Can Someone Help me Understand Jazz?

[JanVigne]

"If you can't, well . . . "




Pistols at dawn?


Gentlemen, select your seconds.





Why is it discussions of jazz always end like this?

[mr. beaumont]

The reissue liners Miles says something like "these cats hand me tunes...they have all these chords...I can't play them."

I never took this quote to mean "I am not good enough to play them" but rather, a rare example of Miles mincing words and saying this instead of "I ain't playing that s--- anymore I got my own thing."

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

The reissue liners Miles says something like "these cats hand me tunes...they have all these chords...I can't play them."

I never took this quote to mean "I am not good enough to play them" but rather, a rare example of Miles mincing words and saying this instead of "I ain't playing that s--- anymore I got my own thing."

There would in any case be a big gap between Miles post-Kind of Blue saying that guys were showing him charts with so many chords he couldn't play them, and Miles lacking the chops to play fast bebop.

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by JanVigne

"If you can't, well . . . "




Pistols at dawn?


Gentlemen, select your seconds.





Why is it discussions of jazz always end like this?

Oh, relax, Jan. I was suggesting that Steve might apologize if he can't produce Miles's words, just as I will if he can. No need for melodrama.

I was not aware that discussions of jazz always end like this. If you are right, I will avoid them; I have no wish to get shot.

[TomiPaldanius]

I think Miles Davis does like many giants do. Talk politely about other players. It is just words. Actions matter.

What these guys maybe want is that we listen to their music and say that "hey man you said you cannot play like a beast but you can... You little fella: Give me high five.."!!!

[Bern]

I love this improvisational talk about Jazz...some good lines, some bad lines.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by Bern

I love this improvisational talk about Jazz...some good lines, some bad lines.

Exactly! Jazz is a musical conversation.
The best "opinions" (solos) come from musicians who are not only tecnically skilled, but know the "topic" (the melody and chords of the song) inside out.

Which doesn't mean those with less knowledge or experience can't make valid comments.
In conversation one might be technically excellent (good at speaking or writing English), but not be an expert on the topic. Or vice versa, an expert on the topic (experienced in the real world) but not too good at expressing themselves in words.
Both can make worthwhile contributions, teasing out better stuff from those good at both.

[JonPR]

[In the light my above post, regard the following one as a bit of Coltrane-style verbosity...]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

Actually, improvisation was an integral part of classical music performance up to the mid 19th Century and continued into the 20th Century. It currently is enjoying a comeback. It is emphasized far more in jazz, but I think you may be overstating it being the main thing that distinguishes jazz from other western music. And most big band jazz is written out; usually with some solos that are improvised, but not always.

Point accepted. Personally I suspect that the improvisational content of classical music (at its most composed) and big band jazz is roughly similar, on average.
Both forms of music, perhaps, reduced the improvisational content the genres once had for similar reasons: practicality (very large groups of performers), dominance of composers or arrangers, commercial forces.
The smaller the group, the greater the possibility of individual performers imposing personal interpretation on the performance.

But a different cultural attitude remains. In classical music (in the broadest sense) the composer rules; the performer is there to serve his (less likely her) purposes. In jazz, it's vice versa: the performer is king, the composer merely providing the raw material to be messed around with.
When composer and performer are the same person, the attitudes perhaps resemble one another more.
I'm not saying one atittude is better than the other; but the differences seem very significant, socially and culturally.

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

Speaking of jazz rhythm, here's a worthwhile way to spend a minute. I saw Duke do this routine at a performance around 1971. What a charming man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBeHQtJm5UI

Thanks, good stuff!

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

I don't think its a matter of arbitrary definition to say that work songs and field hollers that go back to the 17th Century, and were being transcribed by the mid-19th Century, are not blues, although they are among its precursors

True. But - accepting that "blues" involves the use of chords, as well as a 3-line 12-bar (ish) structure - the dom7 chord is still not an essential part of it. It's a frequent and distinctive element, of course, but you can have blues with no dom7s.
Anyway, it's a narrow point that's hardly worth arguing about (not between the two of us anyhow...).

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

One of the myths about jazz is that it was developed by musical primitives who learned everything by ear. It was developed by skilled musicians, most of whom had formal training and read music very well.

Absolutely. Some confusion with "blues" in that myth, I suspect .


<RANT>

The formal training of jazz musicians (in European musical culture and concepts) is evident - at the very least - in jazz's obsession with chords: with harmonic theory and development. That's what sets it apart from the vernacular African-American folk culture exemplified by blues (and work songs and field hollers before that).
Of course the latter was influenced by European music (hence spirituals at least), but in an almost completely aural way. Slaves and their descendants preserved what elements of African culture they could (often very little), but happily adapted it with input from the white music they heard around them.

It was always racist authorities and commercial interests that attempted to keep white and black music separate. The musicians themselves were always influenced by each other, and generally respected each other.

The "Coalhouse Walker" phenomenon is exemplified by, among others, Eddie Lang, jazz musician of Italian ancestry, who had to call himself "Blind Willie Dunn" when recording with Bessie Smith. There had to be a pretence that blues was black music only, and performed by untrained musicians: not too far from the "noble savage" idea. I suspect the musicians themselves always saw it as a joke, but went along with the cultural myth because they had to. (Which is not to say they weren't often fighting serious prejudice at times.)
There are similar myths today about various ethnic musics, especially African. There's something in white culture that feels uneasy when we see African musicians playing electric guitars or synths; we'd much prefer it (it seems) if they played their traditional acoustic instruments. We like to tell ourselves that this is just about trying to preserve a global cultural diversity, to prevent valuable folk cultures from dying out ("poisoned by western influence"); but it also smacks of old racist attitudes, of "us and them", of orientalism, and similar patronising western attitudes to supposed "primitive" cultures.

Music itself, thankfully, is always fighting this tendency to compartmentalise, to pigeon-hole. It's rare for musicians not to welcome inspirations from all kinds of sources, and incorporate them in their own music - consciously or unconsciously. There are sometimes conservative and reactionary forces among musicians, seeking to preserve what they see as crucially distinctive aspects of their preferred genres; but it seems to me this is always down to commercial forces. A "metal" band wants to stay pure metal, or they will lose fans. A "blues" band wants to use vintage instruments or amps to sound more "authentic" - again, in order to gain respect from reactionary blues purist fans.
Ironically, it's simply impossilble for any musician not to be a creature of his/her own time. Even the most conscientious revivalist musician is never going to sound exactly like the dead heroes he admires. We can't have any idea how music of the past was perceived by people of that time (we can often read contemporary accounts of course, but that still only gives us a rough idea).
The way we hear (say) Charlie Patton now is not the way people of his day heard him. We have no idea what he thought he was doing, or why he played and sang the way he did, or how he felt about his music. Inevitably his music means something different to us. We are charmed by the nostalgic patina of the scratchy recordings, intuiting something deeper beneath it. That's an enjoyable imaginative trip, of course. I guess many of us hear something "authentic" there, a depth of sensation that we feel is missing from our own culture. That was surely what was behind the amazing obsesson with blues in the UK, that began in the late 1940s and took off in the 1960s, spawning rock music itself.

</RANT>

[stevejazzx]

@Howard

What I said originally stands. Mr. B has already posted above what the liner notes say - they are identical to what I said originally.
I think it is somewhat disingenuous of you to claim that you somehow believed I was making a definitive judgement on Miles' overall ability. That is nonsense and doesn't deserve a reply.

As most on this forum reading those comments understood naturally - Miles' words were somewhat modest.
My original point was that Miles was getting fed up with complexity in some of the music and wanted to just improvise. Hence 'Kind of Blue'.
If anyone thinks that this equates me defining what Miles can and can't do they should read all the comments again in context. I never even hint at such bizarre claims.

With respect to someone making an apology (such a thing seems totally unnecessary to me - but since you brought it up) perhaps a look at the facts, context and some inward reflection might help you along.

Steve

[JanVigne]

"I was not aware that discussions of jazz always end like this. If you are right, I will avoid them; I have no wish to get shot."



Guns don't kill people. Jazz does?

[mr. beaumont]

Originally Posted by TomiPaldanius

I think Miles Davis does like many giants do. Talk politely about other players

Actually, if it were anybody else, I'd agree...but Miles rarely held back.

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by stevejazzx

@Howard

What I said originally stands. Mr. B has already posted above what the liner notes say - they are identical to what I said originally.
I think it is somewhat disingenuous of you to claim that you somehow believed I was making a definitive judgement on Miles' overall ability. That is nonsense and doesn't deserve a reply.

As most on this forum reading those comments understood naturally - Miles' words were somewhat modest.
My original point was that Miles was getting fed up with complexity in some of the music and wanted to just improvise. Hence 'Kind of Blue'.
If anyone thinks that this equates me defining what Miles can and can't do they should read all the comments again in context. I never even hint at such bizarre claims.

With respect to someone making an apology (such a thing seems totally unnecessary to me - but since you brought it up) perhaps a look at the facts, context and some inward reflection might help you along.

Steve

Originally Posted by stevejazzx

Davis wanted to improvise, he didn’t to perform the kind of gymnastics that Parker had been up to a decade before and in some ways he felt inferior because fast bebop was out of his reach.

Originally Posted by stevejazzx

Miles did feel inferior asking other players how they played so fast.

Check the facts before commenting.

Steve

Sorry for misunderstanding you, Steve. My best wishes.

[Bern]

Originally Posted by stevejazzx
Davis wanted to improvise, he didn’t to perform the kind of gymnastics that Parker had been up to a decade before and in some ways he felt inferior because fast bebop was out of his reach.

I have to take issue with that, Steven. You're are incorrect. I have it(or had it) first hand from someone who played sessions and recorded with both. Both were equally well prepared to play 'whatever'. There was a difference, though, Miles was a quiet laid-back kind of guy, Parker a more out-going kind.

[stevejazzx]

Originally Posted by Bern

I have to take issue with that, Steven. You're are incorrect. I have it(or had it) first hand from someone who played sessions and recorded with both. Both were equally well prepared to play 'whatever'. There was a difference, though, Miles was a quiet laid-back kind of guy, Parker a more out-going kind.

Hi Bern,
First of all, the context was the Kind of Blue album. So it does not infer complete exclusivity towards 'just improvising' throughout his entire career. The context stated "by the time 'Kind Of Blue' came along, Miles just wanted to improvise."
From the liner Notes: by Robert Palmer
Miles saw the approach, at least in part, as a way of drastically simplifying modern jazz, which was then pushing against the outer limits of chordal complexity. "The music has gotten thick," Davis complained in a 1958 interview for The Jazz Review.

"Guys give me tunes and they're full of chords. I can't play them ... I think a movement in jazz is beginning away from the conventional string of chords, and a return to emphasis on melodic rather than harmonic variation. There will be fewer chords but infinite possibilities as to what to do with them." Technical though it may seem to non-musicians, Davis' statement can be reduced to a single, simple proposition: a return to melody. Kind Of Blue is, in a sense, all melody--and atmosphere. In essence, Miles Davis was looking for new forms that would encourage his musicians to improvise in streams of pure melody, which is an aspect of music as easily appreciated by the layman as by those who speak modal.
Further explained in this PDF - see Nota Bene - are the other issues I claimed that
"Miles was seeking improvisational freedom; was tired of playing over endless chord changes".
-----------------------------------------------
In terms of technical ability:
Cannonball Adderly once said that "Miles wasn't a good trumpet player but a great soloist." It is generally understood that Miles' wasn't the most technically advanced musician (but he played at the high end); his skill was in composing and improvising in a new way.

The points which Howard has taken exception are perfectly in sync with all the source material, documentaries and quotes that I've encountered in relation to Miles.
The misconception appears to be that I was somehow definitively critical of Miles in the process.

[stevejazzx]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

Sorry for misunderstanding you, Steve. My best wishes.

Howard the context for the bolded comments is the 'Kind of Blue' album
as expressly outlined in the original comment hence my plea for context in my last 3 posts. Only by ignoring context completely could you take exception to those words -

The first comment is that Davis didn't want (note: you seem to have interpreted this as 'couldn't' and this is the basis for this unnecessary protruded exchange) any more chordal gymnastics at that time. This fact, along with previous comment regarding complex chord sheets is covered in liner notes on the Kind Of Album:

Kind of Blue
By Robert Palmer

Extract:

Consider the circumstances. Miles took his musicians into the studio for the first of two sessions for Kind Of Blue, in March, 1959. At the time, "modal" jazz--in which the improviser was given a scale or series of scales (or "modes") as material to improvise from, rather than a sequence of chords or harmonies--was not an entirely new idea. Miles himself had tried something similar in 1958 with his tune "Milestones" (also known as "Miles") and when he and Gil Evans were recasting the songs from Gershwin's Porgy And Bess around that time, they rewrote "Summertime" to include a long modal vamp, with no chord changes. Originally, the idea for this kind of playing was the concept of composer George Russell, but his program for "modal jazz" came imbedded in an elaborate, all-embracing musical/philosophical theory, the "Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization." Miles saw the approach, at least in part, as a way of drastically simplifying modern jazz, which was then pushing against the outer limits of chordal complexity. "The music has gotten thick," Davis complained in a 1958 interview for The Jazz Review.

"Guys give me tunes and they're full of chords. I can't play them ... I think a movement in jazz is beginning away from the conventional string of chords, and a return to emphasis on melodic rather than harmonic variation. There will be fewer chords but infinite possibilities as to what to do with them." Technical though it may seem to non-musicians, Davis' statement can be reduced to a single, simple proposition: a return to melody. Kind Of Blue is, in a sense, all melody--and atmosphere. In essence, Miles Davis was looking for new forms that would encourage his musicians to improvise in streams of pure melody, which is an aspect of music as easily appreciated by the layman as by those who speak modal.

It's worth noting that Miles didn't just write out some simple, almost skeletal compositions, pass them around the band, and hope for the best. He chose his players carefully, bringing back the already-departed pianist in his sextet, Bill Evans, for these sessions only. His group's new pianist Wynton Kelly was something of a blues specialist, and he was asked to play on one tune only, the blues "Freddie Freeloader." Some of the musicians credit Miles with "psyching" Kelly into playing that would fit seamlessly alongside Evans' work on the rest of the album. Perhaps. As Nisenson points out in his 'Round About Midnight, "The recording in and of itself was an experiment. None of the musicians had played any of the tunes before; in fact Miles had written out the settings for most of them only a few hours before the session ... In addition, Miles stuck to his old recording procedure of having virtually no rehearsal and only one take for each tune." Nisenson quotes drummer Jimmy Cobb as saying of Kind Of Blue, "It must have been made in heaven," which may be as revealing an explanation as we're ever going to get. Because there is something transcendent, poetic, perhaps even heavenly about the music on Kind Of Blue. To check it out, go right to the only unused first take of the sessions, the alternative version of "Flamenco Sketches."

On any other Miles Davis album, the first, previously unheard take of "Flamenco Sketches" (the last selection on this disc) would have been a highlight. Listened to on its own, it is a group performance of the highest quality. The supple strength and firmly-centered tone of Paul Chambers' bass (heard here with a clarity unmatched by earlier reissues) is much the same on both performances. So is the precise clarity and unquenchable swing of Cobb's drumming. The solos by Miles, pianist Bill Evans, and saxophonists John Coltrane and Cannonball Adderley are different from the solos on the familiar, issued version of "Flamenco Sketches," as one would expect from improvisers of this caliber. Adderley, however, can be heard formulating and organizing melodic materials that coalesce into an altogether different sort of melodic statement on his second try, the issued take. And this, it seems to me, is precisely where Kind Of Blue comes into its own as a monument to sheer inspiration and creativity. Every solo seems to belong just as it is; it isn't so much theme-and-variations or a display of virtuosity as it is a king of singing.

Kind Of Blue flows with all the melodic warmth and sense of welcoming, wide-open vistas one hears in the most universal sort of song, all supported by a rigorous musical logic. For musicians, it has always been more than some beautiful music to listen to, although it is certainly that. It's also a how-to, a method for improvisers that shows them how to get at the pure melody all-too-frequently obscured by "hip" chord changes or flashy fingerwork. But no matter how much a musician or a listener brings to it (for this is one of those incredibly rare works equally popular among professionals and the public at large), Kind Of Blue always seems to have more to give. If we keep listening to it, again and again, throughout a lifetime--well, maybe that's because we sense there's still something more, something not yet heard.
Or maybe we just like paying periodic visits to heaven.

-Robert Palmer