Jazz in modern day

[SammieWammie]

Hi everybody. I love jazz, I think it's great, the complexity, the expressiveness, the groove, the improvisational aspect of it, the connection in a combo, the different sub-genres, so much to learn. However I don't see a comeback of big band swing or bebop. I love it, but it is old fashioned and for that reason average young non-musical people don't appreciate it as much.

I'm in my teens so I've been brought up on newer music, still don't like a lot of electronic pop but they're usually damn catchy, and a lot of pop I actually do like. I think jazz has a lot to learn, but my goal is to have my musical end product something that the average modern person can relate to. Doing versions of modern songs but with more instrumental virtuosity and improvisation (how jazz started) is what I think jazz should be about today. More like John Mayer but coming from a jazz background rather than his blues background.

Jazz started off by altering and extending and improvising over their current pop melodies, why isn't that happening today? Nothing wrong with the old standards but the fact is Don't Worry Be Happy is one of our jazz group's best received pieces, much more than All The Things, because people know the melody, and I enjoy playing it more because I know the song and I actually like the original. Makes me feel happy, where All The Things doesn't make me feel like all the things you are are mine.

I realize there is modern jazz but I don't like most of that either to be honest. Seems the musicians get so bored of playing over changes they do all they can to bring out as much dissonance as possible, or use as complicated time signatures as possible (thinking of High Noon by Chris Potter right now). I appreciate what they're doing takes a lot of skill, but often it sounds terrible to me. (Modern jazz I like: I love Pop Tune by Chris Potter, the 1st half especially but I don't like the way in the vamp he seems to be bringing out as much dissonance as possible, he has skill but I'd prefer to hear more melodic playing. The way I think is if you can play the improvisation on it's own and it still sounds like a good melody, that's perfect. Bebop players has that down perfectly in my opinion).

What do you think of jazz in modern day? I like a lot of types of music, although I consider myself a jazz player I love a lot of local reggae, even the melodic side of the Red Hot Chili Peppers I love (guitar and bass in Road Trippin' and Pretty Little Ditty). What I'm thinking is somebody with the musical knowledge required to play jazz well, harmony, melody, swing, good articulation, the ability to improvise over bebop changes at ridiculous tempos, could play music in other genres at a level above them. Just wondering what you all think.

This is not designed to have a stab people who play traditional, old school jazz. As I said I like that, there is so much to learn, but I'm trying to find my own musical style that works today.

[the*doctor]

I disagree with what you say about dissonance. I usually think that it's the best part- that is, making it sound so outside the square yet still being technically right.

Although a lot of the audience would disagree, only other musicians would appreciate what you're doing and the rest would be thinking 'what the hell?'.
So you do need to find that fine line between melody and dissonance, a lot like john Scofield, Thelonious Monk and Eric Dolphy do. They mix it up a lot with dissonance to keep it interesting and make passages jump out at you.

[SammieWammie]

Dissonance is good, just not when it doesn't resolve and you keep adding more. I like extensions, playing off the extensions on a chord makes it interesting while not sounding terrible, but what I mean is modern players who only seem to play things outside the box. For example when a whole song is based on an altered chord, the whole song wants to resolve or move somewhere, but it doesn't, so it sounds terrible. In my opinion.

[merritt stone]

Originally Posted by SammieWammie

Jazz started off by altering and extending and improvising over their current pop melodies, why isn't that happening today?

Because most pop is absolute crap. Listen to the radio haha. I'm not saying there isn't pop that can be fit into a standard type format, but modern pop is just a different beast, harmonically.


I totally get what your saying about modern artists getting complex for the sake of it, but kind of think that's always been the case, just in defferent forms. There are definitely people that can really groove, and play a great melody. Players like Dave Holland and Christian Scott come to mind.

[merritt stone]

Originally Posted by the*doctor

I disagree with what you say about dissonance. I usually think that it's the best part- that is, making it sound so outside the square yet still being technically right.

Although a lot of the audience would disagree, only other musicians would appreciate what you're doing and the rest would be thinking 'what the hell?'.

As a musician I think that that is just dumb (IMO, of course). To an extent yes, but if your playing that are so "out there" all the time that you would have to go through a whole class on theory just to understand, that's just silly. You should be playing out there, because it creates tension, not because you figured out how to put a theory around it.

[SammieWammie]

I don't see how a lot of pop songs are much worse than the original pop songs that became standards. Yes there are differences, not as many key changes, less ii-V7's, different format, but a lot of the melodies are good melodies and people know them even if they're not into old school jazz standards. And many of them can work as a base for jazz interpretation. Of course many of them are just absolute crap, I do agree with that, but not all.

[fep]

Good analysis Sammie, very thoughtful... As a teenager, ... well I sure which I was that on top of things when I was your age.

I think you are on the right track, you're thinking of the right things.

I was just thinking this morning how 'The Christmas Song' is so popular. But, it is a jazz tune. A popular jazz tune, isn't that an oxymoron.

I also think there is good pop music out there. I think Fagan and Steely Dan created pop music that most jazz fans would like. Nora Jones, Jason Mraz; they're writing nice chord progressions and melodies. How about Joni Mitchell? And of course the Beatles sure did it. There certainly are many many more. I know most of those are pretty dated, but hey I'm old. I'm just saying pop music can be popular and have good melodies and good chord progressions.

[Helgo]

Hi Sammy.


Interesting thoughts. I think about that topic a lot, too.

I don't see a comeback of big band swing or bebop. I love it, but it is old fashioned and for that reason average young non-musical people don't appreciate it as much.

I totally agree with you on that.

my goal is to have my musical end product something that the average modern person can relate to.

A noble goal you have and I wish you a lot of success achieving it!

Jazz started off by altering and extending and improvising over their current pop melodies, why isn't that happening today?

I don´t know...
I play in a souljazz band, kind of an extended organ trio with added bass and sax. I say "extended organ trio" because the organ trio music is what I kind of aim after in my playing and with my band. Of course, using popsongs from their time always was one significant source for repertoire for these types of bands.

And I thought about using Amy Winehouse or Duffy songs with that group. Or other tunes. There are indeed a lot of really nice pop songs out there, with nice melodies and harmonies and everything. (I like a lot of pop music, too, like you). But then, I am somewhat afraid of becoming one of those "we play Top 40 songs in style xy bands", because I loathe them. They might be good players, certainly better than I am and I appreciate that, but this concept doesn´t speak to me....

Also, I think that maybe in the early 70s there was like a big division in jazz. On the one hand there were the players who said: We like the stuff we´re playing, so let´s keep just doing it: Swinging hard, grooving nicely, playing hard bop and bebop vocabulary and repertoire (and writing tunes and licks based on that idiom).
(This is a school of thought/music that appeals to me musically and that´s what I aim for, personally, as a musician.)

On the other hand there were very capable jazzers who felt that they should "renew" the music and take part in the further evolution of jazz.
(and this school of thought/music appeals to me very much intellectually).


So one could argue that the "boppers", the first group thus, developed a habit of looking backwards in history, in terms of style, vocabulary and repertoire. The second group looked forward, but probably wasn´t so interested in relating to popular music.
Playing (more or less virtouso and more or less creative) instrumental versions of popular tunes somehow became a vehicle for a lot of marketing-gimmicky-type of musicians who wanted to make a quick buck without much effort... (this sounds harsher than I actually feel about it, I am overdrawing to make my point clear...)


I am not trying to state these things as facts, I am just thinking aloud. Please comment.


Cheers,
H.

[Helgo]

Doing versions of modern songs but with more instrumental virtuosity and improvisation (how jazz started) is what I think jazz should be about today.

ps: Please check out this great band, who does exactly that:

DIRTY LOOPS Circus (Britney Spears cover) - YouTube


Also, Dr. Lonnie Smith recorded a really nice version of the wonderful tune "Sweet Dreams" by the Eurhythmics.

Also, the guitarist Paul Bollenback recorded "Fields of Gold" (Sting) and "Breaking the Girl" (RHCP) on his album "Double Gemini". (I have to admit, though, that I don´t really become close friends with that particular album...)

[Helgo]

ps:

Also, I stumbled across this interesting read tonight:

Combating Stereotypes: Can Jazz Get Back On Top? | Nextbop

[AmundLauritzen]

I play jazz because of the dissonance. It offers something other genres don't. I get to play around with cool sounds and improvise with them. Sure, I could play contemporary classical music but then I'd play the same tune the same way over and over again. As much as I love to listen to classical music, I don't think I'd sacrifice time I could have spent with jazz to become a half decent classical guitarist.
Personally, I'm not a fan of tunes from other genres adapted into the jazz format because of the associations I have to those tunes. In Norway where I live, there is a big scene for playing Norwegian folk music as jazz. We have some incredible players, but to me I have associations to folk music played as folk music(Folk music in general is my secret love. Don't tell anybody!) so it just doesn't feel right with me when these traditional tunes are played and improvised upon in a jazz manner.
I guess you could say I'm narrow minded, which I'm not. You can't control how you react emotionally to music. It must be said that I have the deepest respect for those musicians, but I could never play that way. It would be dishonest to my musical intentions.
Gypsy jazz to me is different because it is closer to the roots. The harmonic concepts are more true to the harmony of the original tunes. There is a specific set of alterations that are idiomatic to that style.

I love contemporary jazz. It is different when there are original tunes, because they don't have any associations attached to them to begin with. It is always fresh and exciting! I like standards played in a contemporary way too because it is still jazz, and even though the harmonic and rhythmic concepts have evolved, it still feels right to me.

Anyone else experience this?

[the*doctor]

I completely agree with everything amundlauritzen said

[Hernandinho]

Lots of great discussion in this thread...

Here's my idea: why not get a singer? That would make the music 1000% more relateable to the non-jazz connoisseurs in your audence.

[SammieWammie]

Originally Posted by Hernandinho

Lots of great discussion in this thread...

Here's my idea: why not get a singer? That would make the music 1000% more relateable to the non-jazz connoisseurs in your audence.

Hmm. Problem with that I think is it takes away the importance of instrumental skill (so many pop songs with decent vocals but just strumming chords in the background), so then it takes away the instrumental improvisation. And personally I don't like jazz vocals, just my opinion.

[Atticus]

One of my favorite recent trends in jazz is the blending of jazz with hip-hop and funk. Stuff like the Youngblood Brass Band or Trombone Shorty. It reminds me of the energy of that classic big bands had, even if less time is spent on displays of technical wizardry.

The vocals thing reminds me of an interview I read with Derek Trucks and Susan Tedeschi. They said half of their audience came to hear Susan sing and wondered why the guitarist was going on for so long. The other half came to listen to Derek play ten minute guitar solos and wondered who the singer was. The audience makes all the difference.

[SammieWammie]

Hahahaha I can imagine that Atticus. I suppose if the lead instrument is obvious like a sax or something then it's obvious to the listener there's no singer, but if there's a singer for even a small part of the song then for the rest of the song the audience would be waiting for the singer to start singing again (assuming they don't know how jazz works). That's why I don't like vocals, they tend to take so much away from the instrumentalists (me). I've been in a guitar/singer duo though, I enjoyed that because it was actually a duo, could show both our skills off, not just chord strumming backup.

[Philco]

Great subject. I think about this a lot.
I thought I had found a way forward when I discovered St Germaine (The Tourist album).
Organic grooves with instrumental soloing over it.
BUT all those tracks have almost no chord changes.
That's what makes them sound "modern".
The repetitive nature of popular music is broken when you add changes, especially changes that move the key centre. It immediately sounds "old". No matter how cool the groove.
And then it starts sounding like "Smooth Jazz" which makes me want to kill myself.

The other way forward is perhaps to do what Steely Dan did. Take a blues approach but mess with the turn around.
I don't think it will work.

Perhaps Europe will lead the way. Or a country that is a satellite of the US but culturally removed enough to give birth to an "otherness".
Remove bebop and remove blues.
The bond of the origin of Jazz will be broken.
Trying to add a bit of "this" and a bit of "that" from the past and present does not seem to work.
The writing has to be new.
I don't know what it is.
Yet.

[Philco]

By the way....SammieWammie....I feel exactly the same as you described in your original post.

[Fred2746]

Dissonance is good, just not when it doesn't resolve and you keep adding more. I like extensions, playing off the extensions on a chord makes it interesting while not sounding terrible, but what I mean is modern players who only seem to play things outside the box. For example when a whole song is based on an altered chord, the whole song wants to resolve or move somewhere, but it doesn't, so it sounds terrible. In my opinion.

[Jazzpunk]

Originally Posted by AmundLauritzen

I love contemporary jazz. It is different when there are original tunes, because they don't have any associations attached to them to begin with. It is always fresh and exciting! I like standards played in a contemporary way too because it is still jazz, and even though the harmonic and rhythmic concepts have evolved, it still feels right to me.

Anyone else experience this?

This sums it up perfectly for me. I dig the old stuff as well.

[Helgo]

Hernandinho brought up a very important thing.

A lot of people will not be abled to relate to instrumental music at all. Except for maybe film scores, but only if the film is playing.

The thing is that for us as musicians, as instrumentalists, it is easy to relate to other instrumentalist´s music. Non-musicians most of the time relate to non-musical content of the music, such as the lyrics, the looks of the singer, the fashion-style of the band. Or certain lifestyle aspects that are culturally significated by the music genre.

So imho, it will be really hard to write and play instrumental music that people can relate to. I for myself don´t have this as a goal. My goal is to become good at playing the music I love and to enjoy playing it for other people.
But that doesn´t mean I don´t think anybody should try. I think, as I stated before, to make the

musical end product something that the average modern person can relate to.

is a very noble goal. And I am very interested in how this will work. Maybe Sammie will let us know through this board.


What may be giving a little hope is the fact that dubstep and related music is so big nowadays. I personally don´t like it too much, because it doesn´t speak to me. But it is undeniable that this is music that a lot "modern people" can relate to and it is instrumental music which requires a lot of skill to create.

Cheers,
H.

[SammieWammie]

Count On Me (Bruno Mars) by Sam Sneyd by SamSneydMusic on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free

This is an example of the things I'm working on. Just need another guitarist with my style to accompany me. This isn't 'jazz', but it is an instrumental version of a well known song, with more interesting harmony and some improv running off the melody, things I couldn't do until I started learning jazz. You're going to have to know the original to get it, but seeing as most people my age do it works. Listen to the original first, Count On Me by Bruno Mars.

[SammieWammie]

On a semi related note, anybody know of Sungha Jung? Guitar prodigy, does fingerstyle chord melody arrangements of classic popular songs, all over youtube with almost 400 million upload views (so he's gotten popular with the 'popular' music). Well he's sort of where I want to be (musically), but instead I'm coming from a jazz angle where he's simply making songs into arrangements, no improv or re-harmonization. But he is playing instrumental music, with a lot of skill, and he's very popular. Impossible?

[ohlcv]

YouTube Video

[JakeAcci]

I think it's all about why you want to play music. There are a lot of different reasons why somebody picks up an instrument and continues to play it. For me, accessibility isn't much of a priority, but admire those who seek to really give something relatable to the audience but to still do so with integrity. It's difficult...

[AmundLauritzen]

Originally Posted by JakeAcci

I think it's all about why you want to play music. There are a lot of different reasons why somebody picks up an instrument and continues to play it. For me, accessibility isn't much of a priority, but admire those who seek to really give something relatable to the audience but to still do so with integrity. It's difficult...

I agree. I would never sacrifice my musical intentions to please an audience. I don't care if only five people show up when I play. As long as I can keep playing the music I like and have food on my plate, I am happy as can be.
But as you said, those who can make their music more accessible and still do what they love have my deepest respect. Pat Metheny comes to mind, although I'm not too fond of his new age kind of stuff I still have respect for the man.

[jtizzle]

Here's the thing, if we were to make new pop songs into jazz tunes, we'd have 20million songs with the same chord progression. Here's what I'm talking about.
Axis Of Awesome 4 Chords - Amazing, Funny, Comedy, Singing, Just Brilliant - YouTube

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

Originally Posted by Hernandinho

Lots of great discussion in this thread...

Here's my idea: why not get a singer? That would make the music 1000% more relateable to the non-jazz connoisseurs in your audence.

I think this works best if someone already in your group can sing. That way you don't fall into the "singer + backup group" trap and have the singer staring at you every time you do an instrumental number.

[fep]

Originally Posted by BigDaddyLoveHandles

I think this works best if someone already in your group can sing. That way you don't fall into the "singer + backup group" trap and have the singer staring at you every time you do an instrumental number.

+1

We've had this discussion before, often times the singer becomes the de facto leader, choices the repertoire, wants to become the musical director etc.

And, often times the singer has the least music experience and knowledge. It can be a difficult situation to deal with.

[a22]

Originally Posted by jtizzle

Here's the thing, if we were to make new pop songs into jazz tunes, we'd have 20million songs with the same chord progression. Here's what I'm talking about.
Axis Of Awesome 4 Chords - Amazing, Funny, Comedy, Singing, Just Brilliant - YouTube

Funny and true!