The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Tags: , , , ,

Keith Jarrett a umbria jazz 07 Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 23rd August 2007
  #91
Lives for gear
 
soultrane's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
You don't like the man, but enough already, we got your point.

Bill Evans was a master, no question about it, he has his place in history, there would be no Herbie Hancock, Chick Corea, Zawinal, Jarret etc, without the earlier contributions of Evans.

But you're comparing apples to oranges - Jarret and the others mentioned above are from a different generation than Evans - weaned on the Beatles and folk music as much as jazz and their playing shows it - in spades.

By your own admission, you don't really know the man's work yet you continue to bash him, let it go, man.

Ed
why can't i express my opinion? you love jarrett, fine;

i never said the guy wasn't a great piano player, and i never said i hadn't heard alot of his playing... i just picked up koln concert on vinyl a few months ago...

(and i have to say, it wasn't as hip to me this time i heard it as it was when i was in college...)

i like his playing of the shostakovich preludes, his work w. jan garbarek, charles lloyd, etc..

i just said that there is no need to seperate the artist from the man.


he is a solid pianist, but i sure as hell wouldn't climb to the top of the himalayas to hear him play an ostinato or hear his thoughts on any subject.

but hey, he's carved out an audience and he's got some people thinking he's the greatest pianist in history. more power to him.

there are SO many great pianists out there deserving of a wider audience, but jarrett, somehow, maintains a rarefied place in people's minds.

but is there any denying the guy IS self-obsessed... both in his music, and in his rantings?

EDIT;

why is comparing two piano trios comparing apples to oranges?

so, jarrett was influenced by the beatles... does that mean he is allowed to play the same thing over and over again for 35 minutes and we have to love it, because its beatle-esque?

it IS possible that the man is over rated, you know.

give me mulgrew miller, give me billy childs, give me roland hannah, for that matter... there are ton of guys out there with 1/4th the audience of jarrett and double the ideas/swing...
Old 23rd August 2007
  #92
Lives for gear
 
blaugruen7's Avatar
and NOW to something complete different

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F8saGYlKR4
Old 23rd August 2007
  #93
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
You shouldn't otter done that.

That was nice.
Old 24th August 2007
  #94
Lives for gear
 
soultrane's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mopppish View Post
I'm more distracted by his moans, squeals, and piano humpings than I am by anyone's camera flashes.
If you ask me, being a great performer should include being able to perform without making noises that are as loud or louder than the music you're making.
Some is certainly acceptable, but c'mon. This **** Jarrett does is ridiculous.
you know he doesn't do that when he performs classical music w. orchestra.

i wonder why?

is it because he isn't as fully into the music? is it because he has to give full concentration to hitting the right notes and can't show off?

or is it because he knows an orchestra full of classical musicians will not put up with that silly crapola.
Old 24th August 2007
  #95
Lives for gear
 
blaugruen7's Avatar
Cool

maybe it is because classical music does not groove?

Old 24th August 2007
  #96
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Also classical music is not a CREATIVE PROCESS for the player, at least not to the extent as jazz is. Jarrett isn't the only one. Oscar moans and groans too. As does Elvin Jones and Art Blakey. Not to the same extent, no.

But I think of tennis players like Guga and Monica Seles, Serena. I had a woman come up to me the other day saying that she wished I had a mic up to my mouth when I played. I didn't realize that I sing along sometimes, or that it's even audible.

I think there's natural infow and outflow of stuff during this creative process. Jarrett just does everything in excess and has to be right about it.

Soultrane -- have you listened to much of his standards trio stuff?
Old 24th August 2007
  #97
Lives for gear
 
soultrane's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
I think there's natural infow and outflow of stuff during this creative process. Jarrett just does everything in excess and has to be right about it.

Soultrane -- have you listened to much of his standards trio stuff?
yeah its just irritating when he does it while holding a half note...

hey i was reading about an ellington session when the engineer stopped the take and said, "duke, somebody's grunting out there." duke said, "that was me... makes it sound better..."

i think it was jim aiken or bob doershuck in keyboard who called attention to jarrett making vocalisations at wierd places where the music was really very still.

i have heard the trio stuff... i actually prefer him more on the solo vamps...

one thing i will say about jarrett, though... he always has a beautiful piano tone on the recordings...

he must know alot about the engineering / recording processs.
Old 25th August 2007
  #98
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by soultrane View Post
why can't i express my opinion?
It's fine to express one's opinion - once, maybe twice, but the same one over and over? You're becoming the verbal equivalent of what you accuse Jarret of, the boring run on improviser with nothing new to say.

Quote:
there are SO many great pianists out there deserving of a wider audience, but jarrett, somehow, maintains a rarefied place in people's minds.
Perhaps it's because he's done something they haven't, that is, he's "somehow" managed to reach a far wider and more vast audience.

Why do you think that is?

Quote:
but is there any denying the guy IS self-obsessed... both in his music, and in his rantings?
No doubt, we're in agreement here.

Quote:
why is comparing two piano trios comparing apples to oranges?

so, jarrett was influenced by the beatles... does that mean he is allowed to play the same thing over and over again for 35 minutes and we have to love it, because its beatle-esque?
You completely missed the point.

And what do you mean by "allowed" - is there a jazz police department or something? Kinda Blue is one chord, as is Impressions, and In A Silent Way and a million other jazz modal classics. Even Coltrane chose to explore this area with My Favorite Things :dunno:

Quote:
it IS possible that the man is over rated, you know.

give me mulgrew miller, give me billy childs, give me roland hannah, for that matter... there are ton of guys out there with 1/4th the audience of jarrett and double the ideas/swing...
I don't think so, I think he's misunderstood by a percentage of the jazz world who have preconceived notions of what jazz "should be" - a lot of these guys pounce on Metheny because of his diatonicism and folk leanings, or Gary Burton because of his simple triadic voicings, or Steve Gadd because of his drum tunings and four on the floor bass drum technique and on and on and on......they think jazz is be bop licks over II V I progressions and that's it.

Many of these attitudes are a real turn-off and is one BIG reason, IMO, jazz has withered on the vine over the last 20 some odd years.

With all due respect to the pianists you mention, I don't believe any of them are in the same league as KC, not nearly.

Ed
Old 26th August 2007
  #99
Lives for gear
 
soultrane's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
I don't think so, I think he's misunderstood by a percentage of the jazz world who have preconceived notions of what jazz "should be" - a lot of these guys pounce on Metheny because of his diatonicism and folk leanings, or Gary Burton because of his simple triadic voicings, or Steve Gadd because of his drum tunings and four on the floor bass drum technique and on and on and on......they think jazz is be bop licks over II V I progressions and that's it.

Many of these attitudes are a real turn-off and is one BIG reason, IMO, jazz has withered on the vine over the last 20 some odd years.

With all due respect to the pianists you mention, I don't believe any of them are in the same league as KC, not nearly.

Ed
jazz purists criticizing metheny or jarrett his hardly the reason jazz has died on the vine.

no, the reason jazz has died and withered on the vine is precisely BECAUSE of the attitude of people like jarrett, who literally says "it is a privilege for you to listen to me."

that doesn't put off the jazz purists... it puts off the festival crowd who popped in to see what a jarrett trio date was all about.

as for the artists i mentioned, how could they "not nearly" be in the same league as jarrett?

what league is jarrett in?

the funny thing about jazz is many of the greatest artists toil in virtual obscurity. keith jarrett is a great pianist... so is billy childs... so was roland hannah.

to put jarrett in some kind of rarefied league of his own is to buy into the hype.

that's for teen age boys with acne and neil pert posters... not for musicians who ought to no better....
Old 26th August 2007
  #100
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by soultrane View Post
jazz purists criticizing metheny or jarrett his hardly the reason jazz has died on the vine.

no, the reason jazz has died and withered on the vine is precisely BECAUSE of the attitude of people like jarrett, who literally says "it is a privilege for you to listen to me."
Except Jarret enjoys huge popularity, even when he's being an asshole - he's always enjoyed huge audiences whereas the artists you mention who "toil in relative obscurity", by definition, do not.

I think it has something to do with the quality of the music.

Quote:
as for the artists i mentioned, how could they "not nearly" be in the same league as jarrett?

what league is jarrett in?

to put jarrett in some kind of rarefied league of his own is to buy into the hype.
It's not hype.

Listen to the album Henry cites "gnu high" and you tell me, could any of the pianists you mentioned have contributed anything nearly as interesting and original to that recording? It's hard to imagine.

"gnu high" was a groundbeaking recording, we had to study it at Berklee, both for its rhythmic freedom (beyond simple bar lines) and its harmonic invention.......much of its brilliance is thanks to Keith Jarret, who takes Wheeler's compositions and extemporizes them into new, expansive solo piano masterpices. And this as a session player, a "sideman" who had all of an afternoon or so to learn and record the pieces.

It's an amazing display of musical genius, I think and I've never heard anyone do anything like it before or since (and it's been 32 years).

Kenny Wheeler (the composer and FG player), Jack D and Dave Holland deserve a ton of credit, but Keith makes it special..

Anyway, I doubt anyone will ever help you to understand what makes Jarret so special, your dislike for the man (and apparently, his enormous success) seems to be driving your need to find reasons to criticize him - so be it.

Ed
Old 26th August 2007
  #101
Lives for gear
 
soultrane's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
Except Jarret enjoys huge popularity, even when he's being an asshole - he's always enjoyed huge audiences whereas the artists you mention who "toil in relative obscurity", by definition, do not.

I think it has something to do with the quality of the music.



It's not hype.

Listen to the album Henry cites "gnu high" and you tell me, could any of the pianists you mentioned have contributed anything nearly as interesting and original to that recording? It's hard to imagine.

"gnu high" was a groundbeaking recording, we had to study it at Berklee, both for its rhythmic freedom (beyond simple bar lines) and its harmonic invention.......much of its brilliance is thanks to Keith Jarret, who takes Wheeler's compositions and extemporizes them into new, expansive solo piano masterpices. And this as a session player, a "sideman" who had all of an afternoon or so to learn and record the pieces.

It's an amazing display of musical genius, I think and I've never heard anyone do anything like it before or since (and it's been 32 years).

Kenny Wheeler (the composer and FG player), Jack D and Dave Holland deserve a ton of credit, but Keith makes it special..

Anyway, I doubt anyone will ever help you to understand what makes Jarret so special, your dislike for the man (and apparently, his enormous success) seems to be driving your need to find reasons to criticize him - so be it.

Ed
it might be hard for YOU to imagine anyone else bringing something different to the table because you're obviously dizzy from sniffing jarretts jock and counting his record sales.

don't tell me because i don't personally like jarrett's personna that i can't "understand" his genius.

especially when i KNOW from reading your writings that you've probably never heard any of the works that billy childs wrote for orchestra that were commissioned by esa pekka salonen of the l.a. philharmonic. have you?

but you should check it out...

as whitehead said, if you go deep sea fishing with a 2 inch net, you might conclude that in the entire ocean, there are no fish longer than 2 inches.

there is more to heaven and earth than are dreamt of in... er, uh, keith jarret's recordings.

and tell me honestly, have you ever listened to one of mulgrew miller's records? have you ever actually heard roland hannah?

the jazz world is much like the classical world... there are many, many great classical pianists, but people only know horowitz and rubenstein...

and i mean, to be equating record sales to artistic talent is really, in a conversation like this, beyond the pale...

using record sales as a mark, we will have to conclude that jarrett is 1/1000th of the artist justin timberlake is.

listen, jarret's a good artist... maybe a great artist... but he is NOT in a class by himself... no one is...

or to put it another way, jarret is totally unique... just like everyone else.
Old 26th August 2007
  #102
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by soultrane View Post
it might be hard for YOU to imagine anyone else bringing something different to the table because you're obviously dizzy from sniffing jarretts jock and counting his record sales.

don't tell me because i don't personally like jarrett's personna that i can't "understand" his genius.

especially when i KNOW from reading your writings that you've probably never heard any of the works that billy childs wrote for orchestra that were commissioned by esa pekka salonen of the l.a. philharmonic. have you?

but you should check it out...

as whitehead said, if you go deep sea fishing with a 2 inch net, you might conclude that in the entire ocean, there are no fish longer than 2 inches.

there is more to heaven and earth than are dreamt of in... er, uh, keith jarret's recordings.

and tell me honestly, have you ever listened to one of mulgrew miller's records? have you ever actually heard roland hannah?

the jazz world is much like the classical world... there are many, many great classical pianists, but people only know horowitz and rubenstein...

and i mean, to be equating record sales to artistic talent is really, in a conversation like this, beyond the pale...

using record sales as a mark, we will have to conclude that jarrett is 1/1000th of the artist justin timberlake is.

listen, jarret's a good artist... maybe a great artist... but he is NOT in a class by himself... no one is...

or to put it another way, jarret is totally unique... just like everyone else.
This is what I love/hate about the web, I make a point, you mischaracterize it in an insulting manner, and around and around we go.

What Billy Childs writing a commissioned piece for orchestra has to do with this thread is beyond me - we already determined early on Jarret couldn't master the written composition (sometimes it's a good idea to go back and re-read earlier posts).

We had been discussing Jarret's contributions as a PIANIST, not an orchestrator.

I never equated record sales to "quality", I was responding to your claim Jarret had somehow helped jazz to wither on the vine because of his "attitude", a silly claim considering his enormous popularity. I'd rather believe jazz sucks really bad at the moment because nothing meaningful has happened in the idiom for say, oh 25 years or so.

You didn't understand my reference to how a newer generation of jazz musicians (of which Keith Jarret was only a part of) brought a new language to jazz, far beyond where Bill Evans had been. That would be the whole lot of players from Brecker, to Metheny, to Burton, Hancock, Corea, Jarret and only a few hundred more.

Jarret comes at it from that perspective - a perspective I personally relate to.

For some reason you felt "privileged", compelled even, in reducing my point to an insulting comment about Jarret having listened to the Beatles and playing an ostinato.

Do you not see that as insulting?

Anyway, this is pointless and not worth engaging any further - you just sound envious of the man and more than a little bitter - why else post the same tirade over and over again...

Oh and a post script:

Yes, I've "heard" Roland Hannah - for only about 150 years (i'm 50, how the **** old are you anyway?) and Miller (who does nothing at all for me, jeeeze, the less said there the better).

Ed
Old 26th August 2007
  #103
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
I won't deify Jarrett, although I consider myself a fan. I don't believe he's better or worse than anybody in particular. This atitude of better than/worse than has done it's part to kill jazz. The subject of why jazz is dying or dead is another subject. I could go into it here. I have my opinions on the subject but I won't bore you guys with it.

Sir Roland Hanna was an amazing pianist. Mulgrew Miller too. I need to check out that Billy Childs recording. The playing of his I've heard has always been good, technically very proficient, but I haven't yet been knocked out.

Phineas Newborn, Gonzalo Rubacalba, Chick Corea, Tatum .. all of these pianists are incredible and all have something differnt to offer. Why is there a question of BETTER? What is this, sports? What IS better in music? What hits home plate FOR YOU.

I have perhaps way too many Jarrett recordings. From Art Blakey, Lloyd, Gary Burton, early trios, American quartet, European quartet, solo recordings, most of the standards trios. I love his playing and much of his music. Like anyone I like a lot, there are always periods and portions that drive me crazy. Almost as if it's too personal. Some of his phrasing drives me to drivel. Sometimes it's brilliant. Sometimes it sounds like a student.

My favorite musician is Chick Corea. I throw out the fusion RTF recordings and some other stuff. But his musical mind is, to me, brilliant and nonparalelled. But that's me and my taste, you know? Why would I wish that on anyone else? I look at the arc of most Corea solos and they contain everything for me. Each phrae begats the next phrase and everything is dymanically played, rhythmically interesting. Each line has character.

Jarrett is also brilliant, IN A DIFFERENT WAY. Very melodic and flows like water. But he's not BETTER THAN, to me. He's Jarrett. I've gained an immense amount from listening, but my god, these arguments are just plain silly.

As far as the attitude of people not liking Jarrett bringing jazz down -- I am a guitar player who has a LOT more in common with Metheny, Sco and Wayne Krantz than I do Jim Hall and Joe Pass. So I belong to the modern school of playing. But I'm also a serious student of jazz. It took me a long time to admit Mingus was right when he told me innovation is built on what's come before, not by ignoring it. You have to know what you're innovating or you're not innovating ****. So building a strong foundation is important. Not necessarily to the extent of Wynton, who'd rather ignore anything passed 1962 and prefers to live by the book of Duke, which is FINE. But I like modern music too!

I'm going to bed. Sorry. I don't even know whether this made any sense.
Old 26th August 2007
  #104
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
I LOVE Mulgrew Miller. He's doing the post Coltrane/McCoy thing very, very well. He's so good.

I wish Kenny Kirkland was still around.
Old 26th August 2007
  #105
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
Forgetting the actual incident for a second, what about photos being taken against the artists' requests (printed posters at a show, stage announcements) that they not be taken?

Do we own our image and have a right to control it's duplication, as George Lucas has said, or is our image part of the public domain as soon as we step outside?

And if you say photos are okay then is bootlegging a recording okay as well?

Is a public performance pretty much a free for all for the consumer, or are they paying to be in the moment with the artist then go home, and not take images or sound home with them?
Old 26th August 2007
  #106
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucey View Post
Forgetting the actual incident for a second, what about photos being taken against the artists' requests (printed posters at a show, stage announcements) that they not be taken?

Yeah, I was surprised this aspect didn't really come up more in this discussion. Talent is irrelevant if people have been told not to take photos. That said, I find the discussion of Keith Jarretts merits interesting, so I'm not complaining.
Old 26th August 2007
  #107
Lives for gear
 

Eh sorry going to have to take Mr robinett to task here..."CLASSICAL IS NOT CREATIVE".....I think I know what u are getting at in that the performer may not be inventing melody or harmony on the spot......however with the best performers it is very much a creative process and spirtual communion with the music via interpretation......many classical performers although they may not grunt, scat or buzz like a bumble bee are deeply physically, mentally engaged when they perform........Glen Gould being the most obvious example.....others of course are more static or restrained...I could go on....but I shan't.
Old 26th August 2007
  #108
Lives for gear
 
doorknocker's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
I won't deify Jarrett, although I consider myself a fan. I don't believe he's beter or worse than anybody in particular.
I totally agree. A large part of this thread consists of people wanting to prove why Jarrett is better, worse, stiffer or whatever else than (preferably) some 'misunderstood' genius.

Despite his annoying public conduct, I will listen to KJ whenever I want to, which might not be often but maybe it will be after listening to say Professor Longhair, Arturo Benedetti-Michelangeli or Billy Joel or whoever - not because A is better than B but rather because I like different sounds for different moods and enjoy both very commercial stuff as well as very out things.

The 'demise' of jazz hasn't got anything to do with 'diatonic' folk-leanings, and if I'm allowed to nit-pick here it's also BS because 'Folk' in it's original form isn't diatonic but rather modal. Go out and get Harry Smith's 'Anthology of American Folk Music' and listen for yourself. Even Metheny's 'folk' leanings always have a strong modal, maybe even Indian, undercurrent as 'Two Folk' Songs' on '80/81 might be a good example thereof.

The problem might rather be that certain things were already done to perfection a long time ago. Think of Miles and his statement that he couldn't take the 60ies quintet any further. It was a culmination of a certain style of playing and done by the best players there are and thus he moved on - changing his approach and creating something equally great but very diffrent again.

It always makes me laugh out loud when reading how 'jazz experts' were dissing 'Bitches Brew' as 'commercial'.back in the day......Listen to it today and you wish that most 'jazz preservers' were 1/10 as daring and fresh as Miles + his crew were then.
Old 26th August 2007
  #109
Lives for gear
 
soultrane's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
I won't deify Jarrett, although I consider myself a fan. I don't believe he's beter or worse than anybody in particular.
i believe this sums up the whole thread.

sharp 11 thinks jarrett is the non plus ultra of pianism, and as such, must apparently be given whatever leeway he feels he needs to create his music.

but i think there are many, many worthy pianists out there and somehow jarrett, who must live in an insular world where people are sneaking into his house to record the sounds he makes while sitting on the comode, seems to have forgotten this.

if you simply MUST hear jarrett no matter how badly he insults you, so be it. be like the lady on cops who sobs and moans when the guy who beats her is taken away by the police.

i am saying there is a whole wide world out there, that jarrett is ONE piano player in an ocean of talented piano players, and NO piano player of whatever accomplishment should be so bold as to scold the audience that paid good money to come and hear them.

apparently the umbria jazz festival agrees with me, as they banned jarrett for life, and apparently even jarrett agrees, as he had his p.r. man send off a quasi apologetic letter.
Old 26th August 2007
  #110
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by butterfly View Post
Eh sorry going to have to take Mr robinett to task here..."CLASSICAL IS NOT CREATIVE".....I think I know what u are getting at in that the performer may not be inventing melody or harmony on the spot......however with the best performers it is very much a creative process and spirtual communion with the music via interpretation......many classical performers although they may not grunt, scat or buzz like a bumble bee are deeply physically, mentally engaged when they perform........Glen Gould being the most obvious example.....others of course are more static or restrained...I could go on....but I shan't.
No need to apologize for taking me to task.I knew someone would and should!

I think you know what I meant. The compositionally creative part of classical music is done by the composer. The conductor is somewhat creative in the sense of interpretation. As is the musicians, especially when it comes to solo performances. But not too much. He brings his emotions to the table. His interpretation of those dynamic and tempo markings. But all of the notes are given to him. This kind of creativity is nothing like that of the typical jazz musician who, in effect, his spontaeneously composing all the time. His solos and improvisations are all composed on the spot. Even if he's building his improvisation on top of standard tunes, he's making it up as he goes.

And Jarrett is known for doing sometihng somewhat unique, although not entirely unheard of, unlike what he'd like you to believe. He improvises, in his solo concerts, from no pre existing structure. He just sits down and plays. Wholly improvised. Wholly creative.

Of course it was a bit of a dramatic statement trying to state an absolute that CLASSICAL MUSIC IS NOT CREATIVE. That's NOT true. It's just a LOT less creative than jazz, if you're anythig other than the composer.
Old 26th August 2007
  #111
Lives for gear
 
soultrane's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post

Of course it was a bit of a dramatic statement trying to state an absolute that CLASSICAL MUSIC IS NOT CREATIVE. That's NOT true. It's just a LOT less creative than jazz, if you're anythig other than the composer.
but i guess that begs the question for me...

why does the act of spontaneous creation call for all that posturing at the piano? shouldn't it require MORE concentration and less flailing around?

the only way we would ever really know if it is legit or for show is to sneak into the practice room when he is practicing by himself...

does he groan and moan and hump the piano when he's practicing by himself on a thursday morning?
Old 26th August 2007
  #112
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
Of course it was a bit of a dramatic statement trying to state an absolute that CLASSICAL MUSIC IS NOT CREATIVE. That's NOT true. It's just a LOT less creative than jazz, if you're anythig other than the composer.
I agree with you Henry ...

But then again what does it mean to be "creative"? Jazz has become more about wanking while playing under and within established sub-genres of a genre for most people. Not very creative. Sure there is more soloing, and there is no page, so you're right of course. But there are standards and established styles.

Classical is definitely not about making notes up in the moment, but is that the only way to look at "creative"? How about being 'close to the divine' and free of habit while playing, as being creative? In that sense anyone in the orchestra can express the original intent and be a vehicle for music, whereas most jazzbos are expressing themselves ... and this is not often a vehicle for inspiration, but often for their perspiration and limitations via negative emotions (competition, egotism, etc).

Self-expression is an American ideal on "creative", and it's not always true that those two equal each other ... jazz musicianship has often become wanking, shredding, noodling, and pretending to be creative. The days of development in jazz are mostly gone, and so at most we have greatness from some people on some nights. And that's not so different from classical music.
Old 26th August 2007
  #113
Lives for gear
 
doorknocker's Avatar
I agree with lucey here.

instead of the word 'creative' I'd rather say 'musical'. THAT'S important to me. I heard many well-known jazzers (especially guitar players) that IMO display amazing knowledge and invention but fail to create a sound which is musical to my ears. It starts with the sound, developing a great TONE is very important because it's what music is about - sound. I really hate the kind of jazz approach when you have to analyze the playing to be able to 'dig' the hip re-harmonizations of the player.

Also, while unfortunately classical music has generally also become rather stale and yes uncreative in its commercial manifestation these days, it's still clear that 'playing what's written on the page' is NEVER enough. Especially when dealing with Baroque and even older music. Ornamentation, phrasing, melisma ,etc are all supremely important and as much as there is a way of 'proper' bebop playing, there is a 'proper' way of doing say ornaments in Renaissance lute pieces. Only that (much like in jazz) there are different schools and thoughts about what's 'proper' and this is makes it interesting too.

Personally, I want to be taken to a special place by a perfomance or piece of music. I want to be moved and aroused. I don't necessarily need to be worrying about the creativity of the performer. If the music is really happening, then it will transcend the musician. Well, I guess that's a very un-jazzy way to look at it though......
Old 26th August 2007
  #114
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
I find the commentary that says that classical performers are less "creative" than jazz performers to be absurd. Those who espouse it have a lot of explaining to do in order not to seem provincial and naive.

It seems that those people with this point of view have no conception of what is involved in playing a string quartet, a piano concerto or sonata or singing a version of Strauss's Four Last Songs.
It's mindboggling. It's also arrogant.
Old 26th August 2007
  #115
Gear Addict
 
Dale's Avatar
 

Thumbs up

"Personally, I want to be taken to a special place by a performance or piece of music. I want to be moved and aroused. I don't necessarily need to be worrying about the creativity of the performer. If the music is really happening, then it will transcend the musician."

amen

"I find the commentary that says that classical performers are less "creative" than jazz performers to be absurd. Those who espouse it have a lot of explaining to do in order not to seem provincial and naive."

is this where the choir comes in ????
Old 26th August 2007
  #116
Gear Guru
 
lucey's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorknocker View Post
Personally, I want to be taken to a special place by a perfomance or piece of music. I want to be moved and aroused. I don't necessarily need to be worrying about the creativity of the performer. If the music is really happening, then it will transcend the musician.
Exactly.

'Music is a world within itself' as was so rightly sung by the great SW. Or it's not, and it's a PERSON making sound in time. The American elevation of the individual can go too far, and the musicality can be lost. Sometimes both happen and that's the best jazz musicianship.

As far as guitarists, as I am one too, you hit the nail on the head. Ironically, one of the most musical guitarists in the world is coming to perform here in 2+ weeks, playing solo Bach on steel string guitar. I would bet that any jazz player who comes out will be stunned by the emotion and musicality that Bert Lams (Brussels Academy of Music, California Guitar Trio) brings to the traditionally 'architectural' J.S. Bach, and on guitar no less. The Barn at Limestone Vale

Bottom line, it's not the style, it's the intentions and musicality that result. I'll take Yo Yo Ma or Daniel Barenboim anyday over most people playing 'Watermelon Man.' Taken on the whole, jazz is no more musical than classical, as both suffer from commercial trappings, the many compromises of modern life, and the lack of intense inspiration on the part of individuals that made the genres great in the first place.
Old 26th August 2007
  #117
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Well I never said, nor would I, that jazz was more musical. I said that, for the musician, for the player, it was more creative. That's not saying it's better or making any value judgement between them. Just stating it as a fact, as I see it. That's the reason I decided to be a jazz musician rather tha a classical one. Playing classical music was just not as satisfying to me. I could express myself so much more ernestly playing music I made up on the spot. Please don't assume I'm making a value judgement between the two musics.
Old 26th August 2007
  #118
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
I find the commentary that says that classical performers are less "creative" than jazz performers to be absurd. Those who espouse it have a lot of explaining to do in order not to seem provincial and naive.

It seems that those people with this point of view have no conception of what is involved in playing a string quartet, a piano concerto or sonata or singing a version of Strauss's Four Last Songs.
It's mindboggling. It's also arrogant.
OK then explain to me how being a typical classical musician, not a composer, where reading and interpretation is your forte, how that equals creating improvisations on structures of your own invention or on tunes from Body and Soul to You're Everything. I'm not talking which is better, or moves you more. I'm talking merely the process of creating. One is defined by the process of creating. The other is defined by the process of interpreting.
Old 26th August 2007
  #119
Gear Addict
 
Dale's Avatar
 

Cool

henry

excuse me if I miss the point but ...
wasn't the Kolin Concert about emptying his physic so
that what was being played was fresh.
in other words, nothing you do when improvising is creating ?
are you not interpreting your past, rehashing your practice sessions...??
Old 26th August 2007
  #120
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale View Post
henry

excuse me if I miss the point but ...
wasn't the Kolin Concert about emptying his physic so
that what was being played was fresh.
in other words, nothing you do when improvising is creating ?
are you not interpreting your past, rehashing your practice sessions...??
That's what Jarrett maintains. And I think it's true in a lot, or even most, instances. But I also think it's what a lot of improvisors try to ward against, before and after Jarrett.

That KJ used his solo performances as an exercise to prove a point doesn't mean others haven't done similar things in different ways.

As long ago as Charlie Parker he said similar things. "Practice everything and then forget it all," is a paraphrase. A lot of jazz musicians refuse to practice. It's a dictum laid down by Miles Davis long ago, because of this very thing. Always play fresh, not what you practiced.

I only stopped "practicing" a year or two ago and it's made a tremendous difference. It's a zen thing. You DO have to empty yourself. But I knew this in high school. This is not a new notion. But my beef with Jarrett is that he has to make everything so significant and super important, as though he invented it himself.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
duckyboard / So much gear, so little time
0
jje / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music and Location Recording
18
demonfuzz / Rap + Hip Hop engineering and production
4
Jules / So much gear, so little time
7
indie / Gear free zone - shoot the breeze
2

Forum Jump
Forum Jump