-
This player is incredible, its intimidating to listen to this level technical and concept prowess yet the music is hard to swallow for me. I feel almost guilty for still sticking with good old stuff (Grant, Wes etc) and not being able to get with the program so to speak. What emotion does that suppose to stir? Sorry for rambling lol. I am not criticizing by the way...just wondering out loud i guess
-
07-25-2018 11:30 AM
-
I really liked it. And I'm an old guy. But I have to admit, I am NOT a jazz purist either, so..........
-
Phenomenal player for sure. May be just need to give a chance to grow on me ..the whole concept so to speak
-
Nice! The bassist Zach Brown is a friend. We've played together several times. He was a student at The Brubeck Institute when I was teaching at UOP, the parent school.
I liked it. I like modern playing more, for the most part. Come on man! Wes and Grant were great, but that was like 60 years ago. Music is supposed to move forward, or if not forward, at least move. It needs to speak to its own age.
-
I like it! But I like anything that makes me feel less guilty about playing jazz on a strat...
-
I think what is happening is i spent so much time studying the greats and spent so much effort emulating etc..
but the progress of things never stops and i was just blown away how totally diff it sounds, its like -thanks i got another ten years trying to understand and absorb this lol
-
yeah strat all the way!
-
I got to meet Troy Roberts (sax), jammed with him, a monster player!
I don't think comparing it to Wes, Grant etc makes much sense. Totally different type of jazz, it would be boring if jazz didn't developed since then.
But I had a deja vu feeling that I heard it before. Then I figured a lot 80's 'modern' jazz sounded quite like that. Maybe I'm wrong, but Breckers, Scofield and Stern bands, even Holdsworth played very similar music back then. And that I can compare.
To me, this example sound less catchy, less intense, but more harmonically and melodically challenging than the past generation. Not knocking them down, but it seems there's a shift toward more 'dry', more cerebral concept. I don't enjoy it as much, but many jazz fans do.
-
I find the lockstep rhythm of the line to be tedious and monotonous.
-
The irony is that, as a young guy, I think elements of this music sound pretty dated. Distorted lead tone, fast chromatic holdsworthy lines, relatively flat contour, short form & long solos. A lot of this seems like a throwback to 80s fusion. This is like saying playing with a chorus pedal gives you a "modern" sound.
I'm not saying this as a criticism, I'm just saying that "modern" is a subjective term. According to some people, playing modes rather than changes is modern. Some people say playing modally is a specifically 60s or 70s sound and therefore is also dated. Some people say playing atonally is the hippest thing, and the most avant garde find solace in primitively tonal music.
I think it's important to allow yourself to identify music as yours (or his his, hers, theirs) rather than trying to identify it in some sort of chronology. The truth is that there are multiple parallel chronologies and any musician has the ability to pick any point in time as their starting or reference point. Sometimes the most in touch with tradition can be the most innovative.
If you don't like something, that's fair, and it doesn't have to be about not liking "modern" music. When you say that, you're buying into someone else's idea of history. Your voice is as modern as anyone's if you're playing it today with conviction.
-
I thought they played great.
Emotional response? Well to me classic modern jazz can be cool, euphoric, dirty, churchy, sexy, swinging, aggressive, etc etc
This I would think as ‘cool’, and tbh a lot of contemporary jazz sounds ‘cool’ and I would also say the same of quite a lot of modern bop - but not all. I’ll post some examples of contemporary jazz that has a different feeling as I think of it.
-
Hey Christian, what are we going to call "contemporary jazz" in 30 years?
-
Holdsworth has an amazing emotional sweep in his music imo. Sixteen Men of Tain for example, what a journey!
-
I dunno, a mistake? :-)
Originally Posted by omphalopsychos
Seriously, I think we will continue to call it contemporary jazz. Why?
Because contemporary jazz (if we take it from fusion onwards) is now the LONGEST period in jazz history.
-
Unless there’s a more detailed historical nomenclature i don’t know it is as long as the entire prior history of jazz.
1968 to now is 50 years
1918 to 1968 takes you from the pre history of jazz (ODJB record in 1919 iirc) to In a Silent Way.
Sorry for making everyone feel old including me.
-
well my line of thought stems from me trying to "infiltrate" our jazz scene lol, im an outsider meaning i didnt go to school and got a jazz degree. I just started picking up some sub gigs for straight ahead stuff and got a chance to talk to jazz pros so to speak. like hey whats in who you guys look for inspiration etc, that was one of the players recommended to me to listen to. so thats where it came from.
-
From interval between us and 2000 (Kurt Rosenwinkel, the Next Step) which kind of defined the current paradigm of jazz guitar takes you from the heyday of the Swing era to Kind of Blue.
Progress definitely slowed down. I think he complexity of the music and the time it takes to assimilate developments slows things a bit.
-
Me too! Originally Posted by vladmartino
I would say that music is a bit nerd jazz. In a good way. I think there’s more diverse and visceral/emotional stuff that’s contemporary and jazz but not jus the same as classic blue note or whatever. As I say will post when I get a chance.
-
He definitely fits in with Rozenwinkel, Kreisberg type if players
-
Seems to me it's not a fluid improv. I think he's repeating the same idea over and over. He might just be chromatising pentatonics.
-
I liked it. I'll listen to him more now, hadn't heard him before.
I listen to music I like. I also like exploring and looking for new music I like. I don't like all of it. That's ok, though.
-
What I find interesting is that I feel Jazz in one of two ways. Either it gets my foot tapping and head bobbing, or it sends my thoughts and emotions on a journey.
I have learned to appreciate both approaches, depending on my mood and needs at the time I am listening.
-
That's what I thought too! If there's an example of a guitarist that sounds like practicing for a solo, that'd be it. The feeling of just running the same lick up and down is almost unshakable. Originally Posted by ragman1
-
I loved the head.
I liked his lead tone. He's got chops and he can hear some outside sounds.
That said, I didn't love the guitar solo. But, that's my taste, not a criticism of his playing. If I were the producer I would be thinking about ways to inject a little more visceral emotion. He articulates his notes really cleanly (which I admire), but I find that some variation in the way the notes speak can add feeling, maybe even in this style.
Of course, I didn't appreciate Coltrane the first time I heard him. Hard to say from one listen how I'll feel a year later after hearing it multiple times.
-
Great band and player, didn't know him so thanks for the video. Regarding old stuff, its not uncommon to prefer it, i certainly am in that camp. Can listen to all the newer great players, all the criss cross stuff etc, but the old stuff... i can listen to these records for ever. I think its the playing, the simplicity, the groove, the non-intellectual nature of it, the musician-to-musician knowledge vibe, etc, but also perhaps a lot of stuff that had to do with what jazz meant for the era, for the players and the audience.. A certain dynamic that today doesn't exist..
Also, watch any of the great current bands and players live, and its a whole different ballgame, its where this music comes alive! Youtube and studio doesn't really do it justice i 'd say..
Reply With Quote
Part 2 Secrets to McCoy Tyner using 4ths,...
Today, 07:31 PM in Improvisation