Jazz and Other Styles, Living in a Bubble?

[cjm]

A few thoughts:

1. When players condescend to other styles, this is their way of (inadvertently) saying they can't actually play those styles, so they pretend they are above them

2. Funk/rnb/rock are a decent part of jazz nowadays. We aren't in the 40's anymore, and haven't been for 70 years. If you want to play the vital/relevant version of jazz, you better be very conversant with those "pop" styles. They have been part of the language for quite a long time now.

3. As in the field of science, it only takes a single example which contradicts an (asinine) opinion, to prove that opinion wrong. I can think of lots of deep jazz players that can fully function in rock or pop, and that are equally good in both styles: James Muller, Adam Rogers, Mike Brecker, etc etc.
In fact it seems that most of the top jazzers around today are fully conversant with rock/other styles. It is a litmus test which illustrates their open-mindedness and egalitarian attitudes to other styles, and their jazz playing is the better for it.

Personally, I would almost go so far as to say that a cat who can't cut other styles very well, can't play jazz very well either.
My experience has confirmed this view too.....

That sounds good, but I honestly think it is specious.

While we all (yes, me too) should be wary of immediately dismissing that which we don't like (because it may be a matter of not understanding it at first), there is also the potential to become a Pollyanna who declares "It's all good," without ever engaging the brain to employ some critical thinking skills.

Maybe it is "all good," but no, it isn't "all of similar quality."

There is a need to be open minded, but there is also a need to be discriminating. Otherwise music becomes indistinguishable from background noise.

[JakeAcci]

I knew a fantastic, very "high level" jazz bassist once who said that it isn't fair for a musician to critique or dislike a style that that musician can't himself play.

I thought, and still think, it's one of the stupidest assertions I've ever heard from an adult regarding art, taste, and personal preferences.

[robertm2000]

A deeply buried thought just came to the surface: "If I can play it well enough, PAY ME."

[Atticus]

Personal preference: I'd rather be a "pretty good" guitarist who is fluent in many styles and comfortable in most groups than an "outstanding" guitarist who is only good at one specific style.

I think a lot of different genres have important stylistic techniques and being able to play in those genres can crossover into jazz. I've actually been made to explore other genres because of our school jazz band. I didn't even know about funk inversions until we got a chart for Celebration and I noticed the chords were written very oddly. We do a arrangement of Killer Joe with a funky breakdown in the middle of it, and I spend most of it playing choppy, high string chords and funk rhythms I learned from listening to Catfish Collins.

[ronjazz]

We're all different.

[Spirit59]

My teacher never adopted to rock and roll when it blew up in the early 60s, and it cost him dearly, financially, when he refused to take studio gigs to play the new music, as did colleagues such as Barney Kessel or Tommy Tedescho.

Fact: Tommy Tedescho(sp) made a boatload of money playing rock 'n' roll.

[Flyin' Brian]

Fact: Tommy Tedescho(sp) made a boatload of money playing rock 'n' roll.

Tedesco

He did a few films and some TV work too:

Tommy Tedesco - IMDb

[Flyin' Brian]

There is a need to be open minded, but there is also a need to be discriminating. Otherwise music becomes indistinguishable from background noise.

I wonder how discriminating you'd think that Elvin Jones was.

My son Ed is a rock drummer with the Doobie Brothers. He met Elvin at a show years ago. During introductions he mentioned how he had studied and played some jazz at University of Miami, but he was "only playing in a rock band" these days.

Elvin's response? "Man it's good. We all just playin' music". It's always seemed to me that having an open mind is a necessary gateway to creativity.

[fumblefingers]

Personal preference: I'd rather be a "pretty good" guitarist who is fluent in many styles and comfortable in most groups than an "outstanding" guitarist who is only good at one specific style.

I think a lot of different genres have important stylistic techniques and being able to play in those genres can crossover into jazz. I've actually been made to explore other genres because of our school jazz band. I didn't even know about funk inversions until we got a chart for Celebration and I noticed the chords were written very oddly. We do a arrangement of Killer Joe with a funky breakdown in the middle of it, and I spend most of it playing choppy, high string chords and funk rhythms I learned from listening to Catfish Collins.

so, you'd rather be "a practitioner of many, and master of none" , eh?

that's cool.

but to what end?

[Flat]

At some point here, we're going to have to define what "jazz" is. For some, the form stopped evolving at bebop...
David

That's the crux of it all, imho.

For example, Bill Frisell is one of the most popular "jazz" guitarists working today, and he draws from all sorts of influences. Country, blues, rock, folk. He's not trying to squeeze into someone else's paradigm. Is that jazz?

[Spirit59]

That's the crux of it all, imho.

For example, Bill Frisell is one of the most popular "jazz" guitarists working today, and he draws from all sorts of influences. Country, blues, rock, folk. He's not trying to squeeze into someone else's paradigm. Is that jazz?

What he's doing is certainly more in the spirit of jazz than those who are currently aping yesterdays masters, that's for sure. I'm sure he doesn't care what you call it.

[samrsmiley]

This thread is old but I wanted to chime in here. I think the original's teacher is actually right on. The people he mentions are movers and shakers-innovators of jazz. They couldn't do it while trying to carry on a career playing a lot of different styles.
I think the thing is being a 'working' musician (which I am in your boat, not Rosenwinkle's!) is that you have to cultivate a degree of competence in many things to keep working. I completely agree with that and see how it is necessary. But honestly, are any of us shoulder to shoulder with Rosenwinkle or Metheny? (If so can you please email me and I'll pay you a crapload of money for a lesson!)

The real deal here is following your own thing-I've long held that Frisell belongs in a category of his own, as does Metheny. These guys would probably sound interesting in a jobbing (R&B) gig, but sound completely out of place for the context. Not saying they are bad, but they do their thing and it doesn't fit in the style of R&B, money making music. Which is also fine because I think those guys would rather not do that stuff (or they would, they are all THAT talented) and make enough money that they don't have to. In your 'heart of hearts' would you rather be playing jazz your way or jobbing?? I suspect playing jazz. What he was getting at is that to get to the insanely high levels of the people described that you would have to devote an immense amount of energy and study.

Now I am not one of the jazz only guys, and don't even want to be. I like to play it, but through my own experiences similar to above, I have decided I need to make my own path-and to make money either do the jobbing stuff or find other income sources. Which is all cool you know.

And c'mon Tommy Tedesco and Larry Carlton are great, but not Metheny, not Rosenwinkle, not Frisell, not Charlie Christian, etc. Their music is good to listen to and everything but they are not the innovators that the teacher mentioned originally is talking about.

[samrsmiley]

And c'mon Tommy Tedesco and Larry Carlton are great, but not Metheny, not Rosenwinkle, not Frisell, not Charlie Christian, etc. Their music is good to listen to and everything but they are not the innovators that the teacher mentioned originally is talking about.

Let me clarify-these guys are great musicians and actually do THEIR thing, they are not jazz innovators who have pushed the music forward. They have innovated their own niches and perform excellent-ly.

[Spirit59]

And c'mon Tommy Tedesco and Larry Carlton are great, but not Metheny, not Rosenwinkle, not Frisell, not Charlie Christian, etc. Their music is good to listen to and everything but they are not the innovators that the teacher mentioned originally is talking about.

Let me clarify-these guys are great musicians and actually do THEIR thing, they are not jazz innovators who have pushed the music forward. They have innovated their own niches and perform excellent-ly.

Can you further clarify? I can see the disparity between the two groups of musicians, but are you saying the 2nd group (Metheny et al) are NOT innovators and have NOT pushed the music forward? We can say that Rosenwinkel is sort of descendant from Metheny, or that Frisell from Jim Hall, but surely they have contributed in some way to "moving the music forward" (which is pretty vague, I know)

[samrsmiley]

Can you further clarify? I can see the disparity between the two groups of musicians, but are you saying the 2nd group (Metheny et al) are NOT innovators and have NOT pushed the music forward? We can say that Rosenwinkel is sort of descendant from Metheny, or that Frisell from Jim Hall, but surely they have contributed in some way to "moving the music forward" (which is pretty vague, I know)

No I AM saying Metheny, Rosenwinkel, Frisell, etc are moving it forward. Tommy Tedesco and Barney Kessel didn't, and neither did Larry Carlton. Well they didn't move jazz forward. I mean they did some amazing stuff and played great music. They moved the guitar forward as an instrument. And some guys are just great practitioners of a style without innovating, like Sonny Stitt or even Martino. They are amazing players, developed their own sound but did within the style.

I guess you could even say all three of those guys moved the studio guitarist forward, but not jazz. I don't think any of them contributed anything meaningful to the general jazz guitar vocabulary or style. Carlton came after Di Meola and McLaughlin (and even Larry Coryell). Kessel is probably the only one who comes close to contributing to the jazz vocab, but you hear just about everything he plays in the playing of Charlie Christian, Tiny Grimes, and the guitarists with Nat King Cole (whose name escapes me). They did transform how guitar players approach becoming a studio guitarist though-a topic I don't know too much about.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying they are not great players (I published a lesson based on Kessel's comping on my website).

So my main point in all of it is that in order to be the Metheny, Montgomery, Jim Hall caliber (of which there is like 10 to 30 in the history of jazz guitar) yea you don't really have the time to deal with other styles-but why would you want to if you're that good?!.
I'd even say guys like Kessel didn't REALLy deal with rock and roll-they might be on a few things and can play the guitar well enough to be in sessions, but you wouldn't say "learn rock and roll by listening to Barney Kessel and Tommy Tedesco." They are all great in their own right, but to make a movement in jazz or to be an extremely high level jazz player I agree with the original poster's teacher saying that you have to devote your musical energy to that one thing.

[samrsmiley]

What he's doing is certainly more in the spirit of jazz than those who are currently aping yesterdays masters, that's for sure. I'm sure he doesn't care what you call it.

This is right on man! I have thought this way for years-putting Frisell with Monk, Miles, Bird etc in terms of 'spirit of the music.' Maybe not chops wise with Bird, but yea this is totally right on.

[cjm]

No I AM saying Metheny, Rosenwinkel, Frisell, etc are moving it forward. Tommy Tedesco and Barney Kessel didn't, and neither did Larry Carlton. Well they didn't move jazz forward. I mean they did some amazing stuff and played great music. They moved the guitar forward as an instrument. And some guys are just great practitioners of a style without innovating, like Sonny Stitt or even Martino. They are amazing players, developed their own sound but did within the style.

I guess you could even say all three of those guys moved the studio guitarist forward, but not jazz. I don't think any of them contributed anything meaningful to the general jazz guitar vocabulary or style. Carlton came after Di Meola and McLaughlin (and even Larry Coryell). Kessel is probably the only one who comes close to contributing to the jazz vocab, but you hear just about everything he plays in the playing of Charlie Christian, Tiny Grimes, and the guitarists with Nat King Cole (whose name escapes me). They did transform how guitar players approach becoming a studio guitarist though-a topic I don't know too much about.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying they are not great players (I published a lesson based on Kessel's comping on my website).

So my main point in all of it is that in order to be the Metheny, Montgomery, Jim Hall caliber (of which there is like 10 to 30 in the history of jazz guitar) yea you don't really have the time to deal with other styles-but why would you want to if you're that good?!.
I'd even say guys like Kessel didn't REALLy deal with rock and roll-they might be on a few things and can play the guitar well enough to be in sessions, but you wouldn't say "learn rock and roll by listening to Barney Kessel and Tommy Tedesco." They are all great in their own right, but to make a movement in jazz or to be an extremely high level jazz player I agree with the original poster's teacher saying that you have to devote your musical energy to that one thing.

I think if you listen to Barney Kessel's earliest work, from about the time of Charlie Christian's death, you will realize that not only did he move jazz guitar forward, he contributed to jazz overall, and did both to a MUCH greater extent than you are giving him credit for.

Much of what you hear from recordings made in the 1950s and later -- which I think you may be interpreting as Kessel merely mimicking prior art -- actually represents technical refinement of his own ground breaking work during the 1940s.

[fauves]

Kessel is one of the guys that got me interested in wanting to learn some standards. His early work and even thru the early 60's is fantastic.