A story about Miles Davis and the nature of true genius
elezea.com
elezea.com
That said, I think that the author is making a mistake by taking Stephen Thomas Erlewine's review too seriously. When you read things like "an album that towers above its peers, a record generally considered as the definitive jazz album, a universally acknowledged standard of excellence..." take it for what it is -- fawning praise written 50 years later by a fanboy.
Read a bit further... "this music never flaunts its genius," a line that stuck with the blogger. In fact, anybody who knows a bit about Miles Davis is probably laughing now about how backwards this is. Miles was Mr. Flaunty Genius.
"Kind of Blue is more than easy listening. It's the pinnacle of modal jazz"... I think at this point, modal jazz was just getting started, not reaching it's pinnacle.
"...this is an exceptional band... one of the greatest in history, playing at the peak of its power. "... Um, no! None of these musicians were at the peak of their power at all. They all went on to do more.
Unfortunately now the blogger is trapped in this line of thinking, and he writes... "I think what draws me to this album is the enormous restraint that each of these brilliant musicians show... They were all extraordinary musicians at the top of their games, and yet they came together and produced a piece of work that doesn’t feel strained or over the top. There is a sense of comfort – of rightness – to every note on the album."... In fact, there are other critics that have said that Cannonball Adderley was really a wrong choice for Kind of Blue - his playing stands out as being too bluesy and he didn't really "get" the modal jazz like the other musicians.
Anyway, I guess my point is to be wary of empty praise. The author was clearly moved by the music, and the Erlewine review reinforced those feelings, but he is missing out on a lot of interesting lines of criticism that might bring him new insights. Jazz, like other abstract arts, is especially interesting because of how malleable it can be, with each listener bringing their own perspectives and opinions into how they perceive the work. The best ones (and Kind of Blue is among them) will grab your attention, play off your memories and emotions, and inspire you.
I understand that instead of targeting the tones found in chord progressions, Miles Davis etc. focused on playing the tones in D Dorian mode for "So What?" which has notes that could be actually dissonant to whatever chord-tones/walking bass being played. But how does one actually construct a modal solo and does one not think about at all the chord-progression being played at all or is chord consonance still very important?
1. Dissonance isn't bad or good, it's just more or less tension. 2. You can alter chords with substitutions, effectively creating a "chord abstraction theory". 3. If you can get abstract about chords, and that lets you play similar chords where other chords are, then you can do the same thing with scales.
They then just play fewer chords. If you only have 3, or even 1 chord, then you can simply stay in one key and solo all day long. You can then go outside the key to add tension with dissonant notes by picking a new "abstraction".
This reduction in the number of chords in the song then lets you play with abstractions on the chords being used. You can start doing substitutions with chords that are similar to give the song a feeling of progression where there really is none.
If I remember correctly, Freddie Hubbard's "Mr. Clean" is just a F-7 chord for the whole song, but check out what they do with it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5CNYsmAJwI
BTW, I hate that song.
Chord consonance in a modal solo is far less important than in blues or bop, but for sure there is a structure to whatever song you're playing (i.e. rules) and you need to know those rules in order to sound capable.
The old rules of bop and blues said that you need to hit specific notes at the right times to sound good. There were right and wrong notes. The newer rules that Miles introduced with Footprints (1958) and continuing with Kind of Blue (1959) freed him and his musicians to explore a lot more and "play around" in certain modes. (I say "play" in the sense of what a child might do, not "play" in the sense of "playing" an instrument). In a modal solo, the aim is to create a melody, not demonstrate capability by hitting the "right" notes as fast as possible. In bop, playing the 9th or 11th of a chord would sound weird, whereas in modal jazz you can linger over those notes and it could sound really nice.
The old rules of bop and blues said that you need to hit specific notes at the right times to sound good. There were right and wrong notes.
Do you mean here, root or chord-tone targeting? As a D chord comes-in, lead in with a 3rd or 5th chord tone and then the root note.
In a modal solo, the aim is to create a melody, not demonstrate capability by hitting the "right" notes as fast as possible.
Does the melody have to be constrained to tones in the mode; and how is call and response implemented here? In blues, one way it's implemented as the call being a solo fragment from the minor pentatonic scale whereas the response will be in the major pentatonic counterpart. When you are constrained to one mode of one quality, how do you construct a response that sounds somehow different?
> Do you mean here, root or chord-tone targeting? As a D chord comes-in, lead in with a 3rd or 5th chord tone and then the root note.
You can do that, but you don't have to be that strict. You can play other notes. If the music says D7, you could play D,F#,A,C to be "safe". But you don't really want to constrain yourself to the notes in the chord, or your solo will sound kind of boring. I said in my other comment that you want to demonstrate "capability". This means knowing the song, knowing the style (rules), knowing your instrument, then once you have all that down, putting something of yourself into the solo. The chords are just guidelines, and they will go by quickly.
> Does the melody have to be constrained to tones in the mode; and how is call and response implemented here? In blues, one way it's implemented as the call being a solo fragment from the minor pentatonic scale whereas the response will be in the major pentatonic counterpart. When you are constrained to one mode of one quality, how do you construct a response that sounds somehow different?
Hmm, "how is call and response implemented" is a very interesting question. It's an interesting way of even asking the question. Jazz isn't really "implemented".
Anyway, call and response isn't done so much in modal jazz. What you're describing about switching between minor and major is more of a bluesy thing. I mean, I recognize what you're saying as a very technical description of what they do in songs like Nat Adderley's "Work Song", or Art Blakey's "Moanin'".
Most modal jazz songs will give you plenty of time in a mode to really stretch out a solo and experiment with different patterns. Coltrane could take a half hour long solo over a song like "Impressions" and keep it interesting. Its not really about constructing a "response" to a "call".
It's awesome that you are asking questions and trying to learn more about jazz theory, but I think you might be getting bogged down in details and missing the bigger picture. Theory won't really make you a better musician. Back when I was playing a lot, I would meet old guys at clubs who would put me to shame, and they didn't know the first thing about theory.
My advice to you is:
1. Listen. To as much music as you can. I'm in my 30s, so back when I really got all nerdy about this stuff, they had those deals where you could get "15 CDs for a penny". I would sign myself up for those under all kinds of alternate names. Get them delivered at work, at my parents house, etc. There was a period of several years where I would just nerd out and listen to everything I possibly could. Nowadays, people probably just download music from torrents. I think you should pay for the music if you can, but don't feel too bad about not paying for it if you can't.
2. Play music all the time. Have your instrument ready to go, and play along with your CDs. Find jam sessions in your area and go to them. The first time you go, don't bring your instrument, just listen. Each jam session has a "character" and you want to make sure that, as a n00b, you can fit in. Some sessions are more n00b-friendly than others. Some have sign-in sheets, and are mostly music majors trying to outdo each other. But don't worry, because people are generally nice, and the bar for being a jazz musician is set much lower than you think. You don't need to know theory or modes, you just need to be willing to listen. You'll meet all kinds of interesting characters and you'll learn a ton about music, and probably a ton more about things outside of music.
3. Practice. This will take years, but you need to know your instrument inside and out. You need to know scales and arpeggios. How different playing techniques alter the sound. Practicing jazz means playing lots of jazz. I don't know of any better study aids than the Jamey Aebersold Play-a-long books. Start with Volume 21, "Gettin' It Together" which just gives you a CD of every key in major and minor, and a few common blues changes, and then play it constantly. Then add Volumes 1 (intro to soloing), Volume 2 (blues), Volume 3 (ii-V7-I). Then add any other volumes you are interested in (and there are hundreds). Again, these can be pirated, but I think you should buy them if you can afford them, as they are very worth it.
4. Learn the history. Read books about jazz, and nerd out on Wikipedia. Jazz is a constantly evolving artform, so to really understand it, you need to know the context of the times in which it was created. Imagine what it was like for the early blues artists. Then it evolved into a commercial success with big bands that would travel around and play at dance halls. Imagine being a musician like Charlie Parker or Dizzy Gillespie, who after playing the same music for years gets bored. They form small groups where they can really show off and the result is bop style. Coltrane comes along and gets bored with that and basically starts throwing different chords into the standard blues and rhythm changes. etc etc. Jazz is a conversation that took place over years. Basically (and this is the secret to everything in life) there are rules, then trendsetters break those rules in ways that lay down new rules, and this is a cycle that endlessly repeats itself. Miles "got" this more than anyone else.
Enjoy the journey!
Yea also appreciate your tip about not getting bogged down on the technical detail. As a adult music-language learner, I might have a tendency to think in terms of structure to construct musical phrases. Appreciate your advice, I'll explore the avenues you have revealed here and let you know how it goes.
- Kind of Blue *is* a definitive jazz album.
- Miles was *not* flaunting during that particular time period of writing and
recording. He changed his mode of expression and self numerous times throughout
his life.
- The musicians *were* at their peak *while they were together for this
recording*.
- Cannonball Adderley's playing is often times the best of the bunch.
Charles Mingus said, "Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity."
I only wish that kind of sentiment drove more modern design work, or music for that matter. I guess the fact that it's so exceedingly difficult to do explains why we only see it once in a decade in a given domain. Still, I find striving for what Mingus describes, and what Davis achieved, a worthwhile goal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Evans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gil_Evans
I know. But the parent said:
You can even say "Kind of Blue" is a Evans' LP by how much his influence on composition and arrangement is strong,
And Gil Evans did the arrangements on two of Miles' influential albums that preceded Kind of Blue, namely Miles Ahead and Porgy and Bess.
Calling Bill Evans a "good piano player" is like calling Feynman a "good physicist".
It's worth considering in the discussion of the value of 'rock star' programmers.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2rGMGp6gYE
2. Sergei Nakariakov, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNT_eF9lCBY. Or Allen Vizzutti for straight up trumpet porn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr5SZrLk7Uw.
3. Neither warm like Brownie nor powerful, like, say, vintage Louis Prima: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46byB2YGePA (solo starts at 4:25 and continues after the break). At least I think that was Louis Prima. It's been a while since I've seen the liner notes for that one.
He was also adept at discovering / identifying great up-and-coming musicians and associating himself with them, to the benefit of both parties.
Don't worry - they'll tell you.
Or try listening to "A Love Supreme" early in the morning before you leave the house. This time of year is a perfect time for it.
Or if it's raining, put on "Blue in Green" from Kind of Blue.
If you're more of a "thinker", start at the beginning, learning about the roots of blues and ragtime, what life was like in New Orleans in 1900.. Then work your way forward, learning about how jazz evolved into more modern forms. It's a really fascinating story.
You could check out the Ken Burns documentary. I also really recommend this "coffee table" book, which really covers everything (in case you don't want to watch 20 hours of documentary about something you don't really care much about): http://www.amazon.com/Jazz-John-Fordham/dp/0751300500/ref=sr...
This approach will work for art, literature.. really anything..
(Hopefully this will be the Oscar that Cheadle has already earned in my opinion...)