-
As well as the tunes, I would expect them to play solos. Would the solos be the same too?
Originally Posted by Paultergeist
-
11-20-2014 02:48 PM
-
You really don't understand the gist of my argument. Bebop and swing is pretty much all I play ATM, its true, but it is certainly not what I listen to all the time. Music's so much bigger than just that. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
I find it interesting that people take strong exception to what I say, and instructive to - is it really important how one's music is labelled?I have no desire to kill jazz. Sad thing is there's not much of a need to either even if I wanted. It's getting harder and harder for acts labelled as jazz are finding it harder to tour every year, jazz club audiences are declining.
That said, London Jazz Festival has been great this year - a very wide variety of music, and the gigs have been pretty well attended, so hopefully, I'm wrong.
-
Then how can you say jazz is "dead?"
I'm saying jazz "fans" are hurting jazz by not embracing what's happening "now."
-
I want to thank everyone for a vigorous and interesting debate. Just because I make my points somewhat forcefully (and pedantically) doesn't mean I'm not interested or don't like what others say.
Many musicians hold very strong to articles of faith - it's interesting to see what these articles are. We all have them. This will of course affect the way you play music and view the world.
There is also part of me that does enjoy striking intellectual poses to see how people respond, especially if the response in passionate, as I feel many people are. That's not trolling per se, but a debating attitude.
If pushed I would probably say three things. Before responding to this, could you please read carefully, as some members of the forum have been missing the point of what I am saying completely, which is why I keep banging on ad nauseum:
a) My dad, is a music lover, not a musician - the 'sensitive layperson' described by Bill Evans. He doesn't like any genre, he likes artists. For example, he loves Miles Davis but has no real interest in John Coltrane. He loves Mahler but is not really into Strauss. The way I listen to music is kind of like this. There are certain artists I am drawn to and others that I am not. The idea of just liking 'bebop' seems to me ridiculous. Others have a different attitude.
b) I have a feeling whatever argument I make jazz ultimately is defined by players outside the genre. I suspect that if I put out a CD of music that is what I think (for example) prog rock, everyone would still think it was jazz.
c) As a description of a style of music, jazz, as it usually used is pretty useless in terms letting people know what to expect stylistically. I would be interested to hear a contrary argument. For many players the comment 'I don't like jazz but I like what you do' is common and shows an interesting perception. If people think that jazz is something they wouldn't like but in fact do, the term is holding us back and should be rejected. The fact that we studied music from the perspective of the jazz tradition is neither here nor there where the listener is concerned.
Which kind of beings me back to the first point really. Music is music. If you like to improvise chord melody, do that. If you are a reading musician or like to work out arrangements that great too. Do what feels right and don't let anyone deflect you from the way you naturally and intuitively make music. Or what music you like to listen to.
That includes being skeptical of people who say 'so and so is or isn't jazz.' As I think I have inarguably seen, different people have a totally different perception of what is or isn't jazz.
Right, I'm off to kill some jazz.Last edited by christianm77; 11-20-2014 at 03:20 PM.
-
Well maybe they don't like it very much y'know. It's not their fault. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
I remember Bobby Hutcherson giving a similar quote (attributed to Dolphy) which was - 'music is like the wind, it blows through you.' IRRC Originally Posted by Dutchbopper
'You own nothing.' That one is very interesting to me. Says a lot about the creative process.
I used to listen to Out to Lunch obsessively. Must did it out again.
-
11-20-2014, 03:45 PM #107Dutchbopper Guest
Without going into what jazz is, I never understood the whole "jazz is dead" thing. I kind of think it's more of a hip thing to say for some people than that it's true. Jazz (or do people mean bebop?) is just as alive as rock & roll, symfo rock, hard rock, punk and what have you. These are all dated music genres from a bygone era that are still cherished by minorities. Yet you never hear that 1950s rock & roll is dead. Or 70s symfo rock.
Why is jazz deader than classical music?
Not even bebop is dead. It is played and listened to by people. Manouche jazz (even older than bebop) is highly popular in the Netherlands.
But o man, it is so cool to say jazz is dead for some people.
Of course it ain't dead. I went to a jam last night and everybody was playing it.
DB
-
A great record to get obsessed with. I think I know what I'll be listening to tonight. Originally Posted by christianm77
-
The one point that I haven't seen made here is that there is in fact very little true and pure improvisation going on in jazz.
When we speak we use our vocabulary. That is to say that we as individuals have amassed a certain number of words over our lifetimes and when we speak we are simply arranging words that we know into a thought, whether it's spoken or written as I'm now doing.
Its the same thing with music. Players gather "words" as it were, in the form of licks, phrases, scales, chords and arpeggios at a minimum. They then assemble these words into ideas, perhaps putting them together in different ways night after night, but still using words that they, for the most part already know. And when, in the process of playing or practicing, they come up with new words, they integrate them into their already established vocabulary, giving themselves more to draw from. So the improvisation is really more of a rearrangement of ideas...most of the time.
Listen to the great players....listen to a LOT of their music. It's seldom that you don't hear a phrase or lick repeated. How few times an idea is repeated is simply a function of how large a vocabulary the player has.
-
haha you called it. I was using pretty sensationalist language. Originally Posted by Dutchbopper
i've been quite Marsalis ish in my definition of jazz. Bearing this in mind, I listen to and study bebop and manouche jazz for example, because it's great and I always learn something. It's very much a thing. I have to say people doing a style like this or baroque in the present day are more interesting in how good they get the style, whereas the original musicians created the style. That's what I mean by 'dead' in that sense ... Exactly as dead as classical. So you might say defined rather that dead or classic. Same thing though.
So you can have a competition to see who's better at playing Donna lee. Nowadays you could even have a contest to see who's best at playing like Eric dolphy.
I think learning a style like this fantastic training, and playing a historic style like this can also earn you a living. I know plenty of players who are content to do this.
this jazz term seem really important to people. That's interesting.
-
Yeah, Brian, but see, that's this philosophical stuff again. "Improvisation" means something in a jazz sense. Jazz players all know it's an on the fly recombination of information. There's 12 notes. Nobody who plays jazz thinks improvisation is pulling stuff out of thin air...there's still a structure, a form to follow...some "free jazz" was an attempt at "pure improvisation"-- I prefer Derek Bailey's concept of "non-idiomatic improvisation", as even putting the term "jazz" in there implies stuff...
The "purity" of the improvisation isn't in question. But improvisation is improvisation. It's not playing worked out solos, or accompanyment for that matter--and jazz players, for the most part, aren't doing that.
-
Oh I agree Jeff. But I do think that there's a faction out there that think that it's all supposed to be pulled out of thin air. Funny when I think of that I think of Derek Bailey as well. Or Ornette. And that's usually about the time that my wife is saying. "Please! TURN THAT OFF!" Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
That's an interesting statement (sorry to keep using the i -word). I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
I've been getting into a lot of Mike Longo's stuff recently, and Longo quotes Dizzy Gillespie who said 'the music is out there all you have to do is find it.' I can't speak for Longo (who has many apparently contentious views) but I suspect he would sharply disagree with what you said about 'recombining information.' Personally, if I feel that this is what I am doing when I perform, I feel my performance has lacked something. It does the job, no-one thinks I've played badly, but it's not truly there - the moments I live for in improvisation is when I play something truly new, something I have never played before and that has come from somewhere else.
People like Daniel Baremboim have talked about the way in which playing written pieces to him feels the same as improvisation - the quest is the same in this regard, to gain contact with something greater.
BTW Longo seems to interested in setting up processes by which you can get in contact with something greater than yourself in your playing, and there are other teachers (Kenny Werner, Tristano etc) who talk about this in different ways.
To me that sounds like 'pulling things out of thin air' - i.e. true creativity which links in my mind and heart to what Dolphy said - 'you own nothing.' Music does not come from your imagination it comes from something that many older musicians brought up in a very different time have no trouble with calling a word even more troublesome than the J -word - God. These days we might find a suitable pseudo-scientific term.
But the heart of music is a Mystery.Last edited by christianm77; 11-20-2014 at 08:34 PM.
-
I like the esoteric stuff too. But improvisations hard enough without turning it into a spiritual quest. There's 12 notes....they've been played in every possible combination by now. Our job is to hear a melody and go for it. And if somebody played it before, that just means it was a good one.
Jazz is pretty concrete really. Here's the harmony. Make some magic happen. I like that. Once you get past the bullshit and realize it's pretty straightforward, it's liberating really. All i'm doing is trying to play the music in my head...how fun is that? What more could a musician ask for?
-
Don't ever think "recombining information" lacks something. Play the music you hear, and that's as beautiful as it gets. A pure expression of you. What could be better and more personal than that?
-
It's not about you. That's ego. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
(To be less brusque, I find the less I feel any ownership or attachment to what I do on the guitar, the happier and more appreciative of other musicians I feel. But that might just be me.)Last edited by christianm77; 11-20-2014 at 09:46 PM.
-
There's nothing esoteric or heavy about this actually. It's a bit like meditation - which I've not tried outside of music, but I know many friends who have, both musicians and not. You don't have to bring the big G into it if you don't want, but it's the way say, John Coltrane would have viewed it. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
I think it makes music easier to play. And much more fun, for me anyway.
I think rereading what you said, we may in fact be talking about the exactly the same thing. Making magic from practical resources does describe what I'm talking about rather exactly. But:
'between the intention and the act falls the shadow.'
Thanks for reminding me of what I should be focussing on BTW :-) The central aim I think is to get more consistent at accessing this space.Last edited by christianm77; 11-20-2014 at 09:49 PM.
-
There's so much I want to write about this, it's so fascinating. I'll restrain myself. Most of the stuff is covered by the great musicians in their own words. That's a million times more interesting than whether something is 'jazz' or not to me.
-
I think we are talking about the same thing...i'm very not religious, but i am spiritual...i'm into the connection of myself and everybody else...and the arts, painting, and jazz, are that connection for me.
-
I'm not religious either. But I do find it interesting that aside from the many great musicians who follow an organised faith, while there are many musicians over the years have had a troubled relationship with organised religion, I don't know of too many who rejected a belief in 'something' completely. Musicians it seems to me are more likely to be agnostics than outright atheists. Perhaps I am wrong. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
Obviously, there are many who have become interested in other religions or traditions, such as Buddhism.Last edited by christianm77; 11-21-2014 at 09:14 AM.
-
Yeah. I honestly don't care what something is called. Originally Posted by dortmundjazzguitar
My teenage son came to me a few years ago asking me what I thought about several genres and sub genres of rock music from the 90s , and I had no idea what he was talking about.
When he started naming bands and songs, I was surprised to know exactly the music he was talking about. Apparently, iTunes and the like have a very nuanced subgenre labeling system for music which helps people find additional music they may like.
He asked me what we called it back in the day. I said "rock", "rock 'n roll", "music". "We didn't have a bunch of names for it. We just listened to it". He almost didn't know what to do with himself, not being able to definitively categorize it.
:-)
-
When someone says that jazz or any other art form is "dead" I wonder what exactly they mean by that. That it doesn't exist anymore? That no-one is playing it anymore? That no new music in that genre is being written? If it's just that fewer people are listening to it, so what? That doesn't mean that it's dead or that it isn't moving forward as an art form.
-
I mean that languge of style is not naturally live but imitated or reconstructed. Originally Posted by ColinO
I think personl perception always works in a way that we distinguish things, events, notions, so we always estimate limits - where one is over, and another one is begun, as well as we always try to establish connections between these.
But in most cases it is of course would be rude generalization, after all in art it is the person what matters.
THis kind of staff in my opinion can be used not as final statement of undisputable truth or something - but just as supportive =: to understand for onself the history of style, music, culture...Last edited by Jonah; 11-21-2014 at 02:10 PM.
-
Re-reading the original post which initiated this thread, it has dawned on me just how much this thread has veered from the question asked by the OP. Hopefully, it is not too late to respond to the original post.... Originally Posted by rickshapiro
Rick,
I have a long history of playing classical guitar. With classical guitar, it is quite possible to develop a substantial repertoire with virtually no understanding of music theory (or even chord theory), as a player can simply memorize the notes required to play the composition. This is, essentially, what I used to do: simply memorize the piece note-for-note. For my own playing habits, however, I found this approach to be unsatisfactory. Too often, should I get lost within a song, I was completely unable to slide back into the song at/near where I had stumbled (I had to go back to the beginning). I had great difficulty maintaining larger pieces in my memory; more significant compositions had to be regularly played, or I would forget them fast. Also frustrating was the fact that learning/memorizing one song did little to ensure that I could effectively play other song(s) -- in other words, ability in executing one particular song did not translate well into increased competence (especially memory) with other songs.
All of this leads me to more recent explorations in chord-melody, and argubly into the realm of jazz guitar.
I am today playing more *arrangements* of songs -- often popular songs -- attempting to utilize some classical guitar technique elements. Here is what I am striving to do:
1. Importantly, I begin with an outline of the chords of the songs. As best I can, I try be aware of the really obvious chord theory elements of the tune, such as the tonic (chord), places where a ii-V-I sticks out, or locations of secondary dominance (a dom 7th chord which *points* to another chord as a transitional "one" chord), etc.
2. I note the key of the song. Often, there are bridges or sections within the song where the key changes. I try to keep this in my mind ("this section is in the Key of A Major, then this other sections in is E Major"), etc. I often use different colored highlighters to denote this on a fake sheet.
3. Fake sheet: Always make my own. It just forces me to think about the piece a bit. As best I can, note numerical functions of chords (i.e. harmonic analysis).
4. For any given key, my fake sheet will include a break-down of the (7) hamonized scale chords as a reminder (and perhaps mental exercise) of the key. If I get lost in the song, I can at least think of the *key,* the chords contained therein, and the logical connection chords (such as dom 7th and tonic).
5. From years of playing rock guitar, I have a pretty solid grasp of playing diatonically (i.e. within the Major Scale key) across the fretboard. I thus try to think of myself as playing "in a key" at any particular point in time within a song. If I get lost within a piece, I can at least finger-doodle some lead tones which are in key as bridge to getting re-anchored into the song. Also, most of the melody notes of the song will be in said key.
6. I pay special note to places where the melody line of a tune deviates from traditional diatonic melody. This is a good *hook* towards helping memorize things. (As an example, consider the four descending half-steps in sequence to the melody line of "Something In The Way" by the Beatles).
7. I try to build in a mental safety-net to many pieces, especially the more difficult ones. What I mean by this is a thought-process by which -- if I get lost or tripped-up within the song -- I can jump to a small 2-3 chord easy progression which seems fitting to the tune, or some other ornamentation or passage which I can always locate by memory (NOT muscle memory, but fully consciously saying to myself "play these chords if I stumble"). I find creating these little safety nets help build confidence -- paradoxically making the need for such safety nets less likely.
In all, however, I am trying -- note I say "trying" (as a work in progress), to concepualize the songs I play and lend myself some freedom from strict reliance upon rote memorization. Importantly, I am striving to operate in such a way that learning to play one song equips me with tools which lend themselves to also being applicable when playing a different song -- in this way, learing a song becomes a practice which builds upon my playing overall, making the next song even easier to learn, execute, and remember.
I have by no means perfected this approach yet, but the concepts outlined above reflect that which I try to do.
Your original post resonated very deeply with me, as it was also quite reflective of my own challenges. I hope my thoughts (above) are useful to yourself as well.
Paul
-
Thanks for a great thread everyone. Been a fun ride.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos