There is no question in my mind that Ingrid is a major player with a very sophisticated approach and an extremely large jazz vocabulary. She is, no doubt, confusing to people strongly attached to strictly melodic playing. There are a lot of people like that, probably the majority of listeners. I can understand that in their lack of experience and understanding they would find her playing quite random/disjointed/unconnected. It can be difficult to understand because it is very sophisticated and more angular/cutting edge than most people are used to hearing. It helps a lot to understand the complications of playing the instrument and the complications of expressing sequential ideas. The more a person understands these factors the more they will appreciate the skill displayed by Ingrid.
I think some are attributing 'sophistication' and large vocabularies to the notion of how advanced it sounds to listeners when they come in contact with more angular/cutting edge sounds than what most people are used to hearing. This is not to say they aren't interesting, they are. But if that approach is used exclusively, what happens is that the player avoids anything having to do with melodic expressions in their playing..it's not something you need worry about again. Worse still is that it can take on a life of it's own, where a following can be had, with an audience that couldn't care less, and adores them regardless.
Whether it's Miles, Wallace Roney or whoever, the flip side to featuring 99 % harmonic ideas, steering clear of the other, is you end up proliferating a one dimensional expresion and yawnfest to a degree, akin to what was termed 'muzak' in the 70's for the desire to soothe audiences with a brand of valium for the listener.
JMO, but who wants to be mentally soothed -- even in an intelligent way -- consistently. It's nice once in a while, but not all day everyday...24/7. In other words, even if it seems completely out of place, come back (on occasion) with a melodic idea. Not often, but perhaps 5 % of the time.
You've summed up pretty well the reasons I'm not a fan of this approach even though I respect and appreciate its difficulty and complexity and am often amazed at the technical attributes of what I'm hearing. _________________ HERMOKIWI
Joined: 24 Feb 2008 Posts: 2642 Location: vista ca
Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:18 pm Post subject:
This thread is exposing some people’s real lack of awareness.
First off, miles and Wallace are not very much “angular” players. If there is one main characteristic to both of their approaches it would that they are predominantly stepwise players.
Miles is also one of the most melodic players in the history of jazz. Who is more melodic than miles? I would call Chet and miles maybe a tie. It’s not Stan Getz, and he’s a real melodic player too.
Even Bobby Hacket was far more angular.
And how did angular and melodic become opposites anyway? That’s weird too.
Woody is pretty angular, and he’s also very melodic.
I’m trying to think of a great player who isn’t melodic. Coltrane? That’s pretty melodic to me. Cannonball? Super-melodic.
I suppose Kamasi Washington is less melodic, sometimes...... but still, he can play how he wants, and sometimes he’s more melodic.
How do you even describe melodic without having a picture of miles there?
This thread is exposing some people’s real lack of awareness.
First off, miles and Wallace are not very much “angular” players. If there is one main characteristic to both of their approaches it would that they are predominantly stepwise players.
Miles is also one of the most melodic players in the history of jazz. Who is more melodic than miles? I would call Chet and miles maybe a tie. It’s not Stan Getz, and he’s a real melodic player too.
Even Bobby Hacket was far more angular.
And how did angular and melodic become opposites anyway? That’s weird too.
Woody is pretty angular, and he’s also very melodic.
I’m trying to think of a great player who isn’t melodic. Coltrane? That’s pretty melodic to me. Cannonball? Super-melodic.
I suppose Kamasi Washington is less melodic, sometimes...... but still, he can play how he wants, and sometimes he’s more melodic.
How do you even describe melodic without having a picture of miles there?
What a waste of time this thread is.......
I don't think anyone who has posted is classifying any player wholly in the "melodic" category or wholly in the "angular" category. I think it's understood that these characteristics are on a spectrum with "melodic" on one end, "angular" on the other end and the players spread out along the spectrum based on which way and how far they lean.
"Melodic" and "angular" don't have to be defined as opposites. They can just as easily be defined as two differing versions of the same thing. The point is that people seem to have a fairly consistent concept of the difference and comment here in accordance with that concept. I don't think people are arguing here about anything more complex than the fact that some people like certain music that others don't like. I think that's a fair point for civil communication of differing thoughts and ideas.
I don't think civil communication of differing thoughts and ideas is ever a waste of time. Those who think this thread is a waste of time have a simple solution: Just stop reading and posting on this thread and leave the discussion to those of us who think this thread has merit. _________________ HERMOKIWI
There is no question in my mind that Ingrid is a major player with a very sophisticated approach and an extremely large jazz vocabulary. She is, no doubt, confusing to people strongly attached to strictly melodic playing. There are a lot of people like that, probably the majority of listeners. I can understand that in their lack of experience and understanding they would find her playing quite random/disjointed/unconnected. It can be difficult to understand because it is very sophisticated and more angular/cutting edge than most people are used to hearing. It helps a lot to understand the complications of playing the instrument and the complications of expressing sequential ideas. The more a person understands these factors the more they will appreciate the skill displayed by Ingrid.
I think some are attributing 'sophistication' and large vocabularies to the notion of how advanced it sounds to listeners when they come in contact with more angular/cutting edge sounds than what most people are used to hearing. This is not to say they aren't interesting, they are. But if that approach is used exclusively, what happens is that the player avoids anything having much to do with melodic expressions..and not something they need worry about again. Worse still is that it can take on a life of it's own, where a following can be had, with an audience that couldn't care less, and adores them regardless.
Whether it's Miles, Wallace Roney or whoever, the flip side to featuring 99 % harmonic ideas, steering clear of the other, is the risk of proliferating a one dimensional expression or yawnfest to a degree, akin to what was termed 'muzak' in the 70's for the desire to soothe audiences with a brand of valium in the listener.
JMO, but who wants to be mentally soothed -- even in an intelligent way -- consistently. It's nice once in a while, but not all day everyday...24/7. In other words, even if it seems completely out of place, come back (on occasion) with a melodic idea. Not often, but perhaps 5 % of the time.
Joined: 23 Feb 2013 Posts: 250 Location: Phoenix AZ
Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 6:16 pm Post subject:
HERMOKIWI wrote:
There is no question in my mind that Ingrid is a major player with a very sophisticated approach and an extremely large jazz vocabulary. She is, no doubt, confusing to people strongly attached to strictly melodic playing. There are a lot of people like that, probably the majority of listeners. I can understand that in their lack of experience and understanding they would find her playing quite random/disjointed/unconnected. It can be difficult to understand because it is very sophisticated and more angular/cutting edge than most people are used to hearing. It helps a lot to understand the complications of playing the instrument and the complications of expressing sequential ideas. The more a person understands these factors the more they will appreciate the skill displayed by Ingrid.
I admit that I'm not a fan of her type of interpretation. However, I've been at this long enough to understand, appreciate and marvel at what she does. It is much less random than what the average listener may think. She has very specific patterns she uses here and there (Clark Terry, Clifford Brown and other great jazz artists had very specific patterns they used, too) and a whole concept as she approaches what she does. Ingrid is a legitimately great player regardless of whether her interpretations appeal to me or to other listeners. It's very difficult technically to do what she does.
I feel the same way about Clay Jenkins, who I mentioned earlier in this thread. Like Ingrid, Clay is an absolutely amazing player in the "How did he think of that?" way. It's mind boggling for me to listen to it because I couldn't come even close to reproducing it. My personal fluency is melodic, not angular. I don't hear the music the way Ingrid and Clay hear the music, which makes it even more amazing to me that they do what they do.
Great players come in many forms. The more you know about the instrument and the whole concept of jazz music the easier it is to identify great players. Whether or not you personally like what they play is not particularly relevant to that determination/observation.
To me Shaye Cohn and Bria Skonberg are very high on the list.
If you don't want to hear Bria sing, listen to the first three minutes and again from about 5:42 of this song ( I hear Louis, Miles and Bria altogether coming out of that trumpet):
To me Shaye Cohn and Bria Skonberg are very high on the list.
If you don't want to hear Bria sing, listen to the first three minutes and again from about 5:42 of this song ( I hear Louis, Miles and Bria altogether coming out of that trumpet):
New on my list is Gunhild Carling. I like her playing but I would like it if she were a little less abundant.
Suzan Veneman (Netherlands) is very high on my list too. I think she is the upcoming star.
That was nicely done by Bria. It's a lot more difficult than the uneducated listener thinks to make a plunger solo work well and certainly Bria did an excellent job with great texturing. It's fun to watch/hear performances like this. _________________ HERMOKIWI
Getting back to Ingrid Jensen, I checked out some of the links to her playing embedded in this thread, and I would agree that she understands jazz and is a skilled player. I can listen to the style of jazz she seems to favor about half the time (when I am in the mood to appreciate it).
This may do no more than highlight a shortcoming on my part, but I would be able to "understand" her better if I could hear her do a solo on "Cherokee" or "Giant Steps", or on a ballad like "Whisper Not" or "Along Came Betty" (or "Round Midnight", for that matter). After all, even Keith Jarrett was willing to do 'standards' (and put out several albums of them).
I don't know about the best female jazz player, but Marquis Hill is the most musical melodic sophisticated player alive. Even when he plays fast it's melodic and soft. The guy is such a true trailblazer. To me he's the best today.
Joined: 24 Dec 2018 Posts: 3298 Location: Endwell NY USA
Posted: Wed May 06, 2020 9:27 am Post subject:
Speaking of Bria Skonberg, she was featured at a 'jazz performance and clinic' that I attended at our local university last autumn. She's a very entertaining performer, and seems like a nice person - no pretense and easy to talk with. .
Jay _________________ Most Important Note ? - the next one !
KNOW (see) what the next note is BEFORE you have to play it.
PLAY the next note 'on time' and 'in rhythm'.
Oh ya, watch the conductor - they set what is 'on time'.
Joined: 18 Jan 2009 Posts: 3118 Location: The Netherlands
Posted: Wed May 06, 2020 11:40 am Post subject:
Tobylou8 wrote:
Robert P wrote:
lipshurt wrote:
Who is more melodic than miles?
Completely subjective and impossible to answer.
+1 But maybe you/we don't "understand".....
That's right, you don't and there is not any reason to make a joke of it.
I think Miles is one of the greatest men in American music, maybe the greatest. To compare him with Maynard or Doc is ridiculous. Then you are comparing great instrumentalists (they surely are) with musical genius.
For Miles counts the same wisdom as for Mozart: too easy for beginners, too difficult for the advanced. My advice: develop yourself and try to fit in the second category. Start with reading the posts here of lipshurt, they are to the point.
That was nicely done by Bria. It's a lot more difficult than the uneducated listener thinks to make a plunger solo work well and certainly Bria did an excellent job with great texturing. It's fun to watch/hear performances like this.
I would say no. This is a high level of artisanal craft but not of musicianship. What we call a "technician". Very difficult to attain technically but devoid of feeling.
That was nicely done by Bria. It's a lot more difficult than the uneducated listener thinks to make a plunger solo work well and certainly Bria did an excellent job with great texturing. It's fun to watch/hear performances like this.
I would say no. This is a high level of artisanal craft but not of musicianship. What we call a "technician". Very difficult to attain technically but devoid of feeling.
This just goes to show that "taste" is a very personal and highly subjective thing and that everyone has an opinion. C'est la vie! _________________ HERMOKIWI
Joined: 23 Mar 2003 Posts: 9002 Location: Hawai`i - Texas
Posted: Wed May 06, 2020 4:10 pm Post subject:
etc-etc wrote:
I would say no. This is a high level of artisanal craft but not of musicianship. What we call a "technician". Very difficult to attain technically but devoid of feeling.
I'll probably get wirebrushed for this, but . .
If that's not musicianship, I don't know what is. Devoid of feeling? What an insult.
She's performing in an older genre and to do that, she has to stay relatively within certain confines. Is she on the creative level of a Woody Shaw or Ingrid Jenson? IMO no. But the genre doesn't allow for as much room. It's backward, not forward, looking. But that doesn't make it just journeyman playing. _________________ "If you don't live it, it won't come out of your horn." Bird
That was nicely done by Bria. It's a lot more difficult than the uneducated listener thinks to make a plunger solo work well and certainly Bria did an excellent job with great texturing. It's fun to watch/hear performances like this.
I would say no. This is a high level of artisanal craft but not of musicianship. What we call a "technician". Very difficult to attain technically but devoid of feeling.
Wow. _________________ My go-to Trumpet and Flugel: Thane.
Greg Black MPs
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
