Why Haden???

[Damon Rondeau]

Originally Posted by kraid

There's no way to facilitate musical ideas if you can't execute them properly.

I don't understand what this means. How do you "facilitate" a musical idea? Whose idea? Whose facilitation? What kind of idea? Ideas are executed, okay, but: ideas are executed properly? What standard of proper are you bringing to The Bench At Which You Sit In Judgement?

I can see that for such a little sentence it takes an awfully looooong look down the nose. You like or you don't like, but you cannot logically prove that Haden is "unproper" or "bad". That's a ridiculous, puerile notion. You like or you don't like.

[kraid]

Originally Posted by Damon Rondeau

I don't understand what this means. How do you "facilitate" a musical idea? Whose idea? Whose facilitation? What kind of idea? Ideas are executed, okay, but: ideas are executed properly? What standard of proper are you bringing to The Bench At Which You Sit In Judgement?

I can see that, for such a little sentence it takes an awfully looooong look down the nose. You like or you don't like, but you cannot logically prove that Haden is "unproper" or "bad". That's a ridiculous, puerile notion. You like or you don't like.

You bring about (facilitate) a musical idea by having the technical abilities to do so on the instrument in the manner that produces the best results. Do you think the way Haden plays the bass produces the best results? You don't think it would be easier if he didn't hold his bass like that on the side and didn't hit that note by pointing his third finger out at that angle with his pinky curled up? Being musical is only half of what it takes to play the double bass. I'm not saying being musically inspired is unimportant but musical inspiration will only take you so far when you're actually playing and trying to get a result. Maybe I just care about this stuff more than you people.

[musicman5string]

Originally Posted by kraid

Being musical is only half of what it takes to play the double bass.

Wrong.
It doesn't matter what instrument you play. Being musical is the only thing that matters.

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Gentlemen - we're cool here as long as we remember that in matters of subjective opinions, there is no "right" or "wrong". Mr. Haden has already left his mark playing the way that he has and does, and try as we may, it is unlikely that any of the participants in this thread - myself included, of course - are destined to leave a deeper mark on this music that we all love. My suggestion, for whatever it may or may not be worth, is that if you don't care for what you see of his technique, don't emulate that which you don't like. Conversely, if you find something of value in what you hear, strive to absorb and learn from that using whatever technique suits you. As always, YMMV.

[PB+J]

Didn't Rabbath have "improper" technique?

wes montgomery played with this thumb--completely unorthodox, and highly improper

I'd rather listen to Howlin' Wolf than most people who get called jazz singers--Wolf had no proper technique whatsoever

I know what you mean about technique facilitating ideas--I work on my technique all the time, and yes, the "proper" way is usually better. But judging him by one picture taken god knows when (during a ballad, or during a fast tune? at the end of a six minute uptempo piece?), without actually listening to him seems a little unfair

There's a saying--"professionalization is how you make room for mediocrity." Haden's technique may not be professional, but as a musicians he's anything but mediocre

[MixBass]

I'm fairly new to the UB, played EB for a long time. As I began paying more attention to UB, one of the first guys to hit me was Charlie on I believe a Metheny disc. His command of space was/is beautiful to my ears. For me, to be simple, fresh and informed is the greatist challenge as a player. Thats how he hits me. Cheers !

[Damon Rondeau]

The idea that the greater one's technical development -- conceptually, physically -- the better able one is to express an idea isn't a controversial idea. Picasso was an excellent draughtsman and sculptor and trained hard in his early years to develop those skills but he went on to do the cubism thing, in which the influence of the drawing or sculpting skills wasn't particularly apparent. He had excellent technical chops and he tied them to conceptual brilliance and look what the world got: art that lives forever. It's not a controversial idea.

The problem is the same problem we get when anyone takes an idea and hammers everything with that one idea. When it's directed at a particular artist there's usually a little lament buried inside it: "just think what Charlie Haden could achieve if he didn't have technical limitations." And that's exactly where the wrong-headedness sets in. How in heaven's name can an artistic career stretching over half a century, in which the artist has been part of seminal moments and contributions, in which the artist has worked with and received the respect and admiration of scores of other high-functioning artists, in which the artist has demonstrated no fear about being regarded as somehow outside the norm or deficient in some way -- how in the heck can someone look at the achievement and say "yeah, none of that matters 'cause I don't like his intonation sometimes and geez, he looks like he's choking a boa constrictor or something"? It's just plain wrong-headed and it demonstrates a misunderstanding of what jazz is about: people playing together in the moment, using everything they've got to spontaneously create something new, something they believe deeply is Beautiful And Worthy. Using the logic of that idea, you might say "yeah, Lester Young was really something but just think what he could have done if he stood up straight and didn't have his horn bent all sideways like that." It's preposterous: the majesty of Lester's music comes before any of that technical stuff.

And guess what? I'm not even that big a Charlie Haden fan. But I understand what he's up to, I've been watching and listening for decades, and he has nothing but my respect for what he's achieved in a life of music. He's the real thing.

You like or you don't like, it's pretty much that simple. We are Charlie's audience, not his freaking teachers.

[Tbeers]

There's another idea floating around.

It's this general attitude by older bassists here that everyone likes Haden more as they become more experienced.

Sometimes I feel like the standard response to someone saying they don't like Haden's playing is, "Oh, neither did I for many years, but then I came around and love his stuff now." I am bothered by the presumption that everyone eventually gets to the point of loving Haden's playing.

With him it always seems to get past the point of "hey, either you like him or you don't." People who are not fans bash his unorthodox technique and iffy intonation, and those who are fans arrogantly suggest that appreciation of Charlie Haden is something gained naturally with age. I don't get it.

[Oak]

Originally Posted by kraid

Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time feeling what someone is playing when it's so out of tune.

Funny,I rarely heard Charlie play out of tune.

[msw]

He sure has sounded in tune to me through the years. That is one of the reasons I find him believable.

[PB+J]

Yeah well, kids never like to hear that people older than them know much. Which is fine by me; careful skepticism of your elders seems like a good idea

But could you point me to an example of Haden playing out of tune? I have a bunch of recordings of Haden with Kenny Barron, and Metheny, and Hank jones, and his own bands, and he always sounds in tune to me.

Maybe he just LOOKS out of tune because of his "bad technique?"

By the way, there's a very nice portrait of Haden in Rafi Zabor's "The Bear Comes Home," a really delightful novel about music, creativity, and trying to be human when you're out of sync with everyone else. Anyone read that?

[Aaron Saunders]

I dunno, I just kind of "got" Haden immediately. Admittedly I haven't heard much of his catalogue, but what I've heard is wonderful, especially as far as his sound goes. You can't go looking to Charlie Haden for NHOP chops, just like you shouldn't look to delta blues for shredding accordion solos. Take his music for what it is, not what you think it SHOULD be. Also, in what I've heard (mostly the duo stuff with Metheny) he sounded pretty in tune to me.

Watching him play would probably make me cringe, though. That picture made me shiver.

[Damon Rondeau]

Yeah, I've read The Bear. I do indeed like the portrait of Haden in that piece and I'm glad it came early in the novel. I actually found the thing to be almost unreadable after 100 pages or so -- the Bear character just never clicked with me. The only thing about him that didn't feel like a stereotype was his Bear-ness. Lots of others really dig it, though, and I'd encourage anyone to check it out.

As for the wait till you're older to like Charlie, I know that's certainly not the message I would send. Part of my appreciation for Haden (and I've already said I'm not one of his biggest fans) is his very longevity. To have lived such a musical life -- a musical life that is not without courage -- and to have expressed so much music straight from the heart: it's a thing to be admired.

Lots of folks actually get more tolerant as they age. It's the youth of the world who are pretty quick to confer sainthood or damnation on somebody. Charlie Haden is a Venerable and Noble Warrior and Officer of the Bass -- he's got my respect.

[musicman5string]

I listened to four bassists last night: Rufus Reid, Gary Peacock, John Patitucci, and Charlie Haden. Each one was different and offered something of their own. Each was a pleasure to listen to. Each has great sounds and great musical ideas. Each was surrounded by other great musicians. Each had a great recorded bass sound: all were natural, full, and warm.
I didn't pick out anyone of those four who had bad technique.

[Anonymous75966]

I also 'got' Charlie right away when I started listening to jazz. In fact, I'd say the first LMO album was probably the main inspiration for me to get onto the bass.

Even so, watching him play sort of makes me twitch. I remember saying so to an old teacher of mine. Said teacher - who plays in the Toronto Symphony and therefore knows from technique - said something like, 'Yeah, but he plays in tune, he plays in time, and he's got a great sound. Who cares?'

Anyway - Ron Carter: wrong technique. Gary Karr: wrong technique. (Not even going to mention intonation with those two guys, who of course, we all know, are great anyway.) Thelonious Monk: wrong technique. Jimi Hendrix: wrong technique. Miles Davis: no technique. John Coltrane: sharp. Django Reinhardt: two fingers. So what; so what; so what.

If anyone knows Thomas Pynchon's "V" - I always liked the parody / tribute to Ornette's quartet that appears in that novel. Very brief but funny.

[Marc Piane]

For me it was not a getting older thing as much as having more time to listen and understanding the tunes he plays more deeply.

[Aaron Saunders]

Originally Posted by the_other

I also 'got' Charlie right away when I started listening to jazz. In fact, I'd say the first LMO album was probably the main inspiration for me to get onto the bass.

Even so, watching him play sort of makes me twitch. I remember saying so to an old teacher of mine. Said teacher - who plays in the Toronto Symphony and therefore knows from technique - said something like, 'Yeah, but he plays in tune, he plays in time, and he's got a great sound. Who cares?'

Anyway - Ron Carter: wrong technique. Gary Karr: wrong technique. (Not even going to mention intonation with those two guys, who of course, we all know, are great anyway.) Thelonious Monk: wrong technique. Jimi Hendrix: wrong technique. Miles Davis: no technique. John Coltrane: sharp. Django Reinhardt: two fingers. So what; so what; so what.

If anyone knows Thomas Pynchon's "V" - I always liked the parody / tribute to Ornette's quartet that appears in that novel. Very brief but funny.

I'm curious about this post in regards to other players with "wrong technique"...

Ron Carter - I've watched several of the video clips from RC's site and I don't understand what's poor about his technique. Intonation isn't spotless -- yeah, there are better guys for this -- but what's wrong with his technique? He keeps a pretty strict LH, even though he's got those massive spider-hands that could probably quite easily slip out and start using more slab fingering.

Gary Karr - I've never SEEN him play, but I've seen multiple pictures of him while playing and it all looks very solid.

Thelonius Monk - WRONG technique, or just a lack of pyrotechnics? http://images.google.ca/images?svnum...nk&btnG=Search for pictures of Monk -playing. I'm no keys player, but point out what's significantly wrong with his technique.

Jimi - ...alright, I'll hand you that one.

Miles Davis - NO technique? See, now I just don't get statements like that. Please don't think that I'm picking on you in this, because this is FAR from the first time I've heard this. No, Miles couldn't play as hot as Dizzy or a lot of other players, but some of the playing on the records from the 60's quintet is mighty fine. Just how much of a musical acrobat do you have to be to play trumpet?

Coltrane - "Sharp" -- intonation wise, or what? I don't understand.

[Anonymous75966]

Aaron - dude, I was being sarcastic.

My point was, someone who was really pedantic, or really orthodox about one style of technique or another, could argue that all those guys have the wrong technique. These musicians are so obviously masters that it's a ridiculous argument. But they definitely have an individual approach - like the man said to Bruce Lee, "unorthodox - but effective."

Why Ron Carter - Never had the pleasure of seeing him live, but I seem to recall he plays with pretty flat LH fingers ... ? OK, slightly talking out of my arse on that one. Everyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Coltrane is like God to me but his intonation really does go sharp.

[Michael Glynn]

Originally Posted by Treebeard

There's another idea floating around.

It's this general attitude by older bassists here that everyone likes Haden more as they become more experienced.

Sometimes I feel like the standard response to someone saying they don't like Haden's playing is, "Oh, neither did I for many years, but then I came around and love his stuff now." I am bothered by the presumption that everyone eventually gets to the point of loving Haden's playing.

With him it always seems to get past the point of "hey, either you like him or you don't." People who are not fans bash his unorthodox technique and iffy intonation, and those who are fans arrogantly suggest that appreciation of Charlie Haden is something gained naturally with age. I don't get it.

I hope you're not referring to my post, as that's not the impression I was trying to leave. I was just giving my personal experience of not digging him, and then digging him later.

Like I said, if you listen and end up still not being into him, no biggie. There are plenty of jazz greats that I just don't really like listening to, either. Even if you don't like somebody's playing all that much, I think it is still worth checking out, especially if a lot of others really dig his playing. Maybe you end up really loving it...Maybe you end up not loving it, but getting something out of it anyway...Maybe you end up not loving it and not getting anything out of it, either.

From your previous posts, it seems like you are in the "don't love it, but got something out of it" camp. That's great, and if you never end up loving his playing, well, that's the same way I feel about Coltrane. I don't think it makes me a bad person

[Aaron Saunders]

Mmmm...I went back and checked out about half of the Blues for DP clip, and I guess you're right -- his LH fingers do flatten out!

PS: I agree with your point...and about Trane.