View Full Version : Jazz Vocabulary versus Modern Fusion Playing ..?
Lucidology
03-09-2008, 06:06 PM
Seems to me that the issue about who's really playing Jazz or not,
that so often arises here (& elsewhere), is one of Jazz Vocabulary ...!
Which also includes a certain kind "feel" or "swing" in someone's playing....
So might it be hearing Jazz History in someone's playing that qualifies it as "real" jazz playing!!
Versus someone who blends rock, funk and or world-beat influences into their playing...
which means they are a fusion player ...?
Is this what distinguishes the differences ... ?
And/Or is there really a difference that's important to distinguish ...?
What's your civil idea or ideal of what constitutes a true jazzer ...??
Or, to sum it up, is jazz truly evolving into something else, much to the chagrin of purists ..??
The bear
03-09-2008, 06:48 PM
A true jazzer-huge jazzbox,no effects, tone control rolled all the way down. Only playing eight-notes, hating everything after 1950,wearing suit and smoking a pipe.
Not a jazzer(fusion)-solid body guitar, tons of distortion(to cover up for lack of technique), too many out/angelar notes,lack of the ability to play standards,too forward thinking.
brad347
03-09-2008, 06:53 PM
I don't really know much about purism, but this portends to be an interesting conversation.
I think a thing that a lot of people who are seen as 'jazz purists' crave in bandmates is a shared vocabulary. It's weird, even if you don't play any of the shared vocabulary overtly, it is still there under the surface, underpinning the logic of what is happening. If one person in the band isn't on that wavelength, it becomes obvious very fast. It's really akin to speaking the same language as someone.
Every once in awhile you run into a player that is very good but is just speaking a different language, and the degree of comfort goes down. Sometimes this can be musically interesting and sometimes it can just make simple things unnecessarily difficult.
I think so-called 'purists' get labeled as such if they have a tendency to get frustrated by players that speak another language. But to think that those people only like players that play a certain way is being misled, most of the time. Usually it's more that they want someone who is able to relate to what they are doing and at least understand it so that they may accompany it and share in the music with it in a musically complementary way.
I have a rare record of Ben Webster with Joe Zawinul. The two play together beautifully because Zawinul, even though he got to some other places in his own music, understood enough about where Ben Webster was coming from to play in a way that helped him sound his best. It wasn't about how Zawinul played during HIS solo, it was about how he played during Ben's solo that probably mattered the most in making the combination work.
The more particular stripe of musicians are often considered to be closed-minded types that want the music to sound a certain way. My experience with those types has not always borne that out. Most musicians are happy to play with anyone that can play well provided that they can communicate with them on some level. If there is no shared background and no common ground, then communication becomes frustrating. And improvised music is mostly about communication.
It doesn't matter how fluently and beautifully and poetically someone speaks in Japanese, I am simply not going to be able to converse with them unless one of us also speaks the language of the other. If someone locked us in a room for four one-hour sets, we would probably both leave tired and frustrated.
So to answer your question, I don't think this 'shared vocabulary' is a matter of being able to 'hear jazz history' or to act as some sort of 'qualifier' for 'real' jazz (whatever that means). I think the shared vocabulary is more of a qualifier for "can we relate to one another, contextually, and make nice music together?"
To answer your other questions:
I have no ideal of what is a 'true' jazz player because I've never really codified what I think of as 'true' jazz.
And jazz is evolving into something else in the same way everything is, but I don't necessarily think that's to the chagrin of the so-called 'purists,' most of them anyway. I think it's more a matter of some people being willing to evolve with a changing language, and some are not. Also, some of the so-called 'purists' are simply types that grow frustrated seeing others re-invent the wheel. This happens a lot among younger musicians, as it is part of the learning process. Some people just have less tolerance for it.
It's just possible, too, that with 100 years of perspective, we will find that what jazz has evolved into is something that wouldn't even be called jazz anymore.
Swain
03-09-2008, 07:05 PM
I've always felt that Jazz is a musical attitude/approach. And the true purists are the ones who embrace this.
I often find many "Jazz" players to be more like musical historians. Same with a lot of "Blues" players. Nothing wrong with that. But, it seems to defy the whole idea of exploration.
I think that if players don't keep pushing the boundries, then they are doomed to extinction.
Didn't all the "Real" players dis on Charlie Parker, B.B. King, George Benson, Wes Montgomery, and Louis Armstrong?
Was the Modal Jazz of Miles real "Jazz"? It didn't follow all of the Key cycling, etc. of Be-Bop.
I really feel that the attitudes and approaches of "Jazz" are prevelant in many musical styles, now. In fact, I think that "Fusion" in the truest sense, is one of the oldest and most useful aspects of Jazz.
So, I guess that I think of "Jazz" as larger than any one or two styles of music. And by trying to pidgeonhole it, you lose the whole point.
Jay Mitchell
03-09-2008, 07:25 PM
The jazz tradition has involved two parallel threads: jazz composition and jazz arrangement, which includes "on-the-spot," improvised arrangement. The composition side can be a real challenge to define. Certainly compositions by Monk, Ellington, and Gillespie compositions are jazz, for example, but what about some of Keith Jarret's later stuff? I don't think he even calls it "jazz."
In the case of jazz arrangement, the artist takes popular songs of the time and, well, "jazzes" them up. If you really want to understand jazz, there is no escaping the need to be able to swing, but that's far from the whole story. Good jazzers can play funk and Latin grooves as well.
Here's an example of the jazz tradition being continued with relatively modern pop material:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfC2qrL3d4g
And some more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4fbD0YBSZQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIUcrpgXATw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M56QwDjE6PQ
The jazz tradition is pretty straightforward to identify. It's the practice of taking popular music at a given time and adding melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic content in real time. There are songs that are powerful enough to survive over the years as the superficial elements of style change, and these become "standards." Playing only standards would result in the eventual demise of jazz, however.
Defining jazz music isn't really possible. As Brad points out, it has a lot more to do with a common musical language than with particular musical styles.
I don't really know much about purism, but this portends to be an interesting conversation.
I think a thing that a lot of people who are seen as 'jazz purists' crave in bandmates is a shared vocabulary. It's weird, even if you don't play any of the shared vocabulary overtly, it is still there under the surface, underpinning the logic of what is happening. If one person in the band isn't on that wavelength, it becomes obvious very fast. It's really akin to speaking the same language as someone.
Every once in awhile you run into a player that is very good but is just speaking a different language, and the degree of comfort goes down. Sometimes this can be musically interesting and sometimes it can just make simple things unnecessarily difficult.
I think so-called 'purists' get labeled as such if they have a tendency to get frustrated by players that speak another language. But to think that those people only like players that play a certain way is being misled, most of the time. Usually it's more that they want someone who is able to relate to what they are doing and at least understand it so that they may accompany it and share in the music with it in a musically complementary way.
I have a rare record of Ben Webster with Joe Zawinul. The two play together beautifully because Zawinul, even though he got to some other places in his own music, understood enough about where Ben Webster was coming from to play in a way that helped him sound his best. It wasn't about how Zawinul played during HIS solo, it was about how he played during Ben's solo that probably mattered the most in making the combination work.
The more particular stripe of musicians are often considered to be closed-minded types that want the music to sound a certain way. My experience with those types has not always borne that out. Most musicians are happy to play with anyone that can play well provided that they can communicate with them on some level. If there is no shared background and no common ground, then communication becomes frustrating. And improvised music is mostly about communication.
It doesn't matter how fluently and beautifully and poetically someone speaks in Japanese, I am simply not going to be able to converse with them unless one of us also speaks the language of the other. If someone locked us in a room for four one-hour sets, we would probably both leave tired and frustrated.
So to answer your question, I don't think this 'shared vocabulary' is a matter of being able to 'hear jazz history' or to act as some sort of 'qualifier' for 'real' jazz (whatever that means). I think the shared vocabulary is more of a qualifier for "can we relate to one another, contextually, and make nice music together?"
To answer your other questions:
I have no ideal of what is a 'true' jazz player because I've never really codified what I think of as 'true' jazz.
And jazz is evolving into something else in the same way everything is, but I don't necessarily think that's to the chagrin of the so-called 'purists,' most of them anyway. I think it's more a matter of some people being willing to evolve with a changing language, and some are not. Also, some of the so-called 'purists' are simply types that grow frustrated seeing others re-invent the wheel. This happens a lot among younger musicians, as it is part of the learning process. Some people just have less tolerance for it.
It's just possible, too, that with 100 years of perspective, we will find that what jazz has evolved into is something that wouldn't even be called jazz anymore.
This comes very close to to my feelings. The Japanese analogy works well. What seems to infuriate the fusion clan is that people who grow up speaking nothing but Japanese, continue to study and work on their Japanese, are simply able to communicate in Japanese at a higher level than those who do not. You can not come in speaking 1/2 Japanese and 1/2 French and think you are speaking Japanese, or at the very least, not speaking it as well as the former group. I would argue its simply not Japanese anymore.
I think it speaks volumes that the fusion players demand to be called jazz players, and or put those down who do not accept them as true jazz players. If the music is just as ligitimate, why should it bother them to be called fusion players? IMO, because jazz is so much harder to play. Good jazz players seem to have total control of their instrument at all times. Able to rip through a real book, playing solo guitar with moving bass notes, melody, reharms on the spot, while improvising all over the tune at the same time. Thats hard enough. Then to do it with a JAZZ SWING feel makes it even more difficult. Sure, there are some fusion players who can to that to different levels, but not the same as someone who has spent their entire life dedicated to that.
interesting subject joe!
well, "jazz" is not a pure form of music in itself. it is an amalgamation of music from west africa, europe and america. so at the heart of it all, the earliest "jazz" music is a fusion of music from different cultures.
luckily, we have had visionaries along the way (louis armstrong, duke ellington, charlie parker, coltrane,ornette coleman, etc...) that have digested the music that came before them and added to (and changed) the music radically. just think how crazy charlie parker sounded to a jazz musician that was coming out of sidney bechet and louis armstrong. i'm sure there were many people that thought charlie parker was playing a bunch of garbage when he first came on the scene. the same thing happened to coltrane when he was with miles. actually, miles got a lot of crap for hiring coltrane because he was so different from everyone before him and a lot of people were not ready for him at that time.
my opinion is that jazz music will die if it sits still for too long. it will become a museum piece.
it is important to listen to and study the players that came before us but once you get to a certain point in your musical development the question becomes "what do i have to say and how is my message different from everybody else that has come before me". for me, it is not enough to just go out and play stella by starlight (although i love to play that tune and have done so countless times). that might work for some players but my favorite jazz musicians were to ones that went against the mainstream and transformed the music into something else.
so to answer your question, jazz will always be transforming into something else because that is the nature of "jazz".
It doesn't matter how fluently and beautifully and poetically someone speaks in Japanese, I am simply not going to be able to converse with them unless one of us also speaks the language of the other. If someone locked us in a room for four one-hour sets, we would probably both leave tired and frustrated.
Well, I have to sort of disagree. I say sort of because on the surface, this might be true but it really depends on the person/people that are in the room. It might actually lead to great things where both become bilingual and or create a new language.
I've traveled enough and did gigs with some European musicians that did not speak a word of English. Yet, we managed to get along and forge friendships by hand signs and a lot of dictionary checking and learning a bit about each other's language.
brad347
03-09-2008, 09:04 PM
...but once you get to a certain point in your musical development the question becomes "what do i have to say and how is my message different from everybody else that has come before me" ....my favorite jazz musicians were to ones that went against the mainstream and transformed the music into something else.
The longer i've been involved with music the more I realize that it's not the players that transform the music so much as it is that music transforms the players that are receptive to its possibilities.
brad347
03-09-2008, 09:06 PM
Well, I have to sort of disagree. I say sort of because on the surface, this might be true but it really depends on the person/people that are in the room. It might actually lead to great things where both become bilingual and or create a new language.
I've traveled enough and did gigs with some European musicians that did not speak a word of English. Yet, we managed to get along and forge friendships by hand signs and a lot of dictionary checking and learning a bit about each other's language.
fair enough! And the same thing can also happen in music. But it requires both people being open and willing to reach a little. And furthermore, it requires awareness of the moment by both. I'm sure we've all seen or encountered people (musicians and non-) that don't know what's going on and don't know that they don't know what's going on. The first is easy enough, the second is really hard to communicate with.
The longer i've been involved with music the more I realize that it's not the players that transform the music so much as it is that music transforms the players that are receptive to its possibilities.
that's another way of putting it.
i see you play with my boy quinn blandford! quinn and i used to have a 2 guitar quartet together with frank hauch and gene segal (2 other willy p grads). tell quinn i said wassup if you see him.
jack
brad347
03-09-2008, 09:13 PM
okay. :)
jackaroo
03-09-2008, 09:14 PM
I think the majority of folks see "Jazz" as an art form under glass. Not a living moving thing. Like Doo-wop or some other genre of music from a bye-gone era. I think that "fusion", like it or not means proggy stuff, pony tails, bad tone, cheesy songs with a mix of rock and jazz- return to forever- that kind of thing to most people. I like both at times. But,to the majority of the listeners- right or wrong both those forms are stuck and defined by what has been done more than by what's being done. I think it's a shame, especially for Jazz, because it traditionally was all about expanding the horizon or harmony.
So to answer your question- Jazz isn't progressing. At least not like it was in the 50's and 60's.
To me a true jazzer is something different than most. I think most folks think jazzers would be like Joe Pass, Jim Hall, Wes that kind of cat. I think a little more broadly than that, but I tend to skip the labels and just say- I like that I don't like that. The repetoire has a lot to do with it. The instrumentation does too. The playing as well. I know it when I hear it I guess- like pornography I guess!
I tend to focus on the musicians ability to fit in and be an individual at the same time. That's impressive to me- whatever the style or genre. Not so much idiomatic "purity"- though I do like the classic jazz albums from Miles and Coltrane the most- so I guess I'm guilty as the next guy for holding back the genre.
Leucadian
03-09-2008, 09:15 PM
...interesting topic...and a great question...
...sidenote...I just checked out Gene's music and it's...awesome...you east coast guys rip...just hardcore...what more can I say...
...amazing the talent on this forum...
...I love the old school jazz guitar vocabulary but I think the way contemporary composition has evolved...the rhythms seem more varied...it's all over the place...electronic instruments, sounds, etc...part of today's vocabulary might involve using more "sonic techniques." The electric guitar has a lot to offer...
brad347
03-09-2008, 09:19 PM
though I do like the classic jazz albums from Miles and Coltrane the most- so I guess I'm guilty as the next guy for holding back the genre.
I don't think you're being fair to yourself to self-flagellate like that. It's entirely possible (even likely) that it's not the "oldness" or "classicism" that you like about those records, but rather something else (and more wonderful) entirely.
F**cking badass-ness never goes out of style.
But it requires both people being open and willing to reach a little. And furthermore, it requires awareness of the moment by both.
This is key, man. And I mean not just for music but life. Awareness and open mindedness mixed with creativity, wisdom and compassion will enrich an individual's life and hence his art.
As far as others who go around not knowing that they don't know... Well, we all know them. Luckily, most musician I know here in NYC are the former kind and not the latter...
brad347
03-09-2008, 09:49 PM
right on. :)
Flyin' Brian
03-09-2008, 09:54 PM
A true jazzer-huge jazzbox,no effects, tone control rolled all the way down. Only playing eight-notes, hating everything after 1950,wearing suit and smoking a pipe.
Not a jazzer(fusion)-solid body guitar, tons of distortion(to cover up for lack of technique), too many out/angelar notes,lack of the ability to play standards,too forward thinking.
Musician: One who can accept change, who has the ears and the mind open enough to hear the good in different types of interpretation, who's mind does not embrace dogma of any type.
I took lessons from a very well known purist. He insisted that Metheny, Scofield, Abercrombie, Stern and any post electric Miles guitarists weren't jazz players. He then told me if I wanted to take lessons from him, I NEEDED to get something besides the Strat I brought with me. I didn't study with him for very long. Any of the guys I mentioned above can swing; rip through the Real Book but choose not to because how much "Misty" can you take; improvise and reharmonize on the spot. But according to him and others, they're not jazz players. So defining a jazz player requires that we define jazz, and to define something so varied is to needlessly pigeonhole it.
The mind is like a parachute...useless if it's closed.
So to answer your question- Jazz isn't progressing. At least not like it was in the 50's and 60's.
Are we in the same town? Not trying to put you down here. I think jazz is evolving at a much higher rate than ever. It is just not supported and covered in the media or anywhere else. You have to seek it. And the internet is the place.
I am tempted to name some names here but there are some incredible genius type guys here in NYC. And in Europe and Japan, there are some serious thinking and creating going on as well.
This jazz thing is evolving internationally and it is clashing and pulling with 20th century classical music along with ethnic music from everywhere. Mixed with electronics and computers, there are some serious stuff out there.
This is not a knock on the golden age of jazz but I think what is going on is a wonderful tribute to all the masters that came before us. As it should be. Sort of like standing on the achievements of our fathers which is allowing us to even reach higher grounds and so on. Exactly how it should go.
...sidenote...I just checked out Gene's music and it's...awesome...you east coast guys rip...just hardcore...what more can I say...
Thanks, Leucadian. It is a habit of mine when I receive a compliment on my music to introduce another musician who I think is great.
Tigran Hamasyan! Check him out. Simply blew me away. Can't even drink yet. Won the Monk Piano Competition in 2006 when he was 18 beating out some heavy weights from NYC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7F1ADydPaQ
We are recording together here in June. I am quite looking forward to it.
jackaroo
03-09-2008, 10:23 PM
Gene,
I personally think there are great strides being taken- Especially here in NYC. What I said was to most listeners the idiom is a frozen art form. Dead. Most folks don't want it to change, and support the more traditonal players/approach.
"But, to the majority of the listeners- right or wrong- both those forms are stuck and defined by what has been done more than by what's being done. I think it's a shame, especially for Jazz, because it traditionally was all about expanding the horizon or harmony."
I guess I misunderstood your post. Sorry. I wish I had an answer to your post...
I wonder if the "most folks" have always been the same throughout history. Ignoring true artists until years later when the "critics" say it's hip to like them.
This reminds me of a story Rashied Ali told me when I played in his quintet. He used to live above the original Five Spot. He would hang downstairs and listen to Monk play. Just like 3 people in the club. And he watched all the people walk past the Five Spot and knew a genius was being completely ignored by the world. Well, now, you know, everyone and their mother's love Monk and talk about how they love and know his music...
Leucadian
03-09-2008, 10:35 PM
Thanks, Leucadian. It is a habit of mine when I receive a compliment on my music to introduce another musician who I think is great.
Tigran Hamasyan! Check him out. Simply blew me away. Can't even drink yet. Won the Monk Piano Competition in 2006 when he was 18 beating out some heavy weights from NYC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7F1ADydPaQ
We are recording together here in June. I am quite looking forward to it.
...I did already! When you started a thread about him...I'd love to hear that recording...let us know when that's finished!
I did already! When you started a thread about him...I'd love to hear that recording...let us know when that's finished!
Cool!
rwe333
03-09-2008, 11:25 PM
I think it speaks volumes that the fusion players demand to be called jazz players, and or put those down who do not accept them as true jazz players.
Who does this? Silly comment. Very simply, this is not reality.
Able to rip through a real book, playing solo guitar with moving bass notes, melody, reharms on the spot, while improvising all over the tune at the same time.
Goodness, several of the 'jazz' players you cite as faves aren't adept at this skill set.
...but not the same as someone who has spent their entire life dedicated to that.
Cuts both ways - I respect the hell out of a ton of musicians and would never cite one genre or one player as being tops. Goodness, pretty easy to find fault in any player - everyone's a product of their strengths and weaknesses, what they can and can't do...
Not sure why I'm bothering to chip in here - this stuff has been your mantra for ages... <sigh> Do you really believe pontificating such non-negotiable opinions will assist in musical development (yours/this community/etc.)?
KRosser
03-09-2008, 11:38 PM
You know what I hate about the jazz community, more than anything?
I'm tired of the fact that on every gig, in every magazine, on every web chat room, whether you come down on the conservative side or the progressive side, the question of what constitutes 'the real jazz' becomes more important than the music itself.
Carltone
03-09-2008, 11:59 PM
Great and insightful posts!
I would like to add a concept or two:
Great artists, regardless of genre or medium, understand tradition. The greatest artists, though... understand that part of tradition is tearing down what came before and building something new on top. This part of tradition is the most vital... the need to create. I can never understand the traditionalist who never want a thing to change... It cracks me up when I read a definition of jazz... the whole intent of jazz was to create the new.
I think Gene Ess is right... there are a whole slew of interesting artists creating great jazz across the world now...combining elements of different grooves and vocabularies like never before. You have to be open as a listener and be an active participant to "get it" though. You must seek it out on the internet. Thank god for music forums!(the good, the bad and the fugly....):)
Who does this? Silly comment. Very simply, this is not reality.
What are you kidding me?? Where do you think the terms such as "jazz police, Museum music" etc etc come from?
Goodness, several of the 'jazz' players you cite as faves aren't adept at this skill set.
Who??
this stuff has been your mantra for ages... <sigh> Do you really believe pontificationg such non-negotiable opinions will assist in musical development (yours/this community/etc.)
Yes.
Festus
03-10-2008, 01:25 AM
You know what I hate about the jazz community, more than anything?
I'm tired of the fact that on every gig, in every magazine, on every web chat room, whether you come down on the conservative side or the progressive side, the question of what constitutes 'the real jazz' becomes more important than the music itself.
Pretty much nailed it as far as I'm concerned, Ken. Boils down to too much talking, not enough playing.
jspax7
03-10-2008, 01:25 AM
Seems to me that the issue about who's really playing Jazz or not,
that so often arises here (& elsewhere), is one of Jazz Vocabulary ...!
Which also includes a certain kind "feel" or "swing" in someone's playing....
So might it be hearing Jazz History in someone's playing that qualifies it as "real" jazz playing!!
Versus someone who blends rock, funk and or world-beat influences into their playing...
which means they are a fusion player ...?
Is this what distinguishes the differences ... ?
And/Or is there really a difference that's important to distinguish ...?
What's your civil idea or ideal of what constitutes a true jazzer ...??
Or, to sum it up, is jazz truly evolving into something else, much to the chagrin of purists ..??
You make some excellent points.
Here's my "civil idea"... (glad you used that phrase)
Something that I think distinguishes traditional Jazz from Fusion is this:
Traditional Jazz, Swing, Bebop, (generally, as I hear it) usually involves playing over more frequent chord changes/key centers.
Fusion, (generally, as I hear it) seems to be the art of using jazz influenced substitutions in solo lines over fewer changes. Seems to be more about chord extensions/alterations in the melody (how far one can stretch over each chord) than it is about making the changes.
I hear players that can swing and syncopate in both genres.
I know traditional jazz players that call "everything else" Contemporary.
Frankly, I don't see the purpose in trying to pigeonhole people into little boxes, other than ego, and the need by some to live in the past or stay in their comfort zone. I thought Jazz was ever-evolving. It's not supposed to stay the same.... Is it?
gtrmaestro
03-10-2008, 04:46 AM
I've always felt that Jazz is a musical attitude/approach. And the true purists are the ones who embrace this.
I often find many "Jazz" players to be more like musical historians. Same with a lot of "Blues" players. Nothing wrong with that. But, it seems to defy the whole idea of exploration.
I think that if players don't keep pushing the boundries, then they are doomed to extinction.
Didn't all the "Real" players dis on Charlie Parker, B.B. King, George Benson, Wes Montgomery, and Louis Armstrong?
Was the Modal Jazz of Miles real "Jazz"? It didn't follow all of the Key cycling, etc. of Be-Bop.
I really feel that the attitudes and approaches of "Jazz" are prevelant in many musical styles, now. In fact, I think that "Fusion" in the truest sense, is one of the oldest and most useful aspects of Jazz.
So, I guess that I think of "Jazz" as larger than any one or two styles of music. And by trying to pidgeonhole it, you lose the whole point.
+1 Totally agree, the essence of Jazz is pushing the boundaries. The "jazz tone" if you will of a hollowbody and a piece of crap solid state amp was not the weapon of choice of the fathers of jazz guitar, it was all they had or could afford. I'd bet if Django was hitting the scene today, he'd be playing a Steinburger. Well, maybe not but at least a PRS!
The bear
03-10-2008, 07:46 AM
Django on a PRS? Awsome!
This Steinburger you mentioned sounds tasty! Does it come with fries?
www.myspace.com/josteing (http://www.myspace.com/josteing)
KRosser
03-10-2008, 08:32 AM
Pretty much nailed it as far as I'm concerned, Ken. Boils down to too much talking, not enough playing.
Mind you, I like talking about playing as much as the next guy...and this is certainly not meant as anything against Lucid, whom I deeply dig and respect - and actually, on the face of it, it's a pretty innocuous question.
Jazz has gone through the same argument every 20 years or so, i.e., the almost violent resistence to bebop being considered 'jazz'. Even a cursory knowledge of the history of jazz should teach you two things:
1) This argument is as old as the music.
2) It's never made anyone open up to anything, it just made each side dig in their heels more stubbornly.
It just feels to me like this is more of a statement of faith in the 'jazz religion' than anything about playing the music.
And it's been my experience that devotion to the religion isn't enough. Testifying and pledging oneself to it has never made anyone a better player (i.e. more guaranteed of reaching 'jazz heaven' - Ha!).
The real spirit of my post is that I just realized at a certain point that as far as the 'jazz religion' goes, I'm an agnostic.
I'm not sure I have much 'religious faith' in it regardless of how you define it.
brad347
03-10-2008, 08:39 AM
That's another interesting discussion.
I'd like a history lesson from anyone born earlier than me (1980) if they know precisely when jazz became more of a cultural phenomenon than a musical one. In other words, when outsider hipsterism and wanna-be-ness became the dominant component of its culture?
I realize that sounds pejorative, but I mean it to be objective. The fact of the matter is almost all jazz fans are at least on some level jazz wannabes-- do 90% of country music fans play steel guitar and go sit in at jam sessions? A very large portion of jazz listeners also have some aspirations to be jazz players themselves, and building their own legacy. Why is this and when did it start happening?
jimfog
03-10-2008, 10:32 AM
I know I'm going to hate myself for getting involved here.........
In response to TAG's constant refrain of "Why do fusion dudes insist on being call jazz", etc, etc?
My response is this.
Almost every jazz player I've met, when we get down to discussing music and what we do, tell me that they "dig rock" and could play it really well "if they wanted to".
Funny thing, though.
Most everytime I see a jazz guitarist TRY and play rock, they always come up WAY short, in terms of feel, groove and power. It's almost always a 1/2 assed version of Chuck Berry licks............or some badly bent, lousy vibrato ersatz Clapton.
My point?
Not that rock n' roll is somehow superior, impossible music.
It's just that no matter WHAT the style, if you don't put the time and effort and attention into it, you come off sounding like a dilettante wanker. It's the extremely rare talent.....like Metheny or Henderson, etc....that can convincingly play in a number of styles, while retaining their essential identity.
- Jim
Sunil
03-10-2008, 10:38 AM
I'm tired of the fact that on every gig, in every magazine, on every web chat room, whether you come down on the conservative side or the progressive side, the question of what constitutes 'the real jazz' becomes more important than the music itself.
Amen brother!
Clifford-D
03-10-2008, 12:19 PM
I've often contemplated what it would be like if
someone figured out the blues back in Bachs time.
500 years of wrong against right and bent notes.
Or 500 years of Bebop and Fusion?
Where would we be today?
Jay Mitchell
03-10-2008, 12:29 PM
I assumed, apparently in error, that the OP was asking a serious, non-loaded question. The jazz tradition is only indirectly connected with musical style. It is more about an approach to music than about any specific style of playing. Real jazz is connected to the contemporary culture and draws on whatever stylistic elements are available at that time. It's certainly not about whether or not a guitar player's sound is overdriven. OTOH, the musical content in what the guitar player is doing is pretty important. What you call it is ultimately irrelevant.
This "us and them" mentality is nothing but silly posturing, regardless of which side of the fence you're on. Real musicians will continue to pursue the learning process as long as they are alive, and they won't make artificial distinctions just to make themselves look or feel superior. Most serious musicians in any genre will eventually investigate the history of their favored forms, as well as others. That goes for jazz, rock, "fusion" (originally a "fusion" of jazz, rock and funk, BTW), blues, etc.
rwe333
03-10-2008, 01:03 PM
What are you kidding me?? Where do you think the terms such as "jazz police, Museum music" etc etc come from?
Critics...
Who??
Think about it...
Yes.
You're entitled to your opinion. Mine is it does more harm than good...
Ever-so OT: "Fusion" - pretty much an outmoded word, wouldn't ya say?
I don't take exception to saying there's a difference between straight-ahead playing (which I respect the hell out of) and other approaches.
That said, value judgments of what is valid improvisational playing, what 'jazz' is, what's better/harder (etc.) get much more tiresome.
I know I'm going to hate myself for getting involved here.........
In response to TAG's constant refrain of "Why do fusion dudes insist on being call jazz", etc, etc?
My response is this.
Almost every jazz player I've met, when we get down to discussing music and what we do, tell me that they "dig rock" and could play it really well "if they wanted to".
Funny thing, though.
Most everytime I see a jazz guitarist TRY and play rock, they always come up WAY short, in terms of feel, groove and power. It's almost always a 1/2 assed version of Chuck Berry licks............or some badly bent, lousy vibrato ersatz Clapton.
My point?
Not that rock n' roll is somehow superior, impossible music.
It's just that no matter WHAT the style, if you don't put the time and effort and attention into it, you come off sounding like a dilettante wanker. It's the extremely rare talent.....like Metheny or Henderson, etc....that can convincingly play in a number of styles, while retaining their essential identity.
- Jim
I totally agree Jim, not sure why you would think otherwise. Maybe because I have argued in the past that it is 100000 times easier for a jazz player to adjust and play rock well, than it would be for a rock player to learn to play jazz well?? Thats simply the case of everything used in rock is used in jazz, but very very few jazz concepts are used in rock. (Speaking of harmony and melody alone, never mind the rhythmic structures, which are really the most difficult aspects in jazz) So all in all, I think we are in total agreement. To play any style really well, you have to work at it.
Clifford-D
03-10-2008, 02:21 PM
I totally agree Jim, not sure why you would think otherwise. Maybe because I have argued in the past that it is 100000 times easier for a jazz player to adjust and play rock well, than it would be for a rock player to learn to play jazz well?? Thats simply the case of everything used in rock is used in jazz, but very very few jazz concepts are used in rock. (Speaking of harmony and melody alone, never mind the rhythmic structures, which are really the most difficult aspects in jazz) So all in all, I think we are in total agreement. To play any style really well, you have to work at it.
yep, good points.
Jeff Michael
03-10-2008, 02:49 PM
I've often contemplated what it would be like if
someone figured out the blues back in Bachs time.
500 years of wrong against right and bent notes.
Or 500 years of Bebop and Fusion?
Where would we be today?
Bach died in 1750.
I think of blues as the uniquely American hybridization of European and African musical styles. So nobody figured it out. Bach had the European side down, and various cultures in east Africa had the other side down, probably for a whole lot longer.
JAM
jimfog
03-10-2008, 02:50 PM
IMaybe because I have argued in the past that it is 100000 times easier for a jazz player to adjust and play rock well, than it would be for a rock player to learn to play jazz well?? Thats simply the case of everything used in rock is used in jazz, but very very few jazz concepts are used in rock. (Speaking of harmony and melody alone, never mind the rhythmic structures, which are really the most difficult aspects in jazz)
Here's where we part ways, Tag.
It takes a lifetime to be a great jazz player. Yes.
BUT.........
It ALSO takes a lifetime to be a great rock player, country player, blues player, etc, etc.
While you can claim it is infinitely easier to learn to be a great rock player, I see NO proof of that. In fact, I see almost NO jazz guitarists who are great rock players. Not a surprise, as I see almost as few Rock players who are GREAT rock players.
I think if you are really interested in learning the depths of a style....living and breathing it, vs just "playing" it well........it is an all-consuming matter, with none being "easier".
It takes a master musician to do any of them well.
- Jim
suckamc
03-10-2008, 03:00 PM
While you can claim it is infinitely easier to learn to be a great rock player, I see NO proof of that. In fact, I see almost NO jazz guitarists who are great rock players.
There are TONS of them... no matter how high you want to elevate your requirements for "great"-ness. Tons.
In my experience, those who have a very good handle on both styles aren't so quick to downplay what Tag has claimed. In fact, most of them would agree with him. I get that it doesn't sit well with rockers, but danged if Tag isn't right on this one.
jimfog
03-10-2008, 03:06 PM
There are TONS of them... no matter how high you want to elevate your requirements for "great"-ness. Tons.
Name 3 that most of us will know.
DrSax
03-10-2008, 03:11 PM
I think if you are really interested in learning the depths of a style....living and breathing it, vs just "playing" it well........it is an all-consuming matter, with none being "easier".
It takes a master musician to do any of them well.
- Jim
Agree 1000%
This from a former (though still) rocker who's been immersed in jazz for only 5 years or so (a pittance!)
There are some things you need to work on more for jazz, no doubt, but in the end I'm as amazed by Jimi Hendrix as I am by Wes Montgomery.
suckamc
03-10-2008, 03:12 PM
Name 3 that most of us will know.
Whether or not anyone at all knows them is irrelevant. But off the top of my head, Wayne Krantz (can burn straight ahead), Oz Noy, Scott Henderson (can play straight ahead), a third of Berklee's faculty, half of USC's faculty, a handful of guys I know.
That's off the top of my head; I didn't stop because I couldn't think of more.
I'm not disagreeing with the other stuff you said about what it takes to master any style. I think you're pretty much right on. I do think that Tag is absolutely right about what he said, and that it takes a decidedly rock bias (or lack of jazz ability) to honestly and knowingly disagree with him. I do understand if most people have that rock bias though.
DrSax
03-10-2008, 03:18 PM
Whether or not anyone at all knows them is irrelevant. But off the top of my head, Wayne Krantz (can burn straight ahead), Oz Noy, Scott Henderson (can play straight ahead), a third of Berklee's faculty, half of USC's faculty, a handful of guys I know.
That's off the top of my head; I didn't stop because I couldn't think of more.
I'm not disagreeing with the other stuff you said about what it takes to master any style. I think you're pretty much right on. I do think that Tag is absolutely right about what he said, and that it takes a decidedly rock bias (or lack of jazz ability) to honestly and knowingly disagree with him. I do understand if most people have that rock bias though.
Well, Tag's about to disagree with you......
"those are rock/fusion cats, not jazz cats"
suckamc
03-10-2008, 03:21 PM
Well, Tag's about to disagree with you......
"those are rock/fusion cats, not jazz cats"
That's right. Dang it. I have no allies then. (Though I specifically pointed out that they're good at straight ahead stuff.... but also those faculty members are great at straight ahead and rock)
Well, I don't feel like defending a P.O.V all by myself today, so I'll see you guys later! :)
Well, Tag's about to disagree with you......
"those are rock/fusion cats, not jazz cats"
Come on guys this is to easy. How many great jazz players WANT to go BACKWARDS and play rock?? ZERO. There is no going back, thats why. The best rock players are in fact the fusion guys, simply because they had to learn quite a bit of jazz and harmony to play fusion. After all, what is fusion, but a blend of rock and jazz. This is also why I say the best fusion players are the ones who have spent the most time playing jazz. When someone Like Benson or Jones plays in a pop or fusion type of setting, they simply destroy the fusion guys. Hey Scott Lerner, post that clip you have of Benson laying waste to Robben ford. Or put Rodney Jones up next to Gambale. Game over. A basic example would be a great rock solo like Layla. Listen to Carlton solo on that tune on his 'On solid ground" CD. :D A LITTLE better than Duane or Clapton I would say.;)
Put Scott Henderson next to Lagrene or VanRuler playing a few Standards. Henderson will have the same feeling Clapton would have playing with Henderson. Like this..:worried
brad347
03-10-2008, 04:17 PM
The argument saying that "if you can play jazz it's easy to learn to play rock" is exactly the same as saying "if you can play guitar it's easy to learn to play bass. Guitar has all the same notes PLUS two whole other strings..."
Anyone who's ever met a great bass player knows how ridiculous that is. There are things that make a great bass player that have absolutely nothing to do with guitar playing. Similarly, there are things that make a great rock player that have absolutely nothing to do with jazz playing.
Neither jazz nor rock is inherently 'hard,' in my opinion.
But being totally awesome in either requires that you totally know what's going on. Totally knowing what's going on in either is just as hard as the other, in my opinion.
Jazz skill is not a prerequisite for rock balls, and it is not a shortcut to rock balls either.
The argument saying that "if you can play jazz it's easy to learn to play rock" is exactly the same as saying "if you can play guitar it's easy to learn to play bass. Guitar has all the same notes PLUS two whole other strings..."
That shot at an analogy does not work for me at all. As a matter of fact, even if it DID, I would say it would be the other way around. 2 less strings to work with means a LOT more jumping around the fretboard. (Physically harder to do.)
Hmm...harder to master...Smoke on the water...Giant steps. Let me think this through. ;)
does anybody remember that quote by miles davis about the straight ahead players who insist on playing bebop even today? it was something like "they smell like old people ,real bad!" fusion was an extension of what came before. it's a progression forward, an expansion on the old. if you are a rock player who can't negotiate changes and you call yourself a fusion player then you are probably not really a fusion player. but, if you learned bebop, progressed thru it and added some rock technique and attitude to your playing, then you are a fusion player. IMHO!:)
i have many friends who play straight ahead in nyc and god bless them. but that stuff bores the crap out of me now after 35 years of playing it. thank god for overdrive and D style amps. i love em!!!!!:dude
[QUOTE]does anybody remember that quote by miles davis about the straight ahead players who insist on playing bebop even today? it was something like "they smell like old people ,real bad!" fusion was an extension of what came before. it's a progression forward, an expansion on the old.
First, who is talking just about about bebop? Second, a progression forward how? What has rock added to jazz in anyway other than sound effects? (Chorus, distortion, etc etc etc) I am not being a wiseass, and I mean no disrespect, (Hey, I am more a less a fusion player to some degree myself) but it seems to me like for the most part, fusion players are just not so good jazz players.
suckamc
03-10-2008, 05:12 PM
does anybody remember that quote by miles davis about the straight ahead players who insist on playing bebop even today?
It's like the Hendrix fans who are some sort of purists about gear and note choice and number of notes, etc. They think that fidelity to Hendrix is sounding like him, etc, when they completely miss how forward-looking and non-purist he was (for example, for gear he used the most cutting edge technology of his day).
I would like to distance myself from some of Tag's other (later) opinions. I was mostly agreeing with the one post.
Elektrik_SIxx
03-10-2008, 05:13 PM
That shot at an analogy does not work for me at all. As a matter of fact, even if it DID, I would say it would be the other way around. 2 less strings to work with means a LOT more jumping around the fretboard. (Physically harder to do.)
Hmm...harder to master...Smoke on the water...Giant steps. Let me think this through. ;)
Oh, so in your analogy trumpet is harder than saxophone because you have to jump around those three valves more?
Hmmmm harder to master....C jam blues....The Great Debate....Let me think this through.:D
[quote=trap;3797695]
First, who is talking just about about bebop? Second, a progression forward how? What has rock added to jazz in anyway other than sound effects? (Chorus, distortion, etc etc etc) I am not being a wiseass, and I mean no disrespect, (Hey, I am more a less a fusion player to some degree myself) but it seems to me like for the most part, fusion players are just not so good jazz players.
lets take mike stern as an example. i know, his tone sucks, agreed. as a matter of fact i would like to start a thread giving a fictitious amount of money and a day with stern, now go to town and buy him some good gear.:roll
but, the man can blow standards. ideas, passion. and then on the next tune blow some fusion. i think thats cool. he does both.i would bet that jack wilkins could do both if he chose to. i know that i could sit down and blow on stella, complete with walking bass lines and then play spain, or freedom jazz dance. thats all i mean.:)
gtrmaestro
03-10-2008, 05:49 PM
Django on a PRS? Awsome!
This Steinburger you mentioned sounds tasty! Does it come with fries?
www.myspace.com/josteing (http://www.myspace.com/josteing)
No fries, onion rings for sure. Wanna hear Django on a tele? Check out John Jorgenson. By the way, you have some great playing on your Myspace!!!
Leucadian
03-10-2008, 06:13 PM
...yep, The bear sounds gggggRRRRRReeeeeat!
...very cool music Jostein!
http://www.myspace.com/josteing
:RoCkIn
suckamc
03-10-2008, 06:20 PM
Django on a PRS? Awsome!
This Steinburger you mentioned sounds tasty! Does it come with fries?
www.myspace.com/josteing (http://www.myspace.com/josteing)
Jostein!!! Mark Cuthbertson here! Man, you're still sounding so killer. Who from UNT are you still in touch with?
heavypick
03-10-2008, 07:40 PM
"Good jazz players seem to have total control of their instrument at all times. Able to rip through a real book"
A large majority of the older jazz guys look down on people pulling out the real book. If yoy want to play the "I'm a true jazz musician" schtick, memorize those tunes and be able to play it in all 12 keys.
"Good jazz players seem to have total control of their instrument at all times. Able to rip through a real book"
A large majority of the older jazz guys look down on people pulling out the real book. If yoy want to play the "I'm a true jazz musician" schtick, memorize those tunes and be able to play it in all 12 keys.
LOL!! Thats the truth!!!
I remember one of my first early lessons with a former teacher. I was playing all rock and wanted to learn some "jazzy stuff" to throw in. It went something like this....
Ritchie:..... "OK we are going to start by harmonizing "Giant steps" with the melody note on top, and play it in all keys. First with 7th, then 9th and 13th chords.
Me:......... Whats Giant steps? :confused:
:D
The bear
03-10-2008, 09:03 PM
Hey,
thanks guys! Now where is my steinburger?
Mark,
Long time!
I keep in touch with a few UNT guys...
www.myspace.com/josteing (http://www.myspace.com/josteing)
heavypick
03-10-2008, 09:45 PM
One time I did a gig and used a Steinberger. Some guy I kind of knew was at the gig. This guy was a lame sounding jazz guy (Imagine a Herb Ellis-type player that only knew major scales and triads playing "Have You Met Ms. Jones?") with a 175. He came up to me afterwards and said "you like that guitar (pointing to my Steinberger)?" I said, "yeah, why?" He said "I don't." Then he started this whole long rant about something related, I don't remember what.
This situation really pissed me off. Not what he said to me but the bigger picture of this incident. Instead of some hot chick coming over after the gig, all I get is this loser doofus. Whenever I think of this story, it helps me keep things in perspective. BTW, most jazz gigs ended this way.
KRosser
03-10-2008, 10:18 PM
Hey wait - when we're talkin' fusion, what is the real fusion? Mahavushnu/early Weather Report/Mwandishi sextet? Grover Washington/George Benson/Al Jarreau? Wayne Krantz/Medeski, Martin & Wood/Electric Masada?
Lucidology
03-10-2008, 10:33 PM
Innocuous as the OP may be Ken,
the points you're making with your great responses are the most potent ...
It's all just a silly side taking game in the long run ...
Sort of like the time I was playing a series of casuals or standard's gig with guys twice my age ...
who weren't really paying too much attention to me, but at the same time they didn't fire me ...
The first couple of gigs I did with using a Strat,
but the third time I brought my friend's Gibson 175 to the gig...
& they responded "Finally, a real man's guitar" ...
& were actually, all of a sudden, digging my playing (even though I was reading out of the Real Book)
Hey wait - when we're talkin' fusion, what is the real fusion? Mahavushnu/early Weather Report/Mwandishi sextet? Grover Washington/George Benson/Al Jarreau? Wayne Krantz/Medeski, Martin & Wood/Electric Masada?
Thats all fusion, just as swing, bebop, hard bop, latin jazz etc etc is real jazz.
I
The first couple of gigs I did with using a Strat,
but the third time I brought my friend's Gibson 175 to the gig...
& they responded "Finally, a real man's guitar" ...
& were actually, all of a sudden, digging my playing (even though I was reading out of the Real Book)
Probably in jest though. I dont think it matters what you are playing ON, its what you are playing that matters. (Big jazz guiitars do sound better though.) Big fat CLEAN tones tones!!
:dude
KRosser
03-11-2008, 12:13 AM
Thats all fusion, just as swing, bebop, hard bop, latin jazz etc etc is real jazz.
I'm still finding it difficult to care.
Good luck to you, though!
KRosser
03-11-2008, 12:15 AM
Innocuous as the OP may be Ken,
the points you're making with your great responses are the most potent ...
It's all just a silly side taking game in the long run ...
Sort of like the time I was playing a series of casuals or standard's gig with guys twice my age ...
who weren't really paying too much attention to me, but at the same time they didn't fire me ...
The first couple of gigs I did with using a Strat,
but the third time I brought my friend's Gibson 175 to the gig...
& they responded "Finally, a real man's guitar" ...
& were actually, all of a sudden, digging my playing (even though I was reading out of the Real Book)
Well, you know, guys will say things...it reminds me of those old-time LA studio cats I run into occasionally that know of only two types of guitars - "the box" and "the Fender", as in "What'd you bring today, the box or the Fender?"
What can I say? Jazz for me is nothing more than one more way to put together some notes - nothing more, nothing less. I'd rather it be a big, sloppy, confusing, contradictory mess than waste my time trying to define it otherwise.
Lucidology
03-11-2008, 12:28 AM
Well, you know, guys will say things...it reminds me of those old-time LA studio cats I run into occasionally that know of only two types of guitars - "the box" and "the Fender", as in "What'd you bring today, the box or the Fender?"
That's funny ... but it's just the way it is I guess ...
those guys sure as hell don't hang out in a Internet joint like this ...:)
What can I say? Jazz for me is nothing more than one more way to put together some notes - nothing more, nothing less. I'd rather it be a big, sloppy, confusing, contradictory mess than waste my time trying to define it otherwise.
That say's it all ...
& I totally concur with those sentiments ... :BEER
I'm still finding it difficult to care.
Then why did you ask?? :confused:
KRosser
03-11-2008, 01:09 AM
Then why did you ask?? :confused:
I didn't!
Quote:
Originally Posted by KRosser http://www.thegearpage.net/board/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?p=3799719#post3799719)
Well, you know, guys will say things...it reminds me of those old-time LA studio cats I run into occasionally that know of only two types of guitars - "the box" and "the Fender", as in "What'd you bring today, the box or the Fender?"
That's funny ... but it's just the way it is I guess ...
those guys sure as hell don't hang out in a Internet joint like this ...:)
Quote:
What can I say? Jazz for me is nothing more than one more way to put together some notes - nothing more, nothing less. I'd rather it be a big, sloppy, confusing, contradictory mess than waste my time trying to define it otherwise.
That say's it all ...
& I totally concur with those sentiments ... :BEER
[quote=Lucidology;3799731]
I agree as well. At least us three seem to agree the notes have to be put together a certain way for it to be jazz!
:BEER
:D
Whoa...this thread nearly veered towards the 'jazz is better than rock because it's harder to play' cliff edge!!
Was Leonardo da Vinci a better artist than Mark Rothko because his paintings were technically more complex to execute?
Elektrik_SIxx
03-11-2008, 03:25 AM
Thats all fusion, just as swing, bebop, hard bop, latin jazz etc etc is real jazz.
Bebop wasn't considered real jazz by Louis Armstrong. And this guy should know something about jazz. So hardbop shouldn't qualify either and Latin Jazz is a 'fusion' of jazz harmony with mid-to-southamerican rhythms so that isn't real jazz either by Tag's standards.
brad347
03-11-2008, 11:19 AM
YO!
Musiz rulz. OK?
Ok.
Bebop wasn't considered real jazz by Louis Armstrong. And this guy should know something about jazz. So hardbop shouldn't qualify either and Latin Jazz is a 'fusion' of jazz harmony with mid-to-southamerican rhythms so that isn't real jazz either by Tag's standards.
Those styles advanced harmony and rhythm in jazz. All elements of rock were already in jazz.
heavypick
03-11-2008, 06:30 PM
Those styles advanced harmony and rhythm in jazz. All elements of rock were already in jazz.
Ok, so George Coleman has some Dokken in his playing. Way to go George!!
Elektrik_SIxx
03-11-2008, 07:19 PM
Those styles advanced harmony and rhythm in jazz. All elements of rock were already in jazz.
Yeah, they did, but in from your pov they are not to be considered real jazz. You probably would have looked down on Benson in the 60's for doing stuff like Groovin or a Bacharach tune. Or any jazz guitar player who bends strings is to be considered a rock player who makes an attempt at playing jazz.
Your opinion in this matter is totally uninformed. You are in essence a closed minded classical type musician who can't handle musicians who try to build on existing forms and try to advance the art.
From your POV real jazz stopped with Kind Of Blue probably and 'real jazz' musicians these days are only allowed to rehash the same old real book stuff with the same licks from 50- 60 years ago or else they are to be considered fusion musicians who by your definition are inferior to these 'real' jazz musicians.
If you haven't noticed, Benson, van Ruller, have dabbled with other styles as well, as did Hancock, Brecker, and Metheny. So all these guys are to be considered fusion musicians because they have strayed from the 'real' jazz path instead of doing nothing than play the same old stuff?
With your 'opinions' you will never be a 'real' jazz musician.
KRosser
03-11-2008, 07:38 PM
Your opinion in this matter is totally uninformed. You are in essence a closed minded classical type musician who can't handle musicians who try to build on existing forms and try to advance the art.
Hey wait a minute - I'm a classical musician...
In fact, I think the state of contemporary classical music right now has the same kind of restless, iconoclastic, inventive energy about it that rock and jazz had in the 60's & 70's, and that's where I'm finding more of the open-minded people....
KRosser
03-11-2008, 07:47 PM
I agree as well. At least us three seem to agree the notes have to be put together a certain way for it to be jazz!
:BEER
:D
Well, sure...there's some ways of putting notes together that I think there'd be no doubt that you could call it jazz and I'd know what you were talking about.
Then there's ways of putting the notes together that borrow from other things and maybe get into a grey area.
The difference between us is 1) The name doesn't say anything about the important details of music to me, and 2) I don't consider 'jazz' to be a badge of honor.
Otherwise, we cool....
heavypick
03-11-2008, 08:16 PM
That's the problem with TAG. Basically, I'm guessing (and I could be wrong but the concept is probably right) he was a heavy metal guy who developed a SERIOUS complex about jazz from a dogmatic old-school only teacher. He probably got into jazz from fusion guys like Scofield, then found a local jazz teacher thinking that this teacher would lead him past his rock roots. The problem was the first thing he learned from this teacher was that Scofield was not a real jazz guy. Only Jim Hall, Wes, Benson, etc. were true jazz guitarists. If he learned "real" jazz, he'd be in on something that everyone else was clueless too, otherwise he'd be another rock guy that pathetically didn't know any better. Consequently, TAG views being called a jazz musician a badge of honor.
This game will play out again one day when he sits in with a Dave Liebman/ Marc Copland-type advanced player and in a stream of polychords and polyrhtyhms, his vocabulary will not allow him to adapt to the surroundings. He'll then develop a new complex (on post-coltrane, fusion, whatever the advanced guy he plays with, calls it) and be back telling everybody how limited (INSERT ANY STRAIGHT-AHEAD JAZZ GUITARIST) is and how everybody should burn their Omnibooks and buy the Slonimsky book. Basically, another variation on the same basic issue at hand. On the other hand and to his credit, I do find TAG's posts entertaining. So keep 'em coming.
Along the same lines, what I've come to find out is that rock guys don't necesarily feel inferior to jazz guys. They just look at it like "good for you" and get on with their lives. Like if I'm drinking a Diet Coke and an oenophile tells me he "feels sorry" for me beacuse I'm drinking something so pedestrian. Basically, I could care less. I'd just drink my Diet Coke and toss out the bottle when I'm done. That's that. No complexes, no travels to the French countryside to make myself feel like a wine expert.
KRosser
03-11-2008, 08:22 PM
That's the problem with TAG.
Please, note - you quoted my post before I went back and immediately edited the comment about Tag because I realized it sounded confrontational or condescending, which I didn't want.
I personally don't think Tag has a problem; our musical worlds are just very different.
heavypick
03-11-2008, 08:28 PM
For what it's worth, I think Tag's used to this kind of thing by now anyway, and enjoys it to some degree. By the way, when I say "problem," my view is that we all have some sort of issue with one thing or another.
[quote]Yeah, they did, but in from your pov they are not to be considered real jazz. You probably would have looked down on Benson in the 60's for doing stuff like Groovin
What do you mean would have??? I still do! :p
Or any jazz guitar player who bends strings is to be considered a rock player who makes an attempt at playing jazz.
?????? Django was doing that "slightly" earlier than the rock players. ;) I am sure he was not the first either.
Your opinion in this matter is totally uninformed.
:rolleyes:
You are in essence a closed minded classical type musician who can't handle musicians who try to build on existing forms and try to advance the art.
What are you talking about?? I transcribe and listen to Scofield and other fusion players as much as the jazz players. I really dig a lot of Scos music, and think of all the fusion players, he is one of the strongest when playing jazz. Listen to him on "Love letters" by Roy Haynes! Pretty good jazz playing! Is it on the level of a Lagrene, Luc, benson,vanRuler,Jones (insert real jazz player here)....of course not. Still very nice playing though!
:dude
From your POV real jazz stopped with Kind Of Blue probably and 'real jazz' musicians these days are only allowed to rehash the same old real book stuff with the same licks from 50- 60 years ago or else they are to be considered fusion musicians who by your definition are inferior to these 'real' jazz musicians.
If that were true, I would not hear Luc and Jones (for example) as monster modern jazz players who are actually pushing real jazz guitar ahead.
If you haven't noticed, Benson, van Ruller, have dabbled with other styles as well, as did Hancock, Brecker, and Metheny. So all these guys are to be considered fusion musicians because they have strayed from the 'real' jazz path instead of doing nothing than play the same old stuff?
Of course not. Those guys dabble in fusion just as the fusion guys dabble in jazz. Benson has played pop and fusion almsot exclusively for the last 20 years or so, but after Tenderly, has said he would never let his jazz chops fade again. He said he was embarrased with his jazz playing at first when he got together with Tyner for that CD. Was it Carter on bass on that CD? I cant remember, but Benson said those cats played jazz every day, and it showed.
With your 'opinions' you will never be a 'real' jazz musician.
I dont think I will either, but it has nothing to do with my opinion. Its simply that I lack the amount of hard work it requires to get to that kind of level. Being able to blow through the real book in any key, bass, chord and melody, on the spot, while making the song "your own," requires some serious work as I am sure you know. LOL!!
:BEER
The difference between us is 1) The name doesn't say anything about the important details of music to me, and 2) I don't consider 'jazz' to be a badge of honor.
Otherwise, we cool....
VERY cool! You dont mind that to me, playing straight ahead jazz well IS a badge of honor, and I do not mind that to you its not. Damn. Most of my friends HATE jazz! They will listen to Holdsworth, Brecker, Gambale, and Henderson with their mouths hanging open, but put on Coltrane or benson and they fall asleep. I get.. "Hey turn that jazz shit off." Even they can hear REAL jazz from the fusion. LOL!! :)
[QUOTE]That's the problem with TAG. Basically, I'm guessing (and I could be wrong but the concept is probably right) he was a heavy metal guy who developed a SERIOUS complex about jazz from a dogmatic old-school only teacher. He probably got into jazz from fusion guys like Scofield, then found a local jazz teacher thinking that this teacher would lead him past his rock roots. The problem was the first thing he learned from this teacher was that Scofield was not a real jazz guy. Only Jim Hall, Wes, Benson, etc. were true jazz guitarists. If he learned "real" jazz, he'd be in on something that everyone else was clueless too, otherwise he'd be another rock guy that pathetically didn't know any better. Consequently, TAG views being called a jazz musician a badge of honor.
Something like that. :crazy
This game will play out again one day when he sits in with a Dave Liebman/ Marc Copland-type advanced player and in a stream of polychords and polyrhtyhms, his vocabulary will not allow him to adapt to the surroundings. He'll then develop a new complex (on post-coltrane, fusion, whatever the advanced guy he plays with, calls it) and be back telling everybody how limited (INSERT ANY STRAIGHT-AHEAD JAZZ GUITARIST) is and how everybody should burn their Omnibooks and buy the Slonimsky book. Basically, another variation on the same basic issue at hand. On the other hand and to his credit, I do find TAG's posts entertaining. So keep 'em coming.
One of my X teachers played with Liebman several times if I remember correctly. I do not think he struggled to much. ;)
Along the same lines, what I've come to find out is that rock guys don't necesarily feel inferior to jazz guys. They just look at it like "good for you" and get on with their lives. Like if I'm drinking a Diet Coke and an oenophile tells me he "feels sorry" for me beacuse I'm drinking something so pedestrian. Basically, I could care less. I'd just drink my Diet Coke and toss out the bottle when I'm done. That's that. No complexes, no travels to the French countryside to make myself feel like a wine expert.
Oh I agree! As I said above, most of my buddies who play rock out right HATE jazz guitar players. :(
KRosser
03-11-2008, 09:51 PM
?????? Django was doing that "slightly" earlier than the rock players. (KR edit: bending strings);) I am sure he was not the first either.
These things evolve...flamenco players, with whom Django was more than certainly familiar with, were doing it, having taken it from the Moors, who were of course bending strings and wobbling pitches in the Middle East and North Africa for thousands of years, as were the pipa players in China some 2500 years ago
Bassomatic
03-11-2008, 11:23 PM
Hey wait a minute - I'm a classical musician...
In fact, I think the state of contemporary classical music right now has the same kind of restless, iconoclastic, inventive energy about it that rock and jazz had in the 60's & 70's, and that's where I'm finding more of the open-minded people....
Yup.
Bassomatic
03-11-2008, 11:28 PM
One of my X teachers...
(pssst!....it's ex-girlfriend/wife, former teacher, T).
azgolfer
03-12-2008, 12:12 AM
There are things by Bach that if played with a swing time feel, sound exactly like jazz. So maybe that is really the only new element (blues being another one, but not present in all jazz). Also, the word "jazz", like "rock", has been stretched so far that it doesn't really mean much, IMO.
KRosser
03-12-2008, 12:17 AM
Also, the word "jazz", like "rock", has been stretched so far that it doesn't really mean much, IMO.
That's it, in a nutshell, for me. In the long run I think it's for the better.
(FWIW: A Brazilian drummer I know told me the same thing about the term 'samba')
jzucker
03-12-2008, 06:55 AM
It's funny and ironic that I've *NEVER* heard so called "fusion" players (whatever the !@#$ that is) say that they're jazz players. The only guys I hear making claims that someone is or isn't a particular style of music are the folks on message forums. Real players don't have time for such nonsense.
JohnM
03-12-2008, 07:08 AM
Where I'm from, it's easy to tell who is a 'real' (insert genre) player.
The 'real' jazz players get called for 'real' jazz gigs.
The 'real' rock players get called for 'real' rock gigs.
The 'real' country players get called for 'real' country gigs...etc...
The guys that don't get called at all have plenty of time to sit at home and debate what sort of player they 'really' are.
Why make it so complicated? :messedup
dets1
03-12-2008, 07:30 AM
i play in a fusion band and i feel i would insult jazz players if i considered myself one. can i play a standard? sure. do i suck at it? yep. though we advertise ourselves as a jazz/funk unit, i can't really say we're a jazz band. i guess it depends on what you personally consider jazz. if i've repeated anyone's comments, please forgive me as i didn't have time to read the entire thread.
www.myspace.com/mokijam (http://www.myspace.com/mokijam)
KRosser
03-12-2008, 09:14 AM
The 'real' jazz players get called for 'real' jazz gigs.
The 'real' rock players get called for 'real' rock gigs.
The 'real' country players get called for 'real' country gigs...etc...
What if I do all of the above, plus 'real' African gigs, 'real' classical gigs, 'real' tango gigs, 'real' Chinese gigs, 'real' klezmer gigs, etc?
The problem is when you get into the notion of exclusivity. "Real" jazz players play jazz and nothing else. No matter how well you play jazz, if you play in a "fusion" band you're tainted.
It would be fine if this was all fun and games, but these kinds of prejudices actually cost people work, sometimes.
Why make it so complicated? :messedup
I'm not a fan of making things complicated, but sometimes they are complicated all by themselves. I think the issue here is to not attempt to over-simplify just to make it tidier...
In my own anecdotal experience:
Players who devote themselves to nothing but jazz are some of the most inflexible players I've ever met, in terms of working outside of their idiom, much moreso than people who do 'only rock', probably because rock is less self-conscious about its mongrel upbringing and even if it's ultimately pretty dilletante-ish many rock guys dabble in lots of other areas.
But - the players I do know who are very adept at crossing idiomatic borders convincingly usually have more than a little jazz training and experience under their belt.
JohnM
03-12-2008, 10:10 AM
What if I do all of the above, plus 'real' African gigs, 'real' classical gigs, 'real' tango gigs, 'real' Chinese gigs, 'real' klezmer gigs, etc?
My point is, the real world weeds out the B.S. and if someone can convincingly play a style whether it's 1 or 20 styles, they will build a rep for it, and get called.
Labels are sort of trivial, really, but I'm being idealistic...I know in the 'real world' labels do exist, for various reasons.
I didn't mean to imply that a player would only have skills in one style though...sorry if I did that.
The problem is when you get into the notion of exclusivity. "Real" jazz players play jazz and nothing else. No matter how well you play jazz, if you play in a "fusion" band you're tainted.
Yeah...that's the 'labels' thing again.
It would be fine if this was all fun and games, but these kinds of prejudices actually cost people work, sometimes.
Shame, eh? You'd think 'proving' yourself by playing (the only situation where any of this really matters) would be enough. I guess if you mean some guys never even get the first call because someone 'labeled' them as something, that is definitely a shame, and you're right, it happens.
But - the players I do know who are very adept at crossing idiomatic borders convincingly usually have more than a little jazz training and experience under their belt.
Honestly, I've experienced this on all sides. I've had die-hard jazzers (some of the best around) sit in on non-jazz gigs and they were square-pegs-in-round-holes. Likewise, I've played with guys that are just seasoned and know how to fit a situation, regardless of what style they are associated with. I guess it's largely an experience thing.
I guess it goes without saying that a guy that has gotten deep into jazz probably has ears & hands sophisticated enough to fully understand and play many other styles, but there is a (to me, anyway) HUGE gap between players who can bang out notes vs. guys that have the appropriate 'FEEL' for a given style. That's what really separates the cream of the crop, regardless of style.
Players who devote themselves to nothing but jazz are some of the most inflexible players I've ever met, in terms of working outside of their idiom,
I agree, and is actually part of my point. No one who spends half of their time playing pop or fusion is going to be as good a jazz player as a player who plays straight ahead all the time. Even the rare talent like Benson said so. Here is a guy who is one of the greatest and most gifted players ever, saying as much during the "Tenderly" session. The thing is, that these guys are so strong in every area, they can easily sit in with any players in any style, but yes, they are going to sound like jazz players when they do it. It takes time to develop the appropriate feels in ANY style.
Ken, I think you and I are on the same page, but wording choices and the lack of my ability to clearly articulate my thoughts with words, limits me. Kind of like the lack of a full grasp of the jazz language limits the fusion players in straight ahead settings.
HAHAHAHA!!!!!!! :p
jzucker
03-12-2008, 10:33 AM
I agree, and is actually part of my point. No one who spends half of their time playing pop or fusion is going to be as good a jazz player as a player who plays straight ahead all the time.
Your favorite players George Benson and Rodney Jones violate that statement.
JohnM
03-12-2008, 10:38 AM
I should also clarify that my use of the term 'real' in my original post was an attempt at tongue-in-cheek sarcasm...I was trying to make the point that calling someone a 'real' this or that means nothing until they get on the gig.
Hard sometimes to convey those subtleties on the internetz...
Jeff Michael
03-12-2008, 11:20 AM
I'm embarrassed to have read this thread, let alone to have posted to it at all. I should have been practicing.
I really pity guys who are so starved for validation and acceptance that they need to prove that what they're into is somehow quantitatively legitimate or empirically better than everything else. And I don't mean pity in the 'most insulting form of scorn I can muster' sense; I mean pity in the 'wow, it genuinely sucks being you' sense.
I seem to see that desperation hidden under smug condescension most in (very few) jazz guys, although I know at least one diehard rocker that's just as spiritually broken. Interestingly it seems to usually be in inverse proportion to how much they work: the pluggers are usually much less rigid. Not sure what there is cause and what is effect.
I remember one of my first early lessons with a former teacher. I was playing all rock and wanted to learn some "jazzy stuff" to throw in. It went something like this....
Ritchie:..... "OK we are going to start by harmonizing "Giant steps" with the melody note on top, and play it in all keys. First with 7th, then 9th and 13th chords.
That's a really shitty first lesson unless it's in a postgraduate jazz harmony class. No, scratch that: that's a really shitty first lesson, period. "Here, let me not at all listen to why you're here, and just scare the piss out of you with a complex approach to one of the most daunting tunes in the jazz repertoire." Some teacher you had there.
JAM
heavypick
03-12-2008, 11:30 AM
[quote=JohnM;3807015]My point is, the real world weeds out the B.S. and if someone can convincingly play a style whether it's 1 or 20 styles, they will build a rep for it, and get called.
Labels are sort of trivial, really, but I'm being idealistic...I know in the 'real world' labels do exist, for various reasons.
I didn't mean to imply that a player would only have skills in one style though...sorry if I did that.
Yeah...that's the 'labels' thing again.
Shame, eh? You'd think 'proving' yourself by playing (the only situation where any of this really matters) would be enough. I guess if you mean some guys never even get the first call because someone 'labeled' them as something, that is definitely a shame, and you're right, it happens.
Honestly, I've experienced this on all sides. I've had die-hard jazzers (some of the best around) sit in on non-jazz gigs and they were square-pegs-in-round-holes. Likewise, I've played with guys that are just seasoned and know how to fit a situation, regardless of what style they are associated with. I guess it's largely an experience thing.
quote]
In the music game, just as important as stylistic ability, is the ability to "look" the part. The beret wearing, goateed, fat, bald jazz guy with a 175 and a Polytone's not getting the Ashley Simpson gig no matter how well he plays. Conversely, George Coleman's not gonna play with some guy that looks like he belongs in Warrant and has a Floyd Rose-d guitar, regardless of how he plays.
Image determines whether you get called for the gig more so than your stylistic "label."
Jeff Michael
03-12-2008, 11:36 AM
Tell you what, I think the reason I don't like Bitches Brew as much as everybody else is that the jazzbots hadn't figured out how to play funk and rock convincingly yet. Miles' later fusion efforts (Live/Evil, say) sounded a lot more fully formed to my ears.
I mean, I love Tony Williams, but his straight-eighths effort on Stuff is just weak. Right immovable object, wrong irresistable force.
JAM
JohnM
03-12-2008, 11:37 AM
Image determines whether you get called for the gig more so than your stylistic "label."
I guess I should also be more specific on what I mean by 'gig'
I haven't heard of a producer wanting to find guys that 'look' any certain way for a recording session...
But yes, in the pop world of road bands, you are correct.
rwe333
03-12-2008, 11:50 AM
Tell you what, I think the reason I don't like Bitches Brew as much as everybody else is that the jazzbots hadn't figured out how to play funk and rock convincingly yet.
That's kind of the point... It become something else/different/unique.
Much of the charm of those sessions is the interaction/textures/searching.
At it's best, it wasn't jazz or rock or funk - what else before/since sounds like that release?
I mean, I love Tony Williams, but his straight-eighths effort on Stuff is just weak. Right immovable object, wrong irresistable force.
As for Tony Williams, he went from being the cat to feeling pressured to move to big drums and compete w/ the likes of Cobham. Was a few awkward years (perhaps) as he made the transition...
Much of Bitches Brew was Lenny White (heavily influenced by Tony).
Jeff Michael
03-12-2008, 11:56 AM
As for Tony Williams, he went from being the cat to feeling pressured to move to big drums and compete w/ the likes of Cobham. Was a few awkward years (perhaps) as he made the transition...
Much of Bitches Brew was Lenny White (heavily influenced by Tony).
Let me be perfectly clear that I was specifically referring to Tony's playing on Stuff, the leadoff track on Miles In The Sky, not Stuff (incorrectly capitalized) in general.
I don't know who plays what on Bitches Brew, but I remember the bass not sounding 'right' on that record. Plus I've always (after years of trying otherwise) found Chick Corea to be a little too precious for my tastes.
JAM
rwe333
03-12-2008, 12:02 PM
Let me be perfectly clear that I was specifically referring to Tony's playing on Stuff, the leadoff track on Miles In The Sky, not Stuff (incorrectly capitalized) in general.
I don't know who plays what on Bitches Brew, but I remember the bass not sounding 'right' on that record. Plus I've always (after years of trying otherwise) found Chick Corea to be a little 'precious' for my tastes.
JAM
I was more generally chatting about post-sixties Tony... Been a while since I heard the (pre-Brew) tune Stuff.
Bass was a curious mix of acoustic and electric basses and bass players...
rwe333
03-12-2008, 12:08 PM
Before?
The Grateful Dead.
Actually alot closer than you might think, mabye just coming to the thing from opposite ends.
Great point. The psychedelic scene did influence jazz (the comment about "rock not bringing anything to jazz" is inaccurate).
Of course, there are big differences in aesthetic/approach from the two camps... Both stretching in their own way. In many cases, Miles/Teo were putting the musicians in uncomfortable/foreign situations to see what would happen (like putting Jarrett on electric piano).
cameron
03-12-2008, 03:16 PM
Miles did also open for the Dead a few times.
I believe the Bitches Brew band opened for the Dead at several shows. There were hopes at the time that the Bitches Brew stuff could have genuine pop potential (on the album charts at least) and exposing the Dead's fan-base to the band first hand was a fine idea.
Sadly the Dead's fans (it was probably too early to actually refer to them as Deadheads at that point) mostly boo-ed and didn't want to hear it.
scottl
03-12-2008, 03:41 PM
Originally Posted by Jeff Michael http://www.thegearpage.net/board/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?p=3807644#post3807644)
Let me be perfectly clear that I was specifically referring to Tony's playing on Stuff, the leadoff track on Miles In The Sky, not Stuff (incorrectly capitalized) in general.
I don't know who plays what on Bitches Brew, but I remember the bass not sounding 'right' on that record. Plus I've always (after years of trying otherwise) found Chick Corea to be a little 'precious' for my tastes.
JAM
Very insightful posts Jeff.....
When we playing?? I always need a good bassist. Shoot me an email if you get a sec.
Scott
chopsley
03-12-2008, 08:58 PM
Tell you what, I think the reason I don't like Bitches Brew as much as everybody else is that the jazzbots hadn't figured out how to play funk and rock convincingly yet. Miles' later fusion efforts (Live/Evil, say) sounded a lot more fully formed to my ears.
I mean, I love Tony Williams, but his straight-eighths effort on Stuff is just weak. Right immovable object, wrong irresistable force.
Wow... I always felt that the opening to "Miles Runs the Voodoo Down", between guitar (McLaughlin, of course) and the drums (Don Alias, as I recall), was super-funky, in its own idiosyncratic way. And Tony Williams' drumming on "Frelon Brun" (from "Filles de Kilimanjaro") and "Freedom Jazz Dance" (from "Miles Smiles"), for example, is also incredibly funky. As rwe pointed out, Miles wasn't trying to sound like James Brown on "Bitches Brew" (he probably could have gotten Clyde Stubblefield and Jimmy Nolen to play on that record if he had wanted that).
To each his own, I suppose. I can see where you're coming from regarding "Stuff", though.
jzucker
03-12-2008, 09:23 PM
Tell you what, I think the reason I don't like Bitches Brew as much as everybody else is that the jazzbots hadn't figured out how to play funk and rock convincingly yet. Miles' later fusion efforts (Live/Evil, say) sounded a lot more fully formed to my ears.
I mean, I love Tony Williams, but his straight-eighths effort on Stuff is just weak. Right immovable object, wrong irresistable force.
JAM
I haven't listened BB in a while but it was required study at the university of miami back in the day. Many of today's great funk players cut their teeth on that stuff along with R&B / Soul from a decade earlier.
brad347
03-13-2008, 06:49 AM
I have never seen more misunderstanding of what Tony Williams was doing collected anywhere else in my life, ever.
That's all.
:)
chopsley
03-13-2008, 10:37 AM
I have never seen more misunderstanding of what Tony Williams was doing collected anywhere else in my life, ever.
That's all.
:)
Would you care to be more specific?
brad347
03-13-2008, 11:35 AM
Would you care to be more specific?
no :)
chopsley
03-13-2008, 11:55 AM
Would you care to be more specific?
no :)
I didn't think so... For what it's worth, I'm perfectly willing to hear how my opinions about Tony Williams' drumming are misguided, but I guess for the moment I'll assume they're reasonable...
gtrmaestro
03-13-2008, 01:11 PM
Hi there, just wondering with the amount of time you guys spend discussing what's real and what isn't when do you have time to play?
Just seems to me that the amount of time and effort put into proving, or disproving your point (or lack thereof) would be better spent learning a new lick.
Just me I guess.
brad347
03-13-2008, 01:17 PM
ahh, baiting me... :)
For the record, you were not one of the ones toward whom I was feeling particularly disagreeable. So don't be so defensive, ok? ;)
I understand that his drumming on that or any of the other Miles stuff does not really fit into the dominant 'funk' paradigm, but I don't really think that was the point. I think I would feel a little silly to disparage a great musician and a great track based on that.
Yes, we all know that Tony does not sound like a typical funk drummer on that, but I think it's awesome anyway.
To say that it sounds like it does because Tony "hadn't yet learned to play funk convincingly" is silly to me because Tony wasn't a studio musician, genericist or a role-player. He was a stylist and a singular musical personality. I didn't know Tony personally, but when I hear that track (or anything else he was on) it doesn't sound like he was trying to play "convincing" funk, it sounds like he was being Tony Williams. He wasn't, especially by that point, a musical 'hat-wearer.' He was the hat that other people were trying to wear. Imitated, not the imitator.
I'm not saying that Tony was trying to make it sound all sloppy and ragged and "pocket-light," I don't know what he was trying to do. All I know is when I hear him on that I say "Tony Williams!" in my mind, and to me that is way cooler than evaluating whether someone can "convincingly" imitate a 'real' funk drummer or not.
And years of listening to Tony would not indicate to me that he was playing "catch-up" to drummers like Billy Cobham or anyone else, or that he was "pressured to compete" with anyone. The music just doesn't sound to me that it was too likely that those were his motives. It is apparent that he was a pretty searching individual, musically, who was always looking out for some different stuff. And it is true that we heard a lot of his growth and change on records, like any artist. But he never ever sounded like "imitation fusion drummer" to me as much as he sounded like "genuine article Tony Williams."
But people can take away whatever they want from the music as long as it makes them happy. I probably should've kept my little comment to myself, but whatever. Guess it just makes my ears prick up when somebody is dissing someone like Tony Williams ;).
In any case, the reason I said "no," I didn't care to elaborate is because like the poster immediately above me said, (and using what what I have written above as a great example!), discussion of stuff like this is in my opinion a way bigger waste of time than most other things. :)
jimfog
03-13-2008, 02:20 PM
But people can take away whatever they want from the music as long as it makes them happy. I probably should've kept my little comment to myself, but whatever. Guess it just makes my ears prick up when somebody is dissing someone like Tony Williams ;).
So......does that mean, to you, a great artist NEVER does anything less than great?
......and if that happens, do you feel no one should mention it, in deference?
Just curious,
jim
rwe333
03-13-2008, 02:28 PM
And years of listening to Tony would not indicate to me that he was playing "catch-up" to drummers like Billy Cobham or anyone else, or that he was "pressured to compete" with anyone. The music just doesn't sound to me that it was too likely that those were his motives. It is apparent that he was a pretty searching individual, musically, who was always looking out for some different stuff. And it is true that we heard a lot of his growth and change on records, like any artist. But he never ever sounded like "imitation fusion drummer" to me as much as he sounded like "genuine article Tony Williams."
You misunderstood my point (I'm a huge Tony fan).
But, Tony was hurt by being bumped out of the critics/poll spotlight by guys like Cobham - this is not conjecture, but a fact that Tony's friends like Wallace Roney will confirm. No dis... Very simply, this prompted his move from a 'jazz kit' to the big drums he played for the rest of his career. Was mos def "I'll show 'em" over "I need to catch-up".
He was still as capable as ever, but he did head off in some directions that confused many of his old school fans (New Lifetime, etc.).
But the gist of your point is true - Tony was never 2nd fiddle to anyone. As you state, there was only one Tony and he was always searching (going back to study composition proves this point).
brad347
03-13-2008, 02:46 PM
Good question!
What I mean is that in the case of someone like Tony Williams or Thelonious Monk or Jimi Hendrix, Aretha Franklin, etc etc, what makes them great to me is not what they can or could do in a technical sense but what they are, musically, in an artistic sense. You know how some musicians just get to ya when you hear them, on a human level? That's what I'm talking about.
And that's not about right or wrong notes, too much or not enough bass drum, in-tune, in-time, or anything else. If it was, we wouldn't like half of the stuff we like. We would prefer to have all of our music made by computers.
I'm not trying to say that a great artist never makes mistakes or does anything 'less-than-great.' I'm just saying that 1) The technical mistakes or idiosyncracies don't matter to me much, if the big picture is beautiful--and they can even make it more beautiful on accident; and 2) the little mistakes and idiosyncracies are almost never responsible, in my experience, for "less-than-greatness" in the music's ability to communicate to an audience or be beautiful.
In other words, sure any great artist will have some less-than-stellar performances, but as a music lover first, the performances that feel 'less than stellar' to me are not the 'imperfect' ones, but rather the ones that seem 'mailed in.' I'm not too hung up on technical slop, weird time feels, tuning issues, etc., whatever-- that stuff happens. If it's the result of some musicians stretching and searching and especially having a good time, give it to me any day.
You can say all day long that Hendrix didn't have the ability to play as fast and clean as Steve Vai, but was that ever responsible for "ruining" a performance? That question would yield any number of subjective answers, but I'll take Hendrix just as he was. It was what it was, and what it was was beautiful.
I guess what I'm getting at is that it's so much easier to enjoy music when you bathe in "what it is" rather than wring out "what it isn't."
brad347
03-13-2008, 02:49 PM
You misunderstood my point (I'm a huge Tony fan).
But, Tony was hurt by being bumped out of the critics/poll spotlight by guys like Cobham - this is not conjecture, but a fact that Tony's friends like Wallace Roney will confirm. No dis... Very simply, this prompted his move from a 'jazz kit' to the big drums he played for the rest of his career. Was mos def "I'll show 'em" over "I need to catch-up".
He was still as capable as ever, but he did head off in some directions that confused many of his old school fans (New Lifetime, etc.).
But the gist of your point is true - Tony was never 2nd fiddle to anyone. As you state, there was only one Tony and he was always searching (going back to study composition proves this point).
fair enough!
And for the record I wasn't necessarily saying anyone was "wrong," per se, but that it appeared strange to me that here we have someone like Tony Williams, who was so much, and most people seemed focused on what he wasn't.
Louis Armstrong couldn't play like Woody Shaw. So?
:dude
StanG
03-13-2008, 03:53 PM
fwiw, I heard Miles Runs the Voodoo Down on the radio (KCMO community station) recently and thought I'd died and gone to heaven. Not having heard it for a long time it came across as incredibly funky, out and directed, at the same time.
scottlaned
03-13-2008, 04:18 PM
Jazz today is synonymous with jazz-influenced.
Louis Armstrong couldn't play like Woody Shaw. So?
This is more the other way around, no? But the point is the same.
chopsley
03-13-2008, 04:39 PM
ahh, baiting me... :)
Yeah.... sorry 'bout that...
For the record, you were not one of the ones toward whom I was feeling particularly disagreeable. So don't be so defensive, ok? ;)
I didn't mean to come off as defensive - I was trying to be sincere, and open to different opinions. And I was curious to hear what you had to say, I admit...
Yes, we all know that Tony does not sound like a typical funk drummer on that, but I think it's awesome anyway.
I couldn't agree more. Tony is one of my favorite drummers, and a key ingredient to one of my all-time favorite groups (mid to late 1960's Miles). Like I said, "Frelon Brun" and "Freedom Jazz Dance" are funky as hell in my book.
In any case, the reason I said "no," I didn't care to elaborate is because like the poster immediately above me said, (and using what what I have written above as a great example!), discussion of stuff like this is in my opinion a way bigger waste of time than most other things. :)
Yeah, I should be practicing, or working on my thesis, or doing the dishes, or something...
brad347
03-13-2008, 05:59 PM
This is more the other way around, no? But the point is the same.
both ways around, I would bet. :AOK
Uncle_Salty
03-13-2008, 08:52 PM
In the context of Bitches' Brew, though, Tony was not necessarily the drummer - nor was Dave Holland the bassist, for that matter - that Miles was looking for to achieve his artistic vision. Miles was looking for a more 'conventionally' funky drummer, so that may be what JeffMichaels is hearing.
FWIW I think the great charm of Bitches Brew is in the gap between what Miles wanted, what the players achieved and the finished result. A happy accident that is a work of genius, no?
KRosser
03-13-2008, 10:56 PM
It's funny to consider that as Bitches Brew often gets described as an avant-garde, idiosyncratic piece of jazz/psychedelia today it was in its own time considered a crass commercial sell-out by the jazz mainstream, and was for a long time (might even still be?) the best selling jazz record of all time.
KRosser
03-13-2008, 11:19 PM
In the context of Bitches' Brew, though, Tony was not necessarily the drummer - nor was Dave Holland the bassist, for that matter - that Miles was looking for to achieve his artistic vision. Miles was looking for a more 'conventionally' funky drummer, so that may be what JeffMichaels is hearing.
FWIW I think the great charm of Bitches Brew is in the gap between what Miles wanted, what the players achieved and the finished result. A happy accident that is a work of genius, no?
Most of BB is Harvey Brooks and Holland together on bass, DeJohnette and Lenny White together on drums (Don Alias & DeJohnette on Voodoo).
Tony Williams isn't on it.
If Miles wanted a band to sound like Sly and the Family Stone, he would have gotten it. Don't forget, around this period Miles was also feeling the heat from the critics that he no longer represented the front-line vanguard of black empowerment, that he'd been co-opted by the more decidedly avant-garde Coltrane and Dolphy and that was something he took very seriously, as well as the fact that Karlheinz Stockhausen was as big an influence musically in this period as Hendrix and James Brown were.
It was a little more complex than "Miles was just bored and wanted to get funky".
Uncle_Salty
03-14-2008, 12:30 AM
Most of BB is Harvey Brooks and Holland together on bass, DeJohnette and Lenny White together on drums (Don Alias & DeJohnette on Voodoo).
Tony Williams isn't on it.
If Miles wanted a band to sound like Sly and the Family Stone, he would have gotten it. Don't forget, around this period Miles was also feeling the heat from the critics that he no longer represented the front-line vanguard of black empowerment, that he'd been co-opted by the more decidedly avant-garde Coltrane and Dolphy and that was something he took very seriously, as well as the fact that Karlheinz Stockhausen was as big an influence musically in this period as Hendrix and James Brown were.
It was a little more complex than "Miles was just bored and wanted to get funky".
You are indeed correct. Tony isn't on Bitches' Brew. The internet's a funny thing because I didn't really mean to imply that Miles wanted to get funky like Sly. He was searching for something new that certainly encompassed the influences of Sly, James & Hendrix with Stockhausen etc. IMVHO he didn't actually achieve that until the Agharta band with Pete Cosey, Michael Henderson, Al Foster et al largely because he didn't know what he was looking for in his rhythm section. The thing I love about all those records from In A Silent Way through Agharta & Pangaea, is that, while they're each fascinating works in their own right, you can also hear Miles gradually putting the pieces together with each subsequent record.
As an aside IIRC, the liner notes to the Complete Bitches' Brew sessions mention that Miles wanted to use Buddy Miles but he never showed up for the session.
Jazz today is synonymous with jazz-influenced.
Totally agree.
JohnM
03-14-2008, 07:08 AM
It makes you wonder...the hardcore jazz zealots of today are sort of stuck emulating the jazz legends of the past, or they get labeled as non-traditionalists...but I wonder where the legends of the past would have gotten had they had followed the same logic....
Elektrik_SIxx
03-14-2008, 07:47 AM
It makes you wonder...the hardcore jazz zealots of today are sort of stuck emulating the jazz legends of the past, or they get labeled as non-traditionalists...but I wonder where the legends of the past would have gotten had they had followed the same logic....
There simply wouldn't be ANY jazz! What's being referred to as real jazz here is nothing but jazz from the past, traditional old school stuff. Nothing wrong with that style of course, au contraire! But real jazz is the stuff that is NOW! And that means, Metheny , Rosenwinkel, Mehldau, Scofield and so on.
LR1400
03-14-2008, 08:24 AM
There simply wouldn't be ANY jazz! What's being referred to as real jazz here is nothing but jazz from the past, traditional old school stuff. Nothing wrong with that style of course, au contraire! But real jazz is the stuff that is NOW! And that means, Metheny , Rosenwinkel, Mehldau, Scofield and so on.
My issue with many "modern" guys is the just don't groove. I don't feel or hear the blues or groove and to me that is just as important as any harmonic concept.
Rodney Jones combines both, the Herbie, Tyner, Coltrane with the Parker, Benson and Wes. And the first three all were extremly adept at blues and bop as well. I don't see how you can even consider a player jazz if they can't groove on blues and bop.
My issue with many "modern" guys is the just don't groove. I don't feel or hear the blues or groove and to me that is just as important as any harmonic concept.
Rodney Jones combines both, the Herbie, Tyner, Coltrane with the Parker, Benson and Wes. And the first three all were extremly adept at blues and bop as well. I don't see how you can even consider a player jazz if they can't groove on blues and bop.
Exactly. R.Jones is one of the few (only?) player who is actually moving jazz forward. Metheny/Scot/Rosen are bringing it backwards. Face it, its rock players who grew up and heard these guys playing with distortion, chorus and what not, with SOME jazz concepts, that made them think that this is "jazz".
heavypick
03-14-2008, 08:54 AM
Exactly. R.Jones is one of the few (only?) player who is actually moving jazz forward. Metheny/Scot/Rosen are bringing it backwards. Face it, its rock players who grew up and heard these guys playing with distortion, chorus and what not, with SOME jazz concepts, that made them think that this is "jazz".
I'm not sure I agree with that. Jones is a great player for sure but he's not necessarily someone that forward-thinking.
Tag, the last sentence you wrote haunts you every day when you look in the mirror. LOL!
Elektrik_SIxx
03-14-2008, 09:28 AM
Exactly. R.Jones is one of the few (only?) player who is actually moving jazz forward. Metheny/Scot/Rosen are bringing it backwards. Face it, its rock players who grew up and heard these guys playing with distortion, chorus and what not, with SOME jazz concepts, that made them think that this is "jazz".
And they are completely right! This is late 20th century / early 21st century jazz, REAL jazz, not the jazz that was real in 1954. And the world can be grateful for Pat, Scott, Kurt, Sco and whoever for not letting jazz die after 1970. And like someone else already said, Rodney Jones isn't the most forward thinking musician. he prefers to keep polishing old shoes and there is nothing wrong with that, but it's not advancing the form.
Metheny/Scot/Rosen are bringing it backwards.
Yikes. To me, art is not forward or backwards. Binary it isn't. If you must make such judgements, I think a spiral would be more accurate.
Thank goodness I am not a jazz musician. I'll have to talk to Rodney later. We were planning a 2 gtr quartet gig here in the city.
peace,
Gene
LR1400
03-14-2008, 10:23 AM
And they are completely right! This is late 20th century / early 21st century jazz, REAL jazz, not the jazz that was real in 1954. And the world can be grateful for Pat, Scott, Kurt, Sco and whoever for not letting jazz die after 1970. And like someone else already said, Rodney Jones isn't the most forward thinking musician. he prefers to keep polishing old shoes and there is nothing wrong with that, but it's not advancing the form.
I don't know what RJones you've heard but he ain't cruising on bop lines. He will pay homage like Herbie, Coltrane, etc. And he will play with distortion at times and of course a traditional sound. His harmony is anything but straight bop and is just as advanced as Sco, Metheny, and for sure Kurt all the while there is no doubt in your mind you a hearing a truye jazz player. Funnily I've heard him play the Metheny lick.
brad347
03-14-2008, 11:26 AM
Talking about music is fun, but it is possible to think too hard about it.
Codifying beliefs and musical 'values,' so to speak--as so many have done/seem to be doing here--can be really limiting in the long run.
You can literally talk yourself into believing something that's not necessarily worth believing, and fall victim to your own rhetoric. It can be imprisoning.
There is no need to "advance the art," really. Nor is there need to be beholden to any ex-post-facto definition of 'tradition.' The only thing required to make music, even the greatest music, is to pick up an instrument (or open your mouth) and make a sound.
By allowing ourselves to be overly opinionated about what is 'right' and 'wrong,' 'good' and 'bad,' we run the risk of playing and listening out of fear, hate, guilt, or avoidance, rather than out of love, inclusiveness, honesty.
There is really something to be said for honest music. Music is supposed to be fun and uplifting, right? Exploiting music by adopting narrow views to define one's identity and 'be hip' really takes a lot of the fun out of it, for me anyway.
Uncle_Salty
03-14-2008, 12:03 PM
Talking about music is fun, but it is possible to think too hard about it.
Codifying beliefs and musical 'values,' so to speak--as so many have done/seem to be doing here--can be really limiting in the long run.
You can literally talk yourself into believing something that's not necessarily worth believing, and fall victim to your own rhetoric. It can be imprisoning.
There is no need to "advance the art," really. Nor is there need to be beholden to any ex-post-facto definition of 'tradition.' The only thing required to make music, even the greatest music, is to pick up an instrument (or open your mouth) and make a sound.
By allowing ourselves to be overly opinionated about what is 'right' and 'wrong,' 'good' and 'bad,' we run the risk of playing and listening out of fear, hate, guilt, or avoidance, rather than out of love, inclusiveness, honesty.
There is really something to be said for honest music. Music is supposed to be fun and uplifting, right? Exploiting music by adopting narrow views to define one's identity and 'be hip' really takes a lot of the fun out of it, for me anyway.
Great post, Brad347. It's a shame that so many people listen to and play music looking for what it should be rather than accepting what it is.
And they are completely right! This is late 20th century / early 21st century jazz, REAL jazz, not the jazz that was real in 1954. And the world can be grateful for Pat, Scott, Kurt, Sco and whoever for not letting jazz die after 1970. And like someone else already said, Rodney Jones isn't the most forward thinking musician. he prefers to keep polishing old shoes and there is nothing wrong with that, but it's not advancing the form.
Yea, they are not letting jazz die, by adding distortion and chorus, and taking away blues, swing and many major elements of what define the JAZZ STYLE.
Advancing jazz??
YEA, OK!!
Advancing pop,rock music by adding some jazz elements? I agree.
brad347
03-14-2008, 12:13 PM
Great post, Brad347. It's a shame that so many people listen to and play music looking for what it should be rather than accepting what it is.
well, it's not really a shame to me, it just is what it is. Such attitudes have been a component of musical culture since they were burning people at the stake for playing diminished fifth intervals, and their presence has spawned some interesting reactionary music that was beautiful in its own right.
I just wouldn't choose that attitude for myself, is all. :AOK
cyb3rvampire
03-14-2008, 12:31 PM
rosenwinkel taking AWAY from jazz? Thats ****ing nuts. I'm no jazz expert, but from what I've heard jazz was originally a FUSION of all different musics of the time and it was about BREAKING and REBELLING against bullshit musical rules.
That's jazz to me, at least.
All this complaint and accusations of he/she isn't advancing the art stuff is nuts. I think instead of posting things like this, the poster should advance the art himself and post the music for all to hear.
JSeth
03-14-2008, 01:11 PM
GEEZ-LOUISE Joe!!!
I read this the other day... and ... I just didn't know what to say! I don't believe you will ever get a consensus on this stuff... personally, I tend to think of "classic" jazz when I think of jazz music; there are a lot of players/singers from whom I hear a "jazz attitude", regardless of the material... to me that means interpretation through heart/spirit/technique that is an organic, ever-changing thing...
Do you think of this stuff all the time? Good stuff to chew on here...
John Seth Sherman
KRosser
03-14-2008, 01:19 PM
I have another question for the peanut gallery then (maybe this deserves its own thread?):
How are Herbie, Coltrane and Tyner licks and concepts 'modern' when that vocabulary is over 40 years old now?
brad347
03-14-2008, 01:28 PM
I have another question for the peanut gallery then (maybe this deserves its own thread?):
How are Herbie, Coltrane and Tyner licks and concepts 'modern' when that vocabulary is over 40 years old now?
ooh ooh! I'll play!
Because most colleges use the same jazz history textbook?
KRosser
03-14-2008, 01:37 PM
I'll answer my own question with another question:
If the modern jazz vocabulary was basically cemented by 1965 and I was born in 1962, what is the vocabulary of my generation?
Leucadian
03-14-2008, 01:38 PM
...it's just guitar...:crazy
KRosser
03-14-2008, 01:57 PM
...it's just guitar...:crazy
Hmmm...no....I disagree
This is a lot bigger than the guitar.
brad347
03-14-2008, 02:03 PM
I don't know what you guys are talking about but that googly eye guy pretty much rules.
I have another question for the peanut gallery then (maybe this deserves its own thread?):
How are Herbie, Coltrane and Tyner licks and concepts 'modern' when that vocabulary is over 40 years old now?
For one thing, no one has done it to the degree or with the original spin he puts on it on GUITAR the way Rodney Jones is doing right now. The guy is exceptional, and that stuff just does not fall easily on guitar. Try some of his lines! :eek: Vic Juris also plays some really cool and different ideas while staying within the jazz idiom. And yes I know Vic is a hell of a fusion player as well.
On a side note, speaking of real jazz, Pat Martinos Wes tribute CD has some of the best playing he has done in years IMO. Great swing feel unlike most of the fusion players. Go get em Pat!!!
I'll answer my own question with another question:
If the modern jazz vocabulary was basically cemented by 1965 and I was born in 1962, what is the vocabulary of my generation?
Who said jazz stopped in 1965?? :confused: Maybe there has been no Coltrane since then, but there may never be another one like him. Then again, maybe he was just born today. Who knows?? In the mean time, there are some monster jazz players such as Kenny Garrett, Joshua Redman, and many others who are developing new vocabularies while staying in the Jazz style.
KRosser
03-14-2008, 02:38 PM
Well, I already knew what Tag was gonna say....anyone else?
JohnM
03-14-2008, 02:41 PM
On a side note, speaking of real jazz, Pat Martinos Wes tribute CD has some of the best playing he has done in years IMO. Great swing feel unlike most of the fusion players. Go get em Pat!!!
Are you kidding?!!!! Pat Martino - REAL Jazz??? Haven't you heard Stone Blue?? He's totally tainted!!!!!!!!! Blasphemy!!!!
;) ok, just kidding. Getting too serious in here again.
Elektrik_SIxx
03-14-2008, 02:50 PM
Pat Martino is fusion definitely......he plays all these fast patterns. I have the Jazz Lines book by him and on the accompanying tape he calls these lines 'patterns'. And so is Rodney Jones if he dares to play with effects. What else did he bring to the jazz vocabulary? And Kenny Garrett and Joshua Redman have recorded with Pat Metheny, so they are folk musicians.
Pat Martino is fusion definitely......he plays all these fast patterns. I have the Jazz Lines book by him and on the accompanying tape he calls these lines 'patterns'. And so is Rodney Jones if he dares to play with effects. What else did he bring to the jazz vocabulary? And Kenny Garrett and Joshua Redman have recorded with Pat Metheny, so they are folk musicians.
?????? I have always said the best jazz players are the best fusion players, and some of the great jazz players do play fusion at times. Benson is a great example. He has played MOSTLY fusion for the last 20 years or so on record. Still one of the flat out best jazz players of all time, and go back and read my posts about what he said on the topic since it seems you missed it.
pharmx
03-14-2008, 03:06 PM
Yea, they are not letting jazz die, by adding distortion and chorus, and taking away blues, swing and many major elements of what define the JAZZ STYLE.
Advancing jazz??
YEA, OK!!
Advancing pop,rock music by adding some jazz elements? I agree.
Tag what is your definition of "jazz style"? Also, in your opinion how would someone today advance jazz, and what players today are doing so? Personally I don't see how any form of music can advance (the way I think you're defining it) if you put restrictions on what it can or can't do. I think music is continually advancing because the factors that influence music are constantly changing. Whether we like the change or not is a different topic. Once again, like most of the debates here on TGP, I think we're getting caught up in semantics and definitions. If we could all agree on the definition of "jazz" and what "advancing" it means, there might be more of a general consensus.
IMHO,YMMV
KRosser
03-14-2008, 03:11 PM
Who said jazz stopped in 1965?? :confused: Maybe there has been no Coltrane since then, but there may never be another one like him. Then again, maybe he was just born today. Who knows?? In the mean time, there are some monster jazz players such as Kenny Garrett, Joshua Redman, and many others who are developing new vocabularies while staying in the Jazz style.
Basically, you're saying there are still fresh things to be said in the pre-'65 vocabulary, which Jones, Juris, Garrett and Redman all definitively work within.
And I agree with you...
For that matter, I can write new music in the serialist style, or Baroque style.
That doesn't make it new vocabulary.
Good music? Sure, maybe great even...
But not new vocabulary. (FWIW: I don't think anyone needs to invent new vocabulary...but, I'm just asking the question, not making a statement...)
Those are all great players, and they're certainly aware of the post-'65 vocabulary...it's just that for the most part they don't engage in it...which is all good...but not really an answer to the question.
Basically, you're saying there are still fresh things to be said in the pre-'65 vocabulary, which Jones, Juris, Garrett and Redman all definitively work within.
And I agree with you...
For that matter, I can write new music in the serialist style, or Baroque style.
That doesn't make it new vocabulary.
Good music? Sure, maybe great even...
But not new vocabulary. (FWIW: I don't think anyone needs to invent new vocabulary...but, I'm just asking the question, not making a statement...)
Those are all great players, and they're certainly aware of the post-'65 vocabulary...it's just that for the most part they don't engage in it...which is all good...but not really an answer to the question.
Have you listened to much Rodney Jones alone?? He plays things I have never heard before. Garrett does as well. Later Jackie McClean seemed to be playing a LOT of things that Garrett, Berg, Bergonzi and Brecker picked up on, although much of it probably was done by Coltrane.
in your opinion how would someone today advance jazz, and what players today are doing so?
What are you kidding me?? If I knew that, I would be doing it and not telling you!!
As I stated, I think R.Jones is one guitar player who is really pushing forward.
Defining jazz or any style is a hard thing to do. Define rock, pop, funk etc etc. Sure you can stretch each style to some degree, but then its just not the original style anymore. Is Disco metal? Is funk country music? Is rap blues? No.
heavypick
03-14-2008, 06:06 PM
Talking about music is fun, but it is possible to think too hard about it.
Codifying beliefs and musical 'values,' so to speak--as so many have done/seem to be doing here--can be really limiting in the long run.
You can literally talk yourself into believing something that's not necessarily worth believing, and fall victim to your own rhetoric. It can be imprisoning.
There is no need to "advance the art," really. Nor is there need to be beholden to any ex-post-facto definition of 'tradition.' The only thing required to make music, even the greatest music, is to pick up an instrument (or open your mouth) and make a sound.
By allowing ourselves to be overly opinionated about what is 'right' and 'wrong,' 'good' and 'bad,' we run the risk of playing and listening out of fear, hate, guilt, or avoidance, rather than out of love, inclusiveness, honesty.
There is really something to be said for honest music. Music is supposed to be fun and uplifting, right? Exploiting music by adopting narrow views to define one's identity and 'be hip' really takes a lot of the fun out of it, for me anyway.
One of the reason this topic is even being discussed is that for some, their music of choice is equal to their sense of identity. The guy who holds jazz to the highest degree wants to be known as the jazz guy, not necessarily only for the love of the genre, but also in part because he wants to cast himself in what he views as the most favorable light. To create the impression that he has, what he considers, good taste and sophistication. When someone continually espouses the whole jazz is superior to fusion thing, he gets satisfaction out of feeling superior to the "less-enlightened" musicians he speaks down to. If everyone agreed unaninimously with what he says all the time, he'd need a new cause to champion because then he won't be the guy who's in on the "secret" that everyone else will one day discover.
Lucidology
03-14-2008, 06:18 PM
Originally Posted by JSeth http://img.thegearpage.net/board/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?p=3819296#post3819296)
GUIEZ-LOUISE Joe!!! I read this the other day...
and ... I just didn't know what to say! I don't believe you will ever get a consensus on this stuff....
Purely, rhetorically Machiavellian John, wasn't looking for a consensus..
IT was a 'punky drive by posting' of which I'm totally guilty ...
Though many responses here were predictable (of course)..
there have also been some truly great ones from 'All' choosing to participate so far .. !!
Which was also my intention ..
Wonder if many of you caught the fact that our own TGP member Gene Ess,
will actually be gigging with (the often mentioned here) Rodney Franklin ...?
KRosser
03-14-2008, 06:21 PM
Have you listened to much Rodney Jones alone??
Some; I think he's an excellent player. I'm just not a big mainstream jazz guitar listener these days.
He may be playing some new things, but it's within a 'classic' set of parameters - he swings in a conventional way. He uses a conventional jazz guitar tone. He improvises over conventional chord changes.
He's very much a 'classic' type player, playing a 'classic vocabulary'.
Like I said - nothing wrong with it - but it is what it is. 'Classic' jazz guitar. He has not attempted to change the parameters of what jazz is.
Garrett does as well.
Ditto, ditto...I saw Garrett play many times with Miles. I think Dave Liebman sounded much more 'modern' playing with Miles in 1972 than Garrett did in 1989, though he plays his ass off in a classic style.
Later Jackie McClean seemed to be playing a LOT of things that Garrett, Berg, Bergonzi and Brecker picked up on, although much of it probably was done by Coltrane.
I saw Jackie many, many times. I loved his playing. But he was a stone-cold bebopper, all the way to the end. Even on the 'fusion' record he made ("Monuments" - it's really bad - don't bother looking for it) or the 'free' records he made with Grachan Moncur and Ornette Coleman. Pure bebop, 100%, just in a different setting.
The difference between McLean playing bebop and many of the retro-boppers is that was McLean's language. It wasn't something from the past he thought it would be cool to learn.
One of the reason this topic is even being discussed is that for some, their music of choice is equal to their sense of identity. The guy who holds jazz to the highest degree wants to be known as the jazz guy, not necessarily only for the love of the genre, but also in part because he wants to cast himself in what he views as the most favorable light. To create the impression that he has, what he considers, good taste and sophistication. When someone continually espouses the whole jazz is superior to fusion thing, he gets satisfaction out of feeling superior to the "less-enlightened" musicians he speaks down to. If everyone agreed unaninimously with what he says all the time, he'd need a new cause to champion because then he won't be the guy who's in on the "secret" that everyone else will one day discover.
That is one thought, here is an alternate..
Fusion players seem to dislike jazz players who do not accept them as jazz musicians. To me, it seems very simple. If the fusion player wants to be accepted as a jazz player, then play jazz. It seems to me like the fusion players feel the jazz players are superior, and want to be part of that.
Do I personally feel that jazz musicians are the best players in the world?? Yes. Thats what my ear tells me. Yours tells you differently, and these threads on the internet pop up where we can discuss our different points of view. Hopefully, we realize its ALL music, and we enjoy at least a little of all of it. I certainly do. :)
heavypick
03-14-2008, 06:45 PM
That is one thought, here is an alternate..
Fusion players seem to dislike jazz players who do not accept them as jazz musicians. To me, it seems very simple. If the fusion player wants to be accepted as a jazz player, then play jazz. It seems to me like the fusion players feel the jazz players are superior, and want to be part of that.
Do I personally feel that jazz musicians are the best players in the world?? Yes. Thats what my ear tells me. Yours tells you differently, and these threads on the internet pop up where we can discuss our different points of view. Hopefully, we realize its ALL music, and we enjoy at least a little of all of it. I certainly do. :)
It may be true but let's look at this example. According to the quote, Mike Stern would dislike jazz players who don't accept him as a jazz musician and thus feel inferior. Ok, so after being accepted by Miles, Joe Henderson, George Coleman, etc. to tour and record, this theory implies that Mike Stern would STILL have an inferiority complex around Mark Elf or Ron Afiff. Hmmm...makes sense, I guess.
Elektrik_SIxx
03-14-2008, 06:51 PM
Here's what a famous pop/folk/fusion guy has to say about things...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz/browse_thread/thread/acb21e4dd3268146
This is NOT a real jazz guy of course:nono:FM
Some; I think he's an excellent player. I'm just not a big mainstream jazz guitar listener these days.
He may be playing some new things, but it's within a 'classic' set of parameters - he swings in a conventional way. He uses a conventional jazz guitar tone. He improvises over conventional chord changes.
OH! I think you need to do more listening! He DOES do those things, but so much more. Pick up "the undiscovered few", "The X factor" (I think thats the name), and even his live things where he does "Light my fire". VERY cool.
Ditto, ditto...I saw Garrett play many times with Miles. I think Dave Liebman sounded much more 'modern' playing with Miles in 1972 than Garrett did in 1989, though he plays his ass off in a classic style.
I actually may agree with that. That era Miles was not great IMO. I was talking far more of Garretts solo projects.
I saw Jackie many, many times. I loved his playing. But he was a stone-cold bebopper, all the way to the end. Even on the 'fusion' record he made ("Monuments" - it's really bad - don't bother looking for it) or the 'free' records he made with Grachan Moncur and Ornette Coleman. Pure bebop, 100%, just in a different setting.
I respectfully disagree, although he sure came out of the bop and post bop school. Rhythm of the earth for one sure sounds modern to me, while still retaining roots in the former. Other releases in that era show the same. (I love JM!)
jzucker
03-14-2008, 07:10 PM
it's a waste of time to talk about this !@#$. It's no different than politics and religion. Some folks' viewpoints are as fixed in stone. This is the perfect example of someone who has a belief and then adjusts all reality and perspective in order to match.
Chris Rock said "What about the idea that you actually listen to what someone has to say and *THEN* make up your mind?". The same thought applies to some folks on this thread. Some of them have 5 year old ears but talk as if they have decades worth of wisdom. It's just not worth the breath. Nobody's minds will change. People say they know what they like but they really like what they know.
KRosser
03-14-2008, 09:05 PM
OH! I think you need to do more listening!
OK then, the next time I get on a jazz guitar kick, he'll be the first
That era Miles was not great IMO.
Early 70's Miles? It was not only great, but some of the most revolutionary and important music of his career.
My heart will always belong to "Live Evil", though, which features mostly Gary Bartz instead of Liebman. There isn't a single bop cliche, rhythmically, melodically or harmonically, or anything that even sounds remotely like jazz from five years earlier on that entire record.
Completely original and completely brilliant...
IMHO
I respectfully disagree, although he sure came out of the bop and post bop school. Rhythm of the earth for one sure sounds modern to me, while still retaining roots in the former. Other releases in that era show the same. (I love JM!)
It's been a long time since I've heard that record, but I seem to remember him playing just like he always had...
KRosser
03-14-2008, 09:11 PM
it's a waste of time to talk about this !@#$. It's no different than politics and religion. Some folks' viewpoints are as fixed in stone. This is the perfect example of someone who has a belief and then adjusts all reality and perspective in order to match.
Chris Rock said "What about the idea that you actually listen to what someone has to say and *THEN* make up your mind?". The same thought applies to some folks on this thread. Some of them have 5 year old ears but talk as if they have decades worth of wisdom. It's just not worth the breath. Nobody's minds will change. People say they know what they like but they really like what they know.
I dig...
I'm not really expecting to change anyone's mind, certainly not Tag's, nor was that ever my aim. I don't think Tag should go changin' on my account, or anyone's for that matter....
Just trying to exercise my own critical thinking and communication skills, and maybe just chat up a little something interesting in the process
I practiced hard today already...I taught my last week of the quarter and I'm unwinding a little bit...the family's chillin'...we're all good here.
[quote]
OK then, the next time I get on a jazz guitar kick, he'll be the first
Cool. I think you will like what you hear. very unguitar like lines on a guitar.
Early 70's Miles?
No, the pop/funk/fusion Garrett Miles period. Uggh.
It's been a long time since I've heard that record, but I seem to remember him playing just like he always had
Hmmm.... Well, I listen to McClean from all eras all of the time, and hear it as totally different. If you find him sounding the same on that as the early years, well... I have nothing to say. Love to pound the crosstrainer to Rhythm of the earth.
rockinrob
03-14-2008, 11:24 PM
My jazz is better than your jazz! :p
:horse
KRosser
03-14-2008, 11:26 PM
My jazz is better than your jazz! :p
:horse
In my case, you're probably right....
In my case, you're probably right....
No way, you can play your ass off. :AOK
KRosser
03-15-2008, 10:05 AM
No, the pop/funk/fusion Garrett Miles period. Uggh.
I saw Miles dozens of times, and I never saw him play where there wasn't at least one little moment of absolute magic...but I'll tell you, with that late 80's band you had to wade through an awful lot of sludge until you got to that one moment of magic. And there were some great players in the band then - Kenny, Benny Reitveld, Adam Holzman, Marilyn Mazur, etc...I blame Miles for that as much as anyone.
Hmmm.... Well, I listen to McClean from all eras all of the time, and hear it as totally different. If you find him sounding the same on that as the early years, well... I have nothing to say. Love to pound the crosstrainer to Rhythm of the earth.
Well, saying "he sounds the same" kinda sounds like a put-down, which I didn't mean...it's just that he was one of those players to me that had a really strong voice in a particular idiom and even though he experiemnted with applications, the playing more or less worked the same territory...
Kinda like Django, you know how when he switched to electric guitar in 1952 it was still 100% Django, just on electric?
I was just contrasting him with someone like Miles - even though there are certain things that run through his playing always, from the 50's to the 90's, he did approach every new stage with a pretty radical change in sound and conception
It certainly wasn't a put down of Jackie - I loved Jackie. Literally saw him every time I could.
JSeth
03-15-2008, 10:51 AM
IMHO - Mssrs. Fagen and Becker ( mostly Donald, I think) have introduced the greatest change in harmony (theory-wise) since the 30's and 40's... and that has let a whole lot of great music through the jazz front door!
pharmx
03-15-2008, 11:38 AM
Basically, you're saying there are still fresh things to be said in the pre-'65 vocabulary, which Jones, Juris, Garrett and Redman all definitively work within.
And I agree with you...
For that matter, I can write new music in the serialist style, or Baroque style.
That doesn't make it new vocabulary.
Good music? Sure, maybe great even...
But not new vocabulary. (FWIW: I don't think anyone needs to invent new vocabulary...but, I'm just asking the question, not making a statement...)
Those are all great players, and they're certainly aware of the post-'65 vocabulary...it's just that for the most part they don't engage in it...which is all good...but not really an answer to the question.
This is a great point. Can new vocabulary be invented for the old style? Or maybe it doesn't really need to be invented as much as discovered. Guess it depends on what the "rules" are and how rigidly they're enforced.
I saw Miles dozens of times, and I never saw him play where there wasn't at least one little moment of absolute magic...but I'll tell you, with that late 80's band you had to wade through an awful lot of sludge until you got to that one moment of magic. And there were some great players in the band then - Kenny, Benny Reitveld, Adam Holzman, Marilyn Mazur, etc...I blame Miles for that as much as anyone.
No doubt. I have a few videos that are just hard to watch. Its like a movie where you THINK something exciting is going to happen, but it never does. Or at least, not what you were hoping for. Maybe I was just expecting to much.
Kinda like Django, you know how when he switched to electric guitar in 1952 it was still 100% Django, just on electric?
I disagree here. Listen to "Blues for Ike". Bop was clearly entering his playing.
I was just contrasting him with someone like Miles - even though there are certain things that run through his playing always, from the 50's to the 90's, he did approach every new stage with a pretty radical change in sound and conception
I understand what you are saying, but Miles always drew on the basic jazz vocabulary. Maybe he dropped more of his bop lines than Mclean did, but so what? You could still hear it, the blues and Louis Armstrong right up through "time after Time" and "Mother nature." You change the vocabulary to much, and you change the language. Like it or not, Jazz, like Rock and Blues, is a style of music. Get to far away, and its simply not jazz anymore.
IMHO - Mssrs. Fagen and Becker ( mostly Donald, I think) have introduced the greatest change in harmony (theory-wise) since the 30's and 40's... and that has let a whole lot of great music through the jazz front door!
while i love steely dan, you might want to check out what wayne shorter was writing in the mid-60's.
Bill Evans: This is a thing that I've been thinking about for a couple of years: jazz to me is a certain process of making music. It doesn't matter about the style. Instead jazz means a style to people. Whether it was written by Stravinsky or Neal Hefti— if it’s written, it’s not jazz to me. It might be an approximation of what has been a jazz performance. But jazz is a 'how' to me. It s performing without any really set basis for the lines and the content as such emotionally or, specifically, musically. And if you sit down and contemplate what you're going to do, and take five hours to write five minutes of music, then it's composed music. Therefore I would put it in the classical or serious, whatever you want to call it, written- music category. So there's composed music and there's jazz. And to me anybody that makes music using the process that we are used to using in jazz, is playing jazz. Chopin or Mozart, or anybody that made music that way at any time was playing jazz as far as I'm concerned.
Leucadian
03-15-2008, 01:49 PM
Bill Evans: This is a thing that I've been thinking about for a couple of years: jazz to me is a certain process of making music. It doesn't matter about the style. Instead jazz means a style to people. Whether it was written by Stravinsky or Neal Hefti— if it’s written, it’s not jazz to me. It might be an approximation of what has been a jazz performance. But jazz is a 'how' to me. It s performing without any really set basis for the lines and the content as such emotionally or, specifically, musically. And if you sit down and contemplate what you're going to do, and take five hours to write five minutes of music, then it's composed music. Therefore I would put it in the classical or serious, whatever you want to call it, written- music category. So there's composed music and there's jazz. And to me anybody that makes music using the process that we are used to using in jazz, is playing jazz. Chopin or Mozart, or anybody that made music that way at any time was playing jazz as far as I'm concerned.
...very interesting...is this from the Bill Evans biography?
...I read that Eric Clapton would be in a serious panic before The Cream gigs because they jammed so much that he didn't really know what he was going to play until the music started...then he was ok...
...I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic, jazz vocabulary versus modern fusion playing, but when Cream would jam on a tune like Spoonful...it seemed like a different kind of modern/blues/rock/jazz (for it's time)...there are some awesome moments from the live album...and they're just jamming!
...the vocabulary is always changing...we don't use the same words from 100 years ago, but it's fun to throw in a few, "23 skidoo, small change.":D
...rambling a bit (forum improv) it's 2008, so in my opinion, it's never been a better time to incorporate all the sounds that influence you in your jazz or whatever...it will also engage listeners when contemporary sounds are there to make the ears feel comfortable...
...it's all good...be an encyclopedia of sounds!:cool:
...very interesting...is this from the Bill Evans biography?
it's from an interview from the mid 60's but he also says the same thing in the "universal mind of bill evans" video. if you guys haven't seen it, i would hunt it down- absolutely essential viewing/listening.
brad347
03-15-2008, 04:01 PM
http://lamazone.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/jazz-hands.jpg
russ6100
03-15-2008, 04:06 PM
jb70 wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSeth http://img.thegearpage.net/board/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?p=3823443#post3823443)
IMHO - Mssrs. Fagen and Becker ( mostly Donald, I think) have introduced the greatest change in harmony (theory-wise) since the 30's and 40's... and that has let a whole lot of great music through the jazz front door!
while i love steely dan, you might want to check out what wayne shorter was writing in the mid-60's.
You are so right about this!
Steely Dan was one of my "gateway drugs" into jazz and it wasn't til years later, when I was finally checking out WS, and I immediately thought, "That's where they got that from!"
LR1400
03-16-2008, 04:55 PM
I have another question for the peanut gallery then (maybe this deserves its own thread?):
How are Herbie, Coltrane and Tyner licks and concepts 'modern' when that vocabulary is over 40 years old now?
So Herbie plays the same things now he did in the 60's? Doubt it. Even if he isn't playing jazz on every album.
Ken,
Just curious........
So who is "modern"?
KRosser
03-16-2008, 05:13 PM
So Herbie plays the same things now he did in the 60's?
When people talk about copping 'Herbie licks', it's always his 60's licks...
Ken,
Just curious........
So who is "modern"?
Beats me. I would never use the word, personally. That's why I put it in quotes
rockinrob
03-17-2008, 03:35 AM
In my case, you're probably right....
Just for reference, even though I was being facetious with the "My jazz is better than your jazz" post, what I meant by "my jazz" was more like what I claim to be jazz as a listener. It was more "My definition of jazz is better than your definition of jazz".
KRosser
03-17-2008, 10:19 PM
Just for reference, even though I was being facetious with the "My jazz is better than your jazz" post, what I meant by "my jazz" was more like what I claim to be jazz as a listener. It was more "My definition of jazz is better than your definition of jazz".
And once again, in my case you're probably right....
Scott Auld
03-18-2008, 09:57 AM
Bill Evans: This is a thing that I've been thinking about for a couple of years: jazz to me is a certain process of making music. It doesn't matter about the style. Instead jazz means a style to people. Whether it was written by Stravinsky or Neal Hefti— if it’s written, it’s not jazz to me. It might be an approximation of what has been a jazz performance. But jazz is a 'how' to me. It s performing without any really set basis for the lines and the content as such emotionally or, specifically, musically. And if you sit down and contemplate what you're going to do, and take five hours to write five minutes of music, then it's composed music. Therefore I would put it in the classical or serious, whatever you want to call it, written- music category. So there's composed music and there's jazz. And to me anybody that makes music using the process that we are used to using in jazz, is playing jazz. Chopin or Mozart, or anybody that made music that way at any time was playing jazz as far as I'm concerned.
So Phish is Jazz?
Scott Auld
03-18-2008, 12:21 PM
Incredibly under-appreciated by 'serious' musicans? Yes.
Jazz?
Just going by the Bill Evans definition of the process for creating music, Phish fits. As does any of the 3rd-generation jam bands, i.e., Widespread, Stringcheese, etc.
jazz to me is a certain process of making music. ... But jazz is a 'how' to me. It's performing without any really set basis for the lines and the content as such emotionally or, specifically, musically ... And to me anybody that makes music using the process that we are used to using in jazz, is playing jazz
Speaking of their live music, specifically.
Just going by the Bill Evans definition of the process for creating music, Phish fits. As does any of the 3rd-generation jam bands, i.e., Widespread, Stringcheese, etc.
Speaking of their live music, specifically.
Then Bill Evans is wrong. There is improvisation in many styles of music, including jazz. Because you are improvising, does not make it jazz.
VERY simple.
JamonGrande
03-19-2008, 12:00 AM
A couple points to consider as B. Evan's "definition" listed above is problematic but still useful:
He seems to be treading upon that imaginary line forever separates composition from improvisation as if they were opposing forces (one can improvise within all of the constraints of a composition, and one can compose as part of an improvisation).
Secondly, he almost implies the dangerous assertion that jazz is an oral, not literate, artform, while "classical" (talk about a completely misused term) is the opposite of jazz. This is the same talk that painted jazz as a "wild, uncultured, sensual and not intellectual, etc..", a very subtle indictment of race (used to describe blues and jazz up through the 50's, and rock and roll from the 40's on).
Not saying that this was Evan's intention, and I personally love his music, but any artist making the same statements today would certainly draw some attention and possibly need to clarify these statements.
But of particular use is his notion that jazz is (or at least used to be for many) a process, an action, a verb, and not a sharply defined object. In his seminal book "Blues People" Amiri Baraka argues that this transition from "verb" to "noun" coincided with the movement of jazz as an activity of certain communities to a commodity, remolded and marketed to a wider audience. (Baraka's post-Marxist analysis is not without it's own biases and problems).
So returning to the original post, the questions are: was fusion (as music) ever "a verb"? When did it become "a noun"? Is the real difference between jazz and fusion a matter of process and activity, or product and result?
Feel free to apply this rationale to other genres (maybe it's completely off). I'm not a big fan of these labels myself, though it helps to keep my itunes organized (not very well I may add)
joe
Lucidology
03-19-2008, 02:11 AM
So returning to the original post, the questions are: was fusion (as music) ever "a verb"? When did it become "a noun"? Is the real difference between jazz and fusion a matter of process and activity, or product and result?
Feel free to apply this rationale to other genres (maybe it's completely off).
joe
Joe.. like the way you put that so succinctly ... nice! ;)
KRosser
03-19-2008, 07:55 AM
Bill Evans: This is a thing that I've been thinking about for a couple of years: jazz to me is a certain process of making music. It doesn't matter about the style. Instead jazz means a style to people. Whether it was written by Stravinsky or Neal Hefti— if it’s written, it’s not jazz to me. It might be an approximation of what has been a jazz performance. But jazz is a 'how' to me. It s performing without any really set basis for the lines and the content as such emotionally or, specifically, musically. And if you sit down and contemplate what you're going to do, and take five hours to write five minutes of music, then it's composed music. Therefore I would put it in the classical or serious, whatever you want to call it, written- music category. So there's composed music and there's jazz. And to me anybody that makes music using the process that we are used to using in jazz, is playing jazz. Chopin or Mozart, or anybody that made music that way at any time was playing jazz as far as I'm concerned.
Welcome to the internet...
Where we'll take statements by brilliant people who gave every ounce of their being, force them to speak to a conditon or situation that they never intended and pick apart their words as if we're actually on equal footing.
To the real student of improvisation there's gold in that statement, should you choose to dig for it.
JohnM
03-19-2008, 09:10 AM
Man, I thought the word jazz implied freedom, excitement, innovation, pushing the envelope...some of the implications I've read in this thread give me the impression that it's anything BUT free or innovative.
If 'jazz' peaked 50 years ago and everyone is forever going to be enslaved by the vocabulary set forth by a specific few, then I guess it's time to come up with a new term and move on...sheeesh.
The way many (not all, but many) teach 'jazz' today is such an UN-creative (well, 'creative' as long as you adhere strictly to certain hardfast, unbreakable, if-you-break-them-its-not-jazz rules...) process, how is anyone going to really push ahead? When was the last time you heard a kid come out of music school that played something that wasn't out of the Omnibook? (ok, I'm being a little harsh) but really? And I'm not talking about the 5 out of 100 kids, I'm talking about the other 95 kids.
Seems to me that the vocabulary required to play jazz was 'jazz' 50 years ago when it was new, but now it's (fairly exhaustingly) 'written' and laid out, and therefore no longer should be considered in the same way as back then. Excitement and innovation has been replaced by hard fast rules and doctrine...
I gotta side with Bill E on this one.
Scott Auld
03-19-2008, 10:17 AM
Welcome to the internet...
Where we'll take statements by brilliant people who gave every ounce of their being, force them to speak to a conditon or situation that they never intended and pick apart their words as if we're actually on equal footing.
To the real student of improvisation there's gold in that statement, should you choose to dig for it.
Ken, I did not mean to pick apart / presume to question Mr. Evans' comments.I was not trying to cast his statements in a light he could not have foreseen at the time. I was just trying to apply them practically, today, in a way I could get my brain around. My apologies if I stirred something up that I shouldn't have. :)
Scott Auld
03-19-2008, 10:20 AM
Because you are improvising, does not make it jazz.
VERY simple.
What does make something Jazz?
KRosser
03-19-2008, 10:27 AM
Ken, I did not mean to pick apart / presume to question Mr. Evans' comments.I was not trying to cast his statements in a light he could not have foreseen at the time. I was just trying to apply them practically, today, in a way I could get my brain around. My apologies if I stirred something up that I shouldn't have. :)
I wasn't trying to single anyone out, just responding to an overall 'tone' that 1) seems to be trying to reconcile this with a definition of 'jazz' that probably didn't exist at the time he said it, and 2) seems to be missing out on the very valuable insight he does have to offer as one of the music's premier practitioners.
Evans was not an academic - I wouldn't hold his words up to academic scrutiny. He was a living piece of jazz history, and anything he had to say about it I'd listen to, idiosyncratic though it may be. All of jazz's best minds were highly idiosyncratic, IMHO.
Scott Auld
03-19-2008, 10:44 AM
Thanks, Ken :)
FWIW I downloaded his The Universal Mind... film to my iPod and will be watching it over the next few days.
brad347
03-19-2008, 10:50 AM
"Jazz" and "Fusion" are both made-up words made up by people who wanted to sell the music and make it marketable. They really hold no relevance other than their purpose, which is to put music into categories so that people may predict which concerts they would like to go to and which records they would like to buy.
So really what we are arguing over is how broadly or narrowly you want to define these. Some feel that the terms should be more inclusive so that we have fewer categories with more in them. Some feel that the categories should be narrower, so that we have more categories with fewer in them.
So in other words, the discussion is not really about the music at all, but more about the marketing and history of the marketing. No matter what we call it, it will not change the actual sounds being made.
Proof once again that, on a message board, usually-reasonable people will argue about anything. ;)
wbfree
03-19-2008, 11:49 AM
"Jazz" and "Fusion" are both made-up words made up by people who wanted to sell the music and make it marketable. They really hold no relevance other than their purpose, which is to put music into categories so that people may predict which concerts they would like to go to and which records they would like to buy.
So really what we are arguing over is how broadly or narrowly you want to define these. Some feel that the terms should be more inclusive so that we have fewer categories with more in them. Some feel that the categories should be narrower, so that we have more categories with fewer in them.
So in other words, the discussion is not really about the music at all, but more about the marketing and history of the marketing. No matter what we call it, it will not change the actual sounds being made.
Proof once again that, on a message board, usually-reasonable people will argue about anything. ;)
Have only been playing a little while, started late in life, I love everything from Goodman to Coleman to Zappa to Middle eastern to classical.
Does it really matter how Jazz is defined? Does playing a certain way make it jazz and then another classical. If I get better I would include it all and go way out there, that is the beauty of it to me.
Not trying to be controversial or difficult, I would agree with you. I know what Monk sounds like, John Coltrane is like a heavenly force to me, Sarah Vaughns voice moves me, Frank Zappa shows me possibilities I didn't know existed, and on and on. It is those possibilities that keep me inspired.
And Jack Devine, I am going to try your felt pick.
I am not the player, or even consider myself a player yet, I have not yet the time you guys have invested so forgive my impudence. I go through these boards a lot just to hear the music and I have to say you guys are excellent musicians and I love listening to you.
JohnM
03-19-2008, 12:15 PM
Can't 'jazz' really be defined as 'Freedom within a framework' - regardless of the style or established vocabulary of a style?
Isn't the whole joy/fun/satisfaction/challenge/pain/whatever of improvising figuring out ways to be free within a given framework? Without the frame the whole thing sorta falls apart into chaos, yes?
JamonGrande
03-19-2008, 01:11 PM
Evans was not an academic - I wouldn't hold his words up to academic scrutiny. He was a living piece of jazz history, and anything he had to say about it I'd listen to, idiosyncratic though it may be. All of jazz's best minds were highly idiosyncratic, IMHO.
Most definitely, and I certainly did not mean to imply that what he said or his enormous contributions to jazz should be diminished. Nor that of any other artistic great (regardless of artform or genre).
Yet, if we are to inquire to a musician's philosophy, analyzing these statements proves useful. The context in which these short quotes appears can leave us unaware to more thoughtful approaches these artists may have written about, spoken of, or performed.
I think it is important to examine the subtleties of anyones artistic position, if only to highlight certain tropes pertaining to jazz, improvisation, and the host of issues that have historically been attached (for better or worse). My reasoning is that these subtleties are often ignored, misused, or lie at the heart of the debates we see here. I hesitate to support one absolute point of view specifically because of these finer grained details.
just some thoughts from an academic that doesn't believe that constructive, critical analysis should be the sole province of those within academia
joe
heavypick
03-19-2008, 07:59 PM
"Jazz" and "Fusion" are both made-up words made up by people who wanted to sell the music and make it marketable. They really hold no relevance other than their purpose, which is to put music into categories so that people may predict which concerts they would like to go to and which records they would like to buy.
So really what we are arguing over is how broadly or narrowly you want to define these. Some feel that the terms should be more inclusive so that we have fewer categories with more in them. Some feel that the categories should be narrower, so that we have more categories with fewer in them.
So in other words, the discussion is not really about the music at all, but more about the marketing and history of the marketing. No matter what we call it, it will not change the actual sounds being made.
Proof once again that, on a message board, usually-reasonable people will argue about anything. ;)
Very true. On the other hand we're all arguing because we're trying to avoid practicing! So the message board at least gives us an excuse.
"Jazz" is a white man's word - Miles Davis
Elektrik_SIxx
03-20-2008, 04:14 AM
"Jazz" is a white man's word - Miles Davis
...but what does HE know? He should have listened to Tag and his real jazz buddies...
Aj_rocker
03-20-2008, 12:25 PM
jazz is music , music is art, art only has meaning if its given one. I think some people here give too much "meaning" to one style than other.
I love jazz, just like i love blues, just like i love rock. To me its about being able to say what you feel needs to be said. of course i suck at playing jazz but still it doesnt stop me playing it or listening to it.
I liked the jazz box or fender thing!! got me laughing!!
AJ
Bassomatic
03-20-2008, 01:41 PM
Jazz is a mutt that eats itself.
If 'jazz' peaked 50 years ago and everyone is forever going to be enslaved by the vocabulary set forth by a specific few, then I guess it's time to come up with a new term and move on...sheeesh.
:jo
If you want to say that jazz peaked 50 years ago, I guess YOU think nothing has moved forward since then? With that I totally disagree. As I stated, I think guys like Joshua redman, garrett, Luc, R.Jones, and many many others are still moving ahead. Come up with a new term for a different and "newer" style of music? Sure, ever hear of Rock n roll for one?
So really what we are arguing over is how broadly or narrowly you want to define these. Some feel that the terms should be more inclusive so that we have fewer categories with more in them.
Agree. The fusion players want it wide enough so that they can be called jazz players. Why? Because they realize how great real jazz players are.
...but what does HE know? He should have listened to Tag and his real jazz buddies...
Who said its not a white mans word? It may be. Its just a word that describes a style of music. Not sure if a black, white, red, yellow, or green man came up with the word, nor do I care. Who came up with Rock? Black or white man? Country? Heavy metal? :messedup
...but what does HE know? He should have listened to Tag and his real jazz buddies...
:RoCkIn
jimfog
03-21-2008, 04:18 PM
Agree. The fusion players want it wide enough so that they can be called jazz players. Why? Because they realize how great real jazz players are.
Ok......you've said this over and over and over again...
Time to put up.
Where has any well-known "fusion" guy ever said exactly that?
Seriously.........some proof, please............or we shall assume you are ::GASP:: making it up, and ask you to please cease and desist!
rockinrob
03-21-2008, 07:25 PM
Agree. The fusion players want it wide enough so that they can be called jazz players. Why? Because they realize how great real jazz players are.
That's what you're misunderstanding. You're making it out to be an ego thing, a competitive thing, but that's your hang up- a lot of guys don't think like that. My point of view is, good fusion players that like to think of themselves as jazz musicians do so because they feel they're approaching music with the same spirit as the classic jazz players did. I don't think jazz is anything you can quantize or define with rules, it's more a spirit or feeling like Bill Evans says in that quote. As a listener, you can make your own call as to whether or not it has that spirit.
And I can tell you right now, there's plenty of guys out there playing what's considered "straight ahead" but don't come close to having what I consider a jazz spirit. I'd say there are many more BS straight ahead players that think of themselves as jazzers than fusion players- if anyone is diminishing the term "jazz musician" it's them....
scottl
03-21-2008, 07:58 PM
Ken,
Do you listen to much Sylvain Luc? There is plenty of definition challenging playing. Especially the solo stuff. Check it out. You'll dig!
Tag - how are they moving jazz (or even 'fusion') ahead when none of these folks have made additions that challenged the definition?
They're all great players, but they're all pretty conservative, no?
jimfog
03-21-2008, 08:35 PM
Ken,
Do you listen to much Sylvain Luc? There is plenty of definition challenging playing. Especially the solo stuff. Check it out. You'll dig!
Scott,
I love his playing......especially that "Duet" disc with Bireli......
While, I think Luc is stretching boundaries TECHNICALLY, I don't hear anything really all that forward-thinking, harmonically and rhythmically.
Again.......great music, though.
rwe333
03-21-2008, 10:19 PM
For consideration:
Jazz is a mutt that eats itself.
Yawn:
Agree. The fusion players want it wide enough so that they can be called jazz players. Why? Because they realize how great real jazz players are.
Indeed:
Ok......you've said this over and over and over again...
Time to put up.
Where has any well-known "fusion" guy ever said exactly that?
Seriously.........some proof, please............or we shall assume you are ::GASP:: making it up, and ask you to please cease and desist!
wbfree
03-21-2008, 10:19 PM
Ken,
Do you listen to much Sylvain Luc? There is plenty of definition challenging playing. Especially the solo stuff. Check it out. You'll dig!
Thank you for the introduction to fine music.
Tag - how are they moving jazz (or even 'fusion') ahead when none of these folks have made additions that challenged the definition?
They're all great players, but they're all pretty conservative, no?
Compared to who? Please explain who you see moving jazz forward, and how? Listen to Garretts almost mid eastern tonalities and phrasing. I have never heard anyone who sounds like him, all while keeping the blues and jazz roots in his playing. Miles RAVED about him, and said he had one of the most original voices in jazz. Arthur Blyth is another with pharsing from outer space. Rodney Jones conservative? I cant believe you have much by him. Sylvan Luc? Listen to his solo playing. Take ANY fusion guy and sit them in with Luc or Lagrene. They will be SMOKED. Metheny, Stern, Sco, Aber....take your choice. Listen to Jesse VanRuler, very hip and original lines. These guys are all doing things I have not heard before, while still being straight ahead jazzers. Sure Lagrene plays his Django style, but listen when he stretches. The guys insane.
I'd say there are many more BS straight ahead players that think of themselves as jazzers than fusion players- if anyone is diminishing the term "jazz musician" it's them....
Give me the names.
Ok......you've said this over and over and over again...
Time to put up.
Where has any well-known "fusion" guy ever said exactly that?
Sco, Metheny, Abercrombie for starters, have all bitched about it in interviews.
jimfog
03-21-2008, 11:29 PM
Sco, Metheny, Abercrombie for starters, have all bitched about it in interviews.
Quotes and sources, please.......because I never saw that, ever.
KRosser
03-22-2008, 01:01 AM
Sco, Metheny, Abercrombie for starters, have all bitched about it in interviews.
I can't speak for Metheny or Sco, but I know Abercrombie doesn't feel that way.
Tag - I'm not putting any of those cats down - but coming up with new or amazing virtuosic things in an established genre is different than challenging the form. I'm not talking about excellence - I'm talking about radicalism.
Yes, they are all straight ahead jazzers and they seem happy with that form - that is a fairly conservative position.
Yes, Rodney Jones is a beautiful jazz player, but where has he broken with the parameters, except for when he adopts the parameters of r&b/jazz 'fusion'? Yusef Lateef was doing middle-eastern harmonies in the early 60's, and Metheny, Stern, Sco and Abercrombie are in a fairly conservative holding pattern as well whether you want to call it fusion or jazz.
Who do I see moving jazz forward?
No one!
That's the problem!!!
Where are the radicals?
interesting post ken. i was at a jack dejohnette masterclass a few years ago and the subject of innovation in jazz came up. it was his opinion that we are in a reflective period in jazz music (and most music in general). there were huge advances in jazz between the years of, let's say, 1925 to 1965. within those years you have louis armstrong, duke ellington, bird, monk, coltrane, ornette coleman, and wayne shorter (and others of course). that's a lot of music to deal with within a 40 year time span. jack was saying that there's no way that those kinds of radical developments in jazz could continue at that pace. so yes, you are correct in saying that we are in a "holding pattern" right now. there are jazz/fusion/contemporary jazz musicians (whatever you want to call them) that have their own voice and style but they are basically still working within the framework that was created within that 40 year period. i also thought it was interesting that dejohnette thought that the last untapped area of innovation in jazz was in textures and sounds.
JohnM
03-22-2008, 01:47 AM
:jo
If you want to say that jazz peaked 50 years ago, I guess YOU think nothing has moved forward since then? With that I totally disagree. As I stated, I think guys like Joshua redman, garrett, Luc, R.Jones, and many many others are still moving ahead.
Ok...our ideas of moving ahead are different. I guess I'm looking for more of a move. Yes, to someone very knowlegable, the names you listed have made some advancements to the style, but nothing outrageous (to me I guess.) I mau be expecting more of a leap than a baby step!
Tag - I'm not putting any of those cats down - but coming up with new or amazing virtuosic things in an established genre is different than challenging the form. I'm not talking about excellence - I'm talking about radicalism.
Yes, they are all straight ahead jazzers and they seem happy with that form - that is a fairly conservative position.
Yes, Rodney Jones is a beautiful jazz player, but where has he broken with the parameters, except for when he adopts the parameters of r&b/jazz 'fusion'? Yusef Lateef was doing middle-eastern harmonies in the early 60's, and Metheny, Stern, Sco and Abercrombie are in a fairly conservative holding pattern as well whether you want to call it fusion or jazz.
Who do I see moving jazz forward?
No one!
That's the problem!!!
Where are the radicals?
Who cares?? You mean you think someone has to be "different" to be moving jazz "forward??" Different is not better to me, or "forward" just different. There are very few people who are different and actually move any given STYLE forward. Especially in jazz when almost everything has been done. Thats why its FUSION to begin with. It is moving ROCK forward by bringing some jazz concepts into a more rock or pop style. It was all in jazz already. Both Metheny and Benson have been doing that for years. Sco and Aber as well. Bringing some jazz concepts into a more pop oriented style. Nothing to do with jazz at all.
Ok...our ideas of moving ahead are different. I guess I'm looking for more of a move. Yes, to someone very knowlegable, the names you listed have made some advancements to the style, but nothing outrageous (to me I guess.) I mau be expecting more of a leap than a baby step!
Like I said above, that is the very rare individual, and no one since Coltrane has done it. I agree. Who knows, it may never happen again. So we can talk about ROCK being moved forward, as some guys like the fusioners bring more jazz concepts into rock and pop. However, dont go saying those guys are moving jazz forward, as if anyyhing, they are dragging it backwards.
I can't speak for Metheny or Sco, but I know Abercrombie doesn't feel that way.
I have read varying thoughts from him and Sco as well. they seem to flip flopp. Abercrombie has said that the true jazz players are as good as it gets, and no one can play that STYLE better than them. Sco has said the same. Those players (Like Wes) were so good, and it was so hard to get to that level, he wanted to pursue something else.
Elektrik_SIxx
03-22-2008, 07:27 AM
Who cares?? You mean you think someone has to be "different" to be moving jazz "forward??" Different is not better to me, or "forward" just different. There are very few people who are different and actually move any given STYLE forward. Especially in jazz when almost everything has been done. Thats why its FUSION to begin with. It is moving ROCK forward by bringing some jazz concepts into a more rock or pop style. It was all in jazz already. Both Metheny and Benson have been doing that for years. Sco and Aber as well. Bringing some jazz concepts into a more pop oriented style. Nothing to do with jazz at all.
So you're still suggesting that say, Rodney Jones is a better musician than Metheny because Jones plays 'real' jazz?
It sounds like you have a problem with things changing.
As said before, if you had lived in the 40's you would have looked down on Parker and Gillespie and Monk because they were also pushing things forward an you would no doubt be one of the folks who were saying 'that's not jazz,real jazz is Armstrong and Goodman'.
Is an electrical car not a car because it doesn't run on petrol?
Man, you could have taught Bill Evans and Miles some lesson about what is jazz and what isn't.
Keep it up!
ivers
03-22-2008, 07:30 AM
Since I don't find my pov expressed here: I don't think harmonic progressions, scales, or any musical 'pattern' can be used up, as in "II-V-I is soo 50 years ago, we must avoid them at all cost". Styles however, as in the 'style' based on Django's personal approach to music, can in my view be beaten to death, but the particular intervallic relationships or chords one finds in Django's music? Never!
For me every new musical idea makes the world richer, it doesn't close any doors to 'past' harmonic or rhythmic concepts. Just because we suddenly discover that texture can be a part of music, doesn't mean texture has to be the only thing that counts. It's a certain (perhaps misunderstood) modernistic idea that one has to discard everything once you see something new you like, like a child that sees a new 'flashier' toy, and throws away the old toys.
It's our lame application of those 'old' concepts that ruins everything, and if we can't make II-V-Is sound fresh (ie personal), then it's because we lack imagination, just like the child who's run out of ideas of how to play with the old toys, or is too impatient to make up ideas.
My 2 cents, fwiw.
rwe333
03-22-2008, 09:30 AM
I can't speak for Metheny or Sco, but I know Abercrombie doesn't feel that way.
Actual first hand info, important to note.
rwe333
03-22-2008, 09:50 AM
Think of Abercrombie's recent quartet work, the many projects of Tim Berne, the compositions of Terje Rypdal - improvisation isn't moving forward? Listen harder, in context... Arguably some of the 'jazzers' noted here may not fare so well in those rather unique/complex situations. Props to all... Fusion? Goodness, all this chat about rock elements in jazz... There's much more available and used: 20th century composition, Eastern influences, rhythmic devices from diverse cultures, etc... Think of Dave Holland's quintet.
So you're still suggesting that say, Rodney Jones is a better musician than Metheny because Jones plays 'real' jazz?
No, Jones is a better jazz player.
It sounds like you have a problem with things changing.
Not at all. Not sure why you think that. I simply say the best players in the world are the true jazz musicians, and the true jazz musicians are the best jazz players. Thats about as simple and as logical as you can get.
As said before, if you had lived in the 40's you would have looked down on Parker and Gillespie and Monk because they were also pushing things forward an you would no doubt be one of the folks who were saying 'that's not jazz,real jazz is Armstrong and Goodman'.
Maybe, I can not say for sure, HOWEVER, they still used all of the old vocabulary, and were VERY blues based. Looking back, I do not think I would have seen that as not playing jazz, but hind site is always 20/20.
Is an electrical car not a car because it doesn't run on petrol?
Its still a car. Drive a truck, and its not a car anymore. Ever drive on a highway where it says NO TRUCKS ALLOWED! They need to post that at some jazz venues. NO FUSION ALLOWED!! :D
Man, you could have taught Bill Evans and Miles some lesson about what is jazz and what isn't.
Well, I agree with most things I have read regarding Miles, including his thoughts on Coleman. (I listened to him ONCE. Nothing there)
I specifically disagreee with Evans, and stated why in my earlier post. I feel he is clearly wrong in that regard.
Think of Abercrombie's recent quartet work, the many projects of Tim Berne, the compositions of Terje Rypdal - improvisation isn't moving forward? Listen harder, in context... Arguably some of the 'jazzers' noted here may not fare so well in those rather unique/complex situations. Props to all... Fusion? Goodness, all this chat about rock elements in jazz... There's much more available and used: 20th century composition, Eastern influences, rhythmic devices from diverse cultures, etc... Think of Dave Holland's quintet.
I dont think Coltrane would have been right at home playing with Black Sabbath at first either. No matter what style you play, it takes a while to get the correct feel. You really think Lagrene would have problems sitting in with anything Abercrombie is working on. ;) Sure, it will take him a little while to get the proper feel, but the same with any change in STYLES.
rwe333
03-22-2008, 10:45 AM
I dont think Coltrane would have been right at home playing with Black Sabbath at first either. No matter what style you play, it takes a while to get the correct feel. You really think Lagrene would have problems sitting in with anything Abercrombie is working on. ;) Sure, it will take him a little while to get the proper feel, but the same with any change in STYLES.
My point is as much props to the incredible uniqueness of composition and interaction those groups display. Man, some of those contexts are so personal and utterly entrenched w/ the players it would be tough for anyone to sit-in (cripes, look at the forms of some of the DH5 and JA4 tunes). Not to mention the miles on the road and hours studio as an ensemble to get to that place. Bireli's a total badass and versatile, but - no - I wouldn't want to hear him in recent Abercrombie or similar ensembles. (Besides, Bireli's 'fusion' efforts weren't exactly his finest hour)
Well, I do...
No problems here.
Well, don't you have to do something different to make something break from the past?
As I have stated, I hear the artists that I mentioned as being different. As long as people find personal ways to use a given language, its fine with me! Who is expanding the English language right now? Are you bored to death with only having A-Z to work with? If so, do what you have to do! I hear all kinds of artists saying new things within the jazz vocabulary. What can be pushed "forward"?? What I find in fusion, is just not very good jazz players for the most part. I do not see what jazz is "limiting", or why guys say its "museum" music. Whats not allowed in?? I do not see anything that jazz is not allowing in, except playing a different style and calling it jazz.
Well, this is all good and this is why there's all different kinds of people in the world, but personally something fresh, different and unexpected is what really gets me off...
Well it has to be more than that for me to like it. garrett and Jones do that while playing jazz.
Of course. That's what makes them so incredibly precious. That's why I openly bemoan their absence in jazz.
Again, jazz is so encompassing, its hard to add anything to it. It may never be done. It seems to have pretty much everything.
There you go - definition of 'holding pattern'. Who's gonna be the one to break it? Maybe no one. Maybe 'jazz', like 'dixieland', 'baroque', 'ragtime' or 'vaudeville', is a dead art form.
Using that logic, then music is a dead art form, because its still just music.
In the meantime there's lots of beautiful music to listen to and make, and every so often hopefully catch a little glimpse of something that just 'sends' you, right?
Yep, and loads of it in jazz alone right now IMO.
Bassomatic
03-22-2008, 10:47 AM
... including his thoughts on Coleman. (I listened to him ONCE. Nothing there).
Really, Tag, you should be embarrassed to dismiss someone whose output is sooo vast, who has covered so much terrain, after listening "once". From the early free stuff to, say, 'Tone Dialing' or 'Virgin Beauty'? That's a lot of work to dismiss so thoughtlessly. Of course, it says much more about your limitations than Ornette's, real or imagined.
Bassomatic
03-22-2008, 10:49 AM
Who is expanding the English language right now?
Unless you're a voracious and really sophisticated reader, you might not want to go to an analogy where you lake any semblance of expertise.
My point is as much props to the incredible uniqueness of composition and interaction those groups display. Man, some of those contexts are so personal and utterly entrenched w/ the players it would be tough for anyone to sit-in (cripes, look at the forms of some of the DH5 and JA4 tunes). Not to mention the miles on the road and hours studio as an ensemble to get to that place. Bireli's a total badass and versatile, but - no - I wouldn't want to hear him in recent Abercrombie or similar ensembles. (Besides, Bireli's 'fusion' efforts weren't exactly his finest hour)
We have totally different opinions on this, and thats cool. IMO, guys like Benson, Jones and Lagrenes ears are just far more open, and their musicianship in general is just at a much higher level than JAs. Hes a great player no doubt, but to me, highly mechanical and non organic. Im taking nothing away, to ME, its just a differet level of base talent. I think some guys have to try and be different because they do not excel in agiven area, so good for them. To me, different for differents sake just has never been very appealing. Kudos to those who go into those areas though.
Unless you're a voracious and really sophisticated reader, you might not want to go to an analogy where you lake any semblance of expertise.
I may surprise you in the former, but my communication skills are not the best, I openly admitt. I have always had problems stating my thoughts clearly, and never found (made) the time to develop it. Sucks, but I do the best I can. :(
Bassomatic
03-22-2008, 11:14 AM
I may surprise you in the former, but my communication skills are not the best, I openly admitt. I have always had problems stating my thoughts clearly, and never found (made) the time to develop it. Sucks, but I do the best I can. :(
Hey, I read a lot too, but my point is one really needs to know what's going on at the cutting edges of a given art form before one makes such sweeping proclamations. I know enough to know I sure as hell don't.
rwe333
03-22-2008, 11:26 AM
We have totally different opinions on this, and thats cool. IMO, guys like Benson, Jones and Lagrenes ears are just far more open, and their musicianship in general is just at a much higher level than JAs. Hes a great player no doubt, but to me, highly mechanical and non organic. Im taking nothing away, to ME, its just a differet level of base talent. I think some guys have to try and be different because they do not excel in agiven area, so good for them. To me, different for differents sake just has never been very appealing. Kudos to those who go into those areas though.
You're entitled to your opinion, but the contexts are often very different. Some of the guys you mention don't compose a ton and go more the "featured soloist route" (not Bireli, of course). Not necessarily very complex ensemble situations (again, not Bireli). So, I have a hard time saying that their sets of ears are more open when they are playing in more structured/straight-ahead situations, not more unique compositional settings. By no means "different for difference sake", but showing more varied/international rhythmic and harmonic influences. I'm rushing and explaining my point very poorly, but hope that makes some sense...
Hey, I read a lot too, but my point is one really needs to know what's going on at the cutting edges of a given art form before one makes such sweeping proclamations. I know enough to know I sure as hell don't.
I understand what you are saying, but I am comfortable enough to know what I am hearing. I also think my analogy is a good one. Any art form is only as good as the imagination of the artists using it. I find lots of fresh ideas and imagination in jazz today. For example, Jackie McClean sounded as fresh (fresher??) at the end of his life as he did when he was first coming on the jazz scene to me. Rhythm of the earth sounded as modern as pretty much anything I hear in music today, and yes, his lines and playing were still based in the bop and post bop styles. So what? A great blues player today moves me as much as a great blues player from 50 years ago. The overal production and feel reflect the times, just as it does in jazz today. When Benson plays tunes now that he did in the 60s, they sound modern. Its because he lived through those times, and its reflected in the playing. That in itself is "moving forward". No one is trying to make records that sound like you were living in the 1950s that I know of on the whole, and if they were, I doubt I would have much interest in them either. There are plenty of recordings available that reflect that time in history. In that regard, jazz is as flexible and fresh sounding today as ever.
KRosser
03-22-2008, 06:16 PM
interesting post ken. i was at a jack dejohnette masterclass a few years ago and the subject of innovation in jazz came up. it was his opinion that we are in a reflective period in jazz music (and most music in general). there were huge advances in jazz between the years of, let's say, 1925 to 1965. within those years you have louis armstrong, duke ellington, bird, monk, coltrane, ornette coleman, and wayne shorter (and others of course). that's a lot of music to deal with within a 40 year time span. jack was saying that there's no way that those kinds of radical developments in jazz could continue at that pace. so yes, you are correct in saying that we are in a "holding pattern" right now. there are jazz/fusion/contemporary jazz musicians (whatever you want to call them) that have their own voice and style but they are basically still working within the framework that was created within that 40 year period. i also thought it was interesting that dejohnette thought that the last untapped area of innovation in jazz was in textures and sounds.
I wanted to quote this and present it again - it's pretty much the most intelligent perspective on this subject here so far.
Read this again, please - beginning to end.
I wanted to quote this and present it again - it's pretty much the most intelligent perspective on this subject here so far.
Read this again, please - beginning to end.
Its exactly what I was saying. Pretty much everything that can be done in jazz, was done. This is why I think ppl have lost it when they say jazz players are "not moving forward" by saying fusion is not jazz. All that shit was in jazz from way back! The fusion guys are taking ideas from jazz here and there and adding it to rock and pop, NOT the other way around.
Very simple. :messedup
heavypick
03-22-2008, 07:09 PM
Its exactly what I was saying. Pretty much everything that can be done in jazz, was done. This is why I think ppl have lost it when they say jazz players are "not moving forward" by saying fusion is not jazz.
Schizophrenic is the word here
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.