【英日対訳】ミュージシャン達の言葉what's in their mind



May 1992   Maintaining Standards: Keith Jarrett and Dave Grusin 

By Becca Pulliam 

1992年5月 「スタンダード・ナンバーは必要か」  




What could be more intriguing than a conversation between the prickly Keith Jarrett and the smooth Dave Grusin? They both play the piano and compose in and out of jazz, although Grusin’s ventured into the keyboards and computers while Jarrett is a self-described Luddite (with a smile) whose artistic tools are his Steinway and a pencil. Perhaps their sharpest disagreement was about instruments. Grusin tried to posit that synthesizers are made musical by the nuances applied to the electronics. For Jarrett music is food, synthesizers are plastic broccoli. And they sound like cigarette smoke. 



But these men hold a lot in common. They’re smart. They’re aware of each other. They seem to enjoy the high-quality conversation. They talk about details and envision the bigger picture. They have fun with it. They’re concerned about the world, and they care about music. Invite either one of them to your campus not just to perform but to lecture! 



Both have recently released collections of American standards. Grusin’s The Gershwin Connection—a dozen 1991 arrangements featuring appearances by sidemen and soloists from the GRP family—just won him a Grammy for arranging. Jarrett’s The Cure—with bassist Gary Peacock and drummer Jack DeJohnette—is a 1990 performance at Town Hall. For these two individualists, the return to standard material became the focus of a wide-ranging discussion that took place at the GRP offices overlooking Manhattan—a high perch from which Jarrett introduced his “flatland” perspective on the two-dimensionality of most music today. Both had a lot to say. Here is the essence of their conversation. 

二人共、最近リリースしたのがアメリカのスタンダード・ナンバーを集めたアルバムだ。グルーシンは『The Gershwin Connection』。1991年にアレンジを手掛けた作品を数多く盛り込み、所属のGRPレコード社のミュージシャン達で脇を固め、ソリストを投入し、編曲部門でグラミー賞を獲得した。そしてジャレットは『The Cure』。ベーシストのゲイリー・ピーコック、ドラマーのジャック・ディジョネットとの、1990年タウンホールでの演奏だ。共に単独で活躍する彼らにとって、スタンダード・ナンバーを素材とする演奏活動への回帰が、多くの話題に及んだ対談の今回の焦点となった。マンハッタンを見下ろす高台にあるGRPのオフィスで、ジャレットが提起するのは「フラットランド」つまり今日の音楽の多くが持つ二次元性についてである。二人共言いたいことは盛り沢山で、本紙面ではそのエッセンスをご覧いただく。  



Becca Pulliam: Does the world really need another “All The Things You Are”? 


世界は本当にもうひとつの「All the Things You Are」を必要としているのでしょうか? 


Keith Jarrett: The world needs more than that. 




BP: Please elaborate. 




KJ: I can say for myself why standard tunes have played a big role recently was because I found the music world going too far to “possessiveness.” Everyone had to be doing their own thing. So the standard tune format freed the trio from any responsibility other than making music. 





Dave Grusin: Well, I started out as an arranger of standard material, and I went from that to writing “original” music for film. I can say that the relief that Keith describes about doing your version of material that already exists is a real relief. 




KJ: You’ve heard of Dixieland. I think that most of jazz now is Disneyland! Meaning that it’s 3/4 scale, its streets are clean, and the buildings are empty. The reality’s smaller, the advertising’s bigger. I heard an early Ornette record that I hadn’t heard in a long time, and it’s so willfully creative. To me that’s not Disneyland music. But one reason everybody’s coming out with things that say “standards” all over them is because melodists are disappearing. Song is disappearing. And I think song is disappearing because the soul of the planet is also not so strong. I think melody is the soul. 




DG: I don’t think a lot that we’ve known and loved, I don’t think it could be written now. I miss whatever it was in our society that gave us The George White Scandals, gave us a possibility of Rodgers and Hart songs stepping out of those shows. They weren’t all wonderful, but there were always these little gems that stepped out. 


私たちがこれまでに知っている、そして愛するものの多くは、もう今となっては書けるとは思えないね。ミュージカル『The George White Scandals』が生まれた社会が何であったとしても、そういったミュージカルの数々からロジャース&ハートの歌が飛び出してくる可能性を私たちは知ったのさ。もちろんすべての歌が素晴らしかったわけじゃないが、いつもそんな小さな宝石のような歌がいくつも飛び出していたんだ。今は懐かしい思いだよ。 



KJ: They’re more precious if they’re not being done now, too. I think our perceptions—if we aren’t careful—start reducing along with what’s missing in the world. It won’t take much, just a little let-go, and then we’ll say, “Hey, that’s not so bad. I heard something that was worse than that the other day.” Right? 




DG: [Laughs] Absolutely. 




KJ: When I think of a “song” [I think of] fluid or roundness. But what you’re hearing more and more [today] are edged textures. They go along with digital watches; and that goes with the information age, because in the information age how do you know what is valuable information and what isn’t? It’s all information. 




BP: When a young player comes along and plays a tune wrong, is that evolutionary or is that not doing one’s research? 




KJ: Depends on the tune. Some of those original things are so terrible! One chord change could make the tune good. 




DG: Incidentally, my perception of Gershwin is that he already figured out what the best substitution changes were going to be. 




KJ: I think that’s true of Gershwin because, contrary to many of the standard tune writers, he’s not writing vertically. He’s writing how a line moves in harmony under… 




DG: The “thumb lines”…[counter-melodies played by a pianist’s left thumb] 




KJ: It’s all counterpoint. “My Man’s Gone Now” is one of the tunes that—if you had to analyze it in blocks—you’d come to places in the tune where you’d say, “What?!” But if you know Gershwin’s actual original score notes, and see that there’s a moving line from [point] A to [point] B, and in between is a voice-leading note, you’d go, “Ah!” [satisfaction and relief.]  


すべて対位法なんですよ。「My Man's Gone Now」なんかそうですけど、縦のライン、つまり拍ごとのブロックで和声を分析すると、曲の中で「えっ?」と言いたくなるところに出くわしますよね。でもガーシュインの実際の原譜を知っていて、A点からB点へと動くメロディがあって、その間にボイスリーディングとなる音符があると分かると「ああ、そうか!」(満足と安心)となれるのです。 


DG: Particularly the bridge. There are chord progressions as amazing as anything you could think of using today with traditional harmony. 




KJ: Somehow I associate the counterpoint, the lines moving under other lines, as an awareness of the roundness of time. And so on the “flatland,” Gershwin’s poking up through there, which is why those things remain unable-to-be-made-better. He not only had the inspiration for the discrete components of these pieces, but he had the inspiration for the glue between those components. 




DG: I think what George Gershwin was trying to do, particularly at the end, was consciously synthesize jazz and classical music. 




KJ: Because of that, the other writers ended up being much better to play as an improviser. They gave you some very inspired things, but there’s a fill-in-the-blanks process. You are not stuck with an already-existing best-possible method. 





BP: About the lyrical aspect of this, as pianists, improvisers, and performers, is the lyric in your mind as you play? 




DG: As an accompanist, I know a lot of songs from having learned them to play for a singer, so lyrics are kind of married at that point. 




KJ: Accompanying is a subject all to itself, very unmentioned, but it’s another art form. 




BP: Neither of you is particularly an accompanist.  




KJ: Well, I feel like I am. 




DG: Yeah, me too. 




KJ: I’m always accompanying Gary [Peacock] and Jack [DeJohnette]! [laughter] I played for numerous vocalists in the early stages of pianism and I wouldn’t know what to trade it [for]. There’s something about doing that, especially with a voice, with words. You’re dealing with pauses that would never exist in an instrumental—elasticity and dynamics. 




DG: That’s been my life. I’m not a slob pianist. I don’t perform. I like to play on records, and I like to play in the studio, and I like to work with other musicians. But I started out being in demand in college because I was a good accompanist. I always had a feel for it, a sensitivity and an attempt to support it, and I think that’s why I became an arranger. 





KJ: That’s perfect. That describes, I mean it explains what he does!  




DG: Yeah, that’s why I became an arranger. That’s why I became a film composer, because I’m supporting something else. 




KJ: In other words, he’s good at relating and I’m not! [they both laugh] Just kidding.