Characteristics of a Great Solo

[Coda]

I have a difficult time distinguishing a good solo from a great solo. My guess is that I'm not fully hearing or appreciating the subtle characteristics that sets one apart from another. This is especially difficult for me when listening to the same musician and trying to judge if they're having a good or bad night. Beyond the obvious, I get a bit lost at times.

Can you help me out? I know this is difficult to put into words... What exactly are you listening for in the music and how fine a gradient is there between what critics consider to be good vs. great?

[Richardo Caerleoni]

OK, John Coltrane's solo on Blackbird with Miles at Olympia - Paris 1960...totally logical, very human.. But, runs the entire range of the tenor - even runs into Dexter's phrase of Mona Lisa...And the audience hated it. Trane was interviewed afterwards....Sympathetically...So, maybe you played too free? Trane.. No, NOT free enough…

[Tanager]

I have no idea what "critics" are looking for, and many times, I don't particularly care. Personally, I look for some measure of exploration, some sense of melody, some willingness to take chances and push against boundaries, and an avoidance of repetitive lick-based playing - with all of those in balance with and against each other - i.e. two good solos might have different measures of each of the qualities I named. I was listening to Wayne Shorter's "Juju" (from the album of the same name) this weekend, and I kept thinking, "wow, that's a really great solo - lyrical without being cloying, with shifts in timbre and mood, and it fits the tune without merely being a restatement of the melody."

[clinthopson]

I think this kind of discussion is a bit futile since every person's reaction to a solo will differ.

Here's are some solos which have always elicited an emotional response from me:
Horace Silver's on "Nica's Dream"
Joe Henderson on "Song For My Father"
Ben Webster on "All Too Soon"
Prez on "Sometimes I'm Happy"
Vic Dickenson on "Russian Lullaby"
Johnny Hodges on "Isfahan"
Clifford Brown on "Joy Spring"
Miles on 'Diane"
Diz on "Manteca"
Bill Evans on "Peace Piece"
Fats Waller on "Hand Full Of Keys"
Stan Getz on "Early Autumn"
and on and on. . .

[Pete C]

The characteristics of a great solo change with every great solo.

[Nate Dorward]

When you sign on as a critic you get a secret decoder ring & a doorstop-sized instruction manual which answer all these questions.


I don't really know how to answer the OP except to say that you simply explore the music, learn what you like, think about it, maybe learn a bit about how it's put together (even having an amateur knowledge of playing jazz is enough to make you really respect a really good solo). If you care enough about the music, then your opinion about it has its own validity. I wouldn't worry about not perceiving mystical shades of fineness between good & great.

[Cem]

I doubt I'll be much help, but aside from being logical/coherent and original, a good solo for me needs to somehow reveal the current internal state, emotional contour, a certain organically formed structure...needs to reflect what that moment means to the player. Can the player honestly share his or her inner world in the time necessary to say it?

[Tanager]

Originally Posted by clinthopson

I think this kind of discussion is a bit futile since every person's reaction to a solo will differ.

I agree with the second part, but not the first, of the sentence above. I mean, at some level, every thread here can be reduced to a sequence of individual reactions to this or that work of art/music. The fact that we all may react differently to the same piece of music doesn't make discussing those reactions any less worthwhile, IMHO - if it did, we'd all be limited to the Alley. But we've had *that* discussion before, too.

[mke]

Originally Posted by Nate Dorward

When you sign on as a critic you get a secret decoder ring & a doorstop-sized instruction manual which answer all these questions.

You didn't get the Truth Goggles?

[Ennis Snavely]

A beginning, a middle and an end.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Cem

needs to somehow reveal the current internal state, emotional contour, ...needs to reflect what that moment means to the player. Can the player honestly share his or her inner world in the time necessary to say it?

Ah, but you have absolutely no way of knowing whether something that seems to meet those criteria is in "reality" doing so, or is a successful simulacrum. In other words, if you heard what appeared to be a brilliant solo that communicated inner torment and misery, then found out that the player was feeling great at the time, sitting on top of the world, as it were, would you be disappointed?

And what if you said to that artist, "I was overwhelmed by how poignantly you portrayed inner torment and misery," and he replied, "I thought I was portraying how great it feels to be alive today," would you then have a different response intellectually, after the fact?

[Tanager]

Originally Posted by Ennis Snavely

A beginning, a middle and an end.

I don't like ones with a beginning. I look for solos to spring, fully-formed, from the eternal ether, where they've been being played since time immemorial.

[Coda]

I feel better. Your responses suggest that this is more subjective than I had believed.

Part of my reason for bringing up this subject is that I don't feel the same way about 'classic' jazz (Blue Note) as most critics. I find that there is less originality in the solos compared to what the current crop of musicians are putting out. I find it amazing that these recordings continue to receive the amount of attention and praise that they do - at the expense of today's musicians.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Coda

Part of my reason for bringing up this subject is that I don't feel the same way about 'classic' jazz (Blue Note) as most critics. I find that there is less originality in the solos compared to what the current crop of musicians are putting out. I find it amazing that these recordings continue to receive the amount of attention and praise that they do - at the expense of today's musicians.

But how can you truly judge the originality of work from 40-50 years ago unless you can put your ears back in that time?

[Richardo Caerleoni]

Originally Posted by Pete C

Ah, but you have absolutely no way of knowing whether something that seems to meet those criteria is in "reality" doing so, or is a successful simulacrum. In other words, if you heard what appeared to be a brilliant solo that communicated inner torment and misery, then found out that the player was feeling great at the time, sitting on top of the world, as it were, would you be disappointed?

And what if you said to that artist, "I was overwhelmed by how poignantly you portrayed inner torment and misery," and he replied, "I thought I was portraying how great it feels to be alive today," would you then have a different response intellectually, after the fact?

I once said to Tubby Hayes...and he was amazing..."that was brilliant"...he said, "F. you, what do you know!" A lesson I never forgot

[Pete C]

Tubby sounds like a nice guy.

[clinthopson]

Originally Posted by Pete C

But how can you truly judge the originality of work from 40-50 years ago unless you can put your ears back in that time?

Absolutely right Pete!

Listen to "West End Blues" with the understanding of what came before, not after.

[sonic1]

If one is going to TALK about a great solo, and not keep referring to intuitive answers, one cannot avoid discussing theory, and we can get into a mess with this.

But to keep the jargon down I would say the best solos (in trad. jazz, bop, hard bop, and related subgenres) constitute the following elements:

1-a good balence between chromatic passages and references to chord changes (usually chromatic passages offbeat, chord references onbeat
2-excellent rhythm, unpredictable, swinging
3-avoidance of trite phrases (that changes each period of time)
4-unique phrases-rarer the more recent the recording
5-timely quotes and references: quoting phrases from greats in a fasion that fits the song
6-good tone/texture/extended technique
7-tasteful application of the idea of the blues-no matter what subgenre of jazz
8-genius chord substitution/extention using your solo
9-good vibes between rhythm section and soloist
10-it blows your skirt up

[Richardo Caerleoni]

Originally Posted by Pete C

Tubby sounds like a nice guy.

MUCH MISSED!

[Coda]

Is it safe to say that great solos of past eras are only good solos today?

Many musicians say that you cannot become great unless you learn from the past masters. If one has to listen with an understanding of 'what came before' to pass a quality judgement, should we revalue the importance of teaching early jazz? If I were studying music and wanted to perform, I would have to compete with what's original today.

[Pete C]

Interesting, intelligent catalog, sonic. However, "5-timely quotes and references: quoting phrases from greats in a fasion that fits the song" should definitely be optional, and unlike you, some of us guys don't have skirts to get blown up.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Coda

Is it safe to say that great solos of past eras are only good solos today?

Absolutely not. I think you've missed the point.

Many musicians say that you cannot become great unless you learn from the past masters. If one has to listen with an understanding of 'what came before' to pass a quality judgement, should we revalue the importance of teaching early jazz? If I were studying music and wanted to perform, I would have to compete with what's original today.

In any art you have to know the tradition. To push the boundaries you need to know how the boundaries were pushed in the past.

I doubt that any great musicians consider originality a matter of competition.

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by Pete C

Interesting, intelligent catalog, sonic. However, "5-timely quotes and references: quoting phrases from greats in a fasion that fits the song" should definitely be optional, and unlike you, some of us guys don't have skirts to get blown up.

LOL only on the weekends.

RE #5, I have yet to hear a solo that doesn't quote. It's damn nearly impossible not to these days (I am a tenor player, so I listen pretty close). Even the avant-garde quote, though most of them will never admit they do.

[Coda]

Then you must agree that a great solo needs to be put into a context, in this case the era/time of the recording.

I doubt musicians consciously try to compete with each other, but I'm sure that it happens. You compete for the listeners attention by trying to have more customers show up for your gig or buy your CD. You compete by trying to be selected as a member for that new 'killer' band. There is the jazzpar, the Monk, etc.

[sonic1]

I don't know about this competition thing. I don't think they do that. Except maybe some artist vying for ownership of lineage-that I DO see.

Solos DO need to be judged by context, era, of course. All art should be judged that way. Without consideration for timing/era/context one's critism would be very superficial.

Jared

[crawjo]

I tend to agree with Pete C's first take on this, that it changes with each solo. Trying to identify the characteristics of what makes a great solo would be like trying to identify the characteristics of what makes a great poem. There are no rules you have to follow. For me, a great solo can be identified as such by its human expression: it conveys an emotion, an idea, or an aspect of beauty. In other words, you know it when you hear it. You feel it in your spine.

BTW, despite my carping on Louis Armstrong, I agree that his solo on West End Blues is great, and I don't think you need to put yourself back in the 1920s to realize that it's great. Great solos are timeless. As for what Coda has to say about Blue Note, I agree that a lot of the "Blue Note sound" of the late 50s, early 60s can come across as formulaic and dull, but there are still plenty of brilliant performances that appeared on that label.

[stonemonkts]

Originally Posted by crawjo

BTW, despite my carping on Louis Armstrong, I agree that his solo on West End Blues is great, and I don't think you need to put yourself back in the 1920s to realize that it's great. Great solos are timeless. As for what Coda has to say about Blue Note, I agree that a lot of the "Blue Note sound" of the late 50s, early 60s can come across as formulaic and dull, but there are still plenty of brilliant performances that appeared on that label.

I agree with you regarding the "timelessness" of great solos. The context is important, but there are solos that will probably continue to make me swoon until the day I buy the farm (I hope).

As far as Blue Note, there are brilliant solos from every year they issued albums. The 60's were certainly the heyday for the label, but there were tons of great solos recorded in the 50's too. I think there was a higher ratio of great/fair recordings in the 60's.

[Jesse]

But as Cocteau famously had it, "Not necessarily in that order."

[Richardo Caerleoni]

Bop , do wa do, bo do wa, do bop, da ba be bop...Hey, Let's Cool one?

Or Frank Foster's solo on Locomotion.

Pete - is that really you ....or Pete Townsend?

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by stonemonkts

As far as Blue Note, there are brilliant solos from every year they issued albums. The 60's were certainly the heyday for the label, but there were tons of great solos recorded in the 50's too. I think there was a higher ratio of great/fair recordings in the 60's.

This is true. I think what I was trying to say was more that there is almost a glut of Blue Note albums on the market, especially with all the remasters that keep coming out every month. It's hard to listen to two dozen hard bop albums and not start to feel like you are hearing something formulaic.

I think Blue Note did hit their stride in the 60s, particularly with the Shorter albums, which in my opinion are the greatest of the Blue Note period. But in general I think the label became more adventurous in the 60s, with everything from Wayne Shorter, Herbie Hancock, and Andrew Hill to Eric Dolphy and the two Cecil Taylor dates.