The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 27 of 28 FirstFirst ... 1725262728 LastLast
Posts 651 to 675 of 699
  1. #651

    User Info Menu



    makes some points. and his followup


  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #652

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Cunamara
    [QUOTE]ThI prefer original music to standards most of the time. How many more performances of "All The Things You Are" does the world need? I could go the rest of my life without hearing that tune played again. I could go the rest of my days without hearing a 7 chorus tenor sax solo again, too. There are exceptions, of course. Gene Bertoncini's approach to standards is refreshing, for example.
    I'm just the opposite, I don't need to hear another "original" tune that has less changes than So What, no melody and no direction.

  4. #653

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by AllanAllen
    The end of this pretty much sums it up.

    Darn,, I kinda liked BS Jazz just didn't know what it was called, I do now

    S

  5. #654

    User Info Menu

    If it ain't 3 qordz'a it don't sell.

  6. #655

    User Info Menu

    Good jazz = good music

    I don't think it's so hard, and at the same time it's really hard lol.

    Musicians are often quite poor judges of music because we tend to hear the technicalities (which massively paraphrases Bill Evans), so many musicians like things that are technically accomplished.

    But that doesn't mean the music is good. It just means it's well done.

    Ultimately we are the worst judges of our own work too. Which is fun, because we are also expected to 'sell ourselves.'

  7. #656

    User Info Menu

    ^ I like analyzing what is effective for youtube musicians where they try to be as catchy and impressive as possible. A lot of the time, being a good technical player is extremely important for that. My favorite youtube musician is Charles Berthoud who is a friggin bassist. But he plays like his instrument is no object and completely dominates across all aspects of music.


  8. #657

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by AllanAllen
    less changes than So What
    :-)

  9. #658

    User Info Menu

    There's a half-joking formula that I think applies to art in general: The Same Only Different. Which is to say, familiarity and surprise, tradition and innovation, expectations-fulfilled and expectations-denied, comfort and exploration, all in tension and in infinitely varied proportions.

    "Popular" art, I suspect, is biased toward The Same, with maybe just enough Different to distinguish Work A from Work B. Dixieland/trad jazz retains its audience partly because it remains within the bounds of its historical forms and conventions. Significant segments of the bluegrass world share those attitudes and values. "Newgrass" and "dawg music" peeled off portions of the traditional audience and set up new territories which overlapped the older ones.

    Bebop introduced more than one flavor of Different--it became more harmonically and rhythmically adventurous, which separated it from the social-dance culture that had supported swing, and it became more of a listening music, and more demanding of both players and audience. And that audience was smaller than the general social-dancing audience. (My mother, born in 1921, loved big-band swing and dance bands but found bop and post-bop to be just a lot of notes. But then, she wasn't much for hot dance bands, either--too darn fast, as Chuck Berry would later put it.)

    The Same Only Different affects creators as well as their audiences--and traditions that encourage Different attract the most restless, innovative, ingenious creators. But those creators might find themselves outpacing even their adventurous audiences. It's an old dance, and some artists dance right over the edge of the cliff.

  10. #659

    User Info Menu

    The theme to the Peter Gunn television program was one chord. That sax player did a heck of a job making it sound good.

  11. #660

    User Info Menu

    Some predictions-

    Jazz will get better in the future, as the education is more readily available than it used to be. For ex, YouTube has a guy who gives 80+ Barry Harris guitar lessons. I could sit and learn those for a year or two and sound great. In 2002 I had to take a train for 2 hours to watch Barry and get one single lesson which was pretty confusing without the other lessons that came before it.

    Jazz will get more popular because the music of the past is taking over. Present day pop music has lost it's choke-hold on the music business. Most people listen to what's called "catalog music" AKA music from decades ago. Jazz is more available. You can dial it up on Spotify and you don't have to go searching for vinyl in a store that mostly sells new pop music, like it was in 1985.

  12. #661

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JazzIsGood
    Some predictions-

    Jazz will get better in the future, as the education is more readily available than it used to be. For ex, YouTube has a guy who gives 80+ Barry Harris guitar lessons. I could sit and learn those for a year or two and sound great. In 2002 I had to take a train for 2 hours to watch Barry and get one single lesson which was pretty confusing without the other lessons that came before it.

    Jazz will get more popular because the music of the past is taking over. Present day pop music has lost it's choke-hold on the music business. Most people listen to what's called "catalog music" AKA music from decades ago. Jazz is more available. You can dial it up on Spotify and you don't have to go searching for vinyl in a store that mostly sells new pop music, like it was in 1985.
    People in America have zero respect for jazz. But that doesn’t matter because it’s got respect the world over, and it’s the only music I listen to outside of 60’s and early 70’s Motown and Philadelphia International recordings. I’m stuck in my generation and I’m okay with that. But I did recently purchase a new Jose James album, based on Bill Withers tunes. Hey, you can’t beat the 60’s and 70’s for quality music!

  13. #662

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith
    ^ I like analyzing what is effective for youtube musicians where they try to be as catchy and impressive as possible. A lot of the time, being a good technical player is extremely important for that. My favorite youtube musician is Charles Berthoud who is a friggin bassist. But he plays like his instrument is no object and completely dominates across all aspects of music.

    I'm not sure what to call this style of instrumentalism but I notice a lot with guitar as well - for example Ichika Nito, Tim Henson of Polyphia, Marcin Patrzalek. A particular focus on technical virtuosity of tapping, harmonics, and a "groove" that is very influenced by drum machines and quantization (and sometimes you can hear a little lo-fi hip hop in them). The effect is almost to replicate the precision of MIDI with a real instrument. (I recall reading that Polyphia literally composes their guitar parts in a DAW before learning how to play them.)

    These types of things play well in short Instagram or Youtube clips. Not always my thing rhythmically but very much the "in" style.







    There's this other kid who's kind of popular on tiktok, Mikey Piscopo, doing a Stevie Ray / Hendrix revival thing. He seems to have fun with it. Very identifiable style.


  14. #663

    User Info Menu

    Yeah I think you explained it well. It isn't always my thing either, but I appreciate 'effective' music even if it's not in my wheelhouse. I like listening to it sometimes cuz its all impressive. Plus you can always learn from musicians utilizing rhythm absolutely flawlessly. Another thing I notice is they isolate each part of the music (and again, execute them flawlessly) from the rhythm part, to harmony part, to melody, to melody embellishments.

  15. #664

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    Good jazz = good music
    Jazz is stuck in the past.

    It won't be relevant to the modern listener until we can hear a jazz rendition of "Lose Yourself" and anything by the Sex Pistols.

  16. #665

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by AllanAllen
    ...I don't need to hear another "original" tune that has less changes than So What...
    Fewer

  17. #666

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    Good jazz = good music
    Jazz is stuck in the past.

    It won't be relevant to the modern listener until we can hear a jazz rendition of "Lose Yourself" and anything by the Sex Pistols.
    And even that would involve some old music.

  18. #667

    User Info Menu

    Jazz is suffering the same fate as blues only worse because it is taught in universities, the utter death knell of real development for a music form. Fewer clubs host it, and the clubs that do host it host it for the swells who have big money. Read: old people. The jazz musicians failed because they forgot that music is entertainment first, art second and most of the post-cool jazz developments were based around attempts at maintaining relevance and earning money, a sure losing bet. Artsy-fartsy doesn't sell well in any genre.

    Most of the university musicians here will say they want to make jazz their career if you ask them. "So you're playing country" is my reply. Most musicians are weak willed lazy asses who won't book gigs for themselves, won't seek new venues for their art, don't network with other jazzers, or aren't willing to live in squalor level income brackets while they do it. They want someone to hand them the keys to a successful jazz career.

    Take a look at the New Orleans Jazz fest lineups. Most of it is some kind of not jazz neo-soul aka Sade or elevator smooth jazz you listen to while on your yacht (rich people music). Same for the blues fests, it's mostly a rock music lineup guitar fest or a mix of rock and bands featuring white dudes wearing bowling shirts, fedoras, or news boy caps and wingtips. Cliche garbage.

    Then there are the guys who are trying to combine hip hop with jazz. More let-see-if-I-can-be-relevant novelty BS.

    It needs to be raw and unapologetic and carry a level of aggression that will appeal to rock music listeners. It needs to retain good melodies and swinging feel. You should be able to dance to at least some of it. And it needs to have some level of ease of access where a noob listener can grasp what's happening. It needs musicians who are willing to dues pay at the lowest income gigs. It needs people who quit dressing like corporate executives at every show. It needs to bother a good percentage of old head jazz fans and mainstream music lovers alike. It needs to be rejected at the university level. If it doesn't rebel against status quo musically/stylistically and isn't gritty enough for blue collar people it won't ever happen.

  19. #668

    User Info Menu

    Dude everything is taught in universities now. Want a degree in DJ’ing? It exists.

  20. #669

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy In Lyon
    Jazz is stuck in the past.

    It won't be relevant to the modern listener until we can hear a jazz rendition of "Lose Yourself" and anything by the Sex Pistols.
    And even that would involve some old music.
    Bloody hell, did you just thaw out from cryosleep? What even is a sex pistol? Is that like Palestrina?

  21. #670

    User Info Menu

    At the risk of making myself unpopular, and in hope that this doesn't offend anyone or make anyone angry, I'm going to be perfectly honest. Jazz is unpopular because it's boring.
    Jazz has become exquisitely performed, perfectly recorded and engineered, immaculately well thought out and analyzed at the highest level, meticulously well documented and taught... pointless meandering, noodling, embellishing and rehashing of the same old stuff in the same old ways... by some of the world's finest musicians.
    No amount of guitar mastery or knowledge makes up for music that has nothing more to say than, "look how much more skilled and knowledgeable I am than people who make inferior kinds of music."
    I'm well aware that this attitude isn't universal in the jazz community, but it has become a de-facto standard.
    Again, my only intention in saying these things is that I think they need to be said for the good of jazz, and I apologize sincerely in advance if it upsets anyone.

    Humbly (and nervously),
    strumcat

  22. #671

    User Info Menu

    Very interesting (and brave).

    Is jazz too cool, even in blazing virtuosity?

    I keep thinking of Rahsaan Roland Kirk; never careful.
    Last edited by A. Kingstone; 12-20-2022 at 08:30 PM.

  23. #672

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by strumcat
    At the risk of making myself unpopular, and in hope that this doesn't offend anyone or make anyone angry, I'm going to be perfectly honest. Jazz is unpopular because it's boring.
    Jazz has become exquisitely performed, perfectly recorded and engineered, immaculately well thought out and analyzed at the highest level, meticulously well documented and taught... pointless meandering, noodling, embellishing and rehashing of the same old stuff in the same old ways... by some of the world's finest musicians.
    No amount of guitar mastery or knowledge makes up for music that has nothing more to say than, "look how much more skilled and knowledgeable I am than people who make inferior kinds of music."
    I'm well aware that this attitude isn't universal in the jazz community, but it has become a de-facto standard.
    Again, my only intention in saying these things is that I think they need to be said for the good of jazz, and I apologize sincerely in advance if it upsets anyone.

    Humbly (and nervously),
    strumcat

    ..... and played by people who are not generally "good looking". Which is another strike against huge popular market penetration. Not that "jazz" will ever acheive that but ceratin jazz artists do.

  24. #673

    User Info Menu

    Good looking? Has it come to that?

  25. #674

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Miller
    Dude everything is taught in universities now. Want a degree in DJ’ing? It exists.
    Jazz is now mostly a museum piece, studied ad nauseum around the world by rich people's kids like impressionism and other stylistic artistic movements are studied but also museum pieces. Like marching band music, an antique that hasn't been dispensed with because a small set of people in the educational system make a damn good living keeping the corpse on life support. Like classical, great background music for rich people's parties and dinner nights. Some oddball school may offer a degree in DJ'ing, in the search for more dollars but even the university of jerkwater USA has a jazz program. Many high schools have jazz bands. When DJ'ing is taught everywhere it will also be irrelevant. Jazz moved from the low brow prohibition era speakeasy patronized by working people to the high priced universities. Ivory tower. It's exclusive now, and therefore of very limited interest to lower classes who are the boots on the ground listener. People hear the word Jazz and they think of Kenny G or Mannheim Steamroller haha. It has no street cred any more.

    Most jazz musicians of yore could play effective straight blues all night long. No one in the podunk program I attended could even growl into their damn horn. The most vaunted sax guy could play all the changes unless it became key-centric I-IV-V blues at which point he fell apart. Blues is the soul of jazz and disheartening number of jazz players can't play straight blues. Just overly clever outside licks and meaningless noodling. Blues is below them in their minds. Even some of the older jazz educators have remarked how that is a problem with many younger players.

  26. #675

    User Info Menu

    When answering this question I see a lot of focus on the aesthetics of jazz music (and a lot of generational broadsides both up and down) but rarely do I see a proper analysis of the economy of music production.

    From what I hear it's basically impossible to make a living playing jazz nowadays unless you are a top-tier music school graduate. There is a glut of musicians with amazing chops who can't make any money whatsoever on streaming and record sales. Even touring and shows suck as far as profit margin. This is produced by a mass devaluation of music promoted by streaming services who care about anything but music (they could be selling insurance for all they care as long as the money comes in).

    Jazz is usually done in combos, combos means you split the proceeds 3 4 or 5 ways, that's on top of the fact the proceeds aren't jack anyway.

    If you're stuck being a pro musician (haven't skilled into Windows server administration or whatever) then probably you're going to find a better way to make money than jazz. There's jazz harmonies in popular music all over the place, I'm betting a lot of those producers and session folks are jazz-trained, there's just no money in the game.

    My (sort of) educated guess.

    I was listening to my library on shuffle, a Kehlani song came on, wouldn't you know it there's Masego playing some jazz-ish sax lines. Skip to 0:45-ish