LYLE MAYS - A PERFECT MUSICIAN
Polish Jazz Magazine, Jazz Forum, May 1985

His name is primarily associated with Pat Metheny's team, with whom Lyle Mays has worked for over 30 years. When the Pat Metheny Group first came to Poland in 1985, Paweł Brodowski and Janusz Szprot interviewed JAZZ FORUM not only with the leader (Pat Metheny remembers this conversation to this day!), but also with his musical partner, pianist and keyboardist, co-composer of the greatest hits of the sensational band that changed the sound of jazz around the world.

Here is the interview with Lyle Mays, published in JAZZ FORUM No. 96, 5/1985:

In the previous JAZZ FORUM, we posted a report from the Pat Metheney Group concert and an interview with its leader. Here is another repercussion of these unforgettable events - a conversation with Lyle Mays "keyboard player", an excellent musician, Pat's sovereign partner, the chief music architect of his band. There is no exaggeration in these terms, if we only remember all the recordings of this band for the ECM label, three concerts in Poland, the Aquarium cavity.

Lyle Mays was already in our country once in 1976 with Woody Herman's Big Band was registered by our television, and the baroque hairstyle and "romantic" fingers were the grateful object of cameramen, when Woody presenting a traditional bigband repertoire suddenly generously allowed the young pianist for rock jazz "break away" in the style of Chicka Corea.

Today, Lyle Mays has not changed much externally, although the period of "storm and pressure" has long passed. On stage, fortified with heaps of keyboards, countless cables, buttons and pedals, he admires remarkable restraint and discipline, while he subordinates his manual dexterity to the form and internal logic of music. Extensive harmonic erudition and a flawless sense of rhythm are revealed by solo parts usually played on an acoustic piano, the sense of color and dynamics dominates in the accompaniment and themed sections realized on synthesizers.

For Polish "keyboarders" listening and watching Mays on the stage was an invaluable experience, because for the first time we hosted musicians who, aware of the entire jazz and music tradition, in general set a new treatment for the latest electronic instruments. Despite this, Mays remains a familiar musician for us. Let's give him a voice.

LYLE MAYS: I became interested in music very early - I wanted to play when I was four or five years old. My family was very musical, my mother played the piano and church organ, and my father - a musical self-taught music - played the guitar by ear and sang. There was always live music at home and that was beneficial. Currently, in times of radio, CDs and television, we have less and less live music around us. Lucky luck in our house was the piano and when I was five years old I started to take the first lessons of the instrument. I had a very good teacher. She taught me classics, and later after lessons changed to the organ and we started jamming - we played old standards together. I was also lucky to get acquainted with a large dose of music from the collection of my school team's instructor records. He also encouraged me to study more advanced harmony and theory of music. Finally, in the States, there is a system of summer jazz workshops where young musicians can play with each other and I also took part in several such camps.

JAZZ FORUM: Which pianists were particularly interested at the time?

LM: From the very beginning I was interested in Bill Evans and still remains my favorite. He was one of the most intelligent Pianists. The door handle fell when I was 13 - 14 years old. I started to rip his records, trying to get original sounds, copying plays, etc. I also listened to Oscar Peterson, Bud Powell, Red Garland, Art Tatum, Keith Jarrett and Chick Corea. I listened very little to Cecil Taylor and this type of musician. However, from the beginning I was interested in music in general. I listened to bands mainly because of the total musical effect, and not just for the pianist. I was interested in composing and arranging, including classical music, from an early age. I was fascinated by Igor Stravinsky and this fascination continues. He was one of the greatest composers.

JF: When he first performed in Warsaw in 1976 with the Woody Herman Orchestra, you were presented by him as one of the greatest young talents from North Texas State University. Did you actually graduate from this university?

LM: No. All in all, I was only there for two years. I ran out of patience. It seems irrelevant to me today that I didn't graduated from this school. After all, it would only be a piece of paper, and in jazz no one asks for a diploma. The University of Texas is a good school, but no school can teach you how to play jazz. When I was in North Texas, there were many jam sessions. At that time, I was dealing with the most important jazz standards for the first time. The musicians knew all the subjects there and we just played her night after night until the morning. It was a really great experience.

JF: Immediately after leaving Woody Herman, you merged with Pat Metheny to form one of the longest-running companies in modern jazz. What is the main reason you still work together?

LM: We work together because our music still fascinates me. I feel that I have the most to say in this music. I also think that there is a kind of synergy between me and Pat, thanks to which we two are stronger together than each of us individually. There have never been any conflicts between us over selfishness. I am glad that I can play music that I think is the best.

JF: What does working with Pat look like?

LM: It is a kind of continuous test of strength, a challenge - because Pat's requirements are extremely high. Besides, the patterns of the whole team are very excessive and we set ourselves higher requirements than any criticism can set for us. Pat is one of the hardest working people I know, totally dedicated to the cause of music. I put so much energy into it. Nobody doubts his phenomenal talent, but in fact he puts a lot of work into it. He constantly thinks about music, the way he plays, he is constantly hungry for new ideas. It's really fascinating to associate with a musician who loves music so much and is ready to devote so much of his own energy to share it with listeners.

JF: Most of the songs on your group's albums are signed with Pat and your names. How do you share the composer's responsibilities? It's hard to know what who is doing?

LM: Sometimes it's even a big secret for us. It's definitely different every time. It is rare for musicians to cooperate as closely as we do in the compositional process without feeling embarrassed. This is a very difficult matter, because you have to involve yourself all while composing. This is a very personal process. And then the biggest difficulty is passing it on to someone else who intends to change it - subtract something, add something. You must be objective and flexible. But luckily there is still a lot of room for compromise. I think that Pat and I have long since departed from close cooperation when he wrote two measures, then the next two, and so on, because this procedure clearly makes schizophrenic music. We have never done that. Now, most often, one of us composes a certain section while being aware of the concept of the whole song, its style, rhythmic pulse and basic melody; the other of us can then act as a proofreader - advisor. At other times, one of us again presents the outline of the song, and then we withdraw in two to distance the method of impartial judges to evaluate this idea and say: "It could be better - and that is wonderful."

JF: Do you both save your songs?

LM: Rarely. Sometimes it is easier to describe something to another musician, or you can just start playing, trying and discussing it right away. Other songs are absorbed faster when they are carefully written and the musicians receive individual voices. In this band we all read notes, but we try to be flexible and sometimes we just need to talk about what to play. However, we rarely record exactly the entire song, similar to not writing at all. Of course, music created in this way is subject to a kind of revision during rehearsals and concerts.

JF: What is the participation of the band's other members - bass player Steve Rodby, drummer Paul Wertico and drummer-vocalist Pedro Aznar?

LM: Creating music is to some extent a collective process. Music is the most powerful when all members of the band give their maximum contribution to the final sound result. We will then have five different points of view. But to compose music, establish a certain organization, a specific goal, to create a real musical piece, not a jam session - we must establish a certain superior structure beforehand. The context for improvisation must be established, and there must be specific guidance.

Steve himself composes most of the bass parts, maybe even 95% of what is played. He is a very musical guy, he knows well what's going on, what is right at the moment, and he can look at himself from a distance. For him it is more important what the bass voice should be in a given musical course than it is me how to be a star Steve Rodby. He is a selfless musician, extremely intelligent and sensitive, and usually plays only what he needs. But even he must know what we mean before he plays his part. You can't just give him a blank sheet of paper and say, "write your voice here" or "play anything." You need to know the overall concept of the song to adapt the bass. Again, we return to the aforementioned superior structure, which defines what is right in a given episode and what we want to say by it.

It is probably Stravinsky once said that "art develops under duress and freezes." I feel it in a similar way. There must be some restrictions to stimulate creative activity to have problems to solve. When you have complete freedom, you are not embarrassed and you can do what your heart desires, you will only get a mess of mess.

JF: In your music, an important element that is rarely talked about is Brazilian influence ...

LM: Very important. I think Pat and I feel some kinship with this music, although it's difficult to explain. If you like something very much, it's usually difficult to say why. But there are also logical and purely technical reasons. We are interested in simple, "eight-note" music as a complement to the swing feeling and Brazilian music is swinging within this simple figure-eight structure, which is very attractive for jazzmen. What Getz has achieved with Brazilian musicians works like magic. Brazilian music seems to fit into certain stylistic trends, making more towards a simple eight note feeling.

JF: So you are mainly interested in Brazilian rhythm?

LM: Maybe not primarily, but it is one of the most important aspects of this music. The second is harmony. Beginning with Bill Evans, I became particularly interested in expanding traditional harmonics, because at that time rock and roll was heading towards a simplified harmony. In his music, Bill Evans has achieved very complicated harmonic regions, while maintaining traditional chords and tonality. Brazilian music in which I listened was also definitely tonal, but also aimed at a more sophisticated harmony.

JF: Listening to your melodic waveforms on the synthesizer, it is not easy to distinguish them from the sound of Pedro Aznar's voice, in episodes in unison. In other words - your synthesizer sounded like a human voice.

LM: I'm glad it was because that's what I meant. Before we introduced the vocal voice to our music, the synthesizer fulfilled this function. The piano has a very percussive attack and sounds quickly - we've all lost a lot of time trying to soften these effects. Pat's guitar now sounds different than most guitars, it doesn't emphasize the sound attack, it aims for a more gentle, smooth sound. But despite this, the sound resonated too quickly and we still did not have such an element in the band that would introduce a gliding, continuous, long-lasting sound reminiscent of singing. And the synthesizer was for us an instrument capable of performing this function. I have always treated the synthesizer as a musical instrument and tried to master its electronic nature beyond pure electronics. So when you say that this instrument sounds like a human voice, for me it is the highest compliment.

Another function of the synthesizer function is to enrich or thicken chords supporting melodic structures. In such cases, synthesizers are used similarly to the horns or strings section to the accompaniment without copying the sound of the instruments section at the same time.

JF: In one of the latest issues of Billboard, Joe Zawinul stated that he gets on his synthesizer "the sound of a violin better than the New York Philharmonic."

LM: I don't agree with Zawinul. Although it sometimes gets a very interesting sound, such statements remind me of a comparison of apples and oranges. To say that a synthesizer sounds better than a real instrument is bullshit. Could you say that oboe sounds better than violin? These are two different instruments. I love orchestra and orchestral instruments. I love the sound of an acoustic piano and an acoustic guitar. My goal is to enrich the invoice of existing instruments. Also, I don't think synthesizers can do that. The sound of one sound extracted for the forte is very complicated and there is no synthesizer that could copy this sound, let alone the sound of 60 string instruments. This is a very rich, complex, beautiful sound that even the most impressive synthesizers can't deliver.

JF: Maybe that's why during the concert you played all your solos of the concert on an acoustic piano and not on synthesizers?

LM: It is primarily a matter of personal taste, although it is true that I feel better on the piano because it is a more developed instrument. The piano has been around for hundreds of years, while synthesizers are new. I am sure that they are getting more and more perfect and maybe someday in the future it will be more convenient for me to play solos on some improved synthesizer.

JF: If we are talking about musicians playing synthesizers, it is difficult to recognize individuality and personal sound among them.

LM: For me, playing synthesizers has little to do with personality. I try to create music that sounds reasonably good and rich in my ears. That's why I usually use synthesizers as additional sounds to strengthen existing structures. I am not very interested in getting a separate, personal sound or playing style on a particular synthesizer. I like to treat them from a distance, maintaining for them an auxiliary function, supporting more personal elements of music - solo piano or guitar.

JF: You have a huge set of keyboards on stage. Of course, you need them for different purposes, but could you instead use one synthesizer to perform all these functions?

LM: Currently, there are synthesizers that can work like that, but only to a certain extent - when you introduce one long-lasting sound and then apply a different sound to it, while it is still the same synthesizer. Since the synthesizers are not rich enough and complex enough, there is some identity of the sounds. And only seemingly they can sound different. In a moment the ear recognizes identical phenomena, as if one violinist played all the voices. 60 different violinists sound different. That's why I use several different types of synthesizers at the same time. In addition, one has to take into account the technological factor - the former synthesizers were completely analog, probably more stringent in purely electronic terms, but were able to produce a specific sound. Later synthesizers had more digital components, and now the latest Synclavier is completely digital. There are many sounds between old Oberheim and Synclavier. Using them together, we get such wealth that none of them could produce individually. In addition, each of them has different types of keyboard, which means that I can play one of them extracting the held sound - raising my hand, but the sound remains - then I introduce a different sound from another synthesizer that is underneath. I couldn't do it if everything was done on one keyboard.

JF: Earlier, at a press conference, you said that using synthesizers is a continuous development process. Did you mean technical or musical development?

LM: I would say both. When an instrument develops - and it has been happening for centuries - composers write music for it, the musicians improve their skills on it, and music develops together with technique.

JF: You are in constant contact with instrument producers. What's happening on the market lately?

LM: Artificial intelligence. One of my instruments - Kurzweil - is largely based on artificial intelligence, which today is very popular among leading computer scientists: pattern recognition (memory), sound modeling. These are fascinating fields of knowledge leading to the emergence of a new generation of computers (synthesizers). First we had old electronic organs, then analog synthesizers, then digital ones, and now we have artificial intelligence.

JF: What type of synthesizer would you recommend to young beginner pianists who would like to add a synthesizer to their instruments?

LM: I don't think it's important who has the synthesizer. I myself started with the old Oberheim Four-Voice, which has long since been discontinued. For me, the most important thing is to create the best music possible, which means a purely musical way of approaching technical problems while maintaining the emphasis on music. On this basis, I say that it is less important on which particular synthesizer you play, how long the overarching principle is to improve the sound and music as such. You can play so much beautiful music on every instrument and that should be the goal of a real musician. Similarly, when someone chooses whether to play the trumpet, clarinet, saxophone, trombone, etc. Usually, such decisions are made by musicians at a young age. It's similar with synthesizers. You pick up an instrument and try to play your best.

JF: Switching from an acoustic piano to an electronic keyboard is a problem for some music. Each of these instruments requires separate articulation.

LM: In my situation it's even harder. I have three keyboards that do not have dynamic articulation, while the others react to the dynamic change of finger beats. All six are different from the piano keyboard. So when I jump from one instrument to another, they have to change the articulation completely. In addition, I use a sound pedal for each synthesizer. I get most of the dynamic changes coming out of the synthesizer with my foot, not my fingers. I have 13 pedals in total. So things get very complicated. In addition, I have a habit of determining the synthesizer sound before playing a given piece of music, I also play a section of the song, at the same time I have to anticipate and think about the next sound there should be. I fix them with my left hand while the right one is still playing ... Almost like a mistake.

JF: Since you started working with Pat Metheny, have you played in the meantime in some other composition as a sideman to other leaders or maybe as a soloist?

LM: I'm working on the author album all the time, but I'm very slow. Over the past eight years I have had several opportunities to record my own album, but I have always given up because I didn't feel ready for it internally. I know too many young musicians who quickly recorded their own CDs demonstrating their efficiency here and there, But in reality they have little to say in music. Until now I was content with science alone, I calm down many things, I tried to find a place for myself in this music. Recently, I started recording my solo album, which, if everything goes smoothly, should be completed by the end of this year. It has been going on for quite a long time. I think that this is partly a matter of my individual style. I didn't feel completely ready and I wanted to give this music the right weight. I wanted to have something that hasn't been done yet - that it wasn't just my version of what someone else is doing. It was a long time before I felt I had something separate to say. Nana Vasconcelos on percussion instruments, Marc Johnson on bass, Bill Frisell on guitar, Billy Druce on saxophone and phenomenal Alex Acuña on drums take part in these recordings.

JF: Do you teach?

LM: Not yet, because I don't know enough to teach. There are so many things that I do not know and which I am trying to imagine. But not long ago I started teaching privately because I found that this way I can learn more than my students do.

JF: Have you learned anything from what others have written about your music?

LM: I rarely or never feel that music critics know anything about music. I think this is a really serious problem. On the one hand, they lack technical knowledge about the basic elements of music - rhythm, harmony, melody and form. Often, great confusion introduces the critic's mere contact with music, his personal attitude towards music which has little in common with music itself. And it's also a serious problem. I have rarely read reviews about my music, with those from which some science would influence me. It is obvious that we think about our music longer, deeper and more intensely from a pure musical point of view than people who write about it.

Recently, music criticism takes the wrong forms, which usually originate from the rock and roll era characterized by a tendency to weave political music into sounds. We, however, deal with music that has no roots. We do not send any literary suggestions, we do not have such philosophical claims - we are musicians. So one should write about music in a "musical" way. I think that music critics in the United States now have literary ambitions, and this does not give the desired results. Undoubtedly, it is very difficult to use one means of expression to describe another, it is very difficult to translate certain musical ideas into literary language. If it were easier, more musicians would write about music. This is a real problem.

JF: What do you do besides playing music? Do you have any hobby?

LM: Yes. I am an insatiable enthusiast of chess. I play chess at any time of the day or night. It's a really fascinating game, for me even more than a game ... I'm also very interested in computers. I started working as a music consultant in synthesizer companies. I value this job because I can talk to computer specialists. I don't have technical knowledge in this field. But I know the basic principles of computers. I also like skiing and I hope that after this route I will be able to ride "on boards", it is a great relaxation for me. But maybe the most important thing is my immediate family. It is very important to have a normal life beyond all this professional madness, continuous travel, concert tours. When you are in a different city every day, you always meet new people. It is worth escaping the audience and have anything solid, some private, cordial ties with people close to you. 

(Courtesy of JAZZ FORUM)