Tenor saxohonists to listen to [Archive]

Paul B

04-07-2006, 05:16 AM

Start with the masters who survived by this music and made jazz EVERYTHING that they lived for. Pure emotion, soul, edge, and shear musicality.

Know the so-called masters, but be wary of becoming obsessed with them. If you are to develop your own voice you must find your own way with the music. People who copy too much end up sounding like watered down versions of others--like copycats. There is nothing original about soundling like Trane or Rollins or Henderson or Getz. As a great player once said to me, the lesson of Coltrane was not to sound like Coltrane; rather, it was to work as hard as he did at sounding like yourself. Most people simply don't get that. Steve Lacy put it a little differently when he said that you must go through the forest but not stay long--you must come out of it and find your own terrain. Listen, assimilate, but watch out when you begin to imitate.

thehighend

04-07-2006, 05:19 AM

Houston Person.

Paul B

04-07-2006, 05:28 AM

Ellery Eskelin
Ab Baars
Larry Ochs
John Butcher
Evan Parker
Lou Gare
Peter Apfelbaum
Hafez Modirzadeh
David Ware

Tonehole

04-07-2006, 06:10 AM

Paul B, I disagree with your premise on the "masters". Yes its nice to find your own sound but people better want to listen to it! Might be better to play well first!
I suggest as part of a players learning you study and try to play like Trane.It ain't going to hurt!
First if you can mimic him you are a above average player to start.Two there is a big difference between having a Trane or Sonny influence in your playing and just copying them.
Finding your own sound is a crock. I have said it here before... everyone has there own sound ... problem is no one wants to here it. The trick is to find a sound that people want to hear.

Jolle

04-07-2006, 09:32 AM

All of them. You can learn something from each and every player you hear, including the guy next to you.
I would even like to say you're likely going to learn more from the guy next to you than from listening to Coltrane. It sounds stupid, but I learned to play saxophone without being able to read notes and without a teacher, just by WATCHING real saxophonists play. Examined their fingerings, examined their "embouchure" (those days I called it something like mouthposition :D ).

I still watch closely while listening to a better saxophonist (which most are). I learn every time.

greetzz

PS : learning without a teacher is NOT recommended. I'm going to start classes as well, since I'm defenitely making some mistakes and I feel I'm kind of getting at the roof of my own self-teaching capacities.

Paul B

04-07-2006, 02:42 PM

Finding your own sound is a crock. I have said it here before... everyone has there own sound ... problem is no one wants to here it. The trick is to find a sound that people want to hear.

Well, that's a banality at best. Yes, everybody who picks up a horn has, by definition, his or her own sound, provided they make the reed vibrate and can play a few notes. However, taking things up a level, those who actually want to create something new in improvised music can indeed do so. However, it can't be done by devoting one's life to transcribing and copying other people's music. I don't know where you live or what you listen to, but there's plenty of players taking the music forward--and bringing audiences with them--instead of keeping it stuck in 1955. My list above contains a number of good examples.

If you're happy copping Rollins (or whoever) licks, go to it. You'll no doubt sound pretty good, and may well make a good living at it. But nobody really serious about music is going to care too much. I'd rather listen to Rollins than the guys didn't bother to dig deep enough to avoid sounding like him.

Nick880

04-07-2006, 03:00 PM

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Ben Webster. Tone is a very personal thing but his was a real trademark.

J.Max

04-07-2006, 03:40 PM

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Ben Webster. Tone is a very personal thing but his was a real trademark.

You beat me to it! Here's my short list of favorite tenor players to listen to and learn from: (in no particular order)

Coleman Hawkins
Lester Young
Ben Webster
Stan Getz
Dexter Gordon
Sonny Rollins
John Coltrane
Michael Brecker
Wayne Shorter
Joe Henderson
Ernie Watts
Pete Christlieb
Branford Marsalis (I HATE his soprano and alto, however. His "Buckshot LaFunque" guise is pretty cool though...)
Joe Lovano
Bob Mintzer
Jerry Bergonzi
Lenny Pickett (if you are into Rock/Funk)
Archie Shepp
Houston Person (rock/funk)
King Curtis (rock/funk)
Junior Walker (rock/funk)
Stanley Turrentine
Hank Mobley
Illinois Joquet
Ike Quebec

I know that I'm going to forget someone that I listen to a lot...but this is enough for now...
Special mention should go to James Houlik. If you are into classical tenor, you MUST listen to Dr. Houlik.

AlistairD

04-07-2006, 03:42 PM

Wow J.Max...

The only one I'd add to that is Ravi Coltrane.... Different to his dad but still great IMHO....

58tenor

04-07-2006, 11:03 PM

Clifford Brown and Lee Morgan. I have had as many insights listening to great trumpeters as saxophones. The interplay of tenor/trumpet is a complete world unto itself. It is a divine place.

rispoli

04-08-2006, 12:39 AM

I know that I'm going to forget someone

SCOTT HAMILTON and ERIC ALEXANDER
Outstanding tenor tones!

silvin

04-08-2006, 10:09 AM

Jan Garbarek

Mactenor

04-08-2006, 03:57 PM

and also..........Don Byas, Georgie Auld, Sam (the man) Taylor, Sam played with Cab Calloway
Best Regards Mactenor

Tonehole

04-10-2006, 02:08 AM

Paul B helps if you had a little empathy with the player that started the strand.
dJazzy asked "What musicians should tenor saxophonists listen to for form and better tech?"
From this I deduced that he was a novice player, as such he and most new players do not have a great mastery or facility with the horn.
So I am not sure where you are from or how you learned to play but practicing the play of the greats seems pretty much in every players training. But if you mastered the horn without doing this ...then ...:notworth:

Well, that's a banality at best. Yes, everybody who picks up a horn has, by definition, his or her own sound, provided they make the reed vibrate and can play a few notes. However, taking things up a level, those who actually want to create something new in improvised music can indeed do so.
Your reply is not a rebutal but actually ignores what I stated.... "Might be better to play well first! I suggest as part of a players learning you study and try to play like Trane.It ain't going to hurt!" Or are you actually saying forget mastery of the horn and studying the masters and get right into creating your own sound and laying down your own original improv with no base? 8-)

You then state "However, it can't be done by devoting one's life to transcribing and copying other people's music. I don't know where you live or what you listen to, but there's plenty of players taking the music forward--and bringing audiences with them--instead of keeping it stuck in 1955. My list above contains a number of good examples.."
I would contend that if you cannot play proficently and in the style of the great players of the 1955's or even earlier you won't know where the players you listed are coming from nor be able to learn much from them.
You won't have the skill set!
The players you list are building on the work of the past greats and the current top players. They are also very esoteric ... not a huge discography, you may have access to them in NY but they are not touring heavily. So if you cannot hammer out Trane maybe you should start even further back with Hawkins or such! :rolleyes:

You then state "If you're happy copping Rollins (or whoever) licks, go to it. You'll no doubt sound pretty good, and may well make a good living at it. But nobody really serious about music is going to care too much. I'd rather listen to Rollins than the guys didn't bother to dig deep enough to avoid sounding like him
I and no one on this strand has said anything close to what you are ranting against.:confused:
I would suggest that before you or anyone lay their take down on any Jazz standards you should know it every which way and understand what the original player was doing with it because you won't have much to add regardless of what your sound is like! 8-)

BayviewSaxhad it right when he says you can learn from them all! Problem is you have to be careful to only take away the best, which is much easier when you listen to past and current Masters!
Sounding like or playing in the style of Trane or Sonny is the least of most young players problems. :headbang:

Paul B

04-10-2006, 03:40 AM

Of course it is imperative to listen to and learn from the masters. Problem is, most people--including, it seems, you--seem to think that "mastery" stopped with players in the 60s, and that if you can't play it like Trane, you ain't playing it right. Well, I don't see anything wrong with mentioning a few LIVING players who happened to have found something fresh to put forth on the horn.

You say that people need to master the skills of the players like Trane to make progress. But see, that's only necessary if you want to play LIKE them. And if you want to play LIKE them, you're a retread. In my opinion, the world really doesn't need more Coltrane imitators. Coltrane himself is proof--he didn't imitate, he found his own thing. How? Not by copying, but by looking at what was original in his predecessors and using it as a basis for his own investigations. It's a safe bet he didn't hope that music would stop with him. Hell, if people only played what the "mastsers" played, nobody would have moved beyond Coleman Hawkins. Very few people will achieve what Coltrane did, but that doesn't mean one should spend one's life trying to get to something that was organic to him. That, in a nutshell, is the simple point I'm trying to make. And it's perfectly valid advice for a novice.

The answer to the question in the original post, then, is: listen to all great tenors players, past and present. But try not to be slavishly devoted to doctrine. Especially when too many people tell you there's only one way to learn and play.

WillieB

04-10-2006, 03:53 AM

Zoot, man... listen to Zoot. Listen to him play with anyone and everyone. He was always on. He could swing, he could bop and he could play the sh** out of a ballad. Listen to "Basie and Zoot" 1975 - "I Surrender, Dear" with Basie playing the organ. One of the most beautiful recordings ever made. I don't know why his name seems to get left off of the "Tenor List", but it's a darn shame. The man was a brilliant player and equally as funny.

BlueNote

04-10-2006, 03:57 AM

Start learning the linages of players that aren't the most recognized, too... not just Bird and Trane and other extremely well known players. Imitation is crucial for developing your own voice on your instrument, but when everyone tries to emulate the same handful of players, everyone in a general sense is sounding the same, which is partly what is killing jazz.

Check out cats like Zoot Sims, Junior Walker, Eddie Harris, Archie Shepp, Booker Ervin, Sonny Criss, Lew Tebackin, Tina Brooks, Eddie "Lockjaw" Davis, etc. The problem with a lot of players nowadays is that they can't get past Trane and Bird. While I love and worship Coltrane, I've listened to a plethora of other tenor players to help develop my own craft. Coltrane emulated players in his early days, but once he got to a certain point, he needed to go in his own direction. He had the training wheels on, but after a while he had to take them off.

Once you understand the linages and language of jazz (also called the foundation), you can then do your own thing. And when you do, you will do a much better job at it, because you are smarter musically when you do it.

Paul B

04-10-2006, 04:11 AM

Coltrane emulated players in his early days, but once he got to a certain point, he needed to go in his own direction. He had the training wheels on, but after a while he had to take them off.

Bingo. I would just say that emulation takes many forms...You gotta know when to let go. And also to be wary of those preaching the "right way" to do things...

FWIW, the alto saxophonist Ned Rothenberg puts my argument a little more succinctly:

"...I don't care that I will never be able to play like Cannonball Adderley. When I was in my twenties I would listen to something like that and say "Why would I ever play jazz, when this guy can play it all?" A lot of young players are struggling with the things that they can't do, as opposed to embracing the things that they can do, and trying to grow organically from that place, they're like "Oh, man, I have to practice all this... If I can't play 'Giant Steps', I'm no good!". Well, try to play "Giant Steps", do your best, but remember that was something that Coltrane made for himself, and it's a very particular thing. You want to push your limits, but you also want to love your limits. So, while I'm going in many directions all the time, I'm trying to keep track of my personality within that. And now I play in certain ways and only Ned Rothenberg plays like this."

saxymanzach

04-10-2006, 04:42 AM

My advice is to listen for the purposoe of listening, not learning. When the artists recorded those tracks, they were playing for the purpose of expressing themselves, not to give lessons. And that is how you should hear it. Because then all you would be doing is trying to learn to express yourself, which can not be taught.

Tonehole

04-10-2006, 05:47 AM

Hey Paul BI hope you are more intuitiive with your playing then you are with your preception of people!
So because I believe you can learn something and improve your facility on the horn by being able to play Giant Steps and learning the changes Trane laid down I am frozen in time.Ya got to be kidding.I think you can learn a lot from playing Breckers Delta City Blues as well so what does that make me.
Name a big draw, top player who hasn't dedicated a song or a full album to Trane or Sonny.... wonder why they are so slavish to the oldies? I don't get it .. must just P you off to no end.
Strange players like Gonz, Potter and Brecker use his sh@t as a stepping off point for their music constantly. Guess they are hacks stuck in the past? They wouldn't be able to do that if they didn't have his sh@t down tight.
Gotto be tough to come up with something new if you don't understand how or why it was done in the past.
So how did you learn? Never copy / mimic anybody ... so your playing was not infuenced by those that came before and what they did? Guess you just copy the current greats? The current crop of players could bitch CannonBall in a heart beat. I would take Garret over CannonBall in brawl but since Trane was so far out when he died he might give them a bit of a run but I wouldn't bet on it. So how do you keep up?

Not a big fan of the express lane myself they only let you check out with a limited number of items.

So you think Trane walked on the scene full blown without building on or being tainted by what was around him.
Makes a lot of sense, why not just start hammering away on Brecker licks from the get go, it will all come together in time. No why not just start doing sh@t Brecker never tried from the get go!
Why would a novice have to spend a life time getting Trane? Not that tough to get.. you can buy the stuff in books now, no need to transcribe for years and they got explanations of what they did in books as well.
Come to think of it Bergonzi has a set of books out that explain and teach on what he does. But who would want to study this guy ... waste of time , nothing a good listen to a CD or two won't reveal in a sitting! You guys gotta be kidding!
You think any of the current top players cannot lay down, Trane and Sonny or Cannonball .. if you can name the player they can play that stuff with ease.
Who are you talking to when you say "Especially when too many people tell you there's only one way to learn and play." When you play do you only hear what you want, like you only read what you want?
Listen for a change ( Trane reference)

Tonehole

04-10-2006, 06:43 AM

"Often, for me, avoiding the obvious has become instinct. Before you can do that though you have to learn the obvious or the 'tradition' then you can build on that or extend it or rebel against it." -Seamus Blake, Jazz saxophonist

Is Seamus not saying here you better know the masters / Jazz tradition to move to the next level.
To build on it or extend it I believe it helps if ya can play it.
I guess if you cannot play it your only option is to rebel against it!
Either way you need the foundation before you can move on.
So how is it wrong to practice Trane changes again?

Tonehole

04-10-2006, 12:58 PM

"Oh, man, I have to practice all this... If I can't play 'Giant Steps', I'm no good!". Well, try to play "Giant Steps", do your best, but remember that was something that Coltrane made for himself, and it's a very particular thing. You want to push your limits, but you also want to love your limits. So, while I'm going in many directions all the time, I'm trying to keep track of my personality within that. And now I play in certain ways and only Ned Rothenberg plays like this."

So is Rothenberg not saying the same thing as Seamus?
Better practice Trane try to get those changes down, but if ya cannot master it then get over it cause you are going to have to figure a way around it.
But ya better know it!
Rothenberg is wrong when he says Trane made the changes and they are organic to only himself ... the reason he is studied so much is cause he figured out a different way of play, it can be studied and learned. Doesn't mean ya gotta play that way just gives ya more options.

So I rest on my original statement it doesn't hurt to know how to play like Trane!

Perfect Pitch

04-10-2006, 03:40 PM

Lisa Simpson or Bleedin' Gums Murphy

:snorting::snorting::snorting::snorting::snorting: :snorting::snorting:

Paul B

04-10-2006, 05:05 PM

Rothenberg is wrong when he says Trane made the changes and they are organic to only himself.

No, he isn't wrong. Coltrane substitutions (Giant Steps, Countdown, etc.) are called that because, well, Coltrane came up with the concept (based on his study of Slonimsky, but that's beside the point). They were his way of working through changes. Others will find others ways. Those who end up making interesting music that people want to hear will be the ones who are not trapped in somebody else's system of thought. Clearly you are not such a person, but fortunately many others can see where the dogma ends and creativity begins. Learing Giant Steps can be cool, but it's absolutely not necessary in the process of becoming a good improviser.

Tonehole

04-10-2006, 11:20 PM

[QUOTE=Paul B]. Learing Giant Steps can be cool, but it's absolutely not necessary in the process of becoming a good improviser.[/QUOTE

I now see how it is possible to create art in a vacuum. You seem to be able to generate your response to comments the same way.
I have not read anywhere on this strand anyone stating it is necessary to become a good improvisor. Paul who broached the subject of improv, you seem to be fighting internal devils?

Careful you are getting very close now to acknowledging that Trane's changes are a mathematical progression based on research of a Russian mathematician's book that is a hell of a hard read. So Trane came up with a formula that can be studied, learned and used to get you to other levels. Oh yeah that would mean it ain't organic to Trane but accessible to anyone who takes the time to learn it.

But don't give Trane any credit for it he was a shyster like that dude who scooped E=mc2 all the hard work was done in advance! I hate when they do that.I hope someone doesn't solve cold fusion before I do.:D

Surprised no one has mentioned Sam Butera, I considered this guy a god when I started out .... had a lot of detox to do a few years later.

bobsax

04-10-2006, 11:50 PM

The original post also asked about listening for players with better technique.
I heard Bob Mintzer on KCSM this morning and he did an entire phrase of trills . I have also heard Brecker use trilling in his solos .
Try trilling a whole-step off every note on the horn Then take a simple quarter note melody and trill each note equally :0

Paul B

04-11-2006, 12:17 AM

Paul who broached the subject of improv

Are you serious? Anyone studying jazz is studying improvisation. Unless, that is, you're spending your life playing transcribed solos along with Aebersold records. Jazz without improvisation is not jazz. That seems so rudimentary as to not be worth mentioning. But perhaps you were joking.

As for Coltrane substitutions, while they're not "mathematical" (and I never said they were, though there is an element of math in all music) they are certainly formulaic. That's pretty obvious to anyone who bothers to look. And of course they're accessible for anyone to study. A few astute minds have pointed out that Coltrane most likely gleaned them from Slonimsky, but that's not to take away credit from Coltrane. He put them to use in a very original way. But it's not necessary to know how to play them to be a jazz musician. If they work for you, cool. If not, that's cool too (as Ned Rothenberg said). What I'm against is the dogma that says if you don't know them, you're somehow lacking. That's small-minded bullsh**.

Perhaps all this should be left for another thread. The person who started this one has, by now, a pretty long list of people to listen to. What he/she does with the info is another matter.

Tonehole

04-11-2006, 01:31 AM

Are you serious? Anyone studying jazz is studying improvisation. Unless, that is, you're spending your life playing transcribed solos along with Aebersold records. Jazz without improvisation is not jazz.

Ouch that is pretty cold, guess you don't realize who your constituency is !
I agree for once with you this one seems to have run its coarse so ..........
I ........

Dr G

04-11-2006, 04:39 PM

Anyone studying jazz is studying improvisation. Jazz without improvisation is not jazz.

That's small-minded bullsh**.

I think some of your perceptions are perhaps small minded. There are a lot of young musicians that come to SotW that have only started to learn about playing jazz - and I would say that learning to play in an ensemble, learning to listen, and learning swing is certainly on the path of learning jazz.

04-11-2006, 05:23 PM

Another point: I'd say go back well before 1955, to the earlier masters like Lester Young, Ben Webster, Coleman Hawkins, etc. But don't leave out the Jump Blues guys like Sil Austin, Red Prysock, etc. I think it's great to listen to Coltrane, but I sure wouldn't start there. You'll only be frustrated. Start with some simple blues lines and swing solos and go from there....

Paul B

04-11-2006, 08:55 PM

There are a lot of young musicians that come to SotW that have only started to learn about playing jazz - and I would say that learning to play in an ensemble, learning to listen, and learning swing is certainly on the path of learning jazz.

Fair enough. Certain skills must obviously be learned before somebody can tackle improvisation per se, and this board doesn't really seem like the place for this type of discussion. Still, to be talking about a player such as Coltrane and then have somebody ask why I brought up improvisation is a bit ludicrous, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Swingtone

04-11-2006, 09:31 PM

For older cats, my vote is for Coleman Hawkins or Stanley Turrentine, at least in the tone department. I used to think Dexter Gordon had the best tone, but lately he sounds a little thin to me on the high notes (on his early 60's stuff). I don't know if this was the Dukoff or the 10M or him. But he sounded divine down low, and not many could touch him on ballads. What smooth phrasing!

Lately, Coleman Hawkins sounds the best to me tone-wise--smooth but fuller and thicker throughout the scale than Dexter. Was that because he was playing a Selmer?

For living players, Eric Alexander has a really fat tone that's sounds better to me than anyone else's.

Leon

04-12-2006, 01:37 AM

Know the so-called masters, but be wary of becoming obsessed with them. If you are to develop your own voice you must find your own way with the music

This was how Paul began his initial reply to this post, for which he has been greatly criticized, and not altogether unfairly considering some of the comments he made later and I can see how it would **** off guys like Tonehole, who has probably spent a significant portion of his life in the shed perfecting this music, and who can probably play his *** off as a result and make me want to hear more, but Paul's initial statement quoted above isn't such bad advise is it?
I agree that transcribing Giant Steps and Countdown has got to pay some major dividents in terms of technique, and learning to play the transcription from Striver's Row will get you some nice things flowing from your horn, and who would argue that the best and only way to improve one's playing is to practice. But I notice that Paul's location is NYC and one wonders if this attributes to his emphasis on individuality. Let's face it, the city (NYC)is populated with legions of scary tenor players who can play Giant Steps transcriptions or anything else from the literature, and not just from reading it from a sheet. How would one survive in such an atmosphere, how would one stand out?
And what kind of improvised music is drawing in NYC these days? It's been a long time since I have lived there, and I would never cut it there now, and didn't before, but have been told recently, whether correctly or not I don't know, that it is considered lame to go into a club and play a bunch of standards and covers - that original compositions are what an audience wants and expects, (at least an audience of jazz afficianados) and then a few standards or covers are acceptable, but that they should be done differently from the original versions - for example Footprints in 4/4, or some other warhorse jazz standard as a Mambo or tango or in free time or whatever. So maybe that is where Paul is coming from I don't know, but I do hear some frustration from him, however. Maybe he is bored hearing the same old thing. And I do think regional geography is a big factor in this music to some extent.
For example, here where I live, in Central Florida, if you don't sound like a grad student you won't be taken seriously. Joe Lovano was here several years ago with the Scofield band, they were just back from a long tour of Europe and were hot. They played at a free outdoor concert and people talked all through it or walked out. Then a local came on and played a tepid jazz version of Somewhere Over the Rainbow and the crowd came to life. If Joe Lovano was not who he was, did not have the name that he does, and came new into town, he wouldn't get a gig down here or even be taken seriously because he doesn't sound like a student who can play Giant Steps like Coltrane. Ditto Dewey Redman, (the early) Shepp, and even guys like Von Freeman. And forget about guys like Jemeel Moondoc, Kalapruska Mauric MacIntyre, Roscoe Mitchell and the avant guard guys. They are playing what they want to play whether we like it or not.
And would you rather hear a guy play with the individualistic approach of a Joe Lovano or someone play Cotrane patterns? (I love Trane so much it's a close call for me because in case there is any doubt, nobody loves Trane more than me, I saw him many times, in most of his various stages, and it was probably the defining moment in my musical life. In fact, I even like guys who COPYTrane, I want to copy Trane so it's not about that. It's just that I think Paul has some valid things to say, and one has to take what sounds valid and discard the rest, as with everything else in life. My own feeling is that one should play the music one loves, whether it is hip or lame, and frankly, I'll listen to Trane all my life, I still hear new things and ditto Rollins, but Paul's point of view has its validity.

BlueNote

04-12-2006, 02:14 AM

I believe that the closer you sound to someone else, the slimmer your chances are of earning your spot and becoming known. Just recently I heard a few cuts from a 21-year-old up-and-comer pianist Taylor Eigsti's latest album. I immediately noticed that he had that Keith Jarrett touch to his playing. But if I wanted to hear someone with a Keith Jarrett touch and style, I would listen to Keith himself. Clubs would rather hear Keith that him. New Orleans would rather hear Ellis Marsalis to do some gigs than someone doing a half-a** job trying to sound like him.

It's really important to make music as personal as possible, and play in a style that is unlike anyone else. A style that says you. Think Eric Dolphy... someone who no one has been able to copy because the guy was so out of the oridinary. Seamus Blake was one of the most in demand saxophonists in NY not that long ago because he's such a unique cat. Not only in his unique sound, but his approach to the music. He's not just playing bop lines or cliche modern jazz ideas like I seem to hear in a lot of players on the scene today.

No one wants to hear playing with depth nowadays, it all seems to be a battle of flashyness and how weird you can play a tune. Please don't fall into that trap. Do your own thing, for the sake of music and for the sake of jazz. When the time is right, change the music. Listen to some of Ravi Coltrane's material (especially off In Flux). That guy is all about depth and little about showyness. Mature sound, maturing style, and boat loads of authority.

I would rather struggle to become known (or just get by) while playing with a completely different style than anyone else than quickly become known by sounding like someone else just because people want to hear that. Always remember what the essence of music is. We only have one life.

Paul B

04-12-2006, 03:00 AM

Leon, thanks for your words, and for an insightful post (and apologies for any harshness of tone; I'm used to posting on another board where people don't mind a little rougher give and take where ideas are concerned. Being new here, I don't mean to offend).

I can't add much to what you said. Steve Lacy was my guide, and much of my approach comes from him, as well as Bruce Ackley, the soprano player in Rova with whom I studied for many years. Having mentioned Roscoe et al., you're probably pretty hip to both. Braxton was also a big influence (I sat in on a few classes with him at Mills back in the day), less as a player than as someone who came up with brilliant new approaches to composition and improvisation. Monk is also deep in my veins. And Getz and Rollins and Lovano, in oblique and not obvious ways.

None of these players would deny the importance of strong influences. The trick, I think--and Lacy sure wired it--is to take certain things from the past, shake them up, let the whole thing cook and hope it stands up. If it doesn't, it will if you stick to it. My umbrage, if that's the word, comes--as Leon hinted--both from hearing too many people even in New York who don't seem interested in moving the music ahead (though there are obviously many who do), as well as reading comments on a board like this where many seem obsessed with a method, if you will, that to me smacks of dogma. That's why I quoted Ned Rothenberg, who I still think said it as well as it can be said. But in the end, I'm only trying to add to a discussion. Everyone will do their thing. If your joy comes from playing like Getz or Lester or Trane, there's nothing wrong with that. But I have a right to not be too interested.

Also, I think once people break outside the "rules," many would find new paths--ones that might even help them be better straightahead players. How many here spend time just on free improvisation with other players, or write non-change-based tunes? Even if that's not the way you want to go in the long run, shaking up your approach--and being open to the players who didn't follow the bop way, such as Lacy or Braxton--can really add something to your music and help you find your voice.

Just my .02, and apologies again if I rubbed anyone the wrong way.

Tonehole

04-12-2006, 05:11 AM

*. Perhaps all this should be left for another thread.
Paul it is the pomposity and presumption you bring to the discussion that is offense not your abrasive or arrogant style.
What do I or anyone else care about what you believe or say? Unless it is well reasoned.
Intelligent people listen, analyze and digest, belligerence does no equate to reason.
Your arguments lack reason because they are rebuttals to statements never made nor stands taken, they are based on presumption.
You bring the same integrity to a discussion as can be attributed to the above quote.
You do not respond to comments presented, nor do you address precise challenges to your rants but diffuse them by jumping to new supposition.
Your arguments lack logical progression. Instead of attacking with tighter introspective you broaden the argument to new fronts not raised to avoid embarrassment? So when asked who said this or who are you addressing you cannot repond as you are creating your own venue for ponificating on a personal belief. You are not interested in reasoned debate, argument or discussion!
I myself am interested in what people think not what they believe.
I also enjoy a good verbal brawl but within reason. Which you seem to lack.
Pun intended. :D

BlueNote

04-12-2006, 08:22 AM

Chill out guys... sheesh.

Tonehole

04-12-2006, 01:42 PM

"Often, for me, avoiding the obvious [copycating] has become instinct. Before you can do that [have your own voice] though you have to learn the obvious or the 'tradition' then you can build on that or extend it or rebel against it." -Seamus Blake, Jazz saxophonist

Bluenote I really like this quote and think it to be very insightful, but do you think the obvious Seamus refers to and you assume to mean [copycating] is possibly a reference to a musical direction or choice being made?
To clarify, when Seamus is taking flight or writing a tune the structure follows a form dictated by tradition ( fundamental / traditional rules to jazz / music structure) When he sees this structure or flow beginning to form to the standard / traditional format he breaks it (goes outside of the box) by going in a direction the music is not naturally / traditionally leading to or what the listeners are expecting because that is not where the music structure is leading them.
So this dissonance / break he creates is what sets his style of play outside the norm or gives him his own voice.
It is not that he would be copying anyone if he followed the music but that he would be limited by the tradition of the music beacause it leads to the expected.
Paul B can add to this if I miss speak but I think this is what he dislikes about just laying down Trane changes. When first heard especially back when they were fresh they had that break or dissonance with the listener. They surprised you.
But as discussed earlier they are formatic so if you use them as crutch to get you through a piece you are chosing one of the obvious that Seamus avoids.
You may be playing a tune not even written or concieved when Trane was alive but if you slavishly apply his style of play or changes to it more astute listeners are thinking this is how Trane would have played it, they are not surprised by the music since it is following a tradition. Very common with Parker licks as well.
This was mentioned earlier in this strand. Why people will listen to a student Trane or Sonny knock off and talk through a live Lovano concert, they are not comfortable with the music as it requires effort to follow and they find those leaps of creativity dificult to follow as they break with tradition.

Paul B

04-12-2006, 02:18 PM

Well Tonehole, I still don't really grasp your point. Then again, you are the one who asked why improvisation was being mentioned on a jazz thread (!!!!!). So I'll let you have the last word, your deserve it. I don't see how it is pompous to simply express my ideas, which seem pretty clear (and none of which you have logically countered), and obviously you're the only one bothered by them. So yeah, get back to your Aebersolds and....go blow!!

Tonehole

04-12-2006, 06:29 PM

Paul B ,I just supported your stance against slavish playing of Trane or any other player, and left you an opportunity to expand on my concept of why pounding out Trane mindlessly is bad or you could have clarified your own point of view.

Hello ... I actually changed sides and supported your point of view!:banghead:

Just to clarify for you, when you say a discussion has run it's coarse and the other person agrees, you should not then re engage in that discussion! Sort of a fundamental . Maybe consider starting a new strand about it!

Also not good form to say the other person can have the last word and then throw what you perceive as a slight at them.
A person states they enjoy a verbal brawl that implies they are not bothered by vitriol. To simplify it for you I get a kick out of it!

Not sure why you consider Aebersold a slight? Oh! I get it he presents a organized method for a novice player to advance, study and practice when other opportunities or skill levels are lacking.

Paul B the comprehension problem may be attributed to a lack of ram on your part not your computers. :D

You can now have the last word .... I just explained to you what that means so please make it good!
cause...
I....

04-12-2006, 07:28 PM

Just a thought......How many people in the average audience would recognize a 'Trane lick or a Parker lick, or even a Hawkins lick? How many would listen to you play and immediately think, oh man, that guy just played a lick from Giant Steps!---it's unoriginal, I'm outta here!

Like I say, it's just a thought. I think probably, and I could be wrong here, that if you sound good, and I know that's subjective, but I'm talking good tone, melodic ideas, maybe some flashy effects, good rhythm, and good tone (did I mention good tone?), that the audience will probably dig it. Very few will have a clue who you sound like, or if you sound like anyone but yourself.

I know that's kind of simplistic and maybe doesn't add much to the discussion, but anyway......

Paul B

04-12-2006, 08:58 PM

Very few will have a clue who you sound like, or if you sound like anyone but yourself.

You may well be right on that point, at least generally speaking. It's a different discussion when you get into the point of view of the listener...

jrvinson45

04-13-2006, 12:49 AM

Hey djazzy (poster #1) did you find your answer in this thread yet? :D :D :D :twisted:

J.Max

04-13-2006, 01:49 AM

I heard a great story once. Phil Woods (I think) was playing a gig and a critic said to him "I'm leaving. You're so unoriginal; you play just like Charlie Parker." Woods looked at the guy and said "What's wrong with that? You try playing like Charlie Parker!"

The critic thought for a second, sat down and listened to the rest of the set...

58tenor

04-13-2006, 04:08 AM

Charlie Rouse. A very underrated player. Great sound.

njmyers

04-14-2006, 09:21 PM

Yeah well someone asked Miles how to learn how to be a good improviser and he said, "Learn all the cliches."

HAHAHAHAHA. You gotta know how to play Coltrane so that you don't play like him. That's why we study classical counterpoint rules in music school. We see if we can make a statement under huge limitations because if we can than when we have no limitations our statements will be on a different level.

baritone

04-15-2006, 08:47 PM

You beat me to it! Here's my short list of favorite tenor players to listen to and learn from: (in no particular order)

Coleman Hawkins
Lester Young
Ben Webster
Stan Getz
Dexter Gordon
Sonny Rollins
John Coltrane
Michael Brecker
Wayne Shorter
Joe Henderson
Ernie Watts
Pete Christlieb
Branford Marsalis (I HATE his soprano and alto, however. His "Buckshot LaFunque" guise is pretty cool though...)
Joe Lovano
Bob Mintzer
Jerry Bergonzi
Lenny Pickett (if you are into Rock/Funk)
Archie Shepp
Houston Person (rock/funk)
King Curtis (rock/funk)
Junior Walker (rock/funk)
Stanley Turrentine
Hank Mobley
Illinois Joquet
Ike Quebec

I know that I'm going to forget someone that I listen to a lot...but this is enough for now...
Special mention should go to James Houlik. If you are into classical tenor, you MUST listen to Dr. Houlik.

thx man, finally I see Dexter there!!!

blackfrancis

04-17-2006, 01:08 PM

Add Don Menza to the list. My main point of this post is : Don't stop with tenor players or sax players. Listen to all kinds of instruments, and vocals too! And while you're at it, if you're learning a song, learn the lyrics. Keep your ears open, and if you hear something cool, try to figure out what makes it cool and how they did it.

Swingtone

04-17-2006, 04:22 PM

How about Benny Golson--he's one of the few hard bob tenor players still kicking. And the difference between him and some of the others mentioned is that if you live near a big city (or want to travel to one) you can still hear and see him LIVE (though I realize he's past his prime). I've seen him twice in the past two years at the Jazz Showcase in Chicago (had front row seats--not to hard siince its general admission), and he's still got some magic and some chops left in him. I think he's 76 or 77 now.

Al Stevens

04-21-2006, 06:22 PM

What musicians should tenor saxophonists listen for form better technique and solo ideas.

Although this seems like a troll--and it seems to have had the effect that a troll is designed to have--it's a reasonable question, nonetheless.

You didn't mention the kind of music you want us to address. I'll assume that "solo ideas" implies jazz.

Jazz covers a wide spectrum of styles coming from many so-called "eras," and a player should figure out where he or she wants to be. Then listen to players who play that particular kind of jazz. Listen, too, to earlier players to learn what influenced the chosen style. Without knowing the style of jazz that interests you, I cannot propose a meaningful list of players for you to listen to.

With respect to technique, one doesn't gain a lot of technique by listening to certain players and certain styles of music. One gains technique on any instrument by doing what all players must do on any instrument for any musical style if they want strong technical skills. They practice scales, trills, intervals, and so on, specifically designed to build technique for their chosen instrument.