Players that won't learn a note

[gln1955]

Also became common at this time to learn a certain performer's version of a cadenza within a classical concerto or what have you, so sections that were originally improvisatory became written out.

Just like too may modern cover bands, unfortunately.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Apocryphal then. Thanks for setting me straight.

No worries.

 

[turf3]

No, it had little if anything to do with symphonies or classical musicians. It came out of the African-American experience, little of which, at the time, was in classical music. Really much more blues and ragtime and the like. Which is not to say that those musical worlds were 100% separate and never touched on each other at all, but really, classical music practice per se, in the early 20th century, was not a major source of jazz. Besides, by then, classical musicians were no longer improvising much, if at all, unless they were moonlighting as jazz musicians. Jazz did not emerge out of classical music practice.

There were several threads that led to the development of early jazz.

There was the true "folk" style of music from rural areas - field hollers, work songs, and the early country blues.

There were brass bands, which ranged from ensembles using written music just like the white town bands, to ensembles like James Reese Europe's, that mixed as-written performance with certain improvisational elements especially in the performance practice and rhythmic approach, to groups that worked without written music at all, taking popular tunes and "ragging" them.

There were, especially amongst the Creoles of color in New Orleans, but not restricted to them, pianists who had a mastery of classical European repertoire, and then "ragged" various popular and classical tunes. (See Jelly Roll Morton)

There were also many young people who had varying degrees of classical training in European music and took up ragging popular melodies.

And the composers and performers who considered themselves "ragtime" often considered their music as non-improvisational (see Scott Joplin).

Finally, it's important to keep in mind that an individual performer was likely to work in several of these settings at the same time. So for example, Louis Armstrong first learned to make music-y sounds blowing on a tin horn like street vendors used, then he learned the cornet with a limited degree of classical training at the Boy's Home, then he went to work on the floating riverboat amusement thingies, playing dance music and dinner music, which was partly improvised but largely written (and he told that this was when he had to really get his reading together - and he became a strong sightreader, so much for yet another "feral musician" myth) then he went with Joe Oliver who was playing early jazz as it developed from ragtime, and whose band probably never saw a note of written music; in his own early recording bands he used Lil Hardin on piano, who had a college music degree yet could improvise (was she with Louis in Oliver's band? I don't remember) - they got married; and so on , and so on; in the 1930s he fronted a big band of reading musicians; in the 1960s he did a famous movie musical, then when the audiences started calling for "Hello Dolly" he sent a guy in the band out to buy the sheet music so he could re-learn it....

The point of all this nattering on is that there is no one source for African-American improvised music, of which jazz is one thread. Yes, it's absolutely true that Black musicians who were playing jobs that were strictly reading (tea dances, let's say) would often get together to jam after work. I don't know the history of African-American symphonic music in the early 20th century but I'm sure there were such ensembles, and I'd guess that in such groups there were many musicians (The older ones, typically) who looked down on "ragging" tunes, and there were a few (the younger ones, I'd say) who were interested in it, and got together after the concert in each others' homes or a rehearsal hall or a fraternal organization to jam.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

The point of all this nattering on is that there is no one source for African-American improvised music, of which jazz is one thread.

Yes, I'm aware of this, but it may be a bit to the side of the point being gnawed on earlier. There are indeed multiple sources of African American improvised music (including jazz), but not all of them are of equal significance. I know of no history of jazz that would argue that early 20th-century classical music practice (especially in symphonic form) was a major source of jazz improvisational practice, much less "the" source. Also worth remembering is that written music is not the same as classical music. There were all sorts of music, then as now, that were not improvisational but also not what we or they would have called classical, much less symphonic.

 

[turf3]

Yes, I'm aware of this, but it may be a bit to the side of the point being gnawed on earlier. There are indeed multiple sources of African American improvised music (including jazz), but not all of them are of equal significance. I know of no history of jazz that would argue that early 20th-century classical music practice (especially in symphonic form) was a major source of jazz improvisational practice, much less "the" source. Also worth remembering is that written music is not the same as classical music. There were all sorts of music, then as now, that were not improvisational but also not what we or they would have called classical, much less symphonic.

Yeah, we're not really in any disagreement. The post that lit up this discussion was something like "jazz was invented by classical guys getting together after the symphony" which is pretty much not what happened.

Much of my logorrhea there was to maybe dispel the competing notion that jazz was created by the so-called "feral musicans" that supposedly didn't have any idea of standard musical practice, just "played what they felt"; and that's decidedly not accurate either. While there were some such people in early jazz, the majority of early jazz players had some amount of early standard/classical training - from very little to fairly extensive. In making that point I may have dwelt too much on that aspect of the early jazz players' backgrounds and created the impression I thought early 20th century classical music/symphonic music was a major part of the construction materials of early jazz, which is not the case. As always, the whole story is a lot more nuanced than a couple guys on the internet stealing a few minutes from work and recalling books read years ago, can adequately communicate.

cheers.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Much of my logorrhea there was to maybe dispel the competing notion that jazz was created by the so-called "feral musicans" that supposedly didn't have any idea of standard musical practice, just "played what they felt"; and that's decidedly not accurate either. While there were some such people in early jazz, the majority of early jazz players had some amount of early standard/classical training - from very little to fairly extensive. In making that point I may have dwelt too much on that aspect of the early jazz players' backgrounds and created the impression I thought early 20th century classical music/symphonic music was a major part of the construction materials of early jazz, which is not the case. As always, the whole story is a lot more nuanced than a couple guys on the internet stealing a few minutes from work and recalling books read years ago, can adequately communicate.

Fair points all, and worth saying.

 

[MoireBass]

Best current information is that jazz originated in New Orleans with the Buddy Bolden Band. They were the first to combine the 'raggeddy time' (swing time, where the first eighth note in a quarter note is slightly longer than the second) that brothel pianists were using, with jazz harmony (a different approach to chord grouping and substitution than traditional harmony) and blues scales (from blues guitarists). These three elements: swing time, jazz harmony/substitutions, and blues scales, form the fundamental definition of what constitutes 'jazz'. (Even though some music can eliminate one of these elements and still be jazz.) Buddy Bolden was a blazing-hot cornet player whose wild improvised lines made a permanent impression on a young Louis Armstrong. The band was enormously popular and widely imitated.

When it was French, New Orleans had a three-caste racial system: white, Creole ('Capital C'), and colored ("little c'). Creole people have black, Spanish, French and Native American ancestors. Many were well-educated and prosperous. The Creole community felt themselves to be much closer to whites than blacks, and many owned slaves before 1865. There were numerous Creole orchestras that played traditional polite notated western music, even a Creole opera house. (To join the prestigious Capital C Social Pleasure Club, your skin had to be lighter than a brown paper bag.)

Early in the 20th century, the U.S. Navel Base commander in Nawlins collapsed that system to two castes and Creole musicians who had only performed in orchestras and string quartets while wearing tuxedos became 'little c' and found themselves trying to make a living in the rougher jazz world. This influx of large numbers of classically-trained musicians brought a precision into jazz that it had not previously had.
(Which is why the phrases "close enough for rock'n'roll" and "close enough for jazz" mean the exact opposite thing )

Jazz harmony is significantly different from traditional harmony (which some people persist in calling 'theory' though there's nothing theoretical about it). One difference is that it groups all the chords into only three families and allows pretty free substitution within families. (A ii7 chord subs easily for a IV chord, you can use a vi7 chord instead of a I, etc.) This is a big part of why jazz can sound more 'rootless' and 'free-floating' than other music forms.

 

[LBS-bass]

Just like too may modern cover bands, unfortunately.

True. Back in the day there were few bands trying to do faithful copies of anything, but that didn't mean they were playing music they wrote. There was a lot more freedom of expression within musical communities than there seems to be today - I struggle against this all the time with players in the bands I'm in who think something "isn't right" if it isn't exactly as someone else played it - whereas back in the day we'd take songs someone else wrote, learn the basic chord structure, and have at it, creatively. Sometimes you'd retain much of the original, sometimes less. But there were many bands making a good living while creatively revamping music that wasn't original to them. That creative approach to reinterpretation seems almost entire lost in the mentality of musicians playing today.

 

[hrodbert696]

The very first group I jammed with, the singer/rhythm guitarist had learned to play from a John Mellencamp songbook - the kind that has the little square chord-pattern boxes above the staff and lyrics. When we were working out a song, sometimes I'd ask him what chord he was playing on a certain part, and he say, "umm, THIS one..." and show me his hands. That group never got out to gig, shockingly. But we did learn a crap ton of Mellencamp songs.

I also recall a post on TB years ago, when I was pretty new here, when a member talked about joining a band where the guys couldn't tell him what chords they were playing. "We just play the dots," they said.

 

[LBS-bass]

"We just play the dots,"

 

[51PRI]

True. Back in the day there were few bands trying to do faithful copies of anything, but that didn't mean they were playing music they wrote. There was a lot more freedom of expression within musical communities than there seems to be today - I struggle against this all the time with players in the bands I'm in who think something "isn't right" if it isn't exactly as someone else played it - whereas back in the day we'd take songs someone else wrote, learn the basic chord structure, and have at it, creatively. Sometimes you'd retain much of the original, sometimes less. But there were many bands making a good living while creatively revamping music that wasn't original to them. That creative approach to reinterpretation seems almost entire lost in the mentality of musicians playing today.

That was not the case here. We, and just about every band I remember, tried to play songs as much like the record as possible. It was actually a point of pride.

 

[LBS-bass]

That was not the case here. We, and just about every band I remember, tried to play songs as much like the record as possible. It was actually a point of pride.

Interesting regional difference and a sad way of limiting one another. My area wouldn't have spawned Danny Gatton or any other number of great players if that'd been the way it was in DC, and I'm sure glad it wasn't because I got to hear their creative output. There's way more to be proud of and aspire to than just copying well, even if you aren't a songwriter.

There's even a movie about this.

 

[51PRI]

Interesting regional difference and a sad way of limiting one another. My area wouldn't have spawned Danny Gatton or any other number of great players if that'd been the way it was in DC, and I'm sure glad it wasn't because I got to hear their creative output. There's way more to be proud of and aspire to than just copying well, even if you aren't a songwriter.....

Most bands don't attempt "copying" recordings because they can't, or won't. IMO. I'm not saying it's a lack of talent, necessarily. The chasm between cover bands and original bands, at the local level, especially back in the day, is usually, in my experience, pretty vast.

 

[turf3]

Lester Young said "Don't be a repeater pencil."

I find it strange and a little sad that so many who say they love African-American improvised music are so wedded to a theory of playing it that's so antithetical to the very fundamental underlying concepts of this music.

I have even had to argue with people who claim that rock and roll has no African-American influence and that it can't be considered improvised music.

 

[turf3]

Most bands don't attempt "copying" recordings because they can't, or won't. IMO. I'm not saying it's a lack of talent, necessarily. The chasm between cover bands and original bands, at the local level, especially back in the day, is usually, in my experience, pretty vast.

Well, I ask you the same questions I've asked before.

If a guitar player can't duplicate what Chet Atkins does on "Avalon" is he forbidden to play the tune in a different way?

When Miles Davis discovered that he could not develop the high register and high speed flexibility and performance of Dizzy Gillespie, should he have quit music? Were his subsequent successes in about three or four entirely new forms of music just fakery, then?

Is no one allowed to play songs by the Who unless their bassist can demonstrate equivalent proficiency to John Entwistle?

Is it forbidden for any band without a keyboard player to perform any Stevie Wonder songs?

Honestly, y'all who want to encapsulate this music in clear epoxy as defined by one studio recording for each song, forever, really ought to lift up your heads, listen to the real world of what's out there, and try to grow some bigger ears.

 

[LBS-bass]

Most bands don't attempt "copying" recordings because they can't, or won't. IMO. I'm not saying it's a lack of talent, necessarily. The chasm between cover bands and original bands, at the local level, especially back in the day, is usually, in my experience, pretty vast.

In my experience that's not true, unless you're talking strictly about weekend warriors who are playing for fun, but that's not playing to satisfy any creative outlet, which is what I'm talking about. It seems like you are I are always mixing signals where this is concerned. I've been in bands with people who can't play what you ask them to, but I don't stay in those bands long, because playing with those kinds of people isn't fun for me. There is a place for all of it, but we can argue about whether one of those places includes local stages.

In DC back in the 70's and 80's, there weren't many people I was aware of doing this who couldn't play. Everyone I played with was a full-time player, we'd all been at least through some sort of music instruction in school, etc. etc.

There were punk bands out there who were basically rebelling against the idea that you needed to know anything at all, but that wasn't the scene I was playing in and those weren't the bands I was hearing - though I'll admit I didn't hear so many bands because I was working most Friday and Saturday nights. But those bands were probably writing more "original" material than anyone, and much of it was very uncomplicated. I would hardly say those were the best musicians in town. Some of it was quite good; I don't dislike that genre but it's certainly not musically complex. But a lot of the people I know who write original music are doing it very organically with little to no training, and not necessarily coming up with earth-shattering stuff, though they may think they are.

Now, we did have a few local bands on the tail end of the prog wave, like Happy the Man, who were very sophisticated musicians and writing complicated stuff. But that was a bit of an exception. I know because I saw that band numerous times and I would have sought out any similar band in the area. They weren't really there - not in huge numbers.

 

[51PRI]

Well, I ask you the same questions I've asked before.

If a guitar player can't duplicate what Chet Atkins does on "Avalon" is he forbidden to play the tune in a different way?

When Miles Davis discovered that he could not develop the high register and high speed flexibility and performance of Dizzy Gillespie, should he have quit music? Were his subsequent successes in about three or four entirely new forms of music just fakery, then?

Is no one allowed to play songs by the Who unless their bassist can demonstrate equivalent proficiency to John Entwistle?

Is it forbidden for any band without a keyboard player to perform any Stevie Wonder songs?

Honestly, y'all who want to encapsulate this music in clear epoxy as defined by one studio recording for each song, forever, really ought to lift up your heads, listen to the real world of what's out there, and try to grow some bigger ears.

Not to delve too deeply into this subject that has been discussed (to death?) before, but, I will just say that I do think it's very possible to take an established song and do it your and still retain credibility.

 

[LBS-bass]

It seems like there are people who think that this is the epitome of artistic achievement, and no matter how you try to explain that there is more to art than this, they will tell you that you are wrong.

I'm at the place where they can live in their world, and I'm not going to argue. I don't care anymore. Do I resent the implication that doing more than this is somehow wrong? Sure, why wouldn't I? But why would I care about their opinions?

 

[hrodbert696]

 

[James Flowers]

I had to give this a lot of thought and i found myself to be guilty.

Sometimes I find myself falling into this pit. So much playing from TABS, so much playing covers, and I find that I have to force myself to go refresh basic music knowledge. Play scales, play from sheet music not from tabs, talk myself through note names, chords, etc. As I do very little creative music, those skills get rusty. Course if I was working with a new group and someone asked me once and I drew a blank, you can bet I would have refreshed my knowledge by the time they saw me again.