dlloyd

[quote name='velvetkevorkian' post='482543' date='May 7 2009, 10:47 PM']If you want to do an "academic" music course at uni (ie classical analysis oriented) the ABRSM theory grades are worth going through. Anything else I'd say it really doesn't matter- there's not enough of a consensus in "popular" music styles about the different graded exams to make them worthwhile IMO.[/quote] Yep, the ABRSM grades are great. I did the clarinet grades and theory grades in the 1980s. Trinity and LCM also do classical grades that are as highly regarded.

[quote name='Telebass' post='482494' date='May 7 2009, 09:41 PM']Want to learn some, or all if I can![/quote] Start off with Autumn Leaves in Gm. Get the version on Cannonball Adderley's Something Else and learn the bassline on that. Once you've got that down, you'll understand both major and minor ii-V-I progressions, which are key to understanding jazz tunes.

Transcribe the original bassline. Then look for other versions of the same tune and do it again. Those are tricky tunes for a first attempt at jazz.

Here's an interesting article on the causes of the decline in jazz. [url="http://www.jazzwax.com/2008/06/what-killed-jaz.html"]http://www.jazzwax.com/2008/06/what-killed-jaz.html[/url]

[quote name='liamcapleton' post='481377' date='May 6 2009, 08:16 PM']That's the biggest mistake of the whole quote.[/quote] It's a gross simplification for sure, but the fact is that jazz no longer appealed to the masses. Rock and roll was part of the equation, but obviously wasn't the whole story.

[quote name='Cornfedapache' post='481297' date='May 6 2009, 06:29 PM']Blimey... A muso argument![/quote] Not really.

[quote name='Kongo' post='480553' date='May 5 2009, 11:53 PM']I kinda wondered where Musicman's head was at when not only did they discontinue the SUB but then OLP went out of buisness too...[/quote] They were losing money on the SUB and OLP QC was too variable in the cheaper models.

[quote name='rslaing' post='480506' date='May 5 2009, 11:07 PM']Would you tell me which present day jazz artists have a "paint by numbers" approach leading to worthless music? Thanks[/quote] I'm talking more about an educational approach. An example would be the Aebersold chord/scale method. It's attractive specifically because it breaks music down into a formula that is, initially at least, simple to understand. But the temptation is to take the initial concept and develop it by learning more and more scales rather than by developing a strong melodic sense. Probably inevitable given the limitations of learning jazz from a book.

I really enjoyed listening to Sean's band. He's got a skewed view of what jazz is from reading about it on bass players' forums. Jazz used to be fun, it used to be dance music. It became more of an intellectual pursuit during the 1940s/50s when bebop musicians realised there were some neat theoretical tools to add dissonance to dominant chords. That in itself wasn't a bad thing... But when rock and roll appeared and people stopped listening to jazz, lots of people found themselves out of work and it (the first real 'American' artform) got preserved as a university course. One that was largely taught by those who never got bebop in the first place. We've ended up with a formulaic, paint by numbers approach to jazz that's pretty convenient to describe in magazines and on discussion forums, but which does indeed lead to worthless music.

[quote name='rslaing' post='480349' date='May 5 2009, 08:31 PM']Apologies, I should have made myself a little clearer. When artistic bipolar individuals are at their most productive, it is normally because they are hypomanic ( a bipolar II effect) , and have a semblance of reason to varying degrees. Hypomania can produce extensive periods of heightened creativity, and so can not so serious episodes of mild to moderate depression. An episode of bipolar I is not normally very productive, because as you suggest being "full blown" is generally when ALL reason and sensibility disappears and the sufferer tends to go on a course of self destruction.[/quote] Bipolar I and II are diagnoses rather than symptoms, but yeah... mania is much like hypomania but with the added benefit of full blown psychosis. Not nice. Most Bipolar I 'sufferers' usually experience hypomanic episodes, but get the odd manic episode (which Bipolar II doesn't involve). And of course, you get the flip side as well. Crappy illness, even if it has moments of brilliance.

[quote name='rslaing' post='480329' date='May 5 2009, 08:08 PM']Many great musicians and artists produced their best work (and their worst) because they were mentally ill - particularly if bipolar II (as we know it now).[/quote] Bipolar I. Jaco went full blown on a number of occassions. [quote]Not least because when hypomanic, they slept less and were able to produce an inordinate amount of work as a result of their "abnormal" creative instinct.[/quote] There is that, plus hypomania can make you compulsively driven to achieve particular goals. Some of which can be infuriatingly stupid.

[quote name='rslaing' post='480308' date='May 5 2009, 07:50 PM']Pastorius reckons that his superior skill (and he wasn't shy in mentioning consistently that he was the "greatest bass player in the world" - perhaps he wouldn't think so if he was around today)[/quote] He probably would... vastly inflated self esteem/delusions of grandeur are part and parcel of hypomanic episodes. The guy was ill. [url="http://www.webmd.com/bipolar-disorder/guide/hypomania-mania-symptoms"]http://www.webmd.com/bipolar-disorder/guid...-mania-symptoms[/url]

[quote name='endorka' post='480268' date='May 5 2009, 07:07 PM']Are they not the same thing, just to different degrees? For example, one may be able to sight read a gig where the music is relatively simple (or familiar in style), but have to prepare more complex music (or music in an unfamiliar style) in advance?[/quote] Yes.

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='480102' date='May 5 2009, 05:10 PM']Don't get me wrong, learning too much theory (and I include learning to read in this) sends you down a path of jazz-w***ery.[/quote] You need a bit more than that.

[quote name='Twigman' post='480066' date='May 5 2009, 04:35 PM']1/18th notes will be semiquaver triplets in 6/8 time[/quote] No they wouldn't. The number of notes in the bar is only relevant in common time and, even then triplets etc. don't affect the naming.

[quote name='maxrossell' post='479791' date='May 5 2009, 12:12 PM']Well sure, I agree with you there. What I find interesting here is that theoretically at least, not reading music isn't the only way to limit yourself as a musician. Depending on how you look at it, there are hundreds of separate skills that anyone could learn as a musician, and from that basis you could argue that someone who doesn't know one of them is more limited than someone who does. You look hard enough at [i]any[/i] musician, I guess you could find something that they haven't learned that many others have.[/quote] I don't think you'd have to look that hard.

[quote name='maxrossell' post='479776' date='May 5 2009, 11:50 AM']This is the thing, though - the key here is that they [i]offer[/i] the degrees. By the time you get to university, you're supposed (in theory at least) to be smart enough to decide for [i]yourself[/i] what you want or need to learn, not to have it told to you like you're some thirteen-year-old who would rather be playing XBox than be there at all. Not that I picked the course specifically because it [i]didn't[/i] require standard notation, but had I wanted the course to force me to do it, there were others i could have chosen. And as I've oft repeated, the course I took did [i]offer[/i] standard notation training. Despite what some people here might say, it's entirely possible to be a functional, successful professional musician without knowing how to read standard notation. The course I took takes that into account. And ultimately, the fact that I didn't learn standard notation while on the course pales into insignificance compared to the massively useful professional skills I [i]did[/i] learn - which some others have been alarmingly quick to dismiss as being about as useful as knitting.[/quote] I can't think of anything in music that's as useful as knitting.

[quote name='maxrossell' post='479772' date='May 5 2009, 11:38 AM']But you've not contradicted what I've said. I'm not claiming that ALL readers think that everyone should have to read, and similarly I don't think [i]anyone[/i] genuinely has the viewpoint that there is some sort of [i]benefit[/i] to not reading.[/quote] Okay, your post wasn't clear. [quote]What I'm saying is that some of the non-readers are saying that it doesn't bother them that they don't read, and some of the most vociferious advocates of reading have made comments along the lines of you can't be a genuinely good musician if you don't read. That's what I seem to be getting from this argument.[/quote] I think the argument is that refusing to learn to read [i]can[/i] deny you some opportunities for expanding your horizons as a musician, so learning to read is a logical step if you want to avoid limiting yourself. Being 'limited' as a musician isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[quote name='maxrossell' post='479750' date='May 5 2009, 11:15 AM']So basically what we've established here is that there are people who don't read music, see no reason for them personally to read music and enjoy themselves fine, progress, even have decent (sometimes brilliant) careers without reading music. And on the other hand, we have people who do read music and think that you can't ever progress beyond mediocrity without reading music. And who illustrate this point by dismissing everything that non-readers have ever achieved as mediocre, in one case dismissing entire genres as not requiring any musical skill. Correct me if I'm wrong here.[/quote] You're wrong, as is anyone who presents this as a polarised issue. I'm pretty comfortable at reading. My sight reading for bass isn't stunning, as I don't use it often enough, but it's not terrible, and I'm pretty good at sight reading on other instruments. But far too many of the musicians who I consider 'great' were non-readers for me to dismiss non-readers out of hand. But I don't think any convincing argument can be made that they were 'great' [i]because[/i] they couldn't read, or that their 'greatness' is reasonable justification for having illiteracy as an aspiration.

I agree 100% that the ability to read is crucial if you want to pursue a course of academic study in music. I think it's bizarre that there are Universities that are offering degrees in music where reading is not compulsary... again, no personal slight intended towards Max. But I cannot regard reading music as an absolutely necessary tool for a popular musician, nor a fundamental requirement for being a 'great musician'. There's too many examples of musical greats who could not read or who had limited reading skills, particularly amongst guitarists and bass guitarists, even those famous for playing jazz (since jazz almost inevitably gets dragged into any discussion of theory on popular music forums). Django Reinhardt, Wes Montgomery and Charlie Christian were all musically illiterate, and I can't imagine any way you could question their greatness as musicians and retain credibility.

As an interesting side note, here's part of a BB King interview, where he talks about the importance of reading music... [quote]S Do you read music? BB Yes... S Do you think it's important to read music in the latest... BB Of course, of course I'll tell you to give you a little for instance, I'm not a fast sight reader, I read, ah to give you my little for instance I was in France a few years ago and I met a lady, a very pretty lady, and I didn't speak French, she didn't speak English so I had a friend that spoke French. So I would tell him what to tell the lady and then she would reply and he would tell me. And I went back the next year and she was married. So today parlay vu Franca. Yeah I do understand some words and I speak too, but I'm trying to say the same thing about the music. One should learn to...it took me a long time because I had no formal music education. Everything I've learned I'm self-taught, so I'm still...its very important that one should learn to read. If not sight read fast, at least read, and if you are able to do so, for instance I usually tell the guys I've made records with various people you know as a back ground musician from time to time, so I usually say give me my thought tonight,______________ But all of my guys, all the guys they can, their sight-readers, everybody is a good written musician except me. S Now you were ______________ probably about my age and... BB No I wasn' t______________ and I'm sixty-one. S Well when I was a kid we at that time too we didn't think we needed to read music. We learned to read later on BB but I think its kind of weird, people usually will say to you as a blues musician, they will say oh man you don't need to read music, then they talk about you if you don't. No they really do and I got angry about that, ah people used to tell me, oh man the blues, you don't have to do that for the blues, and they when I would play a theater, like the Michigan Theater here, oh man its B.B. King man that's blues man you ought to be able to play so you can cut the smoke with a knife. I don't even smoke, so I don't want nobody cutting smoke out, so to me it seemed a downer, they put you down, so I say to me B.B. King maybe you won't have to read but learn anyway. S That's the strange thing about young people, and you could also qualify for those big jobs where you would have to read and write or get dumped. BB I know I probably wouldn't even be able to get those. But I think that it's important, I think the one thing that I've thought about a lot since I've had a band, I've been carrying my own band since 56. And before that I worked with various and luckily from the beginning I've always had a hit record and most times I was always featured, I've always been featured I've never worked in the rhythm section, never have and I've wanted to so much. And every time I get in the rhythm section because I usually have a record out, somebody will say play Three O'clock Blues, play Sweet Sixteen or something like this and a fear of me playing the rhythm section, today I'm a horrible, horrible rhythm player, I just cannot play very well.[/quote]

[quote name='rslaing' post='479581' date='May 5 2009, 12:24 AM']Hendrix - innovative different, and talented, but not necessarily a great musician. Big difference. It's also a question of taste. Miles Davis actually said he once wasted a whole afternoon with Hendrix talking about varying aspects of his musicality because Hendrix could not translate his musical attributes in to words or the written detail. Hendrix admitted after this that he wished he had a greater understanding of what he was able to produce so that he could explain himself in a better way instead of having to sing or play his ideas to get the message over in a non playing scenario.[/quote] It's interesting that you brought up Miles Davis. The only quote I've ever found from him about Hendrix is this one, in which he talks about other musicians he considers 'great' despite the fact they can't read... [quote]I first met Jimi when his manager called up and wanted me to introduce him to the way I was playing and putting my music together. Jimi liked what I had done on Kind of Blue and some other stuff and wanted to add more jazz elements to what he was doing. He liked the way Coltrane played with all those other sheets of sound, and he played the guitar in a similar way. Plus, he said that he heard the guitar voicing that I used in the way I played the trumpet. So we started getting together... He was a real nice guy, quiet but intense, and was nothing like people thought he was. He was just the opposite of the wild and crazy image he presented on the stage. When we started getting together and talking about music, I found out that he couldn't read music. Betty (Mabry) had a party for him sometime in 1969 at my house on West 77th. I couldn't be there because I had to be in the studio that night recording, so I left some music for him to read and then we'd talk about it later. (Some people wrote some sh*t that I didn't come to the party for him because I didn't like having a party for a man in my house. That's a lot of bullshit.) When I called back home from the studio to speak to Jimi about the music I had left him, I found out he didn't read music. There are a lot of great musicians who don't read music - black and white - that I have known and respected and played with. So I didn't think less of Jimi because of that. Jimi was just a great, natural musician - self taught. He would pick up things from whoever he was around, and he picked up things quick. Once he heard it he really had it down. We would be talking, and I would be telling him technical sh*t like, "Jimi, you know, when you play the diminished chord..." I would see this lost look come into his face and I would say, "Okay, okay, I forgot." I would just play it for him on the piano or on the horn, and he would get it faster than a m*****f***er. He had a natural ear for hearing music. So I'd play different sh*t for him, show him that way. Or I'd play him a record of mine or Trane's and explain to him what we were doing. The he started incorporating things I told him into his albums. It was great. He influenced me, and I influenced him, and that's the way great music is always made. Everybody showing everybody else something and then moving on from there. But Jimi was also close to hillbilly, country music played by them mountain white people. That's why he had those two English guys in his band, because a lot of white English musicians liked that American hillbilly music. The best he sounded to me was when he had Buddy Miles on drums and Billy Cox on bass. Jimi was playing that Indian kind of sh*t, or he'd play those funny little melodies he doubled up on his guitar. I loved it when he doubled up sh*t like that. He used to play 6/8 all the time when he was with them white English guys and that's what made him sound like a hillbilly to me. Just that concept he was doing with that. But when he started playing with Buddy and Billy in the Band of Gypsys, I think he brought what he was doing all the way out. But the record companies and white people liked him better when he had the white guys in his band, just like a lot of white people like to talk about me when I was doing the nonet thing - the Birth Of The Cool thing, or when I did those other albums with Gil Evans or Bill Evans because they always like to see white people up in black sh*t, so that they can say they had something to do with it. But Jimi Hendrix came from the blues, like me. We understood each other right away because of that. He was a great blues guitarist.[/quote]

[quote name='rslaing' post='479506' date='May 4 2009, 10:44 PM']Who said you can't have fun? Where is that mentioned? And what the hell is wrong with trying to be a good musician (and become a better one) by improving yourself?[/quote] Because you're missing the wood for the trees. Don't get me wrong... I'm probably more obsessed by music theory than any other person on this forum, but there's a point where you have to admit that some of it is entirely unnecessary for most of our purposes. I mean, I've yet to find a use for enigmatic scale, or the petrushka chord, or the neapolitan sixth... it's there if I ever need it, but I've never needed it. They're as relevant to popular music as Klezmer modes or Indian Ragas are to Blues players. Would Django Reinhardt have been a better musician if he had a full understanding of Gamelan? Would Hendrix have been a better musician if he could have read?