tinky
Full Member
hello, how am I.
Posts: 230
|
Post by tinky on Mar 7, 2006 15:48:35 GMT 10
So if I come back you all have to apologise for being cunts to me behind my back.
|
|
|
|
Post by robburke on Mar 11, 2006 9:41:29 GMT 10
A couple of thoughts:
Isn't the Dizzies jam for musicians to have a play - I send lots of students down there to play a tune or 2 . What they get out of it is exactly what was earlier discussed - learning that they have know and hear the changes of a tune - time - language ect. I think the Dizzies jam is fantastic for developing musicians to have a chance to play.
In regards to learning standards - I think it is a great vehicle to learn the jazz repertoire. So many different chord progressions and melodies that can used to play the 'keys'. Also - learning 'jazz standards is a great way to hear the historical evolution of 'jazz' ie. Bye Bye Blackbird. = tin pan alley - Miles Davis - John Coltrane - Keith Jarrett ect.
Learning standards ain't going to hurt!
|
|
|
|
Post by giannim on Mar 11, 2006 11:07:18 GMT 10
Hey Rob,
The gig in question that Vicki was talking about was not a jam.People payed money to come and see the band. A jam session is a great way for students to learn tunes, but no substitute for going home and learning them! I also agree with Geoff that people need to absorb and hear harmony and melody. Now Tinky ,when are you gonna pick up that shirt......
|
|
|
|
Post by geofhughes on Mar 11, 2006 11:16:18 GMT 10
also G. when I said that I dont think standards should be used as maths tests - Im not saying we shouldnt have methods to learn them- im saying is that there should be some involvement with the melody - you know what I mean.. There are a large number of musicians - some accomplished players who dont seem to know the actual tunes they are playing - because they have only learnt the changes.If you use a painting analogy - and you perceive harmony as depth and perspective on melody - the melody would be the subject. Its like only remembering the colours and background in the picture ,and not knowing the subject...Would be good to know what other people think about that...
|
|
|
|
Post by mim on Mar 11, 2006 12:00:27 GMT 10
That's an interesting way to think of it, Geof. A good analogy, and one instrumentalists & singers alike could benefit from. Carrying on with it, many singers I have known are looking at paintings with no depth perception at all. And perhaps a 2D subject with black outlines on a blank background. (Not to be disloyal to my own, but it's true)
|
|
|
|
Post by geofhughes on Mar 11, 2006 12:31:10 GMT 10
Absolutely Mim - I think theres a whole thread dedicated to that one somewhere...
|
|
|
|
Post by giannim on Mar 11, 2006 13:03:44 GMT 10
Couldn't agree more GH. I guess part of trying to teach jazz improvisation is that some parameters need to be set up,especially when these parameters need to be asessed as part of a curriculum, so methods of learning standrds can be divised. But the connection with the melody that you speak of, is a much more etherial pursuit. Many people seem in rush to get a melody over and done with and get to the 'changes' so they can educate us with their brilliance(!). But often the melody really contains the essence, the thought of the song.Monks 'Reflections' is a good example. The melody and related changes are so strong that it would not be enough to just blow on that tunes changes. The analogy to painting is a good one, as when we think of great performances of standards there is always that depth of subject you referred to. It is like looking at a painting that moves you for hours, you find more and more in it. That surely is the art of it all....
|
|
|
|
Post by mim on Mar 11, 2006 13:04:21 GMT 10
Hmmm... Yes, I suppose there is... But I'm not advocating the automatic assumption that all singers are like this. It's a bit of an insight into why a lot of horn players and singers don't see eye to eye - if you consider that a particular singer is all subject and a horn player is all background. Perhaps, if they recognise this, and realise that it's not the only way to be, they can learn from each other...  Tinky - 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. - Now that the cat is well and truly out of the bag, I'm curious as to your real thoughts on the above statement. Because it was the one thing Ironguts said that I saw sense in. I'm not saying it's these tunes we should necessarily spend our creative energy on, I did understand what you were talking about with that, and mostly agree with it. And I'm interested in your thoughts about Vince in relation to this general topic, and his mixture of standard & original repertoire and approach to it. |
|
|
|
Post by geofhughes on Mar 11, 2006 14:41:08 GMT 10
Awareness of harmonic depth in music is experienced very differently too - alot of us have been well schooled in the functions(theres gotta be another word!) of chords etc in tunes,but I do hear singers who maybe ,without (and Im generalising wildly here)having a literal knowledge of the chords, understand everyrthing about the way the melody and harmony relate...Sinatra - for one.And theres a couple of locals too ....(being presumptious again)
|
|
|
|
Post by timothystevens on Mar 11, 2006 15:09:25 GMT 10
In regards to learning standards - I think it is a great vehicle to learn the jazz repertoire. So many different chord progressions and melodies that can used to play the 'keys'. Also - learning 'jazz standards is a great way to hear the historical evolution of 'jazz' ie. Bye Bye Blackbird. = tin pan alley - Miles Davis - John Coltrane - Keith Jarrett ect. I love a sunburnt cliché A land of sweeping generalisations |
|
|
|
Post by geofhughes on Mar 11, 2006 16:01:10 GMT 10
I love a sunburnt cliché
A land of sweeping generalisations
ha ha -nice one doctor. Remind me to tack on a few citations next time I post....
|
|
|
|
Post by robburke on Mar 11, 2006 16:08:41 GMT 10
Dear Tim - let go of it - Love Rob
|
|
|
|
Post by jazzer on Mar 11, 2006 17:46:21 GMT 10
So once again on this forum it is impossible to stay on the topic. Tim , what do you actually think on the matter of learning standards?What were you trying to achieve by having a dig at Rob Burke (someone by the way who knows alot of tunes)? I don't understand.It is so easy to say something trite . I would argue that this:
"I love a sunburnt cliché
A land of sweeping generalisations"
is a real cliche.
.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kenny on Mar 11, 2006 17:59:30 GMT 10
Online forums and staying on topic rarely coincide. Go with the flow. I reckon there'll be a few surprises in tomorrow night's F1 GP opener in Bahrain ...
|
|
|
|
Post by timothystevens on Mar 11, 2006 18:16:52 GMT 10
My position on learning standards should be pretty clear from the records I've made; if you really care you could have a look at my contributions over the years to this forum, or you could read my reviews or my own research. How I feel is no secret to anyone who's been paying attention.
I thought (since I have to make it absolutely explicit) that Rob's post was lacking somewhat in the imagination department, and that his acceptance that 'learning jazz standards is a great way to hear the historical evolution of 'jazz'' should be open to question. Yawn and here we go again, but what is this 'historical evolution of jazz' that we are invited to accept? Can it be perceived simply through learning tunes? That 'the jazz repertoire' (undefined) is something one needs to learn is a proposition presented rather uncritically.
My post was trying as succinctly as possible simply to ask 'why in Australia is it still possible to be so simplistic about things? Why can't we think a little more deeply about what we're doing, and the options available to us?' I'm grateful that a couple of readers seemed to get it, but for anyone else who didn't or who disagrees, carry on with your standards (learn as many as you can!) and your transcriptions (over 500 solos in a year earns you special commendation!), bury yourselves in Slonimsky's Thesaurus and have a pleasant evening.
|
|
