The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posts 26 to 46 of 46
  1. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by fumblefingers
    No way Jose. Just think how Metheny came out of the gate, so to speak. Bright Size Life, Watercolors, Pat Metheny Group.

    His artistic status was gigantic compared to those other players that you've mentioned, solid as they are.
    But what was it about his music or his playing that made him skyrocket above the rest? And kris I agree I'm just using metheny as an example

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #27

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by nick1994
    But what was it about his music or his playing that made him skyrocket above the rest? And kris I agree I'm just using metheny as an example
    Metheny had a sound and a concept that was unique in its day. He sounded like no one else. The youngish jazz guitar players were doing McLaughlin fusion-esque. PM played melodically and used a triadic approach. He was relatively unconcerned with flash. Therefore he turned the jazz guitar world on its ear. He found way to play modern jazz with a guitar, which had been a problem of sorts. He was startlingly fresh.

  4. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by henryrobinett
    Metheny had a sound and a concept that was unique in its day. He sounded like no one else. The youngish jazz guitar players were doing McLaughlin fusion-esque. PM played melodically and used a triadic approach. He was relatively unconcerned with flash. Therefore he turned the jazz guitar world on its ear. He found way to play modern jazz with a guitar, which had been a problem of sorts. He was startlingly fresh.
    Do you think there is an opportunity for new musicians to have the same impact? obviously since the 70's jazz has changed, its audience has changed, there's so much stuff happening right now, but do you think there will be another up and comer with a fresh sound that could shake the jazz world again, or has it all been done before?

  5. #29

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by kris
    for me X-factro is waht it is.
    I did not see any of it.
    I wrote a substantial reply last night on my iPhone in bed and the internet ate it up. Lets see if I can recreate it. This is late and out of date. Sorry.

    X-Factor doesn't explain anything. Perhaps there IS nothing to be explained. Perhaps it is ineffable. But from my experience around many of these legends -- not all, but enough. Well almost all. They envelop the room. Ornette notably did not. But a lot of these guys are just BIG. You can feel them. They have a sense of themselves and a sense of their place and a sense of the space and their surroundings, in one way or another. I suspect these people, these one day superstars, knew something already. They had a sense of who they were. EGO. Not at all a bad thing. They were not afraid of failing on their way. Not afraid of jumping on the bandstand to be heard. They WANTED and NEEDED to be heard. They demand you listen to them. They're ready to kick your ass from the very beginning.

    They decided to enter the quest to be the best. They can play the modest card for politeness sake, but they are anything but. They've learned that being truthful about how they feel about their talents and abilities can be detrimental to their popularity. It pisses people off.

    X-Factor? What the hell is that? That's a word that says, "I don't know what the hell it is."

    Talent? Yeah, undoubtably. But also the ability to HANG. I never had this. After the gig or in-between rehearsals or gigs or getting together for some whatever. Guys who you could HANGOUT with also made the network. I was too often excited to go home and practice or spend time with my woman.

    There are a lot of guys who can play. And some guys who are arguably better than the superstars. But they were too introverted. Those introverts who made it, was a fluke. Look at Lenny Breau or Ted Green or Tom Harrell -- some famous introverts. I don't know. Maybe Breau wasn't introverted. But it's a challenge to play music --- PRACTICE, as as very well accomplished jazz musicians have, to an NOT be introverted. But could those guys have been better known? If you're introverted you have to have a big fan club. Coltrane. He was undeniably monstrous. He could not be ignored. After he got the attention of Miles and Monk it was all over. He could be as introverted as he wanted. But he ALSO did the hang thing when he was into his heroin thing.

    X-Factor? Sure. But that says absolutely nothing.

  6. #30

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by nick1994
    Do you think there is an opportunity for new musicians to have the same impact? obviously since the 70's jazz has changed, its audience has changed, there's so much stuff happening right now, but do you think there will be another up and comer with a fresh sound that could shake the jazz world again, or has it all been done before?
    That's a tough question. Certainly the creative side never ends. There will always be those who can create an impact and come of with fresh things. BUT the jazz pool is so much smaller now than it was. SO much smaller. It was pretty big then. You can Weather Report, Mahavishnu, RTF and then Freddie Hubbard and even Mingus and Dexter Gordon drew big audiences. I doubt that it'll ever be that big again. So I doubt a jazz musician can every have that impact again, and not be what we think of as jazz.

  7. #31

    User Info Menu

    How important can someone become in a field that absolutely so few people care about?? Does anyone know who the world champion badminton player is?? I rest my case.

  8. #32

    User Info Menu

    Stars,superstars,megastars in jazz? Jazz is not a pop music. Look at Sting-he is a pop Star and he just only like jazz.He sing jazz standards/good/ but he sing them like pop singer.That is good.

  9. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
    How important can someone become in a field that absolutely so few people care about?? Does anyone know who the world champion badminton player is?? I rest my case.
    Important enough to be distinguished from the rest. We make up a portion of the jazz community, we define who is important and why they are important. I'm sure badminton fans and badminton players, be they pro or amateur, know who the best are.

  10. #34

    User Info Menu

    I think someone will come along and "shake the jazz world" ala Metheny , but not the world world ala Metheny. The cultural differences between the 70's and now are profound the cultural climate is just so different that I can't imagine a young jazz guitarist suddenly becoming the gotta have guy ala Joni Mitchelll, or a band like Weather Report headlining festivals etc. One of the big differences is radio, in the 70's radio was still vital for a band and the programmers were INTO music, you could hear on the radio on one station Benson, Led Zeppelin,Grover Washington Jr., Crosby Stills and Nash, just real programming with a variety of genre, so listeners would be exposed to many styles of music. In the 70's television was the Big Three Networks and PBS , there were no remote controls. The 70's had a listening audience that would tolerate musical exploration and psychedelia. As I see since 1917 and the beginning of Jazz the number of at home entertainment devices has increased and the number of live music venues have decreased, consider if you will how each of these devices radically altered the working musicians life, the Silent Movie, the Movie with Sound,the Radio, the Phonograph, the extended Long Play Record, the Reel to Reel tape machine, the Tape Cassette, the CD, the Internet, the iphone,tablet,ianything device. The jazz world is so big and diverse now with the freedom of distribution provided by youtube etc. that the difficulty is now how to stand out in a google search so that your material can be found by random person searching for newest jazz sensation. Long winded middle age guy's two cents.

  11. #35

    User Info Menu

    Miles Davis great jazz musician - megastar artist.Attachment 20655

  12. #36

    User Info Menu

    i think he needed a tailor

  13. #37

    User Info Menu

    Singing John Scofield & Jon Cleary on guitars--- superstars!!!

  14. #38

    User Info Menu

    Superstar is a profession too.

    Best you can see it the movie... there are real professional actors and real professional superstars...

    You can be a great professional but if you want to be a super star you have to do this job too.. just different skills.
    Last edited by Jonah; 06-01-2015 at 10:35 AM.

  15. #39

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by eddy b.
    I think someone will come along and "shake the jazz world" ala Metheny , but not the world world ala Metheny. The cultural differences between the 70's and now are profound the cultural climate is just so different that I can't imagine a young jazz guitarist suddenly becoming the gotta have guy ala Joni Mitchelll, or a band like Weather Report headlining festivals etc. One of the big differences is radio, in the 70's radio was still vital for a band and the programmers were INTO music, you could hear on the radio on one station Benson, Led Zeppelin,Grover Washington Jr., Crosby Stills and Nash, just real programming with a variety of genre, so listeners would be exposed to many styles of music. In the 70's television was the Big Three Networks and PBS , there were no remote controls. The 70's had a listening audience that would tolerate musical exploration and psychedelia. As I see since 1917 and the beginning of Jazz the number of at home entertainment devices has increased and the number of live music venues have decreased, consider if you will how each of these devices radically altered the working musicians life, the Silent Movie, the Movie with Sound,the Radio, the Phonograph, the extended Long Play Record, the Reel to Reel tape machine, the Tape Cassette, the CD, the Internet, the iphone,tablet,ianything device. The jazz world is so big and diverse now with the freedom of distribution provided by youtube etc. that the difficulty is now how to stand out in a google search so that your material can be found by random person searching for newest jazz sensation. Long winded middle age guy's two cents.
    Agree 100%.
    One thing that concerned me in the 70' when I was getting started was the substance abuse. As a teen I first played with people that were a few years older and they spent way more time worrying about copping drugs than actually playing. I liked drugs as much as the next guy but damn. Maybe it was just really bad in Buffalo where I grew up. That's what I thought it might have been. After reading Rick James autobiography he confirms this. Drug dealers where commonly the star and focus of attention.
    Between the excesses of boomers and the 'anything goes as far as technology' of genX, live music is screwed in the US.
    As you say, there are a wide variety of entertainment options now.
    I wonder if we'll ever get out of the 70's. As James points out, the decline in live music venues started as far back as the early 70's.
    It's a rock-like world now. Make a CD, tour and play. Wash, rinse, repeat.
    It's not all doom and gloom. One positive I see is many younger musicians have disregarded styles and genres and they just interpret or 'cover' songs they like doing unique arrangements.
    The era of the performer is simply over but interpreting isn't dead.

  16. #40

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by kris
    Singing John Scofield & Jon Cleary on guitars--- superstars!!!
    Same song?



    It's really been a gas!

  17. #41

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by eddy b.
    One of the big differences is radio, in the 70's radio was still vital for a band and the programmers were INTO music, you could hear on the radio on one station Benson, Led Zeppelin,Grover Washington Jr., Crosby Stills and Nash, just real programming with a variety of genre, so listeners would be exposed to many styles of music. In the 70's television was the Big Three Networks and PBS , there were no remote controls. The 70's had a listening audience that would tolerate musical exploration and psychedelia. As I see since 1917 and the beginning of Jazz the number of at home entertainment devices has increased and the number of live music venues have decreased, consider if you will how each of these devices radically altered the working musicians life, the Silent Movie, the Movie with Sound,the Radio, the Phonograph, the extended Long Play Record, the Reel to Reel tape machine, the Tape Cassette, the CD, the Internet, the iphone,tablet,ianything device. The jazz world is so big and diverse now with the freedom of distribution provided by youtube etc. that the difficulty is now how to stand out in a google search .
    The digital age has fragmented and exploded media outlets, but this has its downside....every one and his brother can now be a "performer" and post a video....sometimes this is good, but often it is drek...in the old system, bands got noticed locally...someone would get interested from a record company...maybe some national exposure if you were lucky, and you might have a shot at stardom.

    Yes, there was hype...but there was a filtering process, with bands and musicians having to prove themselves at each step of the way. On AM radio, there was older time rock n'roll, girl groups (some pretty good, e.g. the Shirelles), the British Invasion groups, rock and pop instrumentals (Duane Eddy, The Ventures, etc.), MoTown, psychedelic rock, songwriter/artist/performers (Dylan, Simon and Garfunkel, etc.), etc. Later came FM long play radio and "album rock". It was a big deal when the Allman Brothers had a new album or Led Zeppelin, etc. There was even a 7 day, 24 hr. jazz station in NYC---WRVR....which mixed old stuff, new stuff, fusion-y stuff. People really did listen to radio---in your car, at night before you went to bed, carrying a transistor radio to school, at the beach, etc. Now, radio is what you do when you don't have your own personal electronic device at hand.

    Same thing with TV---a lot of old TV was silly, or sentimental, but there was some decent writing when there were only 3 major networks and a finite number of weekly viewing hrs. Ed Sullivan really did have quality acts on his show...and over many years. Now, there are 600 channels, and a lot of TV is really an insult to intelligence, and a sign of childish, celebrity-ism of the most noxious nature....don't get me started on "reality television". (Mixed in with a lot of drek is some really good stuff: I think Madmen and Breaking Bad are easily as good, if not better, than anything we grew up with.)

    Secondly, most music is bought by teens and young adults....why....the new stuff is stuff they identify with...just as Swing was the music of the 1930's teens, and Elvis and the Beatles the music of the 50's and 60's teens. Every generation wants to be as UNLIKE their parents as they can....so they are receptive to new music. When you get to be older, there is no need to stake out a psychological "Declaration of Independence" from others...also, you've listened to a lot of music, and in any era, 95% of the stuff will be forgotten in 20 years time anyway, so you pay less attention. I think Millennials or Gen Xer's or whatever you call them...will have fewer kids....so fewer future consumers of new music....so less chance for new acts to make it big in the fragmented, digital market...so probably fewer big hit acts.

  18. #42

    User Info Menu

    Drugs were big in the 70s, but they never stopped me. And I stopped them in 79. I practiced as hard then than I did later and before. What it did do though was contributed to my introversion. And that made me not want to do the business.

  19. #43

    User Info Menu

    The difference between superstars and everyone else?
    This;

    What's the difference between professionals and the superstars?-rick-james-jpg

  20. #44

    User Info Menu

    I was teaching music at Folsom prison when he was locked up there. But I never met him. I dont think he needed to take music lessons or be in the prison band.

  21. #45

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by henryrobinett
    I was teaching music at Folsom prison when he was locked up there. But I never met him. I dont think he needed to take music lessons or be in the prison band.
    It was a setup. He knew he wouldn't get busted for drugs because he was a supplier and they came up with something else. I don't think he minded getting locked up too much under the circumstances. He wrote the best book about the music business ever written when he was locked up and there's no BS in it. He got the royal treatment too.
    He was an outspoken critic of sampling and made plenty of enemies.
    I wouldn't have worked for him because he was over-the-top with drugs. I'm from Buffalo too and I don't need drugs to be an a-hole. Still, have to respect him. Lousy performer, more of a rock poser but he wrote good dance music. Catchy bass-lines.
    Rick was one of a kind. He knew everyone. Plenty of jazz musicians.
    I'm more of a Cameo guy than RJ.

  22. #46

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by fumblefingers
    i think he needed a tailor