Jazz for aficionados

Orpheus10, this thread continues to be, without a doubt, one of the most interesting on this forum. Your passion for jazz is palpable, and you and I actually have very similar sensibilities re which performers are truly capable of communicating something to the listener. I am in basic agreement with you about Wynton in that respect, although I share Rok's feelings about Wynton's overall relevance. I am somewhat surprised we have returned to the subject of Wynton and have other thoughts about this which I will contribute when I have a little more time. For now, I would like to address your comments about the "musician's world".

I have found that there is an understandable tendency among non-musicians to romanticize the process of being a musician; I emphasize "process". The idea that in every creative musician there is a force within that is guiding, dictating, and controlling the process required to make music come out of his chosen instrument as if it were all beyond the control of the player is as romantic as one can get; the "Muse". This notion is very far from reality. We have discussed this subject previously so I am surprised that we are here again. Surprised because if we read the biographies of the great players like Bird and Trane we learn that they were incessant practicers ("shedders" as musicians, themselves, call it). They also studied a great deal; recordings, formal harmony studies, or piano wether that was their main instrument or not. I don't know who the jazz musicians you know (knew?) were, and I acknowledge that some players (have to?) devote more time to shedding than others. But, at some point, if not currently, every great player has put in a tremendous amount of practice time. Additionally, one of the things that hour upon hour of practicing teaches a player is how to achieve what previously may have taken two hours, I fifteen minutes. You would be amazed what an experienced player can accomplish in a ten minute "warm-up" before (or during!) a gig.

With all due respect, some of your comments directed at Learsfool and "his world" are not simply inaccurate, but unfair as well. Yes, a classical musician's "world" is different in many respects than a jazz musician's world. But, not nearly as different as some might think in many key respects; not the least of which is what it takes to develop the mechanics of playing an instrument (any instrument in any genre). I would encourage you to consider the fact that while they may be different worlds, they are most definitely part of the same universe; while musicians (all musicians) live in an all-together different universe than non-musicians. Great jazz players are no less mesmerized by the beauty of phrasing, elegance, tone and ultimate control of the instrument that a great classical player offers in a performance, than a classical musician is of the amazing understanding of harmony, musical looseness, and individuality that a great improviser offers. Because they live in the same universe, if not the same world, none of these are mutually exclusive; simply emphasized to different degrees.

Not intended to imply judgment of the value of one discipline over the other, but simply to underscore my comments above. Two absolutely true stories that I have first hand knowledge about:

During his tenure as conductor with the NY Phil, Zubin Mehta, while on a flight back to NYC, met the great Gerry Mulligan and invited him to take part in an upcoming performance of Ravel's "Bolero". The piece, as some may know, features instrumental solos for, among others, soprano (actually sopranino, but that's a different subject) and tenor saxophones. Soprano, being Mulligan's second instrument of choice, was to be played by Mulligan. I can't emphasize enough how often I have heard excellent jazz players downplay the difficulty of that seemingly easy solo. After all, it's not technical, easy key, etc.; but, it requires good intonation, control, and rhythmic accuracy (with it's displaced rhythmic emphasis) while all the time allowing for individuality of expression. To say that Mulligan's performance during rehearsal was a disaster would be an understatement. But, this was the great Gerry Mulligan, and surely he will come through in the end. At the performance, the first phrase of the solo was fine, then he got off by a beat and played the entire last two thirds of the solo off by a beat. At the end of the performance, during the obligatory bows, Mulligan turns to the soprano sax player and says: "We played the shit out of it, didn't we? Clueless!

During the 1980's, Sting was the star of a Broadway production of Kurt Weill's "Three Penny Opera". Branford Marsalis was saxophonist for Sting's touring band. Can you see it coming? :-)

Players on Broadway are allowed to "sub-out" a certain number of performances during the run. Well, Branford thought it would be cool to sub on the show, and being Sting's horn player, well..... Instead of doing what a player needs to do to be successful subbing on a show, he went in without sitting through the show (without playing) nor studying "the book"; he went in cold, thinking: how hard can this possibly be? By intermission, the conductor wanted him to go home.

O-10:

I think we can agree that

1. Wynton is not the best Jazz player in the world.

2. Wynton is not the worst Jazz player in the world.

So, that begs the question, why are we talking about him?

You answer that, think before you answer, and you are on the road to understanding what this 'wynton' thingy is all about.

hint, hint, Skill at Improvisation has nothing to do with it.

Frogman: Your comment about Branford was really funny!
I betcha Wynton would not have missed a beat!

Cheers

I suspect a classical musician would be equally out of their element if asked to sit in with a group in a jazz venue. Two diiferent disciplines.Neither a piece of cake.Like pro athletes,a NBA player and NFL player would`nt automatically fill the other`s shoes.
Regards,

Charles1dad:

You are absolutely correct. I guess the answer is, know your lane, and stay in it.

Cheers