-
Ages ago somebody suggested I pop up a thread sharing my impressions of what I'd learned from playing pre-bop styles of jazz. I'm interested in seeing what other people have felt they've learned:
Technique - I've had to completely change my right hand to play this music on acoustic instruments. Not only developing sheer acoustic projection, but has also dynamic control, especially so that single not playing doesn't get lost. My chops have developed a lot further as a result.
History - a lot of players who haven't checked out the earlier music often lump it together into one thing. In fact there are many variations in style between Chicago 'classic jazz', New York stuff, Kansas Swing, Parisian Swing, 40's Swing, Dixieland and New Orleans Revival stuff, not to mention the later Trad music of the '50s. Also you realise how late a lot of people's reference points are - for example, the Count Basie of the Atomic Basie - recorded the same year as Ascenseur pour l'echafaud - doesn't really reflect the earlier band of the late '30s.
Rhythm - early jazz sounds rhythmically primitive and basic to an ear used to modern jazz. Over time, you realise that there's a lot more to it - that heavy four feel of 30's swing for example is actually a very subtle thing - the exact interaction of bass, drums, guitar and piano. Hard to imitate. The rhythmic phrases of the soloists are also starkly different - after a while of listening to this era of music, the sound of post Parker players is strikingly different. Early jazz players 'locked in' a lot more, played much more on the beat. Listen to Lester to see what I mean.
One of the great challenges of soloing in this music is to keep the rhythm going, especially if there is no rhythm guitar or piano. In modern jazz, I feel I can leave lots of space, the more the better. In this music that simply doesn't work. The answer (I think) is to get into playing a mixed style incorporating solo lines and chords, or a pure chord soloing style, and to play phrases that lock as much as you can. Easier said than done.
Harmony - the harmony of early jazz is not nearly as simple as you might think. While traditional New Orleans and 20's Tin Pan Alley material are harmonically straightforward, most of the harmonic motion we see in later standards are already in use. There are fewer decorative ii-V's. There are many unusual or challenging (to modern players) progressions that don't follow the rules of backcycling. The whole tone scale is a common colour, as are 7#5 sounds, as are b6 tinged progressions such as iv-I, bVI-I and bVII7-I. bVI7#11 is extremely common. Many of the 'scales' we use such as the diminished and augmented started out as neighbour tone patterns on chords.
Attention to detail - to play this music convincingly (which I don't think I do) is very difficult, because you have to have a degree of style in your playing - you cant just play anything. A lot of playing the early stuff is about making simple things - arpeggios, melodies etc sound good. Not easy as there is nowhere to hide. You can't just do the Metheny lick and gloss over it haha!
At first I found this inhibiting, but over time I started to become free within it as I develop greater control and focus in my playing. I think that I have realised how little I had mastered the formal aspects of jazz language - bebop, post-bop as well as swing - before I started to play this music.
Tempos - tempos in early music have a similar range to that in later. Evan Christopher points out Dinah was cut at the same tempo as Giant Steps. However, for higher tempos, it's usual to feel the music in 2 - which makes it feel much more relaxed. As Hal Galper indicates this is a very useful understanding for all types of jazz.
Stamina - playing the guitar in this style is physically demanding, particularly if you are playing acoustic. Learning to play chorus after chorus of straight fours at 280+ is a physical and technical challenge.
Keep it snappy, or earn that second chorus - swing era solos can be as little as 8 bars. A two chorus solo has to be earned.
You are not the star - as an early jazz guitarist, you can expect very few or no solos at all when the band gets above 5 peices. Even in smaller bands you might find yourself soloing on 25% of the tunes or less, depending on how much the horns want to play. Your main duty is as a rhythm player.
Pop Music - this era of jazz was pop. In early jazz/trad we are expected to learn (and sing) songs, to play for a dancing audience. This has opened my eyes to a value system that jazz had right up into the '60s that is now largely lost due to the specialisation of jazz as a classical style listening music. Entertainment values - however silly - are important. Young musicians are now rediscovering this and I think this will be a Good Thing for contemporary Jazz influenced music.
Finally - this isn't the be all and end all for me. I think learning to play this music has been great for my musical discipline, attention to detail and chops, but I am keen now to expand my horizons with what I've learned. I'm also aware that some extremely talented young players are now devoting themselves to this music, so it's reached a bit of a crossroads - do I want to specialise and keep up with these guys or move into different areas? I think the latter, but we'll see.Last edited by christianm77; 07-05-2015 at 08:17 AM.
-
07-05-2015 07:49 AM
-
That is a lot to have learned. Have your band mates acknowledged your development?
-
I think we have all developed together TBH, so it's hard to see the development from day to day. I do get approving comments though, especially from people I haven't played with for a bit or who are new to my playing :-) I certainly notice the development in my fellow musicians... The most positive feedback I've had has actually been for my rhythm playing.
Originally Posted by MarkRhodes
Lead playing a fair bit too, though there are more stylistic lead players out there, for sure.
Mostly people give me gigs, which I think is the best acknowledgment :-)
-
I think everybody should spend some time with this music. I agree with pretty much everything you wrote.
-
Well put Christian, thanks for sharing your insight I do a 6 hour Acoustic brunch every Saturday and Sunday, and have found similar revelations about this music. I have found the decay of the note, lack of sustain to be the most obvious influence to deal with in soloing. I also now realize why the banjo is so predominant it really projects whereas my Gitane D500 takes a LOT of effort to be audible at distances greater than 25 feet. Thanks again for sharing.
-
07-05-2015, 12:11 PM #6destinytot Guest
I've formed some opinions... avoid musicians who only play loud... music theory is a chore, a delight and a distraction, all at once... rapport makes a big difference to music... the master works, then returns to centre and lets matters take their course - that one's from my Tai Chi instructor!
-
I try to play at least one song in a trad style at the "jam" session I frequent every week. It is really tiring, physically to play in that style. But nothing gets the band going more than letting the guitar speak acoustically.
-
Get out those Triads from the GVE Method, I am continually surprised by how he influenced EVERY guitar player. The Triads show up everywhere, from Allan Ruess to Kurt Rosenwinkel
-
07-05-2015, 12:33 PM #9destinytot Guest6-hour brunch gigs on two consecutive days - wow! I met someone who's just arrived from Salvador da Bahia, where (I'm told) four one-hour sets - for audiences who 'shout', rather than talk loudly - is normal. Originally Posted by eddy b.
-
It does make one wonder why the guitar took over in the 1930's doesn't it? Originally Posted by eddy b.
-
Might have something to do with the fact the guitar doesn't sound like...y'know...a banjo.
-
Yes Christian it does, I guess it comes down to the amplifier and electric pickup, guitar societies(I've seen photos of 15-30 member guitar orchestras sporting ALL manner of guitars), and I think the brightness of banjo maybe dosn't blend as well with saxophone which also seems to have become more popular in the '30's taking over from the clarinet and traditional New Orleans band instrumentation(clarinet,trumpet,trombone,tuba,ban jo,drums). One of the insights I've gained from this gig is how to switch from thunking chords on the bass side of the guitar and soloing with chords on the treble side trying to imitate "Chicago" tuned Banjo. DestinyOT as we say on this gig Sunday really gets the chops together. The thing is it is an outdoor gig so we are playing outside today with heat index at 97 degrees F. I wouldn't trade it fir the wirld I am blessed beyond what I deserve. Set Break over back at it.
-
There was something like a decade between Eddie Lang's popularisation of the instrument (c 1928) and Charlie Christian's popularisation of the electric (1939.) So amplification had nothing to do with it... How on Earth Eddie did what he did live with medium sized band is beyond me. Originally Posted by eddy b.
Saxes were common instruments in the 1920's. The trad jazz clarinet fixation is a later thing...
Personally I'm always happy to give the acoustic thing ago. However I have no idea how well the instrument carries or projects, how ever happy with the sound as I hear it.
My impressions, listening to other players doing the acoustic thing in jazz bands (esp. big bands) in a dance hall is that even an archtop carries very minimally. The guitar seems mostly for the benefit of the rhythm section, not the audience. Obviously that would explain the lack of guitar solos in this setting!
Also I have a strong suspicion musicians played somewhat quieter in the past. Horns were smaller sounding gentler instruments - trombones had smaller bores, saxes were lighter sounding too. Drums had hide heads. Perhaps most importantly, I suspect, audiences were quieter - unaccustomed to amplified recorded music.
Most bandleaders are pretty clueless when it comes to the role of the guitar in an authentic early jazz setting. Many want the guitarist to sound loud to 'fill out' the sound and solo like Django in single notes, so amplification is required. Acoustic is never loud enough for them. There are a few who want to do it the old fashioned way but you really do encounter the hard limits of what's possible very quickly. Chord solos are the thing in these situations, unless you are playing with a small drum-less group
In the right room, playing single note stuff with a drumless group or a very sensitive brush drummer is possible. It works at the Quecumbar, for example, which has a very lively acoustic, but all it takes is a few noisy audience members and it becomes a struggle. To be honest the biggest determining factor is the the audiences volume level.Last edited by christianm77; 07-05-2015 at 01:34 PM.
-
I'm pretty sure clarinet is predominant in 1910-20's Jazz not saying saxophone wasn't on the scene ( Sidney Bichet being the obvious leading light) but all the Chicago Louis Armstrong Hot 5 &7 have predominantly clarinet which may be why when the New Orleans Trad Jazz had it's second wave of popularity so did the clarinet. It's a great question how DID Eddie Lang do it? Still state of the art almost a century later.
-
A friend of mine has a weekly gig swatting chords on a Super 400 in an early swing/jazz horn band. No plugging in allowed. He sits in close proximity to the bass player and drummer (mostly brushes), and they make a very tight rhythm section... swings like crazy. Melody and solos are for horns only. You do hear the guitar now and then in quieter moments but he's primarily playing for the band.
-
And that's with an absolute beast of a box as well ;-) Originally Posted by AlohaJoe
-
Sure, you are certainly right about 1910-20's jazz and the hot 5&7's were coming at it as New Orleans guys who had moved to Chicago. This type of line up become the model for later revivalists, but this sidelined some of the other things going on - this wasn't the only thread in the tapestry of 20's jazz. No-one can deny the importance of clarinet to New Orleans music, but by the 20s popular music was evolving in all sorts of directions. Originally Posted by eddy b.
(Remember also that the Hot 5s and 7s were a recording pick up band, and did not represent an actual gigging organisation.)
Saxes were predominant in vaudeville, and were also common in dance bands.
It was really Coleman Hawkins who is credited as moving the instrument forward into proper jazz, starting in Fletcher Henderson's band being exposed directly to Louis Armstrong's playing with that band (c. 1923 - 24) - saxes were also in use in Duke Ellington's bands as well.
Bass sax was a common choice for brass bass in 20's bands too.
I suppose the chronology does kind of work - but I'm not sure if that was the reason. I think it has a lot to do with fashion.Last edited by christianm77; 07-05-2015 at 08:37 PM.
-
Great thread! In NYC, the trad/swing jazz scene is huge. It's a really lucrative scene if you are in, I know people who work 7 days a week if they so wish, there's tons of gigs happening, and it's really fun. Most of the guys I met are in their 20's and 30's. I love it, and like Christian, went through all those realizations about technique, style, chops improvements, etc.
I know a few who are equally comfortable playing modern styles and retro, mostly bass players, some guitarists. Also noticed that some trad/Gypsy players having attitude toward modern/bop players, and vice verso. I sat in at a gig once that a friend of mine, very good Gypsy guitar player, put together a band with modern jazz guys, just trying to stretch out and venture into the new territory I guess... He called 'When You Smiling' at one point, and those bop cats started giggling and basically treated the tune as a joke. I was thinking, wait a sec, but you didnt perform it very well, how about a versatility?
Personally, I agree with Christian, the full time commitment to just the old jazz is a questionable thing. I like blues, I like some bop, I like Latin, I don't see being just that cat who's dressing like it's 1939, and trying to nail CC tone by hunting down exactly the same gear. Something is not right about it lol! In a perfect world, I want to create something fresh and unique, mixing up styles, and wouldn't want to be a museum artifact. Meanwhile, though, swing music is what I found myself doing the most.
Btw., Christian mentioned different styles of trad, like Chicago classic jazz, Kansas swing, New Orleans... I know Gypsy jazz and American swing, that's it, I would love to know more with examples and stuff... And what style was Louis Jordan? Because on a grand scale of things, he's probably my absolute favourite artist and the biggest inspiration.
-
I really like what you said about keeping the Rhythm going.
It has been brought up a lot lately, especially in regard to Charlie Parker, how your solos have a rhythmic aspect that should not go ignored.
Also, how each genre has its own rhythm, its own heartbeat and breathing. If you ignore this facet of the solo, you take some of the life out of it. So its not just about the note selection.
-
Would you call Louis Jordan Jump Blues? Ever listen to Jay McShann (where Parker got his start). Anton, we gotta play together agin. I have the summer off. Been playing, practicing, and ear training like a mad dog. Lemme know.
--Alex L
-
I think that was me, so thanks for this, Christian. Originally Posted by christianm77
Very interesting insights! I've been playing in a (primarily 30s/40s swing) big band for the past few months, and while it mostly just takes doing and learning on the job, I eagerly absorb any pre-bop info I can find. (I would like to learn more about the regional/stylistic variations you mention under 'History'...)
You are certainly correct about the 'You are not the star' part. I just took my first solo in yesterday's rehearsal, and that was only because our pianist didn't turn up!
-
Hey Hep to the Jive Louis Jordan is definitely considered jump blues I love him too. To me it's the best of jazz, blues and rock and roll all in one. I too agree with you and Christian about the whole sell out to the style thing I play acoustic early jazz but I play electric straight ahead and r&b, funk,reggae I too don't dig the division, conflict dissing cats thing... that's just not cool. In fact the thing to me about guitar that is so cool is that it has a role in just about every genre of music as an instrument it is so flexible and malleable. Keep on keeping on.
-
Wow! Great thread! I'm a huge fan of the swing and early jazz stuff. I just wish I could find other players in the Dallas area that I could jam with. I suppose I could go towards the Western swing route and channel the ghosts of Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys. They could certainly swing!
-
Dallas Blues,
You know they have that Dallas Meetup in Frisco. I would think that would be a great starting point. There are also colleges and universities, specifically TCJC and Univ of North Texas, if you would want to take a class for a semester. Great chance to network with others and very cheap at TCJC. Once a week with Stephen Nutter, an accomplished local guitarist - and private lessons two for much less than a private teacher.
I was going to go these routes and then life took off on me and got away from me.
Also, local jazz musicians like to attend the various clubs on their Jazz nights. In Deep Ellum, the Freeman Cafe has Jazz Trios and others from the University of North Texas or moved here during Hurricane Katrina.
Then there is the Scat Jazz Lounge in fort worth. Every night there is Jazz. The crowds are not huge but they consistent and many musicians are in the audience, young and old.
You probably have to think a little outside the box to find some players. Good luck.
-
Originally Posted by AlsoRan
Awesome! Thanks man. I've looked into the meetup in Frisco and the jams at the Freeman. That's probably where I should start. I just gotta find the time to get outta the house, work and chores. Ha!
Reply With Quote
anyone selling an ibanez pm120?
Today, 01:33 PM in For Sale