PlayJazzGuitar.com Forum Index PlayJazzGuitar.com Forum
Jazz Guitar Discussion
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Why are some things sacrosanct?
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PlayJazzGuitar.com Forum Index -> Hangout, Chat & Get to Know
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cjm



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 4:26 pm    Post subject: Why are some things sacrosanct? Reply with quote

Within jazz. Some players, specifically. And only some. Actually, only one.

My weirdness is (in part) that I like to do some arm chair analysis and engage in a bit of discussion to get different viewpoints. The armchair can be a bar stool, or it can literally be an armchair with my laptop computer fired up.

A very short incomplete list of jazzers it is okay to engage in critical analysis of:

* Joe Pass. For example, one could say "I don't much like the tone he gets." (I happen to have no problem with his tone overall, but this is just an example.)

* Oscar Peterson. "Too many fingers, too busy..." (Again, I don't hold that opinion, but people don't tend to get upset at that.)

* Dizzie Gillespie. "He couldn't keep up with Byrd...Tried to play exactly what Byrd played without coming up with his own ideas and flubbed 'em all." (Once more, not my opinion, but something I've heard said that didn't lead to bloodshed.)

But mention Miles Davis (and it isn't cool to refer to him as Miles Davis...you have to show your own creds by referring to him only by his first name) and you better be wearing body armor unless you just chime in with a few platitudes.

And Stanley Crouch has become one of the most hated men in all of jazzdom, reviled as only a critic by people who don't seem to realize he is also a musician...

Where do you stand? What's your take on this? Is it okay to undertake a critical examination of Miles Davis and his music in an attempt to better understand where jazz has been, where it is now, and where it is going tomorrow?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JakeJew



Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 2190
Location: Boston, MA

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think criticizing anything is completely fair game. It's great to think critically, at least if there's humility and open-mindedness involved, and one's criticisms (should) evolve with age. Respect should be paid to the giants of all genres because obviously they did something right (even if it was just marketing,) but I don't think anybody should let the popular opinion dictate how they actually feel about the music.

However, you know what I think is completely unacceptable? Spelling Charlie "Bird" Parker's nickname in the same way as the surname of the less memorable guitarist, Charlie Byrd. Be ashamed of yourself.
_________________
"Inspiration may be a form of superconsciousness, or perhaps of subconciousness - I wouldn't know. But I am sure that it is the antithesis of self-consciousness." - Aaron Copland
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Henryrobinett



Joined: 01 May 2010
Posts: 180
Location: Sacramento, Ca

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course it is OK. But I tend to not be too critical anyway, in general. I love creativity and people who create and tend not to criticize them for their creating. I'd rather criticize people more deserving, like politicians.

I do however have no problem criticizing people who misspell Bird as "Byrd" though. Charlie Byrd is not Charlie Bird Parker, as in:
cjm wrote:


* Dizzie Gillespie. "He couldn't keep up with Byrd...Tried to play exactly what Byrd played without coming up with his own ideas and flubbed 'em all." (Once more, not my opinion, but something I've heard said that didn't lead to bloodshed.)



Oscar has his critics. I love Oscar, particularly in small doses a couple of times a year. I love his many notes and his incredibly hard swinging. I think he's criticized for being a bit corny with his sometimes over the top arrangements and that he can turn anything into a blues.

Miles? I love Miles. I've never heard of anyone getting upset at him being called Miles as opposed to Miles Davis. I think Miles has been analyzed every which way and Sunday critically, so I'm not so sure what you're talking about. I've been playing his Newport '58 version of Bye Bye Blackbird all morning and last night. Admittedly it's Coltrane's solo I'm zeroing in on. But Miles' lyricalness, concise choice of notes. I transcribed a bunch of Prestige Miles solos. Brilliant construction. His Oleo solo with Rollins, and that whole period I think demonstrates brilliant Miles.

I totally disagree with the Dizzy assessment btw. I find his always grabbing the high notes annoying, but he was one of the originators of Bop. He, Bird, Bud and Monk were the founders and had their own interpretations of the same rules.
_________________
All the best,

Henry Robinett
www.henryrobinett.com


Last edited by Henryrobinett on Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:03 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cjm



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JakeJew wrote:

However, you know what I think is completely unacceptable? Spelling Charlie "Bird" Parker's nickname in the same way as the surname of the less memorable guitarist, Charlie Byrd. Be ashamed of yourself.


It was a brain fart, nothing more and nothing less Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cjm



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Henryrobinett wrote:
I'd rather criticize people more deserving, like politicians.


I don't mean criticize as in the sense of "castigate."

I mean in terms of critical analysis and judgment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Henryrobinett



Joined: 01 May 2010
Posts: 180
Location: Sacramento, Ca

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cjm wrote:
Henryrobinett wrote:
I'd rather criticize people more deserving, like politicians.


I don't mean criticize as in the sense of "castigate."

I mean in terms of critical analysis and judgment.
I know it was a brain fart. I'm just giving you a bad time.

And yes I do know the difference. I just think there's too much of it. AS you said, arm chair critic, or whatever. It goes back that old saw about looking at a glass half full or half empty. You can look at or listen to something and see the beauty and forgive the faults, or you can count the faults and mistakes. I'd rather ignore the faults and look for what I can use, the beauty.

Now I can criticize my own playing all day and use what I've learned from listening to Miles and his sidemen, their phrasing, timing, lines, -- what works. I get much more from noting what works rather than from what doesn't, EXCEPT when it comes to my own playing.

I do find arm chair experts annoying at times. You know, as if that guy KNOWS whether Dizzy couldn't keep up, or what it would have been like to play with Bird. Miles quit almost every night because he just always felt so inadequate. And does that mean that Miles played bullshit? Hell no. Look at what he did create in answer to his dilemma. I don't want to hear some numbskull pontificate about how Oscar plays too many notes. Geez! What the hell? I'd rather just to the beauty of Oscar Peterson. I might note TO MYSELF this or that, but that's because all art appreciation is subjective.
_________________
All the best,

Henry Robinett
www.henryrobinett.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
PaulD



Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1129
Location: Chicago

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Why are some things sacrosanct? Reply with quote

cjm wrote:
Within jazz. Some players, specifically. And only some. Actually, only one....but mention Miles Davis...


cjm, if you're implying that all other players are fair game, but Miles is somehow sacred, based on the reaction caused by your accidental misspelling of "Bird", I would say you can add one more player to that list Very Happy

Paul
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Henryrobinett



Joined: 01 May 2010
Posts: 180
Location: Sacramento, Ca

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LOL! Yeah -- Charlie Parker, to me, is more sacrosanct!

Oh yeah -- On the other hand, what are forums for except to pontificate arm chair opinions?
_________________
All the best,

Henry Robinett
www.henryrobinett.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cjm



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, Charlie Parker is sacred, but not necessarily sacrosanct. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JakeJew



Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 2190
Location: Boston, MA

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The heavy and consistent use of a word that is so new to my vocabulary is really making me dolorous.
_________________
"Inspiration may be a form of superconsciousness, or perhaps of subconciousness - I wouldn't know. But I am sure that it is the antithesis of self-consciousness." - Aaron Copland
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
cjm



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JakeJew wrote:
...really making me dolorous.


I thought they quit making the dolorous when john dolorous got busted in that cocaine sting about 30 years ago.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
trotsky



Joined: 24 May 2007
Posts: 438
Location: Sarnia Ontario Canada

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geesh ...I learned two new words today Embarassed
Keep them coming!!

As for criticism..
I have a really really hard time criticizing anyone...even when they ask me..

It just seems like a strange thing to do...at least in the way I understand the word..or misunderstand it as the case may be.

Some things people dig really boogle my mind but to me it has always been a to each their own type of thing.

Anyway..happy newyear


Last edited by trotsky on Sun Jan 01, 2012 12:51 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JakeJew



Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 2190
Location: Boston, MA

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Man some of you guys are so mellow. I wish I could be that mellow, sometimes.
_________________
"Inspiration may be a form of superconsciousness, or perhaps of subconciousness - I wouldn't know. But I am sure that it is the antithesis of self-consciousness." - Aaron Copland
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
cjm



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

trotsky wrote:

As for criticism..
I have a really really hard time criticizing anyone...even when they ask me..

It just seems like a strange thing to do...at least in the way I understand the word..or misunderstand it as the case may be.



I think "criticism" in the sense of art criticism is (or should be) thought of as part of analysis of something, including maybe even cause and effect, rather than as an expression of "you suck!"

For example, Miles Davis is regularly cited as having changed jazz...and for good reason.

Is it enough, for example, to merely unquestioningly attribute this to his artistic impulse, or is it valid to look for underlying practical/pragmatic reasons?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Henryrobinett



Joined: 01 May 2010
Posts: 180
Location: Sacramento, Ca

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2011 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cjm wrote:


I think "criticism" in the sense of art criticism is (or should be) thought of as part of analysis of something, including maybe even cause and effect, rather than as an expression of "you suck!"

For example, Miles Davis is regularly cited as having changed jazz...and for good reason.

Is it enough, for example, to merely unquestioningly attribute this to his artistic impulse, or is it valid to look for underlying practical/pragmatic reasons?
A lot of people changed jazz: Louis Armstrong, Coleman Hawkins, Duke, Lester Young, Bird/Monk/Dizzy/Bud Powell, Miles, several times over.

What underlining principles/practical/pragmatic reasons are you referring to? It seems all artistic to me. Or are you referring to the commercial considerations?
_________________
All the best,

Henry Robinett
www.henryrobinett.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PlayJazzGuitar.com Forum Index -> Hangout, Chat & Get to Know All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group