Daorum SOH Sunday 9th March

[isaacs]

It makes great sense. There's an interesting discussion I'd like to have one day, about the whole thing of solos, in particular "kick ass" solos where not a note is waffle, and which are virtuosic, or at least have virtuoso bits. I don't mean to diss that thing, and certainly would have liked to have got more of that down. But at other times I have consciously fought that and had albums without real solos, or pieces without solos or just with some chilling out on codas and introductions. I know you also have been involved in a lot of music when the primacy of "solos" is subverted. It's interesting, it has occurred to me that "solos" are a kind of equivalent of the concerto idea in classical music, but in classical music concertos are just one possible form, but there's also chamber music, symphonies where a "solo" is no more than the fact that the next couple of phrases would sound best played by that particular instrument. It's about colour, rather than a chance for an instrumentalist to strut. If I was to evolve a polemic, I might think that jazz should grow up and not be so obsessed about "players" and their fucking "solos" and take a step back and think about the overall "voice" of the music. But of course, jazz has often done this whether it's Band of Five Names or Ish Ish, and on the other hand I still love a killing solo, especially if I manage to play one when the microphones are on But still often I'm having just a great time comping and colouring the music that "soloing" becomes a nuisance, even a chore.....

[ironguts]

Yes the old solo thing, it seems to me many players thrive on the solo and want to "kick ass", many listeners too want a hero type solo, show us what you got fellas!! Whilst this can be fun it brings a real sport type attitude to the music and it just aint very interesting. It also brings a separation of the solo from the piece of music, becoming more of a display of prowess or flexing of muscle. Now I'm all up for virtuosity, but it really comes down to intent. If your intention is to add to the piece by your involvement and you happen to incorporate various techniques in order to develop the music all well and good. If you just want to have your go at playing over the band and displaying your chops then fuck off. I think there is the extreme but also a lot in between too.
I find nowadays that I love playing in circumstances where if I want to play I do, and if not I don't. I guess this may be called free jazz, but to be honest I hate that term and don't think free jazz is devoid of the hero solo attitude anyhow. I prefer the term open I guess, that way we can follow anything that comes up including forms, rhythm, harmony and there doesn't ever have to be a solo. In fact the term solo becomes literal, it's only a solo when no one else is playing!
On a side note, if I am playing in a more straight ahead setting, I still want it not to be a solo, I want it to be an exchange of ideas and energy between players, it just happens to be the combination at the moment. I always try to play like it's a duet/trio or however many there are involved. I hate when I get suckered into playing the hero, but sometimes even the band will push you into the role depending on how involved they are, or aren't as the case may be.

[captain]

A fair point seeing how this is how Jazz started in the first place. No other music requires everyone to improvise the whole time. Unfortunately Jazz has evolved to this point where it is all about the soloist, and nothing else. Occasionally some of us will participate in or witness a band or group who are actually interacting but its getting rarer and rarer.

[alimcg]

I know some will accuse me of drawing a long bow here, or of comparing apples and oranges, but occassionally Joe Blow, newspaper reader, finds technical insights quite interesting. Perhaps in the same way that some sports writers, or book reviewers, or science writers include something more than opinion in reviews and reports. Not all readers respond purely to opinion, not all respond purely to facts and figures. I believe the key is to write in an engaging manner, and if writing on technical points to not get too caught up in rhetoric.

[ironguts]

No issue with that, IF they actually have some idea what they're talking about. The thing is even when a valid technical point is made, for example Tim S's point on open 5th's re Keevers, it's still only reflects on how the individual, Tim in this case, hears it. Lots of people may dig that sound even if seen to be wrong or over used by another, though I think Tim made that clear in his article too. So I guess it's back to the way it's written, like the way it's played. Sometimes I think writers can show off by spouting their knowledge of the idiom in the same way a saxophonist displays their pentatonics ( yes yes, I had to say saxomophone, poor little things, you'll be ok)

[aj]

Very interesting discussion, some great insights from Mark & Guts, among others.

For the record, I did learn sax as a teenager, but was never at or close to professional standard. (Also got to grade 2 classical piano as a kid, but I'm sure I've forgotten all of that long ago).

[alimcg]

Good point, guts. I guess the problems might start when the lines between technical comment and opinion are blurred.

[gator]

Does anyone really believe its possible not to blur technical(we're not talking about a chainsaw manual here)comment with opinion?
A musician can with some authority comment on the playing of another musician - but the experience of playing the music is the experience of the performer not the critic. The critic can only really comment on the experience of listening to the music which is of course a personal one.... and then draw technical inferences which, however well informed, are always going to be subjective-an opinion based on their own experiences. The quality of writing ,as Guts mentions before, as opposed to some notion of a clear differentiation between opinion and "fact": is central to criticism that I personally, find engaging. Of course its interesting to note the comments of those who bother to inform themselves, either as listeners or players or both - but I wouldn't trust life and limb on that opinion.. because the minute one comments on art , one exposes ones subjectivity in the form of an aesthetic...and I have no problem with that at all.
I also find info, about aspects of tone production, recording , technical data etc and other tidbits fascinating too, but I haven't read too many reviews that enlighten me in that regard - and I wouldn't expect to. That really is the domain of research into the technically finite - Guts mentioned how disappointed he would be if people fussed over the extended techniques he uses instead of the musical intention he employed them for... Whats wrong with an expressive, objectively fuzzy, honest and entertaining piece of writing as a response to a piece of artistic endeavour?

[ironguts]

Gator you're full of shit, oh, no, wait, I think you said all that very well, sorry, full of grace and insight as usual.
One should be able to separate technique and opinion though I think, if, as you say, the understanding of technique is well informed. It's one thing to say " Tinkler approached this piece with his bell submerged in a bucket of water producing various over tones and gurgling notes" but to say "the use of a bucket of water created the most annoying of sounds including,,,," ( not real statements, being random). Like you said, you could state the technique then go on to say whether or not you liked it or how it affected your idea of the music. Obviously the use of any technique or device is not in itself any proof of the quality of the music, either exemplary or flawed the result can be amazing or horrible. To say someone played with grace and poise might only be a good thing if someone actually likes that! Kenny G plays in tune and in time with good control of his registers, but to me, speaking as an experienced critic, it's totally fucked shit.

[gator]

Guts seamlessly makes one, of the word 'grace' and the word 'shit'..

I liked that...

[alimcg]

Guts picked up on what I meant. Fact and opinion can be put together, obviously, but I think it's a good idea for them to be presented in way where there is some distinction (for lack of a better word at the moment). When facts are presented as opinion, and opinion as facts, I find it lessens the power of both, and I come to the conclusion that the writer/orator is full of grace... or shit.

[gator]

Maybe youre not getting my point...I do get your point about the inclusion of 'facts' but this is surely a minor part of reviewing... the same voice that relates these facts also has an opinion.I do agree that poorly articulated ideas can make the commentary unclear - and that an over- reliance on commentary defeats the purpose of a review. ..I suppose Im stuck in the idea that a good review is in itself a creative act - based on some conviction about the subject that permeates the writing - so from my perspective if a review has any merit it is surely in how compelling the creative interpretation of facts are- how powerfully the music acts on the imagination of the critic:and how the critic articulates that experience.. Or are we simply talking about a report? -a non or barely analytical journalistic piece of writing. my main problem with this scenario is that it is an attempt to place the critic outside of the experience of listening - detached from the experience - (we do have this fascination with being Godlike dont we?)or do we expect critics to move in and out of some notion of the objective/subjective world with sharp differentiation? If thats what floats your boat -cool, but I disagree about trying to make the two distinct from one another if we are talking about great writing.

Here's a quote from Prof. Margaret Kartomi in an interview on the ABC about Hanslick - considered by many to be the greatest critic of the 19th century.

" Even today a good critic who spends most of his life or decades writing things, they feel that they have to do something for the society, and they have to have a kind of an aesthetic or a philosophical idea about music. Because if you start off writing in your 20s (as Hanslick did), publishing and criticism, and then in your 40s or your 60s you’re writing in an inconsistent way with what your did earlier, then you’re not going to stand the test of time, you’re not going to feel happy about it, which is why critics often go into aesthetics. They have a philosophy of music, and Hanslick was in fact the first critic who wrote an extensive book, which has been extremely influential, about his philosophy of music."

[timothystevens]

What are these facts, anyway? 'There are fourteen tracks on this CD.' 'The piano is played by Colin Hopkins.' 'The first selection is entitled 'Peregrine'.' Technical insights are already corrupted as facts for their having been isolated and extracted for special mention. Someone decides which technical insights are worth articulating, which comments are worth making. This is a matter of opinion.

If I wanted facts about an album, I'd read the cover.

Incidentally, they were octaves, not 5ths. It's ages ago, but it does keep coming up. According to my calculations, in bars 11-12 of 'Grace' the melody and the bass are in unison. Two bars earlier, a progression to B minor with the melody notes B, C#, D comprised the chords E/G#, F#/A#, B–. The passage in bars 11-12 is a sequential restatement of this, with the chords F/A, G/B, C–. But the melody notes are A, B, C. To my ear (and there it is: to my ear) this later statement weakens the effect of the progression. The melody goes further, too, to a D, and over a D7. I may be the only person who ever objected to this, but no-one then or now has managed to mount an effective counter-argument. Which is not to say that I'm right, merely that it's easier to get fired up over someone's presumptuousness than to tackle them on those technical issues.

There are some slightly troubling 5ths in 'Milton Nascimento': a progression from a major chord on G to the particularly unstable diminished chord on F#, with the melody notes D and C. Because of the instability of the diminished chord and the parallel movement of melody and bass, this also sounds weak – to me.

The issue for me in these examples is inconsistency – the violation of an aesthetic that I hear as having been created or invoked within the course of a composition thus far. The inferring of an aesthetic and hence a violation is a subjective act on my part. Ideally, criticism is a colloquy – historically, socially, geographically situated, and by definition open to question and informed dispute. So if someone has something contrary to contribute, please go right ahead.

Above all though no-one should ever imagine that by writing about these things I'm mounting any bitter personal campaign against the musicians who wrote or performed the music in question. That is to get it completely wrong. I take their music seriously enough to listen closely to it and think carefully about what I'm hearing. I'm grateful to anyone who does the same for me (even if they wind up hating whatever it is I play).

Have a happy and blessed Easter, all.

[punter]

Tim, don't you think that maybe you protest a little too much?

[timothystevens]

Oh, if you say so. Whoever you are. Fuck, I give up.