free jazz anyone?
Paul Kirk
phenomenal swedish bari/tenor player mats gustafsson) and it got me
thinking that there is almost no discussion here about
playing/performing in the ornette and its prodigy style, even though
many big cities have a thriving "improv" scene. Out here in the
boondocks we dont get much of this stuff.
and it rarely if ever gets discussed here. why?
I do some of this ocsaionally with the right musicians. I'm not sure if
what comes out sucks, but it can be rewarding. I thought I'd put out
some possibly controvertial assertions and see if anyone has any reactions.
some possible positives
1. Playing "free" is a great way to open a rehearsal, especially with
musicians you are not familiar with, since its all about listening,
reacting, color, dynamics, etc many of the more subtle musical elements
that distinguish good group improv from, say, BIAB.
2. The lack of composed structure means that free music must be more
emotional/visceral for it to not be boring or selfabsorbed. in
particular, a criticism at bebop as often practiced by the less than
great (detached playing of correct lines over chords) is eliminated: one
has to play free music with intensity for it to have any impact.
3. Extended techniques that might be out of place in bebop are
appropriate, if not encouraged.
4. since one doenst need to "make the changes" a certain amount of the
tension from playing correctly can be avoided, or alternatively, one
needn't rely on cliches
5. Its fun to play free
on the other hand some possible negatives:
6. Its rarely fun to listen to free music made by guys who haven't paid
their dues in jazz, it soudns like they are as surprized as the audience
with what sounds they produce. Maybe its only really satisfying when
played by mosnter players
7. Too many free musicians are more "posers" than knowledgeable: one can
be a big time free improvisor without being able to play a simple
melody on a simple chord progression.
8. too close to noise? i.e. the difference between music and noise is
structure.
9. No point in buying CDs: the music is mostly apporpriate as a
performance art.
Any thoughts? I love ornette, dolphy, cherry, coltrane, etc. have
difficulties with some free improv
especially when the musicians come from a non-jazz background,
Why do so few guitar players play free? I've heard some joe morris, the
guy in chicago whose name escapes me, but never heard derek bailey.
Morris definitely has something that grabs me.
Paul K.
Paul Kirk
lexington tommorow, then DC, then philly, bufalo, syracuse, then NYC.
Highly recommended. McPhee was brilliant too. as were the drummer and
bass player. among other tunes, they covered black sabbath's "iron man"
pk
m...@southwestguitar.com
most people don't like it
> 1. Playing "free" is a great way to open a rehearsal, especially with
> musicians you are not familiar with, since its all about listening,
sounds good to me.
> 2. The lack of composed structure means that free music must be more
> emotional/visceral for it to not be boring or selfabsorbed. in
> particular, a criticism at bebop as often practiced by the less than
> great (detached playing of correct lines over chords) is eliminated: one
> has to play free music with intensity for it to have any impact.
nah, music is music
> 3. Extended techniques that might be out of place in bebop are
> appropriate, if not encouraged.
oh yeah
> 4. since one doenst need to "make the changes" a certain amount of the
> tension from playing correctly can be avoided, or alternatively, one
> needn't rely on cliches
this doesnt seem right. i find it harder to play free. you have to
listen so intently, where with changes you have a safety net. i also
think that certain cliches help to define a style, whether it be pop or
free
> 5. Its fun to play free
hell yes!
> on the other hand some possible negatives:
>
> 6. Its rarely fun to listen to free music made by guys who haven't paid
> their dues in jazz, it soudns like they are as surprized as the audience
> with what sounds they produce. Maybe its only really satisfying when
> played by mosnter players
yes (although i'd like to hear a band of 10 year olds play free)
7. Too many free musicians are more "posers" than knowledgeable: one
can
> be a big time free improvisor without being able to play a simple
> melody on a simple chord progression.
i don't know about this
> 8. too close to noise? i.e. the difference between music and noise is
> structure.
all sound has some sort of structure, but is it interesting?
> 9. No point in buying CDs: the music is mostly apporpriate as a
> performance art.
nah
> Why do so few guitar players play free?
most people dont wanna hear it
> I've heard some joe morris,
this guy is so awesome
>but never heard derek bailey.
check him out!
Woland99
a kid studying classical piano he went to his first jazz concert and
thought that people were clapping at the end of the song because
musicians were somehow able to play the melody again after all
that noise in the middle. So free jazz is just all that noise in the
middle.
charles robinson
tune in the past and have a couple of free tunes on my CD.Dan Stearns plays
free exclusivly and quite often posts examples of his microtonal work.
Charlie
"Paul Kirk" <no...@noone.net> wrote in message
news:Qh9gf.951$Ba6...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
Derek
my ears not being developed enough, rather than it being a statement of
Ornette Coleman's (or anyone else's) playing, or free jazz as a
subcategory. I remember when I first started studying jazz, a local
guy who had gotten some success (Steve Cardenas) came back to KC. I
went to see him, and he introduced a tune and I thought, cool I know
this one. However, after one time thru the head, I never caught the
melody again. I was pretty confused by this, but now really enjoy his
playing. I think for me, free jazz is something to enjoy when my ears
are more sophisticated, assuming that happens.
Grant
i cant get enough of and vise versa ( but not as common). I myself only
play free. its really the only way i have ever played. i never learned
any songs I just really enjoy studying theory and figureing out
different ways to approach the neck. For me its much easier than
chopping through chords...i may pic out some chords that i want to play
but theres no telling when or where they show up. for me its not so
much a poser thing.i mean there are plenty of jazz players that are
posers as well.its not the amount of chops you have its the openess and
honesty of what you doin...from country to free. I enjoy not always
knowing whats gunna happen i get the biggest kick out of being in it.
non free stuff bores me alot to play but i ussually prefer to listen to
it and free is where i have my kicks but free isnt always that
appealing to listen too. I slowly becoming less free ...though not
much. I do try now to but an underlying melody or harmony in there more
often but its just up to the moment when they appear...
I really like it though. I think its more of an active music that you
experience more so than a music that you just listen too. to me is just
another step from jazz ...not better or harder ...but it focuses more
on the NOW wich is an interactive thing in the moment and the transfer
to a recording is secondary to that. I guess what im saying is that
even though it is the brother of other kinds of jazz it is still its
own thing and has its own focus and that doenst make you a poser if you
havnt proven to others that you have chops. chops are only as good as
your ability to play them and theory is nothing more than talking about
how music works is doesnt make music work. all you need to play is the
ability to be there...and that to me is the greatest struggle in all
music and for myself and thats my way to long response to free jazz.
charles robinson
non-intellectual as you wan't about all of that, there are a variety of
approaches. It is up to you to decide if what you are doing is a valid form
of expression or if you are just jivin'.
Charlie
"Grant" <chiph...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1132600327.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
daniel_anth...@yahoo.com
that's just the way it is, and there are other places where I'm sure it
gets its love. I think with "free jazz" it's just like it is with any
other music; in that there are always potential positives and negatives
if one wants to look for them ,but ultimately everyone must decide for
themselves what's "good" and what's "not" and all the rest too .The
real magic of music is actually a pretty fragile thing, and once the
music's out there it's orphaned to any assessment anybody cares to hang
on it ,and once enough assessments tend to agree, well the music's
officially adopted ! My own experience here is that I tend to like the
things that interest and move me, and with "free jazz" it's no less the
same..... so sounds good is good I guess . Btw ,I've never really
understood the "it's more fun to play than it is to listen to"
argument, it's just so unnatural to me . Because whether I'm playing or
listening ,I really have to be motivated by a joy and wonder of making
or hearing this amazing "thing" and by a feeling that I'm doing
something well worth doing ,and as far as I can remember, I think it's
always been that way too
daniel stearns
http://zebox.com/daniel_anthony_stearns/
http://zebox.com/avantgarde_jazzguitar/
Paul
jazz (as have I).
I was hoping to start a discussion to see the extent to which
listening/playing free is something people do to get them out of ruts, to
expand their ears, to simplify/streamline the process of playing with
emotion, to improve on group dynamics, and to get the same kind of thrill
from free music (made a huge network of musicians who sometimes are
ignored by mainstream jazz players) as they do from straightahead jazz.
These are all things that happen to me and make me feel enthusiastic for the
genre. Like most of the threads I start this one went nowhere, which
suggests that most participants either don't listen to or don't like the
absence of "harmony-melody" in their jazz, or maybe there just isn't much
one can put to words about it.
I just know that some of the "free improv" groups I have heard over the last
few years (usually when they come down from chicago) have played at an
emotional level, and with subtlety that I rarely hear in mainstream jazz,
except for the very best (eg brecker). I also happen to like to play in
many different jazz contexts, I'm not real good at any, but each way of
playing teaches me things that I can carry into other styles. In particular,
the attention to dynamics, tone, and mostly group interaction which is
critical in free playing trains me to do these things in a bebop setting.
Paul
PS. You posting clips here is great, because even the most traditional
guitarist can hear your amazing chops, and that is often the "foot in the
door" needed to expand ones ears. This is like #####'s posting bebop clips
in a rock NG: some people will get interested.
On 11/22/05 5:03 PM, in article
1132697006.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
pmfan57
Have you checked out those rock groups? He seems to be winning some
converts.
As to free music, I like Ornette and late Trane up to a point, but I
prefer Modal/inside outside stuff. I like when it goes out within some
structure but comes back in. Leibman's Quest was always a favorite.
Lots of stuff actually is in that school.
But I can't listen to totally free music for very long. Strictly a
taste issue, although I'm not sure if there's any objective criteria in
free for deciding whether someone can play or at least play well. It
seems more like whether you like it.
With someone attempting bebop, you can tell if he's just not cutting
the changes, let's say. There's a minimal level of competence before
you even get to whether you like it or not. Like both Phil Woods and
Sonny Stitt are super accomplished alto players and bebop soloists, but
one or the other you might prefer based on how the solos sound to you.
Whether they reach you, etc.
What is the criteria for assessing someone's free jazz chops? It seems
like strictly whether you like it. Help me out free guys. Is there some
minimal criteria?
Paul Kirk
>
> Have you checked out those rock groups? He seems to be winning some
> converts.
>
> As to free music, I like Ornette and late Trane up to a point, but I
> prefer Modal/inside outside stuff. I like when it goes out within some
> structure but comes back in. Leibman's Quest was always a favorite.
> Lots of stuff actually is in that school.
Yeah: I think of this stuff as post bebop/post shorter/etc: you want to
stretch the harmony and melody with it.
>
> But I can't listen to totally free music for very long. Strictly a
> taste issue, although I'm not sure if there's any objective criteria in
> free for deciding whether someone can play or at least play well. It
> seems more like whether you like it.
It is more compelling live, at least to me.
>
> With someone attempting bebop, you can tell if he's just not cutting
> the changes, let's say. There's a minimal level of competence before
> you even get to whether you like it or not. Like both Phil Woods and
> Sonny Stitt are super accomplished alto players and bebop soloists, but
> one or the other you might prefer based on how the solos sound to you.
> Whether they reach you, etc.
OK, so with bebop, (roughly speaking) the note selection WRT the harmony
is improtant, as is the swing feel, precision, and tempo. Things like
extended technique, dynamics, collective improvising, etc, tend to be
secondary.
"free" music woudl place these and other ingredients higher up on the
list of importance, perhaps, and melody matching harmony lower down on
the list of importance. sometimes the harmony is meant to be improvised,
rather than precomposed, but a melody is precomposed.
Imagine a situation where the horns repeat a melody and your job is to
improvise a harmony.
But tension and resolution is definitely part of it, as I hear it,
its just not melodyvsharmony tension/resolution, but perhaps rhythmic
tension between players, etc.
I'm not really an expert here, but I like it. Surely there are people
who can analyze some ingredients. One good place is in the Rova sax
quartet website where they explain their approaches.
Paul K.
charles robinson
playing.As far as improvising new sets of changes is concerned Ornette has
stated that he thinks of the harmony following the melody instead of vice
versa thus the name harmolodics. Cecil Taylor, with whom I studiedied thinks
more in terms of "structures" than changes. Charlie Haden sees most of it a
playing from your total experience as a musician in a free manner.
I'm going to be out of here for a while again so if I don't reply to a
question it just means that I'm gone.
Later,
Charlie
"Paul Kirk" <no...@noone.net> wrote in message
news:G0Ogf.1778$Y%5....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
daniel_anth...@yahoo.com
then you stop and say "yeah, it's good, but can they play?" Doesn't
this seem backwards somehow! When I'm listening to music I guess I
usually gauge the music maker's competency on their ability to control
its trajectory in such a fashion that it blows my mind! That's enough
for me. I mean it takes an obvious ability to navigate say Ferneyhough;
we know the music's complex and requires formidable skill to sightread
and execute, but generally speaking, I think it's fair to say that the
resulting impression of musicality will probably not appear any less
oblique than that found in a given free improvisation . Past a certain
point you're on your own, and I think you have to make these types of
decisions based purely on the music's interaction with you .Or perhaps
put a different way, if the music moves you, then you inherently
understand some of what makes it work already . Also , a music like
free jazz isn't exactly any less cliche bound than bop or what have
you--and its great players are no less individualistic and immediately
recognizable than those of other more charitably codified genres like
bop either . Besides, sometimes a more charitable narrative isn't
always such a good thing--ever heard anyone explaining harmolidics? Ha!
Well, Ornette gets his ideas across to his collaborators and his
admirers and even changed the course of jazz , not once, but twice--ok,
warning: that's an obvious opinion, but I really do think his
harmolodic funk was just as revolutionary in its own way as his free
bop was in its way, just people stopped caring about such things by
then. Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think you
compare and measure and differentiate not so much differently with this
music than you do with any other... and that "free jazz", like "hard
bop", is an established subgenre of jazz with a generally understood
hierarchy of idiomatic moving parts .
daniel stearns
http://zebox.com/avantgarde_jazzguitar/
pmfan57
Maybe, but it's still easier to tell if they can play "regular" music
as well. I know Coltrane was one of the greatest hard bop players
before he got more outside. I like Ornette, but he has never shown he
can play anything other than his own form of music. Again, I like it.
dougw...@gmail.com
hip "lines" that correspond to chord changes, in my experience.
Ornette was all about melodies. And playing that way is infinitely
harder than 8th notes over changes that resolve perfectly. But
Ornette's music isn't really all that out, anyway.
I love Joe McPhee, though. He's one of the few playing that style
that really does it the right way to my ears. He knows music.
I also like Ken Vandermark and David S. Ware.
pmfan57
Some free players are very clearly complete musicians who choose to
play without reference to harmony. Milt Jackson, Clifford Brown and
many others thought Ornette was a fraud. He also had his admirers
among the boppers. I love the old Atlantic stuff, so I probably fall
in your camp.
But what is the standard? Is it just that it sounds good to your ears?
Is there nothing at all objective, like there is when analyzing Bird
or Dizzy's music?
Harder than 8th notes? Yes, it's "harder" to be a melodic genius than
to be a run of the mill player of 8th notes. But is it harder than the
8th notes of Charlier Parker or Clifford Brown, who were geniuses at
least at the same level as Ornette?
Debussy created his own language when he went completely outside of the
tonal system. I guess you're saying Ornette is like that. But I
suspect ol' Claude could write fugues without any difficulty, based on
his training. Shoenberg was a master of traditional harmony. He and
Claude D. chose to make their own type of music, even though they could
have written in the prevailing style.
Could Ornette have even played in a major big band? I don't know. Do
you really think it doesn't matter at all if Ornette could only play in
his own type of music?
Anyway, there are plenty of melodic players, like Getz, Ben Webster,
Lester Young, Johnny Hodges, Paul Desmond, that know what they're
doing. The issue is not melody vs. lines.
No one doubts Getz could play anything presented to him. HE didn't go
for hip lines. He just played melodies. But he was complete musician.
So why don't you compare those players I just mentioned to Ornette,
instead of some hypothetical bebop/postbop straw man. What makes
Ornette's melodies better than those of Lester Young? Leave aside the
hip lines dudes you don't seem to think very much of.
Paul Kirk
> But what is the standard? Is it just that it sounds good to your ears?
How could it be anything else?
PK
pmfan57
pmfan57 wrote:
> play without reference to harmony. Milt Jackson, Clifford Brown and
> many others thought Ornette was a fraud. He also had his admirers
> among the boppers. I love the old Atlantic stuff, so I probably fall
> in your camp.
>
> or Dizzy's music?
>
> Harder than 8th notes? Yes, it's "harder" to be a melodic genius than
> to be a run of the mill player of 8th notes. But is it harder than the
> 8th notes of Charlier Parker or Clifford Brown, who were geniuses at
> least at the same level as Ornette?
>
> Debussy created his own language when he went completely outside of the
> tonal system. I guess you're saying Ornette is like that. But I
> suspect ol' Claude could write fugues without any difficulty, based on
> his training. Shoenberg was a master of traditional harmony. He and
> Claude D. chose to make their own type of music, even though they could
> have written in the prevailing style.
>
> Could Ornette have even played in a major big band? I don't know. Do
> you really think it doesn't matter at all if Ornette could only play in
> his own type of music?
>
> Anyway, there are plenty of melodic players, like Getz, Ben Webster,
> Lester Young, Johnny Hodges, Paul Desmond, that know what they're
> doing. The issue is not melody vs. lines.
>
> No one doubts Getz could play anything presented to him. HE didn't go
> for hip lines. He just played melodies. But he was complete musician.
>
>
> So why don't you compare those players I just mentioned to Ornette,
> instead of some hypothetical bebop/postbop straw man. What makes
> Ornette's melodies better than those of Lester Young? Leave aside the
> hip lines dudes you don't seem to think very much of.
Sorry about the double post. Google was hanging up and I must have hit
the post button twice in frustration.
Paul Kirk
nice post. a couple of things occured to me:
what happened to some of those ornette funk guys: I remember jamaladeen
tacuma being almost worshipped: is he still active? how about ornette's
son denardo? I know blood ulmer is getting attention for his blues
playing, but I havent heard any of it. I have to admit that i was not as
moved by ornette's funk period as his early stuff, perhpas because I
didnt think those guys were on the same musical level as haden,
higgins,cherry.
what's ferneyhough???
the hardest thing for me, and it seems, for other hobbyists is to
get beyond musical prejudices. I remember as a teenager that me and my
friends had to diss soul and funk, since it wasnt rock. Yet secrety I
dug the radio hits of the ohio players and earth wind and fire, I just
couldnt admit it publicly. this extend even with bubble gum: Joey G once
posted here that christina Aguilera was a good singer, i had just
dismissed her out of hand before then, but then gave her another listen
and realized he was right. I think free jazz suffers the same
difficulty. just becuase a great like clifford brown thought ornette was
a fraud (and how about cecil taylor) makes it difficult for amateurs
like me who are influenced by the opinions of the greats. Plus ornette
is pretty out there, when I read what he writes (and think about what he
told me when I met him) he seem like a total lunatic. But much of his
music moves me as much as anything else.
One last thought: a lot of music presented as free improv *is* crap:
guys who have not mastered their instruments often boost their improv
creds by playing free (I do this!). But there's plenty of crappy
versions of bebop or wayne shorter tunes being played in clubs around
the world too. Somehow the criticism stick harder with free jazz,
probably because the standards are harder to codify.
Paul K
ken
pmfan57 wrote:
> Some free players are very clearly complete musicians who choose to
> play without reference to harmony. Milt Jackson, Clifford Brown and
> many others thought Ornette was a fraud. He also had his admirers
> among the boppers. I love the old Atlantic stuff, so I probably fall
> in your camp.
A lot of people play without reference to harmony. What Ornette did is
now very common with players these days. Miles thought Ornette was a
phony too, but did a lot of what Ornette did in the 60s (freebop).
How many times have you heard at clinics these great players talking
about "you can play anything you want if you resolve it, or you don't
even have to resolve it...". All those guys do that, Lovano, Brecker,
Liebman, Potter, Alexander... All your favorite cats...
A lot of these guys play very free...
> But what is the standard? Is it just that it sounds good to your ears?
> Is there nothing at all objective, like there is when analyzing Bird
> or Dizzy's music?
What's wrong with a good melody as the standard? Or anything else you
look for in good music? Intent, emotion, contrast etc...
Joe Lovano plays a lot of free stuff, Jim Hall too. Bill Frisell...
One of my favorites Tony Malaby (check him out), Tim Berne also does a
lot of free stuff even though they write a lot of stuff too. But I've
seen all of them do totally free stuff too, and they all sound great.
It all sounds really great to me. Sure, I might relate to them a
little more than I relate to some other free players because I share
the same sort of vocabulary and taste, but the criteria is still the
same. They have to be playing great melodies.
And when I hear those guys, I have no idea what they are doing
harmonically... so it has nothing to do with whether these guys are
playing changes or not...
> Could Ornette have even played in a major big band?
What difference does that make? Can Metheny play in a major big band?
Who cares? Someone asked in one of these threads where they can hear
Ornette play some 'real' jazz or bebop so they can determine whether he
is the real deal or not. I thought that was really stupid.
It reminds me of those guys that go up to you and flip the inside of
your suit jacket, read the label and then go "nice suit, man...". It's
as if they had to make sure it wasn't from JC Penney or Sears because
that would be embarrassing...
> What makes
> Ornette's melodies better than those of Lester Young?
I don't think anyone said Ornette's melodies are better than Lester
Young's. You are making up your own argument here.
There's all these analogies to modern art/painting that you can get
into here, but I won't. I think we've been through all that before...
(would you go to a Chelsea gallery and say "OK, nice stuff, but can he
paint in the impressionist style? If you can show me that he can, then
maybe I'll buy some of his work..." How dumb is that?)
As far as I'm concerned, if it sounds good, it's good to me. I don't
care what style it's in, or if the person can play countdown at 400 bpm
or not...
Ken
daniel_anth...@yahoo.com
, but I'm sure a lot of those guys all still play . Ithink the early
version of Shannon Jackson's Decoding Society, like the first three or
four recordings, were just unbelievable... one of the most undervalued
jazz bands ever. Besides being an absolutely smoking band, Jackson
added a really nice layer of orchestration and compositional savvy to
the area Ornette had staked out with Prime Time . Barbeque Dog and Man
Dance ,unbelievable. Yeah, Tacuuma really blew me away too,and when I
first heard his playing on Tales of Captain Black I just thought it was
sooooooo fresh . I think you're right about Prime Time suffering from
not the best players ,especially when they really have to add something
that helps keep the long stretches between heads a happening music
across an entire recording or concert. My favorite Prime Time is Virgin
Beauty, though I like the pure, hard harmolodic sound of say Body Meta
too .(Though I think this recording, unlike most all of VB, suffers in
parts from the guitarist creating too monochromatic a texture and space
in the long fun between the heads . But it's a tough job man, no
doubt!)
Sorry, Brian Ferneyhough is a modern classical composer of the super
complex variety. And I was just trying to say that it take a great deal
of skill to execute this music, yet this skill probably isn't going to
be any more or less apparent to the listener than the skills you'd hear
in say Joe Maneri's free jazz . So if even clearly objective skills
like the type required to tackle Ferneyhough are not always readily
discernable to the listener , then I guess the listener's got to chip
in at some point too! And I suppose you're right that there's lots of
junk out there , but as you also said, that's really no less true of
most musics .And there's no doubt that most free jazz is a tough
music/sell too! If it's not moving you it's not moving you...no sense
in not being honest with your ears and your expectations.the only time
I've seen Cecil Taylor play I left midconcert. I went to the show
because there things of his I enjoyed, but this night I wasn't enjoying
it at all and I waited outside for my friends .
Pierre Shaffer , who along with Pierre Henry coined the process of
sound manipulation and composition known as music concrete, famously
rejected his own work, claiming he'd wasted his life and that his
father was right, that there was nothing beyond do re mi . It's my
belief that the possibilities for music are wide open, and all the
greats have a hand on the same ratchet, and once the ratchet clicks,
all those possibilities are out there for everyone else to make what
they will of . New possibilities don't have to replace the old ones ,
but the opposite is not really so true....because the work of people
like Shaffer and Cage and Ornette many, many others permanently opens
up the possibilities, and once they're open there's more and more than
just do re mi .
daniel stearns
http://zebox.com/daniel_anthony_stearns/
coas...@yahoo.com
-TD
Johnny Asia
>I love Joe McPhee, though. He's one of the few playing that style
>that really does it the right way to my ears. He knows music.
>I also like Ken Vandermark and David S. Ware.
Joe McPhee! I love Joe too. And Charles Gayle.
Joe plays on Dom Minasi's new CD, soon to be released.
+
Johnny Asia, Hippie Guitarist
http://johnnyasia.info
"I say play your own way. Don't play what the public wants. You play what
you want and let the public pick up on what you're doing even if it does take
them fifteen, twenty years." - Thelonious Monk
pmfan57
coas...@yahoo.com wrote:
> The best "out" players you will ever hear play the shit out of "in."
>
> -TD
>
I'm sure your right about today's 'out' players. But Tony, do you
think Ornette could secretly kick ass in the bop or even swing context?
I always wanted to think so because I like his playing.
Could he have played in a big band? Is there anyone that knew him? I
know he played Texas blues.
pmfan57
> > What makes
> > Ornette's melodies better than those of Lester Young?
>
> I don't think anyone said Ornette's melodies are better than Lester
> Young's. You are making up your own argument here.
>
>
Doug changed the subject to an attack on a straw man playing bop/post
bop with competence but not genius. That's not the issue. Forget
about people who like hip lines. Ornette's thing was melody. OK.
Fine (I agree he was very great at coming up with neat melodies).
However, among players who play melodically, there are lot's of melodic
geniuses throughout the history of jazz who were also complete
musicians and proved it. I named several. Don't compare Ornette to
somebody trying to sound like Rick Margitza on the guitar (which would
be pretty cool). Compare him to Johnny Hodges. Lester Young. They
played melodically and it was clear they knew what they were doing as
overall musicians. Is it not important to be ABLE to play in other
than some style you made up yourself? Shoenberg could write fugues and
waltzes, as could Berg and Webern. There's no doubt they chose to go
where they went. Is there any evidence Ornette could play anything
other than blues?
dougw...@gmail.com
pmfan57 wrote:
> Doug changed the subject to an attack on a straw man playing bop/post
> bop with competence but not genius. That's not the issue.
Oh, OK.
>. Is it not important to be ABLE to play in other
> than some style you made up yourself?
I guess that depends on the value of that style you made up
yourself. In Ornette's case, much like Monk, there was so much
intrinsic value in it that it didn't need to be validated by proof
of competence in other styles, even though there's a lot in
the music to suggest that that was in there.
Some people think Monk was technically inferior to Art Tatum,
when what they mean is that he didn't have the same level of
velocity.
At any rate, I seem to have touched a nerve with pmfan, and I
did so unintentionally.
daniel_anth...@yahoo.com
understanding why this would matter so much. I mean for argument's sake
let's say Ornette couldn't play in an orthodox style very well , let's
even say he sucked ,so what ! He's Ornette, and what he DID accomplish
is just fu^*ing amazing , and personally (not surprisingly I'm sure), I
think it's a lot harder and a lot more of an accomplishment to do what
Ornette did than it is to do what a Clifford Brown did .But I hate
those sorts of comparisons too, and they both should be remembered for
what they did and not what they didn't do (or couldn't or whatever). It
also might be worth noting that once the differences settled, there was
more than a little bebop in Ornette's sound ,Parker, especially to my
ears in the up-tempo pieces, and a lot of contemporary ears would have
a hard time understanding what all the controversy was about . At the
time of Ornette's first records there were very few people that were
super readers and super improvisers ,in fact legend has it that Joe
Maneri played Ornette's parts on a piece dedicated to him by David
Dreck because Ornette couldn't cop the written parts. I'm not sure of
the veracity of this and I really don't think it's at all important
even if it's true; other than to show how advanced Joe Maneri already
was even back then .
daniel stearns
http://zebox.com/avantgarde_jazzguitar/
pmfan57
You're not being a pain at all. But has there ever been another
example of someone popping out of the woodwork who made up his/her own
style of music, without having first learned, if not mastered, the
music that came before?
Most of the mavericks throughout the history of music were not only
fluent at the previous style, but usually masters of it. Monteverdi,
Beethoven, Shoenberg. Shoenberg's Gurreleider is maybe the neatest
example of late romantic Wagnerian chromatic harmony. But he had taken
it as far as it could go in many ways and sought new ways. Bird had
mastered the Lester Young style and was extending it in his records
with Jay McShann. He was revered by musicians for those records before
creating bop. Coltrane had taken harmony as far as it could go and
sought out new ways. Ornette had done exactly what before he went his
way? He came out of the woodwork fully formed. Maybe he's simply the
exception. But you can understand why the Milt Jackson's and the
Clifford Brown's (IMO the greatest trumpet player, and one of the
greatest improvisors ever, to comment on what you said) might wonder if
Ornette was pulling the wool over everyone's eyes.
It is that Ornette was a blues master? I know he played blues. I can
see that it would be possible for someone to come from a related field
and set the jazz world on fire. Was it blues he had mastered? Are
there any recordings of his playing blues? Hey, I like Ornette's
playing. I guess that's what matters. But he's sui generis, that's
for sure.
Max Leggett
news:1134245761.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> You're not being a pain at all. But has there ever been another
> example of someone popping out of the woodwork who made up his/her own
> style of music, without having first learned, if not mastered, the
> music that came before?
"Coleman, like everybody else, played bebop at jam sessions. "I could play
and sound like Charlie Parker note-for-note, but I was only playing it from
method. So I tried to figure out where to go from there," Coleman said."
www.ejn.it/mus/coleman.htm
" As Parker's music was already two decades old, and accepted into the
mainstream of jazz, it was clear that repeating the same ideas could not
fulfill the desperate need for change, so prevalent among black musicians.
By that time, John Coltrane has already exhausted the harmonic implications
of Parker's music. The next logical step had to be a whole different
approach to harmony. The European composers arrived at the same junctions in
the beginning of the century, and came up with what is termed "atonality" -
music with no tonal center. What the black jazz musicians arrived at was
different. They came to the conclusion that with the broadening of harmonic
awareness, every note is "legitimate", and thus many have abandoned the use
of harmony in its Western form. They did not all do it in the same way.
Coltrane went to non-Western modes heard in Indian and African music, while
Coleman came up with an original concept he called "Harmolody" - where the
melody line creates the harmony, instead of the melody depending on
harmony." http://www.jazz.org.il/parkers-heirs-ijs.htm
No recordings of early Ornette, but reading between the lines it sounds like
he got Parker's solos off the record ok, but didn't want to be a rehash.
There is still a very strong impetus in jazz to be original and not repeat
what went before. Trane switched to tenor from alto and moved into a more
modal harmonic area so he could play without being in Parker's shadow. It
was his need to be original that led him on. Ditto, it seems, Ornette. He
could play straight bop, felt constrained by it, and moved on. I have read
elsewhere, and can't put my hands on it, quotes by people who played with
him that Ornette had Parker's solos down cold. I've also read, and can't put
my hands on it, that Thelonius was a shit hot stride pianist who really knew
the style. Ditto that Parker had Lester's solo's down cold, although there's
no recorded evidence that he could, in fact, play like Pres, nor that
Thelonius was a mainstream pianist. But I'll take Bird's word on it,and I'll
take Ornette's word, too. I haven't read anyone who played with him in the
early days say that Ornette couldn't play good bebop. Mingus, who really
liked Coleman's music, thought that Coleman couldn't play a C major scale,
but he never knew Coleman in Texas, and it must be admitted that Chazz liked
making statements like that.
coas...@yahoo.com
-TD
pmfan57
Nonsense. His Jay McShann solos showed him to have mastered the
earlier style and advanced it. There were hints of bop in there but
they were within the Pres school. Anyway, Bird could function in a big
band and had thoroughly mastered the idiom and harmony. The stories of
Ornette playing at jam sessions are contraindicated by the testimony of
the bop musicians that heard him play and sit in. Brownie's reaction
was "oh, man" and not in a good way.
dougw...@gmail.com
a more original developed artist than Clifford, as much as I love
Clifford. This is part of my original point, which you were quick
to dismiss.
I think people want to herald the things that they have a shot at
reproducing. Clifford Brown's music is easy to digest because his
"music" is really just a bunch of trumpet solos. He died very
young, of course, and what he did in a short time was astounding.
But he had his limitations. Listen to him play ballads. He was not
able to do it on Miles or Bird's level.
At any rate, Ornette changed the direction of music, and Clifford
did not. Ornette's artistic value, in my opinion, is higher for that
reason alone. I don't know if he could play second alto in a
big band. I do know that most people out there playing second
alto in a big band aren't much more than artisanal musicians.
I just think that people want to be dismissive of that which they
have no chance of aspiring to. Playing "hip lines" in 8th notes
over standard changes is something anyone with time and
patience can achieve. But creating on the level of Bird, Ornette
or Armstrong is something that takes talent. Talent can't be
found in a book or a practice room, and that was my only point
to begin wtih.
Greger Hoel
>Could Ornette have even played in a major big band? I don't know. Do
>you really think it doesn't matter at all if Ornette could only play in
>his own type of music?
Of course it doesn't, as long as Ornette only does play his own type
of music.
--
_______________________________________________
Always cross a vampire, never moon a werewolf
To reach me, swap spammers get bent with softhome
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Leggett
>
>Nonsense. His Jay McShann solos showed him to have mastered the
>earlier style and advanced it. There were hints of bop in there but
>they were within the Pres school. Anyway, Bird could function in a big
>band and had thoroughly mastered the idiom and harmony. The stories of
>Ornette playing at jam sessions are contraindicated by the testimony of
>the bop musicians that heard him play and sit in. Brownie's reaction
>was "oh, man" and not in a good way.
>
You've been hanging out too much with Boorman.
I have had to be diligent. Anyone with equal diligence would have done as much.
Johann Sebastian Bach
Max Leggett
news:mppmp1ldv8qpn6ed2...@4ax.com...
> On 9 Dec 2005 19:52:19 -0800, "pmfan57" <jwra...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Could Ornette have even played in a major big band? I don't know. Do
> >you really think it doesn't matter at all if Ornette could only play in
> >his own type of music?
>
> Of course it doesn't, as long as Ornette only does play his own type
> of music.
> --
Given that Miles, Duke, and Mingus, among many others, disliked having their
music called "jazz", I wonder why we should hold Ornette's feet to some
preconceived fire? Wamble's analysis is right on the money, and puts Ornette
right where he should be.
pmfan57
You're absolutely right. Ornette was extremely talented. Bird was at
least equally talented and had the whole thing down. Bach and Mozart
were talented and also knew everything that came before. Ornette may
have been the only great musician that changed the music without having
mastered what came before. I'm not trying to be negative about
Ornette. I really enjoy his Atlantic stuff a lot. That was some of
the first jazz stuff I ever owned.
It's also not a good argument because you always set up the "mere
artisan" to compare with. You have not addressed the fact that ALL of
the other great jazz musicians, like Armstong and Bird were HIGHLY
competent artisans IN ADDITION to being geniuses and super talents.
And you have argued against loving bop over swing in many of your posts
saying in effect that just because bop was new doesn't make it better
than swing (that is, you argue against the idea of "progress") But you
seem to go the other way a little concerning the transition from bop to
Ornette. Bopsters are "easily analyzed" etc. Is bop your least
favorite period of jazz?
All of the above having been said, I think that you're right that
Ornette may have been that special exception to the rule. I have never
been able to get those cool heads from those Atlantic albums out of my
head.
ken
pmfan57 wrote:
> overall musicians. Is it not important to be ABLE to play in other
> than some style you made up yourself? Shoenberg could write fugues and
> waltzes, as could Berg and Webern. There's no doubt they chose to go
> where they went. Is there any evidence Ornette could play anything
> other than blues?
This was addressed well in another part of this thread with Stearns and
Wamble and I can't add much to those responses, but I would just say
again, who cares? You have to judge this stuff on it's own. I think
it's nonsense to judge music on something other than the music.
Again, you sound like the old ladies at MOMA (Museum of Modern Art),
"but what is it? It doesn't look like anything? What is it supposed to
be? I don't understand..."
I'm really glad that Metheny didn't join a big band and spend several
years on the road to master that art form and then spend another few
years on the road in a bebop band to establish his credentials in bebop
to make all the critics happy (touch all the bases...) and went on the
road right away with Burton... and then out on his own...
Anyway, having said all that, I like Stearn's and Wamble's responses
better than mine...
;)
Ken
ken
pmfan57 wrote:
> And you have argued against loving bop over swing in many of your posts
> saying in effect that just because bop was new doesn't make it better
> than swing (that is, you argue against the idea of "progress") But you
> seem to go the other way a little concerning the transition from bop to
> Ornette.
Hmm... That's not really the way I remember the argument. I think it's
a little backwards.
I think he is complaining about how people are so busy into playing hip
eighth note lines and that may be because some people are into a
certain period of jazz to the exclusion of others (to some extent).
His conclusion comes from listening to people's music first. For
example, he might be thinking "gee, this guy is so busy playing eighth
note lines with no rhythmic or dynamic variation..." etc...
And he may suspect that may be due to the player(s) focussing on
certain periods in jazz or certain players.
His big point was that by going further back, there might be something
to be gained by many of these players.
It's not about "gee, this guy can't play in the old swing style so his
music is not valid...". That's the sort of argument you're trying to
make. Well, you're not really because you say you like his music and
agree he's a genius, but to the extent that you are wondering whether
Ornette can make it in a big band, you are questioning his validity by
that meaningless, superficial measure.
I don't think Wamble is arguing whether modern or pre-modern is better
either. The obsession with modernity for the sake of hipness is the
problem. Not whether something is modern or old...
Anyway, when you listen to Ornette, you don't get that at all. You
don't wonder "oh my gosh, can this guy actually play anything for
real?" At least I never feel that way. Apparently you do (even though
you dig his stuff). I think his work stands on it's own with no need of
some superficial validation (like a phd in jazz or a record with
nothing but standards in the traditional jazz idiom on them...)
To look for that kind of superficial 'proof' of validity of music is
the kind of thing that academics and music critics tend to do and I
think it's sort of meaningless...
Ken
dougw...@gmail.com
pmfan...I think you misinterpret me a bit. I think that people who
neglect
swing OR bebop OR New Orleans music OR Ornette are just missing
something. Sonny Rollins is a great model. A true original, one of the
undeniable greats. But over his career he was influenced by Trane
and Ornette as well as Lester, Byas and Bird.
pmfan57
I guess that puts him in the same class as a Jackson Pollack, who could
hardly sketch with a pencil but made those amazing paintings. Funny
they used his painting for "Free Jazz."
With certain exceptions like Ayler, Ornette and Cecil Taylor, most free
guys can function as musicians in multiple contexts. Kenny Wheeler can
play some real out sh*t with Braxton and play incredible bop with
Pepper Adams. I did hear a completely out sax player once on WKCR
playing wild and free like Albert Ayler and then, at the end he asked
if there was more time on the tape. When told there was he proceeded
to play some beautiful Bach solo piece.
As to "proof of validity," with totally free music, can you teach it?
With other forms of music you can analyze it and learn something. If
there's nothing objective about free jazz, if it is only to be judged
by it's own internal standards, then it can't be taught or analyzed
like all other forms of music. No assessment is possible as to who is
a competent free player and who is just learning? If so, what would
the criteria be? Is mastery of the instrument necessary?
dougw...@gmail.com
especially
amongst so-called jazz guitarists, an unhealthy amount of emphasis is
put upon the ability to play lines over changes. Pat Martino can play
lines over changes like nobody's business, but I doubt he'd sound
good playing some Jelly Roll Morton or Ornette Coleman. And at the
end of the day, Pat's contribution to jazz music is less than that of
Jelly Roll or Ornette.
But you raise some interesting points. I was talking to someone about
Jean-Michel Basquiat and how talented he was, but I was wondering if
he would have been better if he had a more expansive technique. I don't
know the answer. In my own quest, I just work from the position that
ignorance is not bliss. The more I know, the better off I am. That's
why
I see that "lines over changes" is but a tiny part of playing jazz,
contrary to popular belief.
Joey Goldstein
I get your point(s) and am mostly in agreement with both the ideas and
the sentiment.
But (with me there's always a "but") I think the reason why playing
lines-over-changes gets so much more emphasis by jazz educators than
other aspects of the art is simply that lines-over-changes is one of
the only things involved in the art of making jazz that is relatively
straight forward to teach.
I can't think of any of my favorite players that can just be reduced
down to good lines over changes. They've all got other things going on
too. I don't personally know anybody who has the goal of just being
known as a line player.
But I don't think I'd be all that attracted to the sound of a player who
had all sorts of other great things going on but played lousy lines.
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
dougw...@gmail.com
Joey Goldstein wrote:
>lines-over-changes is one of
> the only things involved in the art of making jazz
This is where we differ. I don't think that lines over changes
has anything to do with artistry.
> But I don't think I'd be all that attracted to the sound of a player who
> had all sorts of other great things going on but played lousy lines.
THis could be a semantics issue...
Kevin Van Sant
<1134338373.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> :
>>lines-over-changes is one of
>> the only things involved in the art of making jazz
>
>This is where we differ. I don't think that lines over changes
>has anything to do with artistry.
would you agree with the sentiment if he had used the word craft
instead of art?
_________________________________________
Kevin Van Sant
jazz guitar
http://www.kevinvansant.com
to buy my CDs, hear sound clips, see videos, and get more info.
Visit my new Instant Download Mp3 Store at:
http://www.onestopjazz.com/mp3-store.html
Alternate site for gig tape soundclips
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/kevinvansant_music.htm
coas...@yahoo.com
coas...@yahoo.com
feeling, good phrasing with crappy lines ( I wonder if that is
possible)? Just meandering through changes, which I hear a lot of these
days, even though the changes are being run correctly, I agree (if I am
agreeing correctly) is jive, but playing lines (which I believe is what
improvisation is 90% of the time) that tell a remarkable story, to me
is art. Are you saying that the ornaments (consisting of many elements)
surrounding the improvised line is the most important thing? So, with
crappy lines, and everything else pristine, may constitute art? For me
it does not, just as mediocre lines with nothing else happening does
not constitute art.
-TD
dougw...@gmail.com a écrit :
dougw...@gmail.com
Kevin Van Sant wrote:
> would you agree with the sentiment if he had used the word craft
> instead of art?
Of course. And this is at the heart of the issue. A lot of the
jazz guitar I hear is craft, as opposed to art.
RB
Would you mind if I asked what you mean by "meandering lines" that "run
the changes"?
I am assuming you mean lines that might follow the changes yet not
define them ultra-clearly?
Is this what you mean?
dougw...@gmail.com
coas...@yahoo.com wrote:
> How about good, artistic lines, Doug? What about a lot of soul,
> feeling, good phrasing with crappy lines ( I wonder if that is
> possible)? Just meandering through changes, which I hear a lot of these
> days, even though the changes are being run correctly, I agree (if I am
> agreeing correctly) is jive, but playing lines (which I believe is what
> improvisation is 90% of the time) that tell a remarkable story, to me
> is art. Are you saying that the ornaments (consisting of many elements)
> surrounding the improvised line is the most important thing? So, with
> crappy lines, and everything else pristine, may constitute art? For me
> it does not, just as mediocre lines with nothing else happening does
> not constitute art.
Just the whole "lines" thing in general is where I differ.
But again, it could be semantics. Someone like Louis Armstrong
did not play "lines". He was all about nuance, swing, a melody.
So was Bird. But just because some guy can play perfect
8th notes over hard changes doesn't mean he is an artist.
Anybody with time and a practice room can learn how to
play "Giant Steps". But a select few can play the shit
Coltrane was playing on "A Love Supreme", because that
requires more than math skills.
If you believe 90 percent of improvisation is playing lines. then
you and I have a fundamentally different perception of things.
You're talking about ornaments and stuff, which basically tells
me you are limiting jazz to a narrowly defined definition which
is rooted in the jazz-school version of "bebop". I just don't
see it that way. This is why I'd rather listen to Ornette than
say, Chris Potter.
Max Leggett
news:1134346748.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
But you can't teach art - you can only teach craft. It's up to the
individual to turn the tools of the craft into art. I have no idea how many
juvenile delinquents passed through the music programme of the Waif's Home,
but Armstrong is the only artist of which I'm aware. Art schools graduate
zillions of people, but how many artists are there among them? They all get
taught the same tools. But I hear what you're saying - to me jazz isn't
predetermined harmonic changes and lines. Real jazz is Art, with a capital
Eh. The Harry Smith Trio at the Holiday Inn doesn't play jazz, I don't play
jazz, very few people play jazz. Mingus played jazz, and so did Miles and
Django and a number of others, but their harmonic and rhythmic conceptions
and execution are so vastly more sophisticated than anything I can imagine
that it can't be said that we're playing the same music. I can play Satin
Doll - an unfairly maligned number, btw - but Duke can make music, art, of
it. Painting and sculpture aren't necessarily art - in the hands of an
artist they become art. Ditto music. [breaks into out of tune singing: "It's
the singer, not the song.]
coas...@yahoo.com
you'd like to play a few tunes together, that would be nice some time,
because you are right about the word thing getting in the way. And I am
not about math either. But thanks for clarifying your thoughts for me.
-Tony
coas...@yahoo.com
correct notes and makes the changes, but he ain't saying anything.
Usually, not much of a story being told, lack of cadence, form, etc.
ken
...or deodorants and feminine protection...
;)
pmfan57
Bird may have been a master of nuance etc, but he played lines that
could be learned. And learned they were by many players, such as Bud
Powell, Milt Jackson, Clifford Brown, Sonny Rollins, Ira Sullivarn, Wes
Montgomery, Joe Pass, Jimmy Raney, Sonny Stitt, Fats Navarro, Kenny
Dorham, Jackie McLean, Oliver Nelson, Phil Woods, Gene Quill, Donald
Byrd, John Lewis, Horace Silver, Wynton Kelly, Sonny Clark, Barry
Harris. This "jazz can't be taught" can't be true because these guys
were taught it by listening to and playing with Bird or his disciples.
Genius and Talent can't be taught but most of the famous jazz players
were VERY talented, or we wouldn't still be listening to their albums.
And Piano can't do smears and the other things you are referring to.
And Bud Powell is as great as the people you speak so highly of. Or do
you not like Bud Powell? Or Sonny Clark, or Barry Harris.
It boils down to lines at least in some respect. Bach was a master of
line construction--no smears, chokes, etc. Do you not dig his music?
Some styles of jazz (bop) are more about the line, and less about the
digging in and bending and other things that were done, for example, in
the swing era. You don't seem to like that. Bird could play blues (at
the highest level), but he had to lighten up the tone to play the fast
lines, compared to swing players. Bop players chose to sacrifice one
aspect to allow them to concentrate on another. That was their
aesthetic choice. You don't have to like it, I agree. But you
denigrate it.
And please stop talking about mere artisan line players. Compare great
players to other great players. Compare the guys you like to GREAT
line players, not mediocre ones. Nobody compares great players to
average players. Please tell us why you like Ornette's playing better
than that of Dizzy or Trane or Bud Powell. Compare apples to apples.
ken
pmfan57 wrote:
> As to "proof of validity," with totally free music, can you teach it?
> With other forms of music you can analyze it and learn something. If
> there's nothing objective about free jazz, if it is only to be judged
> by it's own internal standards, then it can't be taught or analyzed
> like all other forms of music. No assessment is possible as to who is
> a competent free player and who is just learning? If so, what would
> the criteria be? Is mastery of the instrument necessary?
Why is the ability to be able to teach something relevant to the
validity of a music (or an art form)? So what if you can't really
teach someone to sculpt like Rodin or break dishes like Schnabel...
I guess you can sort of codify Cubism and create works in that 'style'.
But I think that's the whole point of a lot of art and music in the
twentieth century. I think many of the arts started to move away from
that codifiable, method oriented stuff into more free expression; away
from rules and codes.
I think a lot of people complain about jazz these days for that very
reason; that it's been codified to a large extent and 90% of what
people play (I'm just making up that number so let's not argue about
that!) comes from some 'code' or 'formula' (for example, which scale
over which chord...).
There's nothing wrong with that really either, but I can see how it is
not appealing to a lot of people.
It's one thing for Bird and Diz to play something, and it's entirely
another for someone to analyze, formulate and codify the language of
bebop so that anyone can learn how to play it without having gone
through the process that Bird did to get where he did.
(you can say that about the Trane worshipping 'energy' players too, but
one can also argue that Trane got a lot of that from the young energy
players of the time...)
Art, literature and of course a lot of music moved away from that coded
stuff...
You can see all that in the early 20th century in music, when those
guys moved away from conventional western harmony into post-tonal music
and all these micro-tonal guys.
I have no idea if Dan Stearns can teach what he does (I'm sure he can
to some extent), but just because he can't codify and create an
acceptable curriculum that might work at Berklee to recreate his work,
I wouldn't put any less value on it. (well, there is a lot of
technical stuff that is teachable in the microtonal world...)
I do hear these sorts of arguments all the time from artists; that once
something gets codified, it dies because people who don't really know
why it was done in the first place just go through superficial process
of doing it by following the 'instructions' which is not the way it was
done in the first place and therefore loses something in the process.
A great example I've been reading about a lot these days because of the
recent release is Monk and Trane. It was very interesting to hear
Trane talking about how he worked on Monk's music for hours, and how
Monk helped Trane work it all out.
I mean, this was John Coltrane, and they worked a long time for each
tune to really dig into it and get it.
I can't really explain it here, but it wasn't like "OK, this is G7 so
let's start with a G mixolydian scale..." which is the way Monk's music
would probably be taught today...
I think that's a real issue.
But on the other hand, I do like these mathematician musicians too!
Many of my favorite players come out of this 'system' so...
Ken
pmfan57
Trane was learning from Monk. That's the way you learn from Monk.
Monk is a guy that is all about nuance, time, all the things you and
Doug have been talking about. It took years of study and self
evaluation for Monk to play like that and a lot of cramming for Trane
to get into that thing in a short period of time.
And I guess Ornette's music CAN be learned because open minded players
of the time got into it and DID learn it. I heard a taped interview
with Milt Jackson where he said he talked to Scotty LaFaro, who was
playing with Ornette opposite Jackson, because he knew Scotty and knew
Scotty could play "regular" jazz. Jackson asked him a series of
questions, seeking an explanation as to how they knew what to play in
Ornette's group. LaFaro's answer's were interesting and not very
satisfying to Jackson (like "we just listen to each other and follow
along; nope, no chords"). But the young players like Haden and LaFaro
and Garrison that played with Ornette seemed to play nicely in
Ornette's concept. It must just be by osmosis. Or ears mosis.
But there is an issue of mastery of the instrument. There's no
question with Trane. With Ornette? But as Bill Evans said, when
talking about Monk's technique: he had exactly the right technique to
play like Monk. I guess you could say that about OC. (But DON'T tell
me Ornette was a good violinist.)
ken
Joey Goldstein wrote:
> But (with me there's always a "but") I think the reason why playing
> lines-over-changes gets so much more emphasis by jazz educators than
> other aspects of the art is simply that lines-over-changes is one of
> the only things involved in the art of making jazz that is relatively
> straight forward to teach.
That's the whole problem, no? I think people that complain about jazz
education these days complain exactly about this.
It can't possibly lead to good results for people to just teach and
learn the stuff that is 'relatively straight forward to teach' (and
possibly over-emphasizing it...). There shouldn't be a relationship
between 'easy to teach' and 'emphasis', and to the extent that there
is, it can be damaging.
I think that's whole issue...
Ken
ken
pmfan57 wrote:
> But there is an issue of mastery of the instrument. There's no
> question with Trane. With Ornette? But as Bill Evans said, when
> talking about Monk's technique: he had exactly the right technique to
> play like Monk. I guess you could say that about OC. (But DON'T tell
> me Ornette was a good violinist.)
Exactly (about Bill Evans quote). I never heard Ornette play anything
and thought, "darn, if only he swung a little harder".
There's a lot of people I hear and wish they were more competent or
better, but that's just not the case for Ornette (at least his major,
earlier works... I don't know about a lot of other things he's been
doing lately...).
Same with Don Cherry. He's no Clifford Brown, but he can tell a story.
But actually, Ornette is much more exacting and competent than people
think... Apparently, when they recorded his tunes, he was very, very
picky and they rehearsed many times and did many takes to get the
'heads' exactly right.
Anyway, if you want to talk about technique, then that's a whole other
bag of worms. I agree that I like good technique.
But you got guys like Jim Hall who didn't have the technique of George
Benson or Tal Farlow (maybe he does... don't shoot me for using the
wrong example...), Bill Evans certainly was Oscar Peterson, Miles
wasn't Dizzy, but so what?
On the other hand, you can watch Fred Frith and wonder, gee, I wonder
if he can even play Autumn Leaves. Maybe that's a valid question, but
it's irrelevant to what he's doing.
Or Yamatake Eye... Can he even carry a Christmas Tune? Or Haino Keiji?
Can he play Sophisticated Lady as a chord melody solo?
Who knows? But does it matter? Is it relevant to what they are doing?
I think not. (ok, these are extreme examples. Maybe not fair)
Anyway pmfan, I do see your point. Your reaction and questions are not
that uncommon.
I got into a big discussion about Ornette and free music with a phd in
jazz performance, and it seemed more like "I don't understand it, and I
know everything there is to know about jazz; I'm a Phd for crying out
loud, and I still don't get it so it can't possibly be valid. I just
really don't like it. And it's not that I can't hear it. I can hear
everything. But I don't know what to think when I hear it... I think
it's b.s."
And I said something to the extent that jazz is not like a language
where you have a dictionary where all the words are listed. In
language you can argue that a word doesn't exist so it's not valid if
it's not in the dictionary (or the Scrabble dictionary).
Just because Ornette's music is not laid out and fully explained in
detail in one of the jazz textbooks does not make it invalid...
Ken
pmfan57
I'm still a little suspicious about a man making up his own language
and the rules, without having mastered what came before, in his own
genre. You gave rather extreme silly examples of some Hawaian guy not
knowing how to write a fugue. But Berg could write fugues like
nobody's business. That's the better example. And Bird played the
down home blues better than blues players. Ornette has never shown he
could play anything particularly well other than the style he made up
himself, as cool as that style is. It just makes me suspicious.
Essentially, it can't be judged or analyzed. It can only be liked or
not liked. But art is not totally subjective. There is a skill level
involved. How can you tell an accomplished harmolodicist from a
beginner harmolodocist? I can tell a good bebop player from a beginner
within seconds, as can you. Can you tell a good harmolodicist from a
beginner? Or is everybody equally good from the first harmolodic note
blown?
Joey Goldstein
dougw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
> >lines-over-changes is one of
> > the only things involved in the art of making jazz
>
> This is where we differ. I don't think that lines over changes
> has anything to do with artistry.
Hmm. Not sure I know what to make of that.
> > But I don't think I'd be all that attracted to the sound of a player who
> > had all sorts of other great things going on but played lousy lines.
>
> THis could be a semantics issue...
Or of that.
pmfan57
Bach is linear construction, so much so that he could sustain an entire
composition on a single note line. No blues in Bach. Do you hate his
lines? Is it just craft? Don't his lines qualify as art?
Joey Goldstein
Well, yeah, of course. And we can only expect a small number, a very
small number, of craftsmen to become artists in any creative field.
That's why we revere artists so much.
But do you really think that art can be taught?
I don't.
Joey Goldstein
dougw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> coas...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > How about good, artistic lines, Doug? What about a lot of soul,
> > feeling, good phrasing with crappy lines ( I wonder if that is
> > possible)? Just meandering through changes, which I hear a lot of these
> > days, even though the changes are being run correctly, I agree (if I am
> > agreeing correctly) is jive, but playing lines (which I believe is what
> > improvisation is 90% of the time) that tell a remarkable story, to me
> > is art. Are you saying that the ornaments (consisting of many elements)
> > surrounding the improvised line is the most important thing? So, with
> > crappy lines, and everything else pristine, may constitute art? For me
> > it does not, just as mediocre lines with nothing else happening does
> > not constitute art.
>
> Just the whole "lines" thing in general is where I differ.
>
> But again, it could be semantics. Someone like Louis Armstrong
> did not play "lines". He was all about nuance, swing, a melody.
Maybe this is all a semantics issue then, because to me "good line" and
"melody" are the same things. The vast majority of technically "correct"
lines might not be good melodies though. But a good line IMO will also
be a good melody. That's *one* the main things I strive for in my own
playing, melodic lines.
Of course a great melody can also be played in a really lousy way by a
lousy player, so the melody isn't all-that either. There's always more
to it.
> So was Bird. But just because some guy can play perfect
> 8th notes over hard changes doesn't mean he is an artist.
> Anybody with time and a practice room can learn how to
> play "Giant Steps". But a select few can play the shit
> Coltrane was playing on "A Love Supreme", because that
> requires more than math skills.
>
> If you believe 90 percent of improvisation is playing lines. then
> you and I have a fundamentally different perception of things.
> You're talking about ornaments and stuff, which basically tells
> me you are limiting jazz to a narrowly defined definition which
> is rooted in the jazz-school version of "bebop". I just don't
> see it that way. This is why I'd rather listen to Ornette than
> say, Chris Potter.
--
Joey Goldstein
--
ken
> I'm still a little suspicious about a man making up his own language
> and the rules, without having mastered what came before, in his own
> genre.
Oh my gosh, we're chatting! This is very exciting!
What are you suspicious of? Suspicious that he is pretending to be a
bonafide jazz musician when he in fact hasn't proven that he is? He is
what he is, he plays what he plays... What is there to be suspicious
about? That's the part I don't quite understand...
I get your point about Berg and Bird. Those are great examples of
people who've mastered what came before them. There are plenty of
people who haven't. But I don't want to start getting into names,
because I don't want to start a thread on who are 'real' musicians and
who is full of s***.
There are plenty of examples.
But one of Wamble's criteria, OC influenced the music, period. Many,
many people who sort of mastered bebop, big band and all those things
you seem to say is 'required' have done no such thing.
Isn't that pretty important?
Again, I don't know what you are so suspicious about. I have never
heard OC make any wierd claims... Like if he said that he only plays
what god sings into his ear and so he is actually channelling the music
of god, then I would be a little suspicious. Or if he said that his
music can cure cancer, then I would be a little suspicious.
So what exactly are you suspicious about?!
You gave rather extreme silly examples of some Hawaian guy not
> knowing how to write a fugue. But Berg could write fugues like
> nobody's business. That's the better example. And Bird played the
> down home blues better than blues players. Ornette has never shown he
> could play anything particularly well other than the style he made up
> himself, as cool as that style is. It just makes me suspicious.
But you see, you are cheating. You are not using your *ear* to tell
you what is good music or valid or not. You are using a separate
benchmark. You only accept Berg because he can write fugues like
nobody's business? If someone wrote something that sounds just as good
but didn't know what a fugue was, then suddenly that music is no longer
any good?
I was going to use some rock analogies here, but I know what happens to
those threads so I won't mention any names. But what about all that
great music (OK, OK, it's rock so it sucks, but I think a lot of rock
is great! So there!) created by people who couldn't play the blues!!!
They sound awful trying to play the blues, and yet they created a whole
new style of rock/pop music!
> Essentially, it can't be judged or analyzed. It can only be liked or
> not liked.
Well, maybe. I disagree, but don't have any arguments to prove or
disprove that so... How do you judge or analyze Kandinksy, Klee or
Chagall!? You look at Chagall and you might think, can this guy draw?
Do you need to see a still-life to determine whether he is for real or
not? Why?
> But art is not totally subjective. There is a skill level
> involved. How can you tell an accomplished harmolodicist from a
> beginner harmolodocist?
I don't know about harmolodocist, but yes, I can tell good from bad.
In a lot of free stuff, it's true that I can't tell. That's kind of
like minimalist art too; some of that stuff, I can't tell if the artist
is competent or not.
But that's true with a lot of the modern classical composers too...
I like music that exhibits some sort of skill for sure. I'm with you
there...
Ken
ken
p.s.
Just to state an example of someone who gets similar treatment
sometimes that OC gets that we can both agree is a real deal player is
Bill Frisell. I know it's not the exact same situation, but I think
there are similarities in that some people are 'suspicious' of Frisell
(again, I have no idea what people are suspicious about!!).
I hear it all the time: "yeah, but can he play changes?...", " can he
play bebop?", "can he really swing?".
He has great CDs out playing standards, Monk, Evans tunes etc... as you
know with Motian and Lovano, but that apparently isn't enough for many
people that I've come across...
I know it's not the same thing, but Frisell wasn't able to "play bop
better than anybody out there.." or "swing harder than any guitarist
out there..." or anything like that at all.
He has been playing his own way from very early on and I think there is
absolutely nothing wrong with that at all...
Ken
Joey Goldstein
tradition but made significant breaks from that tradition.
People who do that have a generally much harder time of it because they
have to create their own community of both players and listeners.
Players steeped in bebop had almost just as hard a time learning to play
in Ornette's bag (let alone in understanding it) as he would have had
playing in a bag other than his own.
As a player he is capable of reproducing melodies he hears other people
play, up to a point, up to the point that he needs to in order to play
what he wants to play. Monk was the same way IMO. John Scofeild is the
same way IMO.
IMO This is a significant difference in the way that the art of playing
jazz differs from the classical community, or used to. In the classical
community, up until fairly recently, no composer would been given
anything resembling credibilty at all until he had demonstrated near
complete mastery of the previous "serious" forms in the history of
Western Art Music. Modern composers in the classical community are cut a
bit more slack in this area nowadays I think, probably due to the
influence of the jazz community.
In the jazz community we've always needed to be competent sure. I'm in
awe of jazz people who seem to have a mastery of every single style of
the tradition, but only rarely do these people have their own voice. IMO
Sounding good is it's own reward in the jazz world.
Of course for a classical performer it's different than it is for a
composer. They need to have the technique to reproduce centuries of
repertoire. Then when new music is written for them they need to develop
the technique to be able to play that too.
But:
I wouldn't want to hear Monk play Chopin and I wouldn't want to hear
Rubenstein play Monk.
I wouldn't want to hear Ornette play Bird and I wouldn't want to hear
Bird play Ornette.
I wouldn't want to hear Scofield play Gambale and I wouldn't want to
hear Gambale play Scofield.
In jazz the personality of the player and his concept of how he
organizes his own music has much more meaning to the art that is
produced than it does for the players of classical music. In jazz the
player is also to a very large degree the composer. But a jazz player
usually can't get by just on personality and concept. He has to be able
to play other people's music, to one degree or another, just so he can
survive in the business to play another day.
If Ornette couldn't play at all with people nobody at all would have
played with him.
IMO His music is much less involved with physical technique than bebop
is. But it involves techniques of the mind that bebop does not involve.
You need to be a virtuoso of one type or another to be able to play
either form of music at a high level.
--
bob r
nos...@nowhere.net wrote on 12/11/05 10:58 PM:
> Maybe this is all a semantics issue then, because to me "good line" and
> "melody" are the same things.
Same here. When I use the word "line", I mean "improvised melody". If it's
not melodic, it's not a good line.
--
Bob Russell
Web - http://www.bobrussellguitar.com
CDs - http://www.cdbaby.com/all/bobrussell
Soundclick - http://www.soundclick.com/bobrussell
juru...@aol.com
on this newsgroup. I've had an opinion every 5 lines or so, but I'm way
more interested in everyone else's.
This is the closest I've read to a face to face roundtable discussion.
I felt I was tapping into a live situation. I think that probably
requires a lot of restraint and focus. Everyone's viewpoint has
eventually been revealed, there are differences, and vive les
differances. This has been an educational and enjoyable lurk! thanks,
guys.
Clif
Mark Kleinhaut
Clif, I agree. This thread reminds me of the old days of this
newsgroup- lots of good opinions and respect. I like it! A very good
read for a Monday morning:)
pmfan57
I think Monk may be the best example to support your respective
positions. He did function within more traditional forms but I guess
was kind of analagous to Ornette also.
juru...@aol.com
newsgroup- lots of good opinions and respect. I like it! A very good
read for a Monday morning:)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I hope it stays this way! I've really enjoyed reading this too.
Hey, you have any plans to do videos? It's as close as I can get to
going out and hearing folks play. Service in this joint's lousy,
though.
Clf
Johnny Asia
> . Is there any evidence Ornette could play anything
>other than blues?
Your Honor, I object! This line of questioning is irrelevant.
I demand that all charges against my client be dismissed!
Judge: Mr. Coleman, I hereby dismiss the case against you,
you are free to go
+
Johnny Asia, Hippie Guitarist
http://johnnyasia.info
"I say play your own way. Don't play what the public wants. You play what
you want and let the public pick up on what you're doing even if it does take
them fifteen, twenty years." - Thelonious Monk
Punk Funk for Monk:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/songInfo.cfm?bandID=78840&songID=3030218
daniel_anth...@yahoo.com
Mike Chain
As far as I can see, one of the main problems of playing free jazz is
that many people use the arguments you have enumerated (6-9) to
downgrade it. As if it was a kind of a "lie", a way by which not so
"knowledgeable" musicians "deceived" the public and their peers. The
same type of arguments we see some people using to critise a Pollock or
a DeKooning painting. "It's just non-sense, no structure, I could do
that". Well, for me, free jazz is the essence of contemporary jazz.
That's what the other guys did for us (as Picasso did for Pollock).
Ornette, Coltrane, they opened us the gate. Have you ever played free
with some good musicians? It's pure magic. There's nothing as intense,
as pure, as liberating. Yes, it is essential to have your basics down
(specially a thorough knowledge of chord progressions and a well
developed technique to colour your interventions - walking bass lines /
chord-melody / etc), but shit man, why not walk the road that those
that were before us opened? I'm sure that if Coltrane was alive he
would be jamming free with all his guts. In this ever more complex
society where we are often forced to live like hamsters of economists
and politicians, music needs be ever more free to answer to our needs.
And all of us musicians must start by recognizing once and for all the
art of free musical expression.
Paul Kirk wrote:
> I saw an outstanding group last night, (The Thing with Joe McPhee: with
> phenomenal swedish bari/tenor player mats gustafsson) and it got me
> thinking that there is almost no discussion here about
> playing/performing in the ornette and its prodigy style, even though
> many big cities have a thriving "improv" scene. Out here in the
> boondocks we dont get much of this stuff.
>
> and it rarely if ever gets discussed here. why?
>
>
> I do some of this ocsaionally with the right musicians. I'm not sure if
> what comes out sucks, but it can be rewarding. I thought I'd put out
> some possibly controvertial assertions and see if anyone has any reactions.
>
> some possible positives
>
> 1. Playing "free" is a great way to open a rehearsal, especially with
> musicians you are not familiar with, since its all about listening,
> reacting, color, dynamics, etc many of the more subtle musical elements
> that distinguish good group improv from, say, BIAB.
>
>
> 2. The lack of composed structure means that free music must be more
> emotional/visceral for it to not be boring or selfabsorbed. in
> particular, a criticism at bebop as often practiced by the less than
> great (detached playing of correct lines over chords) is eliminated: one
> has to play free music with intensity for it to have any impact.
>
>
> 3. Extended techniques that might be out of place in bebop are
> appropriate, if not encouraged.
>
> 4. since one doenst need to "make the changes" a certain amount of the
> tension from playing correctly can be avoided, or alternatively, one
> needn't rely on cliches
>
> 5. Its fun to play free
>
> on the other hand some possible negatives:
>
> 6. Its rarely fun to listen to free music made by guys who haven't paid
> their dues in jazz, it soudns like they are as surprized as the audience
> with what sounds they produce. Maybe its only really satisfying when
> played by mosnter players
>
> 7. Too many free musicians are more "posers" than knowledgeable: one can
> be a big time free improvisor without being able to play a simple
> melody on a simple chord progression.
>
> 8. too close to noise? i.e. the difference between music and noise is
> structure.
>
> 9. No point in buying CDs: the music is mostly apporpriate as a
> performance art.
>
>
> Any thoughts? I love ornette, dolphy, cherry, coltrane, etc. have
> difficulties with some free improv
> especially when the musicians come from a non-jazz background,
>
> Why do so few guitar players play free? I've heard some joe morris, the
> guy in chicago whose name escapes me, but never heard derek bailey.
> Morris definitely has something that grabs me.
>
>
>
> Paul K.
Johnny Asia
wrote:
>Very cool email Paul.
>
>As far as I can see, one of the main problems of playing free jazz is
>that many people use the arguments you have enumerated (6-9) to
>downgrade it. As if it was a kind of a "lie", a way by which not so
>"knowledgeable" musicians "deceived" the public and their peers. The
>same type of arguments we see some people using to critise a Pollock or
>a DeKooning painting. "It's just non-sense, no structure, I could do
>that". Well, for me, free jazz is the essence of contemporary jazz.
>That's what the other guys did for us (as Picasso did for Pollock).
>Ornette, Coltrane, they opened us the gate. Have you ever played free
>with some good musicians? It's pure magic. There's nothing as intense,
>as pure, as liberating. Yes, it is essential to have your basics down
>(specially a thorough knowledge of chord progressions and a well
>developed technique to colour your interventions - walking bass lines /
>chord-melody / etc), but shit man, why not walk the road that those
>that were before us opened? I'm sure that if Coltrane was alive he
>would be jamming free with all his guts. In this ever more complex
>society where we are often forced to live like hamsters of economists
>and politicians, music needs be ever more free to answer to our needs.
>And all of us musicians must start by recognizing once and for all the
>art of free musical expression.
>
>
>
>
Damn, you make a lot of sense!
juru...@aol.com
That's what the other guys did for us (as Picasso did for Pollock).
Ornette, Coltrane, they opened us the gate.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
When I heard Dom Minasi's 'takin the duke out' I was reminded a lot of
picasso - that cubist thing of seeing a bunch of perspectives all at
that same time. Dom did that for satin doll in that recording to my
ear.
Clif
Joey Goldstein
I've been doin' this since around 1996, GAAAAAAWD!
10 years, shit.
I issued my first "Piss off!" and "Then go fuck yourself." shortly after
that. The Google archive makes it look like I held out till 1998.
Is that the time you're talking about, 1996-98?
Or before that even? What was it like back then?
--
Tom Walls
markkl...@hotmail.com says...
there!
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
pmfan57
There are tons of free players who can play the hell out of "regular"
jazz. That's not the issue. Ornette was really what I had wanted to
discuss.
By the way, does anyone understand what Ornette has written re:
Harmolodics? Is there some kind of method? I am really interested;
I'm not trying to be obnoxious. The bits and pieces I've read didn't
make any sense to me.
pmfan57
Although I hear Bird in Ornette, just as Bird is in Dolphy. Don't you
think so?
Dan Adler
I usually don't read these long threads because they are usually just
personal attacks, but this is fantastic! I better stay out of it :-)
ken
> There are tons of free players who can play the hell out of "regular"
> jazz.
And they are superior to Ornette? They are more 'real' than Ornette
because they can play the hell out of 'regular' jazz? Why are you so
hung up on Ornette that he can't do anything other than what he does?
>That's not the issue. Ornette was really what I had wanted to
> discuss.
That's great. Let's discuss Ornette. What I don't understand about
these discussions sometimes (and I see these most often in jazz critics
and academic writers) is that people tend to talk about everything
other than the music.
Why don't we just discuss the music?! Why worry about whether Ornette
can make it in a big band or whether he can "play the hell out of
"regular" jazz"?
What about the music? What's wrong with the music that makes you
question his validity?
When Wamble goes on his rants about hip eighth note lines and people
don't dig deep enough into jazz history, he is not making those
comments based on some kind of superficial test of validity.
He makes those comments based on the music he hears. So the discussion
begins with the MUSIC. Not some arbitrary checklist of validity.
So if you want to discuss Ornette, let's discuss Ornette's MUSIC.
Exactly what about the music makes you suspicious? Does he have bad
time? Does he have bad intonation? Is there no structure? Does he
just play eighth notes on and on with no variation? Does he lack
emotion? Do all his tunes sound the same? Does he lack a dynamic
range? Does he hide behind gimmicks, licks and special effects?
What?
I think *that* is an interesting discussion.
> By the way, does anyone understand what Ornette has written re:
> Harmolodics? Is there some kind of method? I am really interested;
> I'm not trying to be obnoxious. The bits and pieces I've read didn't
> make any sense to me.
Me too. I've heard all kinds of stuff from people around OC over the
years, but nothing too clean about Harmolodics in general.
I think there's some folks around here that can explain it well...
Ken
p.s. Just to make clear, I too am a big advocate of study and
mastering past art forms. Most of my heroes are competent in at least
one or more areas of music. I also want to become competent in various
areas.
Maybe I won't go so far as Branford who says that he has "earned the
right to play the way he does because he mastered all of the previous
forms of jazz...". He says he doesn't have to play in any specific way
because he CAN play it in ALL of the ways.
I also agree that there is a lot of garbage music out there because not
everyone believes that; some people seem to think that studying
corrupts and disrupt the creative flow so they avoid study at all
costs. And many of them sound really, really bad. But that's the big
differentiator. It sounds BAD. I'm not an advocate of that camp, even
though if that's what some people want to do, it's fine with me.
Dan Adler
> > By the way, does anyone understand what Ornette has written re:
> > Harmolodics? Is there some kind of method? I am really interested;
> > I'm not trying to be obnoxious. The bits and pieces I've read didn't
> > make any sense to me.
>
> Me too. I've heard all kinds of stuff from people around OC over the
> years, but nothing too clean about Harmolodics in general.
>
The way I hear Ornette's music, it is the removal of the requirement
that a pre-determined repeating harmonic form should dictate the
improvised melody in jazz. Usually, the harmony and form are given by
the song or composition and improvised lines are made up to fit it. In
Ornette's music, the harmony is derived from the melody created by the
improvisor on the spot. One line is in G major, the next implies Bb,
and the next one might be in Dbm. The lines are still cadential to my
ears and you can still discern a harmonic plan in the improvisor's
mind, it's just that he has not pre-disclosed it to the others in the
band, and so they have to hear it on the spot and follow or get out of
the way. When done well, it can sound almost like post-bop because the
musicians in the band will follow the improvisor before the audience
has any chance to hear dissonance. I don't hear that much difference
between what Ornette was doing and what Miles was doing in the 60's,
except that Miles started from the form and then broke loose, whereas
Ornette just broke loose and dropped the form from the equation.
ken
Dan Adler wrote:
> The way I hear Ornette's music, it is the removal of the requirement
> that a pre-determined repeating harmonic form should dictate the
> improvised melody in jazz.
Yeah, I think that's well understood. You are basically describing
freebop.
But there seems to be a little more in harmolodics. I think this
concept was developed and used a lot in Skies of America (orchestra)
and his electric bands; writing music in different clefs, having
musicians switch lines as they go through a score (like an alto
instrument might read the tenor line without transposing) so then you
would get this spontaneous, 'random' harmonization (or random
transpositions) and stuff like that...
That's the kind of stuff I've never really heard or seen a coherent
explanation about. But frankly, most of my interest in Ornette lies in
the 60s stuff anyway...
Ken
pmfan57
Wow Ken, you totally misread what I was saying. I thought I was
agreeing with you about players like Frisell. They can apply their
thing to any type of music without having to play bop "cliches". But I
don't think that was the issue in the thread as it related to Ornette.
Many of Ornette's followers can do all kinds of stuff and function very
well in other contexts. Frisell doesn't play bop per se but knows
music and can play HIS THING over anything, including standards,
country, blues, free. That's what I meant when I thought I was
agreeing with you about the players you listed. They can play real
good in any situation.
I just don't know if Ornette can. The issue of whether this matters at
all has been discussed already in this thread and won't be resolved.
That's really an aesthetic issue.
I also did want to know about Harmolodics. Dan's reply I guess helps a
little there.
As to Ornette, there are certainly sax players who have expressed the
opinion that he's not the greatest player of the instrument. But I
agree that the Monk analogy makes that really not a particularly
interesting line of inquiry.
Dizzy could sit down and pass along the harmonic innovations he and
Monk came up with during the invention of bop. He often did so and so
trained many of the bop players that came after. He said he did this,
and these players back up his statements. So while talent can't be
taught, the things/discoveries that innovators come up with can be
passed along, or else only the innovators would ever be able to play in
that style. Obviously the followers had talent as well or we wouldn't
listen to Bud Powell and Fats Navarro as we still do.
I'm wondering how Ornette does that. I guess he uses the harmolodics.
Dan Adler
stochastic in its nature in that one group member is never quite sure
what the other will do next, so adding some parametrized external
randomness does not invalidate anything to my ears, as long as I can
still "follow the plot" and as long as I feel the artists are reacting
to the randonmess in some musically interesting way. Once I can no
longer follow the thought process of the people involved, then I
quickly lose interest in the music...
tomb...@jhu.edu
>
> 9. No point in buying CDs: the music is mostly apporpriate as a
> performance art.
That's how I feel. I like it when I hear it in person, but don't want
any CDs of it. Same thing with Indian classical music. Great stuff to
hear live.
Dan Adler
ken
pmfan57 wrote:
> Wow Ken, you totally misread what I was saying
I thought I was
> agreeing with you about players like Frisell.
Oh, sorry.
> I just don't know if Ornette can. The issue of whether this matters at
> all has been discussed already in this thread and won't be resolved.
> That's really an aesthetic issue.
Well, not really. I don't think it's an aesthetic issue. Ornette has
played a wide range of music in his own material that I'm OK. He
played fast boppish stuff, drone-ish free stuff, ballad-like stuff,
gospel-like stuff, spiritual... I mean, he's played all those 'types'
of sounds very well, at least to my ears.
It just seems to me like you're stuck in this mush of cognitive
dissonance; you are convinced all the 'great' artists have mastered
what came before them so Ornette bugs you... or you are so dogmatic
that it is hard for you to believe anyone like Ornette can do anything
worthwhile... (again, I know you like his music so that's not exactly
what you're saying...)
So it's not an issue of aesthetics. That word can only apply to the
MUSIC. Not to the process, background or competence in other areas of
the creator.
It might be a philosophical/dogmatic issue (as I said above)...
> Dizzy could sit down and pass along the harmonic innovations he and
> Monk came up with during the invention of bop. He often did so and so
> trained many of the bop players that came after. He said he did this,
> and these players back up his statements. So while talent can't be
> taught, the things/discoveries that innovators come up with can be
> passed along, or else only the innovators would ever be able to play in
> that style. Obviously the followers had talent as well or we wouldn't
> listen to Bud Powell and Fats Navarro as we still do.
>
> I'm wondering how Ornette does that. I guess he uses the harmolodics.
Well, no. I don't think so. Again, you use a very strong example in
Dizzy and bebop which is very well documented and documentable.
If you ask any sax player what they got from Ornette, you will see what
his contributions are. They are big and substantial. But they are not
formulaic in the sense that you can attach scales to chords.
What is so amazing too about Ornette is that he DIDN'T have to sit down
and show people what he was doing to pass it down to followers. Even
the naysayers started doing what he was doing! (Miles etc...)
That's amazing...
That's why it may be underrepresented in jazz programs and is often
misunderstood.
Many of these free guys have contributed greatly to the music, but most
of the stuff is not boiled downable (?) into some formulas like a bebop
scale or whatever...
Ken
daniel_anth...@yahoo.com
sounds nothing like Cecil Taylor and Cecil Taylor sounds nothing like
Joe Maneri, ad infinitum .Obviously YMMV, but this is a real music like
any other, and I get just as much out of its recorded format as I do
any other music... to my mind there is no difference there
ken
Yeah, that's one of the differences between the totally free guys like
the Music Improvisation Company in London in the 60s and Art Ensemble
of Chicago who have all sorts of parameters but leaves plenty of
freedom.
One time I played in a band in a small ensemble, and the score was one
large peice of paper with fragments of melodies on them. Most were
like 2, 4 or 8 measures long, just taped on the paper. There was a
main groove-type melody that repeats in the middle of the paper.
Once we played the theme, we all improvise, but we all have to play
something on that piece of paper. We can keep playing the groove. We
can play it twice as fast, twice as slow, or in free time.
We can play one of the many patterns, rhythmic patterns or melodies
pasted on it.
We were completely free to do anything with it, so long as it was on
the sheet. We can even play it backwards.
Then we can all listen to each other and decide to play unison with
someone, double-time what someone else was playing, play it half time
or backwards...
Or we can read each melody/fragment once through...
Anyway, it sounded really free and open, but there was a sense of order
and structure because we were all constrained to this rule that we had
to play what was on that piece of paper.
It was really, really cool. It sounded great (to me), and it sounded
free, but coherent.
Anyway, these things; how to play free without just playing really free
and directionless is a very interesting topic that many of these guys
spend their lifetimes developing...
Zorn's game pieces are like that, as are conduction orchestras...
Ken
pmfan57
All of the other great innovators did so this way (mastered what came
before) in music until Ornette. No mush; just fact.
But I agree that it's possible that someone could come along and be the
first to do it a new way. My only "concern" is that with all those
other guys you knew for sure they weren't jiving everyone. Even
bebop's detractors knew the boppers knew what they were doing. They
just thought it sounded nasty.
However, bebop players when introduced to Ornette were clearly split in
this regard, with many arguing strongly that Ornette was a fraud, and
could not play his instrument, as we have already discussed. These
were not the ramblings of a part time player/cognitive mushmaker like
myself. These were considered opinions of all time great players. So
this is not a position to be so easily dismissed, like you seem to be
doing.
Anyway, I like Ornette's playing even if he might not have been the
greatest alto sax player. At the very least he was a great composer.
Una Muy Bonita is about the coolest head I've ever heard.
pmfan57
And it is an aesthetic issue, despite what you say. It involves
aesthetics. That makes it an aesthetic issue.
pmfan57
Especially the hamsters remark. Hamsters are my favorite animals and I
hate that they have to live like themselves.
dougw...@gmail.com
pmfan57 wrote:
> Anyway, I like Ornette's playing even if he might not have been the
> greatest alto sax player.
This statement kind of bothers me. It's the same line of thinking
that makes people say similar things about Monk. Where I think
people focus too much on the "line" is when they will critique
Monk's alleged lack of technique, but they won't rag on, say,
Bud Powell for having a comparitively weak left hand. Bud
just comped lightly, but incorporated none of the stride elements
into his music. Yet no one would ever comment on that as a
negative(except, I guess, me)
I see this line of thinking all the time in this forum in relation to
guitar players. Frequently lauded are the people that can play
fast lines over standard changes. Many of these people are
poor musicians, but they are lauded becuase they can play
fast lines. I'm sure people will deny this, but it does happen
all the time.
With Ornette, his music was deeply rooted in the tradition of
jazz. His saxophone playing is remarkable. Someone belittled
the elements of timbre, nuance and sound on this thread,
and it puzzles me. Then that same person talked about
Bach, which has no relevance to the discussion of jazz.