The golden age of melody: A conversation with flautist/saxophonist Joseph Vincelli
~Jedd Beaudoin

Joseph Vincelli is known primarily as a smooth jazz saxophonist. Keyboardist Danny Wright is known primarily as a New Age pianist (and a rather well-known one at that). Together, they have formed a fruitful musical partnership that has been pleasing crowds for some time now. The two will be at the [Wichita, Kansas] Orpheum Theatre on Friday night for "Melodies For Mom," a show Vincelli describes as, "Very classy" and "Perfect for Mother's Day." (It is also a collaboration with the Wichita Chamber Chorale, conducted by Marvin Latimer.)

But the fact it's music for Mom shouldn't scare all you non-moms out there away. Wright and Vincelli are both great interpreters of song but they also compose their own unique, vibrant works, music that will delight fans of their respective genres and surprise skeptics.

Vincelli, who has 10 CDs to his credit and is author of several books, including the upcoming "Art of Tone", an in-depth examination of music in all its forms (from silence to noise), will appear with Wright at the Rock Road Borders on Friday, May 9 at 2 p.m. for a book and CD signing session before hitting the stage at the Orpheum at 7:30 that night.

Jedd Beaudoin: What can you tell me about your collaborations with Danny Wright?

Joseph Vincelli: We first got together for a benefit show I organized here in Dallas a few years back. I [enjoyed working with him] and said, "Maybe we can do a concert together some time." We did something last year and it ended up becoming a very fruitful combination. We played a concert in Dallas-Forth Worth, which was [very successful]. I've played on his last two albums, one of which is "Healer of Hearts", which is number eleven on Billboard's New Age chart at the moment. What we do in the live show is play our music together. We play Joseph Vincelli music and Danny Wright music, plus standards from Broadway musicals.

JB: How often is it that you find another musician that you really click with? It sounds like you and Danny have a strong partnership.

JV: It happens about thirty or forty percent of the time. The magic of this particular combination is that Danny has performed with other artists but he's been [especially] happy with our collaboration. I love his sensitivity. He has a very sensitive feel on the piano. If you look at reviews of his work, they mention that as well. It's pretty exciting.

JB: Was that connection apparent to you immediately, something where you said, "This is what I've been waiting for"?

JV: I wouldn't say that I was necessarily looking for it, but when it happens, you have to take advantage of it, so we've been taking advantage of it. I think it'll be a long-lasting connection. I think we'll be doing these concerts for a long time. The other thing that's neat for me is this: Most people know me as a smooth jazz saxophonist. They don't even know I play flute. The only time they find out is when I do Christmas concerts. It's very hard to make a living as a smooth jazz artist and then turn around and try to do classical music. [They involve vastly different audiences.] Some people like classical music, some people don't like classical music. On top of that, it's hard to get the respect of both audiences, so playing with Danny provides me with the opportunity to play the flute. It's about fifty-fifty between flute and saxophone.

JB: Which instrument came first for you, saxophone or flute?

JV: Without question it was the saxophone. I didn't start playing flute until I was about 18-years-old.

JB: Was it a case where you were starting band classes and you had to pick an instrument or a matter of having heard it and said, "That's it"?

JV: It was a choice between saxophone and French horn. I'm really glad that I chose the saxophone, though I really admire the French horn and its sound, the saxophone has given me a lot of opportunities.

JB: Well, there aren't that many well-established French horn players. [Laughs.]

JV: No, unfortunately, but that's the way it is.

JB: And while the saxophone has a distinct sound, it would also seem that it's difficult to develop a unique voice on it, though you have. What was that process like for you?

JV: I think the process is the same, no matter what the instrument, no matter what the style of music, though jazz certainly provides you with more opportunities because it's more improvisational. Improvisation itself probably gives you the greatest opportunity to bring out your own voice. That's true both in jazz and rock music. The way it works is this, it goes back to something Charlie Parker said that's so, so true: "Learn everything you can about your instrument, then forget all of it and just play." You have to learn everything you can so that you understand what the vocabulary is, both on the instrument and within the style of music you're playing. Then you have to forget it all, so that your head is clear, and then just play freely from your heart. That's where you'll find your voice.

JB: Now, you mentioned improvisation. I happen to like improvisational music but I know that that word scares a lot of people because they think it means that what they'll hear is an atonal bog. But it doesn't have to be that.

JV: Well, again, I think it all comes back to what Parker said. Improvisation is without structure. However, you have to start with a base. You have to understand structure. Structure is what you choose to use as your instrument, whether that's voice or a metal instrument or an electric instrument. That's one thing. You also have to understand the vocabulary of music itself. There are only twelve notes but there are billions of combinations of those twelve notes. Plus, you have to learn the vocabulary of the music that you choose to play. Combining those three things provides you with a foundation and what you decide to put on that foundation is truly up to you.

JB: That also suggests that there has to be musical substance there. I think that there are many people who are skeptical of smooth jazz and New Age because they believe it lacks substance. I don't necessarily agree 100% with that.

JV: I know exactly what you're saying. Purists. They're only pure because of hindsight. If you look at the early jazz musicians, before ragtime, they didn't think about what they were doing, they just did it. It's only 80, 90, 100 years later that we say, "Oh, all these guys actually did the same type of thing and it's got some substance, so we'll call it jazz and that'll be the pure form." This is the way music works. It's always the same. Bach, in the 1600s, improvised most of his compositions. It was only after he'd improvised them, that he said, "I better write this down." Here's where I question the purists: "Was he being pure to the art?" How would he know? He was creating the art. So, when the skeptic or purist says, "I don't like that style because it really doesn't have enough meat or passion or substance," I understand that. There are certain saxophonists who I think don't have any sincerity in their playing and yet they have made tons and tons of money. It doesn't necessarily have to be unpopular to have substance. I play with as much passion when I play smooth jazz as when I play classical as I do when I play rock and roll as when I play blues. It doesn't matter. People walk away from one of my shows saying, "That guy plays with passion, he plays with conviction." That's the bottom line.

JB: Well, you can say that about Coltrane. He had a lot of different phases, though. The ballads . . .

JV: . . . and the late stuff. It's funny you mention him. The irony is that most purists don't listen to *A Love Supreme*, they don't listen to the late stuff because they don't understand it. They think, "He was great when he did *Giant Steps*." And I think, "No, he was great when he did it all. It's just that you understand *Giant Steps*." I have a real hard time with people who say otherwise and I'm sure you run into people who do say that. They don't understand his late stuff, so they don't give it as much recognition. He was true to himself. He was an artist from day one. He happened to be very good and had a lot of sophistication when it came to where he was going with this music.

JB: Well, and in rock and roll you have Neil Young. People complain when he takes an unexpected turn but when he follows a record of strange, electronic music with a folk or country album you know he's doing it because it's him.

JV: That's so true. If that's the direction he chose to go, [then more power to him] unless it's a record company decision where they say, "We'll sell more product if you do this." That happens sometimes. It is a business, much more so than 30 years ago when Neil Young and Yes and Aerosmith were starting out, doing stuff that was considered on the edge. The main thing was that they were doing it from their hearts. Sometimes [some artists] do things for shock value. Dancing on stage in a diaper is sometimes done for shock value. I don't know that anybody does that because they feel it. But if you're sincere about what you do, then it's hard for people to fault you.