Liebman Quote on Innovators

Printable View

July 21st, 2005, 04:18 PM
Jonathan599

Quote:

Originally posted by Flarobstix:
I personally don't think of chops and technique, as simply speed. I include touch and sound. Jack has tons of speed. His approach is unorthadox, but technically, he's a master like anyone else. He simply has his own take on it.
After having seen Jack play up close dozens of time, I feel that you can't play drums the way he does unless you have amazing technical ability. To get his sound, and phrase the way he does, you need chops. It's just that his usage is so perfect and so musical that your mind doesn't go there. Watch him next time. It's pretty sick.
I think of ocean waves when I hear Jack.
Also, please tell me how Tony Williams raised the bar technically.
Do you really think everything he played was technically original? Not in my opinion. People in the middle east were playing groupings before Tony was born. People in this country were swingin' and playing rudiments at lightning speed before he was born. What was so original about Tony?? In my opinion, his approach. He didn't have more chops than Buddy or Philly, and technically didn't play anything more difficult. To me it was unorthadox musicality. His drop outs, his phrasing, his sound, his ride cymbal playing. Not his hands or feet.
The reality is that music is what it's all about. These people make amazing music. 2% of all professional drummers are actually musical in my opinion. If it weren't for clinic tours, 50% of the big name choppers would be out of work. It's about the music. Drummers that work in a high level ensemble setting everyday of their lives are the real drummers for me.
When was the last time you Bill Stewart in clinic?

[ July 21, 2005 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Flarobstix ]

[ July 21, 2005 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Flarobstix ]

I agree with much of what you say in your post (e.g. "Drummers that work in a high level ensemble setting everyday of their lives are the real drummers for me." -- Not too many kids these days are aware of a lot of these players, such as Bob Moses, for example (of whom they should be aware). However, there's a bit of hyperbole, in your post, I think (e.g. 2% of professional drummers are musical). Setting that aside:

Our disagreement (re: Jack) may be semantic. Going back to the original quote: Liebman said that innovators tend to raise the bar technically. If we understood him to mean by "technique" something like "mastery and control of the sound produced by one's instrument", then I would agree with you re: Jack's raising the bar in that respect. However, that's not the way I understand Liebman's statement. I think he's making a point about only one narrow aspect of control of the instrument when he talks about technique and virtuosity. If read that way, his claim is more interesting and provocative.

I take it that you construe his words differently? (I realize I still owe you a response re: Tony -- I'm mulling it over...)
July 21st, 2005, 04:18 PM
tnsolt

Quote:

Originally posted by Flarobstix:
I personally don't think of chops and technique, as simply speed. I include touch and sound. Jack has tons of speed. His approach is unorthadox, but technically, he's a master like anyone else. He simply has his own take on it.
After having seen Jack play up close dozens of time, I feel that you can't play drums the way he does unless you have amazing technical ability. To get his sound, and phrase the way he does, you need chops. It's just that his usage is so perfect and so musical that your mind doesn't go there. Watch him next time. It's pretty sick.
I think of ocean waves when I hear Jack.
Also, please tell me how Tony Williams raised the bar technically.
Do you really think everything he played was technically original? Not in my opinion. People in the middle east were playing groupings before Tony was born. People in this country were swingin' and playing rudiments at lightning speed before he was born. What was so original about Tony?? In my opinion, his approach. He didn't have more chops than Buddy or Philly, and technically didn't play anything more difficult. To me it was unorthadox musicality. His drop outs, his phrasing, his sound, his ride cymbal playing. Not his hands or feet.
The reality is that music is what it's all about. These people make amazing music. 2% of all professional drummers are actually musical in my opinion. If it weren't for clinic tours, 50% of the big name choppers would be out of work. It's about the music. Drummers that work in a high level ensemble setting everyday of their lives are the real drummers for me.
When was the last time you Bill Stewart in clinic?

[ July 21, 2005 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Flarobstix ]

[ July 21, 2005 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Flarobstix ]

good point. stewart is insane
July 21st, 2005, 05:04 PM
Jean-Paul

Can you both quote that again? [img]wink.gif[/img]
July 21st, 2005, 05:05 PM
Andy Edwards

This is a question of chicken and egg

Does innovation (new musical language, ideas, sounds etc) naturally require new techniques or is it that the development of new techniques begats innovation.

I think that DL focusing on technique negates the power of the innovations in themselves.

Also he narrows the argument down by mentioning musicians who's innovations come from the development of high levels of motor skill.

Could the same be said of The Velvet Underground or George Clinton?

in other words I think he's talking pants
July 21st, 2005, 06:41 PM
got_a_matchgrip

[....] [img]wink.gif[/img]

[ July 21, 2005 03:43 PM: Message edited by: got_a_match_grip? ]
July 21st, 2005, 08:30 PM
Riddim

In reply to Flarobstix's query:

?Also, please tell me how Tony Williams raised the bar technically.?

If you haven?t already, sit down with Emergency volumes one and 2, and play along with it. No one else whom I had heard was doing what he could then -- consequently he was highly emulated.

His use of Swiss triplets and pedaling quarters or eights on the hat hats complicated things for most of us in the 50s and 60s who may have gotten through Chapin with the hat on 2 and 4. And then there were those splashes, which may have come from Roy Haynes and Jo Jones, but which he seemed to place differently.

?Do you really think everything he played was technically original? Not in my opinion.?

On can argue that nothing anyone has played is technically original, since everything is merely combination of doubles and in or pou8t of phase singles. Having said that, some folks seem to have done things that many of us have adopted.

?People in the middle east were playing groupings before Tony was born.?

True. Tony was on of the first to bring these groupings to the kit and the jazz idiom, however.

?People in this country were swingin' and playing rudiments at lightning speed before he was born. What was so original about Tony?? In my opinion, his approach. He didn't have more chops than Buddy or Philly, and technically didn't play anything more difficult. ?

From my experience, it?s much harder from an independence and conceptual standpoint to cop a lot of his stuff than to cop a lot of BR?s.

?To me it was unorthodox musicality. His dropouts, his phrasing, his sound, his ride cymbal playing. Not his hands or feet.?

It was what he heard and how he integrated things. Technique is just a means to an end, the end being to make music. It doesn?t matter how fast or controlled one can play if one has no musical message.

[ July 22, 2005 01:46 AM: Message edited by: Riddim ]
July 21st, 2005, 09:04 PM
troutbrooke

Quote:

Originally posted by Flarobstix:
The reality is that music is what it's all about. These people make amazing music. 2% of all professional drummers are actually musical in my opinion.

I would have to agree. Although I hope it's more than 2%, that's probably a good guess.
July 22nd, 2005, 03:01 AM
Jonathan599

"In fact, near virtuosity is mandatory. Every succeeding generation throws down the gauntlet as far as raising the bar in this way. What was innovative and new becomes standard and required. In the past few decades since Coltrane the level of proficiency on the instrument has risen dramatically. Now everybody is a speed demon. If you look at the true innovators, the first observable level is often technical. In general, the innovators definitely raised the technical level on their instruments. Louis Armstrong, Bird and Coltrane all did that for sure. Alongside this contribution, they added something musically, not to mention spiritually which became transferable to all instruments and the music itself. That is true innovation."

The above quote is taken from a Dave Liebman article that can be found (amongst other great articles and interviews with Lieb) at http://www.upbeat.com/lieb/Feature_Articles/index.htm.

I post this quote here to invite discussion as to whether Liebman's statement that innovators tend to raise the technical bar for their instrument is true with respect to the drums.

Did Paul Motian (clearly an innovator, in Liebman's sense of the term) raise the technical level of his instrument? Jack DeJohnette?

Obviously, there are examples of drummer-innovators who did raise the technical level of the instrument: Kenny Clarke and Tony Williams come to mind. But it isn't clear to me that Liebman's generalization holds true.

Thoughts anyone?
July 22nd, 2005, 03:16 AM
Flarobstix

Jack Dejohnette raised it, yes. Both technically and musically. No one plays like Jack. Both technically and musically.
July 22nd, 2005, 03:39 AM
Jonathan599

No doubt he was a musical innovator. But how did he raise the bar technically? I thought he served as a fair counterexample to Lieb's generalization. Please explain.

[ July 21, 2005 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Jonathan599 ]

[ July 21, 2005 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Jonathan599 ]
July 22nd, 2005, 03:50 AM
Flarobstix

I personally don't think of chops and technique, as simply speed. I include touch and sound. Jack has tons of speed. His approach is unorthadox, but technically, he's a master like anyone else. He simply has his own take on it.
After having seen Jack play up close dozens of time, I feel that you can't play drums the way he does unless you have amazing technical ability. To get his sound, and phrase the way he does, you need chops. It's just that his usage is so perfect and so musical that your mind doesn't go there. Watch him next time. It's pretty sick.
I think of ocean waves when I hear Jack.
Also, please tell me how Tony Williams raised the bar technically.
Do you really think everything he played was technically original? Not in my opinion. People in the middle east were playing groupings before Tony was born. People in this country were swingin' and playing rudiments at lightning speed before he was born. What was so original about Tony?? In my opinion, his approach. He didn't have more chops than Buddy or Philly, and technically didn't play anything more difficult. To me it was unorthadox musicality. His drop outs, his phrasing, his sound, his ride cymbal playing. Not his hands or feet.
The reality is that music is what it's all about. These people make amazing music. 2% of all professional drummers are actually musical in my opinion. If it weren't for clinic tours, 50% of the big name choppers would be out of work. It's about the music. Drummers that work in a high level ensemble setting everyday of their lives are the real drummers for me.
When was the last time you Bill Stewart in clinic?

[ July 21, 2005 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Flarobstix ]

[ July 21, 2005 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Flarobstix ]
July 22nd, 2005, 02:53 PM
Flarobstix

Well, that 2% comment is subjective, and just an opinion obviously.
Think about the hundred of thousands of working drummers around the world, and then think about the guys who really play music. For me it's 2%. For you, who knows?
I'm fickle in what I like to hear being played.
Lot's of great posts on my Tony comment. He was the first to my knowledge who brought those groupings to jazz. However, what do groupings have to do with technique? It is all semantics.
July 22nd, 2005, 04:13 PM
S.P

yeah, you make a good point hanaytaylor! cool stuff!

this is a real interesting and mentally stimulating thread, really got me thinking about my post and about others said!

Riddim i agree with what u pointed out about tony too.

I mean if he wasnt an innovator then why do we hear the stuff he first played being played by many now such as smith, novak, vinnie, GREGG haha

as with what liebman said, what was once innovation now became the standard, but that doesnt mean that its not amazing any more!

i wonder when and if there will be a limit to innovation on our instrument, obviously it is quite young at only about 100 years old, so i believe there's still plenty to be done...plus the drumset is so versatile i.e some many items can be added and then new combinations of patterns and new techniques used to play them that innovation will almost be happening on the instrument forever!
July 22nd, 2005, 05:52 PM
got_a_matchgrip

What i got fr DL is that all he was saying is, that the level of proficiency expected today is one that is naturally a standard one now, one that is higher than that of generations ago. Technique, & even speed AWA SLOW grooovin' w precision & feel in time is expected / the norm now.

And DL if anyone is exactly the type of player who knows WTH he's talking about.

There's nothing wrong w technique-mastery on your chosen instrument, it's but one albeit important facet of musical mastery, no matter what stylistic genre that one is undertaking, & of which also entails many sub-facets under just the heading of "technq" [speed being but one of many, awa groove/time, musicality in accomp accordg to genre, some certain interpretation or "individualities," etc].

Anyone who says a vague expression like "technq is not important" is missing a very important mark IMHO. A degree of technq is absoluitely mandatory, even if w/in a certain chosen genre, otherwise anybody can step up to the plate...Could you see the antithesis of this theory in pro sports? As in, any beginner playg pro ball? NOPE. & there are varying degrees w/in professionalism AW; but a certain level has to be attained [technically AWA intuitively] in order to become "convincing." If needs be, would you hire a lawyer who hadn't yet got his or her degree / passed "the bar?"

& that's not saying that technq is solely represented by "speed" either, & I don't think a player of DL's stature is saying that either. But when speed is called for within this wide spectrum of "technq" or technical mastery of any instr, be sure to do it clean, precise, tasty, at the right crescendatic moment [methinks i may've come up a new word there] musically, & right. "Technq" is but a fundamental that can grow/expand, & be expounded upon by indiv expression & pers interpretation of these learned fund's. It's a means to an end...but still a hard-worked & meticulously wrought labor of love...& to perhaps prove even your worth of "salt". /;-)

Most of this is semantics & opinion on what DL orig said.

Only 2%? God help us all [AWA the other 98%].

Just rem, some or many players' overall abilities are NOT necessarily strictly represented by or synonimous w their present or longstanding popular working gig...

There are many onnovators in every field out there...Elvin, Jack, Buddy...Vince, Weck, Virg, Dennis, Novak...all. & an innovator can still have "quotings" of the greats b4 them & STILL be an innovator & not cliche, even tho one may hear the motifs of another-b4-them in their playing].

Semantics, rhetoric, & opinion. Sometimes a little truth might be sprinkled in there too... [img]wink.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img]

& now it's time for us to go & "practice these semantics" by playing them on our chosen instr... [img]wink.gif[/img]

[ July 23, 2005 05:39 PM: Message edited by: got_a_match_grip? ]
July 22nd, 2005, 06:14 PM
XNavyDrummer

"If you make a mistake while playing, immediately repeat the mistake...they'll call you one of the great innovators of our time."

Stewart Copeland
July 22nd, 2005, 06:18 PM
got_a_matchgrip

Ha ha ha AV [img]wink.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img]

...Now let us go forth & "innovate"...[drawing from the masters b4 us...& stop talking about doing it...myself included, just FTR - for the record] [img]graemlins/thinking.gif[/img] /;-p

[ July 22, 2005 03:25 PM: Message edited by: got_a_match_grip? ]
July 23rd, 2005, 03:36 AM
S.P

"Louis Armstrong, Bird and Coltrane all did that for sure. Alongside this contribution, they added something musically, not to mention spiritually which became transferable to all instruments and the music itself. That is true innovation."

Dave Liebman i believe stated that the first most noticeable trait of an innovator is their technique, but that someone who is overall innovative as he says adding something musically and spiritually is a true innovator. So in fact tony would be an innovator? or am i wrong?

I believe that innovation is when something new is done or played. I've just run a search on dictionary.com and i got this

in?no?va?tion
1. The act of introducing something new.
2. Something newly introduced.

Of course then this means, by the explanation given by dictionary.com and by my belief and/or perception of what innovation is, tony williams is an innovator for introducing those groupings and being the first to play them on the drum set.

Liebman was the one that said that he thought that only technical innovators were true innovators...so in fact what tony played doesn't have to have anything to do with technique, unless your going by Liebman's definition of what true innovation is.

But then again you could say that playing the drums with your head is innovative which technically it is, but this is where it gets too subjective and the different perceptions or semmantic meanings of the word to different people come along.

Tony was definetely an innovator in my books though.

Again, also saying that only 2% of drummers out there are musical..it depends what your perception of musical is....obviously mike portnoy fans think hes musical or whatever...

anyways again, this is probably true (the 2% thing) to the more seasoned, experienced player who has heard a wide range of music and players.

[ July 22, 2005 12:43 PM: Message edited by: S.P ]
July 23rd, 2005, 03:53 AM
hanayalator

Tony was an innovator. No question. And I think I disagree with Liebman because many great innovators weren't known for the 'technique', like Jack or Elvin.
July 23rd, 2005, 08:36 PM
got_a_matchgrip

What he [doc] f'n said. [img]wink.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img]
July 23rd, 2005, 08:41 PM
troutbrooke

What you (GAMG) said.
July 24th, 2005, 03:57 AM
dr-funkenstein

"In fact, near virtuosity is mandatory. Every succeeding generation throws down the gauntlet as far as raising the bar in this way. What was innovative and new becomes standard and required. In the past few decades since Coltrane the level of proficiency on the instrument has risen dramatically. Now everybody is a speed demon. If you look at the true innovators, the first observable level is often technical. In general, the innovators definitely raised the technical level on their instruments. Louis Armstrong, Bird and Coltrane all did that for sure. Alongside this contribution, they added something musically, not to mention spiritually which became transferable to all instruments and the music itself. That is true innovation."

[/QUOTE]

DL was relating technique to the natural progression of generations of music/musicians- not as much to indivdual players.

when he pointed out individuals, he was saying their true innovation was in fact NOT AS MUCH technical as it was the larger impact of their musical/spiritual expression which would effect music . . . not just the evolution of instrumental technique.

technical evolution is a given- that "thing" that makes someone innovative is what DL is alluding to, not comments on the (obvious) importance of technique.

to question whether tony was an innovator but to accept mike clark as a defacto innovator is odd to me.

ALL the dudes we talk about on this board do SOMETHING innovative-
July 24th, 2005, 08:46 PM
Henry II

Quote:

Originally posted by Jonathan599:
No doubt he was a musical innovator. But how did he raise the bar technically? I thought he served as a fair counterexample to Lieb's generalization. Please explain.

[ July 21, 2005 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Jonathan599 ]

[ July 21, 2005 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Jonathan599 ]

Jack DeJohnette has a ton of chops. But, I don't know if it is fair to say that he raised the level of technique on his instrument. Perhaps his bass foot independence and phrasing was raised to a new level when he first did that kind of thing.

Yet, he is definitely a musical innovator. I credit JD with fusing rock/funk snare and bass drum phrasing/interaction with swingtime in a way no one did before. And that innovation is related to the technical aspects of JD's playing that separated him from his contemporaries.

So, to that extent, Liebman is right.

[ July 24, 2005 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Henry II ]
July 24th, 2005, 08:52 PM
Henry II

Quote:

Originally posted by Flarobstix:
I personally don't think of chops and technique, as simply speed. I include touch and sound. Jack has tons of speed. His approach is unorthadox, but technically, he's a master like anyone else. He simply has his own take on it.
After having seen Jack play up close dozens of time, I feel that you can't play drums the way he does unless you have amazing technical ability. To get his sound, and phrase the way he does, you need chops. It's just that his usage is so perfect and so musical that your mind doesn't go there. Watch him next time. It's pretty sick.
I think of ocean waves when I hear Jack.
Also, please tell me how Tony Williams raised the bar technically.
Do you really think everything he played was technically original? Not in my opinion. People in the middle east were playing groupings before Tony was born. People in this country were swingin' and playing rudiments at lightning speed before he was born. What was so original about Tony?? In my opinion, his approach. He didn't have more chops than Buddy or Philly, and technically didn't play anything more difficult. To me it was unorthadox musicality. His drop outs, his phrasing, his sound, his ride cymbal playing. Not his hands or feet.
The reality is that music is what it's all about. These people make amazing music. 2% of all professional drummers are actually musical in my opinion. If it weren't for clinic tours, 50% of the big name choppers would be out of work. It's about the music. Drummers that work in a high level ensemble setting everyday of their lives are the real drummers for me.
When was the last time you Bill Stewart in clinic?

[ July 21, 2005 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Flarobstix ]

[ July 21, 2005 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Flarobstix ]

I've seen Jack DeJohnette in a clinic.
July 25th, 2005, 12:36 AM
dr-funkenstein

JD has chops to spare. he is piano player and thinks VERY musically. sometimes finesse players dont get credit for their chops. in jacks case, they are formidable.

i am still working on my inverted cheese-cha-chudda raddamadoodle off the left.
July 25th, 2005, 01:08 AM
blake1

I'm not sure if the Liebman quote is his philosophy, We've played together, and at that time, he had a different view of the matter.

Got to be careful with pinning one's words to their philosophy. Words only go so far.

Miles and Monk. They created music based on how they could play the instrument. They were innovators of music and also their instruments.

Much music and great music at that can be created with little technique. Look at how much the Blues artists can milk a 12 bar blues.

The Shaggs and Alan Holdworth are both valid in my book. Love them both...
July 25th, 2005, 03:41 AM
got_a_matchgrip

What'd you [dsop] say? /;-p

[Ah...nevermind. Word.]

[ July 24, 2005 12:47 PM: Message edited by: got_a_match_grip? ]
July 25th, 2005, 10:09 AM
PocketPlayer

Quote:

"If you make a mistake while playing, immediately repeat the mistake...they'll call you one of the great innovators of our time."

Stewart Copeland

My philosophy ever since I played my first Live gig!
July 25th, 2005, 03:53 PM
got_a_matchgrip

Quote:

I personally don't think of chops and technique, as simply speed. I include touch and sound...

I agree. & perhaps more [my earlier post].

Quote:

Much music and great music at that can be created with little technique

I agree w that AW [w/out going into the various definitions of the idea of "technique" - tho even the simplest forms of music also involve some sort of "technq"...i took that to be meant "more notes or groupgs, or busier, etc"... /;-)]. [img]cool.gif[/img]

It "runs the gamut."

[ July 26, 2005 02:21 PM: Message edited by: got_a_match_grip? ]