Composer vs. player?

[Chrome]

An article by Brad Mehldau that WNMC (eric) posted in Jazz in Print has gotten me thinking ... does the fact that a given player writes his/her own stuff, as opposed to just playing someone else's, affect how you view a musician's ability to play?

Does that make sense? Originally, I would have thought that being comfortable composing would have to make someone a better soloist, because soloing is kind of like composing on the fly.

But the Mehldau piece added a curve I hadn't thought about: does thinking about a solo in "compositional" terms take away some of the instinctual, "hit you in the gut" feeling?

I suppose, like everything else, it's subjective ... but I'm curious to read what others have to say/write.

Thanks again for posting the original story, eric; I hope I didn't offend any kind of board etiquette by "borrowing" the topic.

[Muskrat Ramble]

I tend to appreciate the "compositional" camp much more for the following reasons:

I also love classical music and rock, where composition is king, but clearly no enemy to emotion. (It's worth noting that both those genres also feature improvisation). Those genres, among others, have shown the enormous artistic potential for edited composition (as distinct from real-time improv). I love jazz, but I'd never want to be without the glorious musical edifices built by Beethoven and Bruckner and so on. Music is in part sonic architecture.

More often than not, I find both jazz albums and individual solos by composer/players far more interesting and memorable than work by "just blowers" (to borrow from the aforementioned article).

Jazz composers enrich the art and push its boundaries by contributing new pieces and by seeing just what can be done with the form beyond merely blowing over the changes of old standards. After all, in blues and rock, people improvise over changes--even if generally simpler ones--so what would differentiate jazz then? A different rhythmic feel and generally different instrumentation, sure, but jazz can be so much more.

At least theoretically, a composer/player will understand the importance of melody in music, something that generally gets short shrift in jazz compared to rhythm and harmony.

Imo, to be a truly well-rounded musician, you need to be able to compose, improvise, and play others' works in different styles.

***

Either way, to answer your question, in my experience, no, "compositional" jazz generally has greater emotional (and intellectual) impact, not less. I certainly haven't found that it becomes overly cerebral or emotionally sterile--quite the opposite.

Edited February 4, 2004 by Muskrat Ramble