Identity

[Jazzyteach65]

Originally Posted by musicjohnny

were filled with audiences all bobbin' their heads until 3AM.
I love Jazz just as much as the next guy, but it's only a kind of music now; as compared to when it was a LIFESTYLE.

Not sure that this even has anything to do with this thread, just had to vent.

Since when was music of any kind a lifestyle? I know it can be a profession, something people can focus a lot of thier time on, but a way of life? I though music was only another facet of self-discovery and a celebration of life itself, not a lifestyle itself.

Many musicians past and present spend a lot of time doing other things, too. They go golfing, play cards ect. They even cook and have families JJK

[musicjohnny]

Originally Posted by Jazzyteach65

I thought music was only another facet of self-discovery and a celebration of life itself, not a lifestyle itself.

Very nicely worded there.
I can easily consider the Jazz cats a lifestyle back in the golden ages. Just because that was their path of life, doesn't necessarily mean that they must refrain from doing other things; that would be ridiculous.

[billkath]

Originally Posted by Jazzyteach65

2. We aren't all the samne age here, are we? I'm in my late 20's

Ah, yes-but I mean (in the nicest possible way) you'd be what I consider to be an "old" late 20's, just like I'm a "young" late 40's. Others here would be considered VERY young early 60's!
What I meant, of course, is that life has moved on from the way things were. Nowadays, it seems to me, that lots of kids want fame NOW, and can't understand it when they don't get it.. No thought of need of talant or "paying their dues".

[Reg]

Hey Jazzyteach65... Interesting thought... I sure believe it could, if someone had good instincts. I all so believe one could have a unique sound or technique much quicker. I tend to believe one would hit walls much quicker also, but if that's what one is searching for... worry about those problems when and if they come. Best Reg

[Reg]

Originally Posted by billkath

Ah, yes-but I mean (in the nicest possible way) you'd be what I consider to be an "old" late 20's, just like I'm a "young" late 40's. Others here would be considered VERY young early 60's!
What I meant, of course, is that life has moved on from the way things were. Nowadays, it seems to me, that lots of kids want fame NOW, and can't understand it when they don't get it.. No thought of need of talant or "paying their dues".

I tend to agree with you Bill, the age thing. About the momentary thing... it's has way to much effect on most people in the states, The young have grown up this way and the rest of us are being nurtured along to become that way... Not me and my kids and every one I have an influence on is at least aware of the process and where it leads... That would be a thread in it's self. Hey just so you know I'm 55. Best Reg

[fumblefingers]

Originally Posted by musicjohnny

I disagree here 100%. What's the point of covering it if you're going to perform it exactly as the original? You have the original for that, and if that's the case, you're rendition will never amount to anything BUT a halfass cover.
When I cover a song, I put my own individual style into it. Still, obviously, reflecting the work of the original for the most part, but with my own twist on it.

Someone here brought up a good point, not sure if it was on this thread or not; but he said that people are so concerned with what happened 60/70 years ago that modern jazz musicians don't get any recognition, and I couldn't agree more. But in my honest opinion, the Jazz age is long gone and done with. We can still play the music, develop the ideas, concepts and what not. But Jazz was born in the midst of rebellion! In the speakeasies, sippin' on brew and getting the dancing started. The clubs were filled with audiences all bobbin' their heads until 3AM.
I love Jazz just as much as the next guy, but it's only a kind of music now; as compared to when it was a LIFESTYLE.

Not sure that this even has anything to do with this thread, just had to vent.

i laid out two options. the part of my post that you quoted here was the option that you see eye to eye with i think.

[musicjohnny]

Originally Posted by fumblefingers

i laid out two options. the part of my post that you quoted here was the option that you see eye to eye with i think.

Ahh ok, thanks for the clarification.

To Jazzyteach,
I think having technique or a lack thereof, is but one ingredient to your own unique voice.

[bako]

Playing with an individual identity only requires the techniques needed to produce the sounds that you individually choose to speak with.

For the freelance musician/session player the need for technique is endless and tempered only by the range of musical situations that arise.

[fep]

I'll come back and read all these posts later, so I apologize if this has been said...

The music we listen to influences us and many jazz quitarists listen to Pass and Wes and Benson and Charlie Parker etc. So our 'voice' becomes strongly influenced by these musicians, and since so many of us listen to the same musicians it sounds that we don't have a unique voice (although I do think we all have unique voices, but the differences aren't that obvoius)

On the other hand, take Wayne Shorter or Mingus. Is it possible that their unique voices blossomed when they started listening to non jazz musicians, in their case composers like Stravinsky and Debussy?

Could that be a key to a "unique voice", being influenced by non jazz musicians?

[fumblefingers]

yep fep. i think so.

[Champy]

If you are improvising, and playing what you hear in your head, aren't you being unique enough? Everyone thinks differently right?

[billkath]

Are we nisnaming "Identity"? What I mean is-in all fields of music, and on all instruments, their are those that stand out. A few that spring to mind-Nigel Kennedy, Stefan Grappelli on violin/fiddle, Pat Metheny, Mark Knopfler on guitar, Stevie Wonder, Larry Adler on Harmonica----Are we really talking about natural talant?

[fumblefingers]

Originally Posted by Champy

If you are improvising, and playing what you hear in your head, aren't you being unique enough? Everyone thinks differently right?

this is my thinking too, perhaps with one exception - where you say "unique enough". people are opining here about how unique. that is, "unique enough" for what?


unique enough for your own satisfaction? yep.

unique enough for your school ensemble? - uh huh

unique enough for your restaurant or wedding gig, etc? - probably so

unique enough for a sideman gig with a recording artist/concert
performer? - only for the few

unique enough for your own recording contract - dream on

unique enough to go down in history as a jazz music giant? - dream on, big time

[macrylinda]

Originally Posted by Jazzyteach65

And you know, that just the unfortunate way the world works. Jazz doesn't sell. Hell, Allen Holdsworth went through a period where he had to pawn his guitars while still making records. Even Farlow painted signs when he wasn't recording. Things like Downbeat can be very politicized, andc shouldn't be measured as success. The whole process of finding one's own "voice" is a lifelong spiritual journey, really about finding out one's human identity. I think most of us know that only popular musicians "make it big" as far as cashing in goes, but then they go star in movies and start thier own production companies ect. It's one of the biggest shames of capitalism, but we have to live with it. I think most of us who are seriously into the music enjoy recognition, but are also okay with never getting a big record deal or being on the cover of a magazine.


You are right, and I was guilty of this when I was younger-not listening to current players. I took the whole "young lions purist approach," and disregarded the modern stuff. I was ignorant. So many people are ignorant of the fact that GREAT players pushing boundries will be shedding for thier entire lives, yet never gain recognition. A primne example of the politicization is the celebration of bassist Esperanze Spaulding. No doubt, she's talented, but the fact that she sings and is attractive doesn't hurt her case for all that celebration and magazine covers. I knew so many female jazz bassists, pianists, guitarists ect who are probably equally if not more skilled, and WILL never get recognition
A childhood friend of mine, who actually help introduce me to jazz, went on to Berklee and is now playing in an alt/pop band. It's easy to tell him that he "sold out," but fact is any of us may have done the same thing.

If every person who has a diploma or bachelors degree in Jazz went to gigs every week to check out local and current musicians there probably wouldn't be an income issue, and people like myself could focus a lot more on the gigs that not only pay our rent but our souls as well.

One of the great things about college was the freedom of the lack of responsibility. "I'm a student, I've got help from family or govn't so I don't have to take this wedding gig Unless I want the bread". Now it's take what you can get, everyone is in that boat. Playing for people's Caesar Salads.

Fuck the salad.

But hey, this is the way the world is now. Sampled beats and tracks, little to no originality and the industry is far more about visuals then the actual Music. It's been like that for 20 years now almost . I grew up in it. Luckily for me I seemed immune to it's charms.

Funny I was watching TV last week (rare occurrence) and Much Music was on (Canada's MTV) and I decided to watch it for 2 hours as a little project to see what Music was in the eyes of the pop culture. For the entire 2 hours not one music video, just TV shows about Musicians or celebrities in rehab or shopping. Amazing, not one offering anything new or exciting or innovative. Meanwhile Kurt Rosenwinkel teaches in Berlin to support his families Lifestyle and allow him to play the music he is so passionate about (don't know his families lifestyle or income, maybe he love teaching but i'm just being overly general).