Bad Sax Sucks

[mim]

timothystevens said:

Can it be perceived simply through learning tunes?

If by this you are asking "Can it be perceived only through learning tunes?", then I would say the answer is no. But I don't think that's what is being suggested.

[paulgrab]

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.[/quote]

Finally, a plug for the greatest of books. Slonimsky. Endless fun. Or were you employing 'irony', Tim?

[timothystevens]

It was on your advice I bought that book; I'll let you work it out.

[johnk]

kennyweir said:

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 ...

KW ur so right. seems mostr people here r new 2 the forum thing. threds always go off topic ppl always end up flaming & reading stuff that isnt there//// this thred started cos some1 in anohter thred was making cliches & generalsations bout singers but its morphed..... that's kind of like ur evryday pub night discussions?

[robburke]

Tim - Understanding what the meaning of humility would be a start!

[geofhughes]

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.[/quote]

Thanks mate - did have - got the migraine to prove it....
Certainly agree that there is alot of generalising going on.....I excel at it...particularly in the odd alcohol fuelled outburst.
I also agree with someone else who mentioned that staying on track in these threads might result in some more specifics - some detail into the landscape perhaps.... I think Ive been paying attention and have most of your CDS - I'd still like to get an idea on what you think about the whole thing - other than that we not nailing it here...
by the way..if you see a little green book floating down the yarra - thats my copy of slonimsky.

[jamie]

At the risk of sounding like an unimaginative, non-creative artist......what's so wrong with Slonimsky?

You know you don't actually have to use the lines when you're soloing right?

[geofhughes]

Oh Boy - not implying anything about creativity - Slonimsky was actually an incredibly astute musicologist/musician and the book is incredible in its own way - easy to lose the plot with at times....

[timothystevens]

Standard tunes are serviceable for the understanding of tonal functional harmony in short forms, and for investigation as the basis for the compositions of a vast number of jazz musicians. They are also great examples of succinct melodic writing, and they are very often terrific vehicles for developing improvisational facility. They are not easy to ignore in the process of learning about jazz, and there are indeed many lauded examples from the music's history of performers working wtih this repertory. I learnt heaps of them when I was younger, and played them for a while, and I think my own compositions demonstrate that their formal examples have been utlised in one way or another.

Personally, I have not been able to see the point of playing them in public for some time. I found I was not getting the same feeling from playing a standard tune as I did from playing an original one, and partly this had to do with the weight of precedents. Piano players like myself tend to get categrorised as imitators (or at least disciples) of Keith Jarrett or Bill Evans, and this has been something I wished to avoid. Not that I don't admire those players - of course I do. I am also aware that these tunes are often referred to collectively as 'the great American songbook,' as jazz is labelled 'America's classical music.' (Stuff that.) It seems to me also that, rather than learning the standards so you can find your voice, i.e. testing yourself against this common body of material, and running the risk of taking on more than the tunes themselves (whatever they are and wherever their boundaries may lie), it might be just as valid to absorb influences from wherever they come, learn to play and compose and everything else, then perhaps address the standard tunes later, when you've something to offer them. I know I'm not the first to say this. Jarrett, after all, famed though he is at present for the standards trio, spent the 1970s with the American and European quartets, or playing solo piano. The two bands played original compositions and/or improvised freely, and the solo music was almost entirely free. Off the top of my head I can't think of a standard tune from Jarrett during the 1970s. Although someone will tell me if I'm wrong.

A while ago Kevin Jones started a review in the Aus with the remark that he goes to the standard first in an album of mostly original music. As I indicated at the time, this is the kind of thing I wish to fight. It is too easy to be measuring our own achievements against something else, rather than assessing them for what they are. It's not that we're in a vacuum, but circumstances here favour the development of something distinctive, if we're brave enough to pursue it.

As with transcription, and even with Slonimsky, the standard repertoire is all about how one uses it, and whether one is conscious of what one is doing or merely filling in time.

Sorry to hear about your migraine, Hughesy. It was a migraine, wasn't it? If I sound grumpy, it could be because I'm not drinking at the moment.

[giannim]

Hey Tim,
Well said! I really agree with : "..As with transcription, and even with Slonimsky, the standard repertoire is all about how one uses it, and whether one is conscious of what one is doing or merely filling in time." I guess that was what I was referring to when I mentioned honesty earlier. We all need to find what triggers our creativity on the most honest level (ie: not what we think we should play, but what is really us). For some ,standards represent the opposite of that, but for others they really inspire them . But in the end, is there is something good in all approaches if they are used as vehicles for artistry? There needs to be some mutual respect of the many different avenues people use to express their creativity.

[jamie]

Agreed Tim. Actually all i'm listening to at the moment (besides Coltrane at the half Note) is the American 4tet. Dewey is such a baddass, and the music is highly original, creative and boundless.
Re: the Kevin Jones thing - on my second album I had one standard (Lush Life) surrounded by 9 originals and can can you guess what got all the airplay? Thats right - no APRA for me

[tinky]

I've never recorded a standard and never will on any of my albums. I would always rather play my own music and have no interest in trying to do something new to a standard. I feel that the music that I write is an extension of the way I play and thus they go hand in hand.
I strongly believe that people should spend more effort exploring their own ideas in both writing and improvising. The act of composing itself teaches you to exercise your 'asthetic' ( not sure thats the right term) which is the same tool you need when you improvise, you just do it quicker.
The one thing I got from transcription was that it removed the idea that some players had special notes at their disposal. Once you realise that its up to you to play the notes in the order that you want then time is better spent finding out your own order. If you want to play music that is strongly derivative of 'standard jazz' then learn lots of that. If you have another idea follow it, time is short.

[johnk]

tinky said:

I've never recorded a standard and never will on any of my albums. I would always rather play my own music and have no interest in trying to do something new to a standard. I feel that the music that I write is an extension of the way I play and thus they go hand in hand.
I strongly believe that people should spend more effort exploring their own ideas in both writing and improvising. The act of composing itself teaches you to exercise your 'asthetic' ( not sure thats the right term) which is the same tool you need when you improvise, you just do it quicker.
The one thing I got from transcription was that it removed the idea that some players had special notes at their disposal. Once you realise that its up to you to play the notes in the order that you want then time is better spent finding out your own order. If you want to play music that is strongly derivative of 'standard jazz' then learn lots of that. If you have another idea follow it, time is short.

readng ur thinkings intersting tinky cos when i isten 2 ur early cds 2 me there kinda like standards cos they r familiar & i forget ur stuff is original

[marksiks]

robburke said:

Tim - Understanding what the meaning of humility would be a start!

nice sentence structure, rob. will you proof-read my thesis?

hey tinky, do you think that playing standards whilst maintaining your "aesthetic" is part of the challenge? you don't have to reinvent the wheel (speaking of chiches) each time you play a standard. And by the way, what is "standard jazz"? When i think of my favourite musicians, I would hardly call any of them "standard".

m6

[mim]

jamie said:

Re: the Kevin Jones thing - on my second album I had one standard (Lush Life) surrounded by 9 originals and can can you guess what got all the airplay? Thats right - no APRA for me

But I must thankyou for that Jamie! Your recording of Lush Life gave me and a drummer friend much needed inspiration for an Improv assignment in 3rd year uni in which we all had to do Lush Life in duos, and admittedly many of us were sick to death of it. You breathed some new life into that tune for me.