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