it has been a while since i have talked about music. so i thought i would, ya know, talk about it. first, lets start with some of the musical events i have been to recently. last night i went to my sister's byu orchestra concert. she is a bassist. she's pretty good. much better than the rest of the orchestra anyway. i suppose that isnt fair. it is not an auditioned group so naturally you are going to get some people in there who just absolutely love music and love to play, but who just simply arent very good at it. all in all, it wasnt bad. it was a step up from your average high school orchestra.
speaking of high school music groups, the highlight of the event reminded me of something that i did during a concert. while playing a really high note on my trumpet and standing on a chair with my legs locked, i passed out and fell on top of the trombone section.
last night's mishap happened after the first song. a second violinist had positioned her chair a little too close to a stairway to the left of the stage. as one of the chair's legs scooted to the edge of the stairway, she very slowly began to fall. in desperation she grabbed the dress of a fellow second violinist and temporarily stopped her fall. that is, until her contemporary started scooting backwards as well. the second second-violinist went heels over head in her best black dress, taking with her a microphone stand, and landing atop the first second-violinist. and the crowd cheered. (it was one of those "you-didnt-die-so-we-get-to-laugh-at-you" moments).
then there was the director. i have been in several musical groups, and i can never understand a director who gets really "into it." you know what im talking about. they get up there and wildly swing their baton about as though they are warding off some invisible flying creature; every once in a while they point at a random section as if they might forget that they are playing; they raise and lower their hands vigorously because they arent quite sure if the clarinets know how to read the dynamic markings on the sheet music; and they have crazy hair.
in my opinion, directors like that are entertaining to some, but insulting to those who actually know how to read music. during a performance, the director is pretty much just a human metronome ("cracked pepper with your cowbell, sir?") and unless the band is actually filled to the brim with idiots who dont know the first thing about music, they should never "get into it" (i also dont like musicians who "sway" or gamers who contort the controller--it really doesnt help).
anyway, on to my brother's concert. my brother is a freshman at byu. he is actually really good. major universities fought over him. and for what? to have him join a non-auditioned concert band? nope. my high school alma mater has one of the best high school jazz programs in the country. we have played and recorded with some of today's finest jazz professionals. world class musicians request to work with this ensemble. ok, so this probably means nothing in today's over produced hip-hop society. but the second jazz band wins major competitions all the time so the first band must be good, right?
anyway, my freshman brother is the lead trumpet in byu's jazz synthesis (byu's premiere jazz band).
so i went to the synthesis christmas concert (they also have an over-zealous director, but not to the same degree as the orchestra dude. but this is probably due to his prosthetic legs). now, i know more about jazz bands than i do about orchestras so i'll keep this simple. the band as a whole is really good. they have some very talented musicians in the band (my brother being one of them). they were tight and together; they played the complicated sections almost flawlessly; dynamics were solid; and they had a good sense of rhythm, balance and blending. the main complaint i had was their improvisation.
frankly, it was somewhat lacking. the soloists had very little variety in style and played the same handful of mid-ranged notes the entire time. not to mention they all used similar repetitive riffs as "fillers" until they could think of something more interesting to play. according to my brother they dont spend much time at all on improv. i guess the director finds it less important than those others thing i just said. but improv is the basis of jazz. that is where it begins. i could understand if the director didnt think it was important and kept the improv to a minimum, but every song had at least five featured soloists. that's more than some high school jam sessions! and it seemed like the solos were mostly going to the upper classmen (who in theory should be better than the lower classmen, although they failed to support that theory) rather than to the most qualified.
they also decided to bring in a half-rate professional vocalist who luckily only "scatted" once. in general vocalists irritate me. sure, every one hates the stereotypical lead singer of a band who thinks he is god's gift to women and rock and roll, who can no more sing on key than pluck out a chord on a piano. but jazz singers are equally annoying to me. anyone who doesnt know how to read music or play a single chord or scale on at least one instrument has no right scatting. ever. and even if you can do those things it doesnt mean you are good.
i hate it when a singer gets the lime light when the true talent is standing right behind him. "but he writes such wonderful lyrics." fine. keep your lyrics where all "great" literature belongs--in a book. music has very little to do with lyrics and i am disappointed that pop culture has forgotten this and we reward those who can rhyme and talk fast with grammy's and hail them as musicians. they are not musicians. they are vocalists at best. musicians play instruments. vocalists mimic them. dont believe me? where do you think scatting came from? wino's?
so why does this irritate me so much? it is simple really. anyone can sing. really, anyone who can talk can learn how to sing. the amount of musical knowledge it takes to sing is slightly above zero. the amount of musical knowledge it takes to sing well is equivalent to a novice instrumentalist. the amount of musical knowledge it takes to sing professionally is equivalent to a novice instrumentalist. why? because they dont need to know how modes work, or how keys are formed, or how chord progressions can be altered. they dont even need to know how to transpose or transcribe. instrumentalists do (charlie parker was mocked off stage in a jazz club in new orleans because he couldnt play a certain song in a certain key). vocalists can get by with natural talent and singing by ear (i.e. frank sinatra). it takes years of practice and study to even become a novice instrumentalist (like my sister's orchestra). they will never become professionals and never teach more than private lessons on the side. but they have put more time and effort into their craft than your average "professional" singer.
