Drummer Woes

[lermgalieu]

I also believe y'all are the ones really getting bogged down in semantics here. However, I'm with Watt, I freakin practice. Form is generated by the group experience in my world - its all a big conversation and that should be the dominant aspect of group interplay, not how you intellectually "choose" to "approach" a tune. The conversation creates the form - sure there's limits and constraints that may be externally imposed (or imposed by your own mind), but its the same as the difference between Geroge Bush' inauguration speech and Whose Line is it Anyway. Until I am sitting in my freaking slippers in a retirement home in Florida, I will practice, not rehearse.

[Mark Steel]

Ummm, in response to the original question...
Saw "Triumph of the Underdog" for the first time over the weekend on Bravo (maybe a peripheral benefit of Burns' Jazz series? Also saw a cool show called "The Church of Saint Coltrane" recently). In one segment Dannie Richmond recalls how Mingus helped him become a better drummer. Richmond said that at first he was trying to play everything he knew in as short a time as possible. Mingus told him to treat the music like a conversation (as lerm said above)--you don't go into a room where people are talking and start shouting "HI HOW YA DOIN'!!!--you scope out the situation, say "hello," take a breath, "how ya doin'"--and so on. When someone else is talking, ya basically shut up and listen, or at least keep it down.
Sometimes what I love most about Jazz is the space between the notes, the breath you take between words, listening rather than speaking. It frustrates me sometimes when everyone just crunches along with the only intent to try to end the song at the same time.

[Edited by double dad on 02-09-2001 at 11:22 AM]

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Ok, for some reason I wasn't notified of the "flammable" postings in this thread by our beloved robotic secretary (i.e. - idisembowelyourmother585 has just responded to your thread.....), so I missed a bunch of this. So, if it's too late, so be it. But....

I'm not sure whether WORMJELLO is saying that jazz musicians shouldn't rehearse, or whether they should only make the distinction between rehearsal and practice. The Mike Watt thing seemed kind of presumptuous and not to my taste, so I'm not sure how to take lerm's point.

If the point was that jazz musicians should realize when they are practicing and when they are rehearsing and make a mental distinction between the two, I would regard that as a point well taken which could save people a lot of wasted time and frustration.

If the point was that jazz musicians should only practice and never rehearse because "rehearsal" kills the spontaneous beauty of the improvisatory process, then that's one of the bigger loads of horsesh*t I've ever heard, and one of the worst possible approaches to making music that exists. Often, "rehearsal" for a jazz group means setting up the general mood/tone/vibe of each particular arrangement/tune as a point of departure from which the spontaneous improvisation springs. I find that a great arrangement can place me in a frame of mind in which my point of departure is far different from an unplanned one, and for this reason can lead me into modes of playing in which the improvisation is in the context of organic relation to the specific mood/vibe of the arrangement. When this happens, it can be a beautiful thing, like a built in road sign at the beggining of a piece suggesting you explore the scenery OVER THIS WAY for a bit instead of dancing on the same old road all the time. This can be a great springboard to creativity, but most great arrangements need to be rehearsed.

[lermgalieu]

It was just supposed to be a springboard to a recognition that even when we are playing within confines, we should always be trying to look at the music in a fresh, engaged way. I know it came off as just trying to make a distinction between "rehearsal" and "practice", but I am more interested in thinking about what one might techinically call "rehearsal" (like running through tunes with specific moods/arrangements in mind as Chris said) with the idea of an ever fresh outlook on the subject matter, while still accepting the constraints of the tune. Always placing precedence on the immediate experience of the conversation, and having a willingness (within reason) to take a detour or a tangent.

I know I got frustrated with you guys, and I think one of the reasons is that in Jazz, I think the above is assumed, or sometimes taken for granted. I am making overt reference to it bceause I think for me that consciousness of always being actively engaged with the subject matter lifts up my playing. If you'll bear with me...there's this French guy, DeCerteau, who wrote some great books about the theory of "Practice", but from the perspective of everything (everyday life) - everything we do is a practice, a craft, we're working our machines, not an abstract idea. The important thing is the work...the conversation...the execution of the idea...and for jazz or any organic musical construct, I see that "practice"...a ritual gathering almost...is the overriding factor of what we do. Practice is a thread that runs right through "rehearsal" and everything else. This is the best I can explain myself and what I think Watt was saying. Sorry to freak out on y'all.

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Disclaimer: I am not attempting to start a flame war

But see, the problem here is that you came at the subject with a lot of attachments in your own mind which help you to clarify your point in the bigger sense, but we were only privy to the actual words that were printed on the screen. Yes, I agree all of life can be seen as practice of sorts (I prefer to think of it as cumulative experience, but that's a semantic difference that could take us to mars if we pursued it, so let's not...), and in that context, it makes a little more sense, and I doubt that it would have gotten the same reaction as what the words on the screen did without this clarification.

Disclaimer #2: until I read this thread, I had never even HEARD of Mike Watt.

I started reading with no predjudice against the man, but after about one paragraph, all I could think was something along the following lines: This guy writes like a pompous *sshole rock star, and for that reason and that reason alone, I would feel comfortable walking away and never listening to another word he wrote. Perhaps that is unfair on my part, but I'm just being honest....because if someone has to say something in that way, I can't make myself give a flying f**k about what their point is. It could be the meaning of life or directions to the Holy Grail, and I wouldn't care. Why must the article begin by insinuating that everyone who doesn't agree with the author is an example of "lazy thinking"? The long and short of it is that because of the writing style, to me, the author sounds like a pathetic little punk with some serious ego issues that he hasn't dealt with yet (I don't know the guy, so I can't say if he is or isn't, and wouldn't presume to anyway). I think it was largely this aspect of the article (his obnoxious writing style) that folks were responding to.

I agree that practice is important, and that it is different from rehearsal, and that the distiction is important. I still hold that both are an important part of music, and that they complement each other. No hard feelings, I hope.

[lermgalieu]

Well see, that's the whole thing, you have to think about it from a rock perspective as well for it to truly make sense I guess. Poorly chosen forum I guess - the rock guys would have grasped all my "attachments" (but isn't all writing part of a larger cultural dialogue?) immediately. And on the rock star thing, I think he's making a statement ABOUT pompous rock stars...? I suppose he's trying to get under people's skin as well, and it succeeded. I like some good attitude, I guess that's another rock thing. Anyway, you make it seem like his venom is somehow directed at YOU...when it seems that its directed AT rock stars, poseurs etc, and I am just wondering what about that makes you think HE is the poseur. Sure he's got a loud mouth, that's why I quoted him. Suppose I shoulda made my point and linked to the Watt article as a point of interest.

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Actually, I was trying very hard to indicate that, because of the fact of the venom, I couldn't care less who it was directed at.

Let me simplify and say that I have no problem with either you or your point, but I found Watt's writing style extremely annoying. Perhaps it suited his intended audience, which, as our life "practice" has proven, was clearly not the southern hemisphere of Talkbass forums.

Chris

[lermgalieu]

I'm cool wit that Chris. I'm stuck in the middle - I feel the dialogue/knowledge up north is just a little weak, but I am a little angry for down here...you can like/dislike whatever writing you want, this here's America. I bet you're just SO relieved that I gave you my blessing, heh.