Improvisation - sexy, but maybe overrated?

[Pete Effamy]

Yes, very often they are "scratch" or "pickup" bands. The bandleader usually dictates tunes ('cos he has to know them!), and also solos, order of solos, any 4's or 8's etc and any features.
Another good one is to play first chorus just with bass, or piano or guitar and so vary arrangement in that way too.

 

[6441]

The regulars may remember me telling the story of how I was passing a California night spot and, seeing a stage inside, asked the waitress if there was live music that night. She replied, "No... well, just jazz."

 

[6441]

Yes, very often they are "scratch" or "pickup" bands. The bandleader usually dictates tunes ('cos he has to know them!), and also solos, order of solos, any 4's or 8's etc and any features.
Another good one is to play first chorus just with bass, or piano or guitar and so vary arrangement in that way too.

Right. Being old has advantages. When I started, we played in the same bar with the same band for weeks, every night. We had a repertoire (all popular, rock and blues), arrangements and... improvised solos.

 

[Pete Effamy]

Also a good front man who talks to the audience is nearly always overlooked in jazz!

 

[Pete Effamy]

Right. Being old has advantages. When I started, we played in the same bar with the same band for weeks, every night. We had a repertoire (all popular, rock and blues), arrangements and... improvised solos.

Definitely. Back in the days when you could keep a jazz gig longer than the first gig...

 

[altissimo]

Would you strap a pair of skis on your feet for the first time and hurl yourself down the Hahnenkamm in Kitzbuhl?

as I said with the quote from Eno, with music you can crash and walk away - what part of that is difficult to understand? There is no physical danger from playing music and making a mistake, unless you played with Buddy Rich..,
Since I'm having to explain things, my point about sax teaching and Coltrane is that if a student wants to play Coltrane then it'd be far more encouraging and productive to get them playing one of Coltrane's simpler tunes than to say no it's too difficult and instead have them play Mary Had A Little Lamb or Hot Crossed Buns.
By playing music that you actually like and are interested in you stand a greater chance of being motivated and enthusiastic and will want to learn more about how that music works and can better relate the theory to the music that you love.
If someone's paying money for lessons then maybe the lessons should be geared towards what the student wants to learn and not what the sax teacher thinks he should teach. The best teachers are the one's who can channel their student's enthusiasm..


BTW, I never said 'ill informed' about the old days, but there weren't any formal jazz tuition courses until the late 60's/early 70's, so jazz musicians had to learn the hard way, by asking other more experienced musicians - Coltrane did it in the road with Earl Bostic, Art Pepper has said that he didn't start learning about sight reading and music theory until he rejoined Stan Kenton's band. Ornette Coleman learnt about jazz from Red Connors, Steve Lacy learnt about dixieland from Cecil Scott. Miles learnt about be bop from Charlie Parker
Jazz and blues was more of an oral tradition, handed down from one generation to another often aided by buying some elder player an bottle of their favourite drink.
This isn't to say that a formal education didn't play it's part - Earl Bostic had a degree in music, Cecil Taylor went to New England Conservatory and for some of the Chicago musicians the only way to get a musical education was to join the army. Those who could afford it had lessons and some schools had excellent teachers. The church also played a vital role in many black musicians education, but they wouldn't have been allowed to play jazz or blues on such hallowed ground.
In most respects they were better informed back then because they had first hand experience of playing and closer contact with their role models than most jazz students do now

 

[Pete Effamy]

I don't wholly disagree. But if you engage a teacher you do in part put your faith in them to guide you forward in the best way possible. Neither one should completely dismiss the view of the other.

 

[Pete Effamy]

I don't wholly disagree. But if you engage a teacher you do in part put your faith in them to guide you forward in the best way possible. Neither one should completely dismiss the view of the other.

and the whole idea of taking lessons is to hopefully short-cut a lot of the crash and burning. I had no difficulty in understanding it by the way.

 

[David Dorning]

k

Since I'm having to explain things, my point about sax teaching and Coltrane is that if a student wants to play Coltrane then it'd be far more encouraging and productive to get them playing one of Coltrane's simpler tunes than to say no it's too difficult and instead have them play Mary Had A Little Lamb or Hot Crossed Buns.

In support of sax teachers, I have no doubt that all those I have known would have taken the Coltrane and not the Little Lamb route.

The attitude of the student has a lot to do with it. If you approach a teacher as an independent learner with definite goals you are likely to be encouraged to go straight for a Coltrane head. If you are less confident you are more likely to need direction. Some adult beginners might appreciate starting with the Little Lamb.

 

[Pete Thomas]

I can't believe we've had 5 pages of teaching saxophone/jazz and not a peep yet from @Wade Cornell

 

[Halfers]

Funnily enough, I was just thinking of @Wade Cornell and his previous writings on improvisation. I'd also been thinking about the other side of improvisation, whilst listening to The Necks

 

[Targa]

I can't believe we've had 5 pages of teaching saxophone/jazz and not a peep yet from @Wade Cornell

He'll probably turn up now you've attracted his attention and insist everyone should be compulsorily taught jazz standards.

 

[Wade Cornell]

Just sitting back and seeing what others have to say. As indicated you all know how I think about this topic. The real question is what is getting through and are people ready for a change? As a (day job) scientist the rules of physics apply in ways we often don't consider. While obvious that a physical body in motion requires equal force to stop that motion, it takes twice as much energy to make it move at the same velocity in the opposite direction. I think this is also true for the direction of ideas and what happens in society. It will take a lot of energy before we will see significant change, even when the majority can agree that the type of teaching and style of playing isn't yielding creative and forward movement into a bright future of our instrument of choice.

It's too easy (especially for many of us old farts) to have that "it's the way we've always done it" attitude. It also hurts to realize that so many have wasted their time and efforts playing a style that isn't relevant to today, has little/no audience, and a uncertain future.

 

[Keep Blowing]

It also hurts to realize that so many have wasted their time and efforts playing a style that isn't relevant to today, has little/no audience, and a uncertain future

If that's the style of Music you ENJOY playing it is relevant to you, and it hasn't been a waste of time.

 

[6441]

bright future of our instrument of choice.

On the bright side, there is more saxophone visible (or should I say hearable) today than 10 years ago, I think. Saxophone players with DJs, saxophone players on YouTube videos, sax on the beach.

Regarding @Wade Cornell 's comment about it being wasted time and effort, there are two sides to the question. if you love it, there's still the pleasure of playing. On the other hand, if you based the study and work on the hopes of a viable working life in playing, it better be in a style that works well enough to have a lot of paying gigs out there. I wonder what percentage of players, even those who have post grad degrees in music and can play anything from classical to jazz, are working enough to make a living as the only source of income.

I mention music degrees, because in listening to the Everything Saxophone Podcast, several of the saxophonists they've interviewed have them, the last I remember has a Ph. D. I've never heard of most of the 50 or so people on that show, but they're famous among other saxophonists. That tells me that I'm not very knowledgable about musicians that aren't giants of the genre/instrument.

 

[Pete Effamy]

I have a degree in Jazz and Light Music from Leeds College of Music. The qualification itself is pretty worthless and it never got me a playing job (though it got me teaching jobs, granted). The worth was the study and the wealth of experience from tutors (all current or ex-pros) and the opportunities to play in so many ensembles each week.
In my day, we got a grant from the local authority and so I left college without being in debt. These days, at £9k+ per year, is it worth the risk? There are so many ways to learn (as we've all argued about on here!), that it must be possible to get to the same place in achievement with relatively little money (?). Only hindsight can inform us individually whether this worked for us.
Like Randulo, I agree that the sax/DJ has kept things a little more alive for us blowers in recent times. This is a paid gig, and if the sax part of the equation is equal to that of the DJ, then it will be really well paid - more than I was getting on tour with a few multi-number 1 hit UK artists.

On the whole, pay is ok if you can get enough gigs - and some people do. Some musicians are really good business people too and hustle well. This part is not taught enough in college.

There is no standardisation of pay though. The MU. I only ever encountered it once in all my years of playing and it was an orchestral concert I was booked for - "you're a member of the MU of course" - to which I affirmed and joined later that day. Membership was not needed for BBC or ITV work at any point in my career. Or Equity for Top Of The Pops. I was never quoted union rates for a recording session either. The money offered was it, or the band were asked to get examples of a comparable going rate and submit that as a daily or whole fee for the album. Sony BMG once offered the band £0.00 as a 'buyout' for an album as we'd "had a good run recently with TV and recording session fees". I think we declined that one...

I never made all of my money from being a gigging pro as I didn't want to have to take lots of gigs I wouldn't have liked. I didn't want to play in the West End like a lot of my mates. I hate it, and I never wanted to hate playing the instrument. It's a great way to earn decent money as a pro player in the UK though, and many of our top players do. It pays better than orchestras, and you have more chance of 'getting in'.

Top Jazz artists are as well supported here now as perhaps they always were. Buble, Connick Jr, Sanborn, Krall, etc etc get good crowds in good venues. Local jazz isn't too well-supported. Big Band gigs locally are now usually for petrol money - but are still an opportunity to play those amazing charts. The working pro bands like Syd Lawrence, Glenn Miller UK, Pasadena Roof pay modestly, but work several times a week.

I can't complain about my life as a musician vs it being a waste of time. I've had some amazing dopamine hits. Personally, as with many players who become obsessed, only a fraction of my time playing is pleasurable to me as there are so many aspects to get right. When you do though, that's what all the hard work is for.

 

[6441]

Yeah, some teaching gigs are available for the qualified, although I have a friend who is really good at interacting with people and has no qualifications except that he can play. He's doing community-level teaching.

It is funny to think of a DJ as a leader, but they usually hire the sax player. AFAIK, there's no book, they ask you to play along with whatever they're playing. I have read somewhere that sax is taking off with a new life in Hip Hop, or whatever modern popular music is called these days. Let's face it, it's closer to the human voice than strings, piano or flute and in my opinion, trumpet as well. It's mostly what attracted me to it, whereas as a kind with my brief career on clarinet (age8 or 10), it didn't take long for me to slam it down, breaking it in half.

 

[Pete Effamy]

Yeah, some teaching gigs are available for the qualified, although I have a friend who is really good at interacting with people and has no qualifications except that he can play. He's doing community-level teaching.

Same here - an orchestral (or any pro player) player without a teaching qualification is considered unqualified. And a teaching qualification never takes into account whether you can actually impart the information well or connect with your students.

AFAIK - as far as I know?

We're gonna get slated for being OT any time now...!

 

[6441]

You can't be OT in your own T!

 

[Pete Effamy]

You can't be OT in your own T!

Ah, excellent!