Admitone
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 179
- Locality
- US
Neuroscience: Jazz and your brain
Good topic, and one Randy and I have discussed previously. I'm another one of those who doesn't listen much to sax players, well certainly not to copy them anyway. My inspiration was guitar and voice. I was a singer a long time ago, so always thought the sax as a surrogate for singing.
There's an old saying: "you are what you eat". In music we are what we play/practice. Those who continually copy licks and try to sound like some sax hero may have their own quirks, but (in essence) are not developing an individual voice. The practiced licks and arpeggios that become finger memory will continually creep into improvisations. It's just easier than being in touch with an inner voice that sings those lines and to have them come out of your horn without hesitation. To have your own voice means first being one with your instrument so that it's an extension of you. Then you've also got to have something to say. Singers (who are not trying to copy exactly some other singer) will naturally have their own voice. Tone, phrasing, harmonic ideas, can all come to play as the singer is (or should be) 100% in touch with their instrument.
When we learn an instrument there is the awkward stage of taking something mechanical and becoming familiar enough with it for it to become our voice. This can take years or decades, or in many cases never happen. Along the way many/most are taught to only read, only copy, that there is only one vocabulary (1950s jazz), or other well meaning teaching ideas that can hamper rather than help. That's not to say that those people can't play, they just don't have their own voice. Some grow beyond those teachings and achieve a recognisable voice. However it's more common to hear players simply trying to become technically proficient finger wigglers with little to say.
Players with their own voice can tell stories and give emotions. Technical players mostly wish to impress. Pretty easy to understand which player is more successful at attracting audiences.
The clip below of Wynton is long 'defunct' music but is utterly joyous. It would be a shame to confine this to history.
Love it. Love it. This is where I started, Dixieland clarinet.Plus one for the 'utterly joyous' -ness of this music. Without wishing to divert the diversion, I've been going through the youtube vids of Skinny Tuba (EDIT: Oops, turn those last two words around) recently! Again, utterly joyous music. I don't know for sure, but I reckon you could play this kind of music in front of anyone, whatever age, whatever music tastes they have, and they would 'get it' and get into it. That and Jazz Manouche get me going and burst open up my lonely dark and aching heart...
If I could play Clarinet (and had talent - never gonna happen) I'd play Clarinet like this...wouldn't matter a jot to me that I wasn't original if I could do this
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZdMxFiUf9Q
What is the radio of which you speak?and my radios are still tuned to those stations
For your educationWhat is the radio of which you speak?
There's no way one can argue with Pete's points about many forms of music deserving to be heard and enjoyed. We should all play what we love and definitely go see/support that music. My first love is Classical music (and my radios are still tuned to those stations) . I'd rather hear modern Classical than Mozart though, and am choosy about the concerts I go hear. Early forms of jazz can be looked at similarly to Classical and played reverently as conceived and certainly enjoyed. From the early 20th century through to 1960 jazz was popular music, but lost out to Rock and 'Roll and all the other forms of popular music that followed. By contrast Classical music was always music of the elite supported by the church and aristocrats. Popular music certainly existed along side Classical and each borrowed from the other.
If I've got a point to be made it's always been referenced around what's taught. I don't think most students learning sax have an ambition to play music of the past or be a "tribute band" any more than those learning guitar bass or drums do. They would like to be part of the present and make their mark as contemporary players. How many students starting to play sax have heard of Bird, much less his playing? Much more likely they have heard Kenny G! Those learning guitar, drums and bass are not being fed a strict diet of 1950 - 60s style jazz and (IMHO) have a somewhat better shot at playing professionally or achieving success in contemporary music.
I was taught music appreciation/history and able to find the areas of Classical music that resonated with me. That came down to Baroque and Modern. Likewise it's a good idea for those studying any instrument to have a wide range of knowledge/experience of many periods/styles including 1950s jazz and the present. The earlier forms don't need to be shunned and can be a terrific influence. As said by others earlier I'd include other cultures' (World) music influences in the same way.
There is no argument that should ever be made about discouraging anyone from playing or listening to what they like. The issue is about what is being taught to young aspiring sax players. Is the current "jazz curriculum" giving them the tools to be able to be "original" or play creatively in a wide sense or develop themselves as "individuals"? It seems not. Once again: students of guitar, drums and bass, keyboards, etc. are not being told to exclusively play in the vocabulary of the 1950s, play "standards" or strictly copy players from that time. Some may choose to play in those styles, but it's a very small minority. Sax students aren't choosing to play in the style of the 1950s the majority are taught to play that way. Big difference!
Pete Thomas has a great story that relates to this in which he is specifically hired because he DOESN'T strictly play jazz. For those who love playing standards and 1950s jazz I'm sure nothing is better. For students just trying to learn an instrument we should be giving them the best chance possible to achieve whatever their goals may become without dictating one specific style or period that they MUST imitate.
Start the revolution!
Pick a Soprano and become the next Bechet... (ok, the next Olivier Franc then...)Plus one for the 'utterly joyous' -ness of this music. Without wishing to divert the diversion, I've been going through the youtube vids of Skinny Tuba (EDIT: Oops, turn those last two words around) recently! Again, utterly joyous music. I don't know for sure, but I reckon you could play this kind of music in front of anyone, whatever age, whatever music tastes they have, and they would 'get it' and get into it. That and Jazz Manouche get me going and burst open up my lonely dark and aching heart...
If I could play Clarinet (and had talent - never gonna happen) I'd play Clarinet like this...wouldn't matter a jot to me that I wasn't original if I could do this
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZdMxFiUf9Q
One could argue that the sax is confined to the role of the melody (high pitched 'single note at a time' instrument) while the strings and keys are quite more versatile : harmony, rhythm and melody are all accessible to them. Even more so because of the culture of sax as a soloist instrument. And let's not talk about differences of sound: the strings and keys have explored a very wide range of possibilities already...
Is it just possible then that the sax (as well as the clarinet, or most woodwind instruments for that matter) is simply a more limited instrument than the keys, the guitar, the bass ? And is therefore less used to produce modern music ?
And to be honest, I am not sure about a small demand in the Classical repertoire. It seems to me that it is a field of growing demand for the saxophone because its repertoire is expanding. But that may be only because of my current location (Italy with a strong influence of Austrian culture as well) where there is a strong influence of classical music...
Pick a Soprano and become the next Bechet... (ok, the next Olivier Franc then...)
I'd love to be able to play that too, that's another reason why I prefer the soprano !
And one day I will... (fingers crossed)
I don't claim there is anything original in my playing, pretentiously or otherwise.
When I am playing pretentiously, I am rarely original.
But when I play wrong notes, my playing is definitely original.
According to Wynton Marsalis, there are no bad notes, just poor framing. (referring to the notes around the 'bad' one)When I am playing pretentiously, I am rarely original.
But when I play wrong notes, my playing is definitely original.
According to Wynton Marsalis, there are no bad notes, just poor framing. (referring to the notes around the 'bad' one)