You got to show me something more!

Hey Softy, there's a great story popular among my professional colleagues that goes like this; and it is absolutely verifiably true: Gerry Mulligan is on a plane on his way back to N.Y. and meets Zubin Mehta (then conductor of the N.Y. Philharmonic). They're chit-chatting and before you know it the maestro invites Mulligan to play the soprano saxophone solo in "Bolero" (by Ravel) in an upcoming series at Lincoln Center. Bolero is a very deceptively difficult solo to play well. During rehearsals it was one mishap after another, when came time for the soprano sax to play. Late entrances, inaccurate rhythms, very sharp high register...On the first performance, Mulligan played the entire second half of the solo one beat behind where he should have been. The second night he started the solo in the wrong octave (one too low) and the tenor saxophonist was about to finish the solo for him as he was about to run out of notes, when he suddenly jumped to the correct octave to finish the solo. The last performance whent fairly well and at the end the piece as the orchestra was taking it's customery bow, Mulligan turns to the tenor saxophonist and says: "We played the shit out of it, didn't we?"

Hmmm...All the more reason they should have hired 'Trane instead? :)

Enjoy!
Coltrane1

I think frogman and coltrane1 (softy) are comparing apples and oranges here. In my conversations with musicians I've gathered that the kind of theoretical background that coltrane is talking about is necessary for the kind of intense improv and avant guarde composition that jazz performers must be able to do. Less important to a jazz musician is being able to accurately reproduce a score, because in the end much of the technical aspects of his playing is controlled by intense interaction with his fellow musicians. Classical musicians are judged on their ability to recreate a score (especially in a symphonic setting), thus technical mastery is extremely important. Of course these are generalizations and all generalizations have exceptions. There are technically adept jazz musicians, and there are classical musicians who are geniouses of improv, but I think it's safe to say that these groups approach their instruments with a different mindset. Depending on the context, I think both groups are quite capable of playing circles in my head. P.S. to 'trane - I'd say that any modern composer of 'classical' (is this the not most abused vocabulary word in musicdom?) music must be extremely familiar with the compositional ideas which were formulated in this century.

You got that right Robba. Why not "Classic" (to reference good music) instead of pidgeon holing all music prior to Jazz "Classical"? Classical is an era. People need to get it right but "got to be carefully taught", which they are not. It gets confusing for the layman when you try to explain. unhuh....what in the hell are you talking about?

Many of the best instrumentalists (and singers for that matter) wether they are "classical" players or jazz players study(ied) with the same teachers for developing a solid foundation of technical mastery of their instrument. For wind players, one of the "gurus" was always Joe Allard who was a Juilliard, NBC/Toscanini based "classical" player who was revered by many prominent jazz players. From that standpoint, the approach is always the same no matter what direction a player will eventually take. Technical mastery of one's instrument is necessary no matter what. The player who pursues one avenue or another at some point finds that the emphasis must be placed on certain specific aspects of playing more so than others. As Coltrane1 points out, the jazz player must immerse his/herself in jazz theory; but to no greater degree than a classical player might have to study say, Baroque ornamentation. Entire treatises have been written on the subject as well as many other techniques that a "classical" player must be immersed in to convincinly play certain styles. Incidentally, the idea that a "classical" player has to simply be true to the score is a gross oversimplification. Much great music is at least in part about subtlety, and the extent to which a great classical artist has room for interpretation and bringing his/her own vision of the work to the performance is usually not understood. The point is simply that not only is no one music "better" than another; neither music (jazz nor classical) places more demands overall on the player than the other. This is the point that I think you continue to miss Coltrane1. Your comments suggest a higher plateau of demands on players for jazz. Not so. The reason I continue to come back to this is out of respect for the great enthusiasm that you show towards jazz. At some point in their evolution as players, musicians time and time again point to one of their most important milestones (no pun intended, if you know what I mean): Embracing all worthy music as fully equal in worth and worthy of their respect without condescension nor sense of superiority. Good luck with your playing and growth as a musician. Check out: Murray Perahia, "The Aldeburgh Recital". Sublime piano playing, as introspective as anything I have heard of Bill Evans' including the times I heard him live at The Vanguard. Are you hip to the piano music of Scriabin, Messiaen?