So, what is Improvisation (was "solo guitar")
Mark Kleinhaut
jgo...@gator.net (Jeff Gower) wrote:
(snip)
"True, but it is a different type of improvisational approach that I
admire in these kinds of performances - it is an interpretive
"improvisation" rather than the head-solo-head approach of most
traditional jazz.(I know most people don't consider the former
"improvisation", but that is for another discussion...). For example,
I enjoy hearing how different CGists approach (for example) the Ponce
preludes, or Bach suites, etc., and I actually admire those very few
who are "renegade" enough to make the music "their own" (interpretively
speaking). To me, that is every bit as exciting as a traditional jazz
improvisation. But I digress...."
Jeff, you caught my attention with your comment that there are some who
would say that traditional jazz solos, and the form of head-solos-head
is not improvisation either. I have been thinking about this very
point lately in the context of a new recording project I am working on
which involves a fair bit of free playing... the challenge being to
merge the "form" sections with the "free" sections by bringing elements
of each into the other to form a cohesive whole.
But this got me thinking about how totally rote some of the so called
traditional jazz improvisation has become (which is why guys like Hal
Galper and Keith Jarret keep beating up on guys like Wynton Marlsallis
and and his gang of young (but aging fast) lions. Its getting to be
that what might thought of as great improvisation, is really as planned
and calculated as classicial music, or in other words it has BECOME
classical music. It may not have every note written out like legit
classical, but the patterns and melodic ideas are just as burned in,
that it is now a matter of what you describe as interpretive
improvisaion. So, when be-bop guitarist X plays all the derivative
signature patterns of the "legacy", is this real improvisation or
interpretive improvisation? I'm beginning to see it as more of the
latter, which basically means it has become more and more like
classical music. I'm beginning to understand why Galper and Jarret say
things about what a sorry state jazz is in and that this is a time
where real creativity is in a state of crisis.
So, what is improvisation anyway? I think nothing less than the very
heart and soul of jazz. Without it, jazz is dead. (which is not to say
Jazz wouldn't be practiced, worshipped and loved for centuries to come
hell, just look at classical)
--
Mark Kleinhaut
Info and soundclips available at
www.invisiblemusicrecords.com/Resources/amphora.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John Wasak
>
> But this got me thinking about how totally rote some of the so called
> traditional jazz improvisation has become (which is why guys like Hal
> Galper and Keith Jarret keep beating up on guys like Wynton Marlsallis
> and and his gang of young (but aging fast) lions. Its getting to be
> that what might thought of as great improvisation, is really as planned
> and calculated as classicial music, or in other words it has BECOME
> classical music. It may not have every note written out like legit
> classical, but the patterns and melodic ideas are just as burned in,
> that it is now a matter of what you describe as interpretive
> improvisaion. So, when be-bop guitarist X plays all the derivative
> signature patterns of the "legacy", is this real improvisation or
> interpretive improvisation? I'm beginning to see it as more of the
> latter, which basically means it has become more and more like
> classical music. I'm beginning to understand why Galper and Jarret say
> things about what a sorry state jazz is in and that this is a time
> where real creativity is in a state of crisis.
>
> So, what is improvisation anyway? I think nothing less than the very
> heart and soul of jazz. Without it, jazz is dead. (which is not to say
> Jazz wouldn't be practiced, worshipped and loved for centuries to come
> hell, just look at classical)
>
Well using Wynton Marsalis as an example is always fraught with danger
mostly because it seems Wynton's approach to jazz these days is based on the
"museum" concept. As for what's improvisation, isn't it just merely musical
creation? Couldn't we call Bach and Beethoven, etc. improvisors who just
wrote down the lines they heard inside their heads? Or should we say that
if it's written down or mulled over in any way then it's no longer
improvising? Of course if we use the latter argument, then the question
becomes are there any really true improvisors? I mean, everyone comes to
improvising with their own assortment of stock phrases, licks, musical
cliches, etc., that little bag of tricks that really is the improvisor's
bedrock.
JW
Mark Kleinhaut
I probably mention Wynton because he is such an easy target, and he has
proven time and time to not give a shit about his detractors....so he
personifies the point without being offended by it, because he cares
not (so he says)
As for what's improvisation, isn't it just merely musical
> creation? Couldn't we call Bach and Beethoven, etc. improvisors who
just
> wrote down the lines they heard inside their heads? Or should we say
that
> if it's written down or mulled over in any way then it's no longer
> improvising?
I believe the great classical composeres improvised extensively and
then wrote the things down. At that point, they ceased to be
improvisations. If you play a trascription of a Wes solo, I think no
one would call that improvising.
Of course if we use the latter argument, then the question
> becomes are there any really true improvisors?
Maybe, maybe not...
I mean, everyone comes to improvising with their own assortment of
stock phrases, licks, musical
> cliches, etc., that little bag of tricks that really is the
improvisor's
> bedrock.
This is precisly the issue I am thinking about. Improvising that relies
on stock phrases and licks may be called improvising, but I am now
finding that this can be shallow and tiresome. Keep in mind, that I am
evaluating my own playing here, not coming down on anyone else. I have
strived for years to develop my own set of tricks and my own voice, so
while boppish and technically adroit, I have some stuff that I think is
all my own. That said, I listen back to recordings I'm now working on
and I can hear how all the bits and pieces are being put together and
I'm thinking....this is not really improvising...this is some kind of
deconstruction and reconstrution, that is; manipulation of a multitude
preconceived ideas. I may have my own cliches, but they are still
cliches, and therefore this is not true improvising. So, I don't know,
I question whether there is a rightful place for "bedrock" at all in
improvisation....I'm looking for weightlessness.
Thanks for posting, its interesting to hear what people think.
Mark Kleinhaut
info and soundclips available at
Greg Clayton
have said. Remember most of these writers are non players. Having been
involved in jazz for over 30 years myself I base my opinion on studies of
many players [guitar and other] both live and on record and discusions with
many players [known and unknown] All artists[not just musicians] develop a
vocabulary of ideas and use those in various ways throughout their careers.
I always tell my students to research a single player, learn many of
their solos etc and after a while one begins to see the methods of the
artist.Favorite harmonies rythms and articulations etc All of the great
players modeled themselves on a favorite player at first[usually several but
not always] and then grew out and up.This was the tradion in jazz for
learning to play in the years BJA[before Jamey Abersold] Of course one
should investigate many musicians but start with one and do one at a time.
There is no lack of creativity or improvisation in the time honored method
because once we add 2 ,3 or more other musicians to the mix[actual playing]
anything one might play is then influenced by outside factors.{interaction
and comunication]
This is when real development takes place.Theory and learning to talk
the language by copying our musical "parents" is just square one. We must
get out and play with others {perhaps above all else} and learn to listen
and react. This is where the real Jazz takes place and is the most difficult
step [also most rewarding] It is a lifetime pursuit.
My feeling is that the overemphasis on off the top of the head began when
well meaning and forward thinking[for the time] white music writers tried to
describe African American art music[jazz] and coming from a racist society
couldn't even begin to consider that these great black intelectual artists
could have really thought out and weighted and balanced these ideas to
develop a great artistic expression.[As in any other art form] So instead
they thought "wow these great artistic primatives making it up off the top
of their heads" The misconception just grew from there. We all improvise
when we talk even though we share a common language learned from our parents
and perhaps use different dialects and regional accents.We don't however
reinvent the language every time we speak.
My 2 cents
Greg Clayton
>
>
JAlbin1916
>Jazz would be in a more horrendous state without both the past and present
>represented. You may not like Wynton, or conversely not like Keith, but
>without both points of view represented, along with many others, jazz
>wouldn't
>be much.
I tend to go back and forth in my own interior rhetoric on this subject. How
new does it have to be in order for it to "count" as jazz? Sometimes I do find
myself thinking "oh, so and so isn't really doing anything, he's just playing
the same old stuff."
At other times, though, I think this is beside the point. Ultimately, jazz is
a performance medium. During a performance, a musician may rely to some extent
on patterns, and habits, imitation, or even wholesale repeitition. But in a
good performance, the wheels are turning. To at least a certain extent, the
musican is working through a solution to a musical puzzle on a combination of
conscious and unconscious levels. At the same time, the musician is adding
aspects of his personality (through phrasing, timbre, cursing out the drummer,
etc.). All this stuff combines to create a unique moment.
Strangely enough, I actually think Wynton Marsalis, despite his devotion to the
past and his obsession with getting jazz out of the clubs and into the concert
halls, is much more of an improvisor in the "unique moment" sense that he's
generally given credit for being. I've heard him perform live, and let me tell
you, apart from his formidable formal abilities, his playing has a very strong
personality and voice. As an aside to Mark, from what I've seen, I think part
of the Marsalis' "problem" is that he *does* care about what people say. He
responds to his detractors (often pretty nastily) and fuels the fires. If he
hadn't dissed some of his forbears and critics so heavily (especially Miles),
I don't think he would be as controversial today.
-John
Nuke "hatespam" to reply
Karl G. Helmer
<markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>This is precisly the issue I am thinking about. Improvising that relies
>on stock phrases and licks may be called improvising, but I am now
>finding that this can be shallow and tiresome. Keep in mind, that I am
>evaluating my own playing here, not coming down on anyone else. I have
>strived for years to develop my own set of tricks and my own voice, so
>while boppish and technically adroit, I have some stuff that I think is
>all my own. That said, I listen back to recordings I'm now working on
>and I can hear how all the bits and pieces are being put together and
>I'm thinking....this is not really improvising...this is some kind of
>deconstruction and reconstrution, that is; manipulation of a multitude
>preconceived ideas. I may have my own cliches, but they are still
>cliches, and therefore this is not true improvising.
Oh, fine. And I just ordered your cd. NOW you tell me!
just kidding, just kidding,
Karl Helmer
Kevin Karrick
This is precisly the issue I am thinking about. Improvising that relies
> on stock phrases and licks may be called improvising, but I am now
> finding that this can be shallow and tiresome. Keep in mind, that I am
> evaluating my own playing here, not coming down on anyone else. I have
> strived for years to develop my own set of tricks and my own voice, so
> while boppish and technically adroit, I have some stuff that I think is
> all my own. That said, I listen back to recordings I'm now working on
> and I can hear how all the bits and pieces are being put together and
> I'm thinking....this is not really improvising...this is some kind of
> deconstruction and reconstrution, that is; manipulation of a multitude
> preconceived ideas. I may have my own cliches, but they are still
> cliches, and therefore this is not true improvising. So, I don't know,
> I question whether there is a rightful place for "bedrock" at all in
> improvisation....I'm looking for weightlessness.
>
> Thanks for posting, its interesting to hear what people think.
>
Mark,
I'd like to add another view to the discussion, (as if there needed more
opinions on this cool subject). The speed of the one's playing on a givin piece
has a lot to do with how freely we truly improvise, or achieve weightlessness. I
would assert that at some speed, we all become phrasologists, choosing colors
from pallete of phrases we know how to play quickly. I think this is what has
been referred to as interpretive improvisation. Pulling out phrases is fine I
think, if it's not overdone. Improvisation, whether phrasing or choosing notes
one at a time, is only improvisation when spontaneous. Anything planned more
than a split second ahead of time seems more like arranging.
Controlling the amount of arranged playing and improvised playing.. well that's
another discussion. I'm working on that just like you and everyone else. Someone
recently wrote, on the subject of tone, that you find your tone when you stop
looking for it. Maybe there's a parallel there on improvising as well.
Kevin
Tom Walls
>
>This is precisly the issue I am thinking about. Improvising that relies
>on stock phrases and licks may be called improvising, but I am now
>finding that this can be shallow and tiresome. Keep in mind, that I am
>evaluating my own playing here, not coming down on anyone else. I have
>strived for years to develop my own set of tricks and my own voice, so
>while boppish and technically adroit, I have some stuff that I think is
>all my own. That said, I listen back to recordings I'm now working on
>and I can hear how all the bits and pieces are being put together and
>I'm thinking....this is not really improvising...this is some kind of
>deconstruction and reconstrution, that is; manipulation of a multitude
>preconceived ideas. I may have my own cliches, but they are still
>cliches, and therefore this is not true improvising. So, I don't know,
>I question whether there is a rightful place for "bedrock" at all in
>improvisation....I'm looking for weightlessness.
I think that examining one's own cliches is a really worthwhile pursuit. On
the other hand you shouldn't confuse improvisation with "originality" or
"individuality". No sense getting nuts about this thing :<)
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
Chris Parsons
Greg Clayton wrote in message ...
>[snip]
> My feeling is that the overemphasis on off the top of the head began
when
>well meaning and forward thinking[for the time] white music writers tried
to
>describe African American art music[jazz] and coming from a racist
society
>couldn't even begin to consider that these great black intelectual artists
>could have really thought out and weighted and balanced these ideas to
>develop a great artistic expression.[As in any other art form] So instead
>they thought "wow these great artistic primatives making it up off the top
>of their heads" The misconception just grew from there. We all improvise
>when we talk even though we share a common language learned from our
parents
>and perhaps use different dialects and regional accents.We don't however
>reinvent the language every time we speak.
> My 2 cents
> Greg Clayton
I think you're right on the money: The concept of improvisation has been
seriously mangled by musicians and non-musicians alike, especially when
communication occurs between the two groups.
Some food for thought (or a reality check, you decide), From Webster's
Dictionary:
===============================================================
im搆ro暇ise
Pronunciation: 'im-pr&-"vIz also "im-pr&-'
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -vised; -vis搏ng
Etymology: French improviser, from Italian improvvisare, from improvviso
sudden, from Latin improvisus, literally, unforeseen, from in- + provisus,
past participle of providEre to see ahead -- more at PROVIDE
Date: 1826
transitive senses
1 : to compose, recite, play, or sing extemporaneously
2 : to make, invent, or arrange offhand
3 : to fabricate out of what is conveniently on hand
intransitive senses : to improvise something
- im搆ro暇is搪r or im搆ro暇i新or /-"vI-z&r, -'vI-/ noun
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Pay special attention to the third definition: "to fabricate out of what is
conveniently on hand". That's the definition that applies to musicians and
other artists. Maybe an analogy would help:
A plumber installs 10 kitchen faucets in one week, not all exactly the same,
but very similar. He uses his plumbing skills (technical skills analogous
to the ability to play an instrument). He follows the faucet manufacturer's
instructions (analogous to learning music by wrote) and succeeds in each of
the 10 installations. He is not improvising.
The next week, the same plumber is called to fix an existing kitchen sink
assembly. He arrives on scene, and finds a faucet he has never worked with
before. He reaches into his toolbox and grabs the wrench that he used 5th
installation he did last week, because it fits the particular faucet he's
working on. He gets a screwdriver that fit on the 7th previous week's
installation, etc... He uses a combination of tools he's used in various
other installations, and guided by his experience, he fixes the leaky
faucet. He has just improvised -- no instruction manual (no written solo).
The human brain doesn't spontaneously erupt with brilliant new ideas. It
cross-references previous experiences and knowledge, and creates
relationships. In an new situation, the brain examines these derived
relationships and attempts deduce a suitable course of action or response.
All previously learned skills include data. A strong ability to transfer
these skills to new situations, based on data relationships, is a major
component of creativity. Very creative people tend to embrace new
situations and thrive on the challenges they present -- it gives them a
chance to be "creative" and "improvise" a
solution/solo/movement/argument/etc...
A couple pennies, courtesy of
-Chris Parsons.
Scott Krohn
?
Are we on the sorry state of Jazz theme or the joyus state of improvisation
theme ?
The sorry state of jazz theme hold no interest for me personally.
Scott
"Mark Kleinhaut" <markkleinh...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in
message news:169b2ded...@usw-ex0110-076.remarq.com...
> Subconcious-Lee is on of my all-time favorites, but alas,
> that was 1949 and 1950. What was once improvisation has
> been 1,000 time imitated.
>
>
> * Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find
related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is
Beautiful
Mark Kleinhaut
<kev...@iisites.com> wrote:
> Mark Kleinhaut wrote:..
Excellent point Kevin! The speed factor plus the length of
the phrase factor that Clif mentioned both have a huge and
combining impact on how much our minds can be really free
to improvise. Anyone who has heard my playing knows I have
a penchant for the speedy stuff, so with this I am walking
a thin line of maintaining creative integrity in critical
balance with pushing the chops into high gear. When jazz
gets sad (myself expressly included) is when it goes over
the top and its all chops. Ironically, these are the times
when people come up to be with all kinds of compliments
(but secretly I know it was all flash, go figure). The
thing I like about recording is you can take the time and
space to really evaluate what you are doing and filter the
final product. My goal with recording is to tame the chops
beast into submission,and make it serve the music.
Thanks for your post.
Mark Kleinhaut
Krohn" <skr...@nassau.cv.net> wrote:
> Does this imply that what was once improvisation is no
> longer improvisation
> ?
it was rediculous. And of course it was impovisation. I
also think there are great things happening today and that
there have been great things all along. You didn't want to
talk about the state of Jazz (sorry or otherwise), although
I don't know why you wouldnt want to. But just one
thought: I really think Jazz the artform is quite OK thank
you, it's the business of jazz that sucks. Which is why 90
of the great shit being done will never be heard more than
a handful of people. But enough of that.
My point in bringing this up was to share some of my own
introspection and to see what my comrads were feeling on
this subject of improvisatory purification. Its about
using this discussion group as a sounding board to
stimulate growth and development.
John S. Clifford
liken improvisation to trying to scratch a hard-to-reach itch. You know where it is
- you can feel it - but how to get there? Well, if you recall the last time you had
such an itch, it doesn't really make a hell of a lot of difference whether you get
there by means of a tried-and-true method you've used hundreds of times before, or
something completely new and unorthodox. What matters is scratching the damn itch.
That's satisfaction.
Listen to some of Thelonious Monk's solos. He didn't care if he did the same thing
he did last time, or not. Every single damn time, he got that itch!!
The trick is to induce the same itch in your audience, and then offer them a
satisfying scratch. Ahhhh . . .
Peace.
John C.
Mark Kleinhaut
k...@reno.WPI.EDU (Karl G. Helmer) wrote:
> In Article 72354 of rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz Mark Kleinhaut
> <markkl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
relies
> >on stock phrases and licks may be called improvising, but I am now
> >finding that this can be shallow and tiresome. Keep in mind, that I
am
> >evaluating my own playing here, not coming down on anyone else. I
have
> >strived for years to develop my own set of tricks and my own voice,
so
> >while boppish and technically adroit, I have some stuff that I think
is
> >all my own. That said, I listen back to recordings I'm now working on
> >and I can hear how all the bits and pieces are being put together and
> >I'm thinking....this is not really improvising...this is some kind of
> >deconstruction and reconstrution, that is; manipulation of a
multitude
> >preconceived ideas. I may have my own cliches, but they are still
> >cliches, and therefore this is not true improvising.
>
>
> just kidding, just kidding,
>
> Karl Helmer
>
you money back guarantee? ;)
--
Mark Kleinhaut
Info and soundclips available at
David Moss
"Scott Krohn" wrote...
> Does this imply that what was once improvisation is no
> longer improvisation?
> state of improvisation theme ?
> The sorry state of jazz theme hold no interest for me personally.
It should still be interesting for you to discuss it,
in order to refute it!
But I do agree that this whole darnright fascinating discussion
raises a load of questions that can't be answered. In the end,
it's asking what is music for. Mark's looking for higher means
of artistic expression - but I'm a novice hobbyist and I'll be delighted
when I can play the most cliched lounge jazz with some degree of
competence, just for fun and with no artistic pretensions. At those
two extremes and every point in between, making music is a
legit thing to do.
So what I'm saying there is, even if I accepted that it's no longer
possible to say something really new in the bebop-derived genre
(which I don't), that would still not be a reason for everybody to
stop playing bebop. It's been quite some time since anybody
said anything new in the baroque concerto genre, but people
are still playing it, thank God.
On improvisation versus stock phrases: I liked the
comparison with language somebody mentioned earlier. When
we speak or write, we improvise. If I say "sdjjofj esofitmf orseop"
I'm improvising something very original, but nobody understands
me. The fact is, we use words and phrases that have been used
a million times before, but combine them in a new way and
sometimes we can say something really new and profound. I
believe it IS still possible to say new, profound things in the
bebop language, and I believe that there are several talented
people on this very NG who do exactly that right now. Funnily
enough, one of those is Mark.
On originality versus derived stuff - take it to the extreme,
you'd say the very first bebop sessions at Minton's were
original and revolutionary, everybody after that was being
unoriginal. You could say the same about Monet's first
impressionist painting and the movement that followed.
But what really makes bebop and impressionism important,
and Dizzy, Bird and Claude geniuses, is that they founded
a genre in which loads of people could still express themselves
100 years later. Take away the disciples, and then they're
just some guys who did something unusual once.
In fact, I have some problems with jazz=improvisation and
improvised=good and not improvised=bad in any case.
I put on a CD, and listen to a quartet playing the head.
Before they start to solo on the second chorus, I stop the
CD. Have I been listening to jazz or not? Or I pick up my
guitar and play a chord/melody of All The Things You Are -
the melody is more or less straight, the chords have lots
of fancy subs and upper structures, but all worked out
beforehand. I can't say I'm playing jazz, because I'm not
improvising, so what do I call the style I'm playing? Jim
Hall admits that on some recording (I forget which) he
worked out his solo in advance. Is that recording therefore
not jazz?
Or try this - imagine a perfect copyist, he can play Wes
solos perfectly, every nuance exactly like Wes. Why should
it be better to listen to Wes on CD on my inferior hi-fi than
to go and listen to that guy live? And suppose it was
suddenly revealed that the Full House CD wasn't actually
Wes at all, they lost the master tape so they secretly got this
perfect copyist to do it for the CD, copying from the LP.
Would the music you've loved until that news got out
suddenly sound any different?
Like I said, a load of questions you can't answer. But
I think as far as Mark's originally post goes, he can say
that HE no longer finds the means to express himself in
the classical bebob, head/solo/head idiom. That's admirable,
it shows artistic integrity, courage to take risks, etc. But
that doesn't mean that bebop is dead, and there's no reason
why "bebop guitarist X", as Mark puts it, needs to come to the
same decision.
I guess that was more than 2c!
Tom Walls
Mark Kleinhaut
"David Moss" <david...@ifia.fzk.de> wrote:
>
> "Scott Krohn" wrote...
> > Does this imply that what was once improvisation is no
> > longer improvisation?
> > Are we on the sorry state of Jazz theme or the joyus
> > state of improvisation theme ?
> > The sorry state of jazz theme hold no interest for me personally.
>
> It should still be interesting for you to discuss it,
> in order to refute it!
>
> But I do agree that this whole darnright fascinating discussion
> raises a load of questions that can't be answered. In the end,
> it's asking what is music for. Mark's looking for higher means
> of artistic expression - but I'm a novice hobbyist and I'll be
delighted
> when I can play the most cliched lounge jazz with some degree of
> competence, just for fun and with no artistic pretensions. At those
> two extremes and every point in between, making music is a
> legit thing to do.
>
> So what I'm saying there is, even if I accepted that it's no longer
> possible to say something really new in the bebop-derived genre
> (which I don't), that would still not be a reason for everybody to
> stop playing bebop. It's been quite some time since anybody
> said anything new in the baroque concerto genre, but people
> are still playing it, thank God.
I hope I did not imply that any form of music making was iligitimate.
I certainly believe in free speech and music making. And I have
nothing against be-bop. Far from it, I think for many of us it is home
plate.. its just that the sound of bop is very much defined by certain
signature phrases which have become somewhat museumified over the
years. When things are being said that are in any way really new it is
because the bop starting point is being extended in some matter with
the introduction of new vocabulary. This is a totally different
experience from when folks are first now discovering the joys of boppin
on changes, because for these people it is new, fresh and very
exciting. And its fun to be around too, and it is something I'm happy
to participate in at the drop of a hat.
> On improvisation versus stock phrases: I liked the
> comparison with language somebody mentioned earlier. When
> we speak or write, we improvise. If I say "sdjjofj esofitmf orseop"
> I'm improvising something very original, but nobody understands
> me. The fact is, we use words and phrases that have been used
> a million times before, but combine them in a new way and
> sometimes we can say something really new and profound. I
> believe it IS still possible to say new, profound things in the
> bebop language, and I believe that there are several talented
> people on this very NG who do exactly that right now. Funnily
> enough, one of those is Mark.
Thanks for the compliment.
>
> On originality versus derived stuff - take it to the extreme,
> you'd say the very first bebop sessions at Minton's were
> original and revolutionary, everybody after that was being
> unoriginal. You could say the same about Monet's first
> impressionist painting and the movement that followed.
> But what really makes bebop and impressionism important,
> and Dizzy, Bird and Claude geniuses, is that they founded
> a genre in which loads of people could still express themselves
> 100 years later. Take away the disciples, and then they're
> just some guys who did something unusual once.
>
The legacy is certainly important and I never mean to disrespect it.
When I get together with people like Jack Wilkins or Brad Terry, 90% of
what we do is to play standards (maybe only 1 or two originals). Yet
Jack is busy writing his own tunes as I am and as many folks are. This
ties to my beef about Wynton. If he is the leader of jazz world (self-
proclaimed or otherwise), I just get frustrated when he leads us into
retreat, not forward. That just ain't the legacy of Bird, Miles, Diz,
Monk and Trane. Those guys are who they are because they changed the
music and evolved it foward in some significant way.
> In fact, I have some problems with jazz=improvisation and
> improvised=good and not improvised=bad in any case.
> I put on a CD, and listen to a quartet playing the head.
> Before they start to solo on the second chorus, I stop the
> CD. Have I been listening to jazz or not? Or I pick up my
> guitar and play a chord/melody of All The Things You Are -
> the melody is more or less straight, the chords have lots
> of fancy subs and upper structures, but all worked out
> beforehand. I can't say I'm playing jazz, because I'm not
> improvising, so what do I call the style I'm playing? Jim
> Hall admits that on some recording (I forget which) he
> worked out his solo in advance. Is that recording therefore
> not jazz?
I think its all Jazz. But, how important is it. Don't get me wrong,
important is not the same as good. But what gets you on the edge of
your chair or makes the hair stand up on the back of your neck, or
maybe even makes you just stop breathing? This is just a reaction.
Sometimes I hear stuff that just puts me to sleep (which can be good
too, or at least useful.)
> Or try this - imagine a perfect copyist, he can play Wes
> solos perfectly, every nuance exactly like Wes. Why should
> it be better to listen to Wes on CD on my inferior hi-fi than
> to go and listen to that guy live? And suppose it was
> suddenly revealed that the Full House CD wasn't actually
> Wes at all, they lost the master tape so they secretly got this
> perfect copyist to do it for the CD, copying from the LP.
> Would the music you've loved until that news got out
> suddenly sound any different?
You know, it probably would. We are very suggestable creatures after
all. Don't we all have stories about how our mom's got us to take our
cough medicine, or to eat our oatmeal?
> Like I said, a load of questions you can't answer. But
> I think as far as Mark's originally post goes, he can say
> that HE no longer finds the means to express himself in
> the classical bebob, head/solo/head idiom. That's admirable,
> it shows artistic integrity, courage to take risks, etc. But
> that doesn't mean that bebop is dead, and there's no reason
> why "bebop guitarist X", as Mark puts it, needs to come to the
> same decision.
>
I STILL love to play bop. I love Stella, and All the Things, and a
hundred others, and I would never want to give them up....they are like
old friends. But I'm also looking for more. When I find myself being
content and complacent I become very afraid and I kick myself, hard.
Its like, you're either moving foward or you're moving backward..there
is no such thing as standing still. We have to take risks....so Bop
isn't dead....its just been exposed to years of radioactivity and grown
14 extra heads...32 eyeballs....11 arms.....17 legs....and inumerable
ears. Some of it is damm ugly, but hopefully very beautiful too.
> I guess that was more than 2c!
I'll see your 2c and raise you a buck
Scott Krohn
I interpreted you response
", but alas,
that was 1949 and 1950. What was once improvisation has
been 1,000 time imitated."
as negative and did not want to get into that.
I am not involved in the business of music to any great degree so
I do not give much thought to it now, but I know how difficult it can be for
someone who is trying to be an artist.
Jazz takes me away from the business that I am in and I do the best that I
can
to keep it in a very positive light. I play as much as I can and continue to
strive
towards that weighlessness you mentioned. Total involvement and escapism at
the
same time.
I jumped ship from the music business about 18 years ago after teaching and
gigging for about 10 years.
I couldn't seem to balance the need to make money with music and the need
to develop as an artist.
Business and money destroys the purity and integrity of most things.
So your thoughts on that ring true to me.
What do they say, "Out of the frying pan , into the fire" -- something like
that.
By the way, I listened to you sound clips and liked them.
I really liked the ballad feel on 'million notes ...'
I read your bio - I also studied with Howie Morgen for a number of years
back in the
mid 70's.
Scott
"Mark Kleinhaut" <markkleinh...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in
message news:27702aa4...@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com...
> In article <kWmm4.1247$Bj2....@news.optonline.net>, "Scott
> Krohn" <skr...@nassau.cv.net> wrote:
> > Does this imply that what was once improvisation is no
Scott Krohn
"David Moss" <david...@ifia.fzk.de> wrote in message
news:87enbf$hls$1...@hiknews1.fzk.de...
>
> "Scott Krohn" wrote...
> > Does this imply that what was once improvisation is no
> > Are we on the sorry state of Jazz theme or the joyus
> > state of improvisation theme ?
> > The sorry state of jazz theme hold no interest for me personally.
>
> It should still be interesting for you to discuss it,
> in order to refute it!
>
Some of this thread was going.
I do not have an opinion on that and would not attempt to support or
refute someone else's opinion.
There is plenty of jazz for me to enjoy. I am not looking for anything
revolutionary.
I stand corrected regarding what Mark meant and replied to him.
> But I do agree that this whole darnright fascinating discussion
> raises a load of questions that can't be answered. In the end,
> it's asking what is music for. Mark's looking for higher means
> of artistic expression - but I'm a novice hobbyist and I'll be delighted
> when I can play the most cliched lounge jazz with some degree of
> competence, just for fun and with no artistic pretensions. At those
> two extremes and every point in between, making music is a
> legit thing to do.
>
> So what I'm saying there is, even if I accepted that it's no longer
> possible to say something really new in the bebop-derived genre
> (which I don't), that would still not be a reason for everybody to
> stop playing bebop. It's been quite some time since anybody
> said anything new in the baroque concerto genre, but people
> are still playing it, thank God.
>
Yes
> On improvisation versus stock phrases: I liked the
> comparison with language somebody mentioned earlier. When
> we speak or write, we improvise. If I say "sdjjofj esofitmf orseop"
> I'm improvising something very original, but nobody understands
> me.
There is good improvising and bad improvising.
Within a known structure, the difference is evident.
When attempting to break down walls or construct new paths
decerning that difference is quite a bit more difficult.
>The fact is, we use words and phrases that have been used
> a million times before, but combine them in a new way and
> sometimes we can say something really new and profound.
> I believe it IS still possible to say new, profound things in the
> bebop language, and I believe that there are several talented
> people on this very NG who do exactly that right now. Funnily
> enough, one of those is Mark.
>
> On originality versus derived stuff - take it to the extreme,
> you'd say the very first bebop sessions at Minton's were
> original and revolutionary, everybody after that was being
> unoriginal. You could say the same about Monet's first
> impressionist painting and the movement that followed.
> But what really makes bebop and impressionism important,
> and Dizzy, Bird and Claude geniuses, is that they founded
> a genre in which loads of people could still express themselves
> 100 years later. Take away the disciples, and then they're
> just some guys who did something unusual once.
> In fact, I have some problems with jazz=improvisation and
> improvised=good and not improvised=bad in any case.
How things should be is often confused with how we want them
to be. If one wants to improvise then that's what good jazz is.
> I put on a CD, and listen to a quartet playing the head.
> Before they start to solo on the second chorus, I stop the
> CD. Have I been listening to jazz or not? Or I pick up my
> guitar and play a chord/melody of All The Things You Are -
> the melody is more or less straight, the chords have lots
> of fancy subs and upper structures, but all worked out
> beforehand. I can't say I'm playing jazz, because I'm not
> improvising, so what do I call the style I'm playing? Jim
> Hall admits that on some recording (I forget which) he
> worked out his solo in advance. Is that recording therefore
> not jazz?
>
> Or try this - imagine a perfect copyist, he can play Wes
> solos perfectly, every nuance exactly like Wes. Why should
> it be better to listen to Wes on CD on my inferior hi-fi than
> to go and listen to that guy live? And suppose it was
> suddenly revealed that the Full House CD wasn't actually
> Wes at all, they lost the master tape so they secretly got this
> perfect copyist to do it for the CD, copying from the LP.
> Would the music you've loved until that news got out
> suddenly sound any different?
>
> Like I said, a load of questions you can't answer.
Absoloutely.
>But
> I think as far as Mark's originally post goes, he can say
> that HE no longer finds the means to express himself in
> the classical bebob, head/solo/head idiom. That's admirable,
> it shows artistic integrity, courage to take risks, etc. But
> that doesn't mean that bebop is dead, and there's no reason
> why "bebop guitarist X", as Mark puts it, needs to come to the
> same decision.
>
> I guess that was more than 2c!
Worth every penny.
Scott.
TomLippinc
>> So what I'm saying there is, even if I accepted that it's no longer
>> possible to say something really new in the bebop-derived genre
>> (which I don't), that would still not be a reason for everybody to
>> stop playing bebop. It's been quite some time since anybody
>> said anything new in the baroque concerto genre, but people
>> are still playing it, thank God.
>>
>Yes
But when's the last time you heard a newly composed baroque piece? It's a
little diffficult to compare these two things since the improvised portion of a
jazz performance is created in the moment. I'm not trying to get into the
"argument" here, I just thought it seemed a little erronious to compare playing
bebop in the year 2000 with playing a Bach piece in the year 2000. To me it
would be more apt to compare a group playing an exact note for note
transcription of a Charlie Parker recording (melody interpretations, solos,
comping, ect.) with the perfomance of a classical piece.
Tom Lippincott
Scott Krohn
If people want to listen, then the creation of the music has a purpose.
Music does not have to be new to have a value.
Thats how I read it.
Scott.
"TomLippinc" <tomli...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000205002558...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
> >>
> >> So what I'm saying there is, even if I accepted that it's no longer
> >> possible to say something really new in the bebop-derived genre
> >> (which I don't), that would still not be a reason for everybody to
> >> stop playing bebop. It's been quite some time since anybody
> >> said anything new in the baroque concerto genre, but people
> >> are still playing it, thank God.
> >>
> >Yes
>
Mark Kleinhaut
"Scott Krohn" <skr...@nassau.cv.net> wrote:
> I am not involved in the business of music to any great degree so
> I do not give much thought to it now, but I know how difficult it can
> be for someone who is trying to be an artist.
Its not that its difficult "being" an artist. The hard part is dealing
with the baggage attached to it, particularly where the industry is
always trying to label and pigeon hole everyone. I like Jimmy Bruno's
response in an interview he did. When asked what advise he would give
to young people starting out in the music business, Jimmy says he tells
them that "Music isn't a business, its an art". The hard thing to do
is survive financially.
>
> Jazz takes me away from the business that I am in and I do the best
that I
> can
> to keep it in a very positive light. I play as much as I can and
continue to
> strive
> towards that weighlessness you mentioned. Total involvement and
escapism at
> the
> same time.
>
> I jumped ship from the music business about 18 years ago after
teaching and
> gigging for about 10 years.
> I couldn't seem to balance the need to make money with music and the
need
> to develop as an artist.
> Business and money destroys the purity and integrity of most things.
> So your thoughts on that ring true to me.
I must say that the best thing that ever happened to my music career
was my day job. One day, 20 years ago, I realized I did not want to
work in wedding bands, musicals, rock bands etc. I though about
teaching, but realizing that the pay was horrible, I said to myself, if
I'm gonna work a day job (like teaching) I might as well go something
that at least pays well. I come home from my day gig and have energy
and excitemnet for music, can practice three hours a day and gig on
weeknights or weekends whenever I want to. My friends who teach at the
local colleges and U's are fried by the end of the day and force
themselves to practice even for an hour. And working on composing,
that's another trip altogether, but my point is that music is much more
fulfilling for me that I do not rely on it financially. Or, in other
words, I am my own patron.
> What do they say, "Out of the frying pan , into the fire" --
something like
For me it was out of the frying pan and into a bowl of cool ice cream.
> By the way, I listened to you sound clips and liked them.
> I really liked the ballad feel on 'million notes ...'
Thanks. One of the tunes on my CD is a total free-form which was
sponteously composed, but this tune is not on the website. Variety.
> I read your bio - I also studied with Howie Morgen for a number of
years
> back in the
> mid 70's.
Howie is a great player and a really nice guy. I only got to work with
him for a short while, but I think I got some real value from it. I
think of his approach as being classical because he works out all of
his arrangments and then plays them note-for-note. Its beautiful for
sure, but not where I wish to head at this time. I think that what he
does had its creative roots in something he improvised, but when he
performs his arrangements it could not then be called improvising.
Nonetheless, it is very complicated and beautiful stuff- and I sure
call it jazz guitar.