• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Double Bass Hard Question #2.

C

Chrix

Apr 9, 2004
253
0
Brooklyn
#1
Again, with this questioning/rebellious streak I'm in right now, this one seriously might ruffle some feathers, but that's where the fun lies. Here goes.


In spending a lot of time studying improvisation, I've been wondering how truly important learning bebop really is. (Before you start writing scathing replies, please read on). I understand the stance that the language of jazz is indeed based on the harmonic and melodic foundations set in bebop and furthered in the hard bop styles. But I can't help but be bothered when I hear a statement like "All these free players use that term as an excuse to not learn how to play changes." Or "Yeah, he can play a bunch of random notes, but can he play over a ii-V-I?" Or "The best free players can also blow over Donna Lee at any time." or variations on all three.

So what makes what some avant-garde or free improviser's music so much less valid than someone making all the changes?

I've been spending some time listening to Peter Kowald and while I don't know enough about his studies as far as improvisation goes, I assume that he might not have spent years and years playing Cherokee in all 12 keys. Yet I'm completely enamored by his improvisations, just as I am when I listen to Oscar Pettiford. So if he indeed didn't study "the language of jazz," what makes his music less valid or interesting than Pettiford's?

Maybe I'm weird for liking Albert Ayler as much as Sonny Stitt and John Cage as much as Beethoven.

Again, these are questions that I'm hoping to open up to debate. Everyones' wrong opinions are welcome ;).
 
#2
I get fed up with bebop sometimes as well, but my personal goal is to get past it by going through it and experiencing it and then moving beyond it - and by "beyond it" I mean that in the personal sense. It's one thing to say you don't like something or aren't into it, and another to be able to do something and choose not to.

If someone's playing moves me, I don't care what else they can or cannot do. However, one thing that truly gets on my nerves are players who talk down about other styles without being able to master the requisite skills involved, as if they have already transcended the style they are talking about. In my book, to "transcend" means to "surpass". And to surpass something, you must first be able to do it. In the end, if someone chooses not to learn to play bop at all and still sounds good, more power to 'em. It's when people disrespect that which they have not worked to achieve that I get a little annoyed. YMMV.
 
#3
I completely agree. And it happens on both sides of the fence. I just get bothered when I hear beboppers call 'free' players jive artists simply because they either cannot or choose not to play the changes.

I'm in no way trying to find excuses for not learning the fundamentals of jazz improvisation, nor am I trying to say that I've surpassed it (I know you weren't insinuating that, Chris, but I'm just saying this probably more to convince myself than anyone else). I personally would love to lead a life and career of having the ability to do it all. To be the most complete musician, bassist and person I can be. And I feel that closing one's mind to other possibilities, no matter how foreign they might be is when we start to grow stale and obsolete.

Wow. Sorry about that little rant there...
 
#4
I do find Bop necessary in every musicians curriculum because it's the basics of the jazz and when you play it you learn how to master and feel the character and sense of the early jazz.

I can feel your pain cause i see every day hear those bopers that insult every modern player about being modern and "Drawing out of the lines" i like bop and i think it's an important thing to learn but it's nothing more sacred then any other. You have to master everything related to a certain style to make yourself sound like you should, like there's a lot of rockers today who can't master Rock n' roll and play in alternative bands, they aren't doing anything interesting but those who learned all about rock and play in bands the same genre sounds great.
 
#5
Chrix said:
I completely agree. And it happens on both sides of the fence. I just get bothered when I hear beboppers call 'free' players jive artists simply because they either cannot or choose not to play the changes.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. I'm the first to admit that I'm not that great of a "free" player. I might personally (i.e. - to myself) think of a "free" player as a jive artist if they were on a more straight ahead gig and couldn't (as in "cannot" from your above post) play the changes; however, I would likely think of them that way only in the context of that person playing in a straight ahead style...and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't assume that that characterization would not carry over to other styles (in my estimation, of course) unless I had heard them play in those other styles and didn't hear any musicality.

When I find myself in situations with players who like to play a lot more "free" than I'm accustomed to, I always look to myself first to try to find reasons that the music might not be as happening as I would like when that's the case. It doesn't happen a lot here in the midwest, but there's one player around who I respect greatly who is a lot more "free" than I am/am used to who sometimes makes me feel like a jive artist in those situations - not because he vibes me or anything like that, but because those situations make me realize certain holes in my playing that I haven't chosen to address yet. He's always very complimentary after the gig, but sometimes I walk out feeling as though i have a lot of work to do to really play that gig correctly.

I'm in no way trying to find excuses for not learning the fundamentals of jazz improvisation, nor am I trying to say that I've surpassed it (I know you weren't insinuating that, Chris, but I'm just saying this probably more to convince myself than anyone else).
Click to expand...

I didn't take it that way. :)

I personally would love to lead a life and career of having the ability to do it all. To be the most complete musician, bassist and person I can be. And I feel that closing one's mind to other possibilities, no matter how foreign they might be is when we start to grow stale and obsolete.
Click to expand...

Agreed. For me, bop was a big hurdle that I had my mind somewhat closed to for a while because I knew that it wasn't what I wanted to do for the rest of my life. Now, later as I look back on it, I'm glad I put in the time working on it, and glad that I still see it as a legitimate challenge to continue getting incrementally better at even as I focus the majority of my attention on other things which move me more. There are no easy answers to this issue, only difficult questions!
 
#6
I agree with the Chrixs'. Don't forget that is goes both way though. Bop dudes call free cats names and free cats call bop dudes names. It's like the Mac vs. PC thing. Here in Chicago, which has a pretty vibrant free scene as well as a bop scene, there are few guys that walk the line. The really great players do though. Fred Anderson, Ari Brown, Harrison Bankhead, Eric Hochberg, Ken Vandermark, Jeb Bishop, Tim Mulvena, etc, etc.

I think one of the things that drives the name-calling is just not understanding compounded by the 'tudes of either camp.
 
#8
IMO, bop is part of the language of jazz. A lot has happened since bop. If you want to play bop, then master bop. But honestly, I think it's just as valid to never study any bop players. You decide what you want to play and incorporate whatever you think is useful to meet your ends. You don't ever have to study PC, or Ray Brown, or Bird. Bop isn't mandatory "curriculum", lol.
 
#9
Seems to me most "free" players I can think of have a foundation (and a discography) of jazz fundamentals, which encompasses general music theory, and having a good idea of how to construct chords, what lines work over certain changes, and how to create a spontaneous composition. All of which makes for a "whole musician" in my opinion. If nothing else, this gives the "free" player the street cred to discount any criticism that may (and likely will) come their way.

That said, there's no hard and fast rule that says you can't make interesting "free" music without all that under your belt. You just have to put up with a lot of criticism, warranted or not.

As a side note, when I had been playing for only a very short time, long before I really felt comfortable walking changes over straight ahead stuff, I sat in on a fairly straight-ahead gig with admittedly open-minded folks. When my turn came for a solo, the entire band pretty much dropped out and somehow I ended up taking it way out there -- drastic tempo changes, in and out of time and form altogether, super fast walking (inspiring the drummer to come back in), crazy arco "sul ponticello", etc. I really had no business doing any of this but I don't know, the Spirit moved me I guess... well it was better received than any playing I have done before or since... People really went nuts over it... so you never know.
 
#10
Chrix said:
Again, with this questioning/rebellious streak I'm in right now, this one seriously might ruffle some feathers, but that's where the fun lies. Here goes.


In spending a lot of time studying improvisation, I've been wondering how truly important learning bebop really is. (Before you start writing scathing replies, please read on). I understand the stance that the language of jazz is indeed based on the harmonic and melodic foundations set in bebop and furthered in the hard bop styles. But I can't help but be bothered when I hear a statement like "All these free players use that term as an excuse to not learn how to play changes." Or "Yeah, he can play a bunch of random notes, but can he play over a ii-V-I?" Or "The best free players can also blow over Donna Lee at any time." or variations on all three.

So what makes what some avant-garde or free improviser's music so much less valid than someone making all the changes?

I've been spending some time listening to Peter Kowald and while I don't know enough about his studies as far as improvisation goes, I assume that he might not have spent years and years playing Cherokee in all 12 keys. Yet I'm completely enamored by his improvisations, just as I am when I listen to Oscar Pettiford. So if he indeed didn't study "the language of jazz," what makes his music less valid or interesting than Pettiford's?

Maybe I'm weird for liking Albert Ayler as much as Sonny Stitt and John Cage as much as Beethoven.

Again, these are questions that I'm hoping to open up to debate. Everyones' wrong opinions are welcome ;).
Click to expand...

Kowald new a lot of tunes, he spent time studying jazz. When we were hanging out he started plaing the head to Oleo, and we played "Whims of Chambers" together.
My personal opinion on the jazz tradition in free music is it a lot easier to get the basic mechanics down than to explain why you don't want to.
Playing changes is not that tough - making an artistic statement is - which is what ties Ayler, Cage, Stitt, Beethoven and Kowald together.

To be an improvisor you need to understand how music works.
Jazz theory and music theory are not as separate as people want to make them.

Another consideration is where you live, and what improvisors you have access to.
If you live in the US a lot of the great players are will come from the jazz tradition, so having a handle on it is going to help A LOT.

If you are into free music, you do not need to memorize 300 standards in all 12 keys.
However, you are cutting off vital information if you don't know how 32 bar tunes work, and how the players re-shuffle the cycle of 5ths and chromatics and make them meet up.

Personally, I practice a lot more classical music than jazz, and I play a lot of free music that is not jazz based, but I still find a use for my jazz studies regularly.
Barre Phillips said, if you can play "All the Things You Are" you can play "All The Things You Are". Meaning it does not translate into free music.
II V Is are pretty corny for free improvisation, but if you don't know how they work, you won't be able to hear them, and more important you have trouble shutting them down.
If you want to purge a certain thing from an improvisation, you often have to work with it, kind of "grab ahold of it" and then morph in to something else.

Being able to shut down jazz-based noodling is crucial skill for an American improvisor.

Also, lack of information is not a positive situation for an improvisor.
You will need to study all kinds of things in your life as an improvisor, and jazz is just a small part of it.

* I should also state that Peter Kowald is my main man, and nothing moves me more than his music.
 
#11
fingers said:
I agree with the Chrixs'. Don't forget that is goes both way though. Bop dudes call free cats names and free cats call bop dudes names. It's like the Mac vs. PC thing. Here in Chicago, which has a pretty vibrant free scene as well as a bop scene, there are few guys that walk the line. The really great players do though. Fred Anderson, Ari Brown, Harrison Bankhead, Eric Hochberg, Ken Vandermark, Jeb Bishop, Tim Mulvena, etc, etc.

I think one of the things that drives the name-calling is just not understanding compounded by the 'tudes of either camp.
Click to expand...

One of the guys on your list freely admits he can't play changes (In his Downbeat interview even). Even though I am obviously a hardcore free player, it never sat well with me. Ditto for improvisors who can't read.
I guess not being able to play changes is OK if the music has nothing at all to do with jazz, AMM, some of the electro-acoustic improv that is around now, or things coming out of New Music, but if it has anything to do with jazz not bothering with some basics is just lazy.
 
#14
This is a good time for this story:

Early on I got thrown onto a gig with Marshall Allen from Sun Ra's Arkestra, Marshall likes to play "Prelude to a kiss". I am glad to have played "Prelude to a Kiss" with Marshall Allen.
I did not do anything stellar, I just played the changes, but Marshall played his a** off and it is some of the best music I have been a part of.
 
#15
Damon, thanks for the info on Kowald. I didn't want to assume anything about his playing, but it also moves me a lot. Him and Barre Phillips have been seeing a lot of time in my listening rotation of late.

If someone had to ask me right now whether or not I felt that studying bop and the harmonic foundations of jazz, I would most likely say that it's very important. And that those studies in jazz and regular music theory help to broaden one's abilities in any kind of music. All of this right now is just me wondering about the point of it all, and what makes music valid or invalid.

I think this also brings up a point about what to call this music. We tend to lump all of it into the term 'jazz' which is most likely the wrong way to go. Perhaps if one of these free musicians who can't play changes didn't call their music jazz, or if it wasn't coined as so by others, then we might not be having this conversation and we'd be viewing their music simply as improvised music as opposed to thinking it has to be jazz. Then maybe it'd be easier for them to get away with the inability to play changes, yet still create interesting and valid music.
 
#16
damonsmith said:
This is a good time for this story:

Early on I got thrown onto a gig with Marshall Allen from Sun Ra's Arkestra, Marshall likes to play "Prelude to a kiss". I am glad to have played "Prelude to a Kiss" with Marshall Allen.
I did not do anything stellar, I just played the changes, but Marshall played his a** off and it is some of the best music I have been a part of.
Click to expand...

Anytime is a good time for that story. That must have been something. Here's another one, a bit OT but no less apropos. Upon moving into a new apartment in Brooklyn ten years ago or so, we met the really nice vanilla couple who lived downstairs from us. I guess he played a little bass guitar. At some point, we exchanged keys and for some reason he was in our place while we were out. Don't recall the reason but it was legit. The next time I saw him, he said, "you have a very eclectic record collection.... and more Sun Ra albums than I have ever seen in one place." What can I say? Space is the place.
 
#17
Chrix said:
I think this also brings up a point about what to call this music. We tend to lump all of it into the term 'jazz' which is most likely the wrong way to go. Perhaps if one of these free musicians who can't play changes didn't call their music jazz, or if it wasn't coined as so by others, then we might not be having this conversation and we'd be viewing their music simply as improvised music as opposed to thinking it has to be jazz. Then maybe it'd be easier for them to get away with the inability to play changes, yet still create interesting and valid music.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. Reggie Workman, for one, refuses to put the word "jazz" on this music, and last I heard, he calls it "futuristic music" or something to that effect. Part of why I always use quotes when using the term "free jazz" or "free music"... I'll never know what to call it but most people know what I mean when I say "free jazz".
 
#20
Chrix said:
If someone had to ask me right now whether or not I felt that studying bop and the harmonic foundations of jazz, I would most likely say that it's very important. And that those studies in jazz and regular music theory help to broaden one's abilities in any kind of music. All of this right now is just me wondering about the point of it all, and what makes music valid or invalid.
Click to expand...

You see, when I said you don't have to study bebop, that's because bebop is just a style. Some elements of bebop became part of the music in a broad sense, the harmonies and some of the rhythms. You can study almost any player and those elements are going to be in his playing but that doesn't mean he's playing bebop. It's important for any musician to have an understanding of music and to be able to exercise that understanding within certain norms, no matter how free or outside the changes. That's what separates cats that can play, Marshall Allen for example, from jive b*llsh*t.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back