George Duke
OK,
I have something I want to talk about.
Over the past five or six years, I’ve noticed a marked change of
direction in many young jazz pianists. Please keep in mind that for the
purposes of this article, I’m only referring to jazz pianists, but
in many ways it includes other instruments as well.
I guess the place for me to begin is to define the word “jazz”
– well, I’m not going to tackle that one just yet.
You see, there seems to be a moving away from swing and spontaneous improvisation.
I recently spoke with Billy Childs about the issue and he feels, as I
do, that it is a musical movement of players leaning towards European
elements and not traditional African American elements.
It seems that the feeling of the blues has been diminished and many of
these young players in reality sound more like classical players. In listening
to various solo piano performances, this is quite apparent.
Now don’t get me wrong, I LOVE classical music. But when it comes
to jazz, it seems to me that somewhere in a performance one needs to acknowledge
its’ heritage either directly or indirectly.
Now jazz at its’ core is a brothel music, it was born in the whore
houses of New Orleans. The music was upbeat, fun, danceable and at the
same time technically challenging, but most importantly it was born of
a free spirit!
Now this is important, because many young jazz pianists sound like they
have rehearsed everything down to the last sixteenth note. And even if
they haven’t, it feels that way. Most of the playing I’ve
heard is virtually mistake free.
But something is missing! I have to look hard to find that free expression
of emotion, living on a tight rope, experimenting, trying difficult passages
and maybe not totally executing it correctly but making the attempt.
I’ve always felt that Miles Davis’ blown notes were part of
his musical canvas. If he played all the notes spot on, would his music
have felt the same – I doubt it!
And if that’s true, then perfection must be overrated, at least
as far as jazz is concerned.
Yeah I know, I can hear it now – “the pursuit of perfection
is a noble quest for any artist.” That’s true - but when technique
becomes more important than telling a musical story or surfing the wave
of spontaneous thought, then I believe it is a misguided quest.
Technique is and always will be a means to an end and not an end in itself!
Technique is important in allowing an artist to more easily express ideas,
giving flexibility of thought and the freedom to execute more difficult
and complex passages. BUT THE TECHNIQUE IS NOT THE MUSIC!
So, it’s a long way to come from playing in an early, raw New Orleans
environment to Carnegie Hall - and jazz being recognized in that way is
a great achievement. But back in the day, even at Carnegie Hall, the players
did not forget where they came from and were not afraid to keep it real
and pay respect to the blues.
Now I’m not saying that this trend towards Europeanism (is that
a word?) is necessarily wrong, I’m just making an observation and
wondering why?
I realize that trends in jazz will change - that’s the essence of
what jazz is, and change and inclusion are what a creative musician uses
to create an environment. But why the move away from traditional African
American musical values?
Now at times I’ve heard some of these players play the blues, and
it’s quite apparent that they don’t have a clue how to do
it. The blues is a feeling and attitude. In my playing it is at the core
of everything I do, so when young players abandon that, it’s almost
like they are abandoning a large part of what I love about jazz.
I guess it’s where I personally would like to see the music go or
not go. To move more towards European Classical elements, while a noble
endeavor, leaves me feeling that jazz may go the way of Classical music
and only be heard in symphony halls or used as elevator music or melodies
in pop tracks or only heard and loved by a small group of admirers.
The blues at its’ best (like gospel) is raw and free, and mad technical
expertise has little to do with it! On the other hand there is nothing
I love more than a beautiful melody played very eloquently, but somewhere
that rawness, or as Quincy Jones calls it – those grits (that hot
sauce – that bacon grease) - have to make an appearance on the stove.
This year I toured mostly with Stanley Clarke. Every night we ended the
show with a blues. The blues is important! Along with its’ counterparts
work songs, gospel and spirituals, the blues is what got black people
through a horrific time in history.
You know maybe that’s it. Even though I didn’t experience
slavery, my mom and dad did, so I had that direct connection to the gut
feeling of the blues and its’ musical predecessors – in reality
it is a direct connection to the past through a musical tradition. For
me, that feeling tells the story and displays the soul of my people.
On the other hand, I don’t believe one necessarily needs to personally
experience the American black scenario in order to enjoy, understand or
play the blues! One just needs the interest, gift and effort put forth
to learn what makes it work. I’ve seen BB King play in Europe to
an all white audience and believe me, they eat it up! I’ve also
seen white players from Holland play the bottom out of a blues. There
is a huge audience for the blues in Europe – now did they experience
slavery?
I guess what I’m saying is I’m feeling a historical disconnect
between these new crop of young jazz players and their predecessors. Maybe
I’m just getting old and beginning to sound like the older musicians
I encountered when I was a pup.
But still in the end, it’s up to the individual jazz musician -
there just doesn’t seem to be the interest in that type of feeling
anymore or they would learn how to play it and include it in their arsenal.
Maybe they feel that it is too simplistic or commercial. But to the contrary,
that tradition is FAR from commercial, in fact it is the exact opposite.
What makes and made jazz was the combination of African American and European
elements. To me the music works best when it contains both. In affect
it is integration. When the elements are segregated, neither work as well
under the umbrella and definition of Jazz.
So now, what is Jazz?
Stanley Clarke and I had a talk about this. As Stanley sees it, jazz is
an undefined term. It was fairly definable early on, but has since become
whatever the musician, listener, concert or radio programmer defines it
to be.
I personally subscribe to the Duke Ellington philosophy, “It Don’t
Mean A Thing If It Ain’t Got That Swing.” As far reaching
as Duke’s music was, he loved the blues and understood its’
importance to jazz. Keep in mind that when I say “the blues”
I’m not referring to a song form, I’m referring to a long
succession of musical feelings and ideas dating back to Africa.
So again, what is Jazz – I know what it ain’t!
I do know that jazz is an attitude that has the blues at its’ core.
It is at it’s best mostly spontaneous. That is what separates it
from other music. Jazz musicians are spontaneous composers versed in the
art of theme and variations, counterpoint wizards, rhythmic voodoo doctors,
melodic swans, harmonic oceans, creating what has yet to be created, constantly
searching, assimilating and birthing a new music child.
So, in the end whether these young players are really playing jazz based
on this definition is debatable. Whether they are good players is undeniable.
Whether it matters is also a point for discussion.
Now I’ve been accused many times of not playing jazz and that’s
probably true from a narrow traditional standpoint - I’ve been dismissed
as a player by many major jazz publications and critics for this very
thing. However, compared to these new breed of “classical/jazz”
players, I don’t know about that!
Whether I play straight ahead, funk, r&b, latin, pop or gospel –
styles are irrelevant - the majority of my music has jazz elements - spontaneous,
mostly improvised, and has the blues and gospel at its’ core. On
that level, I’m more of a jazz player than many I hear today!
In case you think I’m being too hard on these guys, let me tell
you that I’ve heard some incredible young jazz pianists who really
know how to play and are doing it, what I feel, is the right way.
And I’m not trying to control jazz, the mere idea is a ridiculous
notion. Jazz was born of a free mind and hopefully will remain that way!
And in the end that is my main concern – keeping the freedom in
the music!! The real musician needs to be free to create what needs creating.
I could care less what this critic or that critic says, what this publication
or that publication says. Though I believe that many want to, they don’t
control the music, the musician does!
There are too many non-musicians deciding what musicians should do. In
a nutshell that’s what’s wrong with the business! And even
worse, these musicians are listening to these folk.
In many ways, I think this is what’s happened to many of these young
pianists - they’ve been influenced by non-musicians. Now it’s
OK for these business people to offer an opinion, but it seems to me,
especially in jazz, that the musician must be given the final right of
refusal.
But, as fate would have it, the musician has given up too much power and
as result there is too much music being made today that is contrived and
totally controlled. The internet has become a great equalizer in this
fight.
It’s wonderful to have a medium that cherishes musical freedom.
That is what I always loved about jazz and what I don’t want to
see lost in its’ evolution.
As I said before, style of music is irrelevant! The important message
is the freedom of creativity and thought. Building on what came before
and taking that idea to new levels. That’s the only way the music
will truly evolve and become an extension of what came before.
Yeah, I know this is a wide open subject with a lot of opinions on all
sides. I just thought I would put it out there—what do you think?
(see below for fan responses)
Hey
George, great Musician's Corner! I love this topic and I completely agree.
Since you invited responses, I thought I'd give you one.
It gets more and more difficult to define a style of music, doesn't it?
"Traditionalists" lament what a style has become yet the style
they like is probably different from the previous generation.
The opposite of what you described took place in classical music at the
beginning of the 20th century. Ravel, Samuel Barber, Leonard Bernstein,
et. al. were all influenced by jazz harmonies and rhythms and those elements
found their way into "classical" music. Should Bernstein's 2nd
Symphony or Barber's piano music no longer be considered classical because
of that? I don’t think so. It's still classical but flavored with
jazz; and Ravel, Barber, and Bernstein are three of my favorite composers.
I, myself, do not like what computers and other technologies have done
to the writing and performance of music. Several months ago, I wrote a
song for a client and during the recording session, the engineer (who
is a good friend) and I went back and forth about my guitar playing. What
sounded real and musical to me sounded "off" to him. I believe
that this is because with a click of a mouse, you can quantize anything
and some engineers and performers are so used to that that anything else
sounds messy. And I apply that same philosophy to intonation. Yes, a player
should strive to play in tune but "in tune" means different
things to different people. If you take every performance you record,
put it into a computer and move the notes around until the computer says
they are "in tune," then you are making the music less realistic
in my opinion. When a string section plays, all 50 of those strings are
not 100% in tune nor are they 100% playing on the beat and that's what
gives it it's color and flavor.
Just some thoughts. - Rob G.
Hello Mr. Duke,
First let me start by saying how much I admire your music. It's musicians
like you and Billy Childs that keep music awe-inspiring and thought
provoking. and all of that to say...
I agree completely with all that was said in your commentary! and it just
doesn't apply to jazz but all music if you will...I used to think style
and technique was more important, but found it to be just as you say-irrelevant..it's
great to know how to apply it and God knows I could do much better
in that corner alone.
But I truly understand how to submit myself to the music and allow it
to take me where ever.
Being a pup in the music, I was blessed to have a family of great musicality
and they taught me a lot about music in how to respect and understand
the importance of lineage, heritage or whatever you choose to call it....we
had to know it! from blues to classical.
My parents were jazz musicians, so I was being fed in jazz all
the time and didn't realize until I was doing music myself!
Growing up I thought you needed a degree or certificate to even listen
to jazz let alone play it. because I'd hear the stories and the trips
that musicians went through in order to just play and maybe that's
part of the reason why so many shy away ( well maybe that's an excuse!
)...
My mom would sit me down and play things and she'd tell me stories and
the content of the lyrics or instrumentation of a tune.
Today to many pride themselves as great musicians who alone cannot or
do not know the very keys they're playing in...but have all this technique!
not bad though!
What I mean by that...
I noticed a big generational gap! just between my generation and
yours.
The pianists of your time which wasn't long ago played the acoustic a
whole lot and developed on, as well as the synths...but the
kids my age were bred on keyboards, I come from the DX7/PolySynth/Keyboard
generation.
That alone robbed many of the touch response and expression in playing the
keys alone!
because I guess I had to sort of go around the whole barn too, in order to
get to where Iam in my understanding of it all.
Now Iam not saying to understand jazz you have to know how to read music,
because I for one had enormous difficulty learning how to read and still
get confused...but one thing, I had was an ear to listen and
learn!
In my house you'd hear MJQ, Dakota Staton, Yma Sumac, Gloria Lynne,
Nancy, Carmen, Little Jimmy Scott, and a great deal of jazz organists...
then upstairs maybe some Edwin Hawkins Family, Donny Hathway, James
Cleveland, Mahalia, Rosetta Tharpe who to me, was the blues
personafied!.... so I got it that way. and also way in the back room I'd
hear my brother nursing and rehearsing the lines of Stanley
Clarke's School Days, and a lot of yours truly George Duke-lol!
Which my brothers told me one day I'd understand fusion hahaha...I LOVE
IT! and it's very much apart of the fabric in my own music interpretation
now.
And of course hiphop and all of the current funk needed was played as
well at that time.
Which is why my parents forced me to learn the importance of the music.
I for one never proclaimed myself as a jazz pianist in particular, but
being raised in it, I learned how to at least understand the expresion
and whole language of it. but also, never stopped there.
I just feel that my generation, not all, but most don't respect nor appreciate
jazz and our african element...especially here in the USA! we've aborted
or abandoned it in some way.
I had the blessing of touring in France for the first time doing
traditional gospel on the same bill as these great blues artists and the
people went bananas! like it was Usher or JayZ!
I think overall, music in general today has lost it's savor because
the lack of knowledge...we refer to artists as legends if they past 3
records in five years that have a major impact or sell greatly, that's
another issue...
Even in gospel music, which is primarily what I do, has sort of lost it's
punch for me!
Now there are some great things going on in gospel, but it just doesn't
have that punch or that grease you refer to like it did once before...
could it be the over processed production that drown the true spirit?
or is just about the bottom line? or non musicians rule?...I think it's
a little of all!
We have an assembly line or cookie cutter aproach to the music nowadays.
and the ones who are really saying something as usual never surface or
recieve the rightly deserve acclaim-which is the sad part!
But thank God for George Duke! lol!
I tell many of my musician friends to listen to your music and they'll
get a journey and history lesson in about 40 minutes!
One of the world's greatest records ever was, The Muir Wood Suite and
Dianne Reeves The Calling w/Billy Childs arranging..I thought it
was spellbounding and I aspire to arise to the occassion of doing
something on that magnitude prayerfully!
So, thank you so much for the music and keeping it alive and telling
your stories by way of music.
Hope I didn't escape the main issue you spoke of?...which I thought was
really about jazz pianists, but sprung forth other issues in me...
God Bless,
Deveron P.
George-
I am so honored that I am able to send you feedback! (I had to say
it!)
My thoughts on your "Observation" line up with what you are
saying. I also would like to add another point to it.
The microwave mentality has also conditioned our culture to get what they
want, when they want it. We don't have to be patient anymore; to
site and let the music develop and for a groove to hypnotize you;
to get you in the mood. We aren't being taken on musical journeys
in music anymore. If the "hook" doesn't catch you quickly,
you will have a hard time with today's listeners.
I could go on and on, but I believe you can flesh that one our a little
more on your own. I believe you know where I'm going.
George, I stumbled up on your site this evening and I'm happy I did.
Looking at you schedule, I see that you are in Long Beach on December
15. My wife and I will try to make plans to get out there.
You have made such a difference in my life with your music. I've
often laid up listening to your solos, trying to understand what you were
feeing when you played them. A lot of what you play reminds me of
Donnie Hathaway's singing. Just raw soul! Soul is what I call
"The Missing Ingredient" in most of the music today.
Take care!
God Bless,
Kevin H
Dear George,
You said it so eloquently:
Now at times I’ve heard some of these players play the blues,
and it’s quite apparent that they don’t have a clue how to
do it. The blues is a feeling and attitude.
SO true!
There are too many non-musicians deciding what musicians should do.
In a nutshell that’s what’s wrong with the business! And even
worse, these musicians are listening to these folk.
But, as fate would have it, the musician has given up too much power and
as result there is too much music being made today that is contrived and
totally controlled. The internet has become a great equalizer in this
fight.
It’s wonderful to have a medium that cherishes musical freedom.
That is what I always loved about jazz and what I don’t want to
see lost in its’ evolution.
As I said before, style of music is irrelevant! The important message
is the freedom of creativity and thought.
I'm not a jazz musician, but I've been playing guitar
and writing songs in all sorts of bands for over 30 years. (Yes,
I'm an old fart now) ... but whatever happened to soul, or should
I say soulful music?
I'm in the middle of writing a song called "The
Death Of Soul," Is that what we are living through?
As a songwriter, I notice that most songs on the radio seem to be
more fashion than passion. They don't seem to mean what they say lyrically
OR musically, just playing what's expected.
Now don't get me wrong- there are some monster singers
and players, but I can smell a counterfeit emotion a mile away. Hell,
I remember listening through an entire song as we were driving, I turned
off the radio and asked my wife and son, "Can any either of you tell
me what that song was about?"
They said, NOPE!"
I asked, "Can you whistle that tune back to me?"
"NOPE!"
"Who did that song?"
"I don't know."
One of the main points you made, and I agree wholeheartedly:
Building on what came before and taking that idea to new levels. That’s
the only way the music will truly evolve and become an extension of what
came before.
What came before MATTERS. But many young musicians
totally disregard the music which came along before their time.
Maybe that's the reason!
Keep that same old feelin George. We need you out there
carrying that torch.
I've been listening to you for many many years, and
it's because it's for REAL. It gets to me. There aren't many like you
in the whole damn world. I've seen you a few times in Boston.
I once saw you at The Paradise after the blizzard of 78, I think,
with Billy Cobham. It blew me away. I'd love to see you come this way
again.
Very best wishes to you! Keep reachin' for it!
Thanks, Kenny H.
Hey George,
Interesting is that in last DVD in Tokyo by Keith Jarrett, there is all
almost 90 percent improvisations(contrapuntal ones mostly) based on classical
motifs and rhythms. I can point that there are some excellent European
jazz trios like Esbjorn Swensson Trio, Brad Meheldau, Avishai Cohn etc.
And is true what you said that some of them sound sterile. I really don't
care where music comes from, Classical, African, Pop, what ever, if it
moves me, it happens for me. But why nobody plays electric fusion any
more? There are to many acoustic piano trios today and it's boring. I've
got my world fusion band Voices
Of Nature and breaking my bollocks to try establish it and record
an album. All the record companies, agents and managers are deaf, they
don't care. They just want all the same shit. I have spent my last penny
on promotion. Is anybody wants to help???????????
Fusician
Hey George,
I do agree with you as far as jazz goes. But the problem isn't with
the musicians, it is with radio and labels these days. I grew up
listening to you, Stanley Clarke, Larry Coryell, Weather Report, Miles
et al. and one thing that is missing to me is the spontanaety and the
fire. I remember when I picked up a copy of "School Days"
by Stanley Clarke and "Aspects" by Eleventh House. Both
of those were electrifying because they weren't the traditional jazz sound
and they delivered fire. Even Clarke's "Desert Song" was
more towards classical. And when "Reach For It" came out,
there were funk, rock and Latin flavors and solos that are to this day
hot.
But most of the bigger labels has strayed away from this, therefore most
of the young players feel they have to hit notes perfectly in order to
score the contract and airplay. Most labels have practically stopped
their jazz arms (i.e. Windham Hill Jazz, Atlantic Jazz) or redirected
their artists to other labels that are part of their company (i.e. Warners
shifting most of their jazz to Nonesuch). And radio, because they
are too busy listening to consultants instead of what people want, the
public gets turned off to the improvisations and long solos which sets
jazz apart.
The jazz that's which makes the airwaves, although there are some who
set themselves apart, doesn't have the fire at all. The fire needs
to be brought back and brought back uncompromising.
Bhim K.
Hello Mr. Duke,
Regarding your comment about the direction of jazz and your recent observation
of young piano players... In your DVD you mention once being a young
pianist playing in the bands (paraphrased) and coming out playing anxious
and agitated and wanting to rush and stay on beat. Later in your
career your talents matured to the point were you were comfortable adding
"rawness, attitude and swing" - the components you mentioned
that were missing with the young players these days.
At some points in our careers (mine is not music) we reach the top and
look back to see the young up-and-coming pups and ask ourselves "How
come they aren't doing this or that... why don't they get it?"
Reflecting back, I remember myself struggling to just gain the techniques
and fundamentals and then developed the "attitude and character"
after I had the solid foundation. Could it be that these young pianists
are in that same growing range will eventually develop the more mature
and complex ability to improvise and swing it? Here's the strange
rub... as a person who has reached "the top" (if there is one)
you are viewed as a leader who people will follow. You now
have an obligation to spread the word and lead these young pups to higher
ground for the good of the cause.
Having listened to jazz for only 35 years and playing the piano for one
year (I'm a late bloomer) I'm constantly fighting the desire to play with complex
jazz aspects only to find myself stuck back at barely achieving 1 and
2 and 3 and 4 and. Needless to say I'm not fluent with 2,5,1 yet.
Maybe the young talent just needs to age a tiny bit and receive helpful
guidance? Part of not having the "swing" is
possibly not having the opportunity to live the life that older generations
experienced... but that's a whole tangent topic that deserves some exploration.
Regards,
TC from California
(Duke response)
Hi Tracy,
I agree with you that artists like myself need to be involved with these
young musicians to help the future of jazz develop. That is one reason
I work as much as I can with young musicians in my band, in schools -
basically wherever and whenever I can. That is also one of the reasons
I wrote this observation - to begin a dialog and conscious thought process
and I thank you for writing.
Now, overall I don't think what I am hearing from these players has much
to do with the phrases "finding out who you are, where you fit in
the musical universe and developing maturity as an artist over time".
Keep in mind that I am referring to jazz pianists who are accomplished
as young musicians, they are not beginners and have been performing for
many years.
My concern is where these particular musicians are leading the music.
These musicians represent the future. As I realize they have the right
to do whatever they wish with the music as I did, my main concern is whether
they are building the musical future of jazz based on the traditional
values that jazz has become known for. Man, I really don't want to sound
like an old fuddy duddy - whew! I guess in some respects this is a classic
argument of generations.
Swing and the feeling of the blues, or the African connection in ones
playing if you will, has to be desired. If one doesn't possess "autoswing"
then one can learn it, but only if desired. I don't feel these young pianists
are seeking this feeling and attitude and it's the lack of interest that
bothers me. You know in the end all musical styles are based on a particular
type of attitude and swing which gives the style its' identity. So to
abandon that, is tantamount to abandoning the style itself.
Jazz at its' core is not similar to Classical Music, however jazz merged
with classical music is magic! In fact, that is how jazz was born. It
is a matter of balance and that balance is becoming more one sided towards
European musical traditions and attitudes in many young pianists performances.
Some emails I've received refer to Keith Jarrett as a type and hero of
these young pianists. That might be so, but may I remind those that Keith
Jarrett can swing his ass off. Keith made a choice to play the way he
does and I support that choice. When called upon, Keith can lay down much
attitude on blues and swing, in other words he stems from a traditional
jazz bank and source - he is connected and it shows in his playing.
Musicians generally have dreams and ideas of what they want their music
to sound like. It just seems to me that too many young jazz pianists are
leaning their musical attitude towards classical musical traditions and
not jazz musical traditions. It's almost as if they are separating the
two.
As I said in my piece, this is not based on any particular style of jazz
or beat - it is based on the manner of improvisation and overall feeling
and intent of the playing and composition. I'm not even saying this is
wrong, I'm just making an observation and wondering why?
In closing, though Keith Jarrett and I play very differently, no matter
what our final choices became and for most of us who came before, learning
to swing was a given! Drawing from the jazz bank and tapping into the
source of the music was important and sought after.
No "swang" no "thang"!
I thank you for entering the discussion and I respect your opinion.
I welcome thoughts and ideas from others.
George Duke
Hello again,
First off... I really appreciate you taking the time to address your fans
and the emails that must be taking lots of your time. Many thanks
for all you do.
Secondly, you're not an old fuddy duddy and I must agree that it's an
argument of generations.... or is it something else? I want to surface
an extremely controversial topic but I mean to in the most respectful
way.
Even though my background is technology and engineering, I find your
observation interesting in all aspects. From a textbook perspective,
do you see a statistical correlation between the background (environment/family
life growing up, church, socio-economics, ethnicity, etc) and the
ability to infuse the rawness that you talk about?
Part of my own background growing up amongst all the cultures, I experienced
the whole range of ethnicities mixed with the whole range of socio-economics
and can make a thin generalization about the expressionism of folks
from the sample pool. The folks from the lower socio-econ class
had less "hang ups" and were able to be freer about expressing
themselves - whether it be music, speech, etc. That being said,
my pool of population does not mean it is the same everywhere. On
top of that, I found only the African-American folks from lower socio-econ
pool were the only ones who could play blues with a raw swing to it.
The folks from a posh up-bringing could play, but it sounded so "textbook"
and stiff. For the real blues, I'm talking about the old cigar smoking
uncle who would sit at the piano and just jam with no inhibitions and
talk about hard times and how he wished he could afford a new Rhodes
(back in the 70's). Drinking out of mayonnaise jars was something
none of my uptight asian friends would ever understand, nor enjoy - but
then they weren't privy to the raw blues I was able to enjoy
was a kid... which really was what started me on this path of enjoying
blues and jazz as a kid.
I went tangent to paint a picture of why I feel there may be a correlation
to the younger generation not "swinging" it the way you
envisioned the roots taking it. Bottom line, you have access to
these young folks, and I'm wondering if a pragmatic, statistical and scientific
approach can help you answer your question. I'm also hoping you
could publish the (very controversial) findings. Part of that finding
might surface the economic pull that is driving "mainstream jazz
listeners" to dictate more European influence... something that Joe
Sample defied with his Soul Shadows CD. He got praise and flack...
those who "get it" and those who don't.
On a side note, I'm on a selfish quest to understand if I'll ever be able
to swing like that uncle, or if my own ethnicity will prevent me from
attaining it. My fear is not only that I'm late in the game, but
I was only exposed to it and never got to jam with it... and you're right...
I don't see it in the younger folks,... but that won't matter cuz I'll
be jamming with the cigar smoking 50 year olds if I ever get off the ground.
I'm now at the point of not only listening and enjoying the music, I'm
starting to shred it apart and understand the phrasing, the choice of
chords and the history of the musician and why they play they way they
play. I thank you for sharing your DVD... to the best of my knowledge,
no other jazz artists have made a DVD like that. If you
reflect back and look at all of your album covers, does it have any correlation
to when you started having these thoughts of jazz's direction?
I hope to see you at Yoshi's in Oakland... I'll be there shredding apart
your music and getting in the groove ;-)
Regards,
-Tracy
(Dukes response:)
Wow, that's a lot to chew on!
I'll just say that without a doubt we are products of our environment.
However that does not mean that we have to remain so!
If you have the dedication, drive and talent to swing, then you will swing
and it doesn't matter where you came from or how you grew up culturally.
If swinging's not natural to you and you desire it, then learning to swing
must be diligently sought after. Now right there, that's the center of
the argument - the words "diligently sought after" - and that's
what is not happening.
One can learn to swing and one can learn to play with the feeling of the
blues. Some will be better at it than others, but the basics absolutely
can be taught, learned and executed. You may never play the music as well
as a native or someone who grew up in an environment that cultivates American
Africanism's in their music, but you will be able to play it because you
understand what makes the music work in the first place.
After leaning the basics, it's a matter of trusting your heart to lead
you where it will. One must allow themselves to become an open book emotionally.
That's easier said than done with some people, but ones level of success
playing this music depends on that!
As far as the scientific study of this matter, that's probably for greater
minds than mine! Besides, I would rather write a song - this makes my
brain hurt (smile).
All the best,
George Duke
Let me start by saying, that I've listened to and tried to mimic
many of the riffs and chord progressions I've heard you play
over the years. I am an aspiring jazz pianists myself, and
one of things I've noticed from my peers is the lack of dedication and
sacifrice to their craft. Now, before you get the wrong idea please
hear me out. In conversations with other musicians and talking about
what our focuses and goals are, money and fame are the number one
objective. Of course there is nothing wrong with either, but
what you sacfrice to obtain them is your own personal style. For
example, if you are a fan of suspended and augmented chords, you
might substitute majors chords to gain more acceptance from "Europeans."
I am currently studing jazz at a local college here in hopes of gaining
more musical knowledge, but never sacfrice style and technique.
SW
Hello George,
Man, I’m glad that you “ran it down” because what you
explained applies to other instrumentalists other than pianists. I’d
like to add a brief aspect to what you have already eloquently expressed.
The origins of African American music--and musicians--were traditionally
connected to the communities in which the musicians lived and performed
in segregated isolated. Black audiences demanded the best from their musicians
in these communities and the musicians reciprocated likewise. However,
in these days the corporations are placing demands on musicians which
has nothing to do with the past tradition of excellence. Consequently,
there’s a whole new breed of musicians that are disconnected (as
you said) from the so-called “old school” cats, and it sounds
like it.
I hope that there are people, especially in the U.S., that will take it
upon themselves to create the kind of venues that cultivate the naked
honesty that’s missing from not just some of the younger musicians,
but the older cats too who don’t have the fire like before. Oh by
the way, I’m a drummer/vocalist who tours often with saxophonist
James Carter and I’ll be 59 years of age in a month and a half,
so believe me, I’ve witnessed the big disconnect. Thanks again for
settin’ it out there, George. We’ve met twice in recent years
and I hope to see you again in the future.
Leonard
This is from a UK-based keyboard player heavily influenced by the
playing of George Duke, Herbie Hancock, Chick Corea, Joe Sample, Ramsey
Lewis, Joe Zawinul, Jimmy Smith ...
Now, clearly, they have to be some of the funkiest cats on God's Earth,
by any reckoning.
In their work - indeed in every note they play - we can plainly hear the
echoes of their forerunners in a shared language of the Jazz Tradition;
hear them using an ever-evolving vocabulary of a blues-based and spiritually rooted,
talking, healing, music. It's unmistakable, it's always there in music
of this tradition, we know instantly when it's not there, and miss
it immediately, but it's not always easy to define in words. It's
a complex and subtle thing, but you can track it in all the classic jazz
recordings - back through Horace Silver, McCoy Tyner, Ahmad Jamal, Phineas
Newborn, Art Tatum, Bud Powell, back through Nat Cole, Ellington and Basie,
Fats Waller, Earl Hines - unique stylists all, but all of 'em
steeped in the phrasology, and like them, whether listening or playing, we have
to absorb the phrases, the timings, the push-beats, the grooves - until
they're second nature, so we can later add our own thing, express ourselves, eventually
find ourselves in the music (the hard part) - back to James
P. Johnson, Lucyeth Roberts, Jelly Roll Morton, all the way to Joplin,
Rags and Cakewalks - and eventually all the way back to Motherland
Africa. Listen to the way the Godfather of Stride - James P. - hits
those downbeats a (swung) eighth-beat early in Carolina Shout or
The Charleston. Hear George Duke start a synth solo on that self-same
pushbeat (somewhere on Master of the Game), it's all there for those that
listen; all part of a continuum.
Now it's high time someone said - and in some detail - what else
makes George Duke's music so fine. And what sets him apart from many of
the others. Apart from the obvious (to me at least) deep knowledge of
and participation in this jazz continuum? It is his embracing of
new technologies to make them personal and expressive, and make them
sing - from his many signature keyboard sounds: the wha-wha clavinet,
the pluck (!) synth bass, buzz-saw and mellow polysynths, chunky electric
grand vamps, cat-purring minimoog, watery rhodes, bird-like bends and
swoops - often offset by his silver-toned vocals - to his studio production
techniques, developing his group sounds and orchestrations over decades.
All contributing to his unique, rich, trans-cultural sound-world.
In my view, no-one has carried the spontaneous blues feeling over such
rich, varied, exciting and modern terrain, or made the synthesizer - surely
the instrument that bridges the 20th and 21st centuries - sing
so well. Like many others the world over, I've followed all of this
in great detail (We've been listening George - intently!), and it's been
a blast - just seeing what he will come up with next (thanks,
man).
Also, we know how much of a master he is when he makes it all sound
the greatest fun. As easy as falling off a log - until you try and play
some of it, that is!
So this is serious fun. For me, it's the guys who make it seem so easy
that are the real heavyweights. Stan Getz, Toots, George Benson, Joe Pass,
Grover Washington - the mellifluous guys; the ones who don't
make you suffer, who's sound comes from peace and love (with killer
grooves wherever required). Their oh-so-serious chops often hidden in
a disarming and attractive overall vibe. But the brilliance slowly sneaks
up on you - weilding a big Dukey stick!
(Duke response:)
Damn - how much do I owe you? (smile)
George Duke
(Page 2)
