-
Tonight I was reflecting on the demise of jazz as a dominant presence in the media spectrum in terms of popularity. It occurs to me that one factor is that often jazz is presented purely as an instrumental arrangement rather than incorporating vocals taking the melody line. I address this issue as both a guitar player and a vocalist whose day job is not music.
When I work on jazz songs to record, I usually am thinking of the arrangement as including vocals, which logically represent the melody line, especially as I enjoy singing. It seems that the most venerated artists in our culture are vocalists, though jazz is not a dominant player by comparison with popular music including country. Back in the day when jazz was a vital cultural player as the pop music of its time, singers like Sinatra and Bennett were the pop stars of their day. Many of the big bands featured vocalists on some of their tunes alongside the great instrumentalists in their company.
I realize those days are past and gone, but when I go to record, I find that many of the jazz standards just seem to have more impact when the melody is sung by a competent vocalist. And the instrumental arrangement can just "gel" better and get more exciting, though not always. To be concrete, tonight I was working through a variety of songs, but two in particular are the subject of commentary here - Two For The Road by Henry Mancini and But Beautiful by Jimmy van Heusen.
I had already created a transcription of the latter tune, but not the Mancini song. So I was listening to a couple of versions of TFTR on YT, including Johnny Mathis and several instrumental ones including versions by Metheny and Haden. Oddly enough, I have never found the vocal versions even by an artist like Mathis to be as endearing as the instrumental ones, though I find the opposite conclusion when considering the Van Heusen tune.
So tonight I created a transcription lead sheet just for TRTR in the key of C for simplicity, though I also like the way the arrangement plays in the key of A. At this point I am limiting the transcription to an enhanced lead sheet, as I improvise the performance, but I like using the lead sheet for recording and rehearsal with the midi tracks to mark the transition points and have the lyrics linked to the melody.
Afterwards I turned my attention to BB - here the story was reversed, where I prefer this great tune with the vocals over purely instrumental. I had already created a Sibelius transcription in they key of G, a nice key for the instrumental approach, but a bit of a strain for a tenor vocalist. But simply transposing to the key of D just made the song breathe and gel in a neat way instrumentally on guitar.
As an aside, I find that the choice of key, often determined by the preference of the vocalist, can be so important for the guitar arrangement as well. In the case of BB, dropping the key to D just worked beautifully with the guitar arrangement as well. Of course, there are also tradeoffs.
I realize this post is rambling a bit, but to conclude I think for most songs the arrangements with a good vocalist seem to me to communicate better with the audience in terms of adding another dimension (lyrical) to the instrumental song performance. And having the melody in the hands of a vocalist, the instrumentalists taking a solo or creating fills have more dramatic impact. Yet so much of jazz today is just instrumental, sometimes the better for it, but I wonder if there is a detrimental effect regarding the music's overall popularity in the culture. I'm thinking by comparison with some popular artists such as Diane Krall or Eliane Elias. Any thoughts on this issue?
JayLast edited by targuit; 10-02-2014 at 09:42 AM.
-
10-02-2014 05:37 AM
-
I would say the lack of vocals definitely hurts popularity.
Interestingly enough, the lack of vocals makes me enjoy it more. There's very few jazz vocalists I care to listen to.
-
I agree with Jeff but with an additional qualification: There are few contemporary jazz singers that I care to listen to. Most of the current crop of jazz singers, as do many instrumentalists, focus too much on trying to be hip and technical. There are exceptions, of course.
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
The singers who are, for most of us, forever associated with the Great American Songbook, Crosby, Sinatra, Cole, Clooney, Vaughn, Holiday, Fitzgerald, Bennett, Hartman, London, Stafford and Washington were concerned first and foremost with communicating the composer's intent. To use an industry phrase, "They sold the song".
Few of them, with the notable exceptions of Armstrong, Fitzgerald and Vaughn, ever engaged in scatting or other vocal pyrotechnics. The best jazz or jazz-influenced singers got inside the song and delivered it to the audience. The very best ones employed phrasing and subtle melodic variations to personalize their performances.
Many of today's jazz singers, or their arrangers, change the melodies and harmonies of classic tunes whole-cloth to the point that they bear no resemblance to the original. To me, this shows a serious lack of respect for the source material.
Bluegrass bandleader Bill Monroe used to admonish his band members to "Play it like it was wrote, boys".
Regards,
Jerome
-
I think this is, indisputably, the case.
I love a lot of the older jazz vocalists. Obviously Ella and Billie. I try to sing along with and learn from Bing Crosby, Nat Cole, Sinatra, Martin, Joe Wilson, etc. I often prefer the male bass vocalists because they deliver the melody in a very straight way. Sometimes the vocal theatrics and scatting can be a bit of a turn-off for me. I don't know why. It can just come off as a little goofy.
Armstrong, Ella and Mel Torme are the only scatters that I've ever really enjoyed. I don't try to scat myself, although I do sing along with my guitar soloing sometimes.
I can't really think of any contemporary male vocalists in jazz that I enjoy. I really like Dianne Reeves, although even her concerts can be a little flat for me because her soloists tend to be very boxed in.
I've never heard anyone sing in the context of a modern jazz group, like one of Joshua Redman's quartets, or Branford's group, in a way that let the jazz happen. I'd love to hear that, because I think a vocalist who could state one of those really beautiful, cool, dark Wayne Shorter-style melodies in a very straightforward way then get out of the way so the soloists could burn would be really amazing.
I guess that's kind of my dream for the future and long-term goal if I can get my playing and singing together.
-
There's some VERY cool vocal performances on Ambrose Akinmusire's latest record.
-
Haven't ever heard that name. I'll check it out. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
Very...not traditional. In the best possible way.
-
Newer artists like Robert Glasper, Ambrose Akinmusire, Next Collective, Gerald Clayton and others are including tracks with vocal and spoken word. Roy Hargove's Hardgroove CD from awhile back is a big favorite of mine has vocals and spoken word. What got me into some Rap was the some of the early Rap that had some kicked back Jazz groove. Some of the Roots early work and others. I remember I think it Coke had a really Cool commercial with a laid back Rap-Jazz for the background. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
Artists are trying but the masses today are hard to get to with streaming and Pop radio addiction to mega star and formula music. Getting onto those playlists isn't easy especially since most of this Jazz artists are on small or indie labels with limited marketing/payola budgets.
-
I was watching the Icons Among Us DVD set again yesterday and all the young up and coming Jazz player talking about tradition and being themselves. That you have to study the past, but be yourself. One piano player was talking about Monk and how Monk own approach to writing and playing, but you could still hear the gospel, blues, and other earlier piano players influence in Monk's music. I think my favorite was Robert Glasper talking and said if Charlie Parker came back today and heard these people playing his stuff he'd get ticked. Charlie would say I played all that already it's done you need to move on and do something great of your own. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
I forget who I was reading a week ago that was saying if someone comes to a Jazz concert expecting to hear something, then they really aren't a Jazz fan. Jazz is about constantly exploring and pushing boundaries.
I me the good "traditional" Jazz players are still adding something new, they just aren't pushing as hard.
-
I like some of the 'third road' type musician collaborations like Chris Botti and Sting. I think when you venture too far from the dance floor "where the magic happens" to the concert venue alla classical music, you lose the pulse and the swing. Unless you want an audience of other musicians. There is a kind of worship of the avant guarde in jazz that is rarifying to the point of asphyxiation. To get the blood running it helps if the music is sensual as well as cerebral.
Jay
-
My favorite jazz singers are Karen Carpenter, Sade and Luther Vandross.
OK, I guess that's not jazz. Shoe-be-doo.
Come on jazz musicians you have to admit Karen Carpenter did have a nice voice.
-
More than nice. Karen Carpenter had an amazing voice. As a teen, I rejected such "bubblegum" music, but as time passed, I realized that her voice was not only good but unusually so. I wish she had lived longer---it would be interesting to see what she turned her voice to later on. Originally Posted by Stevebol
-
I do almost all of my jazz arrangements with vocals.
Best guess is I get booked mostly because of my singing.
-
Nice vocals and a good arrangement overall. What is your technical setup for creating your recordings? Mic, recorder, computer? And tell us about your guitar and approach to creating backing tracks.
Jay
-
Is there anything in music as wonderful as good singing and good playing - at the same time?
I love these guys. They play my kind of Jazz.
Oster Welker Jazz Alliance
Last edited by AlsoRan; 10-05-2014 at 11:04 PM. Reason: grammar
-
Karen Carpenter was amazing. In some ways she reminded me of Keeley Smith... great tone and clean. On the Contemporary scene, I've seen Connie Evingson a few times and she's also got a really nice, straightforward approach to the old tunes. Here's In a Semi Mental Mood.
-
Nice job EightString. Originally Posted by EightString
Any tips on fixing a bad vibrato? Mine is a mess. I'm doing it from the gut and I can't seem to fix it. I'll figure a way around my weak breath control but the vibrato bugs me.
Could these two things be related?
-
I'm not a voice teacher, but I can tell you about my approach. My vibrato comes from regulated pitch change in the larynx (voice box) not a change in air flow from the lungs or diaphragm. I try to keep my air flow as consistent and steady as possible. Originally Posted by Stevebol
If you are in a bad habit of doing your vibrato "from the gut", you should try to stop this by practicing singing with consistent air-flow and NO vibrato to get used to getting a good sound without it.
Once you break that habit and can sing consistently without vibrato, you can start work on a pitch-based vibrato starting with slow, steady oscillation between a target note and a slightly flat pitch of the same note. There are good musical reasons why vibrato between a note and a slightly flat pitch of that note sounds better than vibrato that uses a sharp pitch of the note.
At first, this exercise will feel slow and "mechanical" because your voice box muscles haven't "learned" to do this automatically. Once you do get this feeling more automatic, your vibrato should start speeding up naturally to sound like, well, like vibrato.
But as you learn this technique, do work on keeping some subtlety. I personally dislike heavy "machine gun" vibrato.
However, this is mostly guesswork since I'm not a teacher and I haven't actually heard what you're doing with your voice. Take all my advice with a grain of salt.
-
I find that the diaphragm control is an integral part of vibrato, to state the obvious. I find that when I do scratch tracks, recording both guitar and vocal in a sitting position, that the vibrato is more pronounced. Whereas when I stand to sing in full voice with proper diaphragm control for a keeper track, the vibrato is less pronounced until you 'relax' into it at the end of a sustained vowel, such as a whole note duration at the end of a phrase. At least that is my experience. Sadly, as you get older, your lung vital capacity diminishes and vibrato can be more pronounced, whether intentional or not. Sitting down is not conducive to maximal lung capacity and vocal control.
Jay
-
I'll try this. It's my understanding that some people have to learn vibrato from scratch. MY problem is unevenness and a fast rate + a low voice (baritone). Originally Posted by EightString
-
This is all true and some terrific points. While good vibrato is not produced from manipulating the diaphragm itself, proper diaphragm-based breath support with an even flow of air is critical to real vibrato. Originally Posted by targuit
In fact, my earlier exercise suggestion of oscillating between semi-tones is really still just an approximation, to give one a feel for what tends to come naturally after one has been singing with proper support for a while.
Proper breath support from the diaphragm allows the singer to more easily "find" their true vibrato.
-
Don't let your voice "category" limit you. With proper breath support and a relaxed technique, one can do wonders. I started life as a bass (I can still do a "Russian" G1 basso profundo with relative ease) but with some great coaching, I can now sing up to a high "C" tenor without flipping into falsetto. Originally Posted by Stevebol
Two key things a voice teacher will talk about, aside from breath support, are a relaxed technique and "placing" the sound properly. The higher the note, the more it should resonate in your head, not your throat or chest, and every note, low or high, should feel open and relaxed.
Talking about it on a forum is good, but I HIGHLY recommend finding a good voice teacher in your area. I had been a professional singer for decades, but when I finally went to a good voice teacher, his help breaking bad habits and learning good ones opened my voice up immensely.
-
I agree with Monk and what may seem strange to many readers is that those vocalists mentioned, along with Mel Torme, Arthur Prysock,Billy Eckstine and the early Jubilee recordings of Della Reese were the singers responsible for leading me to what we call "jazz." My ear wasn't as developed years ago and it needed the great American composers material to be delivered straight, if you will, in order for me to follow the melody years later by guitarists, Kessel, Burrell, Montgomery, Smith, Ellis, etc., (Joe Pass came much later !) and tenor saxophonists such as Hawkins, Webster, Quebec, Jacquet, Stitt, Coltrane, Mobley and many others.
Having vocals of standards played more often by the media coupled with an instrumental version of the same tune, I think, would open the ears of the uninitiated. I've compiled CD's of such doubles that have proven intriguing to many, not all. of our party guests. A few examples : "I See Your Face Before Me" Johnny Hartman followed by Hank Mobley; "Lover Man" Sarah Vaughan followed by Ike Quebec; "Willow, Weep For Me" Dinah Washington followed by Sonny Stitt; "I'm A Fool To Want You" Sinatra, then Illinois Jacquet and so on.
Studying the vocal makes one appreciate a ballad instrumental even more and vice versa !
Finally, this site has so many great contributors, opinions, tips and general knowledge and I extend a grateful thank you to all concerned.
-
Couldn't help bringing one of my heroes into the discussion. To have those chops AND be able to vocalize like Chet did is double trouble. One of the greats.
If only I could get the great trumpet/flugel guy I work with to sing like that..he can get the Chet sound but not the vocal.
Does anyone think Diana Krall would be as popular and a mega star just as a pianist? She's triple trouble-looks good, plays good AND sings good!
Reply With Quote
mclaughlin sound here
Today, 12:26 AM in The Players