Identity

[Jazzyteach65]

Players like Scofield and Wes are unmistakably identifiable. Sco has his lack of bop cliches, wide intervals, dimished vocab, slurred articulation ect. Wes has his own voice, so does jim Hall, Abercrombie's tone and chord tone usage

I realized that at some time, we must ask ourselves "who am I on the instrument?" The GREAT ones are identifiable when we hear them. They developed thier own voice by using the tools and things they use until it crystalized

When you practice, work things out, are you just practicing improv, or are you practicing working on your own identity, ie. the devices and tools that make us identifiable (working on certain scale usage, certain voicings whether or not we use triplets ect)

I'm wondering, because over the years, I've written down things I like from different players, and tried to work them into my own playing. I want to be identifaible, not predicatable. I can listen to Peter Bernstein and know it's him, but I can hear Andres Oberg and might confuse him for a shredder practicing at a guitar shop

[TommyD]

Peter Bernstein is, to me, a unique guitar voice. He works hard at it. I love his Monk work, and have been searching for a Monk fakebook that has all the tunes PB plays, with no luck so far.
I think (but am not certain) that his style has changed over recent years, especially since he went on that German gig with Brad Meldau - those guys were terrific together! As a friend said, they breathed together! That was a marvelous quartet.
In any event, I like very much his present approach - the sort of searching, ruminating, halting style he's adopted. It's completely different to what we are used to hearing in accomplished guitarists. In fact, after listening at length to PB, most other jazz guitarists sound like they were all cut from the same mold - a little Pass, a little Wes, a little Tal, a little Raney, a little Benson. Not that that's bad - I love them all. But PB has taken up the task of searching out a completely new jazz guitar style; not an easy task.

tommy/

[TommyD]

Oh! One more thing - I love his 5/4 tune based on "Tea For Two". I forget the title. That tune reached it's best tempo and arrangement with his Bernstein/Meldau tour. I heard a previous version and it sort of died, but the Meldau quartet version was great - almost habit-forming. I've listened to it maybe a dozen times!
tommy/

[Jazzyteach65]

Originally Posted by TommyD

. In fact, after listening at length to PB, most other jazz guitarists sound like they were all cut from the same mold - a little Pass, a little Wes, a little Tal, a little Raney, a little Benson. Not that that's bad - I love them all. But PB has taken up the task of searching out a completely new jazz guitar style; not an easy task.

tommy/

Exactly. That was my realization, not just with Peter, but with guys like Rez Abbasi and Kurt Rosenwinkle, the more unafraid to take chances guys.

It's funny because when you hear Barney and Herb ect, you can hear Charlie Christian in them, but they really had no choice. But today, I still hear kids trying to be like Joe Pass, Barney Kessel, and Bird ect.

I'm not saying we should all abandon bebop altogether as a language, but the use of cliches and chromaticism and endless "shredding" will get you no where. It's players like this that never grow musically, and never change thier style or approach. That's why I find Scofield's lack of bebop cliche's/ diliberate chromatic licks so refreshing, while (not putting her down) Emily Remler-you could hear Pass and Martino in her playing. I'm not saying to not acknowedge your influences.

I had, and still have to realize who I am as a person, and what appraoches will best reflect my feelings towards the world.

There's a famous Terrance Blanchard quote, where he had been trying to emulate Shorter for so long, then met him in person and realized he didn't have the same calm personality Wayne did, and had to search for his own identity.

the search never dies

[Jake Hanlon]

Sadly the realization of obtaining a unique Voice is rare, if it was easy then we'd have thousands of them. Instead we have only a handful.


I think that chasing that is the more valuable part and once one obtains it, I would assume that playing is pure joy.

[Jazzyteach65]

Originally Posted by Jake Hanlon

Sadly the realization of obtaining a unique Voice is rare, if it was easy then we'd have thousands of them. Instead we have only a handful.


I think that chasing that is the more valuable part and once one obtains it, I would assume that playing is pure joy.

Why do you think that there is such a lack of unique voices or a lack or realization of obtaining a unique voice? Is it because nobody told them "you have to realize what will make you you, and set you apart," or is it that these young kids come out of school with chops galore, and that's all that matters? B/C individuality is not taught, technique, skill and concepts are.

Bill Evans once said that the self-realization process is a long and intrinsic journey, a joyous one, and that is took him until he was 28 to where could start to form his own voice

[Jake Hanlon]

I chalk it up to the mystery of Human nature or the Universe. Being Unique is rare, and even those whom have discovered that voice went through long periods of immitation and struggle to find it. I don't think it's beyond anyone to obtain, I just think that to really actually get it is rare to find.

Then, for all those who find it, to be found by others to point them out to others is another story. That is where things are lacking, there is little to no exposure for Jazz Musicians anywhere in the world outside of NYC's inner community of players who are all trying to "make it". While many of those cats are burning, some even unique there are probably a good equal ratio of players on the same level living anywhere else in the world with no exposure or representation in the global community. So many "jazz fans" are caught up in what happened 50 or 60 years ago that the current community is completely lost upon them in terms of the level of Music. I would argue that the Music itself is as strong if not stronger then it has ever been since Coltrane/Davis 2nd Quintet (considered probably the apex of Modern Jazz and after Trane's death many figured Jazz was at it's end in terms of progression). There are a plethora of unknown Musicans out there tearing up the world on their instruments with amazing contributions who are completely anonymous and will remain that way until the bitter end.

Those out there who consider themselves Jazz Fans should open up their ears and minds to what is happening now as well as continuing to enjoy the music of the old Masters. Too many won't even give anything since 1970 a chance for absolutely no good reason. Or whatever they will listen to from the current catelog is watered down tripe with little to no artistic integrity or value.

I don't think the University Issue has anything to do with it. University has taken over the role of "the Road" now in theory (young musicians mentored and apprenticed under more experienced Musicians in order to learn. While in practice it isn't the same, the concept is the same at heart.) There are a lot of young Musicians coming out of schools from all over with great skills. Some of them will move on to be world class Musicians. Some will be great, some will leave Music as a lifestyle and use it as a hobby. It's been like that since the 1920s. I don't say this because I'm a product of that system and currently work within it. I know very well none of my students truly have a chance of making it big and seeing them on the cover of downbeat, even tho they are talented. it is how the system works, I think most of the except it.

[Reg]

Interesting posts guys... It's a shame there are not more jazz fans in general.
The subject of being unique... reminds me of the chicken or egg thing... do you need to be aware of majority of jazz history, put in the time to develop technical proficiency and understanding of music etc.. basically become a actual musician. Or roll the dice and try and develop what you believe to be something unique and help evolve the field of jazz... with out putting in the required time... what is the required time... anyway I also dig Bernstien... I hear him more as a blues player and wish he had more technique because I dig his approach... his lines are somewhat like melodies, almost like early Benson, with out the chops. And I tend to agree with Jazzyteach... Andres Osberg has a ways to go... but I sure don't hear many who can cover what he pulls off, even if his his style is somewhat like "guitar shop shredders". I do like that title, could be great name for student band... And nowadays it always seems to come down to who's going to listen, and pay to listen... I'm from school that it's part of our job to evangelize jazz... I don't expect audiences to have jazz knowledge... I'm talking about the majority... 80 - 20 rule. If you come right down to it... most players who play jazz don't have jazz knowledge. My point is if you wait or expect audience awareness to come to something or someone unique... don't hold your breath. I gig five nights ... I play too much, but make an effort to check out local players and try and support players coming through town etc... and I'm a musician. In today's world...with access and awareness,(true or false, since it doesn't seem to matter). We need to, as jazz players help bring in and educate our audience as to what jazz is, has been, and might become... or we can roll the dice and see what happens. For me personally I didn't develop my style of playing, or at least play as I wanted until my ears and technique were very developed.... I dig this topic, but need to head to gigs, sorry to split in mid thought. Best Reg

[Jazzyteach65]

Originally Posted by Jake Hanlon

. I know very well none of my students truly have a chance of making it big and seeing them on the cover of downbeat, even tho they are talented. it is how the system works, I think most of the except it.

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.

[Jake Hanlon]

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).

[Jazzyteach65]

Originally Posted by Jake Hanlon

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. ).

I agree. I FIRMLY believe that like how ESPN is fucking up sports (they show the instant gratification, the highlights, and these young kids look at it and think that atheleticism they see in the form of posterizing slam dunks on Sports Center will get them into the NBA. This has been WIDELY debated, ait has butchered the importance of knowing how to intelligently play the sport.I don't know if it's like that with hockey) MTV has ruined music. What's funny is the tune "Video Killed the radio Star," the first MTV video ever, was somewhat of a prophecy. Even rock, R&B and hip-hop artists have to have an "image" We didn't have this problem pre-MTV, b/c all we had to look at was the pics on the record covers.

When we are young and impressionable, we think this garbage on MTV is legit, and it moves us ect. We don't realize what else is out there. Consequently young kids and even older ones are robbed of what true music is. The shit they listen to are fads, meanwhile the stuff they aren't listening to is far more relevant, timeless music. It's a damn shame but it's true. It's ALL about money. Why did Thelonious have to wait nearly 20 years for recognition, only then to be asked to record an album of Beatle covers? It's all capitalism and the "western way" Sorry if I'm rambling

[TommyD]

Originally Posted by Jazzyteach65

I agree. I FIRMLY believe that like how ESPN is fucking up sports (they show the instant gratification, the highlights, and these young kids look at it and think that atheleticism they see in the form of posterizing slam dunks on Sports Center will get them into the NBA. This has been WIDELY debated, ait has butchered the importance of knowing how to intelligently play the sport.I don't know if it's like that with hockey) MTV has ruined music. What's funny is the tune "Video Killed the radio Star," the first MTV video ever, was somewhat of a prophecy. Even rock, R&B and hip-hop artists have to have an "image" We didn't have this problem pre-MTV, b/c all we had to look at was the pics on the record covers.

When we are young and impressionable, we think this garbage on MTV is legit, and it moves us ect. We don't realize what else is out there. Consequently young kids and even older ones are robbed of what true music is. The shit they listen to are fads, meanwhile the stuff they aren't listening to is far more relevant, timeless music. It's a damn shame but it's true. It's ALL about money. Why did Thelonious have to wait nearly 20 years for recognition, only then to be asked to record an album of Beatle covers? It's all capitalism and the "western way" Sorry if I'm rambling

Exactly! It is named the "mainstream". We see it in art, politics, sports, and show business. And it will be ever thus. There is nothing we, or anybody else, can do about it, because it has to do with business and profit, and the promotion of schlock to achieve it. Its unfortunate victims are kids and young people, and anybody else who has a buck to spend.
But it ain't all bad because it weeds out the losers, the couch-potato fans, and the dilettantes whose rockets quickly flame out. And that leaves the field to people who understand the sacrifice necessary for success and are willing to make it. It is, in a way, the way of the world in all things, and has been since we first swung ourselves down out of the trees, (or bit the apple if you prefer).
If jazz became so popular that it filled venues with 30,000 people, I wouldn't like it. We have all seen the Newport jazz "enthusiasts", who are out there on the lawn talking, drinking, nursing their infants, playing cards, smoking who-knows-what, and doing a thousand other things than listening to the jazz - jazz that provides nothing more than elevator music for their picnics.
But that kind of enthusiasm for jazz will never happen. Today's school kids aren't even given a single class in music appreciation, among all the other knowledge they're denied! Most kids can't point to their state on a map!
Thanks anyway. I'll take it as it is - a small club, a record or CD, an enthusiastic group in somebody's rec room. Somewhere in these boards, there's a post I made on taking a New York celebrity, a self-professed jazz fan, to the Blue Note to hear Zoot and Al Cohn, and what happened there that night.
tommy/

[fumblefingers]

Wow this is very interesting and i agree with a heck of a lot of it. But i see a couple of items differently.

College teaches basic professional competency in music, like in anything else. Thats as it should be. Fully developing your artistic identity might happen in four years - but it will probably take longer. Regardless, it will NOT happen while you are attending a college and taking classes all night and day. You need a lot of personal and professional time for application of the theory. College time is busy distraction time.

Another interesting factoid about college education for jazzers. Unlike other professions (besides medicine and law) the masters and doctoral degrees in music seem to be pursued immediately after graduating with a bachelors. Maybe people should get 5 years experience first. But then there are a lot of practical reasons why I don't think that will happen.

The slick commercialization of jazz (and many other styles as was said earlier), is certainly an artistically depressing phenomena. image and good looks come into too, as was noted.

But lets tap the brakes a little on bashing capitalism, please. whether you live in the USA or an authoritarian regime, there is no substitute for basic musical appeal. People will like what they will like. I don't think that we can blame MTV for Rosenwinklel going to Germany to eat. I love jazz and classical, dont listen to pop or rock hardly at all anymore, and never liked MTV, even when it first came out. And yet, i can easily go without ever hearing Rosenwinkel again. (no i'm not picking on him, i just dont love his stuff). So its not all about the corporate and marketing side of music killing artistry. Its more like,.... the music biz isnt bending over backwards to promote marginally appealing music. Too much investment risk.

Also, we seem to be lamenting not being able to make a solid living at making introspective improvisational music, at the same time as bashing capitalism. Is it possible that we are part of the problem? Aren't we willing to starve for our art? Or at least do something else to make a living while making uncompromising art? No? Well then maybe we are feeding the phenomena.

Finally, I believe that people indeed have their own "voice" when they improvise. It is unavoidable in point of fact. (That's true when they play composed music as well but its very subtle and is not the primary point.) There are two fundamantal problems here IMO. Two ugly truths? (1) Masterful improvisation requires mastery of one's intrument in order to be able to freely express any/all fleeting inspirations that float through the mind. The problem? Most people do not have this mastery and never will. (2) Most people don't have anything broadly interesting or appealing to express when they improvise, whether they are playing "hard bop" or fresh new "world".

So, individuality is not rare, it is unavoidable and constant.

But interesting and wildly appealing individuality is rare. And fleeting.

Sorry to be depressingly honest.

[Jazzyteach65]

Originally Posted by TommyD

Today's school kids aren't even given a single class in music appreciation, among all the other knowledge they're denied! Most kids can't point to their state on a map!
tommy/

This is BY FAR one of , if not the most disturbing and sad facets of American youth

[Reg]

Hey fumblefingers... your not depressingly honest... just honest. What's wrong with something being difficult to achieve... I'm not sure you read my post above... I was bringing up the concept that it's part of our job to educate and help make jazz appealing to audiences... if that's what we want. I have and still do... I'm a jazz player and composer... I do cover many other gigs... but even when I cover different styles I promote jazz.
The last couple of nights I covered R&B gigs. I was hired because I can read anything, I'm always in the pocket, listen all the time and when I take solos... I excite the audience...but above all I try and make the ensemble sound better. I'm able to do this because I've put in time and still do. I understand all types of music, can play what I hear and write out what others play... I write out a lot of charts for bands or fix existing charts on the spot. Capitalism's not the problem... We are... and I'm including myself, but I am aware and continue to try and be so. Jazz doesn't sell that well... but I'm in the school that believes if we want to sell jazz... we need to create the market. At some point you need to decide what jazz is and what you want to do with it. Music for music's sake... great if you have no expectations. Once you decide to make jazz or music a source for money... you've install expectations, whether your aware of it or not. It's somewhat like playing a subV... your implying a harmonic collection of notes... whether your aware of it or not. In my personal experience, I've noticed that most people don't like to be told what to do... (at least when their aware of it),
... anyway the short of it is... if you decide to interact in a system, become aware of what and how the system works. That's not to say the system is wright or wrong, changing the system is a different process. Don't become worked by the system... if your going to play music... know what your playing.
On a lighter note... Sundays are great... play jazz for people who appreciate jazz for what it is... and yes we get paid... but I would still be playing even if I didn't. Happy 4th Reg

[Jazzyteach65]

Originally Posted by fumblefingers

Wow this is very interesting and i agree with a heck of a lot of it. But i see a couple of items differently.


But lets tap the brakes a little on bashing capitalism, please. whether you live in the USA or an authoritarian regime, there is no substitute for basic musical appeal. People will like what they will like. I don't think that we can blame MTV for Rosenwinklel going to Germany to eat. Istuff). So its not all about the corporate and marketing side of music killing artistry. Its more like,.... the music biz isnt bending over backwards to promote marginally appealing music. Too much investment risk.

I concur with this, however, my point wasn't that capitalism is soley to blame for Kyrt leaving for Gemrnay (i don't think i ever said that) You are right-and it's human nature, that what is unkown or unheard, something so subjective and personal as improvised music, not a cut-and-dry, black or white good or not, is a financial risk. Once again, my point-it's ALL about money. But by ignoring artists completey, coupled with a general lack of intrest in it, AEG's of the world promote the sure-fire thing: pop.
Lemme tell you a story. Three years ago when I lived in Karachi, there were street musicians singing and playing Ghazals and subcontinental music. One of them, an elder musician, was upset and said something profound (at least to me) he said "I don't see my succeeders. These last few years, popular American music has come in and robbed the kids of thier own musical herritage" Take that for what you want, but it's true.

? (1) Masterful improvisation requires mastery of one's intrument in order to be able to freely express any/all fleeting inspirations that float through the mind. The problem? Most people do not have this mastery and never will.


(2) Most people don't have anything broadly interesting or appealing to express when they improvise, whether they are playing "hard bop" or fresh new "world".

I have to disagree with both points:
(1) Countless people are masters of thier own instruments. In fact, "mastery" is a subjective thing. Was BB not a master? Are minimalists not masters?
This is the same attitude that gets people into thinking/generalizing "well, the good jazz is dead, and any of this new stuff can't possibly be good," when in fact THERE ARE COUNTLESS GREAT, FRESH NEW ARTISTS WHO ARE MASTERFUL IMPROVISORS!
So, individuality is not rare, it is unavoidable and constant.

[Space Pickle]

I might post again later but I have one point of disagreement: you guys are talking about jazz musicians 'getting' recognition. But you don't just 'get' success, you earn it.

I've known a couple hardcore jazz guys who have made themselves into top-notch jazzers. Guys who know like 300 or 400 tunes, can play them in any key, at any tempo, in 7. After they've accomplished that they feel a bit ripped off because they're like "hey, I logged 90000000000000 hours in the woodshed, I've really sharpened up my skills, where's the money?". But these guys don't get that they still have more work to do. They have to create original, creative music and then work to sell it.

My point is you can't just play Green Dolphin Street like 60 years after Miles Davis did and expect accolades. It's been done.

[Jazzyteach65]

Originally Posted by Space Pickle

I might post again later but I have one point of disagreement: you guys are talking about jazz musicians 'getting' recognition. But you don't just 'get' success, you earn it.

I've known a couple hardcore jazz guys who have made themselves into top-notch jazzers. Guys who know like 300 or 400 tunes, can play them in any key, at any tempo, in 7. After they've accomplished that they feel a bit ripped off because they're like "hey, I logged 90000000000000 hours in the woodshed, I've really sharpened up my skills, where's the money?". But these guys don't get that they still have more work to do. They have to create original, creative music and then work to sell it.

My point is you can't just play Green Dolphin Street like 60 years after Miles Davis did and expect accolades. It's been done.

No, actually this thread started out as formning a musical identity, and somehow ended up as "getting recognition." You are right though, I think that those that can play standards in a traditional bop way end up playing Sunday brunches and weddings. Not to say that brunches and weddings are only reserved for those who have shed 400 standards and have chops, weddings and brunches are also for diverse, fresh players with unheard of sounds. I've also noticed that the ones that become lounge players or don't really "make it" only play traditional standards, and I'm not talking about player's standards. In other words, Joe Bloe who has never played a Charles Mingus or Kieth Jarret tune, but can play Misty or Green Dolphin won't garner any recognition as a "difference-maker"

[fumblefingers]

great discussion.

i'll reflect on some of the thoughtful counterpoints.

"most people" is just 51% though

[Jazzyteach65]

Agian, take a player like Frissell; a player who doesn't play with all the "masterful pyrotechnics" and technique, but CLEARLY, like Kurt, Berstein, Abassi, Sco, ect (the newer players) has a personal and fresh voice:

YouTube Video

[fumblefingers]

i really dig that CD too. Frisel is a unique voice.

he didnt develop it in four years at Berklee though. took him awhile.

[Reg]

I've been lucky to have associations with some extremely talented people, in many fields or directions of life. People who are the top in their field in the world, and one, of the many comments I hear from all of them is... their success is a direct relationship to the amount of time they've put into their personal field. ( Obviously the time is organized at a very high level). The next point I always hear is there are plenty of talented people in the world, ( this group of people deal with the best and brightest young people in the world, the freaks), but with out personal motivation, it doesn't really matter. And I always hear the standard comments about how the money doesn't really matter... they all have it though and I usually remind them and then some do have their story of starting from nowhere yada yada... My point is that the systems we function in are not the problem, we are, our ignorance or lack of understandings of what and how they work.
I'm not sure theirs much uniqueness left in jazz. But I don't see that as a problem, as jazzyteach was saying we recognize and identify players style or technique. And I still dig a lot of the jazz that's been played and being played now. I do wonder about players not being able to cover what their trying to play and then wanting money and recognition... maybe we should start a thread to help create standards by which players could be judged, rather than popularity, somehow I don't think that will go over that well...
at least this thread makes players think about what it is to be a musician...
best Reg

[fumblefingers]

sure.

one standard is the classical standard. play the music as true to the original as possible, with the highest performance standards throughout. that's one way to go with jazz, when playing a tune from a past period.

but its not the path taken most of the time. or at least it doesnt seem that way to me when i think about it.

usually players try to do (1) something new and (2) something individual. speaking as a listener i would say that as long as the performance standards are sky high, i'm on board! unlesss whatever it is they try to do with the original doesn't work out so hot. then its.... get 'em next time champ.

[Jazzyteach65]

i wish i could respond now, but just got a shot of cortidsone in my left arm, and can't feel it (typing with one hand)

[TommyD]

Comment for Reg:
There's an old saying that applies here.
"The harder I work, the luckier I get."

tommy/

[Reg]

Originally Posted by TommyD

Comment for Reg:
There's an old saying that applies here.
"The harder I work, the luckier I get."

tommy/

So true... so true, yes I like and remember , thanks YommyD...Reg

[billkath]

My personal view is that a lot of modern jazz is just so boring to the non-jazz musician. The standards had great tunes, great swing and great improv over them. Modern jazz has largely, to me, anyway, turned into a masturbation-fest. Lads playing at a zillion miles an hour, going nowhere fast--it's no wonder it's not popular. It's people saying "look at me" it's like Shred-Metal. I'd say it's like modern art-but it's not. It's serving a micro-niche in the buying public.
Want to become famous? Write good songs that people like.

Identity? Well-it seems to me that identity is being driven out of jazz guitar by theorists. People learning the same way, transcribing other peoples songs, "this is the scale/arp/chordtone to play over this" kind of stuff. We're all guilty of it here-all of us.

Most of us here are around the same age. I can't be the only one here that remembers how music used to be-that you learned a few chords, got out gigging with your mates, who also jknew a few chords, started writing your own songs and that was your road. It was precisely because they DIDN'T know their instrument perfectly that they became original. It was because they were gigging that they developed their own style. They didn't have college degrees before gigging and writing.

My view is-want to be original? Stop trying to be like everyone else. Listen to ALL kinds of music. Play a few open country chords if you want. Don't think about theory when you play-think about sounding musical. ENTERTAIN, and stop worrying about if you're impressing the odd jazz guitarist sitting at the bar. Watch your audiences feet. SMILE.

[Jazzyteach65]

Originally Posted by billkath

Identity? Well-it seems to me that identity is being driven out of jazz guitar by theorists. People learning the same way, transcribing other peoples songs, "this is the scale/arp/chordtone to play over this" kind of stuff. We're all guilty of it here-all of us.

Most of us here are around the same age. I can't be the only one here that remembers how music used to be-that you learned a few chords, got out gigging with your mates, who also jknew a few chords, started writing your own songs and that was your road. It was precisely because they DIDN'T know their instrument perfectly that they became original. It was because they were gigging that they developed their own style. They didn't have college degrees before gigging and writing.

My view is-want to be original? Stop trying to be like everyone else. Listen to ALL kinds of music. Play a few open country chords if you want. Don't think about theory when you play-think about sounding musical. ENTERTAIN, and stop worrying about if you're impressing the odd jazz guitarist sitting at the bar. Watch your audiences feet. SMILE.

1. you're right, we are all guilty of being at some point by-the-book players, meaning when we (myself included) get out of school or private instruction ect, and know all our scales, arps ect, we tend to sound very "academic" as the great Fred Hamilton says. We don't sound personal enough, and sound very much like everything we just spent four or however many years learning.

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

3. You're ABSOLUTELY right, and I'm sure you see this a lot working in the studio. A lot of the "fresher" sounding players integrate other musics and techniques-like the whole country thing with Frisell, or Rez Abassi and Prasanna with thier carnatic articulation. I was hanging out with guitarist Jeff Linsky one day, talking about modern players, and we were talking about one player in particular, and Jeff said "oh, he plays traditional, right?" I realized a bit, that guys STILL bopping it out like they were living in the 50's are not making any differences. This is how we tend to sound early in our stages, but then we grow

[Jazzyteach65]

Originally Posted by Reg

I've been lucky to have associations with some extremely talented people, in many fields or directions of life. People who are the top in their field in the world, and one, of the many comments I hear from all of them is... their success is a direct relationship to the amount of time they've put into their personal field. ( Obviously the time is organized at a very high level). The next point I always hear is there are plenty of talented people in the world, ( this group of people deal with the best and brightest young people in the world, the freaks), but with out personal motivation, it doesn't really matter. And I always hear the standard comments about how the money doesn't really matter... they all have it though and I usually remind them and then some do have their story of starting from nowhere yada yada... My point is that the systems we function in are not the problem, we are, our ignorance or lack of understandings of what and how they work.
I'm not sure theirs much uniqueness left in jazz. But I don't see that as a problem, as jazzyteach was saying we recognize and identify players style or technique. And I still dig a lot of the jazz that's been played and being played now. I do wonder about players not being able to cover what their trying to play and then wanting money and recognition... maybe we should start a thread to help create standards by which players could be judged, rather than popularity, somehow I don't think that will go over that well...
at least this thread makes players think about what it is to be a musician...
best Reg

Reg-would you say lack of technique per se leads to a more unique, personal/individual sound?

[musicjohnny]

Originally Posted by fumblefingers

usually players try to do (1) something new and (2) something individual. speaking as a listener i would say that as long as the performance standards are sky high, i'm on board! unlesss whatever it is they try to do with the original doesn't work out so hot. then its.... get 'em next time champ.

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.