Joined: 03 Sep 2003 Posts: 10124 Location: Escondido California
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:00 pm Post subject: Re: you
EdMann wrote:
to be able to pick out a projection, to feel it and create.
I don't know if that's a typo or not, but I like the way you put that! _________________ Crazy Nate - Fine Yet Mellow Fellow
"so full of it I don't know where to start"
Horn: "just mismatched Kanstul spare parts"
- TH member and advertiser (name withheld)
Joined: 31 Mar 2007 Posts: 2481 Location: The Big Valley
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:33 pm Post subject:
I corrected it, but yes, not bad as accidents go.
I think one of the previous posters has some terms mixed. Intuitive playing comes from the heart, not the head. Sure, master the music, but you can't make up melodies while making sense of it if you don't have a proclivity to do so. We've all heard some jazzers who play perfectly by the book, but boy, how uninteresting is that.
I think there's a misunderstanding of what it means to have a knowledge of chords and scales and to "play by ear" or intuitively.
A person who can hear chord changes, understand the structure of them, and improvise along with those changes understanding what it means to be inside and outside the changes, creating melodies that are inventive, and have inner design and logic, has a complete understanding of chords and scales, even if they don't know how to refer to them in terms of music theory.
They are not doing something "intuitive" or "instinctive." They are as highly trained as someone who has studied notated music theory extensively. The difference is they express their comprehensive knowledge of theory through sound, not writing.
It takes thousands of hours of trial and error to be able to play by ear at the level of sophistication of Getz or Baker. Just because they couldn't talk in jazz theory terms about chord/scales and back door substitutions doesn't mean that they didn't spend an enormous amount of time studying the recordings of great music and learning how to play along devising interesting parts.. _________________ Bach trumpet artist-clinician
Clinical Professor of Jazz Trumpet, University of Illinois
Professor Emeritus of Jazz Studies, Indiana University Jacobs School of Music
Faculty Jamey Aebersold Jazz Workshops 1976-2019
JazzRetreats.com
Joined: 03 Sep 2003 Posts: 10124 Location: Escondido California
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 4:32 pm Post subject:
I have known a few guitar and bass players that CAN talk in jazz theory terms about chord/scales and back door substitutions, yet can't read a note. _________________ Crazy Nate - Fine Yet Mellow Fellow
"so full of it I don't know where to start"
Horn: "just mismatched Kanstul spare parts"
- TH member and advertiser (name withheld)
In the paper above, the choice of algorithms has been limited (by the author) to Neo-Darwinian, Neo-Lamarckian and a mixture of thereof. This brings doubts to whether the rest of the analysis is sound, as other algorithms may exist making the list non-exhaustive.
Computability of improvisation is treated as an axiom which is another weakness of the approach.
It appears it would be better to discuss this by writing another paper, not necessarily on TH.
I am friends with a bass player who worked with Chet Baker on the west coast, he confirmed what my ears had been telling me all along, the no-read-all ear thing with Baker was pure BS; he could out 'music theory' anyone under the table
Some people are born with ears that hear everything. I was not blessed with this talent. Many of the greats could hear fast....very fast.
However, things are different now. The great players 70 years ago were playing jazz 7 days a week.....many sessions per day. That doesn't happen anymore. My lack of natural talent led me to Jimmy Amadie. If you don't know about this man....please look him up. He was such a great jazz teacher, I can't say enough. He was one of the greatest teachers I have ever met in my life....he would always say " I am not your friend in here"
He was tough, but I spent 5 years with him. _________________ Rob Diener
Joined: 23 Mar 2003 Posts: 9014 Location: Hawai`i - Texas
Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 11:43 pm Post subject:
Ah yes, Wikipedia as a definitive source.
Regarding his time at El Camino, he did not "study" harmony and theory there. Basic theory was a requirement at college but he just had no interest in it. In a course that most got Bs or As in, Chet was given an F.
As the next semester was beginning, he is quoted as saying, "To me, if it sounds right it is right. Maybe this rule stuff is all right for those who have no ear or creative ability."
Furthermore, when he was in the Army, he was known to be faking his parts in band because he couldn't read them well enough. He is reported to have done the same thing at college and in high school before that.
His close friend Bob Whitlock said, "Most of us play by ear assisted by some knowledge of harmony and counterpoint. Since Chet didn't have the benefit of these tools, he was forced to do it all by ear. And therein lies the key to his genius." _________________ "If you don't live it, it won't come out of your horn." Bird
Listen to the difference between the way he plays over the "A" sections compared with the way he plays over the bridge. _________________ Puttin’ On The Ritz
Listen to the difference between the way he plays over the "A" sections compared with the way he plays over the bridge.
Especially the bridge of his 2nd chorus. _________________ Bach trumpet artist-clinician
Clinical Professor of Jazz Trumpet, University of Illinois
Professor Emeritus of Jazz Studies, Indiana University Jacobs School of Music
Faculty Jamey Aebersold Jazz Workshops 1976-2019
JazzRetreats.com
Joined: 29 Jan 2013 Posts: 392 Location: Somerset, UK
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 5:35 am Post subject:
I think there's truth in both sides of the arguements here.
No doubt in my mind a lot of Chet's genius was down to playing by ear - like others have said he always knew where he was and this certainly wasn't by following a theoretical pattern.
However he definitely had enough knowledge to more than get by so must have had a reaonable amount of training and understanding of theory.
It comes down to what many others have been saying - improvisation is from the heart but you have to master the instrument and music first to be able to express what you are feeling.
You can play lots of patterns and sound stilted or just blow and have no structure and sound lost - the key is hitting the fine line of a balance between both and that requires a huge amount of skill and practice.
As Miles said: "I'm no accident. You have to study and you have to practice". _________________ Eclipse Enigma
Benson Brevette 1950 Flugel
Curry 3C Custom, Bach 3C, HT Jazz
Joined: 13 Aug 2007 Posts: 4313 Location: Ithaca NY
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:09 am Post subject:
I love the Jack Sheldon quote!!
Genius exists through exception to what rules the normal individual. No discussion of education or intuition will yield answers as to why a genius can perform the way one does. One can hear genius when listening to both Baker and Getz; they ooze it. But you just caint 'splain it. Toss the rules out the window - they just don't apply.
It has been speculated that genius is also responsible for Baker's tragic life and early demise. Maybe so and perhaps it is not easy to be one. _________________ veery715
Hear me sing!: https://youtu.be/vtJ14MV64WY
Playing trumpet - the healthy way to blow your brains out.
Joined: 22 Apr 2007 Posts: 684 Location: Hofors, Sweden
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:45 am Post subject:
I'm rather sure you can find some very well-known writers and authors, Nobel Prize Winners as well, that knew nothing about the grammar rules of the language they wrote in. But we don't hink that that is so strange, because we all know that we can talk and write well without explaining why we choosed that particular grammatical function: We use language all day long, then we of course learn to do it well natuarlly, without being able to formally analyzing it.
Now, if you use music to express yourself all day long, of course you will learn to do that well too, without being able to formally analyze it.
Or do you think that music is much more intricate and "difficult" than language?
Listen to the difference between the way he plays over the "A" sections compared with the way he plays over the bridge.
Especially the bridge of his 2nd chorus.
Chromatic resolution. You're only a half step away from the "correct" note. Yes, I meant to put some tension there and then I released it.
What I hear is a player with great imagination, and instant execution of the imagined sound as notes on a trumpet. _________________ Crazy Nate - Fine Yet Mellow Fellow
"so full of it I don't know where to start"
Horn: "just mismatched Kanstul spare parts"
- TH member and advertiser (name withheld)
Joined: 14 Nov 2001 Posts: 2368 Location: SF Bay Area
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:08 am Post subject:
Just because he couldn't explain it, doesn't mean he didn't "know" it.
I know plenty of great improvisers who can't explain things but play great.
Plus, most of the music in the standard rep follows patterns of tension/resolution. The theory behind most standard chord progressions is quite simple actually. Not always easy, but simple.
Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:06 am Post subject: baloney
I can unequivocally say..your are incorrect. And you are absolutely incorrect .
You can practice and study for a lifetime and never play a note that has the intuitive gravity and depth of expression found in one.note of some of the unstudied players like Chet and Stan...Lee breathed it at 17. And he knew more than Chet or Stan. Enjoy your journey..but I can tell you without a doubt..neither Chet or Stan cared to know.more than God gave them. It's why they played the way they did. Stan told me every player has to..first..find his own voice and be true to it. And Stan..idolized Chet.
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
