Is it All about Lead?

[Steve LeBlanc]

Lots of good stuff said here...it's refreshing to see so many guitarists with open minds.

 

I just have one thing to add...be careful when defining rules for music...I don't want anyone telling me how to create...I'm sure you don't either.

 

Music is just too rich to say one thing is right and the other wrong.

 

I went to see a bunch of young punk kids play bar chords and feedback noises for an hour last night...it was GREAT!

[Tedster]

Speaking of jazz guitarists, how 'bout Wes Montgomery?

 

Yeah, you can't comp chords on a sax, but with a horn section you can.

[Tedly Nightshade]

These jazz players who play all the songs more or less the same are just as culpable as any other players.

Charlie Parker started a lot of trouble in this regard. All the charts got the same exact arrangement, forever, and they all sound the same. Charlie was the beginning of the new geeked out chops thing, but he took with him everything good from the previous era, which is why "if Charlie Parker were a gunslinger there'd be a lot of dead copycats" (Mingus song title).

 

Listen to Ellington, and you hear justice done to the song. The best songs are their own little worlds, just like in the rest of music!

It's anything but a chops fest, and each players individual strengths, visions, and capabilities are appreciated and given an opportunity to shine.

SO different from the interchangeable "man of all sessions" attitude you see way too much of, way too many places...

Ted

[henryrobinett]

Well Ted, I'm glad you know your Mingus. I don't understand you stating that all jazz players play all the songs exactly the same. Yes, the formula is head (AABA) and solos (same form). But the formula was in place before the bebop era. Yes, Ellington was a song writer and a composer and was arguably one of America's greatest 20th century composers. His main attention was structure. But I don't understand throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Listening to Bird play on some rhythm changes tune does not, to me, sound like Dexter Gordon or Coltrane doing the same. Yes, the bass is playing the structure in quarter notes (walking) and the piano is comping and the ride cymbal is doing some kind of chaing-chainga-lang but the "painting" is entirely different. Ellington is not Basie is not Coltrane is not Parker is not Mils is not ACDC.

[nc]

Originally posted by Nollykin:

- maybe a penis has a big ambition? Nolly

 

Behind every successful man stands a yada,yada,yada...

 

In my experience, guys have a lot more ideas than girls, but when girls have them, they do them better

 

 

Nolly

Gee, give with the left hand, take away with the right !

 

PS, Anyone remember/know what became of Ellen MacEllwain ?

[whitefang]

Henry, Charlie Parker once said that in his opinion, you could judge how good a musician was by how he played the blues. And in his day,

from where he was coming, the blues was never about flash. Today, young guitarists hear the word "blues" and conjur up visions of Stevie Ray,

wailing away with hybrid Hendrix/Guy hailstorms!

In Bird's time, the excecution of the blues was a whole different thing. More about how it was said, not how many words were used to say it.

And he often wondered if his execution of the blues was adequate enough for him to be considered great!

 

Whitefang

[coyote]

This would've been news to Mozart & Haydn. I wonder how their execution of the blues would rate? ;-)

 

Originally posted by whitefang:

Henry, Charlie Parker once said that in his opinion, you could judge how good a musician was by how he played the blues. And in his day,

from where he was coming, the blues was never about flash. Today, young guitarists hear the word "blues" and conjur up visions of Stevie Ray,

wailing away with hybrid Hendrix/Guy hailstorms!

In Bird's time, the excecution of the blues was a whole different thing. More about how it was said, not how many words were used to say it.

And he often wondered if his execution of the blues was adequate enough for him to be considered great!

 

Whitefang

[Tedly Nightshade]

If you heard Ben Webster you'd see why!

Ted

[henryrobinett]

Charlie Parker may have said that. It sounds like something he said. Yet and still defining a jazz musician by how well he plays the blues would be highly incomplete. I think you're using that word "flash" in a context where I've never heard it applied to jazz. Now if you want to hear Parker play the blues you're more than likely gonna hear an abundance of what you might call "flash". I don't know. One persons flash maybe another persons content. "Blues For Alice" is a great solo, but doesn't sound like a blues. KC Blues is more traditional. Cool Blues. I think you're still trying to apply a concept to the wrong context. They all contain what I think you'd call flash.

 

Yes the blues is the foundation of jazz. But there are different types of blues. Types of blues that would be foreign to SRV or Hendrix. Blues with chromatic chord progressions. Blues with a series of major 7th chords. Or, more often, heavily altered dominant chords that have chromatic movement, where the soloist is expected to play all of the color tones - the flat 9s, 13th, flat 13ths, aug 11th and various substitutions; all a flow and musicality. Parker was doing his at very high speed back in the 40s.

 

So ARE there jazz musicians who play too many pointless, gratuitous notes out of context, even for jazz? Sure, but who's gonna know? ;-)

[whitefang]

I don't know about Haydn, coyote, but

Mozart would've NAILED it!

 

Nightshade, I've HEARD Webster. And I SEE why!

 

Whitefang

[Tedly Nightshade]

" I don't understand you stating that all jazz players play all the songs exactly the same. Yes, the formula is head (AABA) and solos (same form). But the formula was in place before the bebop era."

 

No, not ALL of them, but it's very very common indeed with the fakebook crowd. Bird was a kind of monomaniac who focused on chops and his solos at the expense of being an ensemble player and at the expense of dynamics, arrangements, harmonized riffs (you note all the bebop heads are played in unison, however many players at once?), and a whole lot of other things that had been major parts of jazz and are now pretty marginal. Not least, giving each tune it's own mood and identity.

There are exceptions, thank god, but most places the stale old flip through the real book and trade 4's thing still reigns.

It was not easy to keep me from pursuing a career in jazz, but this kind of straitjacket approach succeeded.

 

The major market for jazz now is as a kind of yuppie wallpaper, a background music that helps drinkers feel sophisticated and prosperous and upper class. Way too bad.

Ted

[g.]

Yes, we would be much better off if nobody pursued their musical vision like Charlie Parker did. Everybody should be playing power chords. Maybe tuning down also.

 

<-- greenboy ---<<<<    get out the new uniforms. the old ones are passe.

[Sylver]

Originally posted by Steve LeBlanc:

Lots of good stuff said here...it's refreshing to see so many guitarists with open minds.

 

I just have one thing to add...be careful when defining rules for music...I don't want anyone telling me how to create...I'm sure you don't either.

 

Music is just too rich to say one thing is right and the other wrong.

 

I went to see a bunch of young punk kids play bar chords and feedback noises for an hour last night...it was GREAT!

Steve, thanks for reminding me to not be too critical. I've always been so impressed the fact that you're an outstanding musician, but refuse to be a snob! I myself am a mediocre musician(I'm trying to get better!) and a stob(at times).

 

I also use parenthesis too much when I write.

[D_dup3]

Originally posted by whitefang:

Henry, Charlie Parker once said that in his opinion, you could judge how good a musician was by how he played the blues. And in his day,

from where he was coming, the blues was never about flash...

In Bird's time, the excecution of the blues was a whole different thing. More about how it was said, not how many words were used to say it.

And he often wondered if his execution of the blues was adequate enough for him to be considered great!Whitefang

I've hardly ever considered Charlie Parker a blues player...but i'm really here to contribute this quote:

When asked by John Coltrane how he should end his lengthy solo excursions (all day fare/$3.50!), bandleader Miles Davis suppsedly told him, "Take the horn outta your mouth."

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by d:

I've hardly ever considered Charlie Parker a blues player...but i'm really here to contribute this quote:

When asked by John Coltrane how he should end his lengthy solo excursions (all day fare/$3.50!), bandleader Miles Davis suppsedly told him, "Take the horn outta your mouth."

Yes! And that's the cleaned up version.

[whitefang]

Originally posted by Ted Nightshade:

" The major market for jazz now is as a kind of yuppie wallpaper, a background music that helps drinkers feel sophisticated and prosperous and upper class. Way too bad.

Ted

Are you referring to that syrup called "Smooth Jazz", Ted? If so, I agree! As much an oxymoron as "Soft Rock", or "Philly Soul"!

 

But while we're blowing hard on trying to be definitive, let's recall the words of Satchmo.

Remember, he was asked once "What IS jazz?" and he replied, "Man, if you have to ask, you'll never know!"

 

I don't recall any jazzman disagreeing!

 

Whitefang

[Kendrix]

Hey,

It occurs to me that the definition of lead needs some discussion.

 

Much of the gret rythm stuff mentioned here is pure - but sometimes the distinction between leaa dand rythm gets blurry.

 

For instance, does "lead" consist of single note lines versus chords? What about double note lines/octaves. What about the kind of lines Hendrix plays in the verses on Castles Made of Sand or that are playeed oin the verse of Cilki Peppers "Under The Bridge" song- sort of in middle ground - but its along with/behind a vocal.

 

It seems to me that what defines a "lead" is not always so clear.

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by Ted Nightshade:

" I don't understand you stating that all jazz players play all the songs exactly the same. Yes, the formula is head (AABA) and solos (same form). But the formula was in place before the bebop era."

 

No, not ALL of them, but it's very very common indeed with the fakebook crowd. Bird was a kind of monomaniac who focused on chops and his solos at the expense of being an ensemble player and at the expense of dynamics, arrangements, harmonized riffs (you note all the bebop heads are played in unison, however many players at once?), and a whole lot of other things that had been major parts of jazz and are now pretty marginal. Not least, giving each tune it's own mood and identity.

I was talking about the professionals not the RealBook/fake book crowd. I saw everyone here was referrig to the Pages, Claptons, SRV etc.. So it's a little unfair to then compare the weekend warrior jazz musician into the fray.

 

There are PLENTY of harmonized lines. Miles Davis Quintets, Gerry Mulligan, Mingus, Corea, Clifford Brown, and in terms of modern big and give me Maria Schneider or Vince Mendoza any day of the week.

 

In terms of Bird, you must remember that during the 40s, when bop and Bird came into to being was also during the war. There was a recording ban and the big bands were disappearing due to financial hardships. A new way had to be created for musicians to survive, especially creative improvisors. This was a startling new LISTENING music, which made it an art form. A wild concept in the late 30s-40s when jazz music was just something to dance to. The small ensemble was born, mainly for economic reasons, at first anyway. Tunes like "Confirmation" and the like were in unison. But those were just some of his tunes. Ah-Leu-Cha was a contrapuntal tune, also written by Bird.

 

He came from the Jay MacShann, a big band before jumping ship to Cab Calloway, another big band where he, in both, had to play as an ensemble player. I believe he also played lead alto and quite well too. He also played in the famous, crimminally under recored Billy Eckstine big band. Bird had mondo dynamics and knew how to use them in an ensemble. Those bebop lines are chock full of dynamic markings. Now he wasn't much of an arranger and I have to assume he needed Dizzy or another arranger to flesh his compositions out. But he was an innovator and a brilliant soloist. He was no Ben Webster and Ben Webster was no Bird. Webster was a brilliant balladeer, as was Johnny Hodges, both Ellington stablemates. But it's like comparing apples and oranges. One is not the other.

[coyote]

I remember a videotape interview where Miles talked about Hancock's soloing: "...there he goes, all 88 keys again.... he needs to be edited."

 

Originally posted by henryrobinett:

Originally posted by d:

I've hardly ever considered Charlie Parker a blues player...but i'm really here to contribute this quote:

When asked by John Coltrane how he should end his lengthy solo excursions (all day fare/$3.50!), bandleader Miles Davis suppsedly told him, "Take the horn outta your mouth."

Yes! And that's the cleaned up version.

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by coyote:

I remember a videotape interview where Miles talked about Hancock's soloing: "...there he goes, all 88 keys again.... he needs to be edited."

Yes. He also called Herbie "Oatmeal" because after 3 minutes he was done. So an 8 minute solo had 5 extra minutes of crap, according to Miles. But the was Miles. He also used to yell "1,2,3,4!" over and over into Jimmy Cobb's ear, the drummer replacing Philly Joe Jones, to show his displeasure.

[Tedly Nightshade]

Bird went from being a great sideman with McShann to being a sideman leading a band, without addressing arrangements and a lot of what else was taken care of for him as a sideman.

 

There are tons of world class jazz players still failing to address all these issues, and playing as if the Parker created the world in 1940 and nothing happened at all after 1960. I guess what gets me is the snooty austere attitude that goes with these self imposed limitations.

 

And then there are guys who take inspiration wherever it comes from, and yes there is some great jazz today. I've heard a lot of it, and man do I like it.

 

"Types of blues that would be foreign to SRV or Hendrix. Blues with chromatic chord progressions. Blues with a series of major 7th chords. Or, more often, heavily altered dominant chords that have chromatic movement, where the soloist is expected to play all of the color tones - the flat 9s, 13th, flat 13ths, aug 11th and various substitutions;"

 

Jimi was all over this. He kew his T-Bone Walker, and T-Bone did all that. He knew what to listen to and how! Stormy Monday, anyone? As far as a solo with all color tones, check Purple Haze, no kidding. This is all so basic to Hendrix's music- Jeez, the guy's idea of a "one" chord is an augmented 9th. That's consonance, from Jimi's perspective.

 

I had this conversation with a Prof in college in a "jazz" course. The Prof played an augmented 9 (that's the "Hendrix chord", for you rockers) and showed how to resolve it to a 69 chord (yeah that's as nice as it sounds!) I said, predictably, "Hell, for Hendrix that's a consonance- he ends his songs on augmented 9 chords".

The teach, predictably, said "Don't you think Hendrix was heading towards jazz?"

And I answered, with all historical accuracy, "No, jazz was heading towards Hendrix."

 

And it was!

Remember all that "Jazz Harmony" was created by Satie, Ravel and Debussy in turn of the century France, with a healthy dose of hash, opium and absinthe. Certainly hanging it all on a II-V-I progression was part of their original vision, and Debussy wrote for saxophone when Sidney Bechet (

) was just finding one in a New Orleans pawnshop.

 

Now getting it to SWING was an American adaptation, but there's nothing in Jazz Harmony that's not in Debussy. For that matter there are enough parallel fifths in their to outfit legions of barchord feedback bands! And have some left over for King Crimson.

 

By the way I'm fond of George Russell's book about the Lydian Dominant and all that- check Jimi's solo for I Don't Live Today from the Jimi Hendrix concerts, for some Lydian Dominant fun, or listen to Four Sticks from Led Zeppelin IV for that matter. Pagey knew his jazz too, just another sucker for good music. The Rain Song is evidence enough. Voice leading through enough extended chords to soothe the wild beast.

 

That's the part that gets me, the assumption that Jimi didn't know about all that good "jazz harmony" and hadn't listened to umpteen hours of jazz to get where he started from. The jazz cats could all stand to make a serious study of Hendrix, and check out him doing for the guitar exactly what Coltrane did for the saxophone (3rd Stone from the Sun, anybody?).

Hendrix picked up the ball that John Coltrane dropped at his feet in 1967, and ran with it. Too bad he never played with Alice, too bad he barely lived to play at all.

Ted

[henryrobinett]

Well Ted, I just don't know what to say. I am somebody who has learned, by ear, all of Jimi's stuff from Are You Experienced?, Axis: Bold As Love, Electric Ladyland and Live at the Fillmore.; nothing after. I credit Jimi for making me play guitar. I've also studied Bird, umteen Coltrane solos, Dexter Gordon, Jarrett, Corea, etc.. Jimi Hendrix was NOT all over that stuff I mentioned. He was a great player who definitely was heading in the direction of jazz. And the E7+9 chord was the "Foxey Lady" chord, but it comes way late in the jazz harmony phase of things. By that time jazz musicians were already into poly-tonality, poly modality and way beyond the upper extensions and altered tones of the bebop era.

 

You know I've heard a lot of people complain about the jazz snobs and I don't disagree with this, but for as long as I've been on these forums I've been the one having to defend jazz from rock snobs. I have not attacked anyone's music or been given to snobbism, but I have, on the other hand, been feeling an utter contempt from the rock'n roll constituency. I have not attacked, nor have I made any statements lessening, or putting jazz on any kind of higher plane. I view music as different, not "better than".

 

Now the fact of the matter is Hendrix, "Pagey", Beck, Stevie, did not play heavily chromatic or altered blues, in the same way that Coltrane or Parker or Wes didn't play loud, distorted, powerful blues like the brilliant "Red House". What Jimi did in 3rd Stone was not what Coltrane did in any of his modal excursions. Check out Chim Chim Chere from "Coltrane Plays".

 

Listening to hours upon hours of jazz, or any form of music, doesn't mean you know the deeper aspects of that music, especially jazz harmony. Most cases it takes a real study. Jazz harmony in the 60s had a real boon with the further excursions of Bill Evans, Herbie Hancock, Coltrane, et al. I mean "Machine Gun" is absolutely brilliant, but it's not a jazz solo. It's not beter, it's not worse. It simply what it is: great.

 

I think your very much abridged and altered version of jazz harmony history also leaves something to be desired. Jazz has borrowed much from Debussy, Ravel and some of the French composers, but much of this came later, in the 60s. The earlier composers, Duke, Lunceford, Jellyroll were much more all over the place. Short hand codification had nothing to do with French composers. II-Vs were not French by any means, nor were they European. The concept of playing invented melodies based on oddly extended harmonic structures that may not even be present in the chords being played, as in substitutions, was something sprung forth from Parker, Dizzy, Monk and Charlie Christian and were concepts unique and still borrowed.

 

As for Russell's "Lydian Chromatic Concept", I studied it years and years ago. It's not for me.

[Wrave]

Henry? Ted? Could you guys keep going with this jazz discussion? I'm diggin' it!

 

I read somewhere a quote by a famous pianist whose name I cannot remember off the top of my head, a statement like "If you want to know how good of a pianist you will be, tell me how much time you spend practicing the scales."

 

To relate back to the question of "leads", it isn't so much "lead guitar" as a new guitarist might think. An ambition to become a "lead guitar player" is more a product of the modern popular music "group" approach to performance I think. At one time, I was the "rhythm guitar" with an R&R band. My work performing was interrupted and when I came back, nobody used a rhythm player...so I became a bass player (not being "lead guitarist" material! ).

 

I guess what I am saying is that a lead guitar player (and don't take this wrong anyone, it's more of a definition type thing, OK?) would be less abled than a talented jazz guitarist because the jazz guitarist has a broader conception of theory and structure and is able to use those skills in his/her performance. In other words, I suspect that a well trained jazz musician can more easily sit in with a rock group and replace the lead guitar than an R&R lead player could sit in with a jazz ensemble.

 

There are R&R (is the term "R&R" becoming dated?) lead guitar players, Robt. Fripp comes to mind, that are undoubtably jazz musicians in disguise as rockers. I'm not so sure it's possible for a jazz musician to work in R&R and not give themselves away.

 

What I've just written starts to become pretty stupid sounding though in light of the fact that any instrumentalist has his strengths. In the performance setting, it's the smart musician that employs their strengths to make the ensemble sound good. It's the egotist that stands up front and blows with little regard to what his contribution to the music is. But then, some egotists become stars!!!

[whitefang]

And just what, Ted, does all of that have to do with someone wanting to know why some people feel lead guitar solos are essential to a rock 'n' roll tune? We all really went off on a tangent, didn't we?

 

But Jimi is ALWAYS a good topic when talking anything guitar-related. Jimi DID know his blues!

He didn't do too much of anything original, as much as he found original ways of doing what was there. He cracked open what could be done with music on his turf the way Pollack redefined the medium of abstract. I don't really know how true the legend is of a tape exsisting with a jam session of Hendrix and John McGlaughlin, but it would seem that John, without copying any licks, managed to find the groove Jimi was traveling. Jazz WAS headed towards Jimi, Ted.

Miles saw the writing on the wall, and did his best to get us to read it, too. If not for the exploration of chord applications by the Beatles, Hendrix and those "progressive rock" groups like ELP and Yes, to mention a VERY few, rock music today would still sound like Bill Haley and the Comets. He was fine for his time, and I still dig those old tunes, but he never really GREW!

If not for the curiosity of the people I mentioned, MY curiosity might have stagnated, and I would have had no idea who you were talking about when you brought up DeBussy. Funny how I am able to decipher all this without knowing the technical dynamics, and hear what you heard without a professor to discuss it with. But thank you for the articulation. I wouldn't have known quite how to express it.

 

Whitefang

[henryrobinett]

There are a lot of jazz bass players who are disguised as R&R musicians. I knew this more in the metal, spandex days. It IS harder for a good jazz guitarist to hide himself in R&R without giving himself away. I fit in this category. I've played in many R&R, R&B groups but I could never contain myself and frankly I think I got those gigs because people liked the "flash". But I could play convincingly because I loved the music. I just played way too many notes and too many funny ones as well.

 

I do know some pros who can hide the fact, not from their bandmates, but from the audience. And I do think it's true that it's easier for a trained jazz musician to walk in and play a R&R gig than a R&R musician to play a jazz gig. It would be near impossible. But that doesn't mean the jazz musician will do a good or convincing job of it. More than likely it will sound like a "jazz musician playing rock" which sucks. Learning a style is almost as difficult has learning to play. But if you take it seriously it can be done.

 

There are plenty of jazz snobs who feel their music is superior and that they can play anything. Technically speaking this may be true; they may be able to negotiate the chord changes quickly, pick up lines and solo with little to no rehearsal - even get a sound, but in reality sound really, really bad.

[Steve LeBlanc]

I also use parenthesis too much when I write.

So do I Sylver

 

Hanging out with a variety of musicians especially the young 'unspoiled' ones helps me to keep my ego/snobbish side in check. When I see a kid like my Nephew just naturally make music without the usual hangups it's really inspiring.

 

I've also been lucky to have played with some really insane musicians (some famous) who humbled me to the point where I could never really be 'comfortable' again...I know I'm good but I also really know there's guys who are as good and better at a lot of things.

 

 

FWIW...I post some really snobbish stuff too...like when I bag on Clapton...it's all in fun though...in reality I obviously have a lot of respect for him as a musician.

[Tusker]

Music started when some gal/guy started banging something and yelling along to it. Or maybe she yelled first.. or banged first I dunno.

 

So for me melody and rhythm are primal. So is vocal emulation (a singing tone).

 

Primal doesn't have to rule all the time though I guess it becomes important whenever music gets in a rut and musicians re-assess priorities.

 

Personally, I am looking for a human/animal tone. I want to learn to talk. I am not referring to the stereotypical cry-baby wah though to me that's a good example of a primal tone.

 

Jerry

[nc]

Still with us, Ingrid ?

This is an informative discussion (especially the exchanges of Henry R. & Ted N.) but I think we all should remember something Louis Armstrong said (oh,cripes another quote): "There's two kinds of music---good and bad." (or was that Ellington...?).

Either way, the point's the same---like everything , music is dualistic; it's good/bad, popular/elitist, excessively florid/overly simple,....

More than anything, it's a matter of opinion.You (or "they") like it or you don't...and sometimes that's all you can say.

[henryrobinett]

Originally posted by NC-17:

More than anything, it's a matter of opinion.You (or "they") like it or you don't...and sometimes that's all you can say.

Man is that ever true and a hard one to swallow for musicians who spend their whole lives studying and cultivating their taste. It's all very subjective. Still I think there is such a thing as "great". I have my thoughts about that but another time and perhaps place.

 

I'm sorry for diverting this topic. I have a tendency to do this.

 

I think the role of guitar has changed several times in popular music, especially with the role of "lead" guitar. The great lead guitar soloists coincidentally occurred around the same time drugs became more mainstream. A lot of weed, acid ,etc. all seemed to go along with extended guitar jams with great musicians who could actually sustain a spaced out audience. But R&R was still trying out it's wings and had not become a huge corporate monster. All that would begin to change around the time of Frampton and the first multi-platinum. All the record companies wanted to duplicate that. It was no longer a question of finding that "indefinable" talent, like Jimi Hendrix or Janis Joplin. A modern label wouldn't know what to do if one of those walked in their offices. Probably demand they do P-Diddy or J-Lo.

 

But then guitar bands sprung all over the place and each guitarist thought they had the talent to sustain a spaced out audience for extended periods like Jimi did. Born was the enormously egotistical, overbearing and somewhat less than talented blowhard lead guitarist. Pissed everybody off. Everyone that is but trumpet players and drummers who now were pleased because suddenly there was someone else who could take their place as the most obnoxious musician in the band.

 

Producers hated us because we guitarists insisted that our audience was there because of our guitar virtuosity and the producer, under pressure from the label, couldn't deal wih another lame, extended 3 minute guitar solo on the album. "It's about songs stupid!" Born then were the keyboard-hair bands, shunning guitar, except the odd rhythm chank, which whenever possible were sampled. But realized also was the pure artistry of brilliantly executed rhythm. May not be the spotlight, but that was rightly reserved for the lead SINGER.

 

So in my mind by the turn of the late 70s the guitar solo or importance of the lead guitar was greatly diminished. Many of the hardlined guitar soloists tried to turn their attention to fusion where they really put the nail in the coffin.

[Tedly Nightshade]

Well Henry, first off let me say I'm enjoying the discussion very much.

 

"By that time [the 60's] jazz musicians were already into poly-tonality, poly modality and way beyond the upper extensions and altered tones of the bebop era.

 

Lordy, Ellington was doing poly-tonal and poly-modal (that's just playing in two keys or scales at once, for the R&R crowd) in the 20's! And you bet he was listening to Debussy- listen to Black Beauty, one of his piano solos, or anything for that matter. Debussy was listening to early jazz, early jazz was listening to Debussy, no mistake there.

 

Hendrix is very polytonal right off the first record. If soloing in one key or mode while the band plays in another is polytonal, which I do think it is. The bass is riffing away in minor pentatonic land while the guitar is in major pentatonic, lydian, mixolydian, up ringing the extensions, 7ths, 9ths, 11ths, and good lord, the man is playing all kinds of notes that do not exist at all on a piano! Microtonal stuff!

Is that not polymodal? Polytonal?

 

The blues has always been polymodal.

Hanging African pentatonic melodies over a chromatic piano is not just polymodal but major world fusion.

Billy Strayhorn was a Debussy man before he ever met Duke, back in the 20's. This is just not debateable!

 

What I meant about Hendrix doing for guitar what Coltrane did for the saxophone is about pulling every concievable tone out of the thing and getting it to talk like people and elephants. Making the instrument do things it was not designed to do, on the sax playing chords and raucous squeals, you know what on the guitar, the microtonal stuff on both instruments. These guys were on the same quest, different axes, and both liked their LSD!

 

Nat Hentoff in his Coltrane biography comes to the same conclusion, Jimi was the only guy to step up to Coltrane's work and run with it. He also wonders why jazz guitarists play as if their axes were only capable of one tone? Distressing thought- so do most of the horn players now!

 

I think it's curious to wind back around to the "lead" thing from Coltrane, who insisted on playing chords on a instrument normally thought only capable of single notes. Yes, the guy played hourlong solos, and Miles was right!

 

Great to bring up Miles Davis, old Selim Sivad: This guy played next to Bird every night, and he deliberately chose to neglect his own chops and technique and pursue all the aspects of music that Bird neglected, bandleading, writing elegant to the point memorable tunes, dynamics, arrangements, he was the ultimate ensemble player, and a model of musical economy. As Miles muttered to Winton Marsalis, "If it weren't for me you guys would still be playing 'Flight of the Bumblebee!'"

 

Which I think is the point- there's a lot more to music than scathing 16th note runs, and an integrated wholistic approach that includes all aspects of a complete musical experience is called for. No, it's not all about leads.

Ted