Double Bass What is it about Ken Burns?

[anonymous0726]

Okay, now I'm confused. There is obviously a strong sentiment that Burns' film implied that jazz is dead or at least stuck in a time warp ending about 40 years ago. Yet here you seem to agree with that idea. Could you clarify please?

He's saying that you need to know your history, not live it.

 

[anonymous0726]

Let me add this.

I was raised by older players from in and around the Detroit (of the age that they came up in Detroit with the Jones brother, PC, et al) area as well as having an incredible teacher for a father. I was brought up the traditional way in jazz, wherein I was taken under the wing of different players at diffferent times.

The first bass player that I really glommed onto in my emulation phase was NHOP. At a certain point I was starting to sound a lot like him -- minus the ridiculous chops, of course. Almost all of the old guys said to me at one time or another that "Sounds great, man. You've been listening to Niels a lot, eh? Now -- what do YOU have to say?"

 

[Ed Fuqua]

Almost all of the old guys said to me at one time or another that "Sounds great, man. You've been listening to Niels a lot, eh? Now -- what do YOU have to say?"

A great point and right to the point. The thing that gets glommed over is the idea of personal voice and statement. It's what the music schools miss, it's what the workshops miss. Your own personal voice does NOT have to be innovative, it just hast to be PERSONAL. Which is why I continually harp on the chord/scale approach. ahem. Kenston and company want to tell you WHAT AM AND WHAT AMN'T JAZZ and want to do it based on how close it comes to a couple of different models.

JOHNNY HELL - "For me, jazz was for a long time simply a synonym for unmitigated (read: unintelligible) musical self-expression until the Marsalis brothers came in." I'm not sure what you are trying to say there. Are you saying that Kenston's "Louis/Duke Revue" is the only "intelligible" jazz out there? What about Branford's mo' out/free bop approach? Is that unintelligible? Which is the "correct" Burnsalis?
Or maybe you have a problem with self expression?

Or maybe you just aren't hearing enough?

 

[Mike Goodbar]

I remember Wynton taking a lot of flack for apparently claiming to know exactly what Buddy Bolden sounded like.

And Burns was infatuated enough with Wynton to show his baby picture in the doc.

Even Branford got flamed big time for some disparaging remark he made about Cecil Taylor.

Fun to see some of the footage, but I took it as just one man's (Stanton Crousalis') perspective on the music. I liked "A Great Day In Harlem" better. It really conveyed the spirit of jazz and the musicians.

 

[Steve Killingsworth]

He's saying that you need to know your history, not live it.

Okay, I grasp that concept.

 

[anonymous0726]

Now we're talking!

 

[Johnny L]

Let me make sure I'm hearing this right: You're saying that my "assertion" that what is now old was once new is unfair, and also claiming that I said somewhere that moving forward and exploring requires abandonment of repertoire? Are we both speaking English?

What I said was that you can worship the "thing in and of itself" (the classic recordings, the classic music, etc...), or you can worship the SPIRIT that made the "thing" come to life. There's a world of difference between the two.

At this point you may well be wondering, "what the hell does this have to do with Wynton Marsalis and Louis Armstrong"? It comes down to this: ...it's better to celebrate the spirit that made the music rather than the clothes it wore at any given time.

I believe that my understanding of what you say has remained consistent, otherwise I still wouldn't be in disagreement. Look, I agree that taking things apart and finding out how they work is a great way to learn, but at some point they need to be put back together again (because they were never really separate to begin with, it's just the way we learn to cope with complex stuff intellectually), and I would assert that means putting one's spirit and what one generates musically back together again. To me, that's what repertoire is really all about - to develop the skills necessary to allow yourself to continue the growth to say things that can be heard and understood by others.

To speculate on the motivations and intentions of others, or their "spirit" (if you will allow me these attributes), while divorcing the music they perform from the discussion, well, it pretty much makes talk about music an irrelevant issue, and now I'm forced to try to construct an intellectual argument that brings the "right" spirit together with the "right" music (that's 2 separate measuring sticks now), and I could have been practicing and playing something that makes people feel good (or at least me, I hope) instead.

But up until the Jazz Revivalist movement of the mid-80s you would get hooted off the stage if you played somebody else's ****. The music developed by making sure that even though you had to know the past, you had to look ahead. And that's what Chris and I are lamenting.

I am sorry to know this, but I don't think you should lament at all. I think you should continue learning and sharing the music you love as you see fit regardless of the listener's temperament...unless, of course, this isn't about the music but something else like selling out gigs or something. Look, the musicians I admire possess a huge amount of conviction, and I get to find out about them simply because they have found popularity with me (and that means, of course, that I'm stuck working on establishing and maintaining my own convictions). When I find my own exemption, maybe I won't be so greedy next time with the others I find...

Your own personal voice does NOT have to be innovative, it just hast to be PERSONAL.

Yes, but I'd go further by asking where it can ever not be personal.

All personal jabs such as shoe size aside, I appreciate and am enjoying the arguments and discussion.

 

[anonymous0726]

I have no idea what your last post was about. Read it twice.

Yes, but I'd go further by asking where it can ever not be personal.

10,000 tenor players can't be wrong.

 

[Sam Sherry]

I think you should continue learning and sharing the music you love as you see fit regardless of the listener's temperament . . .

This sentiment, which is the essence of art in general and jazz in particular, thankfully undercuts all the rest of what you've said. Jazz was born to be music of the moment, made and lost. It was born to work differently from Mozart, where if you love it, you play what others have played for 200 years. Jazz was born to work like painting: You love Rembrandt, you learn Rembrandt inside and out, but you're laughed out of the show if you paint like Rembrandt.

It's natural that since most music-teachers are trained in repertory, the would want to approach jazz as repertory. I suspect that it's easier to teach repertory -- students learn some particular thing and feel satisfied, instead of having to confront how long and hard the path to personal expression really is. Repertory is its own crutch; people say, "Yah, I love Brahms" or Ellington or whatever and walk away having gotten what they came for.

To speculate on the motivations and intentions of others, or their "spirit" . . . while divorcing the music they perform from the discussion . . . pretty much makes talk about music an irrelevant issue.

No, it doesn't and you personally know how. When we talk about CLASSICAL or “European-tradition concert-repertory” musicians, the player’s "spirit" or "vision" is not tied to the precise piece of repertory. Learning to play repertory is about learning to perform someone else’s music in a spirited fashion. Jazz was born and grew as something different. Players were expected to learn the history and leave it in the practice-room – you had to stand tall and tell YOUR story or get the hook.

Mr. Burns strongly implied that the entire body of jazz made during my lifetime is unimportant or of lower quality. The clear conclusion is that it is pointless to play the music because All The Great Notes Have Been Played. The sad thing is that, not only was he wrong, but (as I said before) at the moment the Revivalists came to the fore, there actually was a forward-looking, present-tense jazz model which could have reached and re-invigorated the general populace.

 

[Johnny L]

I don't at all mean by the word repertoire that I'm condemning bassists to perform as copycat artists. In fact, I'm trying to articulate an argument that it is really impossible to do so - including the study of repertoire, classical or otherwise. A part of you as a unique human being will exist in your performances and will assert itself naturally more and more as you mature with music. One's "spirit" and "that which is created" are inseparably linked and notions that they are or can be made distinct are simply a product of our misunderstanding, though we are free to make attempts intellectually. This is where I believe Chris (and perhaps Ed too) and I are not in agreement as I understand our posts, that concern or fear that this sort of evolution can get derailed despite the best of intentions is real - that one's "spirit" and "that which is created" can be separated.

But besides this little pet idea that Chris got me inspired to play around with here, I've really only tried to say that repertoire is a great tool for learning and articulating something meaningful with music in the same manner that reading the newspaper or a book is a great tool for learning and articulating something meaningful with language. It deserves attention rather than scorn, even if it comes delivered stringently from the academic world. I don't believe my personal voice can get lost or diminished for it as I continue to pursue more repertoire. On the contrary, I believe it will free my personal musical voice further.

You know, when I was at the Blue Note last year I was blown away with the music and musicianship there - I actually enjoyed hearing them and remained attentive through the entire gig. I digged it. So what if it may have been dead-Burns jazz (oops, I mean perhaps the jazz of today) or even the jazz Burns would have praised in his documentary, it raised the bar on me as an aspiring musician and has made me all the better.

 

[anonymous0726]

Look, and let me add that I grow weary, there are a few simple stages to your growth in the macro:

1. You learn some basic mechanics of the instrument and music.
2. You spend some time trying to emulate the great(s) that inspire you to play.
3. You finally arrive at a stage where you start making music.
4. You talk to God on your axe.

when at stage '3'

You check out old things, you check out what your contemporaries are doing, you explore on your own, wash, rinse, repeat.

Sounds simple, but so few actually make it to stage three. Most run out of steam somewhere in stage '2'. Some find comfort at stage two because, like a house pet, they never have to confront growing up. Some get busy with families and staying alive. Some just don't have the horsepower. Stage four is the fantasy that keeps us all going.

Stanloid Marsalsky and his bunch have grabbed the mind and spirits of the feeble to promote their own political agendas, short-comings, and insecurities. If you insist on following blindly behind these blind (at best, evil at worst) leaders, then go right on ahead. More gigs for me, babe.

 

[Johnny L]

I'm not offended that you have developed an understanding that is getting you the gigs you want Ray. You have what works for you, and that's great.

I'm not trying to connect or sell an idea that's based on some current fad (at least, not wittingly). My ideas and assertions here are inspired by my study of Emmanuel Kant and his groundbreaking efforts to give the Church and his faith in God a solid footing in a world where science and empirical thought were making that extremely difficult for him and the philosophers he himself studied...and from his ideas spawned some pretty cool ideas from some folks afterwards: Kierkeggard, Nietzche, and Sartre for example, though their ideas would have likely repulsed him. My efforts here are much, much more humble, and it was just a fun attempt to say "We really can handle criticism from the likes of Ken Burns and anyone else, including hecklers in the audience and continue working on the music we love in the manner we see fit." I enjoy philosophy and don't mind taking time out for that too between my career and my music endeavors...and I'm certainly not trying to brainwash anyone. I have to work on my scales and let my knees get skinned on stage just like every other mortal...

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

That's all very well, but is nothing to do with the following, which is what people are objcting to :

For me, jazz was for a long time simply a synonym for unmitigated (read: unintelligible) musical self-expression until the Marsalis brothers came in. I think jazz is all the better for it, to have super talented guys like the Marsalis brothers assert that there is a history of music out there that deserves to be heard, studied and supported rather than ignored for being old-fashioned....

To say that the Marsalis brothers have somehow made Jazz better, singlehandedly (or as a pair, if you like) - is just plain wrong and this statement (I quoted) is a big insult to a lot of people who have been making great Jazz in the same period and who have pushed the music forwards.

 

[Damon Rondeau]

I'm with Bruce: that's exactly where you went way out of tune. It may be based in Kant and all that, but that insult to jazz came off like a fart in church, Dude.

 

[Johnny L]

Players were expected to learn the history and leave it in the practice-room – you had to stand tall and tell YOUR story or get the hook.

Even classically trained musicians are charged with this goal, to make the music their own and put their stamp on it. It comes from the artist's personal interpretation of the music (my teacher called it a reading art, which I thought was cool), and can even include such treats as self-composed cadenzas (even perhaps composed on the spot from inspiration) to make it even more sweet. Dang, on the highest levels it's often about being able to pull off anything resembling what the composer envisioned at all, which can be a quite breathtaking experience...and I don't believe for a second that the player(s) aren't expressing who they are in the thick of it. Why must jazz be burdened with being the sole medium for musical self expression?

To say that the Marsalis brothers have somehow made Jazz better, singlehandedly (or as a pair, if you like) - is just plain wrong and this statement (I quoted) is a big insult to a lot of people who have been making great Jazz in the same period and who have pushed the music forwards.

Come on, the Marsalis brothers have never really been ruining jazz any more than any of the rest of us. None of us have ever been a bunch of babboons simply waiting for the Marsalis brothers to feed us or Ken Burns to tell us what to listen to without our personal buy-in...and neither are they. If anything, I'm motivated to get back to my instrument and raise the bar on myself so that I'm capable of expressing my own convictions more clearly. If you get something else out of hearing these guys play whatever they are free to play, well, that's fine...but you simply won't get my buy-in that they've made jazz worse for their participation. You really want to make it better? Play what you have to play and take a chance!

 

[Bruce Lindfield]

Come on, the Marsalis brothers have never really been ruining jazz any more than any of the rest of us. None of us have ever been a bunch of babboons simply waiting for the Marsalis brothers to feed us or Ken Burns to tell us what to listen to without our personal buy-in...and neither are they. If anything, I'm motivated to get back to my instrument and raise the bar on myself so that I'm capable of expressing my own convictions more clearly. If you get something else out of hearing these guys play whatever they are free to play, well, that's fine...but you simply won't get my buy-in that they've made jazz worse for their participation. You really want to make it better? Play what you have to play and take a chance!

You're missing my point there - I wasn't saying they had made it better or worse - they're just two talented musicians - but there have been literally hundreds (maybe more) of great Jazz musicians playing and creating great music since the 1970s and I (and others I think) feel that you are insulting these people by saying that Jazz was unintelligible before the Marsalis brothers came in and that nothing after the 60s was worth listening to !!! :scowl:

 

[Johnny L]

...I (and others I think) feel that you are insulting these people by saying that Jazz was unintelligible before the Marsalis brothers came in and that nothing after the 60s was worth listening to !!! :scowl:

I regret any insults inferred from my posts. I am not saying that jazz was unintelligible before the Marsalis brothers came in. I am saying that my interest in jazz began after hearing them, and that before hearing them I was not personally motivated to explore it in any way whatsoever. Jazz was unintelligible to me.

 

[peteroberts]

wow, this is a very engaging thread.

I latched onto this because I was looking on eBay last night for the Burns DVDs. I wanted to watch it again.

It's been a few years since I saw it, and I did stay home *every* night, and here's what I remember (I'm sure all of this has been said before):
1. It was the Louis Armstrong/Duke Ellington story, as told by Wynton Marsalis (to quote Ron Carter, "I always say Wynton Marsalis. Never just Wynton").
2. Everyone is right, pretty good documentary of the music up until a point; I think the point is actually kinda earlier than 1959, your mileage may vary.
3. I couldn't believe they basically ended it in the 60's, with only passing mention of people like Wayne Shorter (huh? He was Bran's major influence, no?)

I still want to see the film again, but I didn't want to pay over $100 for it.

About some thread discussions:
I was going to post something about the repertory/exploratory argument, like 'first you have to learn the rules before you break them'. But Ray Parker said it much better than me. Although, based on some great players I've talked to ... #4 is more like 'God speaks to everyone through your axe'.

He's right too, there's a vast area between #2 and #3, I feel after almost 30 years of playing, I have started to say my own things on the instrument. That's when it becomes most enjoyable. I mean, why say something someone else already said?

Having made that last comment, my take is that you *have* to go through steps 1 and 2 to get to 3 and eventually 4. There's no shortcuts!

 

[anonymous0726]

How can you disagree with someone that agrees with you?

Kidding aside, thank you for your positive comments! I'd like to think I have a clue about what I'm doing after all of this time.

 

[Gilbert F]

I think it would be worth reading this short article:
Link Removed