Gary Burton

[Peter Friedman]

I have mixed feelings about Gary Burton's recordings. As a vibes player I much prefer the more swinging, bluesy, style of playing by people such as Milt Jackson, Lionel Hampton, Lem Winchester, Dave Pike, Steve Nelson, and a number of others.

Nonetheless, I do enjoy SOME of Burton's recordings. Here are my favorite CDs by Gary Burton as leader.

& Makoto Ozone -Face To Face - GRP

& Keith Jarrett / Throb - Rhino Atlantic (2 LPs on one cd)

& Stephane Grappelli - Paris Encounter - Atlantic

Duster -Koch Jazz

Country Roads & other Places - Koch Jazz

Departure - Concord Jazz

[Chuck Nessa]

BTW, I first encountered him here:

[7/4]

BTW, I first encountered him here:

Man, that's a great album. I just got the CD last Winter.

[Jazz Kat]

As much as I love Burton and his playing, I've never really gotten into the four mallet thing. I can do it, though not perfect. But I was always brought up listening and watching players like Milt Jackson, Cal Tjader, and Julius Wechter who always used only two mallets. Now it's how I feel most comfortable in. I guess many could see this as a weakness, but I get around pretty good without using four mallets. (I only use four mallets to comp on ocassion.) I like to think of my style as right in the middle of Milt Jackson and Burton. I use two mallets and have a strong blues influence, like Jackson, but I encorporate a lot of Burton's rhythm and comping techniques in my playing at the same time. Seems like most vibists today are emulating Burton the most, and not other vibraphonists like Jackson, Terry Gibbs, Victor Feldman, Eddie Costa, etc. I suppose when I get to college, someone is going to make me work on the four mallet technique, which will be beneficial to me, no doubt, but I just wish there was a choice you could make and stick with without being looked at as cheating, or one dimensional. (in reference to four mallet playing)

[Ted O'Reilly]

I thought the Burton Quartet of the very late '60s (with Jerry Hahn on guitar replacing Larry Coryell) was a very interesting band. Hahn had a very country/blues sound that brought a bit of funk to Burton, who could be a bit overwhelming, technically. Bill Goodwin brought a nice, loose feel to the time, too, and Steve Swallow was still playing acoustic bass... Nice sound.

I have a 1971 live-in-Tokyo album that was only issued in Japan (and Canada!) that has some good stuff, too -- Sam Brown's on guitar, with Tony Levin on bass. I've not listened to it in years: maybe I'll make a CDR of it...

[Simon Weil]

Historically Burton is important as one of the prime progenitors of fusion...

In short, I think Burton's real achievement is in fusion.

Simon Weil

Burton is also extremely important as a vibist, developing a four mallet grip different from other four mallet players' techniques, allowing for more power in the secondary mallets. The Burton grip now seems to be the most popular four mallet technique for vibraphone.

It's just, as a non-player, these technical aspects seem less important. I mean, evidently, you can't produce the music without a specific from of technique and the skills to back it up. But, when you listen to the music, how does that impact? I did know, somewhere, that he's a key innovator on vibes but I guess I accidentally on purpose forgot it. But I suppose what I'd really like to do is get musicians to move out of their comfort zone and, when they assert a technical innovator's historical significance, indicate how that plays out in the experienced sound.

I guess I'm really thinking about the visual arts, where you get critics who are both technically acute and wise to the content of a form - and are able to connect up the two. So that the inexperienced reader is able to see "Wow, yes that bit of technique leads to that bit of content". I mean fusion evidently (or I think) involves a change in content, but I'm not sure about the change in technique from 2 mallets to 4. So I, as anon-musician, struggle to see (in my own terms) why I should be so excited by the innovation in technique.

I know I'm working against the standard view of Jazz history here - which is written, primarily, in terms of technical and formal innovation. But I think that tends to lead to a ghettoisation of Jazz, with only the technical and formally competent able to discuss the form. If some effort was made to translate the formal and technical innovation into its effect on content, I think that would make for a more average-person friendly discourse. If only because the content, the vibe, the mood of a piece is what he most of all experiences.

It's this whole thing of "if you're not a musician, you won't understand..." which pisses me off.

[Rant over]

Simon Weil

Edited June 23, 2007 by Simon Weil

[.:.impossible]

Historically Burton is important as one of the prime progenitors of fusion...

In short, I think Burton's real achievement is in fusion.

Simon Weil

Burton is also extremely important as a vibist, developing a four mallet grip different from other four mallet players' techniques, allowing for more power in the secondary mallets. The Burton grip now seems to be the most popular four mallet technique for vibraphone.

It's just, as a non-player, these technical aspects seem less important. I mean, evidently, you can't produce the music without a specific from of technique and the skills to back it up. But, when you listen to the music, how does that impact? I did know, somewhere, that he's a key innovator on vibes but I guess I accidentally on purpose forgot it. But I suppose what I'd really like to do is get musicians to move out of their comfort zone and, when they assert a technical innovator's historical significance, indicate how that plays out in the experienced sound.

I guess I'm really thinking about the visual arts, where you get critics who are both technically acute and wise to the content of a form - and are able to connect up the two. So that the inexperienced reader is able to see "Wow, yes that bit of technique leads to that bit of content". I mean fusion evidently (or I think) involves a change in content, but I'm not sure about the change in technique from 2 mallets to 4. So I, as anon-musician, struggle to see (in my own terms) why I should be so excited by the innovation in technique.

I know I'm working against the standard view of Jazz history here - which is written, primarily, in terms of technical and formal innovation. But I think that tends to lead to a ghettoisation of Jazz, with only the technical and formally competent able to discuss the form. If some effort was made to translate the formal and technical innovation into its effect on content, I think that would make for a more average-person friendly discourse. If only because the content, the vibe, the mood of a piece is what he most of all experiences.

It's this whole thing of "if you're not a musician, you won't understand..." which pisses me off.

[Rant over]

Simon Weil

Oh, well I was just adding to the conversation. No eliticism here... I know how he holds his mallets and I still don't understand how he does many of the things he does.

[Joe G]

"Wow, yes that bit of technique leads to that bit of content".

I think that, ideally, it's the content that presents itself to the artist first, who then must strive to master the techniques required to adequately express that content.

Technique without content is an empty gesture; content without technique is a vision unrealized.

[7/4]

As much as I love Burton and his playing, I've never really gotten into the four mallet thing. I can do it, though not perfect. But I was always brought up listening and watching players like Milt Jackson, Cal Tjader, and Julius Wechter who always used only two mallets. Now it's how I feel most comfortable in. I guess many could see this as a weakness, but I get around pretty good without using four mallets. (I only use four mallets to comp on ocassion.) I like to think of my style as right in the middle of Milt Jackson and Burton. I use two mallets and have a strong blues influence, like Jackson, but I encorporate a lot of Burton's rhythm and comping techniques in my playing at the same time. Seems like most vibists today are emulating Burton the most, and not other vibraphonists like Jackson, Terry Gibbs, Victor Feldman, Eddie Costa, etc. I suppose when I get to college, someone is going to make me work on the four mallet technique, which will be beneficial to me, no doubt, but I just wish there was a choice you could make and stick with without being looked at as cheating, or one dimensional. (in reference to four mallet playing)

And how long have you been playing the vibes?

[Jazz Kat]

As much as I love Burton and his playing, I've never really gotten into the four mallet thing. I can do it, though not perfect. But I was always brought up listening and watching players like Milt Jackson, Cal Tjader, and Julius Wechter who always used only two mallets. Now it's how I feel most comfortable in. I guess many could see this as a weakness, but I get around pretty good without using four mallets. (I only use four mallets to comp on ocassion.) I like to think of my style as right in the middle of Milt Jackson and Burton. I use two mallets and have a strong blues influence, like Jackson, but I encorporate a lot of Burton's rhythm and comping techniques in my playing at the same time. Seems like most vibists today are emulating Burton the most, and not other vibraphonists like Jackson, Terry Gibbs, Victor Feldman, Eddie Costa, etc. I suppose when I get to college, someone is going to make me work on the four mallet technique, which will be beneficial to me, no doubt, but I just wish there was a choice you could make and stick with without being looked at as cheating, or one dimensional. (in reference to four mallet playing)

And how long have you been playing the vibes?

Since I was about three years old, so fuck off!!! I have been playing mallet instruments for the majority of what you would call a short life. It has been very much a part of my life up till this point. It was just until recently I decided to put myself out there and focus on the vibes full time, after about 10 or so years of playing drums.

Edited June 23, 2007 by Jazz Kat

[7/4]

As much as I love Burton and his playing, I've never really gotten into the four mallet thing. I can do it, though not perfect. But I was always brought up listening and watching players like Milt Jackson, Cal Tjader, and Julius Wechter who always used only two mallets. Now it's how I feel most comfortable in. I guess many could see this as a weakness, but I get around pretty good without using four mallets. (I only use four mallets to comp on ocassion.) I like to think of my style as right in the middle of Milt Jackson and Burton. I use two mallets and have a strong blues influence, like Jackson, but I encorporate a lot of Burton's rhythm and comping techniques in my playing at the same time. Seems like most vibists today are emulating Burton the most, and not other vibraphonists like Jackson, Terry Gibbs, Victor Feldman, Eddie Costa, etc. I suppose when I get to college, someone is going to make me work on the four mallet technique, which will be beneficial to me, no doubt, but I just wish there was a choice you could make and stick with without being looked at as cheating, or one dimensional. (in reference to four mallet playing)

And how long have you been playing the vibes?

Since I was about three years old, so fuck off!!! I have been playing mallet instruments for the majority of what you would call a short life. It has been very much a part of my life up till this point. It was just until recently I decided to put myself out there and focus on the vibes full time, after about 10 or so years of playing drums.

Fuck off?

[marcello]

Manners, young man.

Nobody will thing you are cheating with two mallets.

Stephon Harris uses two.

When Joe Locke ( who is a two mallet master ) plays ( always four mallets) he mainly plays lines with the two inside mallets. Because of his huge harmonic facility, four are used often for chords.

That works for him, for others, it's different.

Check out these videos of Joe for a look:

Joe Locke / Christo Rafaledis Vibes/Marimba Duo - Van Gogh By Numbers

[Simon Weil]

"Wow, yes that bit of technique leads to that bit of content".

I think that, ideally, it's the content that presents itself to the artist first, who then must strive to master the techniques required to adequately express that content.

That's what I think, but in the discourse about Jazz, it seems like the content gets lost oftentimes. I mean it's there, but people seem not to talk about it. It's like they're embarassed to talk about it.

Technique without content is an empty gesture; content without technique is a vision unrealized.

C'est vrai.

....

I want to apologize to impossible. It wasn't like his post deserved that response (well, maybe a little) but I wanted to get that thing off my chest and...The thing about me and technique is I never see the point in learning about technique unless:

1) I've got something to say (content above)

2) This is the form for me

3) People are going to listen

That presents me as a performer (in the widest sense) - and I do see myself like that, as a person with things to say. See, when Rostasi says, if you learn about technique then you'll be able to understand all that deep stuff, it doesn't really interest me. This is the kind of passive listener approach - and I'm not that.

I'm a writer who's rather frustrated. This is because I feel people are equivocal about me - this is number 3 in the list. This is why I don't learn about technique (except in the very limited ways that matter to me) because it's a considerable effort of time, money and life energies and I don't feel I'm going to get a pay-back. One has to pick and choose what one commits to (especially at my age).

I think people need to think about the point about ghettoisation, though.

Simon Weil

Edited June 23, 2007 by Simon Weil

[Bright Moments]

As much as I love Burton and his playing, I've never really gotten into the four mallet thing. I can do it, though not perfect. But I was always brought up listening and watching players like Milt Jackson, Cal Tjader, and Julius Wechter who always used only two mallets. Now it's how I feel most comfortable in. I guess many could see this as a weakness, but I get around pretty good without using four mallets. (I only use four mallets to comp on ocassion.) I like to think of my style as right in the middle of Milt Jackson and Burton. I use two mallets and have a strong blues influence, like Jackson, but I encorporate a lot of Burton's rhythm and comping techniques in my playing at the same time. Seems like most vibists today are emulating Burton the most, and not other vibraphonists like Jackson, Terry Gibbs, Victor Feldman, Eddie Costa, etc. I suppose when I get to college, someone is going to make me work on the four mallet technique, which will be beneficial to me, no doubt, but I just wish there was a choice you could make and stick with without being looked at as cheating, or one dimensional. (in reference to four mallet playing)

And how long have you been playing the vibes?

Since I was about three years old, so fuck off!!!

[7/4]

punk vibes?

[Bright Moments]

punk vibes?

terry gibbs was a tough kid (per his autobiography).

[JSngry]

I want to apologize to impossible. It wasn't like his post deserved that response (well, maybe a little) but I wanted to get that thing off my chest and...The thing about me and technique is I never see the point in learning about technique unless:

1) I've got something to say (content above)

2) This is the form for me

3) People are going to listen

That presents me as a performer (in the widest sense) - and I do see myself like that, as a person with things to say. See, when Rostasi says, if you learn about technique then you'll be able to understand all that deep stuff, it doesn't really interest me. This is the kind of passive listener approach - and I'm not that.

I'm a writer who's rather frustrated. This is because I feel people are equivocal about me - this is number 3 in the list. This is why I don't learn about technique (except in the very limited ways that matter to me) because it's a considerable effort of time, money and life energies and I don't feel I'm going to get a pay-back. One has to pick and choose what one commits to (especially at my age).

I think people need to think about the point about ghettoisation, though.

Simon Weil

Technique matters and there's no reason at all not to discuss it openly and in detail. No, not everybody needs and/or wants to hear about it, and that's cool too. And by no means is technique the object of the game (although it is how that object is achieved). And yeah, jazz especially has too much too often gotten way too "technical" in both concept & vibe to do anybody any good, but that's a spiritual failing, nothing more. I guarantee you that technique was every bit as important Before The Fall as it is now, it was just "objectified" differntly than it is now. But hell, instruments don't paly themselves, and players don't "make magic" just by picking up an instrument and blowing. No matter how much one does or doesn't "care" about that (and for a non-musician, that there is no right or wrong on that one), anybody who doesn't acknowledge it as a fundamental reality of life worthy of respect as same before deciding how much to care or not to care about it is a goddamned fool. Period.

To shy away from any/all technical talk as a matter of principal is really just a matter of willful ignorance that places music entirely in the realm of the "mystical" or some such, and as much as that is an appealing notion, its at best only a partially accurate one. Craft absolutely must be discussed openly, if not eternally and/or omnipresently. To anybody who's present when it is being discussed amongst fellow practitioneers, the only three options of grace are to 1) avoid the discussion altogether; 2) remain silent but be elsewhere mentally; 3) listen and try to learn something, if only an appreciation of how much non-"mystery" there in the creation of something that you love.

Under no circumstances is it an act of graciousness to interrupt a conversation of "shop talk" between two or more practitioneers of the craft and whine to them that you don't care about what they're talking about and that you don't think it's important. It's not too much different from telling the woman you claim to love that you don't give a damn about her job, her family, or anything else about her, all you really care about is for her to keep sucking your dick and swallowing your cum. I exaggerate, but not all that much, not really...

This is a genuine music forum, not just a "fan" forum. Rejection of the notion that musicians should feel free to talk about music in all its aspects in such a forum, although good advice for life outside the Cave (if there still is such), is an affront to anybody and everybody who plays even semi-seriously. And the notion that such talk should not be engaged in because it just doesn't matter is worse than an affront - it's 100% cockeyed bullshit.

Hell, I'm all for bringing the music to people, not at them, and I don't even particularly like Gary Burton, not even barely just a little. But this rubbed me the wrong way big time, just because. Nothing personal Simon, really, but you're just wrong here, period. That was musician-to-musician talk, and if from time to time we can't have that in a forum like this, hey, fuck it all. You're welcome to feel it as frivilous as you want. But to insinuate that it should not be put out in the open because of your...whatever, hey man, that's more than just a bit much. I'll not not take you seriously because you don't want to know about shit like that and it doesn't matter to you (hell, some of my best friends don't want to know about shit like that and it doesn't matter to them) but I'll sure as hell will not take you seriously if you go floating the notion that it's all a big bunch of sillypoofytalk that doesn't ever matter in any way at any time. Damn right I won't, nor will anybody who has even half a clue about how music really "works". Maybe, just maybe, that's the reason for some of that equivocation you feel. I don't know. But I'd certainly not rule it out.

Just my opinion, but that's it.

Edited June 23, 2007 by JSngry

[.:.impossible]

For the record, I don't feel like I know shit about music. I'm basically in the dark with a flashlight... that isn't going to stop me from trying to learn. I feel like this is a lifelong process and I'm in no hurry.

Regardless, one of Burton's innovations IS technique, whether you care or not.

JazzKatt, ease up. Lots of knowing musicians on this board, many of whom have been playing their instruments for multiple decades. When you say that your style is somewhere between Milt Jackson and ANYBODY, you are making a bold statement. We all know you just bought a vibraphone, which is fantastic.

The vibraphone is just not an instrument that any person could play at three years old. It is physically impossible, unless you were already five feet tall.

Try a little modesty. And self-control.

[.:.impossible]

Thanks for the rec Rod. I will look out for this book. Let me know if you find the four mallet book. There are a few.

[Jazz Kat]

For the record, I don't feel like I know shit about music. I'm basically in the dark with a flashlight... that isn't going to stop me from trying to learn. I feel like this is a lifelong process and I'm in no hurry.

Regardless, one of Burton's innovations IS technique, whether you care or not.

JazzKatt, ease up. Lots of knowing musicians on this board, many of whom have been playing their instruments for multiple decades. When you say that your style is somewhere between Milt Jackson and ANYBODY, you are making a bold statement. We all know you just bought a vibraphone, which is fantastic.

The vibraphone is just not an instrument that any person could play at three years old. It is physically impossible, unless you were already five feet tall.

Try a little modesty. And self-control.

I never had a real vibraphone until recently. But when I was real little, I had this bell kit, and progressively as I got older, I moved up in quality of instruments. Xylophone, student marimba, etc. I would listen and play back on those piece of shit instruments, and when I went to music stores to play the real thing, it came natural to me, and many people were surprised at what I could play. I'm no ego-maniac, believe me. It's just when someone makes a comment like 7/4 did, (like he and many others on this board do often) that implies, that the vibraphone is a new thing to me, it just gets me upset. Because I've been so close to the instrument for about 90% of my life. It's personal. I'm sorry for "shouting" but it just got me mad, and quite frankily, I'm fed up with the stupid ass, meaningless negative comments directed at me.

[marcello]

We only "know" what we read here.

How did you like those Locke vids?

[.:.impossible]

For the record, I don't feel like I know shit about music. I'm basically in the dark with a flashlight... that isn't going to stop me from trying to learn. I feel like this is a lifelong process and I'm in no hurry.

Regardless, one of Burton's innovations IS technique, whether you care or not.

JazzKatt, ease up. Lots of knowing musicians on this board, many of whom have been playing their instruments for multiple decades. When you say that your style is somewhere between Milt Jackson and ANYBODY, you are making a bold statement. We all know you just bought a vibraphone, which is fantastic.

The vibraphone is just not an instrument that any person could play at three years old. It is physically impossible, unless you were already five feet tall.

Try a little modesty. And self-control.

I never had a real vibraphone until recently. But when I was real little, I had this bell kit, and progressively as I got older, I moved up in quality of instruments. Xylophone, student marimba, etc. I would listen and play back on those piece of shit instruments, and when I went to music stores to play the real thing, it came natural to me, and many people were surprised at what I could play. I'm no ego-maniac, believe me. It's just when someone makes a comment like 7/4 did, (like he and many others on this board do often) that implies, that the vibraphone is a new thing to me, it just gets me upset. Because I've been so close to the instrument for about 90% of my life. It's personal. I'm sorry for "shouting" but it just got me mad, and quite frankily, I'm fed up with the stupid ass, meaningless negative comments directed at me.

Don't sweat it. Just keep playing your music. Remember, this is just an internet chat forum.

[Jazz Kat]

We only "know" what we read here.

How did you like those Locke vids?

I've seen them a while ago. They're very nice. Locke is such a great vibraphonist. I almost went to go see him at this hotel called the Kitano. Joe Labarbera was on drums. My friend was supposed to go with me, but he cancelled. (he also had the car)

[marcello]

Too bad you missed it.

That Saturday night was a great gig!

The band was Joe & Joe, Jonathan Kreisberg on guitar and Jay Anderson on bass.

[Simon Weil]

Under no circumstances is it an act of graciousness to interrupt a conversation of "shop talk" between two or more practitioneers of the craft and whine to them that you don't care about what they're talking about and that you don't think it's important....

Well, if you actually go back and look the "shop talk" was started by impossible in response to post of mine. So I felt justified in responding, as it were, to that response. What set me off was the use of that word "important". I had said that Burton was historically important as a progenitor of fusion, impossible came back with he was very important as a technical innovator on vibes.

Behind that was a general view that the technical is over-valued in Jazz and a general feeling that people beat you over the head with their technical knowledge rather than use it to enhance your enjoyment of the material. You use the word graciousness, which hints at the kind of religious significance technique has in Jazz - and I think indicates it is being overvalued.

Mastery of technique leads to craft. There's a difference between a craftsman and a priest.

Or an artist.

Simon Weil