 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Joe
Date: 2001-10-10 21:46
OK, its time for me to come out of the closet and admit my addiction! I love dixieland/ragtime music. However, I'm having a tough time finding music to buy and play. I've gone over the "Resources" list and looked at a splendid collection of sources for classical/chamber music, but alas, no dixieland!
I'm looking for stuff like "Darktown Strutters Ball", High Society", "Muscrat Ramble", "South Rampart Street Parade", ............. etc. Any and all suggestions for sources will be sincerely appreciated.
Joe.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2001-10-10 22:31
No doubt there will be many more suggestions forthcoming, but here's one:
If you really want to learn to play Dixieland, the best way to do it is still the way the greats did it way back when: By ear.
I find that when I learn music that so readily lends itself to improvisation from a book, I restrict myself terribly.
Louis Armstrong said many years ago, that "they" (the great black players who pioneered and played the all jazz) never wrote anything down. So when musicians like him were playing somewhere for several nights, there were many people who would go see them each and every one of those those nights if they could, because the same music was played differently each time, often using different notes and improvs, as per the mood of the players on that particular night.
Of course, that is just an example, there were many others who played in the same way, with similar results.But the point is that they could do this because the music was in their heads, not in a book.
I am neither a great virtuoso, nor a great, creative improviser, but all the blues and jazz I play today I was taught to learn this way: I listen to the piece I want to learn and play it (from a recording) repeatedly, without distractions, listening to every note. If it is a difficult piece, I record it on a 90 minute tape and carry it with me as I go about my business, listening to it through earphones until the tune is in my head. Sometimes I will sleep with it under my pillow.
When I have it in my head, I can pick up my instrument, and pretty much play it right away. I can usually play it well, with some of my own improvisations after a couple of days, or so, worth of practice. Sometimes more, sometimes less.
I have found that music I learn out of a book stays in my head as such. When I visualize it, it is as written in the book, while music I learn by ear is creatively "up for grabs" in my head.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Arney
Date: 2001-10-11 00:08
Bless you Peter. The only problem (well, maybe just one of the problems) is what my mind remembers, my fingers can no longer longer perform. Bob A
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jim Maynen
Date: 2001-10-11 00:51
Joe,
This site lists arranged material, some of which I have played in the past and which I know to contain some of the songs you list.
http://www.prjc.org/tjen/resources.htm
You could probably buy many of the titles at your favorite on-line sheet music store...
Good luck,
Jim M.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2001-10-11 03:00
Hey Bob,
800 ml of Motrin and a tall glass of water works wonders for me!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: willie
Date: 2001-10-11 05:43
Learn to play what note comes to your head. Its a lot of inprov and you need to be aware of the chord that is in progress and what notes you can use, staying within that chord structure. It ain't easy sometimes especially if the band takes off in some weird key you're not use to playing in. I agree about listening to as many recordings as posible. Not to plaigerize, but to learn the good licks and then develope you're own style from it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2001-10-11 14:11
I have a set by Zep Meissner, shown on Jim Maynen's post, Dixieland Downbeat 11, which has most of the tunes you mentioned, Joe, my set sold for $2 each book!! Quite suitable for high school and up, has ad lib choruses written out for the learners! Had lots of fun with them, with from 5 and up players.Luck, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sean
Date: 2001-10-11 14:58
Last year I came back to the clarinet after a 20 year hiatus. I, too, liked the idea of playing Dixieland/Ragtime. I found a book with accompanying CD. I must say I had a ball playing tunes like Maple Leaf Rag, Struttin' with Some Barbecue, Wolverine Blues etc.
Just my two cents worth.
Sean
Have a look for this publication:
Dixieland Jam (Clarinet)
Inv #: 385014
ISBN: 0793579988
Published by: Hal Leonard
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2001-10-11 21:50
Today I spoke with two friends who play jazz professionally and they both agreed that if you are going to learn to play jazz and improv "successfully," (so you can play with anyone who also knows how to play, any time) you have to do it by ear.
One swears the best way is to also know the words to whatever piece you are playing, and after thinking about it, that was something I vaguely remember having learned many years ago, and that works for me as well.
One of them gave me this site, which seems to be very informative and has some neat teaching methods for anyone wanting to learn to play jazz and improv, etc.
http://allencole.tripod.com/jamschool.htm
You'll have to cut and paste it, but I think it will be rewarding for you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Arney
Date: 2001-10-12 00:11
Especially the "bridge" Peter. I hear the title, can then remember the tune (and some of the words) but unless I remember the words I have difficulty in reconstructing bridge. Nowdays, it's just four chords, loud noise, and "Yeah Yeah Yeah Baby." I have always thought that "The Day Music Died" dealt with the breakdown of the understanding of Dixieland. And they didn't even play "Didn't He Ramble."
Bob A
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2001-10-12 01:04
Bob,
You just mentioned one of my favorite pieces of music: Didn't He Ramble. I believe I have it by Pete Fountain, probably others as well.
I lose track, we have about a 22,000 piece (recorded) music library that goes all the way back to the turn of the century and has everything in it from folk to very hard-core classical. Including an inordinate number of blues and jazz pieces by almost everyone who played the stuff.
(I get regular requests from close friends who are musicians to come over and listen to particular pieces they want or need to learn to play...)
Many are original recordings. (I won't tell there's even a bunch of classic rock somewhere in there from when I was a kid.)
My biggest problem is that to me, listening to music isn't something you do for background noise. I have to lock myself in and concentrate on it, as the thing I am doing, when I'm doing it, and can't be interrupted.
I have a room set up with speakers facing each other diagonally, from the four corners of the room, so the music "meets" in the middle, where I sit. Consequently, I have learned many of these tunes by heart. (Head?).
I used love to go to concerts and concentrate on watching the individual musicians, their expressions and contortions while they play. It's like having a direct line to the music itself.
Before I came to live in this cultural stink-hole (Miami, FL) I used to go to the great concert halls and sit in the balconies with zoom binoculars, so I could zoom in and out of the different band and/or orchestra sections and/or individual musicians as the music was played.
That was quite a "groove."
Oh, well. It's the only way to learn to play blues and jazz.
Of course, that's just my personal opinion!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b
Date: 2001-10-12 02:06
Personally, Joe,I detest 'dixieland' - the 'corn' variety. There's an awful lot of it around. If, however, you're referring to Traditional Jazz then you're talkin' to me.
LISTEN often, and STUDY the old players. Cultivate a taste for good stuff.
Know a good piano, guitar, banjo player?
If you do, you're fortunate. Get together and play a lot... BY EAR. You need to learn to think in patterns, figures, whole melodies and not get hung up on note-for-note playing - that'll kill ya.
You don't need to stick to just the old tunes either. Countless jazz players have demonstrated that. You can make anything sound good if you think about it and use some discretion.
If you're dedicated and don't forget to practice, you'll soon develop your own style - for better or for worse.
- ron b -
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Kelly Australia
Date: 2001-10-12 06:05
I'd agree with the "by ear" technique, which means aquiring a record collection of "good" versions of the repetoire, whic to me means the old stuff out of New Orleans any time from ~1923 to about whenever. You should look to the black players, it's their music, for inspiration.
Also teaming up with a chord player is great practice too. Many tunes run to similar patterns, particularly 32 bar ballads with the conventional 8 bar bridge, and of course learn the blues progressions.
Good luck.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Kelly Australia
Date: 2001-10-12 06:09
I'd agree with the "by ear" technique, which means aquiring a record collection of "good" versions of the repetoire, whic to me means the old stuff out of New Orleans any time from ~1923 to about whenever. You should look to the black players, it's their music, for inspiration.
Also teaming up with a chord player is great practice too. Many tunes run to similar patterns, particularly 32 bar ballads with the conventional 8 bar bridge, and of course learn the blues progressions.
Good luck.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2001-10-12 12:00
Ron B,
I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but I'm genuinely in the dark. You said:
"Personally, Joe, I detest 'dixieland' - the 'corn' variety. There's an awful lot of it around. If, however, you're referring to Traditional Jazz then you're talkin' to me."
I am not sure I understand what you mean by 'corn.' Can you give me some examples of pieces you consider corn in Dixieland music?
I always thought of "corn" as country and folk music, but of actual Dixieland as an important form of traditional jazz, which was played, at one time or another, by some of the most prominent jazz musicians in American music history (not that country/folk hasn't had its famous performers but we are talking about jazz.).
Thanks.
Peter
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2001-10-12 13:30
Peter wrote:
> I always thought of "corn" as country and folk music,
Not me (I know you weren't insulting it, as evidenced later in your posting). Country and folk music is the foundation of much of <b>all</b> music.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b
Date: 2001-10-12 18:54
(from an e-mail response, with a couple of minor additions, that I thought might be appropriate to post here for discussion purposes)
Hi, Peter -
Thanks for taking time to write to me. Yes, the thread sorta slid down the list and I haven't gone back to it :|
I do not by any means consider you to be a wise guy, whatever that is. I love to discuss music(among other things , pros and cons and whys and wherefores. Differing opinions stimulate thinking. I believe there should be thoughtful consideration behind any art form. Your contribution is as valuable and as appreciated as anyone's.
I know, it's a sometimes fine and hard to define line between what I consider good and someone else's opinion of that. And, we may both be correct. There are oodles of good players of all styles. I've run across them in local pubs, street corners, on front porches and parks and... the list goes on. There are also a lot of so-so and just plain mediocre artists; some, well meaning but misinformed or uninformed, attempting to imitate styles they've only heard mediocre examples of. Enough.
Traditional (or, classical) jazz, as I understand it, is based on semi-classical music - chamber music, if you will. Its harmonies and intricacies stem from waltzes, quadrilles, marches etc. And, yes, Country music - by educated performers who knew music well, not rag-tag 'anything will do' hacks. From those well thought out roots the art form became adapted to dance hall, party, street corner and parade events... neighborhood folk music. Eventually, a rather short time actually, straying from that environment, out of the 'neighborhood' - intimate social functions - put onto a stage, associated with minstrel shows and the circus, that portion of it took on a razmatazz quality that, in my estimation, spoiled it with bright lights and megaphones. The homey, intimate quality, the ensemble quality, was sacrificed to glitz and hoopla. As this was happening it's fortunate that some of it got documented before being overrun by well meaning but lesser talented hangers on who made up for their shortcomings by volume and hype.
A primary North American example, in my opinion, is The Firehouse Five Plus Two. I single Firehouse 5 out for comparison purpose only. They're all nice guys, it's not personal. Compare that group to some Europeans, Ken Colyer, Monty Sunshine, Papa Bue etc. who studied and caught the spirit of the art form. The Firehouse Five + 2 are an anything goes band. Ken Colyer gets to the heart of it. Firhouse 5 is corn. Colyer is meaningful jazz.
Firehouse is corn - good corn and lots of fun but, it's still corn This is my idea of 'dixieland'.
There are of course many other corns but I'd have to look 'em up. I don't keep a file record of them.
Anything by Johnny Dodds, I feel, could be called classical or traditional jazz. And that, in a nutshell, is my Opinionated estimation of the difference between dixieland and classical jazz.
I do not advocate banishing dixieland, nor do I listen only to old timers. But, by all means, I do recommend thoughtful, meaningful structure to the art of playing music in any form. Otherwise... well, what's the purpose? We end up with a lot of what's heard today. Based on previous mediocre stuff, only a smidge lasts any time at all. The rest is interesting, sometimes amusing, occasionally disturbing but, in the scheme of things, relatively short lived - a passing thought.
Again, Peter, thanks for writing.
I think I agree with you but we may be using different terms(?) for the same things. I, too, enjoy country music and have played in country groups - but, correct, we're discussing jazz now
Sincerely,
Ron
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Arney
Date: 2001-10-12 21:23
Peter, Ron--I love "corn" as Ron defined it. I enjoy the "Firehouse Five +2" and I really dug "Doc Evans and His Six Alarm Six." Anybody else but me heard about them? I've only heard one recording and that was in 1946. Peter do you have them?
Bob A
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2001-10-12 22:05
Well, here's the thing:
Good American folk and country music are the descendants of early Irish/Scottish music, and an excellent form of expression. The "corn" part comes in with the "constant crying" and "corny" country music lyrics. (In amongst our music collection are a large number of "old" folk and country pieces that I enjoy, when I am in the mood for it, as with all the other types of music we have in it.)
As far as Blues and traditional jazz, I'm still not sure that we agree.
Blues and jazz, are descendants of black gospel, spirituals, sad "work," and somewhat happier, "after-work" music, rag-time (which is also black music,) and other popular styles which were developed by the "honky-tonk" players into jazz.
Traditional jazz is a black thing that may use some classical tunes, but does not depend on their original meter for much, if anything. I think you are thinking of "orchestrated" jazz as "traditional jazz," and I suppose some of it could be, i.e.: Paul Whiteman's imitations of the traditional black music originally called "jazz."
Not that jazz is haphazard and has no meter, just that the notion of real, American-black initiated, traditional jazz, as I know it, has no vestiges of the "classical" in it. I'll give you the quadrilles, and some marches, especially in some New Orleans and Dixieland flavors, but except in those pieces where such influence is very apparent, I can't agree with that connectin you are talking about.
To my knowledge, the"classical" influence in traditional jazz, as I understand you mean it, does not exist, as such.
Louis Armstrong, Fats Waller, Oscar Peterson, Pete Fountain, Pee Wee Russel, Sidney Bechet, Omer Simeon, Charley Parker, W.C. Handy... They played the "free" music. There was not much "classical" anything involved there. Some of them were the original rag-tag musicians.
And many of them have been shown in documentaries saying they never wrote down anything they played and couldn't tell you how they played it the last time they played it, or even what notes they were playing when they did it..
Benny Goodman starved playing the kind of music I think you are talking about until James Fletcher Henderson (black band leader who had fallen on hard times)wrote his "book" for him and started writing all BG's arrangements. After that BG took off like a rocket.
There were some others who made it big with more metered, wrtten music, but they were the least number. Artie Shaw, Glenn Miller, Paul Whiteman, Dorsey brothers, Woody Herman, etc. (Even Lawrence Welk.)
Suffice it to say that Irving Berlin (who wasn't necessarily known for jazz, although much of his music was turned into jazz,) could barely read even the simplest music. He never understood harmony and played only in the key of "F#." He composed by picking out, by ear, with one finger, notes that a composer-arranger sitting next to him would write down as he picked out his tunes.
This is as per his biography.
Would you like a list of all the famous music and plays he wrote? He wasn't the only one. Most of jazz's really great pioneers were in the same boat!
Most wouldn't have known chamber music from a hole in the ground! Especially when they started out.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2001-10-12 22:07
Sorry, I just realized there were others in the way there!
My previous reply was directed to Ron B, not to Mark Charette or Bob Arney!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: charles bergere
Date: 2001-10-13 03:41
Not everyone can play by ear.even classical professional musicians have difficulty playing by ear.Also you need memory and the feel for the music.If the blues is your choice, listen to Sidney bechet or Johnny dodds on their slow tempos.for Dixieland I think the dukes of dixieland are a fair choice.Also Pete Fountain is a very good compromise. Personnally I favor Sidney Bechet. The man was a genius and inspired hundred of thousands to take the clarinet and the soprano sax as their instrument. His recordings are all available now. Listen carefully to Blue Horizon a real jewel of blues
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2001-10-14 18:37
Absolute ly correct, Charles, you are a man of taste!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2001-10-15 03:59
Hey Charles, sorry I was unavoidably interrupted before.
I also wanted to tell you that I would not expect a classical musician to be too able to play by ear. Being a classical musician implies a rigid written music regimen that practically precludes becoming proficient at any other way of learning the music they will play.
Consequently, when they envision the music they are playing, they do so in the rigid way it is written on the sheet where they learned it, as opposed to "creatively up for grabs in their head," as I mentioned before.
Playing by ear is accomplished in two ways: One is by being a "natural" musician who can pick up the instrument of choice and just play what one hears; the other is by being taught to play by ear and practicing it.
Being a "classical" musician is far, far from being able to do it all.
With all due respect, I would even venture to say that, often, classical training (which I also have, by the way) is more apt to atrophy a player's "roundability" than to help it.
Strict "classical" training is often only good for creating snobs who look down on others who could possibly be as, or more talented. Accomplished snobs, but snobs nevertheless.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2001-10-15 05:27
Peter wrote:
I also wanted to tell you that I would not expect a classical
> musician to be too able to play by ear. Being a classical
> musician implies a rigid written music regimen that practically
> precludes becoming proficient at any other way of learning the
> music they will play.
With all due respect - the best classical musicians I know do an awful lot that's "not on the paper". Technicians we've plenty of. Musicians we don't. I suspect you may not really know what a classical musican does - the nuiances of phrasing, ornamentation, and many other things come into play. Jazz musicians and musicians who play by ear (that was me) do a certain set of things, classical another set of things. The parameters and constraints are certainly different, but both are musicians, and neither is easy.
I see snobbery in <b>your</b> post ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: charles bergere
Date: 2001-10-16 17:26
We should make a difference between classical and jazz.To be a good classical player requires intense discipline and hard work to achieve the tone and techniques required by the classical music.Jazz requires other qualifications. I will say it again that playing by ear is not for everybody. Some achieve it and some do not.In my case ( I am 72 years old and have played the clarinet for 60 years and still play with a swing band weekly), I played with recordings in the background.I am classical trained but also love new orleans jazz. Sidney Bechet was my idol and still is. He was a genius and a musical poet. I was fortunate to play alongside him during a jazz festival in France.I also loved Reginald Kell who was a fabulous classical player.Playing by ear is a gift and is essential if you want to play dixieland or new orleans jazz. Practice by playing with recordings by Pete Fountain, George Lewis, Bechet in slow tempos and memorize their solos. Eventually you will put some variations or harmonies and get a Klose book and practice those fingers.
Charles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2001-10-16 23:11
Charles,
God bless you and grant you many more, 72 years old and still playing!
I hope all the rest of us do half as well!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
