-
so many examples - i just heard this and i'm lost for words
- maybe not actually - here are some words:
this level of rhythmical intensity has hardly ever been reached in the music before or since. as soon as ANY rock or latin influence structures the time-framework of the music - THIS feel is lost. other feels are opened up - but its totally obvious to me that those other feels are NOWHERE near as INTENSE as this.
its like he's ripping at the structure of the universe in every single bar (and this is a ballad - not 'tempus fugit' etc.)
8000 hits on youtube - i bet there is not a single methaney take on youtube (that's been up for a while) with that few hits
and this is not an exercise in 'looking backwards rather than forwards' - whatever is in the future of the music - if its good - it will involve re-learning how to generate this sort of rhythmical intensity despite what rock and other non-swinging music forms have done to the music. if we're jazz musicians we need nothing more than our sense of time to tell us that this playing is timelessly significant.
Last edited by Groyniad; 01-16-2016 at 07:52 AM.
-
01-16-2016 07:45 AM
-
I love Bud Powell when he was "on". His lines were like spicy butter (the stuff you get at ritzy restaurants) through harmony.
This cut is really, really interesting and shows that bud wasn't JUST listening to jazz:
Listen to that intro!
And I heard that he was also into Bach?
Interesting exercise, listen to Monk comp and then listen to Bud comp. Notice anything. Jeb Patton's book got me hip to that, and it proves that they really dug each other. Their comping is the idea of shell voicings, but not the way we guitarists learned them (those are guide tone voicings from what Jeb taught me, I wish I had the money to study with him more continuously...). Bud and Monk used Root-7th or Root-3rd or even 3rd-5th shells in the left hand. They aren't that bad on the guitar, and help emphasize inner movement really well.
The one pet peeve about Bud... Well, he was a tortured human being (very much so...) and seemed to deal with his problems with weed and alcohol. On many recordings, his timing and phrasing are totally off because he wasn't "on" that night. That makes him more relate-able (in a different time and a different world, I think we woulda been friends. That's just a fantasy I have
), but I remember when I first looked him up and happened upon a "bad" recording. I didn't understand why everyone loved his playing. But, if you find the good stuff (The Amazing Bud Powel, Vol. 2 is FANTASTIC!) then you realize what all the talk is about.
Last edited by Irez87; 01-16-2016 at 08:14 AM.
-
I'm interested in the idea of the shell diads - obviously the 10ths thing came from an evolution of stride piano, perhaps the sevenths thing too (I would need to quiz a pianist about this.) You can hear on Bud (and Monks) solo stuff that they still have one foot in the stride thing, compared to their successors.
Obviously this sort of thing is useful for the guitar.
-
You've summed up a lot of how I feel.
Originally Posted by Groyniad
In my opinion time/feel has devolved in the past few decades.
Let me be clear: I think while people still can have very good time (Rosenwinkel etc) - and complex rhythmic ideas, the actual quality of time/feel has devolved in the past few decades TBH when you compare it not only to the highest level (Bud, Bird etc) but even the run of the mill jazz player or singer from that era. The intuitive combination of duple and triple meter and so on, the colouring of simple rhythms with other flavours and so on.
This had a knock on effect into other, more commercial areas of Black music. I can't help but think of Jamerson here.
The spicy butter think is interesting, Irez, because I always think of this quality as grease.
(Caveat: It's very subjective, so of course I open myself to the possibility that I am looking at history through rose tinted specs - also while Rosenwinkel doesn't have it as much as Bud, he has it more than me, so what do I know? :-))
The reason I think? Too much jazz education, not enough gigs playing jazz with experienced jazz musicians. More the fault of the latter, but an academic style of jazz education doesn't help.
It's a difficult problem to solve... It's tough to be out every night playing jazz (unless you are Reg. Actually Reg's time/feel is a case in point - how do you get that greasy? Not from a book.) The college system has stepped in to fill the gap left by the old experiential ways of learning, whereas a few decades back it was in addition to those methods.
Now young musicians are often bored by straight ahead gigs (because they aren't swinging) and focus on originals projects (where they don't have to swing) so the situation perpetuates itself.
The solution? Not easy. Perhaps the world is changed and that's all there is to it. Music doesn't have to swing. But I think Mike Longo is onto something. I would like to see his ideas tried by more people, so we can get a discussion going on it, but I think the fact that you have to pay (understandably), and that Longo is not well known counts against that. People would rather pay money for something well known....
Also - I bet Bud didn't practice with a metronome.... Does anyone know?Last edited by christianm77; 01-16-2016 at 10:13 AM.
-
Big Bud Powell fan here. Some of my favourite Powell is in the sessions with Sonny Stitt. By all accounts the two men did not get on and the tension draws out some of Powell's firiest playing.
An hour spent reading through Ethan Iverson's four excellent articles on Powell is a lunch break well spent and I tend to trust his opinion about what is worth checking out: Bud's Birthday - Do The Math
I've just finished reading 'Dance of the Infidels' by Francis Paudras, who housed and cared for Powell during his years in Paris. Not without it's flaws, but certainly a must-read for anyone interested in Powell.Last edited by David B; 01-16-2016 at 10:59 AM.
-
The person to talk to about Powell's left hand (Monk's too) would undoubtedly be Barry Harris. Barry is very clear about how he likes the piano to be played and Powell and Monk are the touchstones. He himself will rarely play more than two notes in the left hand, as he says here: Originally Posted by Irez87
I don't hear much similarity between Powell and Monk's left hands. Monk is much heavier in the left hand.
-
You could say that :-) Originally Posted by David B
-
barry harris is like another bud powell. on some of the most famous dexter gordon albums - after years of listening - its barry harris that steals the show. he swings less hard than bp- but he never lets up.
the thing about this topic that gets me is that its impossible to understand how jazz musicians could come to forget how this stuff feels - and how important it is that it feels this way. its the whole point of the music - to feel that way. so there's never going to be any jazz point in getting really good or playing in a really fresh and original way if that way doesn't involve generating this feel. if its not a way of generating that kind of rhythmical interest why are jazz musicians trying to do it?
and swing - in this fundamental sense - is something louis armstrong shares with billie holiday and charlie parker and lester young and fats waller and bill evans and clifford brown and sonny rollins - and you wouldn't want to try to SAY what that is. but that's okay - because you don't have to or want to. the important thing is to feel it and get into it - and maybe DO it too.
-
Bud's main problem was the police beating up Bud and causing brain damage. He was never the same after that. Originally Posted by Irez87
The one pet peeve about Bud... Well, he was a tortured human being (very much so...) and seemed to deal with his problems with weed and alcohol. On many recordings, his timing and phrasing are totally off because he wasn't "on" that night. That makes him more relate-able (in a different time and a different world, I think we woulda been friends. That's just a fantasy I have), but I remember when I first looked him up and happened upon a "bad" recording. I didn't understand why everyone loved his playing. But, if you find the good stuff (The Amazing Bud Powel, Vol. 2 is FANTASTIC!) then you realize what all the talk is about.Last edited by docbop; 01-16-2016 at 10:12 PM.
-
and swing has almost no connection to complex polyrhythms or obscure time signatures or anything difficult like that. so how rhythmically clever in this sense methaney or rosenwinkel et. al. are is not relevant. breaking up the time a lot and making it so its generally hard to feel the pulse is not conducive to swing.
when ray brown plays 4 in the bar on his own - it swings hard.
you wouldn't want to do an analysis of that which identified a series of complex rhythmical patterns he was playing (plotted on a map of a bar divided into 128 sub-beats - like you'd have to if you were trying to program it into a drum machine). he is playing 4 in the bar - full stop. but when he does that he makes it feel good.
and in a totally different way than the way paul chambers or scot lafaro makes 4 feel good.
playing with a certain kind of triplet feel (like - say - billie holiday) is possibly a crucial ingredient. (and if you want to call this polyrhythmic then fine)Last edited by Groyniad; 01-16-2016 at 02:28 PM.
-
Originally Posted by Groyniad
Swing is one of those overloaded words. When I was coming up we Groove was our word for musicians with great time and feel, but then started hanging around older musicians and hearing them talk about Swing and I would think of Swing Big Bands, but later realized when I heard them talk about other styles and current musicians Swing was their word for talking about musicians with great time and feel. So Swing Metheny and others all swing in their own way or style.
-
I've always been interested in the way that Tal Farlow and Eddie Costa seemed to have taken Bud Powell as their main influence in the 50s.
Farlow was my main influence at first, but then I changed to Costa, who was always described as strongly influenced by Powell, although I felt that he did something different than Powell.
Other musicians whose time conception spoke to me very strongly were Phineas Newborn, Phil Woods, Jimmy Raney, Bird, Stitt, Wes, Clark Terry, early Rollins, Oscar Peterson in the 60s, Bill Evans, Cannonball, and many others whom I can't think of now.
They all seemed to have had the influence of Bud and Bird in common, along with technical mastery of their instruments.
Up to the 60s, the only thing that separated these players from others was influence from the Swing period in jazz.
Someone like Joe Pass, seemed to have one foot in the Swing period, and one foot in the 'modern jazz' period.
Jimmy Raney described Joe Pass as sounding like 'Bird, all straightened out'.
In the 60s, Trane's influence took the music further away from Bird's time/melodic/harmonic conception, and then the more funk influenced players (Benson, Turrentine, etc...), took the music yet further away from Bird.
Today, it seems that the people who are awarded the most prestigious recognition, Vijay Iver, Fred Hersch, etc... have little to do with Bud or Bird.
I'm currently obsessed with reading books about the start of 'modern jazz' (bop), such as "Swing To Bop" and Dizzy's autobiography "To Be or Not To Bop" to trace the roots of the break from the Swing Period.
-
Cannonball! I love Cannonball! He swings those bop lines like no other!
-
I hate to say this, but I saw Julian Lage live for the first time this morning at WinterJazzFest. The set before was an all woman band with Alison Miller on drums. They set that stage on FIRE! I wanted to get up and dance, and my fiancee loved the band as well.
Then Julian started playing. He sounded great and interesting.
But I felt bad because I just wasn't into it. In fact, I almost fell asleep and I really dig what Julian does musically. That drive and rhythm of the previous band just wasn't there at all. Maybe it was the lack of vocals, or maybe it was it was a guitar trio (I often find those to be boring with even the best of players). Maybe it was the disconnect between stage and audience?
Does that make me a hack? I feel the same way about Joe Pass. His solo guitar stuff sounds... I don't like it. But pair him with Ella and all of a sudden Joe's ear for harmony turns his guitar into an orchestra.
So I hear you all about the lack of a feel. A bassist that I was studying with taught me to focus on my quarter note feel and to really dig into the groove when soloing as well.
This music should make us wanna dance. Great bebop can still make you wanna dance. A lot of the more modern jazz of today doesn't... But I still like a lot of it. But at a concert... I wanna get that feeling, you know?
I wanna get up get on up!
-
Originally Posted by Irez87
As to Julian Lage I think he's going too many directions these days so sound isn't as from the gut as when he was sticking to basically one style.
As to danceable it doesn't matter some music is for dancing and some isn't and I'd say more Jazz isn't danceable that is. Swing was about being danceable, Bop wasn't, some of the 60's Jazz was danceable for awhile, since then danceable Jazz comes and goes. All that matter is the music is really Jazz, is interesting, and played with emotion.
-
Dude you're becoming the Wynton Marsalis of this group. Originally Posted by Groyniad
Bird, Diz, all these guys, were shaking up the music scene, doing stuff that lots of people hated because it wasn't the jazz they were used to hearing. Louis Armstrong despised bebop. Many people thought the players we now idolize were destroying jazz.
Now we treat them as canonic. We have turned them into Louis Armstrong and the pre-bop players who rejected bop. They were revolutionary in their art.
I'm not saying that means we ought to forget them and embrace the musicians you are cracking on, but I think their sympathies would be more with Pat Metheny than with people who would freeze jazz in its 1958 form and just swing like Bud Powell until the apocalypse.
Pat Metheny is every bit the musician and jazz player that Bird or Bud were. He chooses to move from his base in jazz toward different horizons. I like the guys you like, but I've grown to love Pat Metheny, Scofield, and some of these contemporary cats precisely because they shake me up the way Bird shook up Louis Armstrong.
So I'm torn a bit. I love the guys you hold up as exemplars, but I think your taking a traditionalist conservative approach toward the art that is ultimately destructive of the art itself.
Jazz itself is more important than swinging hard.
-
I'm a fan too, but why single out Bud when there were so many other great players : Originally Posted by Groyniad
Hank Jones, Bill Evans, Oscar Petersen, Sonny Clarke, Cedar Walton, Kenny Drew, Winton Kelly, Harold Mabern, Horace Parlan....
Whereas no one really surpassed Bird, I'm not so sure the same can be said for poor old Bud....?
-
Bud had a severe mental disorder--was on meds and received electroconvulsive therapy for schizophrenia, but I am always suspicious of that diagnosis, especially when made more than 50 years ago. Bipolar disease is just as likely in my opinion.
There were also the effects of alcohol and heroin and the very strong sedatives used to treat his mental disorder, which had many side effects. He had several head injuries--one from police, and one from a bar alteration--could he have had a seizure disorder as a result of the brain injury?
And Powell had tuberculosis, which contributed to his death at an early age. Add all these together, and it makes for a complicated medical picture.
As far as "swinging" Bud and many if not most of his contemporaries had very little formal musical education, at least as far as jazz goes. (Bud's father was a stride pianist.) They often played bars and clubs at very early ages, and imitated the sounds they heard and people they saw. The result was they were immersed in the blues and gospel and street rhythms.
Modern players have a very different experience because the club circuit (and chitlin circuit for more RNB players) isn't there, and there are actually formal jazz studies. And they are exposed to all kinds of pop music influences, not just one type. (Not to digress too much, but prior to Presley and Chuck Berry music was much more strictly demarcated--RNB people didn't listen to country, and vice versa.)
Regardless of background, some players seem to favor rhythm over anything else--swing harder--and some take a more intellectual approach. Powell was a rare artist who played from both sides of the spectrum.Last edited by Doctor Jeff; 01-17-2016 at 11:57 AM.
-
That doesn't feel true to me, Doc. Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
What are you basing that idea on?
Interested.
Thanks.
-
Bipolar is nothing compared to the other problems. Just the brain damage from the drugs and alcohol tends to screw things up. Originally Posted by Doctor Jeff
-
And who would they be? Originally Posted by lawson-stone
Name some names of people doing that.
-
I don't think the analogy of people like, Metheny and others to Bird and Diz works. Originally Posted by lawson-stone
Metheny, Scofield, and others like Miles Davis, Cannonball Adderly,Chuck Mangione, and even Dizzy himself in the 70s, realized that they couldn't reach a wider audience by playing jazz in the style of Bud Powell or Bird, so they incorporated other types of music that had a wider appeal.
Bird, Bud and Diz, in the 1940s, were not trying to reach a wider audience; they were adding aspects such as virtuosity, more involved harmony, and a less pronounced beat to jazz, that actually resulted in it appealing to fewer people than Swing, because they couldn't dance to it.
Ironically, George Benson, in his autobiography, comes to the conclusion suggested to him by one of his fans, that Charlie Parker destroyed jazz(in the book's final pages), so we've seemed to come full circle.
-
Up until the late 50's music record sales and radio audiences were pretty strictly segregated by race. They called RNB "race records" and C&W "hillbilly records". There was virtually no crossover. There weren't a lot of white guys in bebop-style jazz either at that point, and very, very few mixed bands. So jazz artists like Louis Armstrong and Bud Powell and Charlie Parker had one kind of experience, and Bix Beiderbecke, Benny Goodman and Stan Getz another, much more bourgeois experience. Originally Posted by Lazz
My point is that now a young musician gets exposed to and can choose from any genre, and can have pretty much any influence. That was not always the case.
-
Re' Powell's mental disorder from what little I've read it sounds legit and pretty serious--Axis I. However, when I did psychiatry rotations in med school and residency I was taught that you can't really diagnose a mental illness accurately til you get the person off drugs and alcohol.
That said, many, many mentally ill people in the past and today self-medicate with drugs and alcohol, and I imagine that was the case with Powell.
-
Rockabilly. Chuck loved country and Elvis loved black music. Berry kind of considered himself a country artist. Nobody else did. Originally Posted by Lazz
Reply With Quote
PSA: Guitar Fetish parts
Today, 12:06 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos