the man who says it best:
>
> "I was making a hierarchy out of music, and it's ridiculous. It's like
> saying steak is great, but peas and carrots are not. It's ridiculous.
> You need it all, you know. I mean each thing can have its place in
> your life, and you could choose what it is that you want. But to try
> to say that one is higher and one is lower is ridiculous."
>
>
> ----------------------
>
>
> http://www.sfbayview.com/121703/herbiehancock121703.shtml
>
> Jazz giant: an interview with Herbie Hancock
>
> Part 1
>
> by JR
>
>
>
> With jazz being the classical music of Black people in Amerikkka, we
> should know about Herbie Hancock and our own Black history, including
> musical and cultural history, because if we don't, it will be watered
> down and repackaged and sold back to us a few years later with
> performers like Elvis, Eminem, Kenny G, Sean Paul or Justin Timberlake
> being credited as the pioneers instead of the imitators that they
> really are.
>
> So to meet and interview an international cultural icon like Herbie
> Hancock at an awards banquet for some youngstas in Hunters Point,
> where he was donating his time, was big to me, because he was using
> his fame to bring attention to these innercity, mostly Black youngstas
> who had made a movie, "Hunters Point Heroes." It was good to know that
> the fame didn't make him forget about the rest of Black Amerikkka who
> are struggling to survive. Check him out in his own words .
Joseph Scott
Herbie's comments suggest that he thinks Elvis's music is good in its
own way; the interviewer knocks Elvis. Herbie specifically points out
that he thinks classical music is quite different from jazz; the
interviewer describes jazz as "black" Americans' classical music.
(Wouldn't ragtime make a better candidate?) One would think striving
to "know about Herbie Hancock" would include listening to what he
says. :-)
Nice to realize reading this that Malcolm McLaren actually played a
worthwhile role in music history at least once!
Joseph Scott
Ted Lesher
news:C8mdnXpOSos...@comcast.com...
> Bird and Monk had the same attitude. Good music is good music.
Add Ellington, who said "There are two kinds of music. Good music, and the
other kind." Also "If it sounds good and feels good, then it IS good!"
Ted Lesher
Mike C.
clearly. What kind of troll would he be then?
--
Mike C.
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who
could
not hear the music."
--Friedrich Nietzsche
"Joseph Scott" <j_ns...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:a2d52481.03121...@posting.google.com...
Larry Smithee
Source?
Larry
sum1
> Your use of the suggestive headline "jazz is not a higher kind of
> music" is intended in a different way from what is said here,
You're in denial. Look at what he said:
" . . to try to say that one is higher and one is lower is ridiculous."
In other words, jazz is not a higher form music. Nor is it lower. It simply is.
Luke Kaven
Nick
> music" is intended in a different way from what is said here, and
> unsupported anywhere within this interview. He certainly does not say
> that there is no bad music. He is espousing a pluralist and inclusive
> notion of jazz.
Which is commendable, but I think it's ridiculous to say that rappers
are on the same level as accomplished jazz musicians, but "they're
just different, that's all."
The ability to shout in rhythm about mah bitches and mah ho's takes
little to no skill. Playing great jazz takes enormous skill. There is
such a thing as craft, and a scale of excellence, and I think it's
short-changing people who have worked long and hard to develop their
skill to say it's equivalent to a rap "artist" who has never seen the
inside of a practice room or opened a music theory book of any kind.
Herbie's praise for the skill of rappers seems to be mostly based on
their supposed ability to improvise. How many of the most popular
rappers actually do this? Next to none. The pre-packaging and
repetitious, robotic instrumental backgrounds that go into a typical
rap record makes the worst smooth jazz look like a burst of
spontaneity.
Granted, there's something to be said for putting words together in
clever rhyming, rhythmic combinations. That makes for great poetry,
not great music. And it's rare.
I love Herbie -- I think he's one of the geniuses in the history of
jazz. But when I read people like him, or Quincy Jones, talking about
about great rap is, I can't help but feel that it's a justification
for their own decisions to be more commercial.
Luke Kaven
like anything else, the good stuff is hard to get your hands on,
because the shelves and airwaves are clogged with the worst of it.
As for freestyling, there are talented people out there who can make
up a rap that not only rhymes, but says something interesting. And
that isn't easy.
Luke
nick...@aol.com (Nick) wrote:
>Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
Adam Bravo
Oh come on. Sum1 can be incredibly ridiculous, but that doesn't mean you
have to follow his lead. Hancock is clearly attacking your point of view; I
don't see any way to interpret it otherwise. He means that one cannot rate
each genre as higher or lower than the other. You say that jazz is higher.
Fact is, you disagree.
sum1
Are you too busy to elaborate or are you just trying to be
contentious?
The meaning is as clear as a bell - there is no hierarchy of musical
styles/genres/forms. Jazz is just one among many.
Luke Kaven
>Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
>> su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote:
>> >Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
>> >
>> >> music" is intended in a different way from what is said here,
>> >
>> >You're in denial. Look at what he said:
>> >
>> >" . . to try to say that one is higher and one is lower is ridiculous."
>> >
>> >In other words, jazz is not a higher form music. Nor is it lower. It simply is.
>>
>> Again: Your use "is intended in a different way from what is said
>> here".
>
>Are you too busy to elaborate or are you just trying to be
>contentious?
>
>The meaning is as clear as a bell - there is no hierarchy of musical
>styles/genres/forms. Jazz is just one among many.
It's true, I am busy, and don't have as much time to write a complete
reply as I did at an earlier time. But I feel I should say something
here.
Hancock may say that jazz is not a higher *kind* of music. But this
doesn't say anything about the difference between good and bad
*instances* of music. Your point has more to do with a kind of
radical relativism which erases distinctions that people may make
between good and bad music, and along with *that* the notion of a
hierarchy, both of genres and of instances.
But in Hancock's case, he clearly *does* believe in the difference
between instances of music that are good and bad and takes a stand in
the form of what he chooses to play and with whom he chooses to play
it. What he does, whether he is including elements of funk, R&B, or
hip-hop, is of a high calibre. Whether his particular tastes accord
with mine, it doesn't matter--I still think that what he does is good
music. When he appropriates elements of different styles, he does it
selectively and with distinction. This clearly indicates value
judgments on his part.
And I have never tried to say the hip hop, funk, or R&B are bad *as
genres*. Like anything else, there are good instances, and bad
instances. The same I'd say of R&B and funk and classical. [Yes,
most classical is bad music, not because it is classical, but just
because it is trite romanticism in my view. I call this
NPR-Classical, because that is mostly all they play on NPR classical
stations with some notable exceptions.] Just as with these, I'd say
there are good and bad instances of jazz. So Hancock wants to deny a
hierarchy *of genres*, but he is committed to accepting a hierarchy of
*good and bad instances* of these genres.
[In point of fact, his origin is still as a jazz musician, and even
his statements in the interview reflect those sensibilities.]
So you'd ask at this point what makes me often negative about
Instrumental Pop, sounding as though I am negative about the genre?
The reason is that Instrumental Pop is a genre that is largely
characterized by a cluster of beliefs (on the part of the players, and
on the part of the listeners) which, taken together, are
characteristic of what I would say leads to the production of *bad
music*. This could change, but for the moment, the *genre* of
instrumental pop is overwhelmingly made up of *bad instances* of
music.
In your tendency to conflate important distinctions, I think you were
too hasty to call Mr. Hancock in as support for your views. And Mr.
Bravo was too hasty to pit me against Mr. Hancock, my differences in
taste notwithstanding.
Luke
Zoot
on paper you are ready to play any kind of western music except jazz
. for that you still have a lot to learn.
Brian Rost
> I love Herbie -- I think he's one of the geniuses in the history of
> jazz. But when I read people like him, or Quincy Jones, talking about
> about great rap is, I can't help but feel that it's a justification
> for their own decisions to be more commercial.
Why can't it be because they actually DIG it?
I agree with Herbie's statement about one music not being higher or
lower than another. I can listen to punk rock, Mozart, rap and Miles and
appreciate them all for what they are. I don't have to like ALL rap to
like SOME rap.
In fact as a musician myself my biggest problem is finding outlets to
play all the different styles I like.
--
Brian Rost
Stargen, Inc.
**********************************************************************
JC Martin
news:1d97fb30.03121...@posting.google.com...
> Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote in message
news:<2u53uvom467oof6if...@4ax.com>...
> > Your use of the suggestive headline "jazz is not a higher kind of
> > music" is intended in a different way from what is said here, and
> > unsupported anywhere within this interview. He certainly does not say
> > that there is no bad music. He is espousing a pluralist and inclusive
> > notion of jazz.
>
> Which is commendable, but I think it's ridiculous to say that rappers
> are on the same level as accomplished jazz musicians, but "they're
> just different, that's all."
>
> The ability to shout in rhythm about mah bitches and mah ho's takes
> little to no skill.
An obvious generalization which shows once again, you don't know much about
the subject you critique. That's just too easy. You can write paragraph
upon paragraph of what you think you know, but I've listened to the music in
depth and you again are off-base. I would love to see you stand up and rap
since you find it so easy. It is indeed a skill which takes focus, drive,
practice, a good ear for rhythm and abstraction.
>Playing great jazz takes enormous skill. There is
> such a thing as craft, and a scale of excellence, and I think it's
> short-changing people who have worked long and hard to develop their
> skill to say it's equivalent to a rap "artist" who has never seen the
> inside of a practice room or opened a music theory book of any >kind.
You don't know this at all. Your point of reference is merely a few tunes
you have heard via popular mediums. There's tons of underground rap which
is quite inventive (labels like Def Jux and Madlib produced projects for
example) , and many rappers have indeed studied music. My sister-in-law
plays cello in a hip hop orchestra in Los Angeles which mixes Mingus
arrangements, strings, jazz harmony, modal solos and freestyle raps in a
pretty interesting blend.
> Herbie's praise for the skill of rappers seems to be mostly based on
> their supposed ability to improvise.
I think it's because he knows more than you.
>How many of the most popular
> rappers actually do this? Next to none. The pre-packaging and
> repetitious, robotic instrumental backgrounds that go into a typical
> rap record makes the worst smooth jazz look like a burst of
> spontaneity.
"Smooth jazz" is far more pre-packaged and less challenging. You can even
take a pop rap artist like Missy Elliot and her music and beats roll over
anything "smooth jazz" has to offer.
> Granted, there's something to be said for putting words together in
> clever rhyming, rhythmic combinations. That makes for great poetry,
> not great music. And it's rare.
How would you know?
> I love Herbie -- I think he's one of the geniuses in the history of
> jazz. But when I read people like him, or Quincy Jones, talking about
> about great rap is, I can't help but feel that it's a justification
> for their own decisions to be more commercial.
Again, how would you know?
-JC
JC Martin
news:f4wEb.30287$BQ5.27125@fed1read03...
No, Luke didn't say that at all. Re-read.
-JC
Steve Cooper
Well, the first thing to say is that I was responding to Herbie Hancock's
statement in the interview that he was open to all kinds of music and that
other forms of music "moved" him.
In an interview, Monk was asked what kind of music he liked. Monk replied he
liked all kinds of music. The interviewer then asked if he liked Country &
Western music. Monk then complained that the interviewer didn't listen very
well. Monk also told me (in my one and only dicussion with him) that he
thought rock and roll music had produced a lot of worthwhile and good music
and that he listened to it.
If you dig into Bird's background through books and articles, it is obvious
that Bird dug all kinds of music and that his boundaries extended far beyond
jazz. He repeatedly refused to categorize music in terms of good, better or
best.
"Larry Smithee" <lcsm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3cdae13f.03121...@posting.google.com...
Joseph Scott
us who do value it highly shouldn't kid ourselves that we have a
better understanding of some "objective" aesthetic standard(s) than
those other people do, or a better understanding of what the supposed
"objective" hierarchies of styles are aesthetically, at the risk of
looking like snobs who are trying to put our personal subjective
values as they happen to currently be above other people's subjective
values for the sake of our egos and little else. We can get plenty of
joy out of liking what we like because we really like it without
having to have someone else be worse than us for not liking it too.
Agreed?
For instance, to the best of my understanding Ray Charles really likes
violins on soul music better than I do. Should I conclude that I have
"better" taste than him, in some "absolute" sense? On what basis?
Better I think to say that he has "better taste" than me regarding
strings and soul -- whenever "good taste" is defined by the general
values of some music fans -- and on the other hand I have "better
taste" than him regarding strings and soul -- whenever "good taste" is
defined by the general values of some other music fans.
Joseph Scott
Steve Cooper
It certainly is not clear from Herbie's interview. He establishes the term
higher based on jazz "snobbery". And the last time I looked at my Funk &
Wagnalls, a snob maintains an air of superiority through "refined" taste.
Put in other words, at one time Herbie thought that his proclivity for jazz
made him superior to people who enjoyed or practiced other types of music.
And the concept of superiority of one music over another is totally
ridiculous even if it takes more talent or education to produce one type of
music as opposed to another type. It's almost like saying one thinks that
one genre of book is better than another.
And I suspect that the reason that you (sum1) posted this interview is to
support your crusade to validate the worth of smooth jazz. Well, I for one
think it is fine for people to enjoy smooth jazz; by their very numbers such
people have already established its validity and worth, at least in their
eyes.
"sum1" <su...@lycos.jp> wrote in message
news:544b2430.03121...@posting.google.com...
> are struggling to survive. Check him out in his own words .
Ben Sharvy
> There is
> such a thing as craft, and a scale of excellence, and I think it's
> short-changing people who have worked long and hard to develop their
> skill to say it's equivalent to a rap "artist" who has never seen the
> inside of a practice room or opened a music theory book of any kind.
I agree that rap is a cruder form, but disagree that opening a music
theory book has much to do with it. Did Charlie Parker open a music
theory book? Monk?
Michael Fitzgerald
>Did Charlie Parker open a music theory book? Monk?
Monk attended the Juilliard School to study theory, harmony, and
arranging so it's almost certain that he did.
Mike
fitz...@eclipse.net
http://www.eclipse.net/~fitzgera - Gigi Gryce book - ARSC award winner!
http://www.JazzDiscography.com
sum1
> Hancock may say that jazz is not a higher *kind* of music.
Yes, indeed. And that is the title to this thread and there is no way
it can be read as misleading since it is in fact exactly what he said.
> But this
> doesn't say anything about the difference between good and bad
> *instances* of music.
Of course it doesn't. That's another point entirely.
>
> But in Hancock's case, he clearly *does* believe in the difference
> between instances of music that are good and bad and takes a stand in
> the form of what he chooses to play and with whom he chooses to play
> it.
We all beleive in music that is good and bad and we all make that
distinction real each time we turn on the stereo.
>
> And I have never tried to say the hip hop, funk, or R&B are bad *as
> genres*. Like anything else, there are good instances, and bad
> instances.
Of course, of course, I agree. And my apologies if I called you on a
claim you never made.
I think it was Larry who was trying to argue that pop music is
inferior music.
sum1
>
>
> An obvious generalization which shows once again, you don't know much about
> the subject you critique.
Kind of like your critique of smooth jazz, which is based on music you
overheard at the dentist's office.
sum1
> Most people do not value improvisation in music very highly. Those of
> us who do value it highly shouldn't kid ourselves that we have a
> better understanding of some "objective" aesthetic standard(s) than
> those other people do, or a better understanding of what the supposed
> "objective" hierarchies of styles are aesthetically, at the risk of
> looking like snobs who are trying to put our personal subjective
> values as they happen to currently be above other people's subjective
> values for the sake of our egos and little else. We can get plenty of
> joy out of liking what we like because we really like it without
> having to have someone else be worse than us for not liking it too.
> Agreed?
Very well said. If there is a group FAQ, this should be included.
sum1
> And the concept of superiority of one music over another is totally
> ridiculous even if it takes more talent or education to produce one type of
> music as opposed to another type. It's almost like saying one thinks that
> one genre of book is better than another.
Exactly.
> And I suspect that the reason that you (sum1) posted this interview is to
> support your crusade to validate the worth of smooth jazz. Well, I for one
> think it is fine for people to enjoy smooth jazz; by their very numbers such
> people have already established its validity and worth, at least in their
> eyes.
Smooth jazz doesn't need validation from me or anyone else.
JC Martin
You're making up stuff up in your mind again.
-JC
ric
> > Kind of like your critique of smooth jazz, which is based on music you
> > overheard at the dentist's office.
>
> You're making up stuff up in your mind again.
You must be getting healthy. Last time it was the doctor's office for you,
but the dentist's office for me. I insisted on the "laughing gas" with the
muzak.
Luke Kaven
>
>Yes, indeed. And that is the title to this thread and there is no way
>it can be read as misleading since it is in fact exactly what he said.
You quote back the first sentence only, which was explained away in
the rest of the discourse. Read more carefully.
Steve Cooper
promote smooth jazz in this newsgroup?
"sum1" <su...@lycos.jp> wrote in message
news:544b2430.03122...@posting.google.com...
Mike C.
--
Mike C.
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who
could
not hear the music."
--Friedrich Nietzsche
"Ben Sharvy" <bsh...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:d196ca8d.03121...@posting.google.com...
Zoot
it's not jazz and calling it jazz is ignorant.
sum1
Of course it is. Even Nat Hentoff said that smooth jazz is part of
the jazz tradition and just to help you out I'm providing links to
more sites and authors who agree with Mr Hentoff.
Perhaps for a new year's resolution you can work on overcoming your
denial.
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/articles/jazz0802.htm
http://www.apassion4jazz.net/page3.html
http://www.jazzsteps.com/reviews/whatisit.asp?partner=23053&sc=true
http://www.jazzsteps.com/history/hist_1970.asp
http://vig.prenhall.com/catalog/academic/product/1,4096,013021227X,00.html
http://www.jazzinamerica.org/lp_o.asp?LPOrder=7
http://www.unr.edu/content/news.asp?sto_id=174
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/library/smooth.htm
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/iviews/mouzon.htm?no_auto=1
sum1
Then perhaps you could tell us about the stack of smooth jazz cds that
you have sampled.
sum1
In what way was it "explained away"? He clearly says there is no
hierarchy of forms.
sum1
> If you don't feel it needs validation, why do you make such a big effort to
> promote smooth jazz in this newsgroup?
I don't promote anything. I simply talk about what I like, same as everyone else.
Zoot
smooth is not jazz
it doesn't come from jazz
it doesn't work like jazz
it doesn't even want to be jazz
and anyone who supports the notion that it is is just wrong
calling it jazz is bad for jazz
you can't play
you don't know jazz
you are always taking these lame stands to get attention
and [have i mentioned?] you look like a fool
Zoot
no i come to this group to talk about and promote jazz
i go to other groups to talk about and promote what ever that group is
about
you come to this group to agitate
you claim that smooth is jazz [what reaction could you be looking
for?] in a room full of people that know it's not.
get the puppy
Zoot
no i come to this group to talk about and promote jazz
Patrick Powers
Herbie is just trying to act hip.
Ben Sharvy
> On 19 Dec 2003 17:01:32 -0800, bsh...@mac.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote:
> >Did Charlie Parker open a music theory book? Monk?
>
> Monk attended the Juilliard School to study theory, harmony, and
> arranging...
Yeah, but, what kind of student was he?
Michael Fitzgerald
Does it matter? If I found his transcript and he received A's in his
courses what would that tell you? What if they were F's? Do you think
grades are the truth? If I found anecdotal accounts from his
professors would that be the truth? You've gone from questioning
whether Monk opened a music theory book to questioning whether his
grades or academic performance or something were up to some kind of
standard. You've got some kind of preconception in your head and I
doubt that any kind of evidence would sway you. People have reported
that Monk could play runs like Bud Powell or Art Tatum - but he chose
not to. So what?
Luke Kaven
>Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
>> su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote:
>> >Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
>> >
>> >> Hancock may say that jazz is not a higher *kind* of music.
>> >
>> >Yes, indeed. And that is the title to this thread and there is no way
>> >it can be read as misleading since it is in fact exactly what he said.
>>
>> You quote back the first sentence only, which was explained away in
>> the rest of the discourse. Read more carefully.
>
>In what way was it "explained away"? He clearly says there is no
>hierarchy of forms.
In terms of value, there may not be a hierarchy of kinds, but there is
a hierarchy of instances and a few practical generalizations that can
be made. It just happens to be (contingently, as we say), that
certain kinds of music are mainly characterized by poor instances.
Herbie Hancock makes his choices, and I'd say that his choices do not
favor all equally.
Zoot
> >> arranging...
> >
> >Yeah, but, what kind of student was he?
they don't let chimps into juilliard
You've got some kind of preconception in your head and I
> doubt that any kind of evidence would sway you. People have reported
> that Monk could play runs like Bud Powell or Art Tatum - but he chose
> not to. So what?
>
monk wrote round midnight and ruby my dear when he was pretty young
picasso was painting fake renoir at a young age
i'd say there skills were very strong.
when they got older they found the quirky childlike stuff hidden within themselves
for me it's all about the quirky stuff.
about playing chops
you try playing some of that stuff
Larry Smithee
I've been a little busy lately and haven't had much time to wade into
this conversation. What strikes me as really funny about some of these
attempts to interpret Herbie's so called no hierarchy statement is
that for HIM that's true. Whatever Herbie musically touches will be
elevated to a high art standard, period. Quincy Jones can do that too.
As far as I know Herbie has never delved specifically in smooth pop,
but should he do so I'm sure it would be a class act. It would be very
naive to expect that Herbie would literally strip the very soul from a
piece of music in the way that G and other elevator smooth pop
musicians typically do.
Larry
Bobby Knight
>Herbie's the man who says it best:
>
>"I was making a hierarchy out of music, and it's ridiculous. It's like
>saying steak is great, but peas and carrots are not. It's ridiculous.
>You need it all, you know. I mean each thing can have its place in
>your life, and you could choose what it is that you want. But to try
>to say that one is higher and one is lower is ridiculous."
>
To not observe that Rap, and hip-hop, are lower forms than any other
music is ridiculous.
Ben Sharvy
> On 23 Dec 2003 10:24:09 -0800, bsh...@mac.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote:
> >Michael Fitzgerald <fitz...@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:<44e7uvgrc86kbvcik...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 19 Dec 2003 17:01:32 -0800, bsh...@mac.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote:
> >> >Did Charlie Parker open a music theory book? Monk?
> >>
> >> Monk attended the Juilliard School to study theory, harmony, and
> >> arranging...
> >
> >Yeah, but, what kind of student was he?
>
> Does it matter? If I found his transcript and he received A's in his
> courses what would that tell you? What if they were F's? Do you think
> grades are the truth? If I found anecdotal accounts from his
> professors would that be the truth? You've gone from questioning
> whether Monk opened a music theory book to questioning whether his
> grades or academic performance or something were up to some kind of
> standard. You've got some kind of preconception in your head and I
> doubt that any kind of evidence would sway you. People have reported
> that Monk could play runs like Bud Powell or Art Tatum - but he chose
> not to. So what?
Good grief, go drink some beers and relax. Are you practicing for law
school or something?
sum1
Of course, it is. I hope for the new year you will wake from your denial.
> it doesn't come from jazz
Even Nat Hentoff said so. But go look at the links above for more support.
sum1
> > "Steve Cooper" <steve...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<DpadnZpuZad...@comcast.com>...
> > > If you don't feel it needs validation, why do you make such a big effort to
> > > promote smooth jazz in this newsgroup?
> >
> > I don't promote anything. I simply talk about what I like, same as everyone else.
>
> no i come to this group to talk about and promote jazz
You're not doing a very good job.
> you come to this group to agitate
So, what's the difference between promotion and agitation?
> you claim that smooth is jazz
I'm not the only one.
> in a room full of people that know it's not.
There is certainly a room full of people. A few of them are
loudmouths who are living in a fantasy world of denial and pretention.
The rest of us know what is what.
> get the puppy
Get over yourself.
And Happy New Year!
sum1
> Herbie is just trying to act hip.
Yeah, well, so are a lot of people in this ng.
sum1
> su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote:
> >Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
> >> su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote:
> >> >Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
> >> >
> >> >> Hancock may say that jazz is not a higher *kind* of music.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, indeed. And that is the title to this thread and there is no way
> >> >it can be read as misleading since it is in fact exactly what he said.
> >>
> >> You quote back the first sentence only, which was explained away in
> >> the rest of the discourse. Read more carefully.
> >
> >In what way was it "explained away"? He clearly says there is no
> >hierarchy of forms.
>
> In terms of value, there may not be a hierarchy of kinds,
Thank you.
> but there is
> a hierarchy of instances and a few practical generalizations that can
> be made. It just happens to be (contingently, as we say), that
> certain kinds of music are mainly characterized by poor instances.
Free jazz, for one, eh?
sum1
> su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote in message news:<544b2430.0312...@posting.google.com>...
> > Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote in message news:<7u6cuv06tue4m8klm...@4ax.com>...
> > > su...@lycos.jp (sum1) wrote:
> > > >Luke Kaven <lu...@smallsrecords.com> wrote
> > > >
> > > >> Hancock may say that jazz is not a higher *kind* of music.
> > > >
> > > >Yes, indeed. And that is the title to this thread and there is no way
> > > >it can be read as misleading since it is in fact exactly what he said.
> > >
> > > You quote back the first sentence only, which was explained away in
> > > the rest of the discourse. Read more carefully.
> >
> > In what way was it "explained away"? He clearly says there is no
> > hierarchy of forms.
>
> I've been a little busy lately and haven't had much time to wade into
> this conversation.
Welcome back, Larry.
> What strikes me as really funny about some of these
> attempts to interpret Herbie's so called no hierarchy statement is
> that for HIM that's true.
What stirkes me as funny is that you and Luke can't accept his
statement at face value. No interpretation is necessary.
Get over yourself.
Mike C.
they absolutely did. Picture Charlie Parker mumbling "well, I dunno, I's
just playin' ma horn..."
Mike F.'s response is right on the money. Who cares what kind of student
Monk was? Maybe we should find out if he liked to hang out in the Student
Union, or whether or not he was part of the Student Government Association.
Would that help you figure out if Monk studied theory or not?
--
Mike C.
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who
could
not hear the music."
--Friedrich Nietzsche
"Ben Sharvy" <bsh...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:d196ca8d.03122...@posting.google.com...
Luke Kaven
>lcsm...@earthlink.net (Larry Smithee) wrote
[...]
>> What strikes me as really funny about some of these
>> attempts to interpret Herbie's so called no hierarchy statement is
>> that for HIM that's true.
>
>What stirkes me as funny is that you and Luke can't accept his
>statement at face value. No interpretation is necessary.
>
>Get over yourself.
You haven't read me very carefully in this thread. And your
argument-from-authority goes nowhere.
Ben Sharvy
> The question was about whether Charlie Parker and Mond studied theory, which
> they absolutely did. Picture Charlie Parker mumbling "well, I dunno, I's
> just playin' ma horn..."
The point was that you can play well, brilliantly, without studying
theory.
> Mike F.'s response is right on the money. Who cares what kind of student
> Monk was? Maybe we should find out if he liked to hang out in the Student
> Union, or whether or not he was part of the Student Government Association.
> Would that help you figure out if Monk studied theory or not?
1) Obviously, if the fact that Monk was a student is relevant, then it
is relevantwhether he, for example, flunked any classes.
2) It was joke.
Larry Smithee
That's because the statement when read "at face value" is out of
context. Have you actually read the article or did your brain seize up
after reading the first two sentences or so that seemed to vaguely
validate your narrow opinion? Try actually reading the article while
your brain is in the "on" position.
Larry
Jim
>That's because the statement when read "at face value" is out of context.<
Ya know, I don't have a dog in this hunt but I gotta tell you, between this
thread and the one where a Bill Evans piece was cited where he was saying he
didn't do blues and everyone responding he didn't know WTF he was talking
about, I've never seen so much bullshit in I don't know when.
The "out of context" passage, was part of a not much larger article and
inasmuch the larger article wasn't entirely posted, it was a passage that stood
on it's own legs. The fact that some here can't swallow the pedestrian
ramblings of an icon for what they are, is no ones prob but their own.
The paragraph before that I suspect was the real oinker that stuck all you
learned aficionados:
"Well, I was becoming more of a jazz snob, in thinking that jazz was a higher
kind of music, and that R&B was, yes, for the body and more commercial. I was
looking at the direction of art and creativity from here to that standpoint.
And jazz is also for the body because it is rhythmic, but it’s also for the
mind and for the soul, and it is very creative."
Even way back in post Watermelon Man dayz, Herbie seemed to have a grasp of
humility and the spectre of becoming a parvenu of jazz, was not going to be in
his cards.
He meant what he said. Pretty simple stuff really.
Always here for my fellow syngraphist or oenophile.
--=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=--
sum1
The "context" to which you refer is pure fabrication, something to
justify the fact that Herbie does not agree with you.
Larry Smithee
I agree that he no doubt did mean what he said and that Herbie is a
humble as apple pie guy. The thing is I happen to believe that Herbie
is a friggin' giant and pretty much anything he wants to touch will be
be superlative music and worth my time to listen to. My point is that
I can't imagine him wanting to delve into "smooth", but if he were to
do so I'd be willing to listen. Of course, it's safe to say that the
result wouldn't be smooth anymore if he did. Herbie may not be a
"snob" but he does make defined artistic choices, given his previous
musical efforts and his track record of recordings. Given that, it
seems safe to say that he will march far away from "smooth" crapolla
and ultimately stay unpopular with the smoooooooooothy crowd, thank
God. Oh, and everyone knows that working recording artists can't
afford the "snob" label and publicly swagger around like they're some
kind of God's gift to music. Look what happened with Wynton! That does
NOT mean that Herbie doesn't make refined HIERATICAL choices in their
work. Herbie clearly does and always has. To suggest that he somehow
does not is just being stupid.
Larry
sum1
>
> He meant what he said. Pretty simple stuff really.
You'd think so, especially for people who make so much out of
education and having "something to say."
sum1
Then what's with the insulting message about my being unable to
understand the context? Obviously you disagree with Herbie's opinion,
but that has nothing to do with me.
> The thing is I happen to believe that Herbie
> is a friggin' giant and pretty much anything he wants to touch will be
> be superlative music and worth my time to listen to. My point is that
> I can't imagine him wanting to delve into "smooth",
So what? Who said he had any such intentions?
Get over yourself.
And happy new year.
Larry Smithee
Are you totally incapable of a simple logical thought? You quote me
about as well as you do the article on Herbie Hancock. The inescapable
fact is that Herbie makes hieratical choices in music and the clear
basis for this assumption, which smoothy pea-brains can’t seem to
comprehend, is based on his actions as a musician. I’m sure too, give
that Herbie is such a nice affable person, that if pinned down he
would even heap praise on the most dismal musician on the scene, all
the while saying something in the order of...”Oh, it’s all good”.
Which, of course, is bull shit. That’s just the way he is. Herbie is a
total musician and to dig his stuff you’ll need to approach it with
big ears that most smoothy listeners aren’t able to deal with.
Larry
Adam Bravo
"Larry Smithee" <lcsm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3cdae13f.03122...@posting.google.com...
Why do you say he necessarily makes hierarichal decisions in his playing?
Maybe he just plays what he likes and thinks sounds good, and what he likes
happens to come out the way it does. Plus, it seems to me that "Rockit" is
mostly indiscernable from most pop - was it just not good music?
Also, most jazz musicians can probably afford to say some snobbish stuff - I
mean, look at Dave Liebman (whose article in allaboutjazz mentions Hancock,
IIRC).
Again, if some music is "better" than others, how does one go about telling
which is which?
Jim
>The thing is I happen to believe that Herbie is a friggin' giant and pretty
much anything he wants to touch will be be superlative music and worth my time
to listen to.<
Always a bad assumption. He's human and prone to less than Godly output. Trust
me on this one. I've got stats on my side, you've got wide eyed optimism on
yours. I win. You lose.
>My point is that I can't imagine him wanting to delve into "smooth", but if he
were to do so I'd be willing to listen.<
May be "your" point in this post, but it's point-less in the overall discussion
here. Who introduced the Kenny G factor into this equation? I re-read this
entire miserable thread before responding and gotta tell you, it flew under my
radar.
>That does NOT mean that Herbie doesn't make refined HIERATICAL choices in
their
work.<
More abstruse crap. What does any of this have to do with what the rest of us
are talking about? And when did a select core segment of this vocal jazz RMB
repertoire become mind readers and prescient?
>To suggest that he somehow does not is just being stupid.<
To suggest that you or anyone else here w/o personal knowledge of anyone, has a
clue as to how they work, think, create or take that first morning piss, is
contrived, arrogant and just plain absurd.
EOM
sum1
>
> Are you totally incapable of a simple logical thought? You quote me
> about as well as you do the article on Herbie Hancock.
In other words, verbatim.
If you disagree with what Herbie says, then just say so. Don't take
it out on the messenger.
> The inescapable
> fact is that Herbie makes hieratical choices in music and the clear
> basis for this assumption, which smoothy pea-brains can’t seem to
> comprehend, is based on his actions as a musician.
As others have already pointed out, that may not be a fact, in which
case your assumption is clearly escapable.
> I’m sure too, give
> that Herbie is such a nice affable person, that if pinned down he
> would even heap praise on the most dismal musician on the scene, all
> the while saying something in the order of...”Oh, it’s all good”.
> Which, of course, is bull shit.
Well, that's something you'd have to take up with Herbie, isn't it?
Personally, I'd congratulate him for having the courage to speak
honestly and truthfully.
> That’s just the way he is. Herbie is a
> total musician and to dig his stuff you’ll need to approach it with
> big ears that most smoothy listeners aren’t able to deal with.
> Larry
I'm a smooth listener and I deal with Herbie's music quite well, thank
you.
Get over yourself.
Nick
> Nick wrote:
> > I love Herbie -- I think he's one of the geniuses in the history of
> > jazz. But when I read people like him, or Quincy Jones, talking about
> > about great rap is, I can't help but feel that it's a justification
> > for their own decisions to be more commercial.
>
> Why can't it be because they actually DIG it?
>
> I agree with Herbie's statement about one music not being higher or
> lower than another.
I'm of two minds on this.
On one hand, I don't think one genre is "higher" or "lower" in terms
of what enjoyment it provides. If you like listening to rap, and I
like listening to bebop, I don't think my enjoyment is somehow more
"legitimate" than yours because bebop is more complex or takes more
musical skill than rap. There are a lot of rock songs that I like more
than a lot of bebop recordings, despite the fact I know they're
relative simplistic musically.
On the other hand, I don't agree with the idea that rap is on the same
"level" as jazz musically, but it's "just different" and there are
"good and bad in both." IMO, Rap as an overall genre is pretty bad,
because it's based on a fairly specific concept which is limited and
unimaginative, i.e., shouting in rhythm over a robotic, repetitious
and predictable sequenced background. In this sense, jazz *is* a
"higher" form of music. This is as obvious as saying that an expert
airbrush artist is on a higher level artistically (or craft-wise, if
you prefer) than someone who draws stick figures.
As rotten as most of you might think commercial jazz is, at least it
allows, theoretically, for a wide range of sounds and musical
approaches. That so many acts fail to explore this wide range is an
unfortunate consequence of trying to get played on the radio by
adhering to a fairly derivative and predictable formula.
Nick
> nick...@aol.com (Nick) wrote in message news:<1d97fb30.03121...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > There is
> > such a thing as craft, and a scale of excellence, and I think it's
> > short-changing people who have worked long and hard to develop their
> > skill to say it's equivalent to a rap "artist" who has never seen the
> > inside of a practice room or opened a music theory book of any kind.
>
> I agree that rap is a cruder form, but disagree that opening a music
> theory book has much to do with it. Did Charlie Parker open a music
> theory book? Monk?
Whether they literally "opened a theory book" or not isn't the point.
Whichever method of education was followed, the point is that
accomplished jazz artists have paid substantial dues in terms of time
(usually years) and energy in order to become masters of their craft.
How much time and energy do you think Shaquille O'Neal, featured
artist on several rap albums, devoted to his craft as a "musician"?
The fact that a professional athlete can easily record a rap album
should tell you something about what that genre requires in terms of
skill. So far, the world has not seen any straight-jazz albums by
dilettante professional athletes or movie stars.
Frisbie Einstein
>
> How much time and energy do you think Shaquille O'Neal, featured
> artist on several rap albums, devoted to his craft as a "musician"?
> The fact that a professional athlete can easily record a rap album
> should tell you something about what that genre requires in terms of
> skill. So far, the world has not seen any straight-jazz albums by
> dilettante professional athletes or movie stars.
Did you know Bill Cosby once sat in with the John Coltrane Quartet? Of
course, John played offstage while Bill lipsynced.
Ben Sharvy
> bsh...@mac.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote in message news:<d196ca8d.03121...@posting.google.com>...
> > nick...@aol.com (Nick) wrote in message news:<1d97fb30.03121...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > > There is
> > > such a thing as craft, and a scale of excellence, and I think it's
> > > short-changing people who have worked long and hard to develop their
> > > skill to say it's equivalent to a rap "artist" who has never seen the
> > > inside of a practice room or opened a music theory book of any kind.
> >
> > I agree that rap is a cruder form, but disagree that opening a music
> > theory book has much to do with it. Did Charlie Parker open a music
> > theory book? Monk?
>
> Whether they literally "opened a theory book" or not isn't the point.
> Whichever method of education was followed, the point is that
> accomplished jazz artists have paid substantial dues in terms of time
> (usually years) and energy in order to become masters of their craft.
>
> How much time and energy do you think Shaquille O'Neal, featured
> artist on several rap albums, devoted to his craft as a "musician"?
How much time did Waymon Tisdale devote to his jazz recording?
tritone
@aol.com says...
> Brian Rost <rostN...@NOSPAMstargen.com> wrote in message news:<3FE2F8BF...@NOSPAMstargen.com>...
> > Nick wrote:
> > > I love Herbie -- I think he's one of the geniuses in the history of
> > > jazz. But when I read people like him, or Quincy Jones, talking about
> > > about great rap is, I can't help but feel that it's a justification
> > > for their own decisions to be more commercial.
> >
> > Why can't it be because they actually DIG it?
> >
> > I agree with Herbie's statement about one music not being higher or
> > lower than another.
>
> I'm of two minds on this.
>
> On one hand, I don't think one genre is "higher" or "lower" in terms
> of what enjoyment it provides. If you like listening to rap, and I
> like listening to bebop, I don't think my enjoyment is somehow more
> "legitimate" than yours because bebop is more complex or takes more
> musical skill than rap. There are a lot of rock songs that I like more
> than a lot of bebop recordings, despite the fact I know they're
> relative simplistic musically.
.
.
Well said Nick.
Nick
Tisdale is not a rapper. He plays contemporary jazz, or what most
participants of this newsgroup would consider "smooth" and therefore
not worthy of much respect.
Also, Tisdale is a bass player. I haven't heard enough of him to have
a strong opinion about his playing -- for all I know, he's the next
Jaco. But generally, the bass is just about the easiest instrument to
develop some basic-to-moderate skills on.
Besides Tisdale, the only pro athlete I know of who has released a
non-vocal jazz album is Bernie Williams (guitar), outfielder for the
Yankees. This is also a "smooth" release. There have been no credible
straight-ahead albums by athletes, actors, or any other non-full-time
jazz musicians.
Adam Bravo
"Nick" <nick...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1d97fb30.03122...@posting.google.com...
You think so? I'd think piano would be.
In any case, Shaq didn't necessarily cut an album people would like. I can
cut a jazz record if I want to, though people wouldn't want to buy it. It
doesn't make jazz "easy."
> Besides Tisdale, the only pro athlete I know of who has released a
> non-vocal jazz album is Bernie Williams (guitar), outfielder for the
> Yankees. This is also a "smooth" release. There have been no credible
> straight-ahead albums by athletes, actors, or any other non-full-time
> jazz musicians.
What makes you think Shaq's is "credible?" I'm sure some people bought it
because it'd be interesting to hear him rap, but have you heard his music
being played out of cars everywhere?
jeff b.
.
>
> How much time and energy do you think Shaquille O'Neal, featured
> artist on several rap albums, devoted to his craft as a "musician"?
> The fact that a professional athlete can easily record a rap album
> should tell you something about what that genre requires in terms of
> skill. So far, the world has not seen any straight-jazz albums by
> dilettante professional athletes or movie stars.
This is purely an aside, I don't have a dog in this fight, in fact
you're all gonna go blind, but during the early 70s, there was an
infielder for the Chicago Cubs named Carmen Fanzone who was/is an
accomplished jazz trumpet player. He was pretty serviceable as a
utility infielder and he led the National League in flat fifths and
also is somewhat legendary in Cubs lore for playing jazz clubs in
Chicago while he was a ball player. I never heard him play jazz, just
once when he did the NA before a game in Wrigley Field. He sounded
pretty good, but there were no bebop licks in his rendition. I don't
know much about him since that time, but after his career as a ball
player, his Internet trace points to an accomplished career as a
musician. He also married vocalist Sue Raney.
You can get his baseball numbers from all the sports web sites, but
for his jazz numbers, the Lord discography lists him at:
Carmen Fanzone 6 1983-1988 tp,flhrn
(Undoubtedly there would have been more if a certain Cubs fan didn't
grab the mouthpiece out of his horn just before he was going to play.)
Jeff
Nick
I believe there's a good description of the Cosby/Coltrane encounter
in "Chasin' the Trane."
Here's a Cosby jazz anecdote I like. Cosby, a drummer, was sitting in
at a club ...
"We got into a medium-tempo blues, and during the intro, Philly Joe
came in and sat down. So then I started playing with a great deal of
inspiration…I had triplets and everything workin'… So, feeling good
about myself I went over and I sat down. And Philly Joe said, ‘Yeah,
Bill, you know what?' I said, ‘What?' He said, ‘If you take me on the
road with you for about three months, I could clean all that up for
you.'"
jamie tisdale
>> > I agree that rap is a cruder form, but disagree that opening a music
>> > theory book has much to do with it. Did Charlie Parker open a music
>> > theory book? Monk?
>>
>> Whether they literally "opened a theory book" or not isn't the point.
>> Whichever method of education was followed, the point is that
>> accomplished jazz artists have paid substantial dues in terms of time
>> (usually years) and energy in order to become masters of their craft.
>>
>> How much time and energy do you think Shaquille O'Neal, featured
>> artist on several rap albums, devoted to his craft as a "musician"?
>
> How much time did Waymon Tisdale devote to his jazz recording?
While I pay attention to music (jazz in particular) as well as
basketball, I'll be the first to admit I follow(ed) Tisdale closer than
others because of the shared namesake. No relation.
Anyway, I don't think it's fair to put Tisdale's musical career in the
same boat at O'Neal's. Say what you will about "smooth" jazz (I
personally dislike it), but from what I remember, Tisdale had
been playing bass for quite some time, and was becoming better known for
that than being a basketball player, which was when he retired. While
he was a good NBA player, I don't think he was ever that popular, or at
least popular enough to cut/sell records based solely on his status as
an athlete (a la O'Neal, Bryant, Iverson). So I do think Tisdale
probably devoted quite a bit of time to his recordings, perhaps not as
much as "conventional" artists, but certainly more time than O'Neal.
Laker fans probably wish O'Neal would spend less time rapping and more
time learning how to shoot a free throw, but that's a discussion for
elsewhere :).
I'm yet to hear Bernie Williams' new album, but he does play with the
Flecktones on their latest and at the very least doesn't stick out. Of
course they can do amazing things in the studio, and Bernie missed the
show I went to a couple weeks back ;).
j
Steve Carras
> Jazz rools, rap sux!
>
> Herbie is just trying to act hip.
Long live PaulWHiteman and kenny G
Marc Sabatella
spent in training as a measure of artistic merit. What matters are the
results. Just because one musician studied hours a day for years and
another did not, this doesn't automatically make the first a better
musician. Of course there will be some correlation in some respects -
it's true you won't likely become a great bebop player with no real
experience. But the proof is in the pudding, and unfortunately, the
pudding is subjective. Sure, we might prefer hearing bebop to rap or,
for that matter, to folk music, and we might imagine that the amount of
work it takes to get good is the reason for our preference, but when you
get down to it, what kind of reason is that? If someone else gets as
much enjoyment from one of those other forms as I get from bebop, so
what?
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
gloveman
Well said Marc!
gm
sum1
> I'd also be wary of putting too much emphasis on amount of time put
> spent in training as a measure of artistic merit. What matters are the
> results. Just because one musician studied hours a day for years and
> another did not, this doesn't automatically make the first a better
> musician. Of course there will be some correlation in some respects -
> it's true you won't likely become a great bebop player with no real
> experience. But the proof is in the pudding, and unfortunately, the
> pudding is subjective. Sure, we might prefer hearing bebop to rap or,
> for that matter, to folk music, and we might imagine that the amount of
> work it takes to get good is the reason for our preference, but when you
> get down to it, what kind of reason is that? If someone else gets as
> much enjoyment from one of those other forms as I get from bebop, so
> what?
>
> --------------
> Marc Sabatella
Amen, and pass the left-over turkey. 2004 is already a glorious year.
Nick
I think piano is one of the hardest. But to each his own.
> In any case, Shaq didn't necessarily cut an album people would like.
That's true, but I wasn't really addressing how good or bad the music
might be (even to a rap audience). My point was that since commercial
rap takes next to no talent, just about anyone, like Shaq, can become
a rap "artist" with virtually no experience.
I can
> cut a jazz record if I want to,
So can anyone --- all it takes is money. But you probably couldn't get
a jazz record deal with a credible label unless you had a certain
level of skill. Even if your name was Michael Jordan.
though people wouldn't want to buy it. It
> doesn't make jazz "easy."
Not in general, but it depends on the music. I think most readers of
this newsgroup would consider the bass chair in a very commercial
smooth jazz group to require modest skills. Playing bass with, say,
Oscar Peterson would be a different story.
> > Besides Tisdale, the only pro athlete I know of who has released a
> > non-vocal jazz album is Bernie Williams (guitar), outfielder for the
> > Yankees. This is also a "smooth" release. There have been no credible
> > straight-ahead albums by athletes, actors, or any other non-full-time
> > jazz musicians.
>
> What makes you think Shaq's is "credible?"
The fact that some established label (presumably, a for-profit entity)
thought enough of his "talent" to invest a substantial amount of money
in his "recording career."
I'm sure some people bought it
> because it'd be interesting to hear him rap, but have you heard his music
> being played out of cars everywhere?
No, thankfully.
Nick
> In rec.music.jazz Ben Sharvy <bsh...@mac.com> wrote:
> >> > I agree that rap is a cruder form, but disagree that opening a music
> >> > theory book has much to do with it. Did Charlie Parker open a music
> >> > theory book? Monk?
> >>
> >> Whether they literally "opened a theory book" or not isn't the point.
> >> Whichever method of education was followed, the point is that
> >> accomplished jazz artists have paid substantial dues in terms of time
> >> (usually years) and energy in order to become masters of their craft.
> >>
> >> How much time and energy do you think Shaquille O'Neal, featured
> >> artist on several rap albums, devoted to his craft as a "musician"?
> >
> > How much time did Waymon Tisdale devote to his jazz recording?
>
> While I pay attention to music (jazz in particular) as well as
> basketball, I'll be the first to admit I follow(ed) Tisdale closer than
> others because of the shared namesake. No relation.
>
> Anyway, I don't think it's fair to put Tisdale's musical career in the
> same boat at O'Neal's.
I don't think that was intention. I believe he was trying to make the
point that it's possible for an athlete to actually be a serious
musician, which you seem to be agreeing with.
> I'm yet to hear Bernie Williams' new album, but he does play with the
> Flecktones on their latest and at the very least doesn't stick out. Of
> course they can do amazing things in the studio, and Bernie missed the
> show I went to a couple weeks back ;).
>
> j
I listened to some of Williams' album and it sounded okay. It's far
from impossible that some folks in non-music professions (including
sports) could have some music skills -- in some cases, even fairly
advanced. Not everyone who goes to Berklee or Juilliard becomes a
professional musician. But not too many folks have the time and/or
dedication to become highly skilled in two completely different
domains, e.g., we probably won't be seeing many Olympic-level ice
skaters who are also great jazz or classical musicians.
Nick
> spent in training as a measure of artistic merit. What matters are the
> results. Just because one musician studied hours a day for years and
> another did not, this doesn't automatically make the first a better
> musician. Of course there will be some correlation in some respects -
> it's true you won't likely become a great bebop player with no real
> experience. But the proof is in the pudding, and unfortunately, the
> pudding is subjective. Sure, we might prefer hearing bebop to rap or,
> for that matter, to folk music, and we might imagine that the amount of
> work it takes to get good is the reason for our preference, but when you
> get down to it, what kind of reason is that? If someone else gets as
> much enjoyment from one of those other forms as I get from bebop, so
> what?
I agree, for the most part. I don't enjoy something just because I
know it takes a lot of work; as I stated in an earlier post, there are
plenty of rock and pop songs that I like better than plenty of jazz
recordings. I think it's usually the other way around: I like certain
things (say, Giant Steps) because they have a level of complexity that
I find satisfying, and that complexity is due to a level of mastery
that only comes through lots of work.
I think it's going too far, though, as Herbie does, to say that an
accomplished jazz musician isn't in a certain way on a "higher level"
than a rapper, at least as far as musical expertise goes. We don't put
a brain surgeon and a school nurse on the same prestige level, or a
Supreme Court judge and a paralegal, even though they all serve
important functions.
Peter
How about Lea DeLaria??
A goodish stand-up comedienne, musical actress, and i think just about a bit
more than smooth singing,
P
"Nick" <nick...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1d97fb30.04010...@posting.google.com...
Larry Smithee
But not too many folks have the time and/or
> dedication to become highly skilled in two completely different
> domains, e.g., we probably won't be seeing many Olympic-level ice
> skaters who are also great jazz or classical musicians.
True, but sometimes the reverse can happen, especially if it's within
another art form and the results can be fairly interesting and
competent, (e.g., Miles Davis painted and Tony Bennet still does; Jack
Sheldon does standup comedy and is an occasional actor). There are
probably others but those come immediately to mind.
Larry
Marc Sabatella
> > > But generally, the bass is just about the easiest instrument to
> > > develop some basic-to-moderate skills on.
> >
> > You think so? I'd think piano would be.
>
> I think piano is one of the hardest. But to each his own.
To play convincingly in a jazz context, piano is about as hard as it
gets, I think, although it doesn't take much skill to lay down a synth
part in a pop band. Back to jazz, electric bass is definitely
relatively easy in comparison to piano, and similarly easy if you aren't
trying to play straight-ahead jazz. This makes it the butt of a number
of jokes (like the one about the kid who starts taking bass lessons, but
has to skip his fourth one because he got a gig). Acoustic bass is
probably physically more demanding in any musical context.
> I think most readers of
> this newsgroup would consider the bass chair in a very commercial
> smooth jazz group to require modest skills. Playing bass with, say,
> Oscar Peterson would be a different story.
Precisely.
Nick
I don't consider Davis or Bennett highly skilled, i.e., on a par with
the top echelon of painters. Davis' work looks amateurish, like
something I would do in the fifth grade. It's abstract, though, so I
guess the usual requirements of skill and craft don't apply. Bennett's
work has more craft, but it's not even in the ballpark of, say, Thomas
Kinkade.
Virtually anyone can, to some degree, sing, rap, act, speak, tell
jokes, paint, or play sports, which is why lots of folks dabble in two
or more of those domains. Some of the domains require more than
others. There are loads of successful singers who never took a lesson
and know almost nothing about music. The same for rappers. There are
few, if any, accomplished, successful jazz musicians who have had the
same easy road. Or professional athletes, for that matter.
Marc Sabatella
> Bennett's
> work has more craft, but it's not even in the ballpark of, say, Thomas
> Kinkade.
Not sure if you chose that name deliberately, since I had previously
called him the Kenny G of the art world. What I've seen of Bennett's
work - and it's very little - strikes me as quite competent within its
genre. Kinkade could, I suppose, be considered the master of his, in
much the way we'd all have to admit G is one of the best at what he
does. The difference between Bennett and Kinkade is the difference
between a fair-to-middling bebop player and a top of the line pop
instrumental player.
FWIW, I have some experience in this area, as I also have been painting
over the last few years. In my opinion, there are some real
similarities between the fields in terms of craft, talent, and so forth,
in that in both areas, it is possible to achieve success with relatively
little technical skill if you pick the right sub-genre - either polish
or creativity is rewarded instead - whereas in other sub-genres,
technical skill often takes on a greater importance than creativity in
the eyes of many. Kinkade and Gorelick have the polish thing *down*,
with a decent amount of technical facility to back it up (but nothing
particularly outstanding in itself).
OK, this is *too* weird. I had gotten as far as writing the above when
the doorbell rang. It was a friend dropping by and bringing a belated
Christmas gift - a book of Tony Bennett's paintings! So now I've had a
chance to look at a few more. My take on what I saw in the book is that
some were clearly more technically accomplished than others - I wonder
if they aren't from different stages of his painting career. The better
ones are definitely on a technical level comparable (within his genre)
with those of professional artists, but I think other professionals
would be likely to snicker a little at some of the less technically
accomplished pieces he still shows. I can also talk more about genre,
having seen more of his work. His style definitely seems to be in the
early post-impressionist bag, drawing from folks like like Gaugin and
Cezanne. A painting that came out looking anything like any of
Kinkade's would definitely be a failure in this genre.
Anyhow, as I was saying - in music as well as in art, you can make a
sort of rough division into genres that emphasize technical mastery,
polish, or creativity. Obviously, to some extent, you want all of them,
but I don't think it too controversial to say pop music puts higher
emphasis on polish than the other elements, most forms of avant-garde
jazz put more emphasis on creativity, and bebop puts relatively more on
technical mastery. Folks from other fields dabbling in music often do
best in genres that donwplay technical mastery, and do particularly well
in genres that depend largely on polish, particularly when that polish
can be supplied by the record producer. There is no reason an actor or
basketball player couldn't have the creativity to be a decent free jazz
player, but you'd question why anyone would pay attention if they did -
it's not like there's much of a market for that. Musicians dabbling in
the art world can't depend on someone else to provide polish, but if
they don't ever gain much technical mastery, working in
non-representational genres (like Miles') or more loosely
representational ones (like Bennett's) allows them to take advantage of
their creativity and produce work that will have much more consumer
appeal than free jazz ever would.
My own painting is in a style not unlike Bennett's, although leaning
more toward the more bona fide impressionists like Monet. I'd guage my
skill level to be on a level roughly comparable to Bennett's as well.
There are easily a couple hundred artists in the Denver metro area at
least as good. Yet visual art is subjective enough that there are those
who will prefer my work, or Bennett's work, over that of artists that
most would rate as more skilled. And all it takes is a few people to
see it that way and buy paintings for an artist to feel validated.
Whereas if were only the 200th best jazz pianist in Denver, I can't
imagine that I'd get nearly so much validation. So think it easier to
gain some level of personal acceptance in art than in music in that
sense.
BTW, as for famous people whose main career is in another area but do OK
as jazz musicians, I think Woody Allen is probably the best example I
can think of.
Luke Kaven
[...]
>BTW, as for famous people whose main career is in another area but do OK
>as jazz musicians, I think Woody Allen is probably the best example I
>can think of.
>
>Marc Sabatella
Someone mentioned Steve Allen earlier didn't they? How about Peter
Sellers? He was a jazz drummer in his early career. Oddly enough, it
seems a short step between comic writing/acting and playing jazz. A
lot of the musicians I know could do an excellent stand-up act, and
they're as quick-witted with a quip as they are with their musical
lines.
Marc Sabatella
> >BTW, as for famous people whose main career is in another area but do
OK
> >as jazz musicians, I think Woody Allen is probably the best example I
> >can think of.
>
> Someone mentioned Steve Allen earlier didn't they?
If so, I missed it. I'm not sure I've ever actually heard him play, but
of course I know a tune or two of his that are nice. Reminds me, Chevy
Chase is also a jazz pianist of sorts.
> How about Peter
> Sellers? He was a jazz drummer in his early career.
Definitely didn't know that. But was he any good?
> Oddly enough, it
> seems a short step between comic writing/acting and playing jazz. A
> lot of the musicians I know could do an excellent stand-up act, and
> they're as quick-witted with a quip as they are with their musical
> lines.
A drummer I used to work with had a second career as a stand-up
comedian.
sum1
One of the grandfathers of smooth jazz, pianist Bob James, is also a
painter. Online gallery here:
Adam Bravo
> "Adam Bravo" <mra...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<to8Ib.42721$BQ5.41030@fed1read03>...
> > "Nick" <nick...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1d97fb30.03122...@posting.google.com...
> > > bsh...@mac.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote in message
> > news:<d196ca8d.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > nick...@aol.com (Nick) wrote in message
> > news:<1d97fb30.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > bsh...@mac.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote in message
> > news:<d196ca8d.03121...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > nick...@aol.com (Nick) wrote in message
> > news:<1d97fb30.03121...@posting.google.com>...
>
> I think piano is one of the hardest. But to each his own.
Well, you can just sit down, press a key, and a note will come out. It's
pretty simply laid out - go right, it's higher.
> > In any case, Shaq didn't necessarily cut an album people would like.
>
> That's true, but I wasn't really addressing how good or bad the music
> might be (even to a rap audience). My point was that since commercial
> rap takes next to no talent, just about anyone, like Shaq, can become
> a rap "artist" with virtually no experience.
Fair enough point.
> I can
> > cut a jazz record if I want to,
>
> So can anyone --- all it takes is money. But you probably couldn't get
> a jazz record deal with a credible label unless you had a certain
> level of skill. Even if your name was Michael Jordan.
I agree that it takes less technical skill, but to make stuff people like
probably does. I think most who buy Jordan's album are buying it because
it's Michael Jordan, not because they necessarily like the music.
> though people wouldn't want to buy it. It
> > doesn't make jazz "easy."
>
> Not in general, but it depends on the music. I think most readers of
> this newsgroup would consider the bass chair in a very commercial
> smooth jazz group to require modest skills. Playing bass with, say,
> Oscar Peterson would be a different story.
I'm not sure - in commercial stuff, everything has to be perfect (unless you
expect them to fix it in editing, which usually only the leader seems to get
to do).
Larry Smithee
But the reason for the fixing is mostly due to perfecting time
problems and not the technical demands of the music. Thus, the common
use of click tracks on nearly all commercial smooth record making.
It's hard to imagine bass giants like Ray Brown or Niels Pederson
needing such a crutch but I could be wrong (don't think so, though).
In fact, one of the important aspects of many real jazz performances
is that the music's time elements require it to be fluid to a big
extent so that it can swing unencumbered. Brown and Pederson's bass
playing, for example, is perfect not because it is necessarily adheres
to an absolute metonomic point of reference, but that these guys have
attained the ability to adapt their bass lines to flow with the give
and take of the group to perfection. Such demands, of course, negates
click tracks, not to mention the fact that such devices would
interfere with the important swing feel.
Larry
Adam Bravo
"Larry Smithee" <lcsm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3cdae13f.04010...@posting.google.com...
> "Adam Bravo" <mra...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<0NNJb.47241$BQ5.2900@fed1read03>...
> > "Nick" <nick...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1d97fb30.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Adam Bravo" <mra...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:<to8Ib.42721$BQ5.41030@fed1read03>...
you
> > expect them to fix it in editing, which usually only the leader seems to
get
> > to do).
>
> But the reason for the fixing is mostly due to perfecting time
> problems and not the technical demands of the music.
> Thus, the common
> use of click tracks on nearly all commercial smooth record making.
> It's hard to imagine bass giants like Ray Brown or Niels Pederson
> needing such a crutch but I could be wrong (don't think so, though).
> In fact, one of the important aspects of many real jazz performances
> is that the music's time elements require it to be fluid to a big
> extent so that it can swing unencumbered. Brown and Pederson's bass
> playing, for example, is perfect not because it is necessarily adheres
> to an absolute metonomic point of reference, but that these guys have
> attained the ability to adapt their bass lines to flow with the give
> and take of the group to perfection. Such demands, of course, negates
> click tracks, not to mention the fact that such devices would
> interfere with the important swing feel.
I think you've kind of made my point for me. In jazz, one doesn't really
want perfection from a technical standpoint. Pop (and pop influenced jazz)
stuff, does, however. One has to have a certain amount of technical
proficiency on the instrument in order to be so perfect.
I find it strange that you chose Ray Brown and NHOP (which, BTW, is an
awesome acronym) as examples, being that I think of them as some of the most
technically perfect jazz bassists.
Marc Sabatella
guess is the dark secret of the professional jazz world: lots of guys
don't have perfect metronomic time. In fact, it's pretty rare. I'm
constantly surprised at how many otherwise great (and in many cases,
famous) players tend to rush noticeably as a matter of course; a few
drag, but that's not as common.
Michael Fitzgerald
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>FWIW, one thing I have noted over the last couple of years is what I
>guess is the dark secret of the professional jazz world: lots of guys
>don't have perfect metronomic time.
What is more important is how the section locks together - if they can
swing while *all* of them gradually move the tempo up or down, that's
fine - certainly it's more acceptable than when one of the team is out
of sync and there's a noticeable battle.
I recall reading somewhere that the great drummer Davey Tough had
strong feelings about how jazz time should NOT be metronomic.
Mike
fitz...@eclipse.net
http://www.eclipse.net/~fitzgera - Gigi Gryce book - ARSC award winner!
http://www.JazzDiscography.com
Larry Smithee
> "Larry Smithee" <lcsm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3cdae13f.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > "Adam Bravo" <mra...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:<0NNJb.47241$BQ5.2900@fed1read03>...
> > > "Nick" <nick...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1d97fb30.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Adam Bravo" <mra...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > > news:<to8Ib.42721$BQ5.41030@fed1read03>...
> awesome acronym) as examples, being that I think of them as some of the most
> technically perfect jazz bassists.
Yes, that's percisely why I chose them because they're time is so
perfect. It could be too that you and I have misunderstood each other
(or maybe it was just me) and that we actually agree on the previous
points of discussion.
Larry
Mr Zed
> FWIW, one thing I have noted over the last couple of years is what I
> guess is the dark secret of the professional jazz world: lots of guys
> don't have perfect metronomic time. In fact, it's pretty rare. I'm
> constantly surprised at how many otherwise great (and in many cases,
> famous) players tend to rush noticeably as a matter of course; a few
> drag, but that's not as common.
Only stiffs worry about that sort of thing. Musicians and others who
really know what jazz are more likely to be concerned with whether it
swings or not.
Nick
> problems and not the technical demands of the music. Thus, the common
> use of click tracks on nearly all commercial smooth record making.
> It's hard to imagine bass giants like Ray Brown or Niels Pederson
> needing such a crutch but I could be wrong (don't think so, though).
I agree about Brown and one of my favorites, NHOP (what a monster!),
but it's also hard to imagine session players, even for relatively
simple music, reaching any level of success without impeccable time in
addition to great chops.
My comments about the ease of bass playing are not meant to take
anything away from real bass virtuosos like Stanley Clarke, Marcus
Miller, or Brian Bromberg. Bromberg plays a lot of smooth jazz, but
he's also about the most horn-like soloist I've ever heard on acoustic
bass (NHOP being a close second). Clarke is also an exceptional
acoustic player.