Listening to the jazz masters/classics

[EriKon]

From my own teaching experience at two universities of music, little bit of private teaching and studying the young players out there (watching competitions and so on), I've made the experience that most of the now young players around their 20s seem to listen much more to the players alive today, usually Marshall Gilkes, JLCO players, Andy Martin, Michael Dease and Wycliffe Gordon, than to the classics/masters like JJ Johnson, Curtis Fuller, Carl Fontana, Frank Rosolino, Bill Watrous.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong in liking Elliot or Marshall or all of these guys. Absolutely amazing/killing players and I admire all of those guys. But from what I experience and what I hear in lots of young players playing is that they studied a lot of Michael Dease or Elliot Mason and didn't care about where those guys took their inspiration from which usually are like JJ, Carl or Frank and unfortunately you can hear that the foundation and the roots of that are missing. I really had to push some of my students to really get away from listening to some super virtuous Marshall solos to check out some clear and easy JJ stuff, because they were trying to get crazy high stuff going without having any foundation about what to play on simple changes.

When I've been studying (which is not too long ago as well to be fair), I basically exclusively listened to Carl, Frank or Curtis (later on lots of Albert Mangelsdorff) and had lots of albums by those guys laying around. I might have had one album of Marshall or Elliott and that's it.

Am I wrong about this? Is this normal to a certain extent? Does it do any "harm"? Would love to hear from folks working with young jazz players how they feel about that.

Edit: All names mentioned are just examples of course. Add other names to it if you want.

[Matt K]

I dunno, I wouldn't necessarily describe JJ, Carl, or Frank as "clear and easy." Frank in particular. I have a book of transcriptions Conrad did of his stuff and I can barely play any of it. I've transcribed a decent amount of JJ stuff and I've found it almost universally "sounds" lower than it actually is. Like, his Night in Tunisia solo from the J&K+6 album has a pretty high tessitura and some pretty challenging licks. Like, you have to be in pretty good shape to play it.

The way I'd think about it is that I listen to stuff for my own enjoyment and/or to learn from it. I listen to a LOT of Conrad Herwig for example, but it isn't necessarily to sound like Conrad. If I really want that, I'd have to transcribe a ton of Coltrane, for example, rather than listening to him. I'm more interested in sounding like me and having Conrad as an influence rather than having the outcome be me sounding like Conrad. I mean, don't get me wrong it would be great if I could do that but I don't have any delusions of such grandeur.

I think if anything what I would want to see is young players listening to the best of both the classics and also contemporary stuff - and there is a lot of great contemporary stuff now. I don't see any harm in listening to it, perhaps even focusing on it, especially as interested ebbs and flows with some artists for most people.

[mgladdish]

I think I disagree quite strongly with this as an approach. Everyone's a product of their time, which is what makes the music interesting.

JJ didn't grow up listening to JJ, nor did he emerge, fully formed from some jazz-coccoon (although that could be cool). JJ himself credited Lester Young, Trummy Young and Dickie Wells among others. Do we need to skip JJ and go back to those guys instead? Or go back even further to their influences?

Don't get me wrong, learning the fundamentals is critical. But there's no one-true-source for that. And I'd argue that the earlier trombonists aren't even necessarily the best source for them either. Being a rounded musician means listening to the lot of it, from the very beginning up to today. And if it's contemporary trombonists that gets them engaged most in the music and the instrument, then embrace it. Show them everything else, and what they should be listening for, of course, but don't fight the one thing that's made them so engaged with the music that they're seeking out professional help to develop it for themselves.

[tbdana]

There is a modern trend away from bebop era jazz artists, in favor of something a little more contemporary, which might account for the modern preferences you cite, at least in part. Young ears today don't hear jazz the same way as those older players mentioned.

Personally, I take two separate approaches. The first is to listen to and try to emulate players of other instruments: sax, trumpet and piano, mostly. The second is to find trombonists that play(ed) the way I want to play, and figure out what about their approach I want to adopt, and what I don't. Then I incorporate the two.

Honestly, if I could be Frank Rosolino, I would. To my ears, he embodies the best combination of trombonistic + other instrument jazz. But then I realize that no one else can ever be Frank.

Random thought: Someone needs to add John Allred to this list. This is The Way.

Personally, I try to play like those older folks no one listens to: Fontana, Watrous, Johnson, Rosolino. Then I go to the living trombonists who adopt that approach: Marshall Gilkes, Bob McChesney, John Allred. One thing they all share is an ability to play fast and melodically. That's not easy on trombone, so it's understandable that people shy away from that. But, to me, that's the best way to get the most out of jazz, with the fewest limitations, so I put in the work, to whatever effect I can achieve. I don't want to have to play to the limitations of the instrument. I'd rather play to the limitations of my imagination.

[AndrewMeronek]

A trend that's been going on for a few generations now is to ignore trombonists when they can really ratchet up a sweet slide vibrato. I've come to appreciate that on my own after a long process of learning what I enjoy playing, and learning what people enjoy hearing. And for sure, I enjoy creating a sweet melody with vibrato AND people enjoy hearing it.

But people haven't really been listening to Tommy Dorsey, Urbie Green, Dick Nash, Bill Watrous, Slide Hampton, and many other greats specifically for this reason and tend to gravitate more toward when the great trombonists do non-tromboney, bebop things.

In hindsight, I understand why it took me a while to get here: in my learning journey I have to start by trusting the wisdom of popular trends in trombone playing. But I don't really know how we got there in the first place. Even today, the number of fantastic trombonists who deliberately choose to play this way is fairly small, despite the obvious audience appeal.

[VJOFan]

The philosophy of Wynton Marsalis is to know the history of the music to understand its development. Break new ground for sure, but do that based on a deep foundation in the sounds of New Orleans to now. It makes sense if one compares how people who study Western classical music do it. The history classes start at the best guess at folk traditions before notation and run through development of notation harmony and counterpoint to close to the present day. Private lessons and chamber groups cover repertoire from at least the Renaissance. That’s how when a group plays John Adams it still sounds like orchestral, classical music.

The easiest way to sell listening more broadly and deeply would be economically. When gigging those young players will be in a lot of stylistic situations. Best to be able to create those styles convincingly. I had the pleasure of sitting in front of a 21 year old trumpeter a few weeks back. She can rip off bebop for days, play any Latin genre and then during this big band show she became Harry James. Super impressive and why she is constantly gigging.

[EriKon]

I dunno, I wouldn't necessarily describe JJ, Carl, or Frank as "clear and easy." Frank in particular. I have a book of transcriptions Conrad did of his stuff and I can barely play any of it. I've transcribed a decent amount of JJ stuff and I've found it almost universally "sounds" lower than it actually is. Like, his Night in Tunisia solo from the J&K+6 album has a pretty high tessitura and some pretty challenging licks. Like, you have to be in pretty good shape to play it.

The way I'd think about it is that I listen to stuff for my own enjoyment and/or to learn from it. I listen to a LOT of Conrad Herwig for example, but it isn't necessarily to sound like Conrad. If I really want that, I'd have to transcribe a ton of Coltrane, for example, rather than listening to him. I'm more interested in sounding like me and having Conrad as an influence rather than having the outcome be me sounding like Conrad. I mean, don't get me wrong it would be great if I could do that but I don't have any delusions of such grandeur.

I think if anything what I would want to see is young players listening to the best of both the classics and also contemporary stuff - and there is a lot of great contemporary stuff now. I don't see any harm in listening to it, perhaps even focusing on it, especially as interested ebbs and flows with some artists for most people.

I agree with listening to all of it is great. I don't want people to stop listening to what they like, that's not my task. But it's my task to make sure they get a profound knowledge about all that matters in jazz trombone from back then until current.

And a JJ or Curtis solo is a lot easier to manage and to handle than a Marshall Gilkes or Elliott Mason solo. Sure those are still exhausting and definitely sound easier than they are, but try playing a solo by Elliott. First of all it's hard to listen and get the information and then it's even harder to get technical abilities.

[jacobgarchik]

jeeeez they are all like that?
don't you have any of those trad jazz kids?
When I was in school in the 90s there were kids who only listened to (then young) Mehldau, Chris Potter, Rosenwinkel, or Kenny Garrett. What happened is they either wisened up and started checking out the sources or they quit music.

[Mamaposaune]

"The philosophy of Wynton Marsalis is to know the history of the music to understand its development. Break new ground for sure, but do that based on a deep foundation in the sounds of New Orleans to now. It makes sense if one compares how people who study Western classical music do it. The history classes start at the best guess at folk traditions before notation and run through development of notation harmony and counterpoint to close to the present day. Private lessons and chamber groups cover repertoire from at least the Renaissance. That’s how when a group plays John Adams it still sounds like orchestral, classical music."

Love this - it reflects my thoughts, but articulated much better than I could have. I used to listen to Wynton's "Jazz for Young People" held at Lincoln Center, broadcast on the radio Saturday mornings, and was really impressed at how such an outstanding musician of his caliber could break down his wealth of knowledge into concepts that were both easy to understand yet fun and interesting to the young listeners. As one example, he would play a section of a tune with his band, then break it down into short little rifs which could be easily imitated by even middle schoolers who were motivated to do so.
It seems as though most responses on this thread are referring to advanced players who just may become the next big name in trombone households, but where do they begin? As a private teacher of mostly "average" students who enjoy playing but are not looking to pursue music as a career, I always incorporate basic theory into my lessons. When they are introduced to improvising in their HS jazz bands and bring in their music, it is always leaps and bounds more complex than anything we have covered. I find myself wishing the band directors would start with a basic 12-bar blues, like Wynton does, and building on that so they really understood what they are playing. To me, it's like teaching the alphabet to kindergarteners and then assigning high-school level reading materials.

[Matt K]

I agree with listening to all of it is great. I don't want people to stop listening to what they like, that's not my task. But it's my task to make sure they get a profound knowledge about all that matters in jazz trombone from back then until current.

And a JJ or Curtis solo is a lot easier to manage and to handle than a Marshall Gilkes or Elliott Mason solo. Sure those are still exhausting and definitely sound easier than they are, but try playing a solo by Elliott. First of all it's hard to listen and get the information and then it's even harder to get technical abilities.

The way I would frame it is not [this person] vs [this other person], whether they be contemporaries or historical figures. I would think of it as finding appropriate repertoire for the individual student by determining their zone of proximal development and then putting things to transcribe in front of them that fit that. And, like you said, not limiting themselves to trombone players but all sorts of instrumentalists.

I guess my point is that when I was going down this path, a common refrain that I would hear is "If you want to sound like person X, you need to study what person X studied, not person X." And from my perspective, I don't care much about sounding like "person x" in this example, but like "me" but... a better version of "me." If that means studying the people I like, rather than the people who the people I like studied, I think that's perfectly acceptable - if that skill level is in their ZPD.

[Mamaposaune]

I used to listen to Wynton's "Jazz for Young People" held at Lincoln Center, broadcast on the radio Saturday mornings, and was really impressed at how such an outstanding musician of his caliber could break down his wealth of knowledge into concepts that were both easy to understand yet fun and interesting to the young listeners. As one example, he would play a section of a tune with his band, then break it down into short little rifs which could be easily imitated by even middle schoolers who were motivated to do so.
It seems as though most responses on this thread are referring to advanced players who just may become the next big name in trombone households, but where do they begin? As a private teacher of mostly "average" students who enjoy playing but are not looking to pursue music as a career, I always incorporate basic theory into my lessons. When they are introduced to improvising in their HS jazz bands and bring in their music, it is always leaps and bounds more complex than anything we have covered. I find myself wishing the band directors would start with a basic 12-bar blues, like Wynton does, and building on that so they really understood what they are playing. To me, it's like teaching the alphabet to kindergarteners and then assigning high-school level reading materials.

[sf105]

Of course people should listen to players they like but I'm puzzled as to why anyone would not want to listen to players of earlier generations just because it's great music. Not being aware of the tradition would be unheard of in straight music.

I was in the generation that mixed trad jazz and free improvisation (like Roswell Rudd but not as good), and then tried to fill in the gaps later, which left me with an appreciation of all sorts of styles. That included a taste for the quirkier players, like Jimmy Knepper, Jack Teagarden, and Dickie Wells. As a listener I can identify them within the first measure, which is a bit of a lost art.

And there's always Melba Liston who was never extravagant but always interesting.