What would you call the 'mainstream' form of jazz right now?

gravyTrain · #1 06-20-2007, 03:56 PM

There are so many variations, and so many great players, but I am not experienced enough to know the answer to this question, and I really want to familiarize myself with what most jazz players (both older, and new) are into.

Plenty of time for experimenting later, I just want to focus in on the right stuff. Currently I am going through the Real books, and playing standards, but just would like a little guidance.

Thanks.

mr. beaumont · #2 06-20-2007, 05:09 PM

crap

sorry, i shouldn't be so bitter...but the closest you can get to a "mainstream" music in jazz these days is the smooth stuff (which i'll argue to no end that it isn't jazz) and the diana krall/ chris botti "oh, jazz is soooooooo romantic" garbage. and then there's the neo-classic, i get to decide what's hip backward looking wynton marsallis high horse stuff.

as far as current sounds go that aren't really mainstream, but accessible to different degrees, you can't go wrong with much of what's being released on criss cross and ECM. concord likes to live in the past as a label, but a lot of it's good too, and they do love their guitarists.

but as a guy who listens to jazz about 95-99% of the time, i do dwell in the past. i'm young compared to the music i love-- and i feel there's a ot out there to explore that happened years before i was born...i might venture forward for certain artists (tomas stanko, marcin wasilewski, bill frisell, paul motian) but a lot of the music i listen to is from the past, namely the fifties and sixties. i think you'll find a lot of jazz fans who think the same way.

so i'll tell you that the path you're on is the right one, but someone else might say "get out of the past! live in the now!" i say do a lot of listening and just find what you like. that's the right stuff for you.

and if you're still stuck, you can always try the old method. start with "kind of blue." buy an album that features each of the sidemen. then buy albums that feature the sidemen on those records. and so on. once you know players you like, you can hop into any record store and buy an album just because of who's on it, and it's a pretty safe bet you'll like it. no kiddin-- i just picked up a album by a trumpet player i had never heard of because i like the bass player on the record. and you know what? it swings like mad. good stuff.

aPAULo · #3 06-20-2007, 07:20 PM

Yea I agree with Mr. Beaumont. Im really young compared to jazz, but most the stuff I like is in the past. Try Wes Montgomery.

I really dont like smooth jazz or most contemporary stuff either.

gguge · #4 06-21-2007, 01:01 PM

Some places to start getting some exposure to what's 'mainstream now' would be to pick up a copy of Jazz Times, Jazz Improve. Go to the public library and go through their jazz cd collection. You'll find some good stuff there.

I like the old, but I like some of the new stuff too. I'm a bit of a rocker, funkster along with Jazz.

Good luck.

derek · #5 07-06-2007, 01:10 PM

Man, there is a ton of good stuff being recorded these days. It is just a matter of looking.

As far as the stuff under the smooth jazz banner, I agree that it is not jazz at all. When I was a kid this stuff was called adult contemporary, or easy listening.

There are a number of very good musicians involved, but it clearly is not jazz. Kenny G has made a good living playing this fluff. However, I agree with Pat Methenys take on it.

gravyTrain · #6 07-06-2007, 02:13 PM

I would definitely like to thank everyone for their input. I have explored many different artists, and I did go to the public library and get about 20 different CD's to listen to.

I seem to gravitate towards:
Joe Pass
Paul White
Ed Bickert
Howard Roberts
Al DiMeola
Jim Hall

....players that tend to play backed up, or by themselves rather than in the background. The only reason I didn't list Charlie Christian is that I find the Benny Goodman orchestra a little overpowering.

gaz638 · #7 08-15-2007, 05:58 AM

What mr beaumont said about the sideman thing is so true i pick up records becaus eof who played on it. I think its part of the reason that studying jazz records is so interesting because you get to hear players in so many different contexts that u just dont find in the music i was brought up on (rock)

FernandoCM · #8 08-15-2007, 09:10 AM

Los Dorados

wizard3739 · #9 08-15-2007, 01:37 PM

Gravytrain, if you have not already done this, you should check out Jimmy and Doug Raney for great jazz guitar sounds. They are on Steeplechase and Crisscross cd's. I like many of the same musicians as Mr. Beaumont and I believe, judging from your list of jazz guitarists, you would really like the Raney's.

morjaz · #10 08-15-2007, 04:30 PM

Bebop - Virtuoso soloing in a swing context
Cool Jazz - West coast, third stream, and Brazilian influences
Hard Bop - Bebop with a gospel influence
Post Bop - Modalism and other developments
.....common practice of jazz. They have been around for forty to fifty years or more, and they still form the basis for much of the jazz performed today. Another general term for these style is "straightahead jazz".
(I lifted the above from a Marc Sabatella page titled Mainstream Jazz)

derek · #11 08-15-2007, 07:06 PM

I am gonna have to disagree about a couple of artists mentioned above. Diana Krall kills live. Anthony Wilson is a wonderful guitar player. Her live album is full of great stuff. Before Anthony, it was Phil Upchurch, and you would be hard pressed to find anyone who didn't think both of those guys are wonderful players.

I would argue that Al DiMeola is not a jazz player, but a fusion player. He pretty much plays diatonic, and though he has very impressive chops, sticks pretty much to worked out arrangements and solos. Think more Steve Vai than Wes.

mr. beaumont · #12 08-16-2007, 11:29 AM

I'm the guy who took a shot at Krall, so I'll just defend what i was saying...

having seen her live as well, there's no doubting the talent of both Ms. Krall and the musicians she chooses to play with (Russell Malone also comes to mind) But I find it boring. I don't really think too much of her as an improviser, and it seems the whole image thing is just as important as the music (i counted 18 seperate pictures of her on the sleeve of one of her CD's) They never seemed to let go and really play some jazz. This is just IMHO, of course-- and my opinion's worth what you paid for it.

derek · #13 08-16-2007, 12:14 PM

There is no doubt they use Mrs. Costello's good looks to move product. I guess what is boring/kills is in the ear of the listener. I have no problem with people not liking what she does, but it sure ain't the stuff that is called smooth jazz.

She and the band are not stretching out much on record, so unless you see them live, it would be easy to put them in Chris Botti's category. I just hear a very distinct difference between Jazz and what they are calling Smooth Jazz.

MichaelJohnson@noirmusic. · #14 01-04-2008, 10:15 PM

Its funny cause my love of guitar went the road of Folk music into classical guitar (this is age 5 and beyond) and my love of Jazz/Old R&B comes from picking up the Sax. So now I am fusing the two and I personally am having some trouble. A lot of what I have listened to, as far as older stuff, sound a lot like a group of Charlie Christian clones. Smooth, dark, emphasis on single note melody....Even today it seems like almost every jazz player insists on cranking there tone knob to -30. Maybe it is just me but I think if you improvise it...it's pretty much jazz. So if you want to play like Pepe Romero on a slightly overdriven Telecaster....cool. You might be the first hard bop guitarist....

gravitas · #15 01-05-2008, 10:03 AM

Jazz used to be accessible. Not so anymore. The moment jazz began to shun spoken word and embraced the more cerebral aspects of itself is when people stopped caring. Who other than a musician would want to listen to a musician's sport? I feel like until the jazz scene as a whole gets its act together and starts making- not concessions mind you- but some intelligent reforms (a return at least to the human voice), it won't reach the audience it deserves to.

derek · #16 01-05-2008, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravitas

Jazz used to be accessible. Not so anymore. The moment jazz began to shun spoken word and embraced the more cerebral aspects of itself is when people stopped caring. Who other than a musician would want to listen to a musician's sport? I feel like until the jazz scene as a whole gets its act together and starts making- not concessions mind you- but some intelligent reforms (a return at least to the human voice), it won't reach the audience it deserves to.

Agreed. I can't drag my wife to see Metheny, Martino, Hall et al with me, but she absolutely loved Diana Krall, John Pizzarelli, and the Brian Setzer Orchestra Christmas show.

She was in an orchestra when she was younger, so she knows more than the average person, but instrumental wanking, no matter how skillful just turns her off.

Same with my kids. I play jazz in my truck all the time, and if they are with me they complain. I pop in a jazz vocalist, and though they don't particularly like it, they like it better than the instrumental stuff.

gravitas · #17 01-05-2008, 11:36 AM

I know, it's weird eh? I guess music is nothing without proper context.

But that leads us to the other problem with jazz vocals: either pretensious as hell or so honey-coated and saccharine you'd expect the singer's got a beehive in her brain

derek · #18 01-05-2008, 01:13 PM

Hmm, I listen to Ella and the above mentioned John P, and Diane K. I don't think they fall in those categories. I really don't listen to too many jazz vocalists.

MichaelJohnson@noirmusic. · #19 01-05-2008, 02:17 PM

As "wrong" as it seems to many Jazz players (and I have been shouted down by some purists) Jazz needs to take its next evolutionary step towards group like Phish. I have trouble with Jam bands cause they always seem to be un repentently out of tune and I think take the "We just don't care" attitude to far. However I think if Jazz musicians would build there chops to a high level, play intense stuff for themselves after the gig and just relax, groove and have a sense of humor on stage it could be a lot better. Case in point...I have a friend who is a Jazz singer and a real snoot. I suggested that she do a version of "By the Sea" from Sweeney Todd as sort of a joke. Nothing wrong with it as a ballad but anyone who knows it would probably chuckle....she didn't approve of the idea. Me? I'd have chosen "Epiphany" or "A little Priest" but then I am warped. Then again Ella used to have a sense of humor. Anyone heard her throw in the "Tom Dooley" into her version of "Rudolph" LOL now thats funny!! My other pet peeve is that Jazz purist seem to thing Jazz is based on "Jazz Standards" it isn't. It's based on pop music. Sure some of the Tin pan Alley stuff ect became standards but they started out as pop tunes. I don't see what the big deal is with Josh Redman doing Clapton covers (have heard pissy people complain about it) for that matter I think a lot of pop music could loose a bit of its bubble gum, have a little depth and be 10x better if skilled Jazz musicians did em. Plus the audiance would totally dig it!!!

wizard3739 · #20 01-05-2008, 11:42 PM

Jazz can be just about ANY tune in Western Music. However, I know from personal experience that you will not grab the audience unless you give them something they want to hear. The old standards are chock full of great melodies that resolve very nicely. Even if the audience doesn't know the melody, they subconsciously will recognize the resolutions they hear. This thought, of course, is my (admittedly biased) opinion and is not meant to pick on any particular jazz style.

best wishes,
Howard

MichaelJohnson@noirmusic. · #21 01-06-2008, 02:47 AM

Sure they are great tunes....who doesn't love Blue Skies or Stella etc? I just think you can, and maybe more people should, pickup some melodies from the current generation of music...keeps thing fresh.

gravitas · #22 01-06-2008, 11:27 AM

The Bad Plus are a modern group I quite like. They do some more modern charts and jazz them up (usually...) they've done songs like Everybody Wants to Rule the World, Karma Police, Smells like Teen Spirit, the theme from Chariots of Fire... They'll do traditional updates to old songs, or absolutely take the piss out of them. But no denying they do do some more current "standards." They also know their jazz and have an enormous sense of humour.

derek · #23 01-06-2008, 01:47 PM

Alex Skolnick has done this also. He used to be the lead guitarist for the metal band Testament, went back to school to get a jazz guitar degree. Formed a trio and thier first album was taking metal anthems and turning them into jazz.

I think taking modern tunes and making jazz out of them is cool, and fun. I have done this with a couple of Beatles, Steely Dan, and Burt Bacharach tunes. I plan on doing so with some Earth, Wind & Fire also, just haven't gotten around to arranging them yet.

I think taking pop tunes with fairly vanilla changes (as most pop tunes have), and reharmonizing them to be more complex is a good exercise.

BTW, the majority of what we call jazz standards today were show tunes from Broadway musicals and movies. Here is a pretty cool site that gives info on traditional tunes. I use it to answer questions I get on my solo gig about tunes I play.

Jazz Standards Origins, History, Chord Progressions, and CD Recommendations