Miles Davis Vs. The Trumpet
kur...@my-deja.com
life, I have come into a dilemma.
Miles was an amazing musician, that did so much for jazz, yet to me, it
seems that he couldn't seem to blow a solid note on the horn. He had
much improvisational skill, and MANY creative ideas, but I can't get
passed the fact that his tone sounded so underdeveloped...and his range
was so limited.
Being a trumpet and a musician myself, I am caught between a rock and a
hard place. I know that listening to him is essential for the fact
that it is him, and there is so much to learn, but on the other hand it
often wrenches my insides to hear him play.
Are there any people out there with the same opinion, or perhaps ones
that are avid lovers of Miles that could tell me some albums that would
change my mind about him.
Please take no offense to my opinion.
~kuraigu-chan
::::life forever, play forever::::
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
bon...@nospam.bellatlantic.net
>
>Miles was an amazing musician, that did so much for jazz, yet to me, it
>seems that he couldn't seem to blow a solid note on the horn. He had
>much improvisational skill, and MANY creative ideas, but I can't get
>passed the fact that his tone sounded so underdeveloped...and his range
>was so limited.
>
Miles had an incredibly beautiful, expressive sound. One note and you
knew it was him. As far as technique and high notes, Doc Severinsen
can do all that stuff, but Miles played a lot more music in a few
notes than Doc did in an entire lifetime. As Gil Evans said, "Miles
is a great singer of songs".
John
Ali Berkok
past. I came to realise that technique is only there to serve the ideas
that are being created. THAT'S ALL! Technique, no matter how much the
little voice inside your head tells you otherwise, is not that important.
I am not saying that my opinion is more seasoned, just that I no longer
feel the way you do and am now more turned on by inspired melody than by
technique. Miles's ideas are what win us over.
I can agree with you to a certain extent, for example, there are many
moments on "Milestones" (the album) which I find crappy, but again I think
it is due to the ideas rather than their execution. This, however, does
not take away from my reverence of Miles. In the end, I think his lack of
the thing most commonly known as technique served as the factor which
helped generate his truly incredible playing (but I don't think I'd hire
him on a gig if he were alive today). You see, I think a great player does
not necessarily have to be great at everything.
In short, Miles' clams do not bother me.
-Ali
Fabio Rojas
>Miles was an amazing musician, that did so much for jazz, yet to me, it
>seems that he couldn't seem to blow a solid note on the horn. He had
>much improvisational skill, and MANY creative ideas, but I can't get
>passed the fact that his tone sounded so underdeveloped...and his range
>was so limited.
>
No offense is taken, Kuraigu. Miles was somewhat limited in his technical
skill on the trumpet. If you want to hear jazz trumpeters who play
fast, high and accurately then you may want to hear the music of
Maynard Ferguson. There is an entire tradition of trumpeter who
had perfect technique (or as close to perfect technique that you can get in
an improvised music): Fats Navarro,Clark Terry, Roy Eldridge, Clifford Brown,
Kenny Dorham, Freddie Hubbard, Dizzy Gilespie, Lee Morgan and Louis
Armstrong. Anybody who knows anything about trumpet playing and who
enjoys jazz will have to admit that these men were virtuosos.
What about Miles? His limitations are easy to list: limited range,
cracked notes, "wrong" notes, etc. But he wasn't that bad. He went
to Juliard and on his best recordings, he was perfectly musical: clear,
almost perfect phrasing, and logical melodic improvisations. I'd prefer
to listen to his solo on "So What" more than almost any classical
trumpet concerto. It has some cracked notes but the melody, phrasing
and timing of his improvisation is perfect. I have the solo memorized
on trumpet and you should learn it.
The thing that you should take away from Miles' playing is his
phrasing and sense of line in his improvisation. He was often sloppy
so if you want to listen to accurate, fast jazz trumpet improv, I would
recommend something like Clifford Brown.
But Miles still is one of the most important trumpet players.
Listen to the following solos and e-mail me:
- Bags Groove, title track
- So What, from "Kind of Blue"
- Star Eyes, from "Yardbird Suite, The ultimate Charlie Parker compilation"
- Seven Steps to Heaven, title track
- Dear Old Stockholm, from "Miles Davis volume 1" on Blue Note
- Footsteps, from "Miles Smiles"
These are some of the most well known solos and they exhibit his
melodic sense.
-fabio
Cribcage
<< Miles was an amazing musician, that did so much for jazz, yet to me, it
seems that he couldn't seem to blow a solid note on the horn. >>
i would first say that i agree with you to an extent: in davis's earlier
recordings, it is evident that his instrumental technique is extremely lacking.
i would offer two points in rebuttal. first, there is the minor assertion that
his technique did improve over the years. the plugged nickel set displays a
markedly improved level of control over his horn as opposed to, say, his early
recordings with bird.
second, there is the more important point that because davis's technique did
remain somewhat wanting, it provides an invaluable illustration of exactly how
magical one can be by simply learning to work best within one's limits. davis's
technique did not rival that of wynton marsalis or terence blanchard; however,
taking nothing away from those two excellent musicians, the music that davis
produced was leagues beyond even the best work of marsalis or blanchard.
a limitation with regard to instrumental technique does not necessarily
constitute a detrimental handicap any more than does anything else. any
attribute can become a strength, or a weakness, depending upon the effort and
application of its possessor. in davis's hands, what technique he had was more
than any of us could rightfully have expected. i consider what the man
produced, and look thankfully upon every aspect of his life -- even the
misfortunes -- that contributed to what he was, and did.
i think that the same could be said of any musician. i've heard many people
speculate, "imagine what bill evans could have accomplished without the
hindrance of drugs...", and i've heard others argue, "bird was only able to
play as he did because of how drugs affected his mind." debating judgments of
different elements of the past can be a useful intellectual exercise; but at
the end of the day, i think it's best to learn to appreciate things having
unfolded as they did -- because all of us are very fortunate to have these
wonderful recordings to enjoy.
crib
Guy Berger
> Miles was an amazing musician, that did so much for jazz, yet to me, it
> seems that he couldn't seem to blow a solid note on the horn. He had
> much improvisational skill, and MANY creative ideas, but I can't get
> passed the fact that his tone sounded so underdeveloped...and his range
> was so limited.
Have you listened to his solo on "What I Say" off _Live Evil_? I'm no
trumpet expert, but it sounds like his range improved dramatically by
'69. (Now that I think about it, he also has a blistering solo on
"Miles Runs the Voodoo Down".)
Guy
--
guy.b...@yale.edu (Guy Berger)
"The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my
case."
-- George Bush Jr., as quoted in the San Antonio Express News, Jan. 30,
2000
jazz...@my-deja.com
himself, not as a musician, but a "stylist." His playing is a perfect
illustration of what musical expression is all about. Technique...
popping double high "c"s, etc, has NOTHING to do with musicianship.
Miles was the greatest trumpet player ever (next to Louis Armstrong)--
and it should be a lesson to any musician that "technique" was just a
minor factor in what made his genius.
People have a tendency to go for the biggest, flashiest stuff--
thinking it MUST be better if it costs more, if it has more horse
power... bigger boobs, whatever. Those of you that go ga-ga over Jon
Faddis hitting a triple Ab or something and only appreciate that suble-
as-a-flying-sledgehammer type of music... well that's cool. But don't
mistake playing high and fast with great music. The Maynard school is
fun... but pretty much sucks, in the grand scheme of things in my
opinion.
Miles was no slouch techique-wise anyway. Check out Miles Smiles, for
one.
Mark
http://jazztrpt.freeservers.com
Bobby Knight
> Miles was the the greatest jazz improviser of all time. <clip>
> Opinion, not fact.
> Miles was the greatest trumpet player ever (next to Louis Armstrong)--
> <clip>
Another opinion, but this one really reeks. Hell, Miles was never the best
player in any of his bands, IN MY OPINION.
> Miles was no slouch techique-wise anyway. Check out Miles Smiles, for
> one.
Correct. He actually could play when he was in the mood.
bk
Thomas F Brown
>seems that he couldn't seem to blow a solid note on the horn. He had
>much improvisational skill, and MANY creative ideas, but I can't get
>passed the fact that his tone sounded so underdeveloped...and his range
>was so limited.
Depends on which record. On some of those late 60s/early 70s records,
his chops are in real good shape.
But who cares about chops? Billie Holiday had none to speak of, and
is still without doubt one of the greatest jazz singers ever. You're
listening backwards, to the instrument instead of the music.
Thomas F Brown
Fabio Rojas <f...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>No offense is taken, Kuraigu. Miles was somewhat limited in his technical
>skill on the trumpet. If you want to hear jazz trumpeters who play
>fast, high and accurately then you may want to hear the music of
>Maynard Ferguson. There is an entire tradition of trumpeter who
>had perfect technique (or as close to perfect technique that you can get in
>an improvised music): Fats Navarro,Clark Terry, Roy Eldridge, Clifford Brown,
>Kenny Dorham, Freddie Hubbard, Dizzy Gilespie, Lee Morgan and Louis
>Armstrong. Anybody who knows anything about trumpet playing and who
>enjoys jazz will have to admit that these men were virtuosos.
>
>phrasing and sense of line in his improvisation. He was often sloppy
>so if you want to listen to accurate, fast jazz trumpet improv, I would
>recommend something like Clifford Brown.
Also listen to Bobby Hackett and Chet Baker for proof that you don't have
to play fast, high, and loud to be a great jazz musician on trumpet.
It doesn't get much better than these two guys.
Michael Fitzgerald
>and his range was so limited.
If you examine the version of "My Funny Valentine" from the 1964
concert (originally on the Lp "My Funny Valentine") you will note that
he spends quite a bit of time in the altissimo range of the instrument
- the transcription in Ian Carr's book shows a concert G above high C
(which would be trumpet A) as the uppermost tone. Apparently he could
do it when he decided to.
Another place to look would be the Metronome All-Stars date on RCA
from January 1949 where he trades with Fats Navarro and Dizzy
Gillespie - it's pretty tough to tell them apart.
Not that this establishes him as a high note screamer like Maynard or
Dizzy or a speed-freak player. Not that anyone should care.
One should also remember that trumpet high C was almost never passed
until Louis Armstrong. So assuming that the common range of the
trumpet includes the altissimo register is something of a fallacy.
Miles has a clear command of the range of the instrument as defined in
something like the Arban book. No one talks about Maurice Andre's
range as limited - and that's as it should be.
Miles had a unique concept of trumpet tone and worked hard to develop
it. If you can't get past the fact that he wasn't Clifford Brown,
that's too bad.
Mike
John Monroe
> Miles was an amazing musician, that did so much for jazz, yet to me, it
> seems that he couldn't seem to blow a solid note on the horn.
Maybe the best way to start appreciating Miles (and Jazz in general) is to
understand how it differs from classical music. The idea of "technique"
in the two styles is very different -- and there's no better example of
this difference than Miles.
The concept of "technique" as most of the posters in the thread seem to be
using it (and as most musicians use it) is based in the Western Classical
tradition. In classical music, every musician's goal is to sound *not*
like themselves, but like the "ideal" form of their instrument. "Purity"
of sound and execution are the most important things for a classical
musician -- any personal idiosyncracies, like an unusually soft attack or
a breathy tone, are technical flaws that need to be "cleaned up" in
lessons. Speaking as a classically-trained trombonist, for example, I
know that there's a particular singing, open sound and clear, bell-like
articulation we all strive for; to get it, we all hold our slides the same
way, put our mouths in the same place on the horn, touch our tongues to
the same portion of our palates, etc.
This stress on "purity" and a single dominant technical ideal explains
why, certain exceptional cases aside (Maria Callas, Glenn Gould), it's
relatively difficult to identify individual classical players from their
recordings. Can you tell the difference between the principal oboists of
the Vienna Philharmonic and the Amsterdam Concertgebouw? If you were a
well-trained classical oboist, you probably could, but otherwise...
In Jazz, the standards used to distinguish good players from bad ones are
totally different: the *individual* sound is what's most
important. In Jazz, the person with the best technique is the one who
sounds most like himself, and is most convincingly able to express his
own improvisational ideas. Kid Ory's trombone playing would give a
classically-trained trombonist the hives -- if he sat in with the Vienna
Philharmonic to play, say, the trombone solo in Mahler's Third Symphony,
the result would be a disaster. Judged by that standard, his technique is
terrible. But his Jazz technique is of the highest order. When Christian
Lindberg, probably the greatest living classical trombonist, plays Jazz,
he sounds like a competent but dull studio musican; when Kid Ory played
Jazz, it was genius.
Miles probably would have had trouble nailing "the Carnival of Venice" as
it's been nailed by Maurice Andre. He also couldn't pitch a
ninety-mile-an-hour fastball. Neither limitation makes him any
less "technically" accomplished *from a Jazz point of view.* Miles
created a sound and way of playing that projected a particular musical
personality in a very striking way. In Jazz, there is no higher
acheivement. All the classical technique in the world doesn't amount to a
hill o' beans in Jazz if it isn't used to express an individual
personality. At best, a technically perfect but anonymous player could
hope to be a studio musician -- the realm of the Titans, the Horowitzes of
Jazz, is reserved for those who sound like nobody but themselves.
Mike Fitzgerald mentioned Miles' Feb. 12, 1964 solo on "My Funny
Valentine" (available on the CD "The Complete Concert 1964). I agree that
this is a perfect example of Miles' Jazz virtuosity. His solo is full of
"fluffed" and bent notes -- totally unacceptable from a classical
perspective -- which he uses to acheive a very powerful (and totally
intentional) musical effect. It's not a question of "mistakes," but of a
purposeful, cultivated way of playing, based on the fundamental values of
*Jazz,* not classical music.
For an interesting in-depth analysis of this solo, and Miles' use of
"fluffed" notes in general, check out Robert Walser's essay in "Jazz among
the Discourses," a collection edited by Krin Gabbard. The language is a
little on the "overcooked academic" side, but the point gets through all
the same, particularly if you can read the musical examples.
John Monroe.
Michael Kelly
>I consider myself an appreciater of jazz, yet at this point in my young
>life, I have come into a dilemma.
[snip : Miles poor technique ]
This comes up so often that if it's not in the
FAQ it would be a good candidate. I've
been trying to find the FAQ for rmb on
the web and the closest I can get is
a listing of jazz gigs. Is there no
FAQ in the conventional sense
where Frequently Asked Questions
are posted? [this isn't a rhetorical
question for sarcastic effect, just
a straight inquiry]
I remember in previous threads similar to this one that
there was much discussion of the type of mouthpiece
Miles used that was more difficult to manipulate and
also a rejoinder that he excelled in the middle registers
where many of the high note virtuosos didn't do as
well, so it would be a shame if all those interesting
follow ups were lost.
I guess the short version is, where's the FAQ
if there is a conventional one for the group? :)
Would someone please post a link?
TIA
Mike
--
"I don't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member."
-- Groucho Marx
Simon Weil
<<10) Where can I find the current version of this FAQ?
It is posted to rec.music.bluenote once a month, and can also be found on my
website at http://msnyder.dragonfire.net/rmbfaq.htm
>>
Not very hard to find if you use deja.com.
Simon Weil
Check out my Wagner and the Jews book at:
http://members.aol.com/wagnerbuch/intro.htm
Tom W. Ferguson
> the realm of the Titans, the Horowitzes of
> Jazz, is reserved for those who sound like nobody but themselves.
Hands down, Clark Terry. Who nonetheless possesses and constantly
demonstrates the technical proficiency that seems to be getting a bad name
in much of this thread.
Ulf Åbjörnsson
Bobby Knight <bkn...@verio.net> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:39D75A23...@verio.net...
> jazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Another opinion, but this one really reeks. Hell, Miles was never the
best
> player in any of his bands, IN MY OPINION.
>
>
>
Maybe he was the best trumpet player in his bands? ;-))
Ulf
Raymond Hall
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100100...@minerva.cis.yale.edu...
> > seems that he couldn't seem to blow a solid note on the horn.
>
> understand how it differs from classical music. The idea of "technique"
> in the two styles is very different -- and there's no better example of
> this difference than Miles.
A truly superb post, and one I'll copy and keep. Many thanks.
Regards,
# Classical Music WebSites
# Favourite Conductors
# Doris Day, Billie Holiday
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
Ray, Sydney
void
wrote:
>
>Being a trumpet and a musician myself, I am caught between a rock and a
>hard place. I know that listening to him is essential for the fact
>that it is him, and there is so much to learn, but on the other hand it
>often wrenches my insides to hear him play.
So learn to like having your insides wrenched ...
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
void
wrote:
>
>Hands down, Clark Terry. Who nonetheless possesses and constantly
>demonstrates the technical proficiency that seems to be getting a bad name
>in much of this thread.
No one is saying technique or the pursuit of technique is a bad thing.
What's being said is that technique is not an end but a means to
artistic vision and communication or whatever you want to call the
qualities that make great jazz great.
Jeff Beer
> Miles was an amazing musician, that did so much for jazz, yet to me, it
> seems that he couldn't seem to blow a solid note on the horn. He had
> much improvisational skill, and MANY creative ideas, but I can't get
> passed the fact that his tone sounded so underdeveloped...and his range
> was so limited.
>
> Being a trumpet and a musician myself, I am caught between a rock and a
> hard place. I know that listening to him is essential for the fact
> that it is him, and there is so much to learn, but on the other hand it
> often wrenches my insides to hear him play.
>
> Are there any people out there with the same opinion, or perhaps ones
> that are avid lovers of Miles that could tell me some albums that would
> change my mind about him.
Miles chops weren't always the same. I would not consider him a virtuoso in
the 50s but would from the period starting with Sketches of Spain and ending
in the mid 70s, with the caveat that sometimes his chops were temporarily
down,
such as Plugged Nickel. His short-term endurance maybe was not happening all
the time, but on the other hand, it is hard to argue with Jack Johnson.
When he was at his finest, he was a great virtuoso, and what he was playing
was also technically challenging.
It is often said that Miles sounded good not because he was a great player
technically, but that he was a very expressive musician. The latter of
course is true, but I consider the statement to be a fallacy. If what Miles
was playing was easy to play, after Miles had done it (since he was the one
who "composed" it in addition to performing it) it should be easy for people
to copy. But how many people copy it and get all the elements of it that
makes it beautiful?
Perhaps I can illustrate this with a different example which should be
easily understood by anyone who plays trumpet. I have been going to the
Chicago symphony orchestra about ten or 15 times a year for the last six
years or so and so I have a lot of experience with how they play. Their
principal is considered to be one of the best, yet I hear him clam in big
time ways on solo parts all of the time. I remember one particular case in
which they were doing a Beethoven overture in which the trumpet was
off-stage. The part was like a simple fanfare, almost like an exercise at
the beginning of the Schlossberg book. Very easy to play if you are just
playing the notes, but the trumpet player, had a big clam on one note.
How could he clam on such easy notes to play? I would contend that it is
more than the notes you have to play. Each attack has to be consistent and
with the right amount of strength, and the tone has to have the right sound
in terms of vibrato and release. This must be done to have the right style
for Beethoven. Once you start factoring these in, then that becomes a
difficult passage to play. Indeed perhaps the reason why it seemed to be a
clam was not so much that he missed the note, but because he missed making
the attack consistent, and so it stood out like a sore thumb.
Go listen to a simple slow blues such as One for Daddy'O on the Cannonball
side. Listen to all the different attacks, half valves, accents and
releases. There is quite a lot of things to play and Miles is very
consistent at getting what he wants and making each one right. There is a
name for this: Great Technique. I also find that when I compare Miles'
performance on these matters to those who are considered to by pyrotechnical
(Woody Shaw and Arturo), Miles is makes the attacks more consistent, and if
the attack itself is not consistent, it is executing some dynamical
conception that never entered their mind. Now of course, Clifford was one
who seemingly had 100 different attacks that he would use musically.
I also recommend the Live At Filmore recordings. First of all, he is
hitting lots of solid notes above high C all the way through so his pitch
range is very good. But not only pitch range, his tonal range is
considerable too. He has a strong open tone when playing the loud passages,
but in the quieter sections, he can get some of breathy sounds or colored
velvety sounds. And he was very consistent at making this tonal color
range throughout the 4 sets. I would call this period as well some of the
stuff with the band of Wayne, Chick, Dave, and Jack a great display of
extended technique.
Jeff
Tom Walls
>
>
>Miles chops weren't always the same. I would not consider him a virtuoso in
>the 50s but would from the period starting with Sketches of Spain and ending
>in the mid 70s, with the caveat that sometimes his chops were temporarily
>down,
>such as Plugged Nickel.
snip
IMHO some of his worst and best playing was with Bird.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
Joerg Walther
> When Christian
> Lindberg, probably the greatest living classical trombonist, plays Jazz,
> he sounds like a competent but dull studio musican;
Hi, fellow trombonist. :-) (You must be one, you know so much about the
instrument!) When (on which record) did Christian Lindberg (whom I had
the pleasure to experience live twice some years ago) play Jazz?
- jw -
--
And now for something completely different...
Ulf Åbjörnsson
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:8raiop...@ID-1524.user.cis.dfn.de...
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 14:21:36 -0400, John Monroe wrote:
>
> > When Christian
> > Lindberg, probably the greatest living classical trombonist, plays Jazz,
> > he sounds like a competent but dull studio musican;
>
> Hi, fellow trombonist. :-) (You must be one, you know so much about the
> instrument!) When (on which record) did Christian Lindberg (whom I had
> the pleasure to experience live twice some years ago) play Jazz?
>
> - jw -
>
movement in Stockholm. He might have recorded during that period.
Most of the stuff that amazes the classical audience is quite common among
jazz bonists.
Ulf in Svedala
Todd Bishop
>I consider myself an appreciater of jazz, yet at this point in my young
>life, I have come into a dilemma.
>
>Miles was an amazing musician, that did so much for jazz, yet to me, it
>seems that he couldn't seem to blow a solid note on the horn. He had
>much improvisational skill, and MANY creative ideas, but I can't get
>passed the fact that his tone sounded so underdeveloped...and his range
>was so limited.
>
>Being a trumpet and a musician myself, I am caught between a rock and a
>hard place. I know that listening to him is essential for the fact
>that it is him, and there is so much to learn, but on the other hand it
>often wrenches my insides to hear him play.
>
>Are there any people out there with the same opinion, or perhaps ones
>that are avid lovers of Miles that could tell me some albums that would
>change my mind about him.
>
>Please take no offense to my opinion.
>
This is kind of like saying "Monk is great and all, but I can't stand
all the wrong notes he plays" or "I like Picasso, but some of his
stuff looks like something my 5 year old kid could have done." It is
precisely what you dislike about Miles' playing that makes his playing
one of the greatest things in 20th century music.
Keep listening...
tb
Todd Bishop
http://www.originarts.com/flatland
Steve Emerson
>
[Excellently articulated statement about the technique idea in classical
music vs. jazz]
Another textbook case of what you describe, in addition to Miles and
perhaps more so, is of course Monk. Who was accused of playing
incorrectly, having poor fingering (just take a look at his hands...),
and everything imaginable along those lines. All of it utterly beside
the point, as the music is so much more interesting than the work of all
but a small handful of those who possess the "technique."
Armstrong and Dizzy with their cheeks blown out "play wrong" as well.
SE.
Ulf Åbjörnsson
Steve Emerson skrev ...
> Armstrong and Dizzy with their cheeks blown out "play wrong" as well.
> SE.
I have never seen Louis with his cheeks blown out. On the other hand you
might discuss his positioning of the mouthpiece on his lips.
Ulf in Svedala
kur...@my-deja.com
:)
~Kuraigu
kur...@my-deja.com
misinterpreted.
I did not say I began to dislike him because he wasn't a 'screamer' or
a fast player. In fact, whomever commented on CHET BAKER, was right,
Chet was an amazing player.
As for Thelonius, he was great in MANY respects, and alas, I do love
his music.
I suppose I was just listening a LITTLE too hard. I have lately been
analyzing trumpet PLAYING as part of my studies and I seem to have
become too involved. I will MOST definately take a listen to some of
the recordings listed here.
Thanks alot EVERYONE,
you've turned me from a 'not so liker' of Miles, to an 'appreciator' of
him.
~Kuraigu-Chan
::::Live forever, Play forever::::
jazz...@my-deja.com
I'm from The Netherlands and also love to play the jazz-trumpet and
like Miles Davis a lot!!
But there are several other jazz-legends on trumpet, like for instance;
Chet Baker, Lee Morgan, Clifford Brown and "youngsters" like; Roy
Hargrove, Wallace Roney, Nicholas Payton, Wynton Marsalis, it's a very
long list....!
My jazz-hero is Chet Baker, he plays the trumpet with al his heart and
special feelings, that's why his trumpet-sound is so very nice & easy!
I'm still learning to play the jazz-trumpet, because someday I hope I
can play something from Chet!
I have enough suggestions for you about cd's and jazz-trumpet players,
but I would like to invite you to my website; Jazz World & Chet Baker",
because than you will find information about (my passion for) the jazz-
trumpet, a special link to my jazz-trumpet on CD-index (also Mseveral
cd's of Miles Davis) and photo-gallery of great trumpet-players etc.
Nice, if you pay a visit and give your notice about jazz (or Miles
Davis) in my guestbook!
address: http://members.home.nl/jazz-wereld/
Enjoy playing the jazz-trumpet!
René Leemans.
In article <8r60s8$mbp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
kur...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I consider myself an appreciater of jazz, yet at this point in my
young
> life, I have come into a dilemma.
>
> Miles was an amazing musician, that did so much for jazz, yet to me,
it
> seems that he couldn't seem to blow a solid note on the horn. He had
> much improvisational skill, and MANY creative ideas, but I can't get
> passed the fact that his tone sounded so underdeveloped...and his
range
> was so limited.
>
> Being a trumpet and a musician myself, I am caught between a rock and
a
> hard place. I know that listening to him is essential for the fact
> that it is him, and there is so much to learn, but on the other hand
it
> often wrenches my insides to hear him play.
>
> Are there any people out there with the same opinion, or perhaps ones
> that are avid lovers of Miles that could tell me some albums that
would
> change my mind about him.
>
> Please take no offense to my opinion.
>
> ~kuraigu-chan
> ::::life forever, play forever::::
Top_Catt
> On Sun, 01 Oct 2000 00:35:19 GMT, kur...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >I consider myself an appreciater of jazz, yet at this point in my
young
> >life, I have come into a dilemma.
> >
> >Miles was an amazing musician, that did so much for jazz, yet to me,
it
> >seems that he couldn't seem to blow a solid note on the horn. He had
> >much improvisational skill, and MANY creative ideas, but I can't get
> >passed the fact that his tone sounded so underdeveloped...and his
range
> >was so limited.
> >
> >Being a trumpet and a musician myself, I am caught between a rock
and a
> >hard place. I know that listening to him is essential for the fact
> >that it is him, and there is so much to learn, but on the other hand
it
> >often wrenches my insides to hear him play.
> >
> >Are there any people out there with the same opinion, or perhaps ones
> >that are avid lovers of Miles that could tell me some albums that
would
> >change my mind about him.
> >
> >Please take no offense to my opinion.
> >
>
point raised here, for me, has been the difference between "pure"
classical trumpet technique and jazz technique. I'm surprised that no
one has brought up Rex Stewart, Red Allen, or Lester Bowie. They all
played with all sorts of smears, growls, and half-valve effects, but
IMHO they're three of the greatest on the instrument (It really saddens
me that I'm never going to see Lester again). Jazz is the confluence of
African-American modes of expression (I'm thinking mainly of the vocal
effects employed in the blues), and European instruments and technique,
right? Perhaps I'm oversimplifying... but when you listen to Allen, or
Armstrong, singing and then playing, you soon realize that there's a
close sonic correspondence between their voices and their horn
techniques-- they're indivisible, really, in terms of what's being
expressed. So if Miles-- or anyone else in the tradition-- strays from
conservatory methods (and Mlies did have a conservatory background,
which I think is relevant here), they're generally doing it on purpose.
T.C.
peteG
is still without doubt one of the greatest jazz singers ever. You're
listening backwards, to the instrument instead of the music."
Arrggghhh! damn! I was going to use the billie holiday example--and you
went and used it first. anyhow, to me, billie was THE singer. and at the end
of her life she had NO voice left. when i first heard her on the radio
singing
The End Of A Love Affair ("Lady In Satin") i thought it was louis
armstrong! for those obsessed with purity of technique, stay away
from billie or you might hang yourself.
but i think the original poster's concerns about miles' technical
limitations
are entirely reasonable. it's a valid observation. my only advice woud be to
keep listening and remember that with somebody like miles, what
you're hearing is his "voice"--just like when you pick up the phone and it's
an old friend from ten or twenty years ago; you don't have to ask "who's
this?"
-------------------------------
Thomas F Brown <tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> wrote in message
news:8r7lpi$295qo3$1...@news.jhu.edu...
> In article <8r60s8$mbp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <kur...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >Miles was an amazing musician, that did so much for jazz, yet to me, it
> >seems that he couldn't seem to blow a solid note on the horn. He had
> >much improvisational skill, and MANY creative ideas, but I can't get
> >passed the fact that his tone sounded so underdeveloped...and his range
> >was so limited.
>
Luke Kaven
listeners. Although I'm not a relativist, I'm unable to see any single set
of criteria for performance that applies in just the same way to different
artists. But how can the critics ground their judgments without such
criteria? To say that Miles Davis' tone was "underdeveloped" implies that
there are criteria for being "developed". This is not to say that there are
no norms in the matter. To be a member of a certain musical community (many
actually) one is expected to be able to play several notes within a
reasonable approximation of conventional pitch norms, or risk being rejected
from the community. But it does not follow from there that being able to
play more notes, higher notes, and having pitch that is more accurate to the
norm makes one a better musician. Try to imagine such standards for
painting. What would it be -- straight lines? Photorealism? Accuracy in
reproducing spectral patterns? Nevertheless, we are inclined to feel that
advancement and sophistication are to be valued. But they are not valued in
and of themselves. They are valued in the context of aesthetic value.
But aesthetic experience requires participation by the consumer (in this
case, the listener). The listener is actively engaged, and reflecting. The
difficulty comes in the problem of how one reconciles differences. At one
level, there is a matter of "getting it", in the same sense that one grasps
the meaning of a joke. One may not think the joke is funny even after one
grasps the meaning. But one should at least undertake to grasp the joke
before one concludes that the joke is not funny.
I labour all this because the issue of Mile Davis' instrumental ability
seems to come up repeatedly. I wonder what kind of ideal is being used in
comparison here. At times, I think that people still aspire to a
machine-like perfection in music, even as they would deny that
perfectly-even eighth notes carry any interesting expressive character.
Several musicians I know spend 8-10 hours practicing every day. Yet in the
years that I have known them, I have seen little growth in their musical
ideas. [They are already famous, so its not a matter of "breaking in".]
And I think...what do these people have to talk about when their solo comes
around but their days in the practice room? A poet does not become a poet
by spending each day memorizing dictionary and thesaurus entries. At some
point, you have a live a life outside of the practice room, and sacrifice
the athletic gains in exchange for poetic value. Miles exemplified poetic
expression and had exactly the means to do it.
And I hope to god I never hear "he plays like Miles, only with chops" again.
Luke
Fabio Rojas <f...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:8r6dng$q2v$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> In article <8r60s8$mbp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <kur...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >Miles was an amazing musician, that did so much for jazz, yet to me, it
> >seems that he couldn't seem to blow a solid note on the horn. He had
> >much improvisational skill, and MANY creative ideas, but I can't get
> >passed the fact that his tone sounded so underdeveloped...and his range
> >was so limited.
> >
>
> No offense is taken, Kuraigu. Miles was somewhat limited in his technical
> skill on the trumpet. If you want to hear jazz trumpeters who play
> fast, high and accurately then you may want to hear the music of
> Maynard Ferguson. There is an entire tradition of trumpeter who
> had perfect technique (or as close to perfect technique that you can get
in
> an improvised music): Fats Navarro,Clark Terry, Roy Eldridge, Clifford
Brown,
> Kenny Dorham, Freddie Hubbard, Dizzy Gilespie, Lee Morgan and Louis
> Armstrong. Anybody who knows anything about trumpet playing and who
> enjoys jazz will have to admit that these men were virtuosos.
>
> What about Miles? His limitations are easy to list: limited range,
> cracked notes, "wrong" notes, etc. But he wasn't that bad. He went
> to Juliard and on his best recordings, he was perfectly musical: clear,
> almost perfect phrasing, and logical melodic improvisations. I'd prefer
> to listen to his solo on "So What" more than almost any classical
> trumpet concerto. It has some cracked notes but the melody, phrasing
> and timing of his improvisation is perfect. I have the solo memorized
> on trumpet and you should learn it.
>
> The thing that you should take away from Miles' playing is his
> phrasing and sense of line in his improvisation. He was often sloppy
> so if you want to listen to accurate, fast jazz trumpet improv, I would
> recommend something like Clifford Brown.
>
> But Miles still is one of the most important trumpet players.
>
> Listen to the following solos and e-mail me:
>
> - Bags Groove, title track
> - So What, from "Kind of Blue"
> - Star Eyes, from "Yardbird Suite, The ultimate Charlie Parker
compilation"
> - Seven Steps to Heaven, title track
> - Dear Old Stockholm, from "Miles Davis volume 1" on Blue Note
> - Footsteps, from "Miles Smiles"
>
> These are some of the most well known solos and they exhibit his
> melodic sense.
>
> -fabio
Tom W. Ferguson
> level, there is a matter of "getting it", in the same sense that one grasps
> the meaning of a joke. One may not think the joke is funny even after one
> grasps the meaning. But one should at least undertake to grasp the joke
> before one concludes that the joke is not funny.
Is the assumption that anyone here who concludes or even suspects the joke
is not funny -- or even wonders whether the joke is not funny, or has some
unfunny lines in it -- has not undertaken to grasp the joke?
> I labour all this because the issue of Mile Davis' instrumental ability
> seems to come up repeatedly.
A good portion of the musings that offend you assume that these are
*choices* by Miles, not a lack of "athletic" talent.
> I wonder what kind of ideal is being used in
> comparison here. At times, I think that people still aspire to a
> machine-like perfection in music, even as they would deny that
> perfectly-even eighth notes carry any interesting expressive character.
And I wonder why -- and I just happen to be checking in in response to your
post; could have done so at several other points in this thread -- it is
assumed that anyone who responds negatively to at least some subjective
facets of Miles's sound is assumed to be someone who demands mechanical
perfection or, lord help us, symphonic sameness in sound. I loved some of
the Ray Charles big bands at their best. Why? Because of their ragged edge.
I love Clark Terry's sound. Why? Because it is so utterly unique even while
musical that sometimes I swore the flugelhorn fad was an effort to sound
like Clark Terry. As a kid, one of the things that most drew me to jazz was
that in the space of a few notes one could recognize Ben Webster, Stan Getz
or Lester Young, and that even on an ox of a horn like a baritone Harry
Carney and Gerry Mulligan sounded as different as cowbells and doorbells.
Sound is such an important part of jazz, in fact, that there is all kinda
room for esthetic differences of opinion about it. That applies to Miles
Davis's sound as much as it applies to anyone else's, and in any case has
nothing to do with his composing, concepts, and achievements as a leader.
Besides, with Miles, you get the option of liking his sound in one era and
disliking it in another.
> Several musicians I know spend 8-10 hours practicing every day. Yet in the
> years that I have known them, I have seen little growth in their musical
> ideas. [They are already famous, so its not a matter of "breaking in".]
> And I think...what do these people have to talk about when their solo comes
> around but their days in the practice room?
And how many creative, innovative players lived in the woodshed like the
musician friends you cite? Lots. And lots more.
Ali Berkok
misinterpreted what he said and decided to attack him for the sake of it.
Specifically when you understood his post as implying that those who are not into
Miles' technique wish a mechanical perfection.
What I most disagreed with in your reply was when you said that most great
players lived their lives in the woodshed. From what I know, this is untrue.
The media has this preoccupation with separating "geniuses" from the rest of us.
This is because most people don't want to admit to themselves that they are lazy
(and, by the way, capable of being as great a musician as anyone). So, the media
creates myths like that of Oscar Peterson's father beating him if he didn't
practice 14 hours a day; or Bird's woodshed story. These may be based upon fact,
but fact is not what the media and folks such as you are interested in
conveying. Miles certainly did not spend 10 hours a day practicing and neither
did other greats such as Billy Strayhorn. The fact is that everybody is
different and one "genius" (hate that word) might spend 2 hours a day in the shed
and one might spend 10.
Besides, Mr. Kaven did not say that ALL musicians who spend 8-10 hours a day
in the shed sound boring, just, and I quote: "several" that he knows.
-Ali
"Tom W. Ferguson" wrote:
> Is the assumption that anyone here who concludes or even suspects the joke
> is not funny -- or even wonders whether the joke is not funny, or has some
> unfunny lines in it -- has not undertaken to grasp the joke?
>
> A good portion of the musings that offend you assume that these are
> *choices* by Miles, not a lack of "athletic" talent.
>
> And I wonder why -- and I just happen to be checking in in response to your
> post; could have done so at several other points in this thread -- it is
> assumed that anyone who responds negatively to at least some subjective
> facets of Miles's sound is assumed to be someone who demands mechanical
> perfection or, lord help us, symphonic sameness in sound. I loved some of
> the Ray Charles big bands at their best. Why? Because of their ragged edge.
> I love Clark Terry's sound. Why? Because it is so utterly unique even while
> musical that sometimes I swore the flugelhorn fad was an effort to sound
> like Clark Terry. As a kid, one of the things that most drew me to jazz was
> that in the space of a few notes one could recognize Ben Webster, Stan Getz
> or Lester Young, and that even on an ox of a horn like a baritone Harry
> Carney and Gerry Mulligan sounded as different as cowbells and doorbells.
> Sound is such an important part of jazz, in fact, that there is all kinda
> room for esthetic differences of opinion about it. That applies to Miles
> Davis's sound as much as it applies to anyone else's, and in any case has
> nothing to do with his composing, concepts, and achievements as a leader.
> Besides, with Miles, you get the option of liking his sound in one era and
> disliking it in another.
>
Thomas F Brown
>John Monroe wrote:
>>
>[Excellently articulated statement about the technique idea in classical
>music vs. jazz]
>
>Another textbook case of what you describe, in addition to Miles and
>perhaps more so, is of course Monk. Who was accused of playing
>incorrectly, having poor fingering (just take a look at his hands...),
>and everything imaginable along those lines. All of it utterly beside
>the point
For pianists, my favorite comparison in this debate is between
Al Haig and Bud Powell. They both played more or less the same
style during the same era, and there's little doubt that Haig
had the superior technique by far. There's also little doubt
that Powell was the much more interesting musician.
Michael Kelly
>Thanks alot EVERYONE,
>you've turned me from a 'not so liker' of Miles, to an 'appreciator' of
>him.
Well, one thing nice about appreciating Miles... if you get
bored with one style you can switch to a choice of 5 or 6
others and let your favorite style "rest" for a bit. :)
"I wonder if she actually had an orgasm in the
two years we were married, or did she fake it
that night?"
- Woody Allen (Play It Again Sam)
John Hood
Michael Kelly <mkel...@NOSPAMgate.net> wrote in article
>
> Well, one thing nice about appreciating Miles... if you get
> bored with one style you can switch to a choice of 5 or 6
> others and let your favorite style "rest" for a bit. :)
>
I can't believe how true that is.
Just listening to the Coltrane/Miles box after gorging myself on the 1971
band for the past few weeks.
jh
Lincoln
trumpet players criticize Miles' tone or technique. It's the sign that
you are in a place where your musical values are out of balance.
Music is not about perfection. (btw, if you want to hear miles play
some blistering fast runs executed like clifford brown, they are out
there, I have some recordings of them, but I won't give examples. Go
find them yourself.)
He probably had the most identifiable sound and approach of any horn
player, and maybe any musician. One note, and you know who it is. Do
you understand how difficult it is to acheave that?
There is hardly a better ballad in the history of Jazz. I could go on.
Don't be fooled that Miles was a great leader, but a mediocre player.
He possessed skills that other musicians envied.
You need to move past your focus on "proper" technique. There is no
such thing. Some of the best players didn't have "perfect" technique.
It's about picking up your horn and being able to "move" someone, to
express yourself, put what's in your heart right out there and leave
the listener speechless.
I've heard other trumpet players say, "I don't see what's so great
about Miles Davis." The response to that is simple, it's not that
Davis isn't great, but like that man said, he just doesn't see it.
Lincoln
>I consider myself an appreciater of jazz, yet at this point in my young
>life, I have come into a dilemma.
>
>Miles was an amazing musician, that did so much for jazz, yet to me, it
>seems that he couldn't seem to blow a solid note on the horn. He had
>much improvisational skill, and MANY creative ideas, but I can't get
>passed the fact that his tone sounded so underdeveloped...and his range
>was so limited.
>
>Being a trumpet and a musician myself, I am caught between a rock and a
>hard place. I know that listening to him is essential for the fact
>that it is him, and there is so much to learn, but on the other hand it
>often wrenches my insides to hear him play.
>
>Are there any people out there with the same opinion, or perhaps ones
>that are avid lovers of Miles that could tell me some albums that would
>change my mind about him.
>
>Please take no offense to my opinion.
>
>~kuraigu-chan
>::::life forever, play forever::::
>
>
Rmidn...@webtv.net
the effect that he just didn't hear the music way up there. I know he
could hit the high notes, but when improvising, the notes that came to
him that he put out through his horn, simply were not high. PB
Tom Walls
Rmidn...@webtv.net says...
IMHO the "defenders of Miles" on this thread are getting carried away.
Certainly Miles' every clam (and there were a million of 'em) wasn't due to
either an intentional attemp to extend the harmony or an example of his highly
individual tone. Surely noone would attribute Miles' status in jazz to his
technique. Is it a stretch then to understand someone who especially enjoys
fine trumpet technique and finds Miles lacking in that regard?
What's the sound of one mind opening?
WWise72606
the effect that he just didn't hear the music way up there. I know he
could hit the high notes, but when improvising, the notes that came to
him that he put out through his horn, simply were not high. PB
>>
I heard Miles many times live,his command of his horn was spectacular.
Growing up in Philly, in the fifties, as a young trumpet student ,I did not
think Miles or Bird was that great.
As i learned more about the music I fell in love with Miles.
His music will be here long after MF is but a vague memory.
Wilmer
jazz...@my-deja.com
tw...@REMOVEcornell.edu wrote:
Is it a stretch then to understand someone who especially enjoys
> fine trumpet technique and finds Miles lacking in that regard?
I would call a lack of appreciation for Miles' playing due to his
percieved lack of "proper" technique as... failing to see the forrest
for the trees.
Mark
http://jazztrpt.freeservers.com
void
>
>I've heard other trumpet players say, "I don't see what's so great
>about Miles Davis."
They should try hearing it instead.
H. Loess
>IMHO the "defenders of Miles" on this thread are getting carried away.
>Certainly Miles' every clam (and there were a million of 'em) wasn't due to
>either an intentional attemp to extend the harmony or an example of his highly
>individual tone. Surely noone would attribute Miles' status in jazz to his
>technique.
To what would you attribute it, then?
--
Henry L.
hlo...@pipeline.com
Fabio Rojas
>>individual tone. Surely noone would attribute Miles' status in jazz to his
>>technique.
>To what would you attribute it, then?
>Henry L.
>hlo...@pipeline.com
Time for some clarifications:
Definition 1: Technique = high notes, not cracking notes, extreme speed.
Definition 2: Technique = musicial expression.
The chap who started the thread claimed the following:
A) Miles occasionaly has bad technique (type 1) --> I don't like it.
or
A') Miles had bad technique (type 1) --> disrupts technique (type 2)
The follow up posters usually claimed:
B) Miles had technique (types 2).
Some even claimed:
C) Miles could have technique (type 1) when he felt like it.
A few others claimed that:
D) Technique (type 1) is independent of technique (type 2).
It seems that claim A and A' is purely subjective. There is no doubt that
Miles occasionally flubbed notes. Sometimes, quite badly. For some, this
is enough to turn them off and that is a subjective judgement.
B is also a subjective statement and will do nothing to persuade
people who subscribe to A or A'. At best, it's just like saying "Don't
Like vanilla? C'mon, give it another chance!!"
C I think is well supported and factual. Most Miles enthusiats can easily
cite examples where Miles played high, fast and with accuracy.
D is genuinely controversial to reasonable people. If we list the
jazz greats, then we see there is *some* correlation between technique
of types 1 and 2. Clifford Brown was clearly a trumpet virtuoso.
So was Louis Armstrong. What about Chet baker or Miles? They had
a lot of mastery of the instrument, but not completely. What about
modern players like Bill Dixon who clearly know a lot about trumpet
playing but choose to work on all sorts of odd techniques?
People point to Monk, but he certainly could play all sorts of odd
and fast figures. Miles was accepted to Juliard - is that not evidence
that when he wanted to, he could play? But how much technique?
On the other hand, can we name a single giant of jazz who didn't practice
his ass off? I doubt it. Even free/avant garde players seem to be masters
at playing traditional jazz at a professional level.
So it seems that most of the head butting is over the validity
of statement A, which is subjective.
-fabio
kur...@my-deja.com
That is my point that no one else sees.
-Kuraigu
Tom Walls
Personally, I would cite his phrasing and tone as his outstanding
characteristics, but he was undeniably a terrific leader and was incredibly
imaginative. And you?
Luke Kaven
I guess its just after hearing this same conversation for twenty-five years,
I've found the whole issue to be unremarkable. And worse, it tends to
perpetuate a certain historical perspective on Miles as
a-beautiful-trumpet-player-who-didn't-have-the-greatest-chops. This turned
into people bringing up Wynton Marsalis and Wallace Roney as players "who
could play just like Miles -- only with chops", which is equally jejeune.
It comes about because listening to jazz is like a sporting pastime for a
lot of people, and invariably, this seems to lead to discussions of how the
players are "measuring up". The same conversation also seems to occur with
Monk substituted for Miles. My objection is that such conversations compete
for domination of people's attentions as much as the music itself at times.
In consideration of the fact that it takes a lifetime to get to the bottom
of Monk's music, and that his music is largely misunderstood to date, you'd
think one's time would be better spent in the pursuit of something more
meaningful. All this being said, I do understand that individuals respond
differently to variations in timing, pitch, etc. I know a musician who is
extremely irritated by slight departures from a rhythm, and he cannot help
feeling this way. It makes it hard for him to listen to Kenny Dorham, for
example, who phrases all around the beat, even though he understands what
KD's bag is, and knows not to hold it against him.
Luke
H. Loess <hlo...@pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:39dbd957...@news.pipeline.com...
Tom Walls
>
>In article <8rfupb$jpb$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>,
> tw...@REMOVEcornell.edu wrote:
>
>Is it a stretch then to understand someone who especially enjoys
>> fine trumpet technique and finds Miles lacking in that regard?
>
>
>
>I would call a lack of appreciation for Miles' playing due to his
>percieved lack of "proper" technique as... failing to see the forrest
>for the trees.
>
>
>Mark
>http://jazztrpt.freeservers.com
Well, maybe... but get this: someone posts on the newsgroup that in his
exposure to Miles Davis he's heard alot of clams and examples of poor
technique and he's having trouble reconciling this with Miles' exalted
reputation. He begs the readers' forbearance and requests input from others
to enlighten him. The guy obviously feels he must be missing something --
what's the point in hectoring him regarding his lack of insight? It's just
bad manners.
Tom Walls
says...
>
>Tom,
>
>I guess its just after hearing this same conversation for twenty-five years,
>I've found the whole issue to be unremarkable. And worse, it tends to
>perpetuate a certain historical perspective on Miles as
>a-beautiful-trumpet-player-who-didn't-have-the-greatest-chops. This turned
>into people bringing up Wynton Marsalis and Wallace Roney as players "who
>could play just like Miles -- only with chops", which is equally jejeune.
>It comes about because listening to jazz is like a sporting pastime for a
>lot of people, and invariably, this seems to lead to discussions of how the
>players are "measuring up". The same conversation also seems to occur with
>Monk substituted for Miles. My objection is that such conversations compete
>for domination of people's attentions as much as the music itself at times.
>In consideration of the fact that it takes a lifetime to get to the bottom
>of Monk's music, and that his music is largely misunderstood to date, you'd
>think one's time would be better spent in the pursuit of something more
>meaningful. All this being said, I do understand that individuals respond
>differently to variations in timing, pitch, etc. I know a musician who is
>extremely irritated by slight departures from a rhythm, and he cannot help
>feeling this way. It makes it hard for him to listen to Kenny Dorham, for
>example, who phrases all around the beat, even though he understands what
>KD's bag is, and knows not to hold it against him.
>
>Luke
>
I see where you're coming from -- I often get my ass in the air when someone
is criticized whom I regard as "above criticism" -- but this is a place where
people come to discuss jazz: if not here -- where? So anyway, that's why I'm
shooting my mouth off.
By the way, Luke, I appreciate your use of the word "jejeune".
Jeff Beer
"Tom Walls" <tw...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:8rhuun$jdl$1...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> Personally, I would cite his phrasing and tone as his outstanding
> characteristics, but he was undeniably a terrific leader and was
incredibly
> imaginative. And you?
>
Yes, and phrasing and tone require good technique. As far as trumpet playing
is concerned, good tone is good technique as a starter. Good tone is not
just
pushing a key down on a Bosendorfer and lifting it up.
With good phrasing, you have to dig deeper. Of course you start with
good imagination, which you can say is not the same as good technique.
But what goes into good phrasing? Some of the things are timing, dynamics,
and articulation. The Beethoven vs. Schlossberg example I demonstrated
in an earlier post is real. Let us say Miles makes a beautiful phrase by
playing a
staccato note followed by a legato note with a squeezed tone followed by an
accented note with an open tone. (This variety of dyanmics is the type of
thing
you find in the Daddy-o solo I had refered to.) That is more difficult to
execute
than just the notes alone without the dynamics. To get it right so it
expresses
that imaginative phrasing requires accuracy in the amount of staccato,
the amount of attack, and the amount of accent. If the right amount
wasn't executed, the expression would have been lost.
I think what many people are saying is often they had been confronted by a
passage
from Miles which they originally thought to be a mistake only to later on
hear it
as a brilliant musical device. His first high note on So What on Miles Four
and More
is an example. He rips into a high note that is not a clear tone for
trumpet, it has
some dirt in it. Since it is not the standard technique for the trumpet, at
first you think
it is a clinker. But after you start to hear the excitement that the grit
adds and how
its shape snuggly fits into the swinging patterns the rhythm section is
playing, you
then conclude it to be a very accurately executed passage. Then when you
hear
Miles do that kind of thing consistently you must conclude he had great
technique.
It was often said that Miles could spit in his horn and get five stars in
Downbeat. Of course, did
Michael Jordan ever travel in the NBA and it not get called?
Jeff
Walter Davis
Mostly sound stuff.
>
>
> D) Technique (type 1) is independent of technique (type 2).
>
>
> D is genuinely controversial to reasonable people. If we list the
> jazz greats, then we see there is *some* correlation between technique
> of types 1 and 2.
I hate to get technical (OK, I don't), but we don't see
correlation in the way you presented your argument. If
there is no variation (i.e. if all jazz greats have good
technique 1) then there is no correlation. Not that
what you say doesn't make common sense (it does), but
the _logic_ of your argument is the same as the logic of
the argument that since a very high percentage of the
jazz greats are men, there must be something about being
male that makes one a better jazz player. Not that it
would be hard to clean up your logic and show *some*
correlation -- i.e. I think it's safe to say that the
percentage of people with poor technique in the general
population is greater than the percentage of people with
poor technique who are jazz greats.
Rather than correlation, I think a more appropriate way
to look at this is "is a certain level of technique 1 a
necessary condition for technique 2?" (safe to assume we
all agree that it is not necessary and sufficient?)
Even this is hard to prove, since it requires (1)
defining the minimal necessary condition and (2)
establishing that there is no player with lousy
technique 1 but good technique 2. Well, that's a bit
absolutist for the 21st century. And obviously your
list of jazz greats "establishes" that the vast majority
of folks with great technique 2 have at least good
technique 1. But then there's the question of which
comes first, technique 1 or technique 2?
There are other problems. Most important, what do we
mean by "technique 1"? Who sets the standards? Derek
Bailey, to my knowledge and I believe by his own
admission, doesn't know how to play guitar "properly."
Yet I'd consider him to have lots of technique 2. Or
Bob Dylan's vocals. Maybe even Billie Holiday's vocals.
Anyway, most of that is angels on the head of a pin and
exceptions that prove the rule. But I think the
original poster was saying that (in the music that
poster has heard) Miles does not meet the minimal
standards for technique 1 that are necessary to achieve
technique 2. Most of the responses are arguing that
Miles' technique 2 is beyond doubt, therefore he must
have had whatever level of technique 1 is required. Or,
if he didn't, it invalidates the necessary condition.
Which brings us back to the point D.
Anyway, what I think most of the technique 1 is
independent of technique 2 folks are really saying is
that all that _matters_ is technique 2. If a musician's
got technique 2 (or I would argue if you hear technique
2 in the musicians music, since I consider
expressiveness, etc. to be subjective), who cares if
they've got technique 1? Technique 1 is essentially
about credentials, technique 2 is about results. If I'm
looking for a good meal, I might pick a restaurant with
a properly trained chef (credentials); but if I've just
had a great meal, I don't care if the cook was properly
trained or not; conversely, if I've just had a lousy
meal, I don't care if the cook was properly trained or
not. And since there's no danger of food poisoning in
listening to jazz, why not judge musicians primarily by
technique 2. (which is of course what usually happens).
Now, from a student's perspective, obviously I'd never
recommend that they ignore technique 1 in their attempts
to learn technique 2, but that's a somewhat different
question. And one might argue that anyone who wants to
be a jazz trumpeter but can't get past Miles' technique
to hear his music may have nearly as tough a time as
someone who wants to be a jazz trumpeter but has lousy
technique (type 1 of course). :-)
Fabio Rojas
>Fabio Rojas wrote:
>I hate to get technical (OK, I don't), but we don't see
>correlation in the way you presented your argument. If
>there is no variation (i.e. if all jazz greats have good
>technique 1) then there is no correlation. Not that
I think I need to be more clear. I meant to write something
like "among jazz musicians, there seems to be a correlation
between what is considered great and technique in the traditional
sense."
>what you say doesn't make common sense (it does), but
>the _logic_ of your argument is the same as the logic of
>the argument that since a very high percentage of the
>jazz greats are men, there must be something about being
>male that makes one a better jazz player. Not that it
>would be hard to clean up your logic and show *some*
>correlation -- i.e. I think it's safe to say that the
>percentage of people with poor technique in the general
>population is greater than the percentage of people with
>poor technique who are jazz greats.
Basically, the correlation is enough to disprove that "traditional
technique" and "musicality" (technique 1 vs 2) are not linked at all.
It is not enough to prove that one causes the other, as you pointed
out.
>
>Rather than correlation, I think a more appropriate way
>to look at this is "is a certain level of technique 1 a
>necessary condition for technique 2?" (safe to assume we
>all agree that it is not necessary and sufficient?)
I could buy this.
>Even this is hard to prove, since it requires (1)
>defining the minimal necessary condition and (2)
>establishing that there is no player with lousy
>technique 1 but good technique 2. Well, that's a bit
>absolutist for the 21st century. And obviously your
>list of jazz greats "establishes" that the vast majority
>of folks with great technique 2 have at least good
>technique 1. But then there's the question of which
>comes first, technique 1 or technique 2?
Well, we can set an arbitrary standard. As a trumpet player, classical
techniques involves playing well from the Gb below middle C to
the C above the staff ("high C"). In a medium tempo, a good trumpet
player should be able to cleanly play sixteenth notes. At most
tempos, notes should be clearly played with no "clams." Good jazz
improvisation involves note selections that reflect some inner logic
of the solo rather than just hitting the wrong note.
If Miles had wanted to, he could have perfected this kind of
"technique type 1". On many occasions, he just flat out
failed to make it. But he seems to have had it some of the time.
I think that it's a two way relationship. Most people who are
inherently musical (type 2) try to cultivate some technique (type 1).
Once you can get the hang of an instrument, you can probably cultivate
musicality a bit easier (type 2). Miles fit this pattern. His trumpet
teachers thought he was good, but Miles reaches the limit of his
type 1 and decided to focus on type 2 technique.
>
>There are other problems. Most important, what do we
>mean by "technique 1"? Who sets the standards? Derek
>Bailey, to my knowledge and I believe by his own
>admission, doesn't know how to play guitar "properly."
I don't think he is even part of this discussion. He is not
really a "guitar" player in the traditional sense of the word.
Why not focus on a guy Leo Waddada Smith? He clearly can play
the trumpet in the usual sense but he emphasizes odd techniques.
Does he have technique 1?
>Now, from a student's perspective, obviously I'd never
>recommend that they ignore technique 1 in their attempts
>to learn technique 2, but that's a somewhat different
>question. And one might argue that anyone who wants to
>be a jazz trumpeter but can't get past Miles' technique
>to hear his music may have nearly as tough a time as
>someone who wants to be a jazz trumpeter but has lousy
>technique (type 1 of course). :-)
I think that what made Miles so influential outside of jazz was that
he had enough technique 1 to allow him to play in a wide variety
of contexts. Think about it, could he have recorded with Gil Evans,
Charlie Parker, the great Miles groups, the fusion groups playing
recordings and love them.) I doubt it. Technique 1 can help technique 2.
Good chatting, Walt. One day, we'll have to meet.
-fabio
Mike Zimbouski
<ka...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> I guess its just after hearing this same conversation for twenty-five years,
> I've found the whole issue to be unremarkable. And worse, it tends to
> perpetuate a certain historical perspective on Miles as
> a-beautiful-trumpet-player-who-didn't-have-the-greatest-chops. This turned
> into people bringing up Wynton Marsalis and Wallace Roney as players "who
> could play just like Miles -- only with chops", which is equally jejeune.
"Chops" = "playing shit the same old boring way everyone's done for the
past forty years"
Discuss.
Mike Z
H. Loess
>Personally, I would cite his phrasing and tone as his outstanding
>characteristics, but he was undeniably a terrific leader and was incredibly
>imaginative. And you?
Actually, I'm not sure how I'd sort it out and phrase it, but I imagine my
list would be essentially similar to yours. What I was curious about was how
you'd account for his status *without* citing his technique. (I guess you
could say "his compositions", except that very few of them seem to be his.)
I'd say it's largely a matter of his hearing things in a unique way and
being able to communicate them clearly (and compellingly) enough that others
could hear them, too. I think the latter of these, *articulating* his
concepts, is where technique comes in, but I'm getting ahead of myself.
Let's run through the qualities you cited.
:Personally, I would cite his phrasing and tone as his outstanding
:characteristics,
I expect that everyone who has weighed in on this, despite their widely
divergent perspectives, would put "tone" under the heading of "technique".
I'd consider "phrasing" an aspect of technique, as well, but I'm not sure
you do.
: but he was undeniably a terrific leader
This is an interesting one. I'd agree that this is one of Miles' essential
qualities, and one apart from his technique, but I think it bears closer
examination, even in this context. (Especially with comments like "Miles was
never the best player in any of his bands" turning up elsewhere in the
thread.) I'd be interested if you could further explicate what qualities
made him "undeniably a terrific leader".
As I said above, I don't think either of us would attribute this to the
compositional frameworks he gave his sidemen, since so many of the crucial
ones (including some for which he took credit) were contributed by others. I
can't agree with others who have said his greatness as a leader resided
primarily in his abilities as a talent scout; check out contemporaneous
recordings of his celebrated band members, and they seldom sound the same as
they do in Miles' groups. Wynton Kelly was one fine piano player, but his
comping, always tasty, becomes *profound* when he's playing with Miles. The
Second Quintet provides perhaps the best example; they recorded several of
the same tunes on their own dates, often with bands drawn largely from the
quintet, yet they seem to take on another dimension (even in the playing of
a given tune's composer) when the quintet plays them. Is it Miles'
arrangements? I expect that's part of it (Zawinal re-recorded "In a Silent
Way", it seems, because he failed to realize how Miles had improved the
piece by stripping it to its essentials), but I think there's something more
to it. I think Miles led by example, and that this was again a matter of
being able to communicate his ideas so clearly in his playing. So by my
reckoning, his technique becomes a factor here as well.
:and was incredibly imaginative.
Which, I agree, he would have been without chop one. *Realizing* what was in
his imagination (and thus acquiring the status to which you refer), however,
is another matter. That's where technique comes in.
:And you?
[see above.]
--
Henry L.
hlo...@pipeline.com
H. Loess
Not at all.
>Discuss.
Chops is chops, and while the examples above have demonstrated why "chops"
are not an end in themselves, plenty of examples have been given in this
thread of folks who have shown just what can be done with "chops" in the
right hands.
If you mean that the audience for "playing shit the same old boring way..."
tends disproportionately to value "chops" in and of themselves, you may be
on to something, but I haven't given it much thought, and I wouldn't swear
to it.
(I saw Roney a couple of years back with Ornette, in the company of a
freiend who had never heard of him previously, but came away expressnig an
opinion often heard here (with which I agreed): that he certainly can play
the trumpet, but seemed to have no compelling reason to do so.)
--
Henry L.
hlo...@pipeline.com
Simon Weil
>There are other problems. Most important, what do we
>mean by "technique 1"? Who sets the standards? Derek
>Bailey, to my knowledge and I believe by his own
>admission, doesn't know how to play guitar "properly."
No, I don't think that's right. In his book _Improvisation_ he refers to:
"...my background as a professional 'commercial musician' employed in dance
halls, night clubs, and studios..." (p86)
He also says that the:
"[Joseph Holbrooke] group, which existed from 1963 to 1966, initially played
conventional jazz and by 1965 was playing totally improvised pieces. From then
on it continued to play both totally improvised and part-improvised pieces. The
musicians in the group were gavin Bryars, who was then a bass player, Tony
Oxley and myself."
There's a (very) short CD of Joseph Holbrooke material where you can hear them
playing a music very much rooted in bebop. This sounds pretty good. The thing
is that, now, Bailey's style is so rooted in, I don't know, "out" that to hear
him play something that sounds like an ordinary guitar player strumming (as he
does on _Fairly Early with Postscripts_ for example) is really quite a
disturbing experience. It's like that line Schoenberg has about once you've
used all twelve tones you can't go back (or something like that).
I think that is true about Jazz in general.
Simon Weil
Check out my Wagner and the Jews book at:
http://members.aol.com/wagnerbuch/intro.htm
Steve Berman
>
> In article <8rhvl9$g9t$1...@newsmonger.rutgers.edu>, ka...@rci.rutgers.edu
> says...
[...]
>
> By the way, Luke, I appreciate your use of the word "jejeune".
Would you have appreciated it as much if he'd spelled it "jejune"?
;-)
--Steve Berman
peteG
only examples of "missing the point" when it comes to
listening to music, or enjoying any art form for that matter.
how about the guys in this group who seem to care only
about acquiring the latest and "most perfect" re-re-re-releases
of some cd? they're so hung-up on how the recording engineer
balanced the sound that they forget about the music itself,
which is what's most important.
-------------------------------------------
void <fl...@dayspring.firedrake.org> wrote in message
news:slrn8tg3kp...@dayspring.firedrake.org...
> On Sun, 01 Oct 2000 20:36:18 -0400, Tom W. Ferguson <t...@pathwaynet.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >Hands down, Clark Terry. Who nonetheless possesses and constantly
> >demonstrates the technical proficiency that seems to be getting a bad
name
> >in much of this thread.
>
> No one is saying technique or the pursuit of technique is a bad thing.
> What's being said is that technique is not an end but a means to
> artistic vision and communication or whatever you want to call the
> qualities that make great jazz great.
peteG
void <fl...@dayspring.firedrake.org> wrote in message
news:slrn8tg324...@dayspring.firedrake.org...
> On Sun, 01 Oct 2000 00:35:19 GMT, kur...@my-deja.com
<kur...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >Being a trumpet and a musician myself, I am caught between a rock and a
> >hard place. I know that listening to him is essential for the fact
> >that it is him, and there is so much to learn, but on the other hand it
> >often wrenches my insides to hear him play.
>
> So learn to like having your insides wrenched ...
uli_...@my-deja.com
>
> >"Chops" = "playing shit the same old boring way everyone's done for
the
> >past forty years"
>
imho
>
>
> (I saw Roney a couple of years back with Ornette, in the company of a
> freiend who had never heard of him previously, but came away
expressnig an
> opinion often heard here (with which I agreed): that he certainly can
play
> the trumpet, but seemed to have no compelling reason to do so.)
>
your boat should not necessarily have to be one of them.
jazz...@my-deja.com
"peteG" <rat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> an obsession with "perfect" tone and execution are not the
> only examples of "missing the point" when it comes to
> listening to music, or enjoying any art form for that matter.
> how about the guys in this group who seem to care only
> about acquiring the latest and "most perfect" re-re-re-releases
> of some cd? they're so hung-up on how the recording engineer
> balanced the sound that they forget about the music itself,
> which is what's most important.
Exactly. This is the "audophile" syndrom. A hideous disease. Anyone
caught with it should be summarily put before a firing sqad. I've had
many acquaintences with these great stereos systems they LIVE to brag
about-- with enough power to dim the lights of the neighborhood when
they crank it on... a pair of $20K Zercon-encrusted Super Snob speakers
(excellent brands like JBL, Infinity, Bose and Polk are worthy only of
a sneer)... hooked together with solid gold wiring. Sitting atop this
great mass of space age electronics is their entire collection of
music; 11 audiophile "gold edition" Cds, with Kenny G representing
their broad range of taste, taking care of the the jazz element, along
with the likes of Foghat, Niel Diamond, and Karen Carpenter.
You just want to grab them by the neck and yell "It's all about the
music, not the perfect EQ, stupid!"
Mark
http://jazztrpt.freeservers.com
Tom Walls
I'd agree that, literally speaking, any musical thing you do with the trumpet
employs technique, but I maintain that if a jazz musician is cited for
outstanding technique then you might expect a accuracy of pitch and tone,
width of range, fluency at any tempo, consistency, etc. I'd say Miles
posessed all of these qualities at one time or another, *excepting*
consitency.
I'd say you could pretty much judge by the quality of his output that he was
an extraordinary leader, but beyond that there is the annecdotal evidence of
many of his sidemen wherein Miles' often obscure directions are said to have
pushed them into hitherto unexplore areas. Herbie Hancock and John McLaughlin
come to mind most readilly.
I concur that Miles also led by example, but I would disagree that the example
was his sterling technique.
>
>:and was incredibly imaginative.
>
>Which, I agree, he would have been without chop one. *Realizing* what was in
>his imagination (and thus acquiring the status to which you refer), however,
>is another matter. That's where technique comes in.
>
IMHO most of Miles' most impressive moments didn't require a lot of technique.
On the one hand you have Miles; on the other; Clark Terry, Freddie Hubbard,
Clifford Brown, Booker Little, Dizzy Gillespie, Ryan Kisor, Wynton Marsalis,
Dave Douglas, etc. Who's got superior technique?
Tom Walls
says...
I don't think so -- "jejeune" appears French. And maybe feminine.
D Royko
(Simon Weil) writes:
>It's like that line Schoenberg has about once you've
>used all twelve tones you can't go back (or something like that).
He also said there's still plenty of good music yet to be written in C major.
Somehow I think DB would agree more with the former, less with the latter.
OK, here's a question that will probably sound newbie-ish, or Amos-ish, but
trust me, I'm neither.
While I don't really listen to avant-type stuff anywhere near as much as I used
to, I do own, know and have enjoyed plenty of it. However, the one and only
Derek Bailey CD I own is his duet with Cecil Taylor that I have in that big
Berlin '88 FMP box. Over the past decade or so, I've listened to that disc at
least a dozen times, but I get absolutely nothing out of Bailey's work on it.
From what I've read, I gather that it isn't neccessarily top-drawer Bailey,
but it is reprentatative of what he does, which is why I've never sought out
other stuff of his--in fact, I've avoided other Bailey.
What am I missing? I'm perfectly willing to accept that there is something
going on in his music beyond "funny noises," but what?
Dave Royko
John Monroe
> I think the latter of these, *articulating* his
> concepts, is where technique comes in, but I'm getting ahead of myself.
Exactly! I think this is an important point in the discussion, and Henry
has said it in a very clear way; Jeff Beer, in his very thoughtful posts,
seems to be supporting a similar idea.
Miles *was* a virtuoso in a Jazz sense. But again, it seems like we've
got a bunch of different notions of techinique going on. Fabio
defined a term called "Technique 1," which involved "high notes, not
cracking notes, extreme speed." Jeff, in his posts (I hope I'm not
misinterpreting) wants to complicate this definition of "technique" by
pointing out that slides, growls, squeezes and spleeahs -- in fact the
whole range of tone colors, articulations and rhythmic effects Miles uses
-- are not easy to produce intentionally. In order to use such effects in
a controlled way, as integral elements of improvised phrases, a musician
has to have a highly-developed command of his instrument.
This point makes a lot of sense to me, and though it was implicit in my
last post, I figure it could stand a little emphasis. Miles' way of
playing -- like Wadada Leo Smith's -- did not involve "giving up"
technique for the sake of musical expression, it involved developing a
particular technical vocabulary that suited the musical ends he wanted to
acheive.
John Monroe.
Jeff Beer
> their broad range of taste, taking care of the the jazz element, along
> with the likes of Foghat, Niel Diamond, and Karen Carpenter.
>
Jeff
Walter Davis
>
> >
> >There are other problems. Most important, what do we
> >mean by "technique 1"? Who sets the standards? Derek
> >Bailey, to my knowledge and I believe by his own
> >admission, doesn't know how to play guitar "properly."
>
> I don't think he is even part of this discussion. He is not
> really a "guitar" player in the traditional sense of the word.
Well, now, that's just cheating. :-) If we're gonna
assign folks with technique 2 who don't have technique 1
as "not really a X player", your argument becomes a
tautology. It would also allow us to claim that Miles
was "really a trumpet player" when he was playing
properly, but "not really a trumpet player" when he was
clamming. :-)
Or it would seem to reduce your argument to a platitude
that none could disagree with: if a musician's musical
expression (technique 2) requires the use of standard
techniques, that musician must be able to play those
standard techniques competently. In other words, if
your chosen medium of expression is standard bop, you
better be able to play standard bop. Well, OK. But I
don't think that's how folks like Miles work -- they
changed the music, often in very fundamental ways, to
suit their expression. And that's another sense in
which people mean that technique is unrelated to
expression.
And to an extent this shows the concern that some of us
have with an (over?)emphasis on technique. It seems
(from this _distant_ layman's perspective) that music
students are pushed into focusing primarily on technique
rather than creativity and expression. And to
extrapolate from another poster, that's probably a good
idea for classical students, but maybe not such a good
idea for jazz students.
> Why not focus on a guy Leo Waddada Smith? He clearly can play
> the trumpet in the usual sense but he emphasizes odd techniques.
> Does he have technique 1?
Didn't you answer that question in the preceding
sentence ("he clearly can play trumpet in the usual
sense")? Or by that did you mean that he could clearly
try to play the trumpet the usual way but he emphasizes
odd techniques?
My answer to your question of course is I don't care.
:-)
But Wadada is an interesting example. When he played
solo here, he played trumpet, mbira, wooden flute, and a
very cool 7-belled metal reed horn with plungers which I
believe is called a sealhorn (or so he called it). Now,
while I was sitting there listening, should I have
concerned myself with whether he had proper mbira,
wooden flute, and sealhorn technique? Or should I have
just concentrated on the music he was making and decided
whether I thought it "worked" or not? I chose the
latter. :-) And more to our point, should he have
studied the sealhorn for years to learn good technique
(which he may have for all I know) or should he view it
as "hey, I can make neat sounds with this that further
my musical expression"? Which, I think, brings us back
to Derek Bailey.
I'm really not trying to argue for the notion that
technique is unnecessary for expression. But I think
it's a thornier issue than we usually think.
WWise72606
Miles *was* a virtuoso in a Jazz sense. >>
It's a shame you guys don't live in NYC.
There is a show on WKCR named "Bird Flight",that plays Bird every morning.
The host is Phil Schapp, lately he has been playing Miles and Bird.
Did you know that Miles was a band leader at 19?
Very young Miles was a protege of Bird.
I think you can get WKCR on the web.
Check it out, you will get more insights into why Miles is Miles.
Wilmer
D Royko
<alep...@camtech.net.au> writes:
>Perhaps it's not a matter of what you're failing to find, but of what
>you shouldn't really be expecting to find. I'm a DB fan, and I'm
>perfectly willing to accept that there is *nothing* going on in his
>music beyond "funny noises."
Fair enough. I myself hate being asked by people who dislike what I adore to
explain why what I like is "good." As the years go by, I become less and less
interested in trying to get people to see musical things my way. If it appeals
to me, I listen, if it doesn't, I don't, and I guess the little I've heard of
Bailey's "funny noises" isn't my cup of tea at the moment.
But why is he so revered? Is it that he came up with extended techniques on
guitar? Is what he's done truly so unique? Does he have some underlying,
self-created theoretical basis for it, or is it more of a random, "hey, let's
try this--ah, nice scratchy/tinkley sound there"?
It doesn't bug me that I don't like what I've heard of Bailey's. I dumped my
few Charles Gayle CDs into the used record store recycling food chain a few
years ago, too, but I can see where people who like that type of
hyper-energized buzz-saw blowing would love him--I would've myself maybe 15
years ago. Same with much of the AACM stuff, which I used to like a lot more
than I do now. Post-Ascension Coltrane makes me yawn these days, but I used to
be addicted to it. But Bailey's a different story--not that others like him,
but that he is seen as such a towering, almost god-like figure to many folks,
yet I hear nothing much going on. Plenty of people can make funny noises on
many instruments--why are his so special? I know, maybe I'm expecting something
that I shouldn't be expecting, based on what most other people sound like when
they play music on a guitar. But I've listened long and hard to enough (what an
ex-girlfriend 20 years ago described as my) 'weird-ass music' that I'm happy to
lay expectations aside when someone's going out there. I'm just not used to not
even being able to find any window at all to look out from my space capsule.
I'll pick up something that you recommended--probably "Yankees." Thanks.
Dave Royko
Simon Weil
>OK, here's a question that will probably sound newbie-ish, or Amos-ish, but
>trust me, I'm neither.
>
>While I don't really listen to avant-type stuff anywhere near as much as I
>used
>to, I do own, know and have enjoyed plenty of it. However, the one and only
>Derek Bailey CD I own is his duet with Cecil Taylor that I have in that big
>Berlin '88 FMP box. Over the past decade or so, I've listened to that disc at
>least a dozen times, but I get absolutely nothing out of Bailey's work on it.
>From what I've read, I gather that it isn't neccessarily top-drawer Bailey,
>but it is reprentatative of what he does, which is why I've never sought out
>other stuff of his--in fact, I've avoided other Bailey.
>
>going on in his music beyond "funny noises," but what?
I don't think you're missing anything (cue for Bailey-haters to clip that
sentence out and miss the explanatory argument). The whole point is that you
"get absolutely nothing out of Bailey's work" on the disc you have. With the
best will in the world, you can't magic up an interest. There has to be at
least some spark there to work from - at least that's my experience. Not
particularly in music, but in stuff in general.
Don't waste your time, Dave.
Nils
> What am I missing? I'm perfectly willing to accept that there is something
> going on in his music beyond "funny noises," but what?
at times i get the same feeling. it depends on the recording.
there are quite a few now where bailey does his thing with players
from completely distinct genres: the recent _mirakle_ with
jamaaladeen tacuma and calvin weston; _guitar drums'n'bass_ with
dj ninj; a couple of recordings with the ruins, etc. the set with
pat metheny (where metheny comes over to bailey's style) was
surprisingly successful. some of these other outings are funny but
perhaps not much more. (dj ninj is one of the most repetitive
d'n'b people out there.) if you want to invest some money, _the
sign of four_ with metheny is a fine, if somewhat noisy, recording.
the recording i would recommend as a starting point would be
_wireforks_, a duet with henry kaiser (on shanachie, i think).
it struck a chord for me, anyway.
i would second the recommendation that it's important to leave
your expectations at the door when it comes to derek bailey.
his playing is extremely abstract by conventional jazz standards.
his book _improvisation_ is highly recommended, as well. i think
it's been mentioned on rmb several times, but i'll say it again.
the book consists of interviews with musicians from various
styles talking about why and how they improvise. good stuff.
n
Dan Given
>
> OK, here's a question that will probably sound newbie-ish, or Amos-ish, but
> trust me, I'm neither.
>
> While I don't really listen to avant-type stuff anywhere near as much as I used
> to, I do own, know and have enjoyed plenty of it. However, the one and only
> Derek Bailey CD I own is his duet with Cecil Taylor that I have in that big
> Berlin '88 FMP box. Over the past decade or so, I've listened to that disc at
> least a dozen times, but I get absolutely nothing out of Bailey's work on it.
> From what I've read, I gather that it isn't neccessarily top-drawer Bailey,
> but it is reprentatative of what he does, which is why I've never sought out
> other stuff of his--in fact, I've avoided other Bailey.
>
> going on in his music beyond "funny noises," but what?
>
I agree that Bailey's music may just sometimes seem like 'funny noises',
it is the way he puts them together that create melodies and harmonies
and music that some people hear and enjoy, some don't. If you don't
enjoy it, it isn't that you are missing anything, you just don't like
it. There is no such thing as good music/art, or proper music/art.
There is just music/art, and the value in it is created by the
individual listener. So what are you missing -- nothing. Personally, I
find Miles Davis pretty boring -- can't really articulate why, but I've
tried and tried and tried...and after buying and selling Kind of Blue
probably 20 times I now accept that I don't care any more. Am I missing
something -- many would say yes, I say no. I just don't like it, and I
also don't need it.
That said, if you still want to try out Bailey again, I would recommend
some of his solo acoustic stuff. Two of my favorites are Lace (on
Emanem) and Aida (on Dexter's Cigar). Some 'funny noises', but also
some really pretty playing that may hook you. I haven't heard the one
with Taylor (a major omission on my part which needs to be corrected
soon, having around 50 recordings of each, but not the duo seems a bit
odd.)
Dan
Andrew McKinnon
D Royko <dro...@aol.com> wrote
> (Simon Weil) writes:
> >It's like that line Schoenberg has about once you've
> >used all twelve tones you can't go back (or something like that).
>
> He also said there's still plenty of good music yet to be written in
> C major. Somehow I think DB would agree more with the former,
> less with the latter.
Interviewer : "Do you think you've brought anything from your jazz
playing into your playing now?"
DB : "Er...yes. Particularly on a bad day."
>
> OK, here's a question that will probably sound newbie-ish, or
> Amos-ish, but trust me, I'm neither.
>
> While I don't really listen to avant-type stuff anywhere near as
> much as I used to, I do own, know and have enjoyed plenty of it.
> However, the one and only Derek Bailey CD I own is his duet with
> Cecil Taylor that I have in that big Berlin '88 FMP box. Over the
> past decade or so, I've listened to that disc at least a dozen
> times, but I get absolutely nothing out of Bailey's work on it.
> From what I've read, I gather that it isn't neccessarily top-drawer
> Bailey, but it is reprentatative of what he does, which is why I've
> never sought out other stuff of his--in fact, I've avoided other
> Bailey.
I quite like Pleistozaen mit Wasser, but it is a disconcertingly
strange duet - and it takes forever to get going.
Whether it's representative Bailey, or not - I don't know. With Bailey
it's difficult (impossible?) to get any handle on "what-he-does"
over-and-above what he does, which is sit down and pluck his guitar.
You could perhaps try "Yankees" w/ John Zorn & George Lewis, or
"Figuring" w/ Barre Phillips - of the DB albums I've heard, I found
these the easiest to get the hang of. Or else "Last Wave" w/ Bill
Laswell & Tony Williams, I know a couple of hardened DB-sceptics who
manage to enjoy this one.
> What am I missing? I'm perfectly willing to accept that there is
> something going on in his music beyond "funny noises," but
> what?
Perhaps it's not a matter of what you're failing to find, but of what
you shouldn't really be expecting to find. I'm a DB fan, and I'm
perfectly willing to accept that there is *nothing* going on in his
music beyond "funny noises." Even if, these days, I'm more often
amused, than bemused.
AJMcK.
jazz...@my-deja.com
> find Miles Davis pretty boring -- can't really articulate why
Miles boring? Would that be "Kind Of Blue" only, or every era he
morphed in to from the late forties on, including "Big Fun?" I think
boring is LAST word to describe Miles' music.
Given that assessment... I find it difficult take your recommendation
of Derak Bailey very seriously.
sab...@mindspring.com
>Thank you EVERYONE for your amazing responses, though slightly
>misinterpreted.
>
>I did not say I began to dislike him because he wasn't a 'screamer' or
>a fast player. In fact, whomever commented on CHET BAKER, was right,
>Chet was an amazing player.
>
>As for Thelonius, he was great in MANY respects, and alas, I do love
>his music.
>
>I suppose I was just listening a LITTLE too hard. I have lately been
>analyzing trumpet PLAYING as part of my studies and I seem to have
>become too involved. I will MOST definately take a listen to some of
>the recordings listed here.
>
>Thanks alot EVERYONE,
>you've turned me from a 'not so liker' of Miles, to an 'appreciator' of
>him.
>
>~Kuraigu-Chan
>::::Live forever, Play forever::::
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
=================
Kuraigu-Chan...
Here's a little tip from hard won experience.
Learn to hear music uncritically, like a child.
Forget what you know, and FEEL it.
This is harder than it sounds, because like Adam and Eve in the
Garden of Eden, once you bite that apple of "knowledge" you're out of
the Garden forever (or so the Bible says).
The Bible is wrong, however...you CAN go home again.
You can even LIVE there, if you're very lucky.
Miles was an emotional, melodic/timbral genius. Like Louis
Armstrong and Frank Sinatra and Billie Holiday and Chet Baker, like
ALL the great blues players and ALL the great pop singers, like
Thelonius Monk and Roswell Rudd and Tricky Sam Nanton, like Enrico
Caruso and that young blind Italian tenor (I'm drawing a blank on his
name, but he can SING), like the great flamenco singers and Cuban
singers and Brazilian singers and fado singers (Portugese soul
music...check out Amalia Rodriques...) and Bob Dylan and George Jones
and Hank Williams and Edith Piaf and Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan.
Learn to UN-learn when you're listening, and Miles will jump out
and BITE ya !!!!
Maybe the greatest of ALL of them...certaily the most sophisticated
harmonically and rhythmically.
In a hundred years, I'll bet only the recorded work of Miles, Duke,
and maybe a few others will be listened to...the rest, great though
they may have been, fade into insignificance in terms of the depth and
finish of their recorded legacy.
Later...
S.
P.S. FORGET about the damned trumpet and LISTEN.
sab...@mindspring.com
> < his range was so limited > I recall reading Miles saying words to
>the effect that he just didn't hear the music way up there. I know he
>could hit the high notes, but when improvising, the notes that came to
>him that he put out through his horn, simply were not high. PB
>
===========
If Miles had a "secret" it was this...
He refused (at least TRIED to refuse) to play ANYTHING he didn't
really "hear".
In the depths of his being.
Easier said than done...but he did it.
S.
sab...@mindspring.com
><< < his range was so limited > I recall reading Miles saying words to
>the effect that he just didn't hear the music way up there. I know he
>could hit the high notes, but when improvising, the notes that came to
>him that he put out through his horn, simply were not high. PB
>
> >>
>
>
>I heard Miles many times live,his command of his horn was spectacular.
>Growing up in Philly, in the fifties, as a young trumpet student ,I did not
>think Miles or Bird was that great.
>As i learned more about the music I fell in love with Miles.
>His music will be here long after MF is but a vague memory.
>Wilmer
===============
Hey Wilmer...
That's right...
S.
DOUG NORWOOD
Jazz is a hundred years old, or very nearly so. With a history that
includes Louis Armstrong, Lester Young, Charlie Christian, Coleman Hawkins,
Charlie Parker and Sonny Rollins - just to name a few - this is a pretty
extravagant statement.
DougN
<jazz...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8r7dka$knn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Miles was the the greatest jazz improviser of all time. .
bkn...@verio.net
statement. I've run into Miles worshipers by the dozens though, and
they must not have heard anyone else. In my opinion, Miles was far
from the greatest anything, but he was great.
bk
"Someone likes every shot"
bk
Michael Kelly
>If he had even added "in my opinion" it would be a palatable
>statement. I've run into Miles worshipers by the dozens though, and
>they must not have heard anyone else. In my opinion, Miles was far
>from the greatest anything, but he was great.
>bk
I don't remember the musician but in one of those
documentaries about Miles the story is told about
him attending dinner at the White House with a
bunch of society types. Some high society dame
not knowing who he was supposedly asked him
"so what have to done to get invited to the White
House?" to which he replied on the order of
"Well, I changed Music 5 or 6 times."
So, I guess it's not just his sound that set him
apart but the ability to influence his
medium along with the musicians in his bands.
I agree that "fan" sentiment makes discussion
difficult in some cases. There are Pete Sampras
fans out there that will try to maintain that if he
only tried he could be an excellent clay court
player and win the French Open while Pete
by his own actions doesn't seem to harbor
such illusions about himself. Alas there's no
point in trying to disillusion the faithful. :)
"The optimist proclaims we live in the best of all possible worlds;
and the pessimist fears this is true."
-- James B. Cabell
Lincoln
the standards of what is proper or improper, or correct or incorrect
by the standards that you have been taught. But ANY technique is
technique whether it measures up to your standards or not.
Miles may have had 'different' technique. His tone was different
because he didn't do what thousands of other trumpet players did. He
attack and execution sounded different because he did things
differently. But he still used 'technique'. He used HIS technique. It
takes "perfect" technique to "perfectly" execute what he did. But it's
HIS technique, not the standard trumpet technique.
If you think he was just lazy, or unstudied, then why doesn't every
mediocre trumpet player who doesn't have a high range, a tight
embouchure, or proper technique sound like Miles?
If you lined up 100 Trumpet players along side Miles Davis and they
each played just one sustained note, you could probably pick out
Miles. That's perfect technique.
Lincoln
Lincoln
Lincoln
average listener doesn't care. Miles didn't make his career by playing
only for musicians.
John Lennon wasn't a great musician technically, but he wrote songs
that moved people.
Django was a hell of a guitar player, and he was missing some fingers
so by your definition it would be impossible for him to have good
technique. But when you listen to his recordings, you would never know
it.
When it comes down to it, technique is bullshit. It's just something
to get past. Learn it and forget it. Why do you think Trane went the
direction he went. After the sheets of sound and Giant Steps, he
realized it's not about harder and harder changes. It's not about more
and more notes, or who is fastest.
Trumpet players are always concerned with playing high, but a guitar
player or a keyboard player can play higher than you can. Big deal.
Lincoln
bkn...@verio.net
(Lincoln) wrote:
<clip>
>When it comes down to it, technique is bullshit. It's just something
>to get past.
I don't know your background, whether or not you are actually a
musician, or an aficianado, but technique is not bullshit. Not unles
that's all that is offered...like Kenny Gee.
Just as one can't dismiss "soul", whatever that might be. or the
ability to produce interesting melodic lines, instantaneously, while
observing the parameters of the chordal structure, technique is
important.
Flexibility is much easier on the saxophone, and the trumpet, so find
an album with Carl Fontana on it. Listen. He utilizes the trombone's
limited technical opportunites to a fantastic degree while inventing
the most melodic of improvisation.
Then tell me that technique is bullshit. If you can play ideas
without technique, wonderful. Having great technique makes it more
wondrous.
bk
Dan Given
jazz...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I
> > find Miles Davis pretty boring -- can't really articulate why
>
> Miles boring? Would that be "Kind Of Blue" only, or every era he
> morphed in to from the late forties on, including "Big Fun?" I think
> boring is LAST word to describe Miles' music.
>
> Given that assessment... I find it difficult take your recommendation
> of Derak Bailey very seriously.
Maybe it is just that I find his music too refined -- there isn't enough
of an element of surprise in it, nothing that is going to jar me. I've
tried, often, for several years, all periods of Miles. It is just a
matter of taste.
As for not taking my recommendation of Bailey seriously -- we obviously
just have different tastes. That's what listening music is all about.
There is no music that everyone has to, or even should like. And I can
see why a lot of people who do like Miles wouldn't like Bailey, and vice
versa. I like Bailey's music for the same reasons I like Monk, Herbie
Nichols, Sonny Clark, Mingus, etc; and have no interest in Miles for the
same reason I have no interest in a lot of other mainstream jazz at this
point. I like things a bit more raw.
Dan
Josh Kortbein
: In article <8rn7l4$50n$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
... which seems to describe most of the Miles fusion-era stuff well,
maybe even the second quintet. Oh well.
Josh
--
josh blog: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~kortbein/blog/
Dan Given
>
> Dan Given (dlg...@julian.uwo.ca) wrote:
> : Maybe it is just that I find his music too refined -- there isn't enough
> : of an element of surprise in it, nothing that is going to jar me. I've
> : tried, often, for several years, all periods of Miles. It is just a
> : matter of taste.
>
> : As for not taking my recommendation of Bailey seriously -- we obviously
> : just have different tastes. That's what listening music is all about.
> : There is no music that everyone has to, or even should like. And I can
> : see why a lot of people who do like Miles wouldn't like Bailey, and vice
> : versa. I like Bailey's music for the same reasons I like Monk, Herbie
> : Nichols, Sonny Clark, Mingus, etc; and have no interest in Miles for the
> : same reason I have no interest in a lot of other mainstream jazz at this
> : point. I like things a bit more raw.
>
> ... which seems to describe most of the Miles fusion-era stuff well,
> maybe even the second quintet. Oh well.
I may still have some of the mid 60s stuff, can't remember if I've sold
it or not. I might go back to it some time, give it another try, or I
might not. As for the fusion era, I tried those double disc sets that
came out on Columbia a couple of years ago, they didn't interest me. And
I've probably bought and sold Bitches Brew almost as many times as Kind
of Blue. But its all a matter of taste -- some people don't like
Bailey, some do, some people don't like classical music, rock, whatever,
others do. I have no need for Miles, others do. I don't feel that I am
missing anything. Hell, I don't have enough time to keep up with the
stuff I do like.
Dan
Ira Chineson
> On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 15:50:25 GMT, bkn...@verio.net wrote:
>
> >If he had even added "in my opinion" it would be a palatable
> >statement. I've run into Miles worshipers by the dozens though, and
> >they must not have heard anyone else. In my opinion, Miles was far
> >from the greatest anything, but he was great.
> >bk
>
> I don't remember the musician but in one of those
> documentaries about Miles the story is told about
> him attending dinner at the White House with a
> bunch of society types. Some high society dame
> not knowing who he was supposedly asked him
> "so what have to done to get invited to the White
> House?" to which he replied on the order of
> "Well, I changed Music 5 or 6 times."
>
And then he called her a dumb white bitch and
kicked her ass across the west wing...
Cribcage
<whack>
<whack>
just takin' my turn. the horse is all yours, fellas...
crib
void
>
>It was often said that Miles could spit in his horn and get five stars in
>Downbeat.
I think that's due to an inherent difficulty in understanding the work
of truly creative artists. Anything that is really *new* can sound wrong
at first. Miles Davis did new things so often that people began to
expect it of him. Therefore, upon hearing something from him that sounds
wrong to our ears, we are forced to ask ourselves: "Was that wrong, or
just over my head?"
This is just my take on things, I don't mean to sound so authoritative.
I do know that if I were in the habit of dismissing "bad-sounding" music
out of hand, I would have missed out on many of my favorite artists and
recordings.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
Bruce LeClaire
Lincoln wrote:
>
> Technique is only something that is thought about [by] musicians.
>
> [...]
>
> When it comes down to it, technique is bullshit. It's just something
> to get past. Learn it and forget it. Why do you think Trane went the
> direction he went. After the sheets of sound and Giant Steps, he
> realized it's not about harder and harder changes. It's not about more
> and more notes, or who is fastest.
>
Ironically, Coltrane practiced incessantly throughout his lifetime,
working on his technique. Read about some of the practice sessions he
did with younger musicians while on the road... and see Blumenthal's
rememberance of Coltrane even practicing in the bathroom while the band
was on stage playing (from Porter's book ):
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/reviews/b0700_01.htm
Read about Miles spitting sunflower seeds out while walking home from
school to develop his tonguing technique, from his autobiography iirc.
A player I know here (Candy from Little Joe Cook's band), told me about
one time he was playing at a place and Sonny Stitt had the room next
door to his. Said Sonny was always practicing, hours and hours extra.
Or the rumors of Bird and Diz playing out of the classical exercise
books, to get ideas and work on their facility.
That effort is about gaining facility and technique on the axe, as well
as working out ideas. In fact, without technique some great ideas just
can't get worked out.
Technique is important, it's not the whole story, nor even the most
important ingredient in the soup, but it is an essential vitamin.
--Bruce
Bruce LeClaire
Dan Given wrote:
>
> And I've probably bought and sold Bitches Brew almost as many times as
> Kind of Blue.
Sounds like you're the kind of guy the record shop dealer loves to see,
a high turnover client. Every time he sees you coming he knowns
that a little profit is coming his way, if not through a sale, than
though a discounted buy-back.
How many times have you bought back one of your own copies?
--Bruce
Bruce LeClaire
sab...@mindspring.com wrote [in part]:
>
> [...]
> In a hundred years, I'll bet only the recorded work of Miles, Duke,
> and maybe a few others will be listened to...the rest, great though
> they may have been, fade into insignificance in terms of the depth and
> finish of their recorded legacy. [...]
>
Interesting thought, although I do hope it's wrong. Still, it's
interesting to think about, given a certain measure of "time translation
invariance", there will always be people able to play jazz at the level
of the "heroic age". And so, as time progresses, the body of
accumulated jazz should constantly increase, diluting, in some measure,
the accomplishments of our revered giants.
But remember, the ability to record music is quite recent on the human
scale, and I could argue that high quality (fidelity) recordings really
only date back to 1950 or so. Thus, our experience with actual recorded
performances is but only two generations deep.
Some alternatives could be that fashion freezes this period of time, and
new instruments and sounds are adopted. Then the music from this
"golden period" of jazz will remain, to be revered by aficionados
without dilution, a frozen relic of the past. But consider classical
music, many hundreds of years old, and yet the instrumentation remains
essentially unchanged (the violin being the prime example). This argues
that "classical jazz" will continue to be produced.
Then what could be the alternatives? The obvious, with analogy to pop
music, is that only the current batch of music and performers are
remembered. But I think this won't be the case. Perhaps the analogy
will be to classical music, in which case only the very best will be
remembered. The correspondence to a composer's written music will most
likely be the artists recorded performances, in the classical to jazz
mapping. And critical reviewers and academics will determine the
repertoire from history, with occasional revivals of select musicians.
A third alternative is that the musicians from the heroic age just gone
by will occupy their desired positions on Mt. Olympus, to be revered for
all ages as the first true Creators. All others will be seen as mere
mortals. This will be especially true of any current, living,
breathing, working musicians, as (sadly) seems to be the case throughout
history.
Another alternative, which I think more likely (at a gut level), is a
hybrid model, where the originators are widely respected and listened
to, as are the exceptional musicians in the intervening course of time.
The current batch will get their fair share of press of course, as
someone has to actually still perform the music, and appear on stage at
the summer festivals. But given the limited capacity of the human
brian, or rather, our propensity to laziness (plus limited economics?),
many deserving artists will be forgotten over the course of time, yes.
> Later...
>
> S.
>
> P.S. FORGET about the damned trumpet and LISTEN.
I can add one rejoinder to S's sound P.S.-- after you get a chance to
LISTEN, don't forget to practice, practice, practice- and most
importantly, PLAY!
--Bruce
Bruce LeClaire
Tom Walls wrote:
>
>
> I'd agree that, literally speaking, any musical thing you do with the trumpet
> employs technique, but I maintain that if a jazz musician is cited for
> outstanding technique then you might expect a accuracy of pitch and tone,
> width of range, fluency at any tempo, consistency, etc. I'd say Miles
> posessed all of these qualities at one time or another, *excepting*
> consitency.
[Can't resist...]
The shit about consistency is that it's such a bitch to do consistently,
plus it's rezistent to conzistently typing crorectly.
--Bruce
Bruce LeClaire
Walter Davis wrote:
>
> Fabio Rojas wrote:
> >
> > >There are other problems. Most important, what do we
> > >mean by "technique 1"? [...]
>
> Or it would seem to reduce your argument to a platitude
> that none could disagree with: if a musician's musical
> expression (technique 2) requires the use of standard
> techniques, that musician must be able to play those
> standard techniques competently.
Wouldn't tautology be a better word choice than platitude?
Regardless, when you say "that musician must be able to play those
standard techniques competently", I have to ask, why must they play them
correctly? To do what?
Consider this, another musician could one night hear the failed attempts
at playing from a t2 musician, but still manage to hear the idea the
latter musician was attempting to convey. And being an accomplished t1
musician, the first musician can successfully incorporate that idea into
their playing the very next night.
Chalie Parker is rumored to have done this all the time.
--Bruce
Bruce LeClaire
Just to get my $0.02 in, here are a few of my random thoughts...
Technique is about being able to play what you hear.
Music creativity is about being able to hear (create) what to play.
I have an example of two styles of playing from a concert I saw the
other night in Wellesley, featuring Steve Kuhn and Sheila Jordan.
Kuhn demonstrated great technique during his solo section of the
concert.
But he demonstrated greater jazz musicianship during his playing when
Sheila was on stage.
To me, the latter was much more enjoyable, even if Kuhn's obvious
technical command was more subdued.
Here's a thought, how often do people talk about, or practice, in a
technical sense, the art of silence and space? Isn't that almost the
antithesis of technique? And yet, it is an extremely important
component of almost all music, even great jazz.
Another thing, technique can be acquired by even the youngest of
musicians given talent, instruction and practice. But to create great
music often (always) requires the telling of one's life story, the music
conveying one's experience. Bird said it, and Monk too. I believe
that, great musicians somehow go beyond technique to communicate some of
the essence of their life force through their music.
It's a cliché, certainly, but one that I buy- if you want to play it,
you have to live it.
--Bruce
PS- I also figured out what melody is- it's a virus that carries tunes
from one person to another. Highly contagious, and airborne.
Michael Kelly
wrote:
>And then he called her a dumb white bitch and
>kicked her ass across the west wing...
I just wish I had it on video. Then Miles
could've made a sound track where he
"played over" the whole tableau! :-)
"Sometimes it takes a long time
to sound like yourself."
-- Miles Davis
Michael Kelly
That's what I meant earlier. This "Miles don't know howda
Play da trumpet" thread has been done so many
times it should be put in the FAQ.
Mike
--
"A man's only as old as the woman he feels."
-- Groucho Marx
Dan Given
Seldom -- only with things like Miles, where I keep feeling the need to
try, will I buy something a second time. There was a time in the early
90s, however, when I needed both space and money and I sold a lot of
vinyl. A few years later I reclaimed several of them, realizing there
was little chance of ever getting them on CD. Luckily the store was
getting out of vinyl and had a 1/2 price sale.
Dan