[Dixielandjazz] Technique & Soul/Creativity

[john petters]

Steve said
>Same for Kenny Davern in OKOM. Regardless of
how one feels individually about their music, they all, have 100% technique
and as I hear it, 100% soul/creativity.

Perfect example is Davern's response to a fan who gushed, "it must be a
wonderful thing to have been blessed with the gift of all that talent".
Replied Davern, "Yeah, that plus a million hours of practice."

Unless one is unique (and there are a few ;-) VBG) the player gets out of
jazz exactly what he/she puts into it by way of paying dues.

Like the answer to the tourist visiting NYC who asked a jazz man: "Can you
tell me how to get to Carnegie Hall?"

>"Yeah, practice man, practice." :-) VBG.

Totally agree
John Petters
Amateur Radio Station G3YPZ
www.traditional-jazz.com

-----Original Message-----
From: dixielandjazz-bounces at ml.islandnet.com
[mailto:dixielandjazz-bounces at ml.islandnet.com] On Behalf Of Steve barbone
Sent: 07 September 2004 00:15
To: DJML
Subject: [Dixielandjazz] Technique & Soul/Creativity

"Brian Harvey" <brer.rabbit at tiscali.co.uk> wrote
 
> Please ignore the first version of this posting.....sorry......
> 
> One of the problems about improvisation seems to occur when a musician has
> an over abundance of technique over what I might call 'soul' or
creativity.
> This leads to the objectionable exhibitions of pure technique which have
no
> place in jazz.
> The ideal make up of a jazz musician would probably be one
> who has equal measures of technique and soul/creativity.
> We can analyse the "greats" using this formula and come up with
interesting
> results.
> Louis for example would probably be 50/50 as would Charlie Parker. Wynton
> Marsalis on
> the other hand would probably be 70/30. And then take a pianist liker
Alton
> Purnell of the George Lewis-Bunk Johnson bands - he conversely would
> probably be 20/80.
> No doubt others will take up this thread and disagree with me - but that's
> what this forum is about.
> I look forward to hearing the ideas of others better qualified than I.

Brian & List mates:

I am not better qualified, but here is my 2 cents.

As I hear it, one cannot have too much technique, only not enough
soul/creativity. Parker had almost 100% technique for the time he was
playing, and also had almost 100% soul/creativity. Same for Louis at the
time he was playing. Both were consummate blues players, yet Bird gets
rapped for not being melodic by those whose ears are not attuned to his
melodic improvisations. I hear a melody with Bird, not everyone else does.
Forget the arguments about vertical and/or horizontal improvisation, it is
much more complex than that. There are many subtle differences in how
individuals listen and what they hear.

I once heard Richard Stoltzman (monster classical clarinetist) playing
Thelonious Monk tunes with a jazz quartet in the plaza at Lincoln Center in
NYC. Fabulous technique, but virtually no "jazz" soul. It was not that his
technique got in the way, just that he could not translate it into a
coherent jazz conversation. But he did have lots of "classical" soul.

Technique is almost always related to the amount of time one has spent
practicing or playing gigs. Guys like Coltrane, Rollins, etc., had enormous
amounts of total time invested in both. Coltrane 12 hours a day for a long
time, and Rollins every day in mid span of the Brooklyn Bridge. Both great
technicians with great chops. 

Cheers,
Steve Barbone



_______________________________________________
Dixielandjazz mailing list
Dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com
http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz