Pat Martino's minor substitutions
beheiger
After a decade of not playing the guitar due to shoulder
problems I finally have been able to take up the instrument again.
Right now I am practicing my old etudes from Pat Martiono's book
"Lienar Expression". The book is full of fabulous minor licks.
At the end of the book, Pat explains how to substitute
minor scales ober each chord of a given chord progression.
Unfortunately, the example tune he uses for this is full
of rather weird chords like "Bm7b5/E to G" (a Bm7b5
with bass notes alternating between E and G) and so on.
However, what I am missing is how to substitute minor
scales for the more common progressions like II-V-I
in major and minor, I-VI-II-V turnarounds in major and
minor, blues, rythm changes and so on. For instance, I
suspect that over II-V-I in the key of C, I could use
Dm7-Abm7-Am7 licks, since the Abm7 melodic scale
is identical to the G alteres scale. However, in the
Abm7 dorian scale, the flat seven (Gb) tends to clash
with the G7 harmony, so certainly not any Abm7 dorian
lick will work over G7. Now some of the licks are in
melodic minor anyway. Maybe I should try to learn both
"dorian and melodic" versions of all these etudes?
On youtube I have seen parts of an instructional vodeo that
Pat seems to have produced much later than the Linear
expression book. Does he explain there how he "thinks
over these progressions"?
Any help is appreciated.
Andy
Keith Freeman
> suspect that over II-V-I in the key of C, I could use
> Dm7-Abm7-Am7 licks, since the Abm7 melodic scale
> is identical to the G alteres scale. However, in the
> Abm7 dorian scale, the flat seven (Gb) tends to clash
> with the G7 harmony, so certainly not any Abm7 dorian
> lick will work over G7. Now some of the licks are in
> melodic minor anyway. Maybe I should try to learn both
> "dorian and melodic" versions of all these etudes?
Sounds like you've got the idea! In practice Pat varies between IIm dorian
and melodic over V7 (but so fast that the clashes are momentary). I'd
suggest starting with melodic. You don't have to minorize the I major
unless you want to: bear in mind that Pat says he has difficulty with
improvising over major chords, which is why he does it. Personally I prefer
Emi over Cmaj for a lydian sound.
-Keith
Portable Changes, tips etc. at http://home.wanadoo.nl/keith.freeman/
e-mail only to keith DOT freeman AT orange DOT nl
pmfan57
> e-mail only to keith DOT freeman AT orange DOT nl
Generally you would use the jazz melodic minor of Ab for G7alt. But,
part of the sound Pat gets is to sometimes actually play Abm7 Db7 over
the G7 (including the Gb note). He got that from Coltrane probably.
enamon
> Hi everybody,
>
> After a decade of not playing the guitar due to shoulder
> problems I finally have been able to take up the instrument again.
Hi andy, can you elaborate on this , I have had a bad shoulder for 1
year now. the doc got me to see a physiotherepist but not much good
came of it .
It seems to be wear and tear, did you injure yours ? how did you get
it working again?
thx
jazzgeetar
'Jazz Guitar Structures' by Andrew Green. It helped me be able to solo
over a II-V-I via converting to minor arpeggios. It shows you multiple
ways to minorize most chord types so you can then do it to any
progression.
-Dan
beheiger
when I was younger I went through a period of some 3 years
during which I practiced up to three hours a day. I still have
a fat Guild jazz guitar, and since I am self-taught, I must have developed a
habit
of moving not only my right hand wrist when playing with the pick, but
actually moving (and tightening up) my whole right arm up to the shoulder.
Also, the fat jazz guitar tends to bring you in a position where you are
"hanging over the guitar with a round back" (just watch some videos of
Pat Metheny and you see what I mean...) and your right shoulder is somewhat
rotated towards the front (sorry if my English is a little weird as I am
from Austria/Europe...).
What I noticed back then was that after practicing, rehearsing or performing
with my band my shoulder
always hurt. Did not pay attention until the pain got *really* bad. The
doctor's diagnose
was "impingement". I went to a lot of physiotherapy. However, my case was
such that
I only completely recovered after some surgery (called "subacromial
decompression").
This was why I even quit playing for a couple of years.
The lesson from this is that now after playing the guitar I always perform
some
stretching exercises. I also try to change my sitting position in such a way
that I
do not build up tension in the arm (which is hard, since it is an
"automatized" bad habit
of my body). Probably avoiding to play in a sitting position is better
anyway, since the
shoulder can keep in a normal position easier.
Hope this helps.
Andy
"enamon" <mik...@mailinator.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4bbcd808-bdb3-4c21...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
enamon
I think its from posture ..10 yrs of teaching in schools etc . I use a
guitar strap now and point the guitar more upward, and a footstool for
the classical. I have a bad posture ..the physio told me (I did that
Alexander technique thing for a while but I think its a bit of a
"quack" therapy).
hopefully it will clear up next year :)
I take it "impingement" is a trapped nerve?
good luck
Joey Goldstein
Hi
I can't speak for Pat Martino, because only rarely have I understood
*anything* I've ever seen or heard him say about music. I am a big fan
of his and love his playing. So I'll speak for me.
Major Keys:
• I, IIIm and VIm are very closely related. IIIm and VI both share 2
common tones with I. All 3 chords are said to possess Tonic function
within a chord progression that is in the key of C major.
The notes of A natural minor are the exact same pitch collection as
those of C major. When Am becomes the tonic of C major's relative minor
key then the harmonic minor scale built on A and the melodic minor scale
built on A both come into play as well. This is because minor keys
involve 3 scales not just a single scale like major keys. A dorian is a
possibility as well. Sometimes applying these scales colors normally
related to Am can sound interesting on C as well. Eg. On C, As I, try A
nat min, A harm min, A mel min, or A dor.
E phrygian shares the same notes as the C maj scale also. But there is
no relative major/relative minor relationship here.
However, E nat min is the same pitch collection as C lydian, and modern
jazz guys have been using lydian on I chords since the 60s. The
characteristic #4 of lydian is chromatic to the key but fits vertically
on the chord.
E harm min involves the note D#. D# is an exotic note to emphasize on a
C chord but it's really not all that dissonant because it does not
create any b9 intervals with any of the other chord tones.
E mel min and E dorian both contain the note C#, which is very dissonant
on a C chord owing to the fact the it creates a b9 interval with the
chord's root. But you can try these scales too.
Arranged in order of most inside to most outside, over C as I:
A nat min/E phryg, A dor/E Nat min, E harm min, A harm min, A mel min, E
dor, E mel min.
• IV and IIm are very closely related and are said to possess
Subdominant function within a progression of chords within a major key.
Eg. Using D dorian over an F chord when the F chord is functioning as IV
is a no-brainer. Trying some of the other minor scales built on D might
be fruitful also.
Sometimes, VIm, which also has 2 common tones with IV can be operating a
s a SD function chord as well. So the minor scales normally associated
with VI might also be experimented with over IV.
• V and VIIdim are closely related and are said to possess Dominant
function within a progression of chords in a major key.
IIIm also shares 2 common tones with V and sometimes operates with D
function within a major key. Experimentation with minor scales that have
IIIm's root as their tonic might also be fruitful.
• But that's not how PM and others use minor scales over V7 chords.
The idea has to do with the fact that V7 (a D funt chord) is very often
paired up with IIm7 (a SD funct chord) in a II-V pair.
Once a major key has been established in a listener's ear, and chord
that contains scale degree 4 (eg, in C, S4 is F) will have a marked
tendency to want to resolve to a T funct chord. It's almost like D funct
and SD funct are the same thing in that they are both non-T funt, and
the tonic is the goal of all Tonal (based on the maj/min key system) music.
So sometimes on a IIm7-V7 progression we might choose to ignore the IIm7
chord and just play off of the V7, or visa versa - which apparently is
PM's preference, possibly because it creates a bit more tension.
So, on Dm7-G7 he'd choose to be thinking of Dm-ish lines (based on D
dor, D mel min, D harm min, etc.) rather than G7-ish lines.
Now, any dom7 chord also has a symmetrical relationship with 3 other
dom7 chords (a min 3rd above and below the orig dom 7 and a tritone away
from the orig dom7). This is based on the symmetry of the 8-tone
symmetrical diminished scale which happens to contain the tones of all 4
dom7 chords within its pitch collection.
Eg. The G half-whole diminished scale:
G Ab Bb B Db D E F G
Within this scale you will find all the chord tones of G7, Bb7, Db7 and E7.
Bb7 is often paired with its related IIm7 chord, Fm7.
Db7 is often paired with its related IIm7 chord, Abm7.
E7 is often paired with its related IIm7 chord, Bm7.
So, what some guys, like PM evidently, like to do is to play off of
these other min7 chords when the chord is really G7 in order to get a
somewhat bitonal/outside effect (that isn't too outside because there do
exist certain strong relationships between the various sounds involved).
In minor keys, more often than not, a V7 chord will be paired up with
IIm7b5 rather than with IIm7. So the
dim-scale-symmetrically-derived-minor-chord-options might be made into
min7b5 rather than min7.
Eg. On G7, as V7, in C major or C minor, try playing lines based on:
Dm, Dm7, Dm(maj7), Ddim, Dm7b5, Ddim7, Fm, Fm7, Fm(maj7), Fdim, Fm7b5,
Fdim7, Abm, Abm7, Abm(maj7), Abdim, Abm7b5, Abdim7, Bm, Bm7, Bm(maj7),
Bdim, Bm7b5, and/or Bdim7.
Needless to say, some of these will sound more "inside" than others.
Some of the ones that sound very "outside" to you now will sound much
better to you once you've gotten used to them.
Many of them have only one note that clashes with G7, and the trick will
be in learning how to handle that one note. Sometimes the trick is to
just let the dissonance happen and let the bitonal effect
Hope that gets you going.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
Mario
> Subdominant function within a progression of chords within a major key.
> Eg. Using D dorian over an F chord when the F chord is functioning as IV
> is a no-brainer. Trying some of the other minor scales built on D might
> be fruitful also.
> Sometimes, VIm, which also has 2 common tones with IV can be operating a
> s a SD function chord as well. So the minor scales normally associated
> with VI might also be experimented with over IV.
>
> function within a progression of chords in a major key.
> IIIm also shares 2 common tones with V and sometimes operates with D
> function within a major key. Experimentation with minor scales that have
> IIIm's root as their tonic might also be fruitful.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Damn! This actually makes a lot of sense to me . . . this is going in
my reference files to work on during my next practice session.
This exemplifies why I will always be lurking on rmmgj. It's scary
how much knowledge many of you have (Joey - did you just put this
together off the top of your head?). What's even more amazing is the
ability to communicate these concepts on this newsgroup (without
pictures or videos or powerpoint presentations!).
Many many thanks,
Mario
mylesja...@gmail.com
haven't studied martino's playing, but i always assumed the minor
conversion thing was supposed to free you up by not thinking of dorian/
melodic minor/nat minor/etc, but rather just giving you a general
sound to use meaning all the notes from those minor scales are
available and just applying different things. so you're F# on the G7
example wouldn't be wrong b/c at that point you're not really thinking
G7 anymore...you're playing something closer to D- | Abm7 Db7| C like
wes did all over the place...maybe the F# doesn't move to F natural to
imply the Db7 in the second half of the bar...so what? maybe you were
playing off of a Dbsus the whole time.
seems to me that by thinking..oh shit...i've gotta use this particular
minor scale/mode here, you're killing the simplicity and openness that
the minor conversion creates. why not just try every minorish scale
while you're practicing and see what affects they have and how they
sound. So A- on a Cmaj7 chord might sound like Cmaj7#11 if you play A
dorian...it might sound like Cmaj7#5 if you play A melodic minor...it
will just sound like plain old Cmajor7 if you play A nat minor...but
it will probably sound different than if you are thinking Cmajor b/c
you'll probably tend to emphasize different notes.
but, like i said this may be completely wrong.
myles
Joey Goldstein
Yep.
> What's even more amazing is the
> ability to communicate these concepts on this newsgroup (without
> pictures or videos or powerpoint presentations!).
>
> Many many thanks,
>
> Mario
>
mylesja...@gmail.com
> example
you're of course= your
Joey Goldstein
> i have no idea what i'm talking about and may be 100% wrong b/c i
> haven't studied martino's playing, but i always assumed the minor
> conversion thing was supposed to free you up by not thinking of dorian/
> melodic minor/nat minor/etc, but rather just giving you a general
> sound to use meaning all the notes from those minor scales are
> available and just applying different things. so you're F# on the G7
> example wouldn't be wrong b/c at that point you're not really thinking
> G7 anymore...you're playing something closer to D- | Abm7 Db7| C like
> wes did all over the place...maybe the F# doesn't move to F natural to
> imply the Db7 in the second half of the bar...so what? maybe you were
> playing off of a Dbsus the whole time.
>
> seems to me that by thinking..oh shit...i've gotta use this particular
> minor scale/mode here, you're killing the simplicity and openness that
> the minor conversion creates. why not just try every minorish scale
> while you're practicing and see what affects they have and how they
> sound.
I'd say... That until you've tried/studied all of the various minor
scales being superimposed in all those various ways you won't know what
those things sound like. After you've studied them, you will, and then
you'll be in a better position to use *those sounds* musically.
> So A- on a Cmaj7 chord might sound like Cmaj7#11 if you play A
> dorian...it might sound like Cmaj7#5 if you play A melodic minor...it
> will just sound like plain old Cmajor7 if you play A nat minor...but
> it will probably sound different than if you are thinking Cmajor b/c
> you'll probably tend to emphasize different notes.
>
> but, like i said this may be completely wrong.
>
> myles
Joey Goldstein
Are you talking to me here?
I don't remember saying anything about F# on G7 in my post.
mylesja...@gmail.com
> mylesjazzgui...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> so you're F# on the G7
> >> example
>
> > you're of course= your
>
> Are you talking to me here?
sorry joey...for the original poster. i should probably learn how to
post correctly.
myles
mylesja...@gmail.com
> scales being superimposed in all those various ways you won't know what
> those things sound like. After you've studied them, you will, and then
> you'll be in a better position to use *those sounds* musically.
sorry joey...that was meant for the original poster. my point wasn't
that he shouldn't study/try all the variations, but that it would
probably be a bad idea to get too hung up on "what minor is martino
talking about?". the little i've read about that martino approach
never seems to mention what minor he's talking about which seems to be
the big question everybody always has. i assume that's b/c he's not
really talking about a specific minor, but rather all the possibilites
of the b6,nat6,b7,maj7 and what they imply. but phrases such as "the
little i've read", and "i assume" should be a tip off to anybody not
to put to much stock in what i'm saying here.
myles
mylesja...@gmail.com
wow. i'm glad nobody is grading my last post on spelling.
myles
Joey Goldstein
> Hi everybody,
>
> After a decade of not playing the guitar due to shoulder
> problems I finally have been able to take up the instrument again.
> Right now I am practicing my old etudes from Pat Martiono's book
> "Lienar Expression". The book is full of fabulous minor licks.
> At the end of the book, Pat explains how to substitute
> minor scales ober each chord of a given chord progression.
> Unfortunately, the example tune he uses for this is full
> of rather weird chords like "Bm7b5/E to G" (a Bm7b5
> with bass notes alternating between E and G) and so on.
> However, what I am missing is how to substitute minor
> scales for the more common progressions like II-V-I
> in major and minor, I-VI-II-V turnarounds in major and
> minor, blues, rythm changes and so on. For instance, I
> suspect that over II-V-I in the key of C, I could use
> Dm7-Abm7-Am7 licks, since the Abm7 melodic scale
> is identical to the G alteres scale. However, in the
> Abm7 dorian scale, the flat seven (Gb) tends to clash
> with the G7 harmony, so certainly not any Abm7 dorian
> lick will work over G7.
If you play a line over G7 that emphasizes the notes of Abm7, and you
don't resolve the Gb to either F or G, then essentially you have created
a bi-tonal effect where both the sound of G7 (key of C major or C minor)
and the sound of Abm7 (key of Gb major or Gb minor) are happening
*simultaneously*.
One of the ways that these two keys are related to each other is that
each key's V7 chord contains the same notes in its tritone.
Eg.
The tritone in G7 (as V7 in the key of C) is between B and F.
The tritone in Db7 (as V7 in the key of Gb) is between F and Cb.
Traditionally, tritone intervals have always resolved in contrary motion
and by step. And the sounds of traditional Tonal harmony still holds
sway to a very large extent over the ears of Western listeners and those
around the world who have been exposed to music from the Western tradition.
On G7, B moves to C and F moves to E (on C) or Eb (on Cm).
On Db7, F moves to Gb and Cb moves to Bb (on Gb) or Gbb (on Gbm).
But since F and Cb are enharmonically equivalent to F and B we often use
Db7 as an approach chord to C or Cm too. (Likewise, Db7 can be used to
approach Gb or Gbm.)
If you played a line over G7 that outlined the notes of Db7 you'd still
really be playing inside of G7 because all of the notes of Db7 happen to
be chord-sound (i.e. no avoid notes) on G7.
Db = #11, F = b7, Ab = b9, Cb/B = 3
By "minorizing" the Db7 and playing off of its related IIm7 chord,
namely Abm7, we get something a bit more tense but that is still closely
related to G7.
(Note: You might also try outlining any other chord from the key of Gb
major or Gb minor for a similar, although possibly less strongly
directed, effect. Eg. I like playing off of Cb and Db triads over G7.)
Usually, if we're trying to sound "right" we attempt to skillfully
resolve any vertical dissonance we create fairly quickly. But sometimes
we just relish the dissonance and don't worry about resolving it
immediately, if at all.
Usually, a player who plays "out" on the V7 will come back "in" on the I
chord. I.e. Things don't always have to resolve on the
chord-of-the-moment. Sometimes they resolve on the next chord, or not at
all.
V7-I progressions are the optimal place for vertical dissonance because
things resolve anyway (usually), horizontally-speaking, when the I chord
arrives.
The things that rub badly from a vertical perspective, yet still seem to
sound "right", have something else going on that lends coherence to the
effect. Bi-tonality, especially between two keys that are a tritone
apart, has been around since at least Stravinsky's time.
Superimposing the Coltrane cycle over a regular II-V-I progression is
another bi-tonal device that some folks use. It also relies on a
symmetrical division of the octave, but this time it's in maj 3rds
(C-Ab-E) instead of the min 3rds of the dim scale (C-A-F#-Eb). After the
Coltrane cycle takes you out from your original key to a second key
which is a maj 3rd away, it then leads you by the same amount into yet a
third key. A symmetrical pattern has now emerged in the ear that creates
the expectation of modulating yet again by a maj 3rd back into the
original key. So the actual notes occurring at any particular time may
not add up, vertically speaking, but as the idea unfolds another type of
logic emerges which tends to justify the entire passage.
Bob Brookmeyer did a master-class/clinic at the college where I teach,
and he advocates trying everything against everything. Eventually you'll
start to hear some things that you like and certain effects that you
find you can achieve will be reproducible at some other time on some
other tune.
> Now some of the licks are in
> melodic minor anyway. Maybe I should try to learn both
> "dorian and melodic" versions of all these etudes?
>
> On youtube I have seen parts of an instructional vodeo that
> Pat seems to have produced much later than the Linear
> expression book. Does he explain there how he "thinks
> over these progressions"?
>
> Any help is appreciated.
>
> Andy
>
>
Joey Goldstein
1 2 b3 4 5 b6 6 b7 7
is sometimes referred to a "composite minor".
Sean
I did, out of habit, but I'll keep the results secret.
beheiger
> hey thx Andy, I have it in my left shoulder !
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subacromial_bursitis
Your partner in pain
Andy
beheiger
wow! You guys are really doing a great job in answering my question!
I just printed out all the stuff you posted. In combination with Pat's
licks,
that will give me plenty of ideas to analyze and try out for the next
months! :-)
Many thanks again,
Andy
PS. I do hope nobody is grading *my* posts on spelling...
PPS. Adding a PS (or PPS) to a post is probably a silly thing to do...
pmfan57
You're correct. Martino is just thinking "minor". It turns out he
plays a dorian-ish minor much of the time, but throws in ascending
melodic as well. Wes and Benson also think minor in much the same way.
Joey Goldstein
Lots of people do, if not everybody.
But it's still a good idea to become familiar each one of the possible
7-note minor scales (including phrygian, locrian and locrian #2) as an
individual entities as well.
Nice Dan from UK
taken up the 'minorization' theory? Say on sax?
Joey Goldstein
> BTW while we're talking PM, has anyone else apart from guitarists ever
> taken up the 'minorization' theory? Say on sax?
"Minorization" is just a subset of a bunch of other things that lots of
folks talk about.
Nice Dan from UK
just curious because there is such a strong emphasis in the popular
schools of tradition, the 'Bird' school of bebop vocab, the coltrane
expansions into differing chord patterns (which although complex,
generally the pre 60's he was generally playing very close to the
chord or implied chord) and the modern school which tends to blend
everything before it and go 'out' on the tune. I was just wondering if
there were any players who had great vocab and ideas as strong as
someone like Sonny Stitt but used the Wes/Martino sound of subs?
gtrbar...@gmail.com
As I understand it, it follows the same principles as his diminished
concepts...
Here are discussions from Clay Moore on Pat's view on chords...I think
Clay studied with Pat at one point:
#1: http://www.justjazz.com/discussion-hypermail/Feb-97/00000208.htm
#2: http://www.justjazz.com/discussion-hypermail/Feb-97/00000237.htm
#3: http://www.justjazz.com/discussion-hypermail/Feb-97/00000264.htm
and then this is from the man himself (Pat from allabboutjazz.com Pat
Martino forum):
["Linear Expressions" contains information based upon use of the
improvisational Mi 7th motif.
The Mi7th stems from the Perf 5th of the V7th chord, (in other words,
G7 = Dmi7).
Since the V7th chord is generated by the Diminished chord thru
lowering any single tone by 1/2 step, four of them are produced, and
they rest a mi3rd apart. When using alterations with more dissonance
to the V7th form, (#5, b5, #9, b9, etc.) I'd recommend for you to
begin transposing any line form (discussed within Linear Expressions)
in mi3rds. A good example would be to use separately against G7 (b13)
one of the following: Dmi7, Fmi7, Abmi7 or Bmi7. Or, combinations of
them in different orders.]
Hope this helps
On Dec 18, 6:29 am, "beheiger" <behei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> After a decade of not playing the guitar due to shoulder
> problems I finally have been able to take up the instrument again.
> Right now I am practicing my old etudes from Pat Martiono's book
> "Lienar Expression". The book is full of fabulous minor licks.
> At the end of the book, Pat explains how to substitute
> minor scales ober each chord of a given chord progression.
> Unfortunately, the example tune he uses for this is full
> of rather weird chords like "Bm7b5/E to G" (a Bm7b5
> with bass notes alternating between E and G) and so on.
> However, what I am missing is how to substitute minor
> scales for the more common progressions like II-V-I
> in major and minor, I-VI-II-V turnarounds in major and
> minor, blues, rythm changes and so on. For instance, I
> suspect that over II-V-I in the key of C, I could use
> Dm7-Abm7-Am7 licks, since the Abm7 melodic scale
> is identical to the G alteres scale. However, in the
> Abm7 dorian scale, the flat seven (Gb) tends to clash
> with the G7 harmony, so certainly not any Abm7 dorian
> lick will work over G7. Now some of the licks are in
beheiger
you guys are really amazing! Thanks a lot!!!
Andy
Joey Goldstein
Not really sure what you're asking Dan.
But lots of players, on many different instruments, play solely off of
the IIm7 chord in a II-V. It's a common part of the language.
Lots of people, on many different instruments, outline VIm7 or IIIm7
when they're really playing on I. It's a common part of the language.
Etc., etc.
And I don't see that Wes was ever doing anything new or innovative or
original harmonically/melodically speaking. He was just doing the same
stuff that his contemporaries on every other jazz instrument were doing,
but he was doing it at a *very* high level. The most innovative things
he did involved doing things that were standard techniques in big bands,
like Basie's, on the guitar. But still, they weren't things that Wes
himself actually invented.
Martino, on the other hand, to I think a greater extent than Wes
(remember that this is all my opinion and not fact), does have his own
harmonic/melodic language that comes out of the way he plays
chromatically, and is based mostly on his interpretation of the types of
symmetrical things that Coltrane was always investigating. It's not
really that Martino is using ideas that no-one else was aware of. It's
just that he puts them together in a way that's all his own. It's like,
by focusing on a few particular ideas (like minorization) within all the
chromatic possibilities, he's come up with a chromatic texture all his
own, that's readily identifiable as his 'thing'.
At least that's the way I see it. (Martino probably sees it differently
and thinks that I'm an asshole.)
Most modern jazz sax players, post Coltrane, know about and use all this
stuff at a very high level. Absorbing Coltrane's stuff and mining the
same influences/sources that he mined (like Slonimsky) is all part of
the learning process now. And the same is true for pretty much anybody
playing jazz now on any instrument.
Sure, you don't have to be a Coltrane clone. There's lots of people
playing jazz (like Doug Wamble, Joe Lovano, Wynton, etc.) who are very
much influenced by pre-bop jazz music and whose music sounds very little
like Coltrane's, most of the time. But they've all had to assimilate the
types of things that Trane was bringing into the music too. It's part of
learning how to play now.
hw
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:fkgtsu$ba7$1...@news.datemas.de...
I don't really hear anything in Martino that hasn't been covered by Wes or
Grant Green, harmonically. Many of Martino's pet licks can be found verbatim
in Grant's solos as well. (like their chromatic version of the honeysuckle
rose lick). What sets Martino apart imo is his superstrong time and fluidity
in executing those lines.
I'm also not really sure about Joe Lovano being "very much influenced by
pre-bop music" and very little sounding like Coltrane.. You must be
confusing him with somebody else...
Joey Goldstein
>
> I'm also not really sure about Joe Lovano being "very much influenced by
> pre-bop music" and very little sounding like Coltrane.. You must be
> confusing him with somebody else...
Nope. Lovano's a great example of someone who has assimilated Coltrane's
stuff but whose sound and approach is closer to pre-bop guys like Lester
Young and Ben Webster. Maybe you're listening to someone else... <grin>
cl...@claymoore.com
Hi Myles,
You are correct; Pat doesn't think modally and this is something he's
talked about for a very long time. When he says "minor" it could mean
any of a number of sounds that we could classify as dorian, aeolian,
melodic minor, harmonic minor, blues, minor pentatonic, even phrygian,
but he's not thinking or labeling them that way. Then he uses all
these various "minor sounds" which are the lines he's created and
adapted from the jazz mainstream to play over other chords besides the
tonic minor.
So, Gm could be:
C7, F#/Gb7, Bbmaj, Ebmaj, Em7b5, Cm and so on.
Clay Moore
hw
> hw wrote:
>>
>> I'm also not really sure about Joe Lovano being "very much influenced by
>> pre-bop music" and very little sounding like Coltrane.. You must be
>> confusing him with somebody else...
>
> Nope. Lovano's a great example of someone who has assimilated Coltrane's
> stuff but whose sound and approach is closer to pre-bop guys like Lester
> Young and Ben Webster. Maybe you're listening to someone else... <grin>
>
>
>
> --
> Joey Goldstein
Well, here's what a guy called Joe Lovano had to say:
"My training was all bebop, and suddenly [at Berklee} there were these open
forms with deceptive resolutions. That turned me on, the combination of that
sound and what I came in there with. I knew what I wanted to work on after
that." (from his website)
Maybe he was listening to someone else *big grin*
Joey Goldstein
Try listening to him play, rather than reading old interviews
out-of-context. <even bigger grin than I had before, and bigger than yours>
At any rate... *I* hear lots of pre-be-bop influence in Lovano's
playing. And I find a marked difference in his tone and his approach
compared to many of his contemporaries (Brecker, Berg, Liebman,
Branford, etc.), who are all coming out of Trane in more obvious ways.
hw
thanks, I've heard quite a bit of his playing, on records and live. his tone
is bigger than many of his contemporaries. but to call him a player "who is
very
much influenced by pre-bop jazz music and whose music sounds very little
like Coltrane's, most of the time.", and mentioning him in the same sentence
with wamble and marsalis just because his approach is less trane-oriented
than say brecker's is nonsense.
post it on his guestbook and compare him to wamble and marsalis, you might
even get a response, lol.
Joey Goldstein
Obviously, I disagree with you.
I seem to be getting a hint of an attitude from you that you feel it's
somehow better for a musician to be obviously Coltrane influenced than
not. You're entitled to that opinion, if indeed it is your opinion.
But I can't see any reason why someone who does not wear his Coltrane
influence on his sleeve all the time, like Lovano IMO or Wamble or
Wynton, should automatically be any less of a musician.
> post it on his guestbook and compare him to wamble and marsalis, you might
> even get a response, lol.
And what's so bad about being compared, musically speaking, to Wamble or
Wynton?
hw
>>
>> thanks, I've heard quite a bit of his playing, on records and live. his
>> tone is bigger than many of his contemporaries. but to call him a player
>> "who is very
>> much influenced by pre-bop jazz music and whose music sounds very little
>> like Coltrane's, most of the time.", and mentioning him in the same
>> sentence with wamble and marsalis just because his approach is less
>> trane-oriented than say brecker's is nonsense.
>
> Obviously, I disagree with you.
>
> I seem to be getting a hint of an attitude from you that you feel it's
> somehow better for a musician to be obviously Coltrane influenced than
> not. You're entitled to that opinion, if indeed it is your opinion.
> But I can't see any reason why someone who does not wear his Coltrane
> influence on his sleeve all the time, like Lovano IMO or Wamble or Wynton,
> should automatically be any less of a musician.
huh?? wtf makes you think that that's what I said? is this some weird put
on? where the fuck did i say anything like that? I think you're either
trolling me or completely lost it, so I'm out of this.
>> post it on his guestbook and compare him to wamble and marsalis, you
>> might even get a response, lol.
>
> And what's so bad about being compared, musically speaking, to Wamble or
> Wynton?
ever heard of apples and oranges?
Joey Goldstein
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:fkhakj$tgh$1...@news.datemas.de...
>>> thanks, I've heard quite a bit of his playing, on records and live. his
>>> tone is bigger than many of his contemporaries. but to call him a player
>>> "who is very
>>> much influenced by pre-bop jazz music and whose music sounds very little
>>> like Coltrane's, most of the time.", and mentioning him in the same
>>> sentence with wamble and marsalis just because his approach is less
>>> trane-oriented than say brecker's is nonsense.
>> Obviously, I disagree with you.
>>
>> I seem to be getting a hint of an attitude from you that you feel it's
>> somehow better for a musician to be obviously Coltrane influenced than
>> not. You're entitled to that opinion, if indeed it is your opinion.
>> But I can't see any reason why someone who does not wear his Coltrane
>> influence on his sleeve all the time, like Lovano IMO or Wamble or Wynton,
>> should automatically be any less of a musician.
>
>
> huh?? wtf makes you think that that's what I said?
I never said that you specifically said anything.
I expressed to you that you were giving me a feeling like you might feel
that way.
If you don't feel that way, then fine. Tell us how you do feel.
> is this some weird put
> on? where the fuck did i say anything like that? I think you're either
> trolling me or completely lost it, so I'm out of this.
>
>>> post it on his guestbook and compare him to wamble and marsalis, you
>>> might even get a response, lol.
>> And what's so bad about being compared, musically speaking, to Wamble or
>> Wynton?
>
> ever heard of apples and oranges?
Look...Wamble, Lovano and Wynton were just 3 names I pulled off the top
of my head. Feel free to supply your own names if you want.
And I'm not saying that Lovano is one of these guys pushing the pre-bop
agenda like Wamble and Wynton seem to be involved with. All I'm was
saying is that Lovano's style and sound draw from pre-bop, possibly more
so than many of his peers.
You disagree, fine. But there's some weird subtext to the emotion you
seem to be attaching to disagreeing with me. I was just trying to sus
out what that was.
And while I'm not overly fond of the musicological stances that DW and
WM often take, they are both amazing musicians that anybody should be
proud to be compared with.
DougW
in that list with Wynton and Lovano makes me cringe. I ain't there
yet, and might never be.
DougW
pre-bebop era jazz often gets overlooked, or it did up until a few
years ago. I merely offered another perspective. If everyone and their
uncle wants to disregard that music they are free to do so and I don't
care. I just wanted to put something else out there. That's the only
"agenda" I ever had. Not trying to issue edicts.
klen...@gmail.com
> And I'm not saying that Lovano is one of these guys pushing the pre-bop
> agenda like Wamble and Wynton seem to be involved with. All I'm was
> saying is that Lovano's style and sound draw from pre-bop, possibly more
> so than many of his peers.
I think Lovano might have gotten a lot of his approach via osmosis
from his dad, whom he mentions often and was apparently a tenor player
more in the Ben Webster style. Really, when you get to the level of
an Armstrong or a Parker or a Wamble, what does it matter how you
arrived at your style? :)
cl...@claymoore.com
Hey Doug,
Why do suppose it is that earlier jazz has been overlooked by many
players who've come up in the last 30 to 40 years? I have to admit you
were instrumental (pun intended) in my adding more early jazz than I
had in my collection prior to reading your posts.
Clay
DougW
wrote:
> Hey Doug,
>
> Why do suppose it is that earlier jazz has been overlooked by many
> players who've come up in the last 30 to 40 years?
I think it has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of players in that
period came out of jazz school. Jazz school, which I attended, was
about training people to sound good enough to play a gig, not to be
artists. I had teachers who scoffed at Louis Armstrong and Jelly Roll
and said I should ignore them and focus on Metheny. I'm of the opinion
that one can do both. Anyway, jazz got reduced to playing the right
notes over the changes in a faux-bebop way. Pre-bebop jazz can't be so
easily reduced to things like that, and in fact, when dealing with
someone like Bird, it's false to reduce him to the frickin Omnibook.
So now we're at a place where everyone basically plays great and
sounds awful. At least that's how it is in NYC. Everyone has their
shit worked out so thoroughly to where there is nothing left to the
imagination. It's all the 8th notes, perfect 7-3 resolutions on every
II-V, "hip" patterns and little artistry. Because of the proliferation
of this approach, you have a cult of personality associated with it
that rises up against those who challenge it as a viable means of
making music. That's why younger players in New York are shunning
Wynton and his ilk. Playing that way is far too hard for them. They'd
rather follow the lead of those whose only gift is the tenacity
required to practice the long hours on technical and harmonic facility
whole essentially ignoring the development of a concept. It's all out
of balance. You have to be able to play your instrument well. But
that's less than half the battle. Younger players in NYC at least
don't even bother with much of anything before 1940 because for one,
it won't get them the gigs they want, and second because it's ust too
hard. One has to bring more to the table than scales and chords to
deal with Pops or Jelly Roll. Those who've done it understand. Those
that don't, don't.
pmfan57
> an Armstrong or a Parker or a Wamble, what does it matter how you
> arrived at your style? :)
I'm not sure which NYC players Doug is referring to. I don't want to
take any guesses, but I have a feeling any such list will cause a
combination of disagreement and derision.
The pre invasion straightahead jazz players (no need to argue about
fusion or free jazz) were doing very nicely, with fantastic artists
such as Woody Shaw, Cedar Walton, Louis Hayes and others that paid
their dues out of the Horace Silver and Art Blakey groups, and those
of Tony Williams et al. Kenny Barron, Jon Faddis, George Cables, Ray
Drummand, Dave Liebman, JoAnn Brackeen, Billy Hart and dozens of
others were carrying on the tradition and then, because of
circumstances beyond their control, many began to be overlooked in
favor of younger players. I think this is an overlooked tragedy that
deserves its own PBS special.
Joey Goldstein
> Because of the proliferation
> of this approach, you have a cult of personality associated with it
> that rises up against those who challenge it as a viable means of
> making music.
Reactions to challengers of said approach will be gaged on how the
challenges are presented, I think.
This last post of yours makes your case very well, and is hardly what I
would call inflammatory.
I know I've come around to a position that's much more in agreement with
what I think your approach is about, largely from reading stuff you've
posted here. Thanks, btw.
Not that I've gone and really shedded much pre-bop yet (just a little).
I've listened to lots more of it than I had in the past though. ...But
I've got a better understanding of and respect for where guys such as
yourself appear to me to be coming from. And I have no hostility towards
the concepts.
But you've got to see how guys with opinions such as yours, and Wynton's
and Stanley Crouch's, or whoever's, can rub the guys that you are
challenging the wrong way. Sure you've got to shock people sometimes to
get their attention and teach them something. But - and here I go again
with the subjective vs objective crap - lots of the people making jazz
that you don't see as being very deep, don't feel that same way about
themselves.
I'm glad that Wynton's got his own direction and that it's as deeply as
possible rooted in the jazz tradition. Ditto for yourself. But that
doesn't mean that everybody else should take the same approach and that
if they don't, their music is necessarily wanting in some way, although
it may be wanting.
The music of someone who hasn't studied the tradition as deeply as
someone else still has to hold up over time. If it has substance, of
some sort, it probably will. If it doesn't, then it doesn't.
I haven't done a great job of explaining myself...But there it is.
BTW
How did you enjoy your gig with David Braid up here in TO?
Sorry I didn't make it out.
Dave said he had a good time.
> That's why younger players in New York are shunning
> Wynton and his ilk.
I think it goes around in cycles. When Wynton was first coming up, there
was even less respect for the tradition. It seemed like Wynton sort of
made it his mandate to get the tradition back on everybody's minds. And
rightly so. He was in many ways directly responsible for the resurgence
of the tradition both in the minds of players, critics and listeners.
But after the last 15-20 years of what some might see as traditional
overkill in the jazz community, younger guys now are probably looking
for something else, to some degree. We may be entering into a time
somewhat like the early 70s again, shudder.
And I gotta say that as great a player and writer as Wynton is, the few
things I've been hearing over the last few years (on jazz.fm) of the
LCJO, and of Wynton as a leader, have been sort of disappointing. It's
like he's playing in an older style without really bringing all much
that is new and fresh to it. I'd rather listen to the old records.
> Playing that way is far too hard for them. They'd
> rather follow the lead of those whose only gift is the tenacity
> required to practice the long hours on technical and harmonic facility
> whole essentially ignoring the development of a concept.
Wasn't that Miles' critique of Wynton once?
Miles thought that what Wynton had could be gotten simply by hard work
and practice, and what he himself had was more of a conceptual, artistic
thing, somehow above mere work and practice. I think I read something
like that that somewhere, maybe in Miles' autobiography.
> It's all out
> of balance. You have to be able to play your instrument well. But
> that's less than half the battle. Younger players in NYC at least
> don't even bother with much of anything before 1940 because for one,
> it won't get them the gigs they want, and second because it's ust too
> hard. One has to bring more to the table than scales and chords to
> deal with Pops or Jelly Roll. Those who've done it understand. Those
> that don't, don't.
Well if a guy plays well and gets an audience, he has a chance to keep
playing and to grow. Personally, I like it best when it all comes
together. Physical technique, musical technique, conception, tradition,
etc. If any element is out of proportion the music can suffer, but not
necessarily. If it's happening, it's happening.
Joey Goldstein
I think that what I'm trying to say might be this:
Just because you've studied music that's really profound and you've
worked really hard at it, does not necessarily mean that your own music
is going to be profound. Something else has to be there for that to come
through.
The blandness in the young players in NYC that Doug's talking about,
might just be a sign of the times and of people today (and not simply a
by-product of the jazz educational establishment).
The guys playing in the 20s, 30s, and 40s had profoundly different life
experiences than someone growing up today. People today, no matter how
steeped in tradition, are going to express themselves according to their
own life experiences. And today's world has a pretty large soul-sucking
thing happening. It's a wonder there's as much good music-making going
on as there is, at all.
Tim McNamara
Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> I think that what I'm trying to say might be this:
>
> Just because you've studied music that's really profound and you've
> worked really hard at it, does not necessarily mean that your own
> music is going to be profound. Something else has to be there for
> that to come through.
>
> The blandness in the young players in NYC that Doug's talking about,
> might just be a sign of the times and of people today (and not simply
> a by-product of the jazz educational establishment).
Both Doug and you make excellent points. It's the same in all artistic
endeavors, of course. In music it's the difference between music and
wanking. I hear a lot of wanking on YouTube and on the local jazz radio
station among modern players- not just guitarists but also singers,
songwriters, lyricists, horn players, keyboardists, etc.
> The guys playing in the 20s, 30s, and 40s had profoundly different
> life experiences than someone growing up today. People today, no
> matter how steeped in tradition, are going to express themselves
> according to their own life experiences. And today's world has a
> pretty large soul-sucking thing happening. It's a wonder there's as
> much good music-making going on as there is, at all.
One thing that the older jazz guys had was that jazz was a new, exciting
and cutting edge music that was pretty popular. That makes a
difference. And jazz was growing and developing quickly throughout that
period. There were lots of touring jazz bands and musicians could play
six nights a week, often under a brilliant leader. 300 gigs a year
makes a difference, I would think.
Keith Freeman
-Keith
Portable Changes, tips etc. at http://home.wanadoo.nl/keith.freeman/
e-mail only to keith DOT freeman AT orange DOT nl
cl...@claymoore.com
Thanks for your insights; it was a great read.
Clay
ken
> The blandness in the young players in NYC that Doug's talking about,
> might just be a sign of the times and of people today (and not simply a
> by-product of the jazz educational establishment).
This may be true to some extent, but it's not just Doug and Wynton
that says what they say. I've talked to some of the major names today
not associated with that 'crowd' who say exactly the same thing and
they usually point to the way jazz is taught now.
They may not talk as much about pre-bop/pre-1940, but their views are
almost exactly like what Doug just posted above somewhere (people play
great but sound awful or whatever).
Now that part may be a function of how society is these days (gimme
your money and I will give you instant gratification, I will sell you
a book, a method etc...).
Ken
cl...@claymoore.com
Hi Ken,
We also worship efficiency in the so-called "free market," which has
translated into reducing everything to formula which produces dramatic
but cheap results - fast food, computer gaming, the latest cell phone/
camera/web browser, stylishly packaged movies that are all about
spectacular special effects and horrendous violence. These days
everywhere I play has a TV going on and unless we get some hardcore
fans out pretty much the only applause heard is when the favored
sports team scores a goal or point or whatever. Things that don't fit
this paradigm are not even on the radar for most people.
Clay
ken
> We also worship efficiency in the so-called "free market," which has
> translated into reducing everything to formula which produces dramatic
> but cheap results - fast food, computer gaming, the latest cell phone/
> camera/web browser, stylishly packaged movies that are all about
> spectacular special effects and horrendous violence. These days
> everywhere I play has a TV going on and unless we get some hardcore
> fans out pretty much the only applause heard is when the favored
> sports team scores a goal or point or whatever. Things that don't fit
> this paradigm are not even on the radar for most people.
I agree. But I would still rather live today than at any other period
in history. I wouldn't want to live here in the 20s, 30s or 40s.
Maybe not even the 50s (I'm not white, so it would've been rough).
Forget about the other environments in history where great art was
created. I wouldn't want to live in those eras either...
Ken
tom walls
Not me. The natural world has gone to crap. I miss it.
cl...@claymoore.com
I miss it as well. Everything is pavement and subdevelopment now.
Clay
Paul K
On 1/2/08 9:56 AM, in article timmcn-F95E6F....@news.iphouse.com,
"Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> Both Doug and you make excellent points. It's the same in all artistic
> endeavors, of course. In music it's the difference between music and
> wanking. I hear a lot of wanking on YouTube and on the local jazz radio
> station among modern players- not just guitarists but also singers,
> songwriters, lyricists, horn players, keyboardists, etc.
> One thing that the older jazz guys had was that jazz was a new, exciting
> and cutting edge music that was pretty popular. That makes a
> difference. And jazz was growing and developing quickly throughout that
> period. There were lots of touring jazz bands and musicians could play
> six nights a week, often under a brilliant leader. 300 gigs a year
> makes a difference, I would think.
I interpreted Doug's points differently, namely that a great art has many
aspects and layers, and that many talented young jazz players mostly ignore
all but the most obvious (eg. playing the right notes). As a consequence
they overvalue those aspects at the expense of the rest, leading to a overly
generic and superficial music scene, a cult of virtuosity, etc.
Moreover, he seems to say that in order to move themselves up the pecking
order (for gigs, recognition, etc) these young players dismiss as
unimportant other things that give jazz its depth (eg things introduced
before 1940), things that may be more subtle to absorb than note choice or
or hip licks. I would guess that some of these guys Doug described do play
300 gigs a year, and that it includes most of the current young jazz guitar
heroes we often revere in this NG.
The wanking on youtube (to which I contribute) is a different animal. Doug
says "you have to be able to play your instrument well, but that's less than
half the battle." Youtube, (and, given the ease with which one can produce
a CD, recorded music in general) just means that guys like me who can't even
play the right notes in the right time, can get exposure and maybe even
airplay and gigs. I suspect Doug isn't concerned about that, since it
doesn't affect the tussling happening at the top.
Paul K
mylesja...@gmail.com
> > six nights a week, often under a brilliant leader. 300 gigs a year
> > makes a difference, I would think.
and now the good young players with potential go to school instead b/c
those gigs don't exist. instead of playing with a leader who wants
you to make the audience feel something, you're sitting in a classroom
and being taught a bunch of hip shit b/c it's a lot easier to teach
patterns and theory than how to play a ballad like ben webster.
myles
ken
> > Not me. The natural world has gone to crap. I miss it.
>
> I miss it as well. Everything is pavement and subdevelopment now.
Good point. But I've grown up in and near major cities so never had
that much nature around me to start with.
Actually, Central Park (in NYC) is as great as ever; safe as it's ever
been in the last 30 years. :)
Ken
DougW
for a "gotcha" moment. It's like the Sunday talk shows. Everyone wants
to get candidate A or B to say that candidate C or D is a wank so they
can have it on file. To be honest, I wasn't really thinking about
guitar players so much when I wrote what I did. Sadly, I have to
qualify everything by making sure everyone knows that I love
Rosenwinkel, Kreisberg, Bernstein, Moreno, Lund and Lage.
The funny thing about all this is that many people don't even think
I'm a real jazz musician. And that's OK. I'm getting ready for my next
record and to be honest, I hope no one calls it jazz, because even I
don't think it is. Imagine that. Dogma Wamble, the spewer of all
things "in the tradition"...I guess at the end of the day, I just look
for music that makes me better than I was before I heard it. That goes
for Jelly Roll Morton, Donny Hathaway, Son House, Jeff Buckley and
Stravinsky. Maybe that's all that really matters.
Kevin Van Sant
wrote in message
<ae938f66-33ea-45c2...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com> :
>On Dec 28 2007, 10:31 pm, "c...@claymoore.com" <c...@claymoore.com>
>wrote:
>> Hey Doug,
>>
>> Why do suppose it is that earlier jazz has been overlooked by many
>> players who've come up in the last 30 to 40 years?
>
>I think it has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of players in that
>period came out of jazz school. Jazz school, which I attended, was
>about training people to sound good enough to play a gig, not to be
>artists. I had teachers who scoffed at Louis Armstrong and Jelly Roll
>and said I should ignore them and focus on Metheny. I'm of the opinion
>that one can do both.
<snip>
>Younger players in NYC at least
>don't even bother with much of anything before 1940 because for one,
>it won't get them the gigs they want, and second because it's ust too
>hard. One has to bring more to the table than scales and chords to
>deal with Pops or Jelly Roll. Those who've done it understand. Those
>that don't, don't.
I don't really disagree with anything you've said there, but I think
another thing that factors in is the growing gap between the pre-bop
era and the present. Just the sheer volume of truly great music that
is already out there makes it harder and harder to cover everything.
That's not an excuse, it's just the reality. You could listen 8
hours a day for years and only cover a decade or two of music if you
were thorough. There are more great players cranking out records
presently than at any previous time. So if you are trying to stay up
on who is out there now, that's just even more listening time. Even
just 15 or 20 years ago there were only about 5 or 10 players of any
given instrument that I had serious interest in. Only a couple of
active guys among them. Now in my collection I have records from
about 200 guitar players,150 sax players, 100 pianists, 75 trumpet
players... .. Not every one of those players is a master by any
means, but they are at least worthy enough for me to want to keep the
records.
I've often observed that wherever the entry point into jazz music,
people usually follow the music forward before beginning to trace it
backward. I totally believe in the importance of tracing it backward,
but it's easy to see how that takes a hell of a lot longer to do than
it used to. Maybe you are right about why some guys seem to "not
bother" with Armstrong or Jelly Roll, I'm just saying that it may be
due to less dismissive reasons than that too.
_________________________________________
Kevin Van Sant
http://www.kevinvansant.com
CDs, videos, mp3s, gigs, pics, lessons, info.
Kevin Van Sant
wrote in message
<8de078c7-42d6-4460...@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> :
>Everything here always seems to turn at some point towards a desire
>for a "gotcha" moment. It's like the Sunday talk shows. Everyone wants
>to get candidate A or B to say that candidate C or D is a wank so they
>can have it on file.
I may not have read the whole thread but from what I did read I didn't
get that vibe.
gotnothing
yeah doug....right on. looking forward to hearing your new record.
hw
"Kevin Van Sant" <kvan...@pobox.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:40son3lrf3mdn63lu...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:48:03 -0800 (PST), DougW <dougw...@gmail.com>
> wrote in message
> <8de078c7-42d6-4460...@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> :
>
>>Everything here always seems to turn at some point towards a desire
>>for a "gotcha" moment. It's like the Sunday talk shows. Everyone wants
>>to get candidate A or B to say that candidate C or D is a wank so they
>>can have it on file.
>
> I may not have read the whole thread but from what I did read I didn't
> get that vibe.
>
> _________________________________________
> Kevin Van Sant
preemptive NG posting ;)
cl...@claymoore.com
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:48:03 -0800 (PST), DougW <dougwam...@gmail.com>
> wrote in message
> <8de078c7-42d6-4460-a26f-08c1e6c0e...@m34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> :
>
> >Everything here always seems to turn at some point towards a desire
> >for a "gotcha" moment. It's like the Sunday talk shows. Everyone wants
> >to get candidate A or B to say that candidate C or D is a wank so they
> >can have it on file.
>
> I may not have read the whole thread but from what I did read I didn't
> get that vibe.
Hi Kevin,
Yeah, I didn't get that either. It's certainly not going to come from
me, and I was the one who asked him to elaborate on the topic.
Clay
Paul K.
On 1/3/08 6:58 AM, in article
f2191fbc-c100-4712...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
"cl...@claymoore.com" <cl...@claymoore.com> wrote:
Must have been my comment upstream:
"I would guess that some of these guys Doug described do play
300 gigs a year, and that it includes most of the current young jazz guitar
heroes we often revere in this NG."
In fact, I don't have any idea who the young players Doug was referring to
are, and in any case I don't know much about the politics of the jazz scene.
Paul K
tom walls
kvan...@pobox.com says...
>
> I've often observed that wherever the entry point into jazz music,
> people usually follow the music forward before beginning to trace it
> backward.
>
naturally traced it backwards, so I assumed that would be the tendency.
Bad assumption, I guess.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
tom walls
45e930...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, mylesja...@gmail.com
says...
> instead of playing with a leader who wants
> you to make the audience feel something, you're sitting in a classroom
> and being taught a bunch of hip shit b/c it's a lot easier to teach
> patterns and theory than how to play a ballad like ben webster.
>
> myles
>
Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but you really can't teach
interpretation. You don't learn it, you bring it. I think it's kind of
mean-spirited to criticize someone for not doing the impossible.
ken
> > I've often observed that wherever the entry point into jazz music,
> > people usually follow the music forward before beginning to trace it
> > backward.
>
> Interesting that you would make this observation, because I quite
> naturally traced it backwards, so I assumed that would be the tendency.
> Bad assumption, I guess.
Nope, I was like that in my rock days and jazz. I started with 70s
hard rock/heavy metal in high school and traced it all the way back to
Robert Johnson.
Same with jazz; starting with Scofield and Pass, I went back to Wes
all the way back to Christian.
I think that is pretty common, even though I imagine starting back and
moving forward is common too...
Ken
Kevin Van Sant
in message <MPG.21e6ae5ec...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> :
>> I've often observed that wherever the entry point into jazz music,
>> people usually follow the music forward before beginning to trace it
>> backward.
>>
>Interesting that you would make this observation, because I quite
>naturally traced it backwards, so I assumed that would be the tendency.
>Bad assumption, I guess.
yeah, I'm sure it happens both ways. As far as guitar players, I'm
thinking of guys who often come in from some rock related side door,
say Mahavishnu, which might lead to checking out later Miles and
Coltrane, then guys start checking out earlier Miles and Trane, but
from what I've seen, rather than continuing backwards at that point,
guys start to go back forward into Wayne Shorter and Herbie Hancock.
That opens a lot of doors to explore before they start to trace
backwards again (if they ever do). At least, this is a typical path
I have seen from a whole lot from college kids.
Joe Finn
>I think it has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of players in that
>period came out of jazz school. Jazz school, which I attended, was
>about training people to sound good enough to play a gig, not to be
>artists. I had teachers who scoffed at Louis Armstrong and Jelly Roll
>and said I should ignore them and focus on Metheny.
It's always been important to have a sense of history. This tells us a lot
about where we came from, and who we are, and what we may someday become.
The historical perspective helps us to develop our values and beliefs too.
It's really pretty crucial stuff even though the whole topic of history is
generally neglected and not just by musicians. While it's impossible to
avoid the influence of the culture you actually grow up in, at some point
it's helpful to go back and discover a thing or two about the tradition from
which you came. As far as jazz is concerned I see this as indispensable. The
great innovators of this music have been steeped in it's traditions and
folklore and generally have nothing but love for what preceded them.
>I'm of the opinion
>that one can do both. Anyway, jazz got reduced to playing the right
>notes over the changes in a faux-bebop way. Pre-bebop jazz can't be so
>easily reduced to things like that, and in fact, when dealing with
>someone like Bird, it's false to reduce him to the frickin Omnibook.
>So now we're at a place where everyone basically plays great and
>sounds awful.
I know what you mean. Much of jazz pedagogy seems to focus on the
chord/scale approach at the expense of a repertoire based system that would
incorporate more of the historic perspective. The better students will be
curios enough to trace the music back a few generations. The authenticity
they gain will help them to sound better; or at least better than some kid
running scales over changes.
>At least that's how it is in NYC. Everyone has their
>shit worked out so thoroughly to where there is nothing left to the
>imagination. It's all the 8th notes, perfect 7-3 resolutions on every
>II-V, "hip" patterns and little artistry. Because of the proliferation
>of this approach, you have a cult of personality associated with it
>that rises up against those who challenge it as a viable means of
>making music. That's why younger players in New York are shunning
>Wynton and his ilk. Playing that way is far too hard for them. They'd
>rather follow the lead of those whose only gift is the tenacity
>required to practice the long hours on technical and harmonic facility
>whole essentially ignoring the development of a concept. It's all out
>of balance. You have to be able to play your instrument well. But
>that's less than half the battle. Younger players in NYC at least
>don't even bother with much of anything before 1940 because for one,
>it won't get them the gigs they want, and second because it's ust too
>hard. One has to bring more to the table than scales and chords to
>deal with Pops or Jelly Roll. Those who've done it understand. Those
>that don't, don't.
I can only say that part of the responsibility we have towards the younger
generation is to help them see where they came from. I mean personally,
culturally, spiritually and all the rest of it. It's an important message
about their very identity and they can only get it from us.
........joe
--
Visit me on the web www.JoeFinn.net
DougW
> I don't really disagree with anything you've said there, but I think
> another thing that factors in is the growing gap between the pre-bop
> era and the present.
I guess so. But I hear young cats get amped about "One Finger Snap",
and that tune is what? 40 years old? Probably more. People still play
"Donna Lee" on jam sessions. That was from the mid 40's. Try asking if
anyone knows or wants to play "Weather Bird", which is not that much
older than the Bird tune. Crickets. The idea that somehow music made
in 1967 is modern yet stuff from 1937 shouldn't be bothered with just
doesn't add up for me. It also has to do with the notion that jazz is
somehow "world music" and that anything with any improvisation can be
called jazz. To me, it takes away from the overall notion of what the
music was to begin with. Not to say that anything that jumped off from
jazz music is bad, although it often is. To me, there's a pretty
serious cohesion that runs through Louis Armstrong, Trane, Monk,
Ornette and Bird on up through Wynton or Joe Lovano. And there's a lot
of other music today that seems totally disconnected from what jazz
was when it was first being played.
I can't tell you how many people I know who own 300 Blue Note records
from a ten year time period yet don't own a single recording by Sidney
Bechet. That, to me, is unbalanced listening.
mylesja...@gmail.com
> interpretation.
i had a few (very few) teachers at new school who talked about what i
was speaking of...when i was in a reggie workman ensemble, reggie
would constantly be saying stuff into my ear as i was playing. he'd
tell the piano player, "if that's how inspired you're going to sound,
you're not going to solo on the concert". pretty much every comment
he made was dead on and had nothing to do with what mode to play. a
lot of times, the kids would laugh and clearly have no idea what he
was talking about b/c they weren't used to hearing teachers talk about
this stuff. at times it was a bit abstract, but the intent was
generally very clear.
> You don't learn it, you bring it.
huh? that wouldn't explain blakey shouting at the soloist or burton
giving metheny one solo a night until he thought pat was saying
something. or any of the other countless examples in the history of
jazz. and i'm not just talking about players on that level...i'm
talking about something as simple as somebody like me playing a gig
with an unknown 50 year old who has played thousands of gigs and has
experience to pass on.
> I think it's kind of
> mean-spirited to criticize someone for not doing the impossible.
it's not at all impossible. it's just harder than "play dorian over
the ii chord" and it takes an experienced player...not a 20 something
with a masters degree.
i really need to stop trying to sound like i have a clue what i'm
talking about because i don't, but i don't think it's too much of a
stretch to say that it's a lot easier to become a good player playing
gigs every night...or in the case of a place like kc during the swing
era, 2 gigs a day playing for a packed room that wants to dance. but
none of that exists anymore and players go to school instead where
even if they do come across somebody like reggie workman, they don't
know how to handle it b/c the rest of their day is filled with
learning the proper names of the modes of the melodic minor.
all i know is there are a lot of people who go to expensive jazz
schools, do all the work, get good grades, and can't play attya
without a fake book, or play a blues to save their life. the only
semester i improved noticeably while at new school was the semester i
dropped everything they tried to put me in and signed up for a bunch
of ensembles.
i don't see that as mean sprited. i'm just saying that it's hard to
expect the world to be filled with the next generation of trane,
shorter, bird, dexter, monk, miles, lester, billie, ella,
etc,etc,etc,etc when most of the younger players are spending their
time learning the same shit in school as everybody else, not playing
gigs every night, not being pushed by an older, experienced band
leader, etc. this might all sound like bullshit b/c there are plenty
of people who have come out of the schools sounding good, and i came
out still sounding like a college student, but i'd be surprised if you
find that any of them found school good for anything more than
connections and getting a few new ideas. i guarantee 4 years with the
messengers would've done more for them than 4 years at school.
but that's just my opinion and it's completely meaningless, so
whatever.
myles
mylesja...@gmail.com
> of other music today that seems totally disconnected from what jazz
> was when it was first being played.
>
> I can't tell you how many people I know who own 300 Blue Note records
> from a ten year time period yet don't own a single recording by Sidney
> Bechet. That, to me, is unbalanced listening.
that's probably even changing to the point where people own every
chris potter and garrett album and 20 things on fresh sound, but very
little stuff older than trane/shorter/henderson. i've heard hank
mobley referred to as "corny old shit" recently by other people my
age.
myles
mylesja...@gmail.com
> whatever.
not to mention that i'm just bitching and offering no solutions to
speak of. it's just a different time and it's hard to imagine another
lester young coming along b/c the experiences that created a person
like that just don't exist.
i love the internet. it's the only place somebody as clueless as me
can pretend to be a wise old man. and make statements such as the
above with nothing to back it up.
myles
DougW
> that's probably even changing to the point where people own every
> chris potter and garrett album and 20 things on fresh sound, but very
> little stuff older than trane/shorter/henderson. i've heard hank
> mobley referred to as "corny old shit" recently by other people my
> age.
Wow. You're right about that. Sad ain't it? Fresh Sounds indeed.
Although, I remember being in college and we'd always have these
listening sessions. A bunch of us caught flack for dogging Hank Mobley
on "Someday My Prince Will Come." I love Hank's records, but on that
one, he did sound a little corny when compared to Miles and Coltrane.
Joey Goldstein
What would be even weirder is if everyone who went to a azz music school
came out of there playing with the depth of a jazz master.
My God, why do we expect so much from a music school?
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
Greger Hoel
> i love the internet. it's the only place somebody as clueless as me
> can pretend to be a wise old man. and make statements such as the
> above with nothing to back it up.
The only place? Read a statement from the White House. Any statement.
--
Aldri så godt at det ikke er galt for noe
DougW
wrote:
with nothing to back it up.
>
> The only place? Read a statement from the White House. Any statement.
>
True. But tonight I have hope for my country. Can you imagine what the
world will think in November if they wake up to find the next US
President will be named Barack Hussein Obama?
hw
"DougW" <dougw...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:13635f3e-ba82-4328...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
we will be sooooo exited....
tom walls
d57e24...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, mylesja...@gmail.com
says...
>
> > You don't learn it, you bring it.
>
> huh? that wouldn't explain blakey shouting at the soloist or burton
> giving metheny one solo a night until he thought pat was saying
> something.
Yes, it does. These leaders were demanding that the soloists show them
something. Bring something to the music from yourself. Of course, if the
player doesn't have it in them to begin with, they can demand all they
like and it won't do any good.
Generally I'm sympathetic to your assessment of your experience in music
education. You ought to know, you've been there. But it seems to me that
in part you are complaining about people of not giving you something
that you need to supply yourself. I guess you had high expectations.
> or any of the other countless examples in the history of
> jazz. and i'm not just talking about players on that level...i'm
> talking about something as simple as somebody like me playing a gig
> with an unknown 50 year old who has played thousands of gigs and has
> experience to pass on.
You want to work with a demanding leader? If you stick with the music, I
guarantee that you'll get the opportunity.
tom walls
>
>
> What would be even weirder is if everyone who went to a azz music school
> came out of there playing with the depth of a jazz master.
>
> My God, why do we expect so much from a music school?
>
>
really, really, really good.
Once I had a respected contractor over to my house to give me some
advice on a project I was considering. While he was there I felt the
need to express humility for the crappy job that I done on the dry wall
that I had installed. I explained that this was why I was intending to
pay professionals to do the next project for me. He said, "However bad a
job you think you did on the dry wall, you may very well have paid
professionals a lot of money to do a much worse job."
cl...@claymoore.com
> all i know is there are a lot of people who go to expensive jazz
> schools, do all the work, get good grades, and can't play attya
> without a fake book, or play a blues to save their life. the only
> semester i improved noticeably while at new school was the semester i
> dropped everything they tried to put me in and signed up for a bunch
> of ensembles.
Hi Myles,
I just wanted to say as an instructor (and full time player for many
years) I agree with you.
Clay
Joey Goldstein
I hope I'm reading this all wrong, being a Canadian and all and just a
mere observer of US politics, but I think that if Barack or Hilary get
on the democratic ticket that the Dems will lose this election.
As much as I'd like to see a a woman or a black guy in the White House,
I don't think that this is the time that it's gonna happen. A huge
number of the voters in the US are really not all that progressive. The
last 7 years proved that. The next election is really about getting
someone in who's not as stupid and incompetent as Bush in the White
House. Whoever gets to run for the GOP will be just as viable as
whatever Democratic candidate is chosen, *unless* it's a woman or a
black guy fro the Dems.
I haven't really been following the debates, or speeches, or web sites,
of the candidates. But the only guy I've heard say anything, about what
I think the biggest problem in the world, is Edwards. He's the only guy
I've heard talk about reigning in the multi-national corporations. But,
if he did win the candidacy, the corporations would probably find a way
to make him lose anyway.
So, the way I see it, even with all the public dissatisfaction for the
Bush presidency, you guys are doomed to another 4 years, at least, of
Republican rule in the White House. Let's all pray I'm wrong though.
Joey Goldstein
> In article <flk43d$518$1...@news.datemas.de>, nos...@nowhere.net says...
>>
>> What would be even weirder is if everyone who went to a azz music school
>> came out of there playing with the depth of a jazz master.
>>
>> My God, why do we expect so much from a music school?
>>
>>
> I guess if you pay a zillion bucks for something, you expect it to be
> really, really, really good.
Most post secondary schools with a jazz curriculum are really good in my
experience.
But most of the students in 1st year at a music school should not be
there yet. Most 1st year students have no idea how to play at all yet.
Many of them have never even taken private lessons on their instruments.
Most kids going to jazz schools don't have any jazz records and don't
even like jazz. They're there because they like music and think/hope
they can get away with it. Some of them smarten up by 2nd or 3rd year.
Many of them drop out. It's the ones that don't drop out and don't
smarten up that get me pissed because they can probably still pass and
graduate.
On the other hand, when a student who can already play (btw...you don't
learn how to play at a music school...you do it at home, by yourself,
lifting things off of records) and is serious shows up, the better
teachers are usually all over him, fawning on him, giving him everything
that they can.
And anyone who is gonna learn how to play is gonna do it anyway, whether
he goes to some school or not. All a school can do is help him along.
woland99
> DougW wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 9:36 pm, Greger Hoel <greg...@spameggssausageandspam.com>
> > wrote:
> > with nothing to back it up.
> >> The only place? Read a statement from the White House. Any statement.
>
> > True. But tonight I have hope for my country. Can you imagine what the
> > world will think in November if they wake up to find the next US
> > President will be named Barack Hussein Obama?
>
> I hope I'm reading this all wrong, being a Canadian and all and just a
> mere observer of US politics, but I think that if Barack or Hilary get
> on the democratic ticket that the Dems will lose this election.
>
> As much as I'd like to see a a woman or a black guy in the White House,
> I don't think that this is the time that it's gonna happen. A huge
> number of the voters in the US are really not all that progressive.
Thank you for the vote of confidence ;-) I have yet to hear anybody
making issue of Obama being black. He's sharp and articulate and he
does not try to sound like gospel preacher (eg. like Jessie Jackson)
when he makes speeches. He is one of smartest politicians I have seen
when it comes to creating public image. Hillary... well - there are
a lot of people that dislike her (for more or less rational reasons).
But I do not think Obama has that problem. So I disagree with the idea
of him being un-electable. Obama and Edwards would be my preferable
team - and it may be a possibility - did not see much bad blood
between
the two.
Joey Goldstein
> the only
> semester i improved noticeably while at new school was the semester i
> dropped everything they tried to put me in and signed up for a bunch
> of ensembles.
Most of the things that you can actually learn about music in an
academic environment are not about playing. They're about writing.
Nobody can teach you how to play. You always have to do that for yourself.
Now, nobody can teach you how to write either. But a music school is a
great place to gather notes on all the various techniques you've studied
so you can take them home with you and work them out as you continue
your writing career. As a writer, it's usually next to impossible to get
people to play your music unless you're at a school. Plus, the real
important things about playing jazz are things you learn about writing.
Jazz is supposed to be spontaneous composition. How are you going to do
that if you know nothing about composition?
When you go to a music school and drop out of all the writing courses,
so that you can play more jazz guitar, basically, you're now paying all
that money so you can practice. That's exactly what I did when I was at
Berklee (in 2nd year I switched from the Arranging-Comp program to
Instrumental Perf), and I've always regretted it to some degree.
Mark Kleinhaut
>
> Thank you for the vote of confidence ;-) I have yet to hear anybody
> making issue of Obama being black.
He's black? He is so articulate and intelligent that I had figured he
was jewish. Go figure. He's got my vote. It would be such a
pleasure after the last 8 years to have a leader who can actually form
complete sentences:)
Joey Goldstein
> He's got my vote.
But you're a commie hippy!
Oh right, you're a banker.
D'oh.
paul
>
> So, the way I see it, even with all the public dissatisfaction for the
> Bush presidency, you guys are doomed to another 4 years, at least, of
> Republican rule in the White House. Let's all pray I'm wrong though.
I think dems are a solid favorite no matter who the candidate is,
mostly based on stuff like this:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/01/the-candidate-d.html
also I haven't looked at the odds on intrade, but last time I checked
the lines (which are generally much better than sentiment polls and
whatnot) the dems were a large favorite. of course, this means good
odds if you think the republicans will take it, so gamble away :).
Another Cleveland Guy
> Mark Kleinhaut wrote:
> > He's got my vote.
>
> But you're a commie hippy!
>
> Oh right, you're a banker.
... a commie hippy in banker's clothing :-)
Paul K
suspect that new guitar of his is really some kind of clandestine
communication device.
:)
PK
On 1/4/08 1:08 PM, in article fllsm6$odc$2...@news.datemas.de, "Joey Goldstein"
heyjoe...@gmail.com
> I think dems are a solid favorite no matter who the candidate is,
>
> also I haven't looked at the odds on intrade, but last time I checked
> the lines (which are generally much better than sentiment polls and
> whatnot) the dems were a large favorite. of course, this means good
> odds if you think the republicans will take it, so gamble away :).
The Republican party, under the leadership of Karl Rove, has proven
itself to be the superior organization in terms of exploiting people's
fears, and thus winning elections. Sadly, I don't have much faith that
this won't happen again. If half the voting population could be
manipulated to vote for Bush in '04, in spite of all the publicly
available information suggesting that this might not be the wisest of
choices, why should things be any different in '08?
tom walls
@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, heyjoe...@gmail.com says...
>
> The Republican party, under the leadership of Karl Rove, has proven
> itself to be the superior organization in terms of exploiting people's
> fears, and thus winning elections. Sadly, I don't have much faith that
> this won't happen again. If half the voting population could be
> manipulated to vote for Bush in '04, in spite of all the publicly
> available information suggesting that this might not be the wisest of
> choices, why should things be any different in '08?
>
>
yin and the yang. You don't like the weather? Just wait.
patpow...@gmail.com
Maybe this explains why so much of the new jazz talent is coming from
Europe. You can still get a gig over there. Jazz is fairly popúlar
just about everywhere in the world except the US.
Alto saxist Saori Yano read that gigging was important so at 16 she
called around Tokyo looking for a gig. Found one and has been doing
it ever since. 300 nights a year by now.
I live in Ubud, Indonesia and the jazz scene is quite good, incredible
for a town of maybe 10,000 people, a few dozen good players and one
star. There is at least one jazz band playing every night. And they
start at 8 so you dont have to stay up late.
heyjoe...@gmail.com
> And they start at 8 so you dont have to stay up late.
I've never understood why clubs in New York can't do the same thing.
Many venues that feature live music have an *advertised* starting time
of 10:30 or 11:00 pm, and the music doesn't actually get started until
a half hour or more after that. Hey, some of us actually have day
jobs!
Joey Goldstein
Well, like I said, I hope I'm wrong.
Now I'm on the record. Time will tell.
Sean
cl...@claymoore.com
I hung out one night with Russell Malone in St Paul, and he asked me
why I didn't move to NY. At the time I was working jazz gigs almost
every night of the week, usually with good and great players. A lot of
really good jazz players in NY only get to gig once or twice per week
if they're lucky.
Clay
ken
> > Thank you for the vote of confidence ;-) I have yet to hear anybody
> > making issue of Obama being black.
>
> He's black? He is so articulate and intelligent that I had figured he
> was jewish.
Oh please... It's so ridiculous how so many people call Obama
"articulate" as if it's so odd that a black guy can be articulate.
You never hear anyone call Hillary or Romney 'articulate'...
Come on!
Greger Hoel
> As much as I'd like to see a a woman or a black guy in the White House,
> I don't think that this is the time that it's gonna happen. A huge
> number of the voters in the US are really not all that progressive. The
> last 7 years proved that.
Which brings to mind a possible negative effect of a Democrat in the
White House: The U.S citizenry being what it is, any Democrat is going
to risk getting tagged with "soft on terror" smearing if they should
choose to e.g. act in accordance with the U.N on some foreign matter
that can theoretically be resolved by force. That goes double for Obama
and Clinton, because he is black and she is a woman.
If any of them wants to do eight years, they will quite likely be
compelled to act more aggressively in foreign matters than they would
like to.