Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner - Non Classical When have you gone too far?

A couple of recent posts, one on the Composers’ Forum, and the other one here, got me thinking about EXTREMES.

In the case of the Composers’ Forum, a teacher has attempted to write a very simple little blues, to help expose his beginning students to “jazz”. Unfortunately, as written, the piece is so very repetitious and bland that it misses the mark - unfortunately.

At the other end of the jazz spectrum, Norman Cotterell has just posted a link, on this Forum, to a YouTube tutorial, on which he will be working. It is presented by Michael Wolff, and I have lifted from Norm’s post (with due thanks!)



Mr. Wolff’s subject is the enhancement, or extension, of basic harmonies. If you have a look/listen to the tutorial, Mr. Wolff’s Third “system” of harmonic enhancement involves bi-chords, and/or tri-chords. He starts out with superimposing a Dm over a Cm7, which I can wrap my ears around if I think of it as a Cm11(#13). After a couple similar examples, he then sort of implies that virtually ANY chord can be superimposed over any other chord, and gives examples including F#7 over a Cm7. This is where my ears, and my head, begin to really hurt!

Thinking back to Dave Frank's expert Master Class on playing Outside the Changes, because of the way his improvisations were handled, there was no sense of chaos, as there is in Mr. Wolff's video.

Finally, to my philosophical questions:
>> Is there such a thing as “going too far out”?
>> If there is such a thing, how do YOU know when you have gone too far?

Ed

It's a personal thing bubbie..if you think it has gone too far, you're right..if somebody doesn't think it has gone too far, they are also right..

DF

Hi Dave,

I thought you might jump on this topic, and I am really glad you did. Appreciating your thoughts so far, I am trying to get at something a little deeper than simply personal taste.

As an example, for me, there is a nice, comfortable harmonic and melodic area, where everything I hear (or play) makes sense. It is grounded in the original tune, or in the harmony.

Then there is an area that becomes increasingly "grey", and less familiar to my ear, and to my understanding. We are on less firm ground. Some of the most exciting stuff I hear, and sometimes play, is in this grey area. For me, there is a sense of increased "danger" and heightened risk, and this is probably part of the excitement.

And then there is an area beyond the grey, where (at least to my ears, and understanding) stuff becomes chaotic. The grounding is not only shaky - it is MISSING. There are no discernable threads, other than the cycle of the 16 or 32 bars, to get me back home.

Returning to your comments, can you sort of describe what tells you, personally, when you are about to venture out on a limb that will not hold the melodic or harmonic weight?

Ed

For me, the music has to mean something. It's the effect than determines the rightness of the cause. I have a Charles Ives class going up within a few days that goes deep into this kinda thing. Everything is cool if it means something, overly chaotic can work or not depending on it's placement and the relationship with other things that have happened or will happen.

If something sound like [censored], it's [censored].

DF

Thanks, Dave. Now we are getting down to it!

I get no kicks from modern jazz
Those cats play it too darn fast
They lose the sound of the melody
Until it sounds like a symphony

I had a look at the video, I can't imagine anything there making your head hurt, doesn't seem on a limb at all. Perfectly accesible to my ear.

However, one thing get's my goat: Autumn Leaves. I just can't stomach the optimistic character that jazz players have given it for decades. The original name of the song is Dead Leaves, and it is so melancholic:

At that time life was more beautiful
And the sun burned more strongly than today

The sea erases in the sand
The footprints of separated lovers

landorrano,

I cannot tell if you are being facetious here or not:

If you actually listened all the way though to the end, and actually found all of it perfectly accessible, then I guess I need to dig out my old Cecil Taylor recordings and give my ears a good stretch!

Several years ago, when I was doing a lot of writing, I spent a huge amount of my time and energy on what I called “controlling” dissonance. I felt then, and still do, that one has to have at least a “thread” that s/he can trace back to something that is familiar. So, no matter how many polyphonic voices were competing, in however many shifting tonal centers, an astute listener could always say, “Yes, this is where that came from.”
And if the textures got too “thick”, verging on chaotic, one still had the sense that this grew organically out of all those familiar “threads”. (Not explaining it well, I know.)

Anyway, I do not get that sense once Mr. Wolff starts improvising over two superimposed, but completely unrelated, chords.

That is a beautiful rendition of Dead Autumn Leaves you posted. I love the change of phrasing asked for by the French vowels. Are you familiar with the English translation - also very melancholy?

The autumn leaves drift by my window,
The falling leaves of red and gold.
I think of you, and summer gladness,
Of sunburnt hands I used to hold
. . . . . .
Now the days grow short, the sun is cold,
And soon I’ll hear Old Winter’s song.
But I miss you most of all, my darling,
When autumn leaves start to fall.

(Doing it from memory, and may have a few words out of place.)

Have you listened for the harmony as well? In the work in question, do you hear the superimposed chords that make LoPresti's head hurt?

I seldom post in non-classical, esp. jazz, topics, which does not stop me from reading. The reason is that my ear is not developed in that direction. To appreciate music one must have some understanding or feel, otherwise it "washes by". What I have in common with Landorrano is a background in Solfege, being able to sing a melody accordingly, and to then play what I hear in this melodic manner. It helps me navigate easily along the original Feuilles mortes that was posted, and appreciate the sung melody, and underlying easily understandable harmony. And yes, it is beautiful.

In regards to mood - I find that there is a juxtaposition of two moods, one of them being positive and happier, and it is this one that the jazz version seems to take off on more. There is an obvious reason for two moods - nostalgia for the past which was happy - so we have to have "happy" in there. Even the sadness of these times being in the past is "tainted with a happiness" of the happy memory.

I became curious about the jazz version, Autumn Leaves, and found this:


and this

I can recognize the original melody easily in the Miles Davis version, but can also catch it drifting out in the John Coltrane (which btw gives quite a tinge of sadness to my ear). No, I cannot "follow" it as I can the original melody. It might be "too fast" in the way a normal conversation in Amharic would be too fast since I only know 4 words in that language, while in English it would not be so. But also, if a group of engineers, scientists, or programmers were to begin jostling around ideas in their field creatively, could I follow? Should they always speak only in baby terms so that I can understand?

What I hear in these jazz versions of Autumn Leaves is playful creation around a main theme. It sounds like fun, and something I would love to be able to do some day. I can appreciate it at that level. I can also hear something cohesive and structured which binds it together.

And oddly at this point I seem to have arrived at Ed's original question. Because I suspect that something cohesive needs to be there, so that music is not complicated for the sake of complication.

On a total tangent now - I have recently discovered the chef Gordon Ramsay, which is odd since I don't like cooking. A surprising number of musicians seem to be into fine cooking, and I think there are some similarities between the two arts. In particular, I'm watching Ramsay's forays into "kitchens that are in trouble". If I could summarize his diagnoses, it would be something like: not cohesive, not real, doesn't work together, pretentious (fancy for the sake of being fancy). The cook did not taste his food, and forgot that he is feeding people. Does this apply to music? Must it still have substance and work together, and if it is fancy or fanciful, must there also be something else?

(goes off to hide somewhere)

Hi KeyString,

Thanks for joining in our little discussion with one of your very insightful, and well thought-out contributions. I know it is a stretch for you to be dipping into jazz, but the exceptional ear of yours serves you well! As I recall, you were doing some listening to Vince Guaraldi , and that can only help.

Speaking of “ears”, do not despair about not following that YouTube, deceptively named “Autumn Leaves – John Coltrane”. Once the initial piano chorus is over, they are no longer playing that tune, but have moved on to “What’s New” I believe, never to return.

Anyway, I loved the Miles’ rendition, AND that classy series of graphics. His style of “cool” does perfect justice to the melancholy theme.

+1! You beat me to it, Ed.

But, I have to ask, what the heck did the mythic coach of the Green Bay Packers record?

By the way, yes of course I listened to the first video to the end. I kept saying, "ah, it's here that's it's going to get 'far out'" ... and then the video ended!

I know one fellow, he heard a recording of Thelonius Monk and he had to get up and leave the room, squinting his eyes in pain it sounded so discordant to him.

Playing, in fact. Playing, even more than listening, seems to do it for me as far as hearing is concerned.

Yes, I realized that later when I read the comments. It says a bit about how far these ears have to travel. But the piano intro is indeed Autumn Leaves.

Yes, indeed.

1. Yes
2. When your ears and head hurt

This is quite a conversation. I even forwarded it to my piano teacher. I posted the following story elsewhere, but it seems relevant:



I listened to the same piece recently, Babbit's Philomel, and I heard it with new ears (and at a softer volume). I was able to experience its beauty. Robert Greenberg defines music as "sound ordered by time" or as "time ordered by sound" Sometimes the sounds may approach cacophony, the order may be incomprehensible, and the rhythm painful...

...for me, at this point in my life.

But later, when I pull myself up, face my fears, and wholly experience the shock of the new, what was once chaotic may become clear.

I see it in full context, and it becomes meaningful, organized, cohesive -- the very substance of life.


That being said, Part II of Wolff's video goes totally "far out" with chromatics. I'm curious what my teacher will say about it.

Go easy, landorrano, my sides are aching again!

Now if we can get Norm to contribute one of his lusty limericks, we'll be rolling on the floor.

I am in agreement with Dave here. For me what matters the most is whether the music is trying to communicate something. The problem with outside playing is that too many people are trying to do it as a form of intellectual accomplishment, it sounds like they are trying to do something for the sake of saying "look I can do this", but it doesn't sound like it's trying to communicate anything musically/emotionally.

I recently went back to listening Sonny Rollon's & Paul Bley's solo on All the things you are. when i first heard it, I thought it was nonsense, but I've grown to appreciate over time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPLzROy7-Q4
It starts around 3:10

When I hear Miles Davis, Sonny Rollins or Paul Bley play, I know they are coming from this deep desire to challenge the convention of music at the time and forge a new musical path for themselves, and that soul-searching really comes through. Maybe that's what's missing in a lot of outside playing.


Personally I feel like I enjoy music better when I am able to let go of my preconception of what good music is "supposed to be", and appreciate each music on it's own right. I felt like those preconceptions made me miss out on a lot of good things in the past.

EDIT:Here's a link to Aaron Parks writing about the importance of Paul Bley's solo for him. You'll have to scroll down, but it's the first review on the page.

http://www.jazz.com/dozens/the-dozens-aaron-parks-selects-12-essential-paul-bley-tracks

Etcetra,

I typically love Sonny Rollins, but that link you posted must have been from his "Sun Ra Period".

I am sorry, but in the playing starting around the 3:10 mark, I simply can not find any "threads of reference" that take my ear back to the original tune, or its harmonies. For my taste, everything has stepped too far away from the original, and has stayed there.

I have a feeling that if each of these soli had started with more common references to the original tune, and then had GRADUALLY ventured further and further outside, that would offer a nice build-up of tension. As it is, by the time the piano has completed one-half a chorus, I have lost track, and consequently lost interest. And the subsequent tenor solo might as well have been a kid trying to adjust his reed - UNSUCCESSFULLY.


I suppose what is missing in the equation, at least for me, is whether the communication of which you write is complete.

To my (obviously deficient) ear, this, like Admiral Byrd, was an exploration that has gone bad.

Ed

LoPresti

I understand the notion that song/improvisation should somehow adhere to the original song/form.. but have you ever thought that maybe that belief/adherence to the principle is what may be preventing you from appreciating music that is outside of your comfort zone? I can understand people not understanding what Paul Bley or Sonny Rollin's is doing, but to claim that these two masters solo as "an exploration that has gone bad.", or " tenor solo might as well have been a kid" sounds like a very strong statement.

Not to mention that many composers like Wayne Shorter are perfectly happy with taking their own compositions far out. So I guess in the end who is to say what you can/cannot do wit the original music?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGFSD1Devzg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkUULYE-LAA

Don't get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from, and it's perfectly fine if you feel like the only music worth listening is music that is "coherent". I am merely suggesting that there are a lot of things on the 'other side' of music that is beautiful in it's own ways. That mindset has allowed me to enjoy Mozart, George Crumb, J Dilla and appreciate them for what they are.

I am not an expert Paul Bley's music so I am just going to post what Aaron Parks have to say about the music

"The three choruses that Bley plays here (sandwiched between a more traditional yet beautifully lyrical solo by Coleman Hawkins and a perhaps slightly self-conscious solo by Sonny Rollins) showed the limitation of those theoretical conceptions, and represented a radically different approach to improvisation, one not about right or wrong. It was a paradigm-shifting moment for me, one which caused me to reevaluate my musical priorities.

In this solo, Bley's melodies roam freely in and out of the written changes, each line unfolding in its own curious way, pursuing its own muse. Yet he's not just playing free; even when he's not using the prescribed chord-scales, he always knows exactly where he is in the form of the song, and his ideas are incredibly coherent,sometimes motivic, sometimes gestural, sometimes playful, always imaginative. I find this solo to be one of the most strangely beautiful moments in the history of recorded jazz, so I really don't want to spoil it by attempting to use any more words to describe what he's doing here. Just listen."

I am certain you are onto something here: that I am not making a “leap” to what is beyond my ears, and my understanding. I do not think it has to do with my beliefs, or sticking to certain principles. Rather, it seems that many efforts that “go beyond” where I am expecting, violate organic, or natural laws.

To me, it is natural for jazz to stretch “boundaries” and to explore new things. It has always been so. However, when the stretch or the exploration is deliberately divorced, or forcefully severed from, the original musical material, my ear tells me that is un-natural. And if I think about it, then I must ask, “Why do we have an original theme, if the ‘variations’ are no longer related?” (Peter Schikle (P.D.Q. Bach) did a comedy routine about this several years ago.)


Having the perspective of age, I believe it is interesting how very many jazz musicians ventured into “experiments” from which they later retreated. Art Farmer, Freddie Hubbard, Dick Hyman, and our man Sonny Rollins, just to name a few. Of course we cannot practically ask Mr. Rollins this, but if we could, I’ll bet he would NOT consider that soloing you posted with Coleman Hawkins an example of his best playing!

Ed

Wnat you write here may (or may not) be true.

But that in no way invalidates the different movements that these musicians were responding to. All jazz musicians had to take note of new currents, but it is not astonishing that many like those that you list were not able to grasp what was going on ... while remaining masterful artists in the domaine which was theirs.

Well, I am sorry to say this, but that sounds more like confirmation bias than anything else.

There are plenty of artists like Cecil Taylor we went out and stayed out for the rest of their lives. Miles Davis never really went back to his old style even though many people don't like all the electronic stuff he was doing in the 80's. Everyone makes different musical choices, very many jazz musicians did opposite of what you describe to



Like the comment about "experiment going too far", aren't you being a little too presumptuous here?

I don't know how they feel about their solos either, but one thing I know for sure is that that album and the solo I posted is a landmark album(albeit controversial) and it's been recognized as such by many of the best musicians even to this day. In fact, I first heard about it on Mark Levine's jazz piano book. He list's that album/song in his essential Jazz piano CD list.

Also if you read Aaron Park's review, he says that album changed his life

here's another review of the album Sonny Meets Hawk

http://www.lorenschoenberg.com/sonny.html

Landorrano,

I have read over several times the part of your post that I highlighted, and do not yet get a clear meaning. Would you elaborate on that a little? Thanks.
Ed

I plead 100% guilty to being biased. When one thinks about it, that very bias is what inspired me to start this thread.


Yup - some stayed out, some came back, and some never ventured off the reservation.



Of course it is the height of conceit on my part to pretend I know anything about what Mr. Rollins thinks. Nevertheless, one cannot argue that he did turn back from that extremely dissonant and anti-melodic style, and has settled in much closer to a tonal and melodic concept. There could be several reasons for this, including the pressure from fans, and his desire to sell more albums by playing more “accessible” music.

So, let me put it this way: I BELIEVE that a great and timeless artist like Sonny Rollins always strives to improve. I BELIEVE that his retreat from “the far side” was driven by MUSICAL reasons, by CREATIVE reasons, and not by financial or popularity considerations. I BELIEVE that he was unhappy, or unfulfilled, playing the sort of far-out stuff about which a couple of critics have raved. I BELIEVE he sensed that he had gone too far, and that is why his more recent work has evolved toward more tonal and traditional harmonic lines. Perhaps more satisfying to him, and certainly more satisfying to my ears.

I am interested in your metaphor of a “landmark” recording. Is it your feeling that this landmark is classified as such because it heralds the start of something quite new? Or is it a landmark because it represents the farthest, extreme point of discernable music? Or is it simply a signpost along the continuing road of jazz development? Or maybe something else?

Ed

"A couple of critiques"?

A way of knowing they've gone out too far..you feel like getting up and going out for coffee and doughnuts!

Oops ----- I mean ----- Oui, for our French-speaking friends . . .

Again, it's rather presumputous to assume that moving on to new style=retraction of what you have done so far. Does that mean Miles Davis felt that the electronic stuff he did in the 80s was musically superior than all the great recording he made in the 60's? Or is it more likely that Miles just wanted to try something different?

Here's a recent interview of sonny rollins from Ktvu.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/entertainment/ktvucom-talks-jazz-great-sonny-rollins/nSMzJ/

"Sonny Rollins: Let me put it this way: my musical mind is an open palette. So if I hear something or hear somebody play something, I’m ready to embrace it to see what I can do with it. So I generally have no preconceptions of what I’m going to do and I can do anything. Because if I feel it, if I feel I can express myself, then I would do it. And I feel that way today, that I can do anything.

People want to pigeonhole you as a bebop tenor player. I mean, we had to go through that for a long time. But I’m fortunate enough to have that kind of a musical mind. I have some success and I’m very gratified that people have accepted what I’ve done over the years. But I do whatever I feel like doing. So I’m open to anything. If I hear something that I think is good, and by good I mean something that I can express myself with, then I’ll play it.

That’s why I have to have a band which is adaptive. I talked to a friend of mine the other night who said “Sonny, why don’t you play some stuff like you were doing in your ‘60s period?” So I tell him “No, that’s fine, but I’m not hearing that now.” I have a very open mind and all I have to do is express myself. I think people have given the freedom by liking me. And I so appreciate that and am very grateful for it. So if they like me, they should like whatever I do. So I feel like I can do anything that is going to satisfy me is going to satisfy them as well. And that’s sort of what I do. "

As you can see, Sonny playing more traditional has nothing to do with dissatisfaction of playing outside ; He is just doing whatever he feels like doing at this point in life... So don't be surprised if he goes back to playing outside in the future!!



I am not sure what to add to what Aaron Parks and other review has written, I think they described the greatness in that album very eloquently. The music is a significant departure of musical conventiion at that time, they are challenging the very idea of harmony and from, and doing it so in a very masterfully, and not as the nonsense you presume it to be. As others have pointed these people are playing the solos always with the from and harmony in the mind, and the lines have their set of logic/coherency to it that only a master improviser can achieve.

Also there is a wide consensus among top jazz musicians(not just couple of critics) that Paul Bley's solo is significant in the development of jazz (Mark Levine certainly does think so), and many even consider it to be one of his best solos.

In the end you can believe all you want about what music is supposed to be an dpeople's intention to mold your bias about music.. but maybe it's important to stop and think why so many great musicians we admire hold that music in such high regard?

Key to my point here is the drive for constant improvement. So if Sonny Rollins, along with several others, chose to pull back from those excursions into “dark territory”; and if we believe that artists of this calibre constantly strive to play better; then it must be that they prefer turf that is a little more firm and established - that they consider it “better playing”. Otherwise, they would be doing something completely different.

Unfortunately, I have not followed Paul Bley’s playing, so I have no way of knowing what he did prior to this album, nor after it. The recording is from 1963. Two years after that, the Sun Ra Big Band was a guest ensemble at the music school I attended. The performances and master classes were open also to other students of the university who were not music majors. The reaction of (we) students was very interesting: Almost universally, the music majors rejected what we heard as thinly (and poorly) orchestrated cacophony. Indeed,
virtually all concert attendees left DURING the performances, many of them with great drama. On the other hand, there was a distinct group of non-music students who claimed to love the music and the presentations. Most of them were very vocal in their ardor and praise for this “new music”. Of course, not one of them could identify exactly WHY the performances were so superior, they just somehow knew that they were. We were looking for musical reasons to like the music, and these adherents did not offer any.

My “take” on it then, and my “take” on it forty-seven years later, is that the ensemble was deliberately playing harsh, disjointed, and UN-musical sounding, rhythmic noise, in a forced effort to be “new and different”. Reverting here to Dave’s excellent point about the context of the chaos, virtually every selection started loud and raucous, ended loud and raucous, and was pretty well loud and raucous in between. Sort of an A-A-A Form.

The non-musical affezionati of this “new stream jazz”, and their enjoyment, likewise seemed contrived and forced, as if they were reacting en masse to the more traditional fare offered at most concerts. It seemed like by “voting for” this “new music”,.they were casting votes “against” the more traditional. In each sense, with the players, and their “fans”, there was a hollowness of purpose, or so it seemed.

And this brings us back to Dave’s other insightful comment about “music has to mean something”. Perhaps – just perhaps – Sonny Rollins has returned closer to his roots because he wants his music to mean something once again.

LoPresti

Please, stop making all these false assumptions Sonny Rollins intent about music. You are not doing him any justice.

It seems like you took one sentence out of the entire interview to make a very narrow, selective point. Nowhere does Sonny says he "pulled back" because he felt inside playing is inherently better. I understand that you strongly feel certain way about the music, but what you are doing is with your narrative is pigeonholing Sonny Rollins as "bebop tenor player" who denounced outside playing in favor of traditional playing That's exactly what Sonny doesn't want you to do!!

Again your experience with Sun Ra Big band sounds a lot like confirmation bias. There are A LOT of really well known great musicians who love that kind of stuff. Bottom line is, the music does mean something to a lot of people.

If you read the interview, he says he is "Open to anything".He is playing more traditional because that's what he feels like doing right now, but there is no guarantee Sonny wouldn't go back to playing again to "improve his music". All I am asking is to have more open mind about this, like Sonny.

Btw you haven't answer my question about Miles. What is your explanation for him not going back to going to his roots?

etcetra,

I am not certain why we are still going back-and-forth over a simple difference of opinion. You obviously like what you hear on that “landmark” recording, and I do not. Judging from your other comments, you enjoy similarly far-out jazz, and I generally do not care for it. I think I am up for about one last round here.


I did not bring up Sonny Rollins, you did. I did not extract anything out of any interview. As I mentioned, I am a fan of Mr. Rollins, and I follow his playing. His creative path into the extremes of jazz, and back has been obvious. For the sake of conversation, I might be making some assumptions about WHY he returned to a more tonal concept. And on the subject of assumptions , how do YOU KNOW that my assumptions are false?


I have already written that all my thoughts are biased, as are yours. In this particular case, my “bias” was instilled by first-hand experience over a several day period, confirmed by years of reflection on those personal experiences. .


Unfortunately, he died.

I have enjoyed reading your opinions. We are listening with different ears. So be it.
Ed

Funny how your "critique" sounds much like what the early critics of Jazz wrote.

This is also very similar to the kinds of critique many Classical musicians give to jazz music in general. There have been numerous discussion here(and other forums) where a die hard-classical fans have claimed that jazz was just a bunch of incoherent, unmusical nonsense(I'm not talking about Cecil Taylor, they are making this kind of criticism against people like Miles Davis, Bill Evans and the like.)

I had not noticed that, but I am certain you are correct. When you think about it, the "early critics of Jazz" were writing about early jazz, weren't they?

So now tell me, straight-faced, that some of the Bix Biederbeck, or the Louis Armstrong Hot Fives sessions were pretty da*m bad sounding ... ?

I think this is brilliant for comparison. Sometimes jazz musicians need to be reminded that their goal ought to include communication. If things don't sound good together, it is most likely the fault of the person who put them there with little regard to the final outcome. Aside from taking true risks in improvising, I'd hope that most understand that it when soloing one should always keep in mind the intention to say something.

Hi LoPresti
Have you listened to Sonny's ATTYA Village Vanguard version from 1957 ?
To me it is one of the most beautiful interpretations of ATTYA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPdO1XwF91E

Hey Custard,

It almost seems that I once owned that album, although the graphic used on YouTube I do not remember at all. In any event, I could not find it here.

With only the bass outline of the harmonies, and weak bass on that recording, I am having trouble fully appreciating what Mr. Rollins was doing. Not helping my cause was the trend at the time of playing one-note or two-note "phrases". I guess I need to "break down", and to pipe my computer through my sound system, so I can hear it correctly.

So far my favorite part was his quote of "I'll Take Manhattan" around 5:28, when he is "trading" with the drummer. That should say something about my love of reference.

So, do you have a "take" on what, if anything, constitutes playing too far outside of a tune's framework?
Thanks.

Hey Lo Presti
Thanks for pointing out the quotation. I don't know too many jazz standards so I'm sure I miss out on many of Sonny's quotations. When I went to his concert in Sydney one and a half years ago, I did recognise Jingle Bells in his brilliant original called Patanjali.

At this stage of my jazz development, I'm still finding the last John Coltrane phase hard on my ears. I don't have enough theory or vocabulary to know what Joy/ Compassion/ Love are on about.
Could anyone please shed light on how to relate to these late 1960s avant-garde-like pieces ? Are they an essential part of the jazz curriculum ?

custard apple,

I think the best way to go is to read his biography, and watch documentaries like Ken Burn's Jazz. From what I read, John Coltrane went avant-garde because he felt this strong spiritual need to express his music and he felt avant-garde music gave him that freedom. It allowed him to express himself in a way that is free from the tradition and convention.

I've also read that he was into a lot of Indian music and eastern philosophy back then, and that can shed some insight into his music too. You can hear a lot of drone notes and extended improv over static harmony because of that. Generally speaking western thought tend to emphasize idea of conflict&resolution, you see it in religion/philosophy (Hegel's dialectics, Marx, Christianity..etc) and the western harmonic system is built around that notion too(creating tension/resolution of harmony). Eastern philosophy, on the other hand don't tend to be dualisitc and non-linear. The music, likewise doesn't have strong sense of direction or resolution, but it's more like a constant shifting of texture and color, like constant changing images on a reflection.

IMO it's really important to listen to Coltrane's avant-garde music with that kind of "eastern" mindset. Whatever you do, please don't judge it as nonsense, or it's done out of need to be pretentious, or aforced effort to be different... IMO I'd rather not make value judgement about whether it's better or worse than inside playing, because it's just different. The music is supposed to challenge what music is supposed to be, to our western ears/mindset.

Here's liner notes written by Bill Evans about "Kind of Blue" Although kind of blue is still within harmony, I think the principle still applies. It's just that people like Coltrane took it much further.


"There is a Japanese visual art in which the artist is forced to be spontaneous. He must paint on a thin stretched parchment with a special brush and black water paint in such a way that an unnatural or interrupted stroke will destroy the line or break through the parchment. Erasures or changes are impossible. These artists must practice a particular discipline, that of allowing the idea to express itself in communication with their hands in such a direct way that deliberation cannot interfere.

The resulting pictures lack the complex composition and textures of ordinary painting, but it is said that those who see well find something captured that escapes explanation."

This conviction that direct deed is the most meaningful reflections, I believe, has prompted the evolution of the extremely severe and unique disciplines of the jazz or improvising musician.

Etcetra,

For starters, allow me a couple of over-arching statements:

Your post immediately above is absolutely full of amazing insights! Because of it, I need to return to about fifty albums that have sat on my shelving, collecting dust, for decades. I thank you for that.

I love MOST of John Coltrane's work, especially when he had McCoy Tyner to keep him focused. He truly changed the way players thought about their saxes (and other instruments) for evermore.

That having been written, Mr. Coltrane was engaged in many other mind-bending activities beside the study of Eastern philosophy, and his desire to be free of conventonal improvisational constraints, and the avant-garde age in general.

You have quoted many interesting points of view - ones that I had never before read. This brings me to a personal question: How do YOU distinguish between free improvisation, and simply playing random notes, and sometimes non-traditional musical sounds?

Thanks,
Ed

+1

Someone used to experimental jazz may not think it's out or may even get bored, 'too predictable'.
Someone listening only to pop instantly throws up I guess.

A musician is playing in some context, and you need to train your ears to hear it. More specific, you need to understand the harmonies, rhytms, polyphonic structure, and maybe also the social setting, the statement it wants to make etc, and not on an intellectual level but you must be able to really hear it. Then if the brain hears something similar it can neatly categorize what it hears, and we say that we "comprehend" the piece.

Actually, training your brain to learn to listen to new music is hard, I tried with several genres but it did not really work in most cases. maybe it's much easier if you are really young or maybe it is a matter of growing into it gradually and spending much more time with it.

Thanks!!



That's a really good question, and I don't claim to have a definite answer for it. But one thing I can say about any of the jazz greats is that they went avant garde only after they spent a lot of time mastering the traditional stuff. So I try to keep to that context in mind. For example Miles Davis' band with Herbie, Tony Williams, George Coleman and Ron Carter became progressively out in their interpretation of standards. If you compare My funny Valentine (recorded in 1964) to live at Plugged Nickel(recorded in 1965), I think you'll notice how far they've come along in "deconstructing" standards. The youtube recordings of miles in late 60s goes even further out.

I guess what you can do is trace the artist's step. Instead of listening to the really avant garde stuff, maybe it'll help by starting out with a CD that was immediately before the avant garde period and work your way through the CD chronologically. It will also help to do some research about the artist too. I guess one thing I learned from listening to contemporary classical music is that it's an exploration of sound in ways that is very different from what we are used to. Often time it has nothing to do with functional harmony but other things like acoustics, and other sonic aspect of music, and what they do requires a lot of thought, skill and dedication. Learning about historical context can really help.

wouter79

I guess I am lucky in that I've had chances to work with people in different genre of music inside/outside of school. I've met a handful of people who have dedicated their lives on hiphop, avant-garde and other types of music, and I've learned a lot from listening to their insights. I am guessing the reason younger people may be more open minded may have to do with the fact that we are exposed to a lot of different kind of music early on. Even back in the 80s-90s most high school kids listening to pretty much one kind of music..saying I listen to hiphop and rock at the same time was kind of a taboo.. nowdays it's not like that anymore.

Wouter79,

Sometimes we need something to put a small hole in the barrier -- a crack that later expands to a large opening. During the late 1950s and into the early 1960s, I became an avid follower of Igor Stravinsky's work. During that time, I could listen for hours to his ballet music, his oratorio and choral pieces, and naturally his symphonies. I purchased full scores, and followed the recordings. I loved the textures, and particularly his orchestration.

In the early years of the '60s, there was much fanfare about his latest opus that was composed specifically for American television – THE FLOOD. Like so many of his works that were based upon ancient myths and rituals, this was to be about the biblical Noah story. I could not wait to hear, AND SEE this brand new composition by my favorite “modern”. Anticipation was killing me!

The night finally arrived. With reel-to-reel tape and microphone set up, I watched and listened. It was THE WORST piece of music imaginable. Listening - really listening - was agony!.

THE FLOOD, and his similarly painful AGON, were so very extreme that they created a small crack in my hearing barrier. I did not realize it at the time, but as the fissure widened, I began to really enjoy Bela Bartok, William Schuman, and Vincent Persichetti. (Charles Ives, who I also really enjoy, is mild by comparison.)

So, maybe I need a nice penetrating crack in my Jazz Hearing Barrier!?!? (Incidentally, I still hate THE FLOOD.)

Ed

Oh that's interesting. I watched the Ken Burns series two years ago, and really should watch it again in 2013.
I haven't read Coltrane's bio. Did he ever go to India or eastern countries ?
By drone notes and static harmony, are you suggesting modal ?

custard apple,

I am not sure if Coltrane traveled to india but he definitely had an interest in the country.


As far as modality is concerned, yes some of his music are modal, but as far as I know he was getting his influences from a lot of different places, including swedish folk music.


here's an article about coltrane and indiian influence.
http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/isam/Newslet%20F07/Clements%20F07.htm

Hey etc
Thanks for this well-written article.
I didn't know the drone came from Indian music.
I also found it interesting that the pedal point is both a jazz and an Indian-music concept.

Wow! Awesome. But over my head. Pardon me for interjecting into this thread. I am a beginner piano player. I know about the Aebersold books but they seem difficult for a beginner to put it together.

Do any of you people on this thread you know of a good book for beginners on play jazz/improvisation that sort of walks you through like you learning to play the piano from book 1, book 2, etc.

Thank you for any direction.

Michael,

I am personally very pleased to read you asking about BOOKS, in particular. There are plenty of beginning books that purport to teach jazz. However, the musical cart needs to be solidly in front of the horse here.

Are you studying with a teacher? Do you have a background reading music, or performing on another instrument?

Most individuals have the best success learning the basics of playing, rudiments, and music reading, from method books and beginning theory texts, BEFORE venturing into improvisation and jazz. But that is not to imply that you should not experiment.

From very early ages, I encouraged my granddaughters to "jazz up" their little tunes and exercises. In addition to learning to play your beginner books "straight", try really swinging hard on Three Blind Mice, or on Mary Had a Little Lamb. If you can make those sound convincing, you are on your way.

Once you have a good grounding in the basics, then Abersold will become "do-able". There is also a very well executed package that Dave Frank here on this Forum offers, known as The Joy of Improvisation. And, for learning to perform jazz, listening to good jazz is CRITICAL.

Ed

Ed, what makes you so sure that your perception was changed by listening to THE FLOOD? Maybe something else happened?

Well, as your question so correctly points out, there is absolutely no way of actually knowing which "something", or combination of "somethings" allowed me to make an improvement in hearing (and comprehending) more complex and dissonant pieces. Undoubtedly, a part of it was personal musical maturing.

I do like the metaphor of penetrating some barriers, and I do believe that there are certain events or musical pieces that have a more profound effect in that regard than others.

Ed