Bad Sax Sucks

[shaggaz]

Forgive me, but

I don't think the purpose of this conversation is to identify what the right way is to learn how to play jazz or contribute to modern music. I think it's great that some people learn harmony from standards, good for them, I think it's great that people learn harmony from playing Bach, good for them, I think it's great that people learn about harmony from freely improvising and post-analysing what is going on, good for them too.

This discussion is beginning to take on a 'i can't believe you don't agree with my way' tone?!!?

[tuggsey]

I can empathise with Ali's viewpoint here - mainly because the Standard repertoire has remained at the core of jazz vocal music.Until quite recently it was mainly instrumentalists who composed original music - hence generating a whole new repertoire and a tradition of writing your own music - more singers participate in that tradition now - which is a good thing. i think the word standard has alot to answer for. Songs are songs regardless of their origin or purpose - if they are any good , and if great musicians keep performing them, they are valuable and they will hang around - they dont constitute a threat to originality - but it seems kind of ludicrous that there has to be this bi polar attitude - songs(and other things) can inspire creativity - creativity can transform the performance of a song - our music works this way always,no?

[jazzpolice]

Sometimes I feel that people become a slave to the history of the music. I know that people have different opinions on the role of tradition in improvised music (I'm talking about improvised music that has it's roots in jazz), but I think there is an audible difference in people's sound depending how they address or ignore (trying to think of a less negative word than that) the tradition of the music.

Some players sound to me like they are a slave to the tune they are playing, rather than putting themselves INTO the song. I've been listening to Dalgliesh's "Star Chamber" record recently - it contains 11 standards: Stardust, Ugly Beauty, April in Paris, Tenderely, Sophisticated Lady etc.....
Anybody else heard this? The way Elliot plays standards on this record reminds me of a quote about monk - "Even when he plays a standard it sounds like a MONK tune!"

When I think about the way most people play standards, the thought occurs to me that with a standard comes a whole lot of assumptions. Assumptions are the killer of creativity!!!! Personally I am sick of hearing THE SAME SHIT! I want to hear music that expresses who you are, not who you idolise.

[ironguts]

Expresses who you are, exactly. Who give's a fuck what you play, it's definately the how. That album of Elliots I have heard once. Whilst not my bag, one thing is for sure, he owns those tunes the way he plays them, no-one else sounds like him.
He doesn't show off, though I've heard he's quite a character.

[mim]

jazz police, that shows that creativity can occur with the knowledge of standard tunes, and it's about how you choose to play them. Yes, many people who play standards play them uncreatively, I wouldn't say that's their choice of repertoire. I find that if a player plays a standard uncreatively they are likely to play that way in any style of jazz.

[jamie]

kennyweir said:

Is "Happy Birthday" a standard?

When Rob and I were auditioning people for Monash last year we asked all of the students to play Happy Birthday from a random starting note. It was an interesting exercise, having a tune that everybody could sing, and seeing if they could "play what they hear". A lot failed dismally.

Shaggaz - I agree that you should be practicing the music you're performing at the moment, but it's obvious that you have worked on jazz harmony, and standards. I was talking about younger, less developed students. If anyone wants to be able to play on (more than one) chord based music, the obvious starting point is on the standard jazz repertoire, and on learning how to move melodically through the changes.

I liked what Tinky said about he only learns the chords so he knows what he's ignoring - you do know he's serious right? It's the old saying of needing to know the rules in order to break them. Ornette started out learning Bird and it didn't stop him from becoming one of the most individual stylists in jazz music.

[tuggsey]

mmmm- I wonder where Rob got that one from...

[jazzpolice]

mim said:

jazz police, that shows that creativity can occur with the knowledge of standard tunes, and it's about how you choose to play them. Yes, many people who play standards play them uncreatively, I wouldn't say that's their choice of repertoire. I find that if a player plays a standard uncreatively they are likely to play that way in any style of jazz.

for sure mim. All i'm saying is that i think people can fall into 'cliche mode' when playing tunes with a heavy history behind them. I am also very generous in my labelling of cliches, in casw you're wondering

[tinky]

Lets see how this goes down.
Mim, in response to the approaching 'standards' with creativity, I think that those that have a lot of creative energy will spend it writing and exploring original material. I think spending time trying to do 'unoriginal' ( to use another word) material is often resultant in a less than creative situation. When I think of Osby doing Sidewinder the other night I just think why waste your time. Sure its a great tune that Lee did well, but no matter what tricks you put in its still sidewinder, he thinks he's being creative, dream on.
All the great musos that I respect do almost all original stuff. Even Jarrett shits me with the standards, sure they play fucking well, but the improv stuff is far far superior for me.
I think often knowing some tunes gives us a chance to do a impromptu gig and pull something together, but so does having great reading and interprative skills, and the willingness to really improvise.
I have spent time learning tunes but more time learning the harmonic patterns that make up all these tunes. If I spent the time needed to learn 100's of standards, I'd never have written the stuff I have or developed the language I have. If I hadn't learnt to play quite a few I wouldn't have either. So what am I saying? Fuck knows.
No, what I think I'm saying is it is most important to follow the direction that your music leads you. Don't do something because someone tells you to. Do it because your ears are draggin you there. Have the balls to do the work needed to acheive what you want to do.
Gotta read the kids a story, by.

[antboy]

wow!
while people are crying WHERE HAS ALL THIS NEGATIVITY come from about standards you could also cry WHY ARE WE BEING SO DEFENSIVE about someone questioning the relevancy of learning 10000 standards when trying to find their own music and sound?!!!
that's the question I was asking, and maybe I strayed a little too far from what Vicki originally said but...well there you go.
It's not negative, it's just a difference of opinion...
My point was more about students learning as many standards as possible, if you want to be a really good standards player ( and there is NO shortage of them all over the world ) then it is probably a good idea,
but I think if you want to be trying to find a music that is somewhat relevant to our environment, the music we grew up listening to, being in Australia ( or Nantes?! ) in 2006 etc, I don't agree with this method as being so productive...
and I agree that all knowledge is power sure, to state the obvious,
but any one with a set of ears could also say that the players that spend more time working on standards and other people's music generally end up sounding like someone else or someone else's music, ( hence, UNLEARNING, that is unless you want to sound like someone else! )
whereas the players that concentrate more on their own thing end up sounding like...themselves! strange concept I know, but when you look at the history, why do we like Coltrane, coz he sounds like sonny rollins?

[johnk]

intersting thoughts antboy all those gr8 players listened & learnt from loads of sources 2 arrive @ their own sound & the real good 1s keep evolving

tinky dont u have to learn other ppls music 2 be good @ reading?

[glow=red,2,300]question 4 every1

if u never heard or learnt any elses music but that of ur own making what would you sound like?[/glow]



this discussion could go on 4 ever

[johnk]

kennyweir said:

Is "Happy Birthday" a standard?

it has a copyright!

[tinky]

I never meant it to sound like not playing anyone else's music. For me the term standard pertains to the old jazz repertois. You can work on your reading by simply sight reading heaps, obviously you can't sight read something you've written yourself.
When I went to the states the first time I saw, as you do , many things. One thing that really stood out to me was seeing Percy Heath with his brother Terry. They were playing what to many would be Standards or the older jazz rep from the 40's 50's. As the gig went on Percy introduced one of these tunes saying that he wrote it for Miles to play in the late 40's. It dawned on me that for them, these tynes were not standards as such, but tunes written by them and their peers during their lives. It was a great gig and they played the music in such a way that it totally inspired me ( Slide H was on the gig, wow).
When I returned to Aus I decided I wanted to play my music and the music of my peers. I've learnt lots from playing P.G's music and Simmonds music, yes its influenced me but they are part of my life, my friends. Now I think that people that have played my music have been influenced by me too, and I've been influence by their input into my music.
I was talking of this with someone the other night and it came up that when you can recognise someone by their sound its a good thing but its far better if you can recognise their concept, ie tell its their music when they're not playing.
Is footprints a standard? Not for Wayne thats for sure.

Just had another thought. Before I started to develop my own music and hence gain control over the direction I wanted my playing to take, I had alot of difficulty finding my own way through standards ( I know its a fucked term). There is a certain way of playing, a language, that works well on these tunes but its not the way I hear things. If I didn't spend the time working on my playing in relation to how I want my music to sound, then I wouldn't be able to play standards the way I do now. For the record, I actually can have fun playing standards because I can approach them on my own terms now.

[tuggsey]

When Rob and I were auditioning people for Monash last year we asked all of the students to play Happy Birthday from a random starting note. It was an interesting exercise, having a tune that everybody could sing, and seeing if they could "play what they hear". A lot failed dismally.

I know what youre getting at Jamie. If the songs teach us anything its how to hear simple tonality- any song can do that -if its taught the right way.
The common devices of cyclic harmony, light chromaticism and modulation are all present in the Standard rep....which gives it a place in pedagogy of any music learning - not just jazz. But Im going to open a can of worms and say that I dont go with the notion that you learn standards or any music as just maths tests in music.There are increasing concerns now in all facets of teaching about the the role of doing "studies" in music - or divorcing musicality from the concept - If you have no internal relationship with the music - (and this is where I have this rabid conviction that we all need to sing...however badly)..then there is no connection with the central idea of the musical device - You can tell a student forever that a subdominant chord exists in the transient world between tonic and dominant,but if they dont feel the actual musical tension by internalising it -its meaningless and frustrating.I make my lot sing tunes-even the drummers -some of them hate me for it .
I think alot of Jazz today suffers from a lack of connectivity to some vital musical elements - particularly , timbre and dynamics - because the other elements are more easily divisible. I saw a fusion band at the Northsea festival last year that epitomised this - complex harmony and rhythm -big names-frightening chops - but I just came away thinking that each of these guys were just advanced monitoring systems for their own instruments - although the crowd of under twenties fucking loved it..and part of me dug it too...just for the sheer silliness, but I couldnt find the connection or the reason for the music - maybe its arrogant of me to say this but its like they are still students trying to find meaning in complexity.
I just dont think that all the answers lie in a sort of detached study of the Standard repertoire.

"I love a broadway tune...
How about you?"'


. Do it because your ears are draggin you there.[/color][/size]

Yeah Tinky- your ears and your heart . . but maybe the younger developing players that Jamie is referring to, also have to be given some strong guidance and attitude...

[ironguts]

I'll buy into this.
Surely if its Jazz that we want to play then we should learn the Jazz language, best way to do that is standards, thats where it developed. I don't just mean 'Stella' (or the broadway shit), but all Waynes tunes, Miles, Monk, Trane etc, the real shit.
If you want to be a free player do Cecil, Ornette etc. If you want to do something else WHY ARE YOU ON A JAZZ FORUM?
Lets face it, most people that write their own stuff write it so it sounds like a standard anyhow, so why not just do one that actually sounds good?
If you want to play another language, what makes you think it will work in a jazz setting? Jazz is Jazz and other stuff is not. It really does seem so simple yet people want to believe they're inovating when they're just not doing as well as its been done before.
If you're going to play jazz listen to the masters and learn then do, if not go to creativemusic.com and speak about the spirit within us all.