Re: [Harp-L] re: Smo-Joe & Richard hunters comments ('jazz' &'distortion')

["Dapper Dan" <dapper@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you, Rosco.  You are a voice of reason.  Dan Axt
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Roscoharp@xxxxxxx>
To: <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 12:12 PM
Subject: [Harp-L] re: Smo-Joe & Richard hunters comments ('jazz'
&'distortion')


>
>
> In a message dated 12/4/2005 10:57:47 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> harp-l-archives@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> From:  Richard Hunter <turtlehill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Harp-L] Jazz and  specific techniques
>
> Winslow commented on one of my posts not too long  ago to the effect that
> specific techniques might in fact be intrinsic to  jazz, and I've thought
> about it quite a lot since then.  Ultimately,  I've decided that Winslow
> is partly right and mostly wrong (subject of  course to further debate).
>
> First, let's agree that jazz is a very big  tent.  It includes people
> whose sounds and conceptions are radically  different.  Keith Jarrett is
> jazz; so is Errol Garner; so is Bud  Powell; so is Bill Evans.  Sidney
> Bechet is jazz; so is Johnny Hodges;  so is Charlie Parker; so is John
> Coltrane.  This brief list should  illustrate the point: you can do a lot
> of different things on your  instrument and still be playing jazz.
>
> Where Winslow is right, I think,  is that certain conceptual approaches,
> and their associated techniques, are  clearly associated with certain
> jazz styles.  To take an obvious  example, Coltrane's use of what critic
> Martin Williams called "exploding  harmonics" (multiple overtones played
> simultaneously on the tenor sax) is  clearly associated with his late
> style.  However, one would never say  that a saxophonist is not playing
> jazz just because he or she is not using  exploding harmonics.
>
> To take an example closer to home, Howard Levy's  jazz diatonic style
> clearly demands overblows, and can't be duplicated  without them.
> However, jazz is a big tent, and Howard's approach isn't the  only viable
> approach to playing jazz on the diatonic.  Using  specially-tuned
> diatonics is an obvious alternative, and in addition to my  own work in
> this area I can cite players whose use of special tunings is  far more
> radical than mine, and whose results are certainly jazz.
>
> I  categorically reject the idea that any single player's approach to  any
> instrument, no matter how brilliant, defines jazz, and therefore  the
> idea that any single set of techniques defines jazz.  To say  otherwise
> is equivalent to saying that jazz stops growing when the right  player
> comes along with the right set of ideas and techniques.  If  that were
> the case, jazz would have stopped growing with Armstrong.   Or Parker.
> Or Coltrane.  Or whoever.
>
> It's more accurate to  say that every great player, and a lot of the
> less-than-great ones,  contribute something new to the evolving language
> that is jazz.  And I  certainly reject out of hand the reverse
> implication -- that if a player is  NOT using a certain set of
> techniques, e.g. overblowing, that he or she by  definition is not
> playing jazz on the diatonic.
>
> Like I said, subject  to further debate.
>
>
>
> Hey list,
> I read this post soon after reading Smo-Joes post about not liking the
sound
> of some, I assume, electric harp styles. It all goes to the same idea,  &
> reminds me of the "Popper" threads. If you don't like a style of music,
> literature, film, whatever... no problem. Don't listen, read, or watch.
These  things
> can be fun to argue about, but there is no right or wrong.  Richard
writes
> that "jazz is a big tent" & I think that that is undeniable. I would  also
say
> "harmonica music is a big tent." Bill Barrett, Steve Guyger, Howard  Levy
&
> Chris Michalek all have different sounds & play different styles  (in
multiple
> genres), but they are all great to my ears.
>
> Smo Joe writes: "Excuse me J.R. and I don't want  to cause a fuss, but yes
> you do. I'm
> speaking of this over muffling and  distorting deal. A little is ok, but
> some people play TOTALLY distorted. If a  person wants distortion, get a
> toy tuba and blow it into a metal waste paper  can."
>
>
> You know, I might really dig that toy tuba thing! Smo-joe might
not......&
> he doesn't have to. Again, I can't say there is a right or wrong  opinion.
> As for one of Richard's points, I used to be a snob about altered
tunings. I
> was being dumb & close-minded.  Listening to Barrett (my  favorite 'jazz'
> chro player),  or P.T.Gazell, amongst others using altered  harp set-ups,
I don't
> care how they make their music. I just enjoy it  immensly.
>
> Later,
> Rosco
> _may.be au.gust_ (http://www.maybeaugust.com/)
>
> live recordings: _may.be  au.gust_ (http://www.maybeaugust.com/Live.aspx)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org
> Harp-L@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://harp-l.org/mailman/listinfo/harp-l
>
>