The Jarrett/Marsalis controversy

[ted]

Marsalis is of the opinion that improvised music must have strong links to traditional form and musical processes of the past, and that it ought to be consciously structured. Jarrett, on the other hand, espouses the view that proficiency in imitating styles is a complete waste of time and that when he improvises he never knows what might happen, any form generated being completely organic and unconscious.

It is always fascinating when two superb musicians are at odds about a fundamental issue.

[stevie]

Both ways are valid; argument is unnecessary


why should art limit itself?

[quantum]

Both are valid, and both can be used to achieve different types of sound. 

My own improvs ususally contain elemnts of both. 

[arensky]

This is funny! I love it when jazzers get all opinionated and touchy and insistent about the "correct" way to improvise! They are worse than classical musicians, who many of the jazzers belittle on the grounds that they are "not creative", and "stuck in orthodoxy" and c**p like that. And here go the jazzers creating their own new orthodoxy. Gezz Louise.......

Anyway their approaches are the products of their respective upbringings and educations, in very different places. Wynton grew up in New Orleans, the " Old Vienna" of Jazz if you will, and was exposed to and influenced by a lot of older or "traditional" jazz. Not sure offhand where Jarret comes from but he was one of the many young proteges of Miles Davis, and at a time when Miles was breaking out of the traditional jazz mold of  combo swing feel music with acoustic instruments and doing stuff that alienated large segments of the jazz community at that time, like "Bitches Brew" and it's use of Rock materials and electronic instruments. Keith was on the next Miles album after that, which was acoustic and a throwback to the Miles of the 50's, but kind of removed fron that style, very lean and esoteric. Whereas Wynton was raised by his father (Ellis Marsalis a fine New Orleans pianist) to "carry the torch", and "keep the old ways alive" and so forth, Keith grew up under the influence of a powerful musical personality (Miles) who was always seeking to redefine himself and be original and unique. So it's not surprising they have turned out the way they have, they are influenced by what worked for them early on, and have stuck with it.

BTW Wynton's Jazz Orchestra of Lincoln Center purports to preserve traditional forms and styles of Jazz, but sounds very modern in spite of that, because the players are younger and are influenced by music of today and the past 40 years; it is part of their background, and they should not and can not deny it.

And Keith's "organic unconciousness" relies a great deal on traditional forms, i.e. standard jazz tunes, not to mention his classical playing. These influence what he does because he absorbs them and they become part of that "organic unconciousness" that he feels makes him so unique and special. So he is either deluded or misinformed. NO ONE is entirely original, we are all influenced by music we have heard before, whether we like it or not.

And so they are both right AND wrong, and for them to set up an orthodoxy regarding this matter is evil and absurd; if you want to improvise like Art Tatum, do it; you will sound like a copycat, if you have nothing else to say; If you have something to say, people will hear it, and you will be "the cat who sounds kinda like Tatum" to most ears, ala the Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra. And by all means do what Keith does, do your own thing, but don't believe for a second that it is "enirely original and unique"; it might be to a greater extent than the Tatum fan, but so what? There is no law, do what makes you happy, you're the one who has to play, and the opininons of listeners are valid too, if you perfom....

[BoliverAllmon]

I prefer to listen to improvs that are organized and have a form. so that is where I stand.

[ted]

Thanks for your detailed answer, Arensky. We are all, no doubt, the product of our previous experience whether we like it or not. I hadn't realised the issue was quite so intensely jazz related.

You're right about jazz musicians being just as pedantic as classical ones, perhaps more so. I was once virtually shown the door by a proficient jazz pianist for daring to suggest a new way of looking at a chord. The conversation, which up until then had been very amicable and most interesting, took an irreversible turn for the worse.

[arensky]

Thanks for your detailed answer, Arensky. We are all, no doubt, the product of our previous experience whether we like it or not. I hadn't realised the issue was quite so intensely jazz related.

The future is but the past in reverse...

Well, kinda sorta, maybe sometimes, ya know? 

OK no more lame attempts at far out profundity!  I guess it's Jazz related  because Marsalis and Jarett are Jazz musicians (who also play Classical, like me living equally in two worlds, same planet though!) and Jazz is the most prominent musical improvisational idiom in contemporary "Western" culture, and therefore is the ideal springboard for a discussion of this heavy topic, which has to do with all art, not just music.  Yeah "Rock" contains improvisation but not to the extent that Jazz does, it relies more on arrangement and repetition than Jazz, which is more about going off on a tangent and finding your way back, hopefully logically!

To make a quick analogy to painting, you could say that Wynton is like Andew Wyeth, who is traditional and yet his art is unmistakably of the 20th Century. Perhaps Edward Hopper would be a better analogy, these artists painted recognizable "things" like landscapes and people in restaurants and we immediately "know" what they are and what we are looking at. Just as we know when we hear Wyton's jazz that we are listening to jazz...

Jarett is more like (or thinks he is) Jackson Pollock or Mark Rothko, who were attempting (I believe) to create art that had NOTHING to do with anything recognizable, and that this had to be done because everything had already been done and this was the only way to go if you were to be original, but their works still have FORM, which makes them TRADITIONAL! Good art cannot escape FORM and STRUCTURE, no matter what it is! Like the 12 tone serialist dodecaphonicists who gained asendency over academic music at this time (1950's) they were wrong, NOTHING IS EVER EXHAUSTED OR USED UP IN ART, there is always something new that can be done.
 
This was supposed to be brief but this is fascinating and important stuff IMO. Anyway I would say Keith Jarett is more like a late Kandinsky than a Pollock, he takes familiar materials and reshapes them into something you have to look at for awhile, then you will see the tugboat or the locomotive. It's not always immediately obvious in Jarett's improvs that they are "Jazz", and maybe some of them aren't. But Jazz is definitely his springboard into what he is doing, IMO.  What Keith Jarret does in his free improvisation is frequently wonderful, he is using familiar sounds rythyms and materials, but presenting them in a different way. And so he is traditional too.

All of this applies to all styles of music, not just to Jazz. BTW have you heard any of Bruce Hornby's free improv? I don't know if he's recorded it or not, here's a link to my prior description of it....

www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,13225.msg142386.html#msg142386

[arensky]

You're right about jazz musicians being just as pedantic as classical ones, perhaps more so. I was once virtually shown the door by a proficient jazz pianist for daring to suggest a new way of looking at a chord. The conversation, which up until then had been very amicable and most interesting, took an irreversible turn for the worse.

You scared him, sounds like an insecure d***head. You messed with his "concept", and rather than admit his brilliant self could not be entirely and completely right, he whipped out his ego and walked away because you caught him off guard. This may have had something to do with the fact that you are not a "professional", and he felt shown up. I'll bet he went home and practiced and analyzed your point of view! But he probably discarded it because he is the "pro", and knows better! Ego and pride are nessacary to a point but inevitably sink those who rely on them too much....

What chord was this and in what context, if you remember? Inquiring mind wants to know! 

BTW bet he was a snappy dresser in a fashionable sports coat! 

[ted]

I do remember that as it happens, although it concerned a broad principle rather than one particular chord. I had heard of this man, who had retired here, and was cheeky enough to phone him. He suggested I come and hear him play. He proceeded to explain at great length about how everything in music must be based on modes and how all chords could be explained using modes. He himself kept large notebooks full of nothing but chord schemes and changes. His improvisation appeared to comprise successions of complicated chords and modes, or at least that was how I perceived he thought of it because he used practically no finger work, no classically derived passages or playing forms.

Lest this be thought a criticism, I hasten to add that I found his playing very pleasant and his mental arithmetic using all these chords was amazing. He was very kind to let me listen to him for a couple of hours.  However, I made the fatal mistake when he demonstrated how the chord he was using was derived from a mode. I noticed that it could be formed by seeing it as a combination of two ordinary major chords in different keys and suggested that such a way of looking at chords might prove a fertile source of ideas in improvisation and be mentally easier to think of on the fly.

"No, no, no, you can't do that - it sounds strange !"
"Well, it makes the same sound whatever you call it doesn't it ?"
"No, no - that would upset everything !"

I then made a further blunder in saying that I understood, from the little I had read, that that was how Brubeck came to create many of his nice harmonies - perhaps through the influence of Milhaud. That remark really sealed it. Brubeck wasn't a "proper" jazz musician at all, it seems. A pressing appointment was mentioned and he was sorry but it was time I should go. 

I stress that I thoroughly enjoyed his playing and he was obviously a very experienced and dedicated player who had many beautiful things to say at the piano. But I had absolutely no idea of the sensitivity of such people. I view the incident as more humorous than serious and I still treasure the sound of his playing. 

[BoliverAllmon]

sounds like a tightwad