Jazz and Other Styles, Living in a Bubble?

[jmstritt]

I hesitated to post this, but there are some folks on here who's opinion I hold in high esteem. I wanted to get some opinions on this.

Not mentioning any names, but I recently got the priveledge of having a lesson with a top jazz guitarist. This is someone nationally know that I have heard folks on here speak of before.

We played through a few tunes and he stopped for a moment and asked me if I was primarily a jazz player or an R&B player. I explained that I am passionate about jazz, but R&B pays the bills. I do probably 2 or 3 jazz gigs a month and probably 10 or so R&B/Funk gigs. Apparently what tipped him off was that my comping on a latin tune was more choppy/ funk like than straight bossa nova. I will own that and say that was a very fair criticism.

To paraphrase, he said that in order to really be a top jazz player like a Pat Metheny or Kurt Rosenwinkle or something, you have to shut everything out and work on jazz exclusively, because the phrasing and articulation are different. What he told me is that you won't find guitar players who are sought out for their R&B chops AND their Jazz chops. So I thought to myself... George Benson, Jay Graydon, Larry Carlton, Paul Jackson Jr...

I very much respect this person's playing, but I am curious to hear what other folks out there think about this. The guy is a complete monster player and one of my personal favorites, but what I am wondering is this something written in stone or is it just his stylistic preference?

[mr. beaumont]

Jazz guitarists live an odd life...we're told to develop our own voice, but we're also told we need to fit in seamlessly and play "right." It's not a contradiction, it's a double life we lead.

I know for my own development, I need to focus my practice time on only jazz if I'm going to get better at jazz. It helps that I don't need to take "pay the bills" gigs very often, and that I really only enjoy playing jazz...it does take devotion.

It's interesting to see the players you name as excelling in both... seems to me Benson can't be considered anymore, he's a star, a frontman, he does what he wants. Carlton seems to fit a very specific role...the other two may play both well, but they're not getting called on to play with top jazz acts the same way they are with R and B...that list almost supports what this cat said to you...

[cjm]

Hank Garland is one of the first names that popped into my mind when I saw this thread.

Then there were L.A. session musicians like Howard Roberts and Barney Kessel. who for years earned most of their money playing rock anonymously in the recording studio, but who aren't really known outside of jazz circles.

Guys like Bucky Pizzarelli who worked playing everything as faceless members of bands on television shows, but who also maintained careers as "A-list" jazzers.

You mentioned Kurt Rosenwinkle and Pat Metheny as examples of players at a level this guy was telling you could not be achieved without a total commitment to jazz and jazz alone.

They're both good players, but I don't see either of them as being better than the four examples I named above, and while it is a subjective thing, I don't connect with most of their playing, so I don't like them as much as I like Garland, Kessel, Roberts and Pizzarelli for example.

Maybe somebody like me...a hack player...can only play at jazz by devoting all my efforts toward jazz. Which is okay by me, because jazz is all I'm interested in given the limited time I've got, and I'm okay knowing that I will never truly excel at it, provided I progress to become the best I'm capable of at any given time.

But I don't think his admonition is engraved in stone anywhere.

[Drumbler]

Better keep your R&B gigs. They "pay the bills".

[Jazzpunk]

I don't think it matters what other players have been capable of but what you are capable of. If your goal is to become a top jazzer and this teacher whom you respect stopped you after a couple of tunes and called you out, than there is your answer.

FWIW, I play a lot of funk and R&B and have gotten the same exact criticism. As I am not pursuing a career as a top professional jazz guitarist, it didn't bother me. I just took it as something to be mindful of when approaching jazz as a hobbyist.

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

On the other hand, if it's a conscious technique maybe you like getting funky with your bossa!

[jmstritt]

cjm: Thank you for creating a better list of players than the ones I came up with!

Jazzpunk: Good to see that I am not in this boat alone.

What I want to be able to do is play a straight ahead tune, then an EWF tune, and flip back again.

Maybe I just sound like an R&B player playing jazz, if that's the case I can live with it! LOL ;-)

[TruthHertz]

Your teacher's gotten where he's gotten by having this attitude. It's valid for him. But jmstritt, jazz is a huge pool and there is no need to get swimming lessons from someone that doesn't swim the way you do. Give him credit for what he's done: become himself in a tough genre. And move on.
A teacher makes an assumption that in some way you want what he uniquely has. Your perogative is to find the best for you. He may be someone nobody ever heard of and he may give you all you need to be the best you'll ever be.
You are who you are and if you take the tougher road and create something that has ALL the things you can do, and do them well, and love it, it will surely show.
Yeah, I also had a "great" teacher. A "monster" and he told me to do what ever I do, stop where I need to, continue when it's necessary. Nothing you know or learn is ever wasted. He's the best teacher I could have ever found.
The music is about improvisation. Not everyone has the same definition of what that means. Find the teacher that can know you.
David

[fep]

Originally Posted by jmstritt

To paraphrase, he said that in order to really be a top jazz player like a Pat Metheny or Kurt Rosenwinkle or something, you have to shut everything out and work on jazz exclusively,

If I'm reading that bit correctly, he's implying that you have what it takes to develop into a top jazz player. Either that or you're really young and it's too hard at this point to evaluate you.

Since I don't think you're really young (I could be wrong, but you don't write like you're really young)... So I think that was quite the compliment. A top jazz player, that's one of the rarest of all birds (or I guess it should be cats).

[JakeAcci]

Interesting to use Metheny as an example. He does and always has done plenty of stuff that's not straight ahead jazz.

[SammieWammie]

I disagree. My teacher is a monster player, one of the top players in my country (small country though, but he's still great). He's what anybody would call a master at jazz, but he plays everything from gypsy jazz, traditional jazz, has a jazz fusion album, rock, blues, classical, brazilian, flamenco. He once told me to be a great guitarist you had to be able to play all kinds of music (then we went into a short demonstration of the above genres). He also plays piano, he talked about how he studies classical harmony on piano, also broke into a Bill Evans transcription he did when I mentioned Bill Evans one time. He's often said the more he learns in a different genre (or a different instrument), the better he gets at all the others. I think if you can switch between the phrasing used in different genres, or the technique used on different instruments, the more you know the better. I take his word for it, because he's better than me.

Wasn't Charlie Parker a fan of classical music?

[Flyin' Brian]

Originally Posted by JakeAcci

Interesting to use Metheny as an example. He does and always has done plenty of stuff that's not straight ahead jazz.

Exactly. Ditto on the studio guys like Roberts, Kessel and Pizzarelli.

I took lessons from a very highly regarded and recorded jazz player who told me that I had to stop playing my Strat and that any of the post electric Miles influenced guys like Metheny, Sco, Abercrombie, Coryell et al, were not jazz players because they "didn't speak the language". When I suggested to him that all languages had different dialects, he just got irritated. To him, if you didn't play a bunch of regular be bop lines you just weren't a jazz player, and you just couldn't play jazz on a Strat.

Some guys just aren't open to modern ideas.

[Bill C]

I'm very much in favour of being receptive to all sorts of musical influences and enjoy good music of all sorts and from all eras.

However, I think there is something to be said for completely immersing yourself in the music you want to play and/or write authentically. The slightest lack of artistic commitment is normally clear to the serious listener imo and maybe that's where the OP's teacher was coming from.

[jmstritt]

Originally Posted by fep

If I'm reading that bit correctly, he's implying that you have what it takes to develop into a top jazz player. Either that or you're really young and it's too hard at this point to evaluate you.

Since I don't think you're really young (I could be wrong, but you don't write like you're really young)... So I think that was quite the compliment. A top jazz player, that's one of the rarest of all birds (or I guess it should be cats).

Interesting take, I hadn't considered that.

[Flyin' Brian]

Originally Posted by Bill C

I'm very much in favour of being receptive to all sorts of musical influences and enjoy good music of all sorts and from all eras.

However, I think there is something to be said for completely immersing yourself in the music you want to play and/or write authentically. The slightest lack of artistic commitment is normally clear to the serious listener imo and maybe that's where the OP's teacher was coming from.

Referring back to the players mentioned; Roberts et al (the late Tommy Tedesco also comes to mind), I have to disagree with the highlighted statement. I'd ask anyone who listens to these players to find something that shows a lack of commitment. I understand that it's an opinion, as is mine, so I guess we need to agree to disagree on this one.

[Bill C]

Originally Posted by Flyin' Brian

Referring back to the players mentioned; Roberts et al (the late Tommy Tedesco also comes to mind), I have to disagree with the highlighted statement. I'd ask anyone who listens to these players to find something that shows a lack of commitment. I understand that it's an opinion, as is mine, so I guess we need to agree to disagree on this one.

I wasn't referring to any of the players mentioned.

I guess my observation - for what it's worth - was that if the average player dips in and out of various styles it sounds that way to someone who's immersed in that style. My $0.02

[fep]

I think a jazz player can sound good and interesting playing rock and especially playing blues. Like all those cats that played on many of those Steely Dan recordings. Perhaps there feel won't be right on, but they'll sound good.

For many rock players... trying to play jazz won't work so well (I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but you get my idea...)

[cjm]

Just to clarify...I don't know what, if anything, outside the idiom of jazz Pat Metheny has done. I interpreted his mention as a case of being cited as an example of a player who devotes 100% of his energy to jazz and jazz alone, and that this undivided attention is a prerequisite to jazz mastery.

That's where Garland (country, early rock and roll) and the rest were brought in...If Metheny is the example of a player who devotes all his efforts to jazz, I just don't feel that Garland's, Roberts', Kessel's, and Pizzarelli's playing suffers in the least in comparison.

Perhaps a better example would have been Herb Ellis, because his commitment to jazz was publicized and unequivocal. It was a point of pride to him that he never veered from jazz to even work with "society bands." And although I'm a great admirer of Ellis's playing, I never felt he reached the level of jazz guitar mastery that, for example, Howard Roberts achieved -- an unabashed player of every genre in the studio setting.

[Flyin' Brian]

Originally Posted by Bill C

I wasn't referring to any of the players mentioned.

I guess my observation - for what it's worth - was that if the average player dips in and out of various styles it sounds that way to someone who's immersed in that style. My $0.02

Ah OK. That's probably true. And that's also probably why they remain average players. Count me in on that group.

[fumblefingers]

i think that if you want to be great (not just good) and you are talking about either classical or jazz then you have to perfect it with all you've got.

yes you can also dabble with other styles, and play them fairly well. but you have to pick your poison if you want to be a truly great classical or jazz player. practice time equality won't cut it.

[TruthHertz]

Originally Posted by fumblefingers

i think that if you want to be great (not just good) and you are talking about either classical or jazz then you have to perfect it with all you've got.

yes you can also dabble with other styles, and play them fairly well. but you have to pick your poison if you want to be a truly great classical or jazz player. practice time equality won't cut it.

I'd say that's absolutely true, but I'd also say that unlike classical, jazz in an integrative artform; it evolves on eclecticism.
At some point here, we're going to have to define what "jazz" is. For some, the form stopped evolving at bebop, and integrative forms like Stan Getz and bossa don't really qualify as serious jazz. Some would say that post bop music like Hank Mobley's later work don't warrant serious consideration because it takes so much from groove and gospel music.
If the original poster doesn't follow through and create something worthy, I can understand the criticsm and it's valid on that point but to say the coexistence of genres disqualifies one from being a jazz player, that, is only one interpretation of what jazz is. The differences between the OP and his teacher could be evidence of this very thing.

As a peripherally related point, personally, I don't identify with the label of "jazz" as much any more, merely because I'm really tired of strict bop advocates telling me that what I do, and what others I admire are doing is not really "jazz."
To be honest, when you're making good music with your full resources: mind, tradition, innovation, feeling, time, harmonic awareness to name a few, it doesn't matter what it's called, but the passing of judgement along genre lines can be a destructive thing.
We ask ourselves, what is jazz? and is it quality of performance or eclecticism that makes it good or bad?
There are still some that say Monk was not a good player, was not real jazz, not in the same way Tatum, Peterson or Pass was. If Monk were reincarnated as a guitarist, there would be lots that would say he couldn't play jazz. There are lots of criteria for what jazz is.
The sentiments of the OP and his teacher might be seen as evidence of this.
David

[rayme330]

TruthHertz I think your two posts in this thread are succinct and to the point
and sum up what I would like to have said if only I could have put the words together as eloquently as you.

[cosmic gumbo]

I once took some lessons with the world's greatest jazz tuba player and he said I didn't know enough marching band and circus music to ever be a real jazz player. He also said my tuba smelled like a bong, so I pushed him down the stairs and broke his arm. When I got out of prison, I switched to guitar and what was the question?

[fumblefingers]

Originally Posted by TruthHertz

I'd say that's absolutely true, but I'd also say that unlike classical, jazz in an integrative artform; it evolves on eclecticism.
At some point here, we're going to have to define what "jazz" is. For some, the form stopped evolving at bebop, and integrative forms like Stan Getz and bossa don't really qualify as serious jazz. Some would say that post bop music like Hank Mobley's later work don't warrant serious consideration because it takes so much from groove and gospel music.
If the original poster doesn't follow through and create something worthy, I can understand the criticsm and it's valid on that point but to say the coexistence of genres disqualifies one from being a jazz player, that, is only one interpretation of what jazz is. The differences between the OP and his teacher could be evidence of this very thing.

As a peripherally related point, personally, I don't identify with the label of "jazz" as much any more, merely because I'm really tired of strict bop advocates telling me that what I do, and what others I admire are doing is not really "jazz."
To be honest, when you're making good music with your full resources: mind, tradition, innovation, feeling, time, harmonic awareness to name a few, it doesn't matter what it's called, but the passing of judgement along genre lines can be a destructive thing.
We ask ourselves, what is jazz? and is it quality of performance or eclecticism that makes it good or bad?
There are still some that say Monk was not a good player, was not real jazz, not in the same way Tatum, Peterson or Pass was. If Monk were reincarnated as a guitarist, there would be lots that would say he couldn't play jazz. There are lots of criteria for what jazz is.
The sentiments of the OP and his teacher might be seen as evidence of this.
David

i hear you. it seems that there have been a number of strong opinions about this topic over the years and it hasn't really stopped. (the arrests by the jazz po-lice that is)

given the year, i cant see how the jazz police purists can hold out much longer. take fusion and "world" music for example. they've been out there for decades now and have been composed and played by some very talented and dedicated people.

i think that it would be much more productive if jazzers simply embraced the various (and already defined) styles/periods and viewed them as legitimate. from that point we simply need to know how to write and play the different styles. in other words, things change over time, you just can't fight it.

on the other hand i dont see why we need to "occupy" jazz, say that it's "a lie", or say it "ain't shit", as Nicholas Payton did recently. i think thats even more destructive than being a narrow minded jazz "policeman".

[coolvinny]

The guy I take occasional lessons from is a monster guitar player...a jazz guitar machine! And he can also play the heck out of rock and country stuff. Oh, and he can sight-read like a mo'fo too...he loves playing classical and he describes what the underlying chords of a Bach tune are in real-time as he reads through them. Yes, he's a monster.

Come to think of it, the guy I used to take lessons with years back in another city was also a monster jazz player but he loved travis pickin tunes too and he 'paid the bills' playing a lot of Chicago blues.

But these guys spent tens of thousands of hours honing their craft...and I think that's the theme here - someone who's good enough (i.e. has practiced enough) can play whatever the heck they want. For me, as an amateur with a busy day job, I focus on jazz since that's the area I want to improve in and if I ever do gig, I want it to be in jazz (maybe when I'm retired??).

Obviously you have to pay the bills so relinquishing your R&B chops isn't an option. Maybe the answer is to be a bit more concious of the differences between the two styles so that you can make your jazz sound a bit more authentic? Just a thought. If you were teaching someone jazz and also R&B, how would you explain/demonstrate the differences to them? Maybe apply that sort of thinking to your playing.

[mike walker]

Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo

I once took some lessons with the world's greatest jazz tuba player and he said I didn't know enough marching band and circus music to ever be a real jazz player. He also said my tuba smelled like a bong, so I pushed him down the stairs and broke his arm. When I got out of prison, I switched to guitar and what was the question?

That was like watching a good Coen Bro Film and I have to thank ya for it.

[NSJ]

My teacher only teaches jazz and classical guitar. He won't take rock and roll students (or country, or flamenco, or any other style), because he is humble enough to recognize that is not his expertise and a student will be better served going somewhere else. Contrast that with the many incompetent teachers out there who say they are ready to teach you "anything, any style". He only teaches jazz and classical. As he said, "jazz was our music; we grew up listing to it, we didn't have to 'discover' it; it was our music, it was all around us".

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. Rather, when rock and roll blew up and drowned a lot of jazz musicians in its wake, my teacher turned to Segovia and the classical guitar.

I have leaned a ton about, not just music, but the music industry, from him. When he first started in the mid 50s, there were nightclubs, music halls, hotel rooms, restaurant gigs galore. That's how jazz musicians learned back then. There were no schools back then. Just like there are now gigs, now. The landscape has changed much, since then, alas.

Two fundamental things I have learned is that it is possible to be humble and always learning and yet also discriminating and stand up for art-for-art's sake. A couple weeks ago, I heard an old story about a friend and colleague of his, a very-famous, world class and very popular jazz guitarist and singer (IMHO, one of the very very best who has ever lived and played jazz guitar) who many have discussed here, particularly for his unorthodox picking technique, who once asked my teacher if he could take lessons from him. My teacher humbly declined, basically saying that his friend was so good, he hardly needed instruction from him.

We are all always students, and music is really a multi-lifetime endeavor. That is the fundamental lesson I have learned.

I wish I was ten years old again and could start over, knowing what I know now and applying it to back then.

In the end, so shall it be as it was in the beginning, and music remains its own reward.

[Richb]

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.....

[cosmic gumbo]

I don't even want to consider playing with another musician who can't play Wooly Bully.

[NSJ]

Originally Posted by Richb

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.....

Why do I think if you ran into Johnny Smith, you'd give him grief because he's not up with the latest Modest Mouse, Gorilaz, Pantera, or Kanye release?

Adam Rogers is in to the music of now, and into the music of 70 years ago. Like most of us are.