The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 7 of 29 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Posts 151 to 175 of 720
  1. #151

    User Info Menu

    I see it this way. Jazz has always been popular but it's not as popular as it could be, or should be. It's not as popular as it should be b/c some improvisers play way too outside and go off into fusion land while playing to a jazz standard. When a non-jazz player hears that happen they simply turn off and all of a sudden they hate jazz b/c they don't understand it.

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #152

    User Info Menu

    There's no passion in today's music. Not in the US. Thank got for Youtube where I can listen to older music.
    And stay off my lawn!

  4. #153

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by henryrobinett
    Snoskier63 - slightly off base? When did I say any artist was owed a huge success. Those are your words, not mine. No one is owed a living wage income. All I'm saying is those pontificating about what the artist should or do, if they love or respect the art, should not download free music and should support those who put their life on the line because they love this music. Sorry to sound so dramatic. But nobody needs to tell me how I need to just accept that I need to sacrifice my life for the love only of this music.
    Henry, with all due respect you are a great ambassador for the art, and deserve much success, but you are misinterpreting my comments once again and have taken them as a statement of what I think artists should do, which they are not. There are certain realities in this world, one of which is that it is very difficult to make a good living in music of any genre. Even back in the 50's and 60's there were great musicians that made a great living and those that did not. That is still the case. You say nobody needs to tell you how you need to sacrifice your life for the love of only this music. Nobody has told you that. It's a choice you made of your own free will because you love the music you play, you are very good at what you do, and you can't see yourself doing anything else. If you were dead broke my guess is that you would still find a way to keep doing what you truly love, and the music world is better off as a result. Rather than going back and forth here and not getting anywhere I would love to hear your realistic thoughts on how jazz can possibly regain some of its past glory.

  5. #154

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevebol
    There's no passion in today's music. Not in the US. Thank got for Youtube where I can listen to older music.
    And stay off my lawn!
    I would never have discovered 99% of the music I currently listen to if not for satellite radio and YouTube. I also love the jazz station at University of Central Florida, which I discovered while visiting my parents. Now with Sonos radios I can stream that station to my home in MA.

  6. #155

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by henryrobinett
    I can listen to Shostakovich, Bartok, Chopin, Bird, Bach and get great intellectual stimulation. Also aesthetic and emotional. For me the best is when all three are balanced. All gut and no mind only goes so far for me. I can only listen to so much if anything if it's too out of balance with those three.

    And I don't think intellectual is mere craft.
    Yes those musicians provide intellectual interest - but that's not my initial or sole reason for listening to any of them.

  7. #156

    User Info Menu

    Right now I'm going through Ella's songbooks and to tell you the truth, I don't have a slightest clue why jazz isn't popular. This one comes from a man that grew on rock music, you know, the usual suspects, and then gradually, starting with the likes of Allan Holdsworth, Mike Stern, then John Abercrombie etc. etc. started to dive deeper and deeper into the jazz tradition. And today, here I am listening to Ella, and when she hits some notes my chest grows and I feel as I am almost starting to sweat. So why jazz isn't popular? I really don't know. Compared to this that goes into my headphones while I am typing, the music that today goes on the radio and other media is pure garbage, and that's an understatement.

  8. #157

    User Info Menu

    Ella is popular, it's just that people don't think of it as jazz. My wife knows more standards than I do, but she didn't think she liked jazz until she met me. And now she loves Bill Frissell, Barry Harris, Kenny Wheeler....

    But she knows All the Things You Are when I play it.

  9. #158

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by aleksandar
    Compared to this that goes into my headphones while I am typing, the music that today goes on the radio and other media is pure garbage, and that's an understatement.
    Which is funny really because quite a lot of it made by people who went to jazz college, if not outright jazz musicians. Session musicians, producers, arrangers and so on... Famous example would be Quincy Jones going back. I'm sure plenty of jazzers hated MJ at the time...

    I know a hip-hop producer who plays George Van Eps style solo jazz guitar, for example. He used to be my teacher :-)

  10. #159

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    Jazz is easier understood as a verb.

    just my idea in a post a while back

    its not like other music in being primarily designed to be consumed (listened to without participation)

    it is essentially participatory

    you have a tune in your head and so does someone else and you sing/play/beat it out together trying to make the combination of your efforts sound and feel good

    its a social practice not a social product (or at least the thing produced in the practice is secondary to the practice itself)

    the ramifications of this picture are wide ranging

    i think it captures the spirit of the music quite strongly

  11. #160

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Which is funny really because quite a lot of it made by people who went to jazz college, if not outright jazz musicians. Session musicians, producers, arrangers and so on... Famous example would be Quincy Jones going back. I'm sure plenty of jazzers hated MJ at the time...

    I know a hip-hop producer who plays George Van Eps style solo jazz guitar, for example. He used to be my teacher :-)
    It is not just about the music, Christian, it is about the style, and also about the feelings the old music portrays and how it portrays them. What we got today is, well, cheap. And I don't think of myself as some old fashioned puritan. The lyrics are lame, the arrangements are either some simple cliches or samples glued together. I listen to these arrangements, and some are really involved, you can tell they're done with passion about the music.

  12. #161

    User Info Menu

    the first really huge music star in the modern era is (bing notwithstanding) frank sinatra

    just as much as elvis and the beatles he created modern youth culture - and because he came well before elvis you could make a very strong case for him being more important in the creation of this culture (a culture that now, lamentably, dominates the cultural world)

    but it is inconceivable that he should have become such a unique star without the tunes - and they are the tunes that constitute the repertoire of classic jazz (the most modern type that no-one could ever deny was jazz)

    so we either have to start writing tunes of this extra-ordinary musical quality again

    or re-discover the songbook yet again

    (if we want to avoid the gradual decline of the music)
    Last edited by Groyniad; 02-05-2016 at 07:38 AM.

  13. #162

    User Info Menu

    "Why isn't jazz popular?" It isn't???

    More seriously, I think jazz's peak popularity evolved from the era of dance bands that entertained young and old but focused on emotions rather than the cerebral for its own sake. People like dancing, sex, love....getting swept up in rhythm and feeling. When you get too far from that, they end up not as participants in a communal celebration of sorts but more like spectators or kids in class getting lectured to. That is not to denigrate or cheapen the intellectual side of jazz but to understand that successful musicians channel powerful emotional responses and make their listeners feel moved and swept away in the musical flow.

    I think an artist like George Benson understands that and learned to entertain not lecture his audience. I often refer to a seminal night for me - February 27, 1973 - when I got to see George Benson perform at The Jazz Workshop in Boston. Wonderful night. Sitting literally five feet in front of George at a small table with my date. From the moment he stepped on stage he had this radiant smile as he played. The evening was recorded and one can find cuts on the 'net. He played stuff ranging from uptempo like Mambo Inn to ballads like What Are You Doing the Rest of Your Life which he sang as well if I recall. He swept the audience up in his artistry but also in his enjoyment of playing the music. There were those moments where you felt the chills up your spine. And his guest that evening, a young Earl Klugh, was not bad either.
    Last edited by targuit; 02-05-2016 at 07:42 AM.

  14. #163

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Groyniad
    the first really huge music star in the modern era is (bing notwithstanding) frank sinatra

    just as much as elvis and the beatles he created modern youth culture - and because he came well before elvis you could make a very strong case for him being more important in the creation of this culture (a culture that now, lamentably, dominates the cultural world)

    but it is inconceivable that he should have become such a unique star without the tunes - and they are the tunes that constitute the repertoire of classic jazz (the most modern type that no-one could ever deny was jazz)

    so we either have to start writing tunes of this extra-ordinary musical quality again

    or re-discover the songbook yet again

    (if we want to avoid the gradual decline of the music)
    Speaking of Sinatra, well, I said I grew up on rock music, and there was a period where I was a lot into The Doors. And if you listen to them, there is a lot jazz influence in their music, it's not just the usual I IV V in one tonality of that era, occasionally VI. Their drummer Densmore was clearly drumming as a jazzer. And Morrison singing was so hypnotic at times, and I was thinking, this guy surely has some interesting style. And then I heard Sinatra and I thought - now this sounds familiar

    About the songs, I think that most of the jazzers today play the standards almost as if they don't care about the song, like is suppose to be just an opening statement for their long complicated solos, which often ends up sounding goofy.

    Here is one exception:




    I like how he is not soloing at all, that's just a mere transcription of Billie's song.


  15. #164

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by aleksandar
    It is not just about the music, Christian, it is about the style, and also about the feelings the old music portrays and how it portrays them. What we got today is, well, cheap. And I don't think of myself as some old fashioned puritan. The lyrics are lame, the arrangements are either some simple cliches or samples glued together. I listen to these arrangements, and some are really involved, you can tell they're done with passion about the music.
    When I catch myself thinking this kind of thing I do end up thinking if I'd been around in the 30's. 40's, 50's and 60's, I would have looked down on the popular music of that time as cheap or empty, because I've always been an old fart. In fact I was was far more reactionary in my musical tastes when I was 18 than I am now. In the 90's most people of my generation were listening to (in the UK) Pulp and Blur or electronic dance music, drum and bass.. . I was listening to my dad's record collection.

    Of course by the 50s and 60s jazz was effectively out of the mainstream, in any case...

    There's alway something interesting going on. Which reminds me to finally get around to properly checking out Kendrick Lamar.

    There was plenty of cheap, lame music made in the past. It gets forgotten, and everyone remembers Duke Ellington and Jimi Hendrix, but these guys were not mainstream at the time. They were underground or at least off mainstream.

    And there's always a market for good mainstream entertainment, too. Mark Ronson, Bruno Mars etc...
    Last edited by christianm77; 02-05-2016 at 08:11 AM.

  16. #165

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by nick1994
    you know, I think it's odd that we always talk about why jazz isn't more popular but never ask the question does it need to be? to me, some of the best music and best players have come after the golden age of jazz.

    because there are more players than gigs, it lifts bar even higher. now instead of having one or 2 great players in your area you have 20, making you work harder to market yourself or play better or whatever.
    I think jazz is as popular as it needs to be. The music marketplace is very fragmented. Even pop music isn't as popular, in a way, as it used to be. Music is still a commodity, but it is more personalized now. Radio isn't as big a factor.

    One friend of mine, a producer up in Virginia, says that now "All music is nichè music." There's more musical diversity and more sources of music. That, plus the historical time factor has created branches in every genre. There's modern country music, traditional country music, roots country music, western swing, countrypolitan, bluegrass, Appalachian, and more. All the changes that every genre has gone through are sort of frozen in time at different points, even pop music you pick your decade, 70s, 80s, 90s. So not only can you pick your genre, you can pick your era.

    Have you noticed that there is very little rock music in the pop charts and radio? Same thing. Rock is still as popular as it needs to be, but there are sub-genres of metal, sub-genres of punk, classic rock, rock n roll, rock a billy, rhythm n blues, country rock, guitar rock, glam rock, and so on, and so on.

    No genre is as popular as it used to be, at least not in the form that it used to be.

    Radio itself started this. When I was a kid you hear all the music on the same radio station. There were less divisions between the genres, more overlap in fan's taste for the different genres.
    Last edited by kenbennett; 02-05-2016 at 08:29 AM.

  17. #166

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    When I catch myself thinking this kind of thing I do end up thinking if I'd been around in the 30's. 40's, 50's and 60's, I would have looked down on the popular music of that time as cheap or empty, because I've always been an old fart. In fact I was was far more reactionary in my musical tastes when I was 18 than I am now. In the 90's most people of my generation were listening to (in the UK) Pulp and Blur or electronic dance music, drum and bass.. . I was listening to my dad's record collection.

    Of course by the 50s and 60s jazz was effectively out of the mainstream, in any case...

    There's alway something interesting going on. Which reminds me to finally get around to properly checking out Kendrick Lamar.

    There was plenty of cheap, lame music made in the past. It gets forgotten, and everyone remembers Duke Ellington and Jimi Hendrix, but these guys were not mainstream at the time. They were underground or at least off mainstream.

    And there's always a market for good mainstream entertainment, too. Mark Ronson, Bruno Mars etc...
    Oh well...


  18. #167

    User Info Menu

    Ellington and Hendrix were underground?

  19. #168

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by lammie200
    Any profession that isn't predicated on the survival of others is subject to the whims of the consumer. How do you make someone feel like they can't live without your music?
    By rocking their world and making them feel deeper. Raise the chill on their spine. Whether you Andrea Bocelli or Joe Pass or Miles Davis or Chet Baker. And for my taste by creating something of beauty to charm them. Cast a bit of a spell.

    Of course if your art is being streamed at fractions of a penny to you while serving as the lifeblood creative content of some dandy Internet service, well you have a platform but the ticket is not too remunerative to the artist.

  20. #169

    User Info Menu

    Speaking of Ellington, his career had declined sharply by 1956. Then an interesting thing happened. As the crowd was leaving him at Newport he went back to raw emotion with Diminuendo and Crescendo in Blue. A particularly attractive blonde was moved beyond control, and when the band was done swinging Ellington's career was officially revived. The audience needs raw emotion.

  21. #170

    User Info Menu

    Why Isn't Jazz Popular?-cat-listening2-jpg

    Maybe it doesn't matter. Not even in a club.

  22. #171

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
    Ellington and Hendrix were underground?
    Later 60's might have been the time of the 'concept' album. Jimi was obviously blues and rock but avante-garde too. He seemed to be having fun doing steps in the older days. He was definitely R&B.
    He was really versatile. One of a kind. Underground? I'd say no.

    Last edited by Stevebol; 02-05-2016 at 10:58 AM.

  23. #172

    User Info Menu

    Yes Ellington was a bit 'underground' in the sense that most of the (white) record buying public in the 1920's were listening to sweet dance bands.... They often play this stuff at vintage events, and the difference between this essentially white music and the real 'jazz' stuff... well it's err... black and white...

    As I understand it the real deal jazz stuff, while known, was edgier, and of course there was the whole issue of racial politics. Happy to be corrected if this is untrue.

    My dad describes Hendrix as having been 'underground' and part of the 'counterculture' as he was there, I defer to his knowledge. Most straights were into boom bang a bang or Sinatra at this point :-) Motown was huge of course, as well. The Beatles manage to straddle both worlds... But Jimi was proper counterculture.

  24. #173

    User Info Menu

    That's a question actually - was jazz ever popular, or was it just dance bands?

    There's always been a tension between 'real jazz' and 'pop music' even going back into the early years. And jazz musicians still play pop to this day to earn a living, even if the styles have changed...

  25. #174

    User Info Menu

    I'm not sure about the term underground so much as 'counterculture'. Jimmy happened in the Sixties and I was there so to speak. Saw him perform two or three times live. The setting was that of the British invasion - Beatles, Stones, Who, etc. - and the Vietnam War was coming into the consciousness. Purple Haze was of course a big release for Jimi as well as the name of a well known and appreciated variety of pot, also part of the counterculture.

    As far as I know, Jimi's roots were in the blues. But he has his Woodstock performance of The Star Spangled Banner as his 'defining moment' with the swoops of his whammy bar mimicking the bombs dropping. Jimmy was also a showman and had a bit of the "James Dean" thing going. He would appear on late night television and sort of defy category. A real character.

    Sinatra was the older generation's star they had grown up with as a popular singer phenomenon in their youth. But in the early Sixties Sinatra's star had dimmed considerably and a movie role as a GI in WWII brought his career out of the shadows. Bigger than ever. I grew up hearing Nat King Cole, Tony Bennett, Sinatra, and others on the black and white and then color TV. The "Rat Pack" as Sinatra, Dean Martin and their buddies were nicknamed were big time.

  26. #175

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77
    Yes Ellington was a bit 'underground' in the sense that most of the (white) record buying public in the 1920's were listening to sweet dance bands.... They often play this stuff at vintage events, and the difference between this essentially white music and the real 'jazz' stuff... well it's err... black and white...

    As I understand it the real deal jazz stuff, while known, was edgier, and of course there was the whole issue of racial politics. Happy to be corrected if this is untrue.

    My dad describes Hendrix as having been 'underground' and part of the 'counterculture' as he was there, I defer to his knowledge. Most straights were into boom bang a bang or Sinatra at this point :-) Motown was huge of course, as well. The Beatles manage to straddle both worlds... But Jimi was proper counterculture.
    I think Jimi was torn between loyalty to his army friends and others. He was on the fence about the war. Some people in the UK claim Jimi as one of their own. I don't blame them. He and Sly Stone were under pressure from the Panthers to dump their white bandmates in the states. Jimi wanted to avoid the issue while Sly was more....proactive for lack of a better word.
    When confronted Sly would start throwing punches. He wanted to duke it out with Ali on the Mike Douglas show.
    There were 2 Jimi's. The UK Jimi and the US Jimi. He left the US and went to the UK. He came back a star so not really underground in the US.
    He had two loves. That's pretty common.