The violin is one of the most widely dispersed instruments in the world. This is owed part in the portability of the instrument. One can pick up a violin and case and take it anywhere. It shows up in the most elite classical music in the world, the most emotive folk music and everything in between. It appears in many genres and styles. It seems to transcend cultural boundaries and genre boundaries. Everywhere the violin has went, it seems to have been adopted and put to use syncretically within the new culture.
The violin is a unique instrument because it exists as a status symbol instrument in some circles and its a folk dance instrument in others. It rose in popularity in two completely different social circles. They are so different that many people think that a fiddle that played by Charlie Daniels or a violin played by Itzhak Perlman are actually two different instruments. Part of the reason for this schism in views of the social status of the instrument are due to the fact that early in the 19th century high quality “important violins were owned by the aristocracy and stayed in the mansions and palaces where they belonged: musicians were allowed in to play them but not to remove them from the premises”(Wood 14). It was important to own a high quality violin that musicians could play. Not to say that all violins were expensive, there are reports of playing by “all strata of society, from the nobility to the peasantry” (Remnant). But if the common person was playing the violin and so was the elite, the elite would have been classically educated while the average person would have probably been raised around a lot of folk music. Part of the huge divide on how the violin is viewed is how it was raised in the culture. This leads to the often pretentious association that the violin is an educated elite classical instrument and the fiddle is an instrument for everyone else. Guitar has kind of the same problem because classical music in some circles seems to carry more of a legitimacy rather than other types of music especially folk or pop. It is the remnants of a European ethnocentric view that European classical music is the highest form of music. Part of the reason the violin as had such success abroad has to be attributed partly due to its lack of frets. This means that the player can hit notes not accessible in western music’s system of equal temperament. This means it can fit well into other musical styles which have quarter tones. This is interesting because it can prove to be a challenge to beginners in the western classical tradition to gain a sense of intonation. An interesting feature of the violin is that it hasn't really changed much in the last 200 years. In fact the general shape was the “creation of the unknown 15th-century inventor” (Montagu). This led to it being an established instrument in Europe before the time of colonialism which would be important in its dispersal around the world. But still it did have some variations. There was a while where people experimented with the shape of the instrument, the most famous being “François Chanot's guitar shape with no corners to the middle bouts, or even Félix Savart's trapezoid model (both 19th century)” (Montagu). There has also been some experiment with the arch height on the face and back of the violin. This dramatically affects the tone, “the arching, is one of the most significant factors in tone color and projection” (Zygmuntowicz 47). High arched violins have “a flute-like tone” while flat arched violins have “an oboe-like” tone(Montagu). Probably the most famous are the Stradivarius models. Stradivarius generally “favoured a flatter arch”, but even he “varied his arching considerably as his work progressed” (Zygmuntowicz). The biggest development would have to be a switch to steel strings rather than gut strings. In the early 1900s a switch to a high E string happened because “top-quality gut for so thin a string was difficult to obtain and broke too easily”(Montagu). By the 1950s violinists were playing “All-steel strings”(Montagu). Its interesting to note that the playing position of the instrument varies around the world as much as the styles its used in. In India the player sits cross legged and hunched over and the scroll of the violin is is held in place on the case laid down in front of them or on the players right ankle ankle(Amitava Sen)(Indrayudh Bose). This is vastly different than the european way of holding the violin. It is “placed on the collar-bone, held by the chin on the left-hand side of the tailpiece” (Boyden/Walls). Early on in the violins history even this was unstandardized in Europe. Early european “violinists might hold their instruments almost as low as their waists” (Boyden/Walls). While there is a lot of similarities on how american country/bluegrass musicians hold the violin to their european counterparts, there seems to be a lot more movement. Some of it is because a lot of this music is dancing music but a lot of it seems to be general showmanship as well(Charlie Daniels)(Hadley Castille). It has been truly adopted by cultures because they feel comfortable enough with it to change its playing position. One can easily see that the violin had a lot going in its favour to become the global instrument it has become today. The time it was invented meant that it was already an established instrument in Europe before the time of colonialism. Its portability was a great feature because explorers could take it around the world with them. Its lack of frets made it very easy for other cultures who do not work off of equal temperament to adopt it as their own. Unfortunately partly because of colonialism there is a European association that the violin is an elite educated instrument and the fiddle is played by anyone else. This has not stopped the beautiful sounds of the violin from becoming syncretic in the musics of many cultures around the world. Sources Wood, Glen. Security and Splendor. Strad. Oct 2014. pg 14-19. Academic Search Premier. Online. Zygmuntowicz, Sam. Vibrant Details. Strad. Nov 2013. pg 44-53. Academic Search Premier. Online. Remnant, Mary. Fiddle. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press 2007-2014. Online Montagu, Jeremy. Violin [Fiddle]. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press 2007-2014. Online. Boyden, David. Walls, Peter. (b) Holding the violin. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press 2007-2014. Online. Bose, Shyamol. “North Indian Classical Violin”. YouTube. Mar 21 2007. Web. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SK6apoAMgc Sen, Amitava. “Raga Kirwani on violin by Amitava Sen”. YouTube. Feb 28 2010. Web. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HBoyzpfdTk McCormick, Rebecca. “Champion Cajun fiddler Hadley Castille”. YouTube. Apr 23 2010. Web. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91vBzCaNTQ0 Opry.” Charlie Daniels Band - "Devil Went Down to Georgia" | Live at the Grand Ole Opry | Opry”. YouTube. Jan 22 2008. Web. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnepPZChA5U
0 Comments
Coltrane is one of maybe a handful of jazz musicians that the general public has heard of. This is for good reason. He had relatively short career but revolutionized the music. His technical proficiency on tenor and soprano sax was unparalleled for many years. He is still many peoples musical role model. He made the free jazz movement legitimate and made dissonance more accessible to the general public with tunes like “my favorite things” and “Greensleeves”. After Coltrane kicked his drug habit, He became very interested in spirituality. Coltrane was a introvert, “a reluctant interviewee”(Devito xv). Coltrane on Coltrane is a culmination of “almost every known Coltrane interview”(xv). It covers his whole career from pre-Miles to a couple articles published after his death. From reading this book you really get a sense of who Coltrane was. His responses are to the point and focused, but also very kind . I've always respected the music he created and his intense work ethic. After reading this book, I've come to see him as an open minded humble person, searching for musical perfection. The book is put together chronologically. It is grouped from 1952-1960, 1961-62 and 1963-67. Most of the interviews are really short (less than 20 pages). This is really nice in some ways because it makes it more like a book you can casually read. An Interview here or there, 17 pages before bed or while having a cup of coffee. The downside to this is although the interviews were interesting it didn't really grab me the same way as other biographies with a continuous train of thought. I think a problem with the book is that it assumes that the readers know exactly what is going on in Coltrane's life and career. There is little context usually given before the interview. I think that the best way to read this book would be to read a Coltrane bio simultaneously with this one. Its not that most of the interviews aren't well written but i feel like the purpose of the book is to know Coltrane as a person rather than know about Coltrane. I think the book really does accomplish that. Most of the interviews are by journalists but some are by people Coltrane seems close too. The first interview is actually over dinner with August Blume, of the interracial jazz society, at Blumes house. In this particular interview “Coltrane didn't know he was being recorded until almost the end of the conversation”(9). It is particularly candid not only from Coltrane but even from Blume in almost a Seinfeld sort of way. The first few lines of the interview they talk about a broken toilet. Other particularly notable ones include Coltrane's letters to his fans. These are a good read because it shows his generosity to his fans. On a couple of occasions he evens sends them autographed photos if they ask for it (33). Another particularly good interview is one that was by Jean Clouzet in Paris, France 1962. This one is special because Clouzet states that he spent from “noon on the 18th of November and didn't finish until the next day toward 5 in the morning”(169). In this interview he is questioned whether or not he would like to work with Mingus and Coltrane says “ that the experience would interest him a lot”. I think a Coltrane/Mingus record would have interested a lot of people. He goes on to talk about how his embouchure may eventually “become too tight to play tenor” because of the sopranos “particular way of holding the lips”(177). The problem of his embouchure seems to come up more in other interviews after this. Later on in the book there is a section of Coltrane quotes and an article about him published after his death. You get to read about Coltrane early in his career. He is very much the same person as he is later in his career. Even as early as 1955 he is interested in philosophy, he says he is not really “looking for and end” but later on in the same interview states that “it seems to be something in it that he kinda likes”(10). Although he says its just something that he enjoys this searching continues throughout his career with Coltrane both referring to his music and his spirituality. Actually in most interviews it comes up in some shape or form. Music and Spirituality seem very intertwined for him. This culminates in his liner notes for A love Supreme. In the liner notes it seems like he has decided he believes in god. Coltrane states” the album is a humble offering to Him”(226). After this he more concerned with searching for something musically. The interviews really paint Coltrane as an awesome guy. A little on the quiet side but he never really says anything offensive about anyone. This is different from the Miles Davis autobiography who seems to talk negatively about people whenever he feels like it. Coltrane doesn't cuss or swear in the book, he is very mild mannered and his responses are typically very short and to the point. I would highly recommend this book but I would also recommend getting a Coltrane biography to read at the same time. It would give the book even more meaning. As it sits it is a worthwhile read, but i think reading a bio about the events in his life would help shed some light on certain aspects of his life. He is always talking about searching for something musically and spiritually. I think reading a bio alongside it would give maybe a little more light on how exactly he was searching. He talks very vaguely about it when in is brought up, and after reading this book it seems like it was a huge aspect of his life. After all it is partly his constant searching that makes him a legend today. Sources Chris Devito. Coltrane on Coltrane: the John Coltrane interviews. Chicago Review Press. 2010. Chicago, Illinois. Print. Miles: The Autobiography
Miles Davis is well respected for his musical abilities. He was a very talented player, with an ever changing sense of creativity. I have always enjoyed his music, from the birth of cool to kind of blue to bitches brew, so I decided to read his autobiography to see if there where any lessons that could be learned From Miles, where he found his inspiration and what type of a person he was. Well Miles the autobiography doesn't disappoint. Miles: the autobiography is written by Quincy Troupe. Troupe is a university professor who taught at Columbia University and the University of California. He received a American Book Award in 1990 for this book. In the Afterword section of the book Troupe states “Miles chose [Troupe] to write his book”(413). He first interviewed Miles in 1985 for Spin magazine. During that time Troupe interviewed him for two days and “felt a kinship” with Miles (413). Troupe goes on to list many things they had in common such as “music, art, hip clothing, basket ball, football, and boxing”(413). A quick Google search on Troupes reveals he himself may not be the most credible author. He faked a bachelor degree from Grambling in order to land himself a Poet Laureate at University of California (http://www.houstonpress.com/2010-02-18/calendar/quincy-troupe/). Troupe admits in the afterword that the book comes from not only miles as the prose would imply but “many others who knew him intimately and some who didn't”(414). He also admits some of what miles said “ had to be edited out of the book for legal reasons(414). Troupe still says the book is still “truly Miles”(414). The book itself was an easy read. It reads very intimately. The way Miles talks just kinda feels like your sitting down having beers with a friend. It was no problem reading a couple of chapters a night. Miles has a certain charisma. Some issues people might have is that Miles likes to swear. That's just the way he talks, if you are easily offended you will be missing out on the story of arguably the greatest jazz icon to ever live. Another issue that I had was when Miles freely talks about his long-term drug use; how accurate are his memories? That paired with Troupe's questionable credibility really makes it hard to take everything in the book as truth. Miles has also got a lot of racial issues that come up in the book. Its hard for me to speculate on the accuracy of his views. I wasn't around and in the scene when this was going on. I know that the world has got a lot better regarding equality between races since then. Through the whole book I kept thinking Davis is so cynical but he could be right. Plus reading this you know he has a huge ego, how much of this has he embellished to perpetuate his legendary status? The book goes through Davis' childhood. How he was close with his father and had a strained relationship with his mother. His time in st. Louis in Eddie Randall's band. His first encounter with Dizzy and Bird. Miles moving to New York to supposedly go to Juilliard but really going to searching for Bird. Miles calls Dizzy the “head and hands” of bebop if Bird was “the Spirit”(64). Dizzy made Miles “really learn to play piano”(64). Dizzy had an undeniable effect on young Miles' trumpet playing and his understanding of jazz. He came searching for Bird but his relationship with Dizzy really benefited him more, as he learned and improved greatly. Miles also talks about meeting longtime collaborator and friend, Gil Evans, and how they got to be real friends on Birth of the Cool. The book talks about his use of drugs although sometimes he just mentions using some coke or drinking but only a few times does the book really dive into how bad his addictions actually were. Cab Calloway told the public about Miles and others being “Junkies” to Ebony magazine (163). After this for a while Miles “couldn't buy a job” (163). It also goes into how he got clean and continued to be an innovator up until his death. It is a very interesting read. You find out about the relationships between the jazz musicians and who knew who. Miles didn't hang out much with Coltrane “ once [they] left the bandstand” because they were into different things(224). Coltrane being into heroine when Miles wasn't and then Coltrane's life consuming practicing. His musical relationship with Gil Evans and how he was “real important to [Davis] as a friend” (386). Davis got into a argument with Charles Mingus over leaving Bird in L.A. While Davis went back to New York with Billy Eckstein's band and how the “Argument really hurt [there friendship]”(96). Its really interesting to see how all these jazz legends interacted with each other as people. One also learns a lot about other important events that happened to other jazz musicians. How Bud Powell got got a brain injury from getting hit from a bouncer “upside [Bud's] head” outside the Savoy Ballroom(112). Miles got very personal and talks about his relationships with all the women in his life. How he never “had any trouble finding women”(403). He goes on to talk about his preferences about women. The book goes into his marriages and many significant relationships. He always seemed to be doing to many drugs to really be present in his relationships. I thought the book was an entertaining read. It was hard to put down the book and get some sleep at night. Miles really lived an interesting life. He's recorded many albums and the book often talks about the sessions and the bands on the sessions. He really is a band leader, right from the beginning you can tell he really wouldn't be happy being someones sideman. He surrounds himself with musicians that can play whatever his uncompromising creativity dishes out. He really pushes people to play their best or he doesn't hire them. The book is an autobiography so it's essentially Miles' view of himself. I think it succeeds at being that. I don't think it's a fair view but its the only view really possible when a book is written like this. The book kinda inspired me to go to read more jazz biographies for three reasons. The first is that it was very informative about jazz and the formations of bebop and how it evolved into jazz today. The second reason is I'm really interested in the credibility of the book. At least if I read other bios I can perhaps find out how true parts of the book are. The last reason is I want to see how other people view Miles. He really comes across as a pompous jerk in some parts and other times he seems like a really cool guy. Its hard to tell what other people thought of him. I think Troupes main reason for writing this book is that Miles and him generally got along well. It would be hard to get all this info out of a person if they didn't have some sort of trust between them. I would suggest every jazz lover or musician give the book a read. At the very least the book was entertaining. You find out a lot about one of jazz's greatest players and band leaders. On a bigger level you find out about the relationships between people, and the drive one needs to make a living out of playing music. Sources Alvarez, Olivia. Quincy Troupe. Feb. 2010. http://www.houstonpress.com/2010-02- 18/calendar/quincy-troupe/ . Nov.28 2012. Web Troupe, Quincy. Miles: The Autobiography. Simon and Schuster. New York, New York. 1989. Reissue September 2011. Print. I chose teaching for the same reason I chose to learn to play music. There is always more to learn. With music you learn a song and practice it over and over. You learn the inner workings of a song to understand why a song sounds the way it does. Even when you think you can play a song perfectly you can here someone else play the song and something about the way they play it moves you. Learning a song is never finished. Teaching is the same way. I believe a classroom is a two way street of learning. A teacher teaches the students the material and the students teach the teacher about what worked in the lesson and what did not. It is a teachers duty to find out what teaching methods work for each individual student and tailor the lesson in such a way so that each student gains an understanding of the material. Even when the teacher has taught the students successfully there is always room to grow and make the lessons even more informative and engaging. I am passionate about learning new things and I am empathetic to different learning styles. No two people learn exactly the same way. I want to help students find what works best in their learning. If a person knows how they learn it is easier for them to become a lifelong learner. I want to instill a burning desire to learn in my students. I want to help them seek out knowledge. I want them to find a confidence in themselves that comes with learning new things. |
ArchivesCategories |