From: leclaire@dxcern.cern.ch (Bruce Leclaire)
Newsgroups: rec.music.bluenote,rec.music.makers
Subject: Re: Chick-Round II
Date: 12 Apr 92 03:00:06 GMT
Organization: CERN

In article <1992Apr7.131902.23380@icd.ab.com> jaz@icd.ab.com (Jack A. Zucker) writes:
> [...mucho stuff deleted...]
>
>BTW, I don't know if you play an instrument but I've noticed that the
>most musically closed minded people I know are always the worst 
 ^^^^
>musicians. This is because when you can really *PLAY*, you gain an
>appreciation for music. Forgive me if I misquote the source but I
>believe Duke Ellington stated that there are only 2 kinds of music,
>Good and Bad.
>

[ I know that the statement above explicity says MOST. But let me spout
  off for a minute, mostly to relate three little stories about Bird,
  Getz, and Monk. ]

   Depends on how you define close-minded. Believe me, I know some musicians
who are absolutely super players in their style, and who hate most other
styles. It's true that most good musicians are very open minded, but there
are many who are very narrow. I can't believe you don't know people like
this, however. It also comes down to your definition of *PLAY*. I'm more than
willing to take these people's music and call it good; despite their close-
mindedness, or their egos, or even their political views. Take bluegrass
music for example. I know some monster bluegrass players way out California
way. Most of them love jazz, some are even quite good at playing it. Others
don't like it; somehow it just doesn't -do- it for them. That's OK, doesn't
prevent them from playing good bluegrass.

   On the other hand, many innovators borrow heavily from others; taking a
folk song or ethnic style and adapting it to their style (jazz or
otherwise). Sometimes it's necessary to master other styles then the
one you play, because your style is derived from the others. But this
doesn't mean you have to like the other styles, although you might.
Remember this story? Charlie Parker was given a blindfold test by DownBeat.
They made him listen to many recordings, and buried in them was an early
(I think swing) number Bird had played. It was only about 5 years old,
maybe less. Anyways, after hearing it, Parker said that it sounded old,
i.e. dated. Played in a style that was no longer current. He didn't like
his own (earlier) playing!  Was Bird close-minded because he was discontent
playing swing, that he felt compelled to invent bebop? (Yes, I know I'm
overstating the case, but I'm playing devil's advocate).

   Another curiousity comes from a personal experience I had.  It was in a
lecture Stan Getz gave at Stanford. He was musician in residence, and an
informal "night with Stan" was organized. Let me digress to describe the
situation a little. It was a little bizarre, Stan sat up on the stage and
didn't have a set of recollections to tell us, as I had expected. Instead,
he had assistents hand out index cards, and we members of the audience
wrote down questions for him. The assistents would collect the cards, and
Stan would liesurely read though them, and answer only the ones he damn
well felt like. (OK, the system does make some sense, but I had expected
a little more effort at prep'ing by Getz). Two questions came up that I
remember in particular, which are relevant here. One got Stan to say that
Jimi Hendrix was a genius. The other revealed the fact that Stan didn't
listen to jazz at home anymore, ever. He only listened to classical music.
Curious, Getz listened to acid-rock, but probably didn't know much about
the jazz of the 80's. Close-minded? Perhaps. Maybe just a case of saturation.
But when you're as good as Stan you can afford to stop listening to others.

   I have one more story on this topic, concerning Monk. I'm sorry but I
can't remember where I heard it first, but it goes like this... I think
Monk was on tour in Europe and was being badgered by a reporter. Monk was
changing after a show (?), and they were backstage. The reported ask Monk
what kinds of music he liked, and Monk simply answered "All kinds".
The reporter just couldn't believe this, and pressed the point.
"Well, do you like, for example, Country & Western?". Monk just looked at
another member of the band and said "I guess that reporter don't
listen too well, eh?". Then he went back to tieing his shoes,
without another word. Monk, what a guy!

I have to finish with one last thought. Being able to play doesn't
necessarily correlate with being open-minded. In general that's a
trait people have independent of music. Being able to really play doesn't
necessarily give you a better appreciation of music than a nonplayer.
Appreciation is entirely subjective after all. Being able to play will
generally give you a better technical appreciation of the actual creative
process (listen to that awesome substitution, or this incredible scale
I got off the net the other day). But never forget that every player
was once a nonplayer whose appreciation of music was so great that they
committed all those hours to mastering an instrument (or computer).
Perhaps this is why so many players are generally open-minded, they
started that way.


--Bruce

    (Who still remembers thinking that Bird's playing was shit
     when he heard it for the very first time; and who later
     loved that shit, even when all he could play was the theme
     to "Peter Gunn".)
From: mjs@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Marc Sabatella)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:07:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: How Engineers make music (was Usenet Tape depression sets in)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA