Joined
·
7,211 Posts
I'd bet Depp would be flattered to hear someone thinks he's better than Stevie RV. I find the Stevie way more groovy.
Johnny Depp - Great Guitarist
81 - 100 of 131 Posts
Joined
·
4,452 Posts
that's not true, there are a lot of great movies, there's a lot of great art, and probably a lot of great music, but those very often not the popular choices of the masses. Today what's popular is often very vulgar (vulgarity is not necessarily a bad thing, like a John Waters can show, but it's the opposite of something elegant) and musically trite and not very creative. And today appearance of artists is much more important than the music.
By the way I struggle to get why you opened a thread about Depp calling him a great, awesome and inspired guitarist with emotional depth (which are definitely good reasons to open a thread) and immediately after that "not very interesting". To me any guitarist who is great, awesome inspired and with emotional depth is without a doubt incredibly interesting and it could not be otherwise.
Joined
·
4,452 Posts
well, my personal idea of excellence in music is represented by artists like Andrew Hill, Wayne Shorter, Duke Ellington, Herbie Nichols, Toru Takemitsu, Bach, Ravel, Messiaen, Maurice Ohana, but also by things made by completely untrained musicians like
" Plenty of jazzers had little to no formal education, including most of the most influential ones."
Eva Yojimbo
Well, Eva,
Yes, but all great Jazz artists have walked the path to musical enlightenment by studying areas taught in a formal education as Music theory, arranging/composing(if writing music), harmony, although for some, not specifically in a university classroom. You can't play modern Jazz without knowledge of scales, chords, inversions, progressions, and theory unless you're playing traditional Jazz like Louis Armstrong who, by the way, after gaining success in Music went back and learned how to read music to further his career. The only exception to this rule is for savants who are in a completely different category than other people. Let's dispense the myth, once and for all, that some great modern Jazz players did not study traditional music theory. They did . . . whether at home or in a classroom otherwise they could not play at the level of talent they obviously possessed. Improvisation does not come from the gods . . . it comes from talent, study, and hard work.
Viajero
Eva Yojimbo
Well, Eva,
Yes, but all great Jazz artists have walked the path to musical enlightenment by studying areas taught in a formal education as Music theory, arranging/composing(if writing music), harmony, although for some, not specifically in a university classroom. You can't play modern Jazz without knowledge of scales, chords, inversions, progressions, and theory unless you're playing traditional Jazz like Louis Armstrong who, by the way, after gaining success in Music went back and learned how to read music to further his career. The only exception to this rule is for savants who are in a completely different category than other people. Let's dispense the myth, once and for all, that some great modern Jazz players did not study traditional music theory. They did . . . whether at home or in a classroom otherwise they could not play at the level of talent they obviously possessed. Improvisation does not come from the gods . . . it comes from talent, study, and hard work.
Viajero
Joined
·
2,446 Posts
If they aren't learning in a university or classroom then it's not FORMAL education, it's INformal education. Most of the early jazz greats learned primarily by playing with other jazz greats that came before them. Yes, that involves learning some of the basics of music theory, but much more important is the amount of practice they put in on their instrument in order to be able to be creative with their solos rather than just iterating the same scales and licks over the same chords progressions, and learning to do that in the crucible of a talented band and in front of audiences undoubtedly accelerated that progress. One reason Miles innovated the use of modal jazz, which was far less complex in terms of chord changes and would prefigure the kind of "minimal chord soloing" that would become popular in rock, is because he became far more interested in expanding the melodic possibility of jazz when not being confined to more rigid chord progressions; and with that increased simplicity came what is often considered the greatest jazz album of all time in Kind of Blue. Anyone who learns to play two chords (Dm and E-Flat minor) and how to solo in two modes can play the iconic So What... but good luck doing it and sounding as good as Miles, Coltrane, Adderley, and Bill Evans.. Just goes to show how advanced music theory matters far less than creativity through simplicity.
Joined
·
2,446 Posts
What in the world is this even referring to?Who's the "they" here, and since when is blues not "real music?"
Joined
·
2,446 Posts
Curious, do you feel the same thing about the lengthy instrumental solos in jazz in general? I mean, Holdsworth was a jazz guy (Moore and Zappa were too sometimes) and jazz is kinda known for improvisational solos being the focal point. I've always thought Holdsworth was brilliant... almost alien in so many of his ideas, and incredibly humble given his insane talent.
It's probably one of the reasons why I'm not a fan of that kind of jazz (Barber and Bilk and that kind of trad jazz is more my cup of tea). I saw Holdsworth with UK in 1977 and "solo" (in the 00s - I can't remember who he was with). I have a number of albums where he's a member or guest (UK, Gong, Bruford) and I like his playing, but he doesn't wig out. There is still some sense of a melody he's working round and it's more of an ensemble than soloing.
In the case of Zappa, I preferred his 60s-70s stuff with the Mothers. When he - and his various soloists like Steve Vai - go all weedly-weedly, I tend to tune out. I saw him in 1982 - it was entertaining enough, but not one of my favourite gigs.
(BTW, you have noticed that for the moment, you'll not get answers from Capt?)
Unfortunately, those of us who live on planet Earth can never know because we were not "gifted at birth with objective intuition" like he was.
I'm curious as to what color the sky is in the world where he lives.
" Just goes to show how advanced music theory matters far less than creativity through simplicity. " Eva Yojimbo
Hi, Eva,
You can't be creative without the theory. Otherwise, you're just playing random notes that have no meaning to the overall composition. Whether you find it in a classroom or on your bathroom seat, the knowledge is real. If you're a working musician and you get called to a gig, you're expected to know the "standards" in the keys that they're written by the original composer. That means knowing the chord progression for the entire song. If you didn't know this fundamental, how would you improvise? From divine inspiration, intergalactic energy, channeling the spirits of former Jazz musicians? And, let's say you are working with a vocalist who sings in her own key and every song must be transcribed "on the fly" in your head. If you don't know theory/chord progressions what are you going to play? This was one of my biggest problems with the misnomer "Free Jazz" which for me was "**** Jazz" since there was rarely a connection between the music and the improvisation. Anyone could play anything they wanted and it was supposed to be divine. It wasn't. It was bogus and unmusical. So, as a free-lance working musician for the lion's share of my life in both Jazz and Classical, you can't expect me to buy your above statement since it has no basis in reality for a working musician. It is the public's misconstrued concept of creativity . . . not a musician's. I hope you take my comments sincerely and with no animus intended however-- a listener . . . a dilettante . . . and a musician are leaves from a different tree.
Viajero
Hi, Eva,
You can't be creative without the theory. Otherwise, you're just playing random notes that have no meaning to the overall composition. Whether you find it in a classroom or on your bathroom seat, the knowledge is real. If you're a working musician and you get called to a gig, you're expected to know the "standards" in the keys that they're written by the original composer. That means knowing the chord progression for the entire song. If you didn't know this fundamental, how would you improvise? From divine inspiration, intergalactic energy, channeling the spirits of former Jazz musicians? And, let's say you are working with a vocalist who sings in her own key and every song must be transcribed "on the fly" in your head. If you don't know theory/chord progressions what are you going to play? This was one of my biggest problems with the misnomer "Free Jazz" which for me was "**** Jazz" since there was rarely a connection between the music and the improvisation. Anyone could play anything they wanted and it was supposed to be divine. It wasn't. It was bogus and unmusical. So, as a free-lance working musician for the lion's share of my life in both Jazz and Classical, you can't expect me to buy your above statement since it has no basis in reality for a working musician. It is the public's misconstrued concept of creativity . . . not a musician's. I hope you take my comments sincerely and with no animus intended however-- a listener . . . a dilettante . . . and a musician are leaves from a different tree.
Viajero
Hi Viajero,
Again, I think your position here is pretty shaky. Although I don't necessarily agree with Eva's sentence you quoted here the way she said it (to play modally you have to know the different modes that work with chords being played), here are some thoughts about what you said...
). This is not a convincing argument against anything Eva said.
Again, I think your position here is pretty shaky. Although I don't necessarily agree with Eva's sentence you quoted here the way she said it (to play modally you have to know the different modes that work with chords being played), here are some thoughts about what you said...
Eva didn't say you can be creative without some theory. but memorizing chord changes is not 'advanced' music theory. I don't know any advanced theory myself, but I know the changes to about a 100 standards and I can play a decent solos to them (but Joey Alexander isn't intimated by me
). This is not a convincing argument against anything Eva said.Again, knowing chord progressions is not advanced theory, its just memorization. And in the example you give, knowing how to transpose into all 12 keys isn't necessary. If a singer wants to sing, but says "I can only sing it in F#, but not F or G" you politely tell them to get the hell off the stage. What kind of singer can't sing within a half-step of their preferred key? And once you learn the basic concept of transposing, its just a matter of working by yourself to learn how to do it. I don't see any need for advanced instruction on how to transpose, either formal or informal.
You may not like free jazz, and that's fine, but you need to demonstrate that there is "rarely a connection between the music and the improvisation. I can hear the connection in a lot of free jazz, and in a lot of I can't (I only listen to the free jazz in which I can hear some kind of connection). For instance, in Cecil Taylor's music, I often hear themes/motifs that reoccur in different guises, not unlike Beethoven would do in his piano sonatas. Isn't that a connection?
This suffers from the fallacy of appeal to authority. (you can Google 'logical fallacies" and read about it). Furthermore, you're claiming that you are the authority someone should believe. And someone becomes an authority by demonstrating what they say is true. Sound epistemology requires demonstration. Accepting something without demonstration is gullibility. As Abraham Lincoln said "don't believe everything you read on the internet."
Joined
·
7,211 Posts
I agree with you except with free jazz. Although I don't like it anymore, that which is played by at least Coleman, Coltrane and some others who have music theory ingrained in them, are throwing the rule book out (but not totally). I don't believe free jazz can be played to any decent effect by those who have no sort of training, know no rules, and just winging it from scratch.
"Again, I think your position here is pretty shaky. " . . . "Eva didn't say you can be creative without some theory. but memorizing chord changes is not 'advanced' music theory." K
O.K., K,
Chord changes are Music Theory . . . simple or advanced. However, a simple I- IV- V Blues/Rock progression is not the same progression as required in say Rogers and Hart's "My Funny Valentine" which contains m11, m6/9, M/m7(b13),m7(b5), M7, and M9 chords. These are not familiar chords to an unschooled Rocker and the testament is just ask any guitar banger to memorize these chords and come back in a year and the response will likely be . . . "Hey, Man . . . forget the chords . . . I just can't feel 'em." However, if you're a complete novice, I'll teach you to play a 1/1V/V Blues/Rock progression in 5 minutes on a cardboard guitar from China that will wow your family and friends and could get you an express booking at your local coffee house. Guaranteed! So, describe music theory as you wish but there is a huge leap of consciousness required to play Jazz and one's knowledge of Music Theory.
"Again, knowing chord progressions is not advanced theory, its just memorization. And in the example you give, knowing how to transpose into all 12 keys isn't necessary. If a singer wants to sing, but says "I can only sing it in F#, but not F or G" you politely tell them to get the hell off the stage. What kind of singer can't sing within a half-step of their preferred key? And once you learn the basic concept of transposing, its just a matter of working by yourself to learn how to do it. I don't see any need for advanced instruction on how to transpose, either formal or informal." K
No and No.
"You may not like free jazz, and that's fine, but you need to demonstrate that there is "rarely a connection between the music and the improvisation. " K
Sun Ra, Archie Shepp, Association for the Advancement of Creative Musicians, etc. who are/were Free Jazzers are not in the same bowl of soup as later Coltrane, Monk, Mingus, Eric Dolphy, Ornette Coleman who I do not consider Free Jazzers but more Avante Garde. The difference is in the music. One of the few concerts I walked out of in Joe Segal's Jazz Showcase in Chicago was Sun Ra. That's when they dressed in costumes of animals, trees, lizards and played the worst cacophony I ever heard in my life. I guess I'm not hip. And, by the way, if you could ever find a connection for any musical foundation in the "music" I heard that night, I'd buy you a ballpark Frank at Wrigley Field with all the "fixins."
"As Abraham Lincoln said "don't believe everything you read on the internet." K
I wholeheartedly agree and perhaps, in future conversations of this sort, my statements/knowledge will be more obvious since there are things competent musicians know that a non-musician/ dilettante doesn't. I suppose it's just how you view the basket of apples. For me, they've been on my table for the last 60 years. However, your statement smacks of real Truth on the internet. Cheers!
Viajero
O.K., K,
Chord changes are Music Theory . . . simple or advanced. However, a simple I- IV- V Blues/Rock progression is not the same progression as required in say Rogers and Hart's "My Funny Valentine" which contains m11, m6/9, M/m7(b13),m7(b5), M7, and M9 chords. These are not familiar chords to an unschooled Rocker and the testament is just ask any guitar banger to memorize these chords and come back in a year and the response will likely be . . . "Hey, Man . . . forget the chords . . . I just can't feel 'em." However, if you're a complete novice, I'll teach you to play a 1/1V/V Blues/Rock progression in 5 minutes on a cardboard guitar from China that will wow your family and friends and could get you an express booking at your local coffee house. Guaranteed! So, describe music theory as you wish but there is a huge leap of consciousness required to play Jazz and one's knowledge of Music Theory.
"Again, knowing chord progressions is not advanced theory, its just memorization. And in the example you give, knowing how to transpose into all 12 keys isn't necessary. If a singer wants to sing, but says "I can only sing it in F#, but not F or G" you politely tell them to get the hell off the stage. What kind of singer can't sing within a half-step of their preferred key? And once you learn the basic concept of transposing, its just a matter of working by yourself to learn how to do it. I don't see any need for advanced instruction on how to transpose, either formal or informal." K
No and No.
"You may not like free jazz, and that's fine, but you need to demonstrate that there is "rarely a connection between the music and the improvisation. " K
Sun Ra, Archie Shepp, Association for the Advancement of Creative Musicians, etc. who are/were Free Jazzers are not in the same bowl of soup as later Coltrane, Monk, Mingus, Eric Dolphy, Ornette Coleman who I do not consider Free Jazzers but more Avante Garde. The difference is in the music. One of the few concerts I walked out of in Joe Segal's Jazz Showcase in Chicago was Sun Ra. That's when they dressed in costumes of animals, trees, lizards and played the worst cacophony I ever heard in my life. I guess I'm not hip. And, by the way, if you could ever find a connection for any musical foundation in the "music" I heard that night, I'd buy you a ballpark Frank at Wrigley Field with all the "fixins."
"As Abraham Lincoln said "don't believe everything you read on the internet." K
I wholeheartedly agree and perhaps, in future conversations of this sort, my statements/knowledge will be more obvious since there are things competent musicians know that a non-musician/ dilettante doesn't. I suppose it's just how you view the basket of apples. For me, they've been on my table for the last 60 years. However, your statement smacks of real Truth on the internet. Cheers!
Viajero
Joined
·
4,452 Posts
While Sun Ra was definitely an eccentric character who had this weird image he had actually an extremely advanced knowledge of harmony. You should check out his music of the late fifties early sixties, where the playing of the arkestra wasn't just about wild free collective improvisaitons. John Gilmore, his sax player, who was an influence on Coltrane himself, says it better then me. Maybe you're not into his most wild stuff, but he was an amazing musician.
and that's coming from a guy who even if he played most of his career with Sun Ra, has played also with Andrew Hill, Horace Silver, Miles Davis, Mingus, Art Blakey, Paul Bley, McCoy Tyner... he knew what he was talking about.
Yes, I know the chords to My Funny Valentine. And I have 5 fake books to many dozens of the changes from the Great American songbook and what are called jazz standards like Monk's tunes. But you are being disingenuous with your "guitar banger" stuff. I am not talking about guys who are fooling around. If you learn the the major and minor scales, its not rocket science to count up to the 11th or the 13th and flat them. A C7 9/11/13 is just the D minor chord played over the C7. Its simple mathematics. But memorizing those chord changes does take a huge amount of time and work.
Please don't waste my time explaining that playing jazz is more difficult than playing Rolling Stones tunes. I've never suggested it wasn't.
Yes and yes. Gee, wasn't that fun?
So you are good with Coltrane's Interstellar Space and the Jupiter Variations? I don't know why you don't think that's free jazz. What type of connection are you hearing in those albums? I'm not understanding your definitions of "free jazz" and "avant garde.".
Your fixations on Sun Ra's costumes is meaningless to me. And so is cherry picking certain examples That's not an argment against free jazz, its a cheap shot only a dummy would fall for.
I'm not much of a Sun Ra fan, some of his stuff is pretty good. But I am a big fan of AACM (Henry Threadgill, Muhal Richard Abrams). Those guys are highly skilled composers no matter what you think. The Art Ensemble of Chicago's People in Sorrow is a masterpiece in my view, with emotional textures that are easily relatable if you're not hung up on having to have chord changes..
If you don't like those guys, I don't care. Everyone is free to like and dislike what they want. But why should I think this is an objective assessment of free jazz and not some limitations to your personal taste?
Joined
·
4,452 Posts
yes, and by the way all those musicians, Sun Ra included weren't definitely one trick pony musicians, they did a lot of different stuff, definitely not just straight free jazz.
Mahler, Wuorinen, Wolpe, Ives, Bach, Beethoven, Carter, Lane, Handel, Lutosławski, Liszt, Bartok
Joined
·
403 Posts
Do you have something against later Beatles?
Joined
·
7,211 Posts
On Sun Ra, I'm a big fan of their earlier stuff till 1965, with Heliocentric Worlds. After that I feel they kind of lost their way. I believe they were quite sophisticated at least in the earlier stuff. To me Atlantis is total crap.
81 - 100 of 131 Posts
