Bilbo

I have to agree that I think the not learning theory to maintain creativity argument is moribund. It is nothing more that a justification that allows individuals to watching more tv without feeling guilty. Of course uneducated polayers are capable of being creative - its part of the human condition. But, if you give 1,000 monkies typewriters.... Sorry, that was facetious but I accept that many uneducated players have done some great things but relying on pure inspiration without perspiration is like relying on a lottery win to feed yourself - you may be lucky but I wouldn't want to rely on it. In simple terms, to suggest that not doing something improves your playing is, in my view, anathema.

[quote name='cheddatom' post='155854' date='Mar 12 2008, 11:17 AM']Ok - If learning theory is all about internalising knowledge to the effect that you can play without thinking surely this can be attainable without actually learning the theory in the first place. If theory teaches you where the right notes are, but you can hear where the right notes are anyway, couldn't you just use your ears to accomplish the same thing that theory teaches?[/quote] Yes, of course yout can but its a much slower route and an uneducated musician is inevitable limted by his own internal constraints. The study of theory can help you to 'hear' things you might not otherwise have heard. I have a simple rule - Knowledge is power. Ignorance is bliss. Your choice.

The difficulty in applying theory to improvised music rest in the head and not the hands. The performance of jazz requires you to listen to what is happening around you as you play and using the information you hear and the things you know about the music to inform your own decisions about where you take the music. If the soloist goes up a scale, you may chose to go up with him or to go in the opposite direction. You may choose to play a pedal tone a fourth below the root of the key centre of the changes being used (eg the first eight bars of a bebop rhythm changes tune in Bb can be accompanied by a pedal F to great effect) or you may choose to hold a note and suspend the forward motion of your line as another tension creating device. You could change a funk tune into a jazz tune, or a rock tune into Latin. You may think, a Latin groove woudl sound nice now but, becasue you knwo your drummer can't play a Latin groove, you may abort the idea. The options are infinte and are only bounded by your imagination, your knowledge of what works and the circusmtances around you at a given moment. The use of youre favourite Nuno licks will not even begin to meet the demands of improvised music. Classical musicians are trained very differently. They are capable of some very sophisticated and complex playing but they do it mostly by rote and not spontaneously. Also. their 'creative' choices, in terms of their performance, whilst potentially informed by the conducters 'interpretation' of the ensemble delivery, are not defined by it in the way that a jazz players is. More to the point, the ensembles note choices are predetermined and not informed by anything other than the 'script'/chart. I guess the difference between jazz and classical performance is like the difference between a debate and a speech. The skills sets are very different. There are some classical musicians that can improvise but they are rare and generally not a the top of the game - Wynton Marsalis is respected in the jazz field but he is strictly B-list in the classical world. Nigel Kennedy's 'jazz' is excruciating! Whatever his strengths as a player, I suspect Gwilym Simcock is not a contender in the classical field (I have not yet heard him). A knowledge of music theory will NEVER undermine your ability to perform creatively. What will, however, is the ability to apply that theory. If you have to process the information yoiu hear before you make choices about what you play, the concious application of theory to your given improvisation will inevitably delay your decision making and disable your creative choices completely. The secret is to learn the thoery, knowl how to apply it and then forget about it. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to write if you had to think about every muscle movement, spelling, sentence contstruction, tense etc? Music theory is no different.

[quote name='FJ1200' post='155311' date='Mar 11 2008, 02:27 PM']I've just bought a £2.99 4-CD set for the car to try to get my head round it[/quote] It's no wonder jazz has such a bad name - these £2.99 compilations do so much harm for jazz its unreal. 4 cds for 3 quid? Let me guess: Louis Armstrong, Lionel Hampton, Teddy Wilson, Dave Brubeck, Peggy Lee - all on wax cylinders - am I right? Not necessarily bad artists but these reciordings are almost always obscure outtakes, early left overs, dodgy live cuts. - Its like judging all Sci-Fi on the basis of 'The Mouse On The Moon'. DESTROY IT!! DESTROY IT!! Buy a copy of 'Jazzwise' and look for something that takes your fancy!

Almost any Motown compilation will give you some insights. Enjoy.

I found this website many moons ago and just found it again on my favourites. Have a look; it's a really useful resource for getting some new ideas or insights that can contribute to your progress. Good luck. Rob [url="http://www.melmartin.com/index.html"]http://www.melmartin.com/index.html[/url]

Oh, if it's only UP TO 10 hours a day, I practise up to 12.

Even creativity in music is of limited merchantable value. Most people LIKE predictable and unoriginal (have you seen the size of those Irish/Country music stalls at markets. Charlie Landsborough sings Danny Boy (again)). That's why the X Factor has more viewers than Later with Jools Holland. People don't like to be challenged. In all actuality, creativity is probably one of if not [i]the[/i] least marketable musical skill. Most players nowadays, professional or amateur, earn most of their money from just regurgitating someone elses cliches. Sad but true.

I think it is important to acknowledge that music is, whether we like it or not, a package and that technical ability is not the only ingredient on which it is judged. There are a lot of purists out there who like to think that they only listen to music as a pure expression of the individual artist but I suspect they are deluding themselves. The package of which I speak includes things such as inspiration, communication, immediacy, dancability, image, originality, spontaneity, virtuosity, excellence... this list is pretty long. Janek's aspiration for virtuosity is perfectly credible and, as I have already said, commendable. But it is not the only way. 'Madness', for instance, would appeal to people who look for immediacy, dancability, communication etc. People who want those aspects of the music in their individual 'mix' will inevitably struggle with some of the more cerebral musics where inspiration, originality, spontaneity, virtuosity etc are to the fore. The greatest selling artist of all time will be the one who manages get the full range of pertinent factors into one product. Who has come near? Stevie Wonder? Prince? Pat Metheny? The Beatles? Genesis? These guys have all had massive success with a significant part of the public but no-one has got everyone on board. Also, as their mix changes, they lose part of their audience (eg when Genesis started doing 4 minute singles instead of CD length epics, they lost a lot of fans as well as gained some). So, an original, spontaneous, danceable, image conscious virtuoso who communicates and inspires.... when one of those appears, we will all be happy. Until then, we'll just have to agree to disagree. But, then again, you can disagree without being disagreeable

I always say that, if you haven't got that knot of frustration in your stomach, you probably aren't practising anything you need to practice. Feel the fear but do it anyway!

10 hours or not, Janek's commitment to his profession is a credit to him and I only wish I could dedicate as much time to it. I think I would have to sacrifice too much to do that at this point in my life. But that doesn't mean I can't recognise the investment he has and continues to make to his playing, his audience, the bass fraternity as a whole. He is a credit to his profession. Talent isn't enough. We need the Janek's of this world to remind us of the benefits of deicated hard work. Personally, I would love to look after his Wal 5-string while he was on tour with his Fodera

God - I love jazz!!

Don't know what that was about but please don't asume that it had any more to do with jazz than it did rock or funk. It was improvised, I agree, but that was where the parallel ends. I have said it before -just because it is complicated and has a lot of notes doesn't make it jazz. I heard some Industrial stuff, some funk, some prog rock and a bit of wickity woo but not much jazz!

Corporate do pay the best (someone else's money), followed by weddings (there is something about weddings that makes people forget what money is worth - a four piece that can get £160 in a pub can get a £800 at a wedding). People arranging parties can be similarly irrational. Pub gigs are generally the worst paid. Clubs tend to be a little bit better but are choosier. Madness.

"chin stroking music" was invented for people who can't dance......

What is it? The links don't work in work!

I kinda of know where you are coming from but, being brutally frank, I have never been that emotionally effected by an instrument! I am trying to think of one that has got me that excited but I can't find one (even owned by others I know). I have a lovely 1986 Wal bass and a Gibson ES175 that I love the sound of but art? Can't say I feel it, sorry. They are just tools - very effective tools but just tools.

Andy Hague, trumpet, drums, composer, jazz musician Bristol. www.andyhague.co.uk Tell him Rob Palmer recommended him - he'll say 'who the f*** is Rob Palmer' (I played the Brecon Jazz Festival with him in 1994 or 1995)!

'Sir Duke' is not that hard - its basically a simple pentatonic scale. Learn it by ear and the fingers bit is easy. Personally, I am learning some Cuban stuff (Cachaito - the notes are easy, the feel IMPOSSIBLE)! Its kind of the antithesis of jazz but emotionally very satisfying.

I agree with everyone! I think, for me, the usefulness of magazine articles as learning tools is limited for practical reasons - i.e. a half page limit once a month. The overtly technical columns are often there to give some perverse sense of credibility to the magazines we buy (we write about the best professionals so we are, by association, the best industry publication) but I know from my own learning that these columns will seldom change your life! Does anyone remember Jeff Berlin's monthly fingerbusters? 'T Lavitz, Jacob Javitz, I Hate Wabbitz' is one title I can remember - I shedded them and nailed a few but they were, with hindsight, completely useless! As I have said before - a good book of theory (Mark Levine's The Jazz Theory Book springs to mind ), a cd player and the skills and abilities required to transcribe (by ear or by written notes) are all you really need - the rest comes with time and effort and, get this, choices. Transcriptions of great solos are also useful in developing a vocabularly of your own and learning/exploring your chosen genres. What I like about Gwizdala is that he admits to practising 10 hours a day - Jaco and Pat Metheny have both said the NEVER practice - yeah right!! I think there may be some poetic licence here about what 'practice' actually is! That level of technique is either about the ability to express oneself (Sonny Rollins) or to impress (Yngwie Malmsteen). Plenty of people can express themselves without technique; most people quoted are songwriters, but ot express yourself as an instrumentalist is a different kettle of fish because you haven't the benefits of language. Jeff Berlin's solo bass version of Lennon's 'Imagine' is a great example. He has put together a finger bustin' solo bass version that is actually pretty pathetic because, without the lyrics, that song is harmonically and melodically nothing! But we have to understand that the creativity that is brought to bear on great lyric writing is borne of a lifetime of talking, debating, arguing, reading and thinking - not just three minutes sat with a guitar strumming away. The 'techniques' required to put together a good lyric are learned over DECADES because the people doing it have used language every day of their lives for at least 16 hours (my God, we even talk to ourselves when we are asleep!)! So, for an intrumentalist to even begin to compete, s/he will have to spend a considerable amount of time interfacing with his/her intrument and learning to squeeze every ounce of emotion s/he can from the wood and metal in front of him/her. Great pulsing rock bass lines are undenyably fit for purpose in context (my favourite Billy Sheehan line by a mile is 'Ladies Night in Buffalo' of Roth's 'Eat 'Em And Smile') but, if that was all I got to play, I'd give up tomorrow! I like playing jazz because I have to THINK not because I look technically proficient! It makes demands on me that are stimulating and presents problems I get satifaction from solving creatively - is 'Giant Steps' the best Rubik's cube ever built!? I have to accept, however, that watching people solve puzzles is not THAT entertaining to most people and that, consequently, much of the music that I play will always be a minority interest! But this applies to most instrumental music. It's so much harder to communicate with! 'Peaches' is good but I loved 'Down In The Sewers' more!

+1 for Hercules - I only buy them now as a matter of preference - they put up and break down easily, stay up without collapsing and don't break your fingers when you adjust them.

I pretty much stopped buying bass mags a long time ago. If you read about 30 articles, you have got all you are going to get out of them. So what if Johnny Thunder uses a .40 G string or Pete Wally uses a Zon SonicHyperTensionBassomatic 12 string bass? It really means nothing in terms of your own development. Changing your strings/bass/amp will make about 1% difference to the overall effect (Ok - its probably 3%). I am kind of with the BigBeefChief on this one (Never thought I would say that!). People need to study music not musicians. Know your scales, chords etc to the level you require for the music you are playing, know your genre/idiom, know what you need to make your mark in the industry of your choice (if you are dead set on a career in Coutry music, two handed tapping versions on 'Flight Of The Bumble Bee' in all keys are probably a waste of effort). The fact is that we all play with different agendas in mind and our differing 'ambitions' will determine the extent to which we feel we need to invest time in our playing. A hardcore Punk bass player who gigs three times a year will inevitably have a different perspective on his or her playing than a wannabe professional fusion freak. When I started playing bass (1980), there was a sense that the bass player could pretty much play all types of music without too many difficulties in transferring techniques and ideas from genre to genre. Nowadays, if you want to do Heavy Metal and need to do the Sheehan thing, you are going to have to spend more time on it than I did when HM was Steve Harris or Geezer Butler. Likewise, Jamerson's playing, whilst sophisticated, is nowhere need as heavy as Gary Willis', Michael Manring's or Victor Wooten's. The bass heroes of my day (Jaco/Stanley Clarke etc) were not like the atheletes we see today: Feraud, Wooten, Manring etc. Most of what Jaco did is perfectly achieveable for the average bassist nowadays; same with Stanley Clarke's slap playing - it's pathetic compared to what some of the 9-year olds on YouTube are doing. If you want to compete with these guys (Gwizdala etc) then 10 hours a day will go some way to doing it. It's up to the individual to decide where they want to take it. Remember, writing about music is like dancing about architecture. Reading about music is like WATCHING someone dance about architecture. Fundamentally useless. Its all in the playing. Take what you can from these articles but be warned: speed decieves. Its ideas that matter and technique without ideas is the ultimate folly. PS - If you get to play like Jaco, you will need an Erskine, Zawinul or a Shorter to work with. They are a lot harder to come by than new gear!

'Techno' by John Scofield (Darryl 'The Munch' Jones on bass) Bb Bb Ab Ab F F Ab Ab Db Db Db Db (sixteenths at around 140 bpm). I can play 'Donna Lee' but I can't play that single repeating bar evenly! (its the opening line so you could probably hear it on Amazon for free!)

Steve Swallow, Jaco, Anthony Jackson, Jeff Berlin, Percy Jones, Jimmy Johnson, Ron Carter, Dave Holland, Charlie Haden, Steve Swallow, Paul Chambers, Niels Henning Orsted Pederson, Ron Carter, Marc Johnson, John Patitucci, Chris Squire and Steve Swallow.

I hate the fact that ours sometimes comes after I have had to go to work.