Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Posts 1 to 50 of 96
  1. #1

    User Info Menu

    This is a confession: I tried to like the kind of jazz standards that everyone seems to adore for decades, the standards that are based on musicals or other 40s and 50s popular songs, the Real Book variety. But honestly, songs like Misty sound just cheesy to me. "Close your eyes and a thousand violins begin to play" – once you know the line you can never unhear it. But even songs that stay a bit further away from Kitsch just bore me to dead with the stereotype modulations of functional harmony that all of them use. And whatever the arrangement may try and how innovative the interpretation may be – I just can't listen to it for more then a few minutes.
    I like modal jazz, soul jazz, funk jazz, latin jazz and the bluesy, rootsy stuff though.
    I hope it is OK to stay in the forum though I'll never feel inspired to discuss Stella By Starlight?

  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    It's not the tune, it's what you do with it.

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    But you see how it looks - however modal, soulful, funky, latin, bluesy or rootsy it was, if it was called Stella by Starlight you automatically wouldn't like it... so that's that!

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    It’s. “Walk my way
    And a thousand violins begin to play”
    Far less cheesy
    like what you like, it’s all good. I think that’s it good to let the standards inform your playing though

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    The post-bop, hard bop and modal thing was a big departure from bebop covers of show tunes and contrafacts. It's no secret that Mile's Kind Of Blue tapped into a big audience for jazz that wasn't focused on that chasing the chord changes bebop manifesto.

    I am very drawn to the era of the jazz composer, Mingus, Miles, Shorter, Hancock, etc., and beyond, vs the Great American Songbook. The approaches to harmony are more modern and geared to a more personal approach to concepts and application.

    However...those that choose to ignore the vocab and practices developed by bebop do so at the peril of not sounding "authentic" as you try to tell your story with a path that takes you back and forth between consonance and dissonance, tension and release. It is still fundamentally essential as basic vocab.

    I do remember when mainstream straight ahead jazz was very progressive, and then the "young lions" thing happened with Wynton and his peers, and bam, people went back to the jazz museum and started rehashing old jazz again and it slowed the progressive stuff down a bit, IMO. Jazz academia seemed to become a force in the music.

    Nobody masters all of jazz, and the individualism of the genre dictates we choose the path that best satisfies our creative appetite, but important to know the tradition.

  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    When I first got into jazz, I only really liked the modal Coltrane/Blue Note stuff and Kind Of Blue at first, or anything with few chord changes e.g. Wes playing a minor blues. I think it was because it sounded more like the rock stuff I had been playing.

    I found bebop and standards quite ‘corny’ sounding at first. But eventually I began to get into them too, especially after hearing melodic players like Chet Baker playing them.

    It’s ok to like or dislike any of it.

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    There's a difference between playing them and listening to them. Listening to the GASB can be a bit dull but, when one gets into trying to get round the changes, it's a whole new ball game. I think that's probably what attracts players to them.

    I mean, this first one would probably bore the pants off a lot of people (especially the OP) but if the other two do then I don't know... no bleedin' taste :-)






  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    It's totally cool ....

    do you like soul music ?
    it has functional changes quite often

    more Morden standards .... Stevie wonder ?

    jut interested

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by guavajelly View Post
    This is a confession: I tried to like the kind of jazz standards that everyone seems to adore for decades, the standards that are based on musicals or other 40s and 50s popular songs, the Real Book variety. But honestly, songs like Misty sound just cheesy to me. "Close your eyes and a thousand violins begin to play" – once you know the line you can never unhear it. But even songs that stay a bit further away from Kitsch just bore me to dead with the stereotype modulations of functional harmony that all of them use. And whatever the arrangement may try and how innovative the interpretation may be – I just can't listen to it for more then a few minutes.
    I like modal jazz, soul jazz, funk jazz, latin jazz and the bluesy, rootsy stuff though.
    I hope it is OK to stay in the forum though I'll never feel inspired to discuss Stella By Starlight?
    Haha some of the lyrics are terrible. But some are great; you can always counteract the schmaltz with a bit of Cole Porter.

    I’m not snobby about the jazz thing TBH but I get annoyed when I have a student that doesn’t know any songs to play, especially if they have scales and chops coming out their ears.

    I’m like ‘what is the point of you?’

    This hasn’t got anything to do with jazz to me, it’s just being a musician. Teach me a new song, I’ll teach you one. Could be something you wrote. I don’t mind. Everything else is kind of bullshit. But we’ll find some common ground. Doesn’t need to be Jerome Kern...

    In the end Ive ended up a bit of a standards junky just because those tunes seem much more versatile compositions than modern jazz tunes. Also I work with people who want to play and sing them.

    with modern jazz tunes there’s a risk you end up covering the record rather then playing a song in your style.... that seems a bit lame and Aebersold Book to me.

    I also dig people who have their ears out for modern pop songs they can play in a new and interesting way.

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    Life would be boring if we only associated with those who shared our every view.

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    Ragman makes a good point about playing v. listening. I don’t like hearing Misty much, but if I try and work out a lush chord melody version on the guitar, it suddenly gets a lot more interesting and I start to like the tune a bit more!

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by guavajelly View Post
    I hope it is OK to stay in the forum though I'll never feel inspired to discuss Stella By Starlight?
    If you find participation rewarding, why not stay?

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    Yea, listing to some of the original recordings of someone singing a II\V\I centric type jazz standard can sound cheesy. But as Rag said, it is about what a musician does with such a song.

    E.g. here is Howard Roberts playing Gone With the Wind; a song with a very basic use of functional harmony:


  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    There’s a lot you can do to change standards. I like the way Jesse Van Ruller plays this one (End Of A Love Affair) incorporating a kind of modal vamp to make it more interesting.


  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    Jazz Po-lice are watching...


  17. #16

    User Info Menu

    Jazz Po-lice are watching...
    Off the pigs!


  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    I played in a guitar due for years and we did the "book" ..now it was a good way to learn those tunes..I liked the melodies far more than the lyrics..

    now you can re-harmonize most any tune and change its character alot..along with an altered melody you can mold and remake juat about any tune just they way you like it..

    when you study contempory players and song writers the "rules" for harmonic and melodic creatiion seem to have been left far behind...and sudden twists and turns have replaced them..

    "Rock" music by its very nature allowed "non-musicians" to play and write tunes they defied any harmonic logic..thus making someone that could only play 6 chords become a pop icon

    the standards and their traditional harmonic formats have given way to standards of the 60's and 70's by the Beatles Paul Simon Billy Joel The Beach Boys and todays more
    computer generated groups

    but you can use traditional harmony in some new and creative ways ..like the blues if you can disguise it a bit..like the tune Peg by Steely Dan- (12 bar format...)

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by grahambop View Post
    When I first got into jazz, I only really liked the modal Coltrane/Blue Note stuff and Kind Of Blue at first, or anything with few chord changes e.g. Wes playing a minor blues. I think it was because it sounded more like the rock stuff I had been playing.

    I found bebop and standards quite ‘corny’ sounding at first. But eventually I began to get into them too, especially after hearing melodic players like Chet Baker playing them.

    It’s ok to like or dislike any of it.
    That pretty much describes Larry Coryell's description of his playing career in his autobiography.

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by guavajelly View Post
    But even songs that stay a bit further away from Kitsch just bore me to dead with the stereotype modulations of functional harmony that all of them use.
    Wait a minute...wait a minute. Hate the song if you like but don't ignore the lessons therein.

    You know Blue Moon? Hate it right?

    Check out the bridge.... ii-7 V7 I in C...that's fine.

    Modulate up minor third... ii-7 V7 I in Eb cool...you've just put the listener through a 2-5-1 in Ebmaj7... ok but Eb6 works like Ebmaj7 too. So play that...but wait invert that with the 6 in the base...looks like a C-7 to me...and you too.

    So really you've driven the listener to C-7 via a 2-5-1 in Eb...AND THAT CHORD APPEARS IN THREE KEYS.

    So now the diva sings..." and then suddenly appears before me...the only one my heart could ever hold" ( you play D-9 Bo7 C6/9 or something ).

    Then she sings..."I heard somebody say 'Please adore me' " and the chart says F-7 Bb7 Ebmaj7 ( but you play Bb-9 Go7 Ab6 well...because you're cool now).
    Or try a 2-5-1 in Bb...but don't do any of this in a group.

    OK sorry guys...it's cocktail hour for over an hour now.

  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by grahambop View Post
    Ragman makes a good point about playing v. listening. I don’t like hearing Misty much, but if I try and work out a lush chord melody version on the guitar, it suddenly gets a lot more interesting and I start to like the tune a bit more!
    To paraphrase Jessica Walters; I play Misty for ME.

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    Sure! Welcome to the Forum, there are many folk here, each with an opinion of where jazz begins and where jazz ends. Most understand there can be differences in said opinion, and a few don't allow any room for dissent....There's always room for one more.

    Depending on your goals and opportunities, you may never need to deal with a 32-bar, modulates at the bridge American Songbook old chestnut. Or you might eventually find a need to dive into the song form as your goals and opportunities evolve. Who knows? I don't think it's possible for anyone to cover all genres, styles and subsets of jazz, it makes sense to stake out your own personal artistic territory. On the other hand, I have reaped direct and indirect benefit from playing styles of music I didn't particularly like... Best wishes for your music!

    PK

  23. #22

    User Info Menu

    Like what you like. Play whatever you like. Jazz is a very big tent.

  24. #23

    User Info Menu

    Albert Ayler liked a standard or two, but functional harmony wasn't his thing.


  25. #24

    User Info Menu

    ... in order for George Costanza to become the "Opposite of George", he first had to live a lifetime being the old, regular George...

  26. #25

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo View Post
    Albert Ayler liked a standard or two, but functional harmony wasn't his thing.

    I think there's something deeply wrong with Albert... :-)

  27. #26

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1 View Post
    I think there's something deeply wrong with Albert... :-)
    He apparently had some problems later on, and came to a rather unfortunate end in the East River.

  28. #27

    User Info Menu

    Now about songs by Miles Davis that use functional harmony but not in a 'standard' way like Solar or Four?

    Could such songs be a bridge to the more traditional tunes?

    Often such a 'bridge' can make any type of crossover a smoother transition for the mind \ soul.
    Last edited by jameslovestal; 05-19-2020 at 11:59 AM.

  29. #28

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by grahambop View Post
    He apparently had some problems later on, and came to a rather unfortunate end in the East River.
    Ah, figures, although I wasn't being entirely serious - well, a bit maybe. I like to make eccentric sounds from time to time too - it's cathartic - but I definitely couldn't do it all the time, it would affect me.

    Mind you, Derek Bailey did it for a long time and he seemed all right to the end so maybe the music's got nothing to do with it.

  30. #29

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by pingu View Post
    It's totally cool ....

    do you like soul music ?
    it has functional changes quite often

    more Morden standards .... Stevie wonder ?

    jut interested
    Yes I like soul music and Stevie Wonder very much. Also the Stax productions.

  31. #30

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1 View Post
    But you see how it looks - however modal, soulful, funky, latin, bluesy or rootsy it was, if it was called Stella by Starlight you automatically wouldn't like it... so that's that!
    That song was just an example. I think I'm just tired of chains of II V I and I VI II V progressions. I appreciate everybody trying to convince me of liking their favorite functional harmony informed songs. I don't want to degrade this kind of music, I was just expressing my personal taste. It's not an uninformed decision as some posts seem to suggest – I studied jazz at the university and really tried to like the tradition. It's more like growing tired of harmonic cliché used to often. One of my teachers wrote his thesis about harmonic progressions used in the Real Book and found out: like 80 % (I don't remember the exact numbers – he told it like 25 years ago) of the songs use the same progressions and modulations – the rest he said is modal.
    And the question "is it OK to stay?" was meant to be ironic.
    My wife and I had a little time lately due to the quarantine we had to endure due to our corona infection. Luckily the weather is great so we often spend the evenings in our roof garden. Now my wife doesn't know much about music theory she just has to stand and survive me playing the guitar and listening to music whenever I can. If I put on what I call "Jazz-Jazz" she often asks me to turn down. One evening I was in the mood for Kind Of Blue and she asked me to turn it up. I don't know if that is about modal or functional, I think it was just the emotional quality and sense of space that fostered her interest. We seem to react to the same parameters: emotion and space. One could say that in general modal jazz provides more space for an improviser, the music can breathe more as the improviser doesn't have to concentrate on modulating keys as much. Now a musician is free to do the same with a functional harmonic piece of music – ist just seems like most don't do that.
    So let me rephrase my OP: I like space and breath in music. YMMV.

  32. #31

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by ragman1 View Post
    There's a difference between playing them and listening to them. Listening to the GASB can be a bit dull but, when one gets into trying to get round the changes, it's a whole new ball game. I think that's probably what attracts players to them.

    I mean, this first one would probably bore the pants off a lot of people (especially the OP) but if the other two do then I don't know... no bleedin' taste :-)





    Funny enough the opposite is true. From the three interpretations I like Gerry Mulligan's version the best. That doesn't mean I don't like Bill Evans' and Jesse van Ruller's interpretation. Now go figure. ;-)

  33. #32

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by KirkP View Post
    If you find participation rewarding, why not stay?
    Sure, the question was a bit ironic anyway.

  34. #33

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by guavajelly View Post
    That song was just an example. I think I'm just tired of chains of II V I and I VI II V progressions. I appreciate everybody trying to convince me of liking their favorite functional harmony informed songs. I don't want to degrade this kind of music, I was just expressing my personal taste. It's not an uninformed decision as some posts seem to suggest – I studied jazz at the university and really tried to like the tradition. It's more like growing tired of harmonic cliché used to often. One of my teachers wrote his thesis about harmonic progressions used in the Real Book and found out: like 80 % (I don't remember the exact numbers – he told it like 25 years ago) of the songs use the same progressions and modulations – the rest he said is modal.
    And the question "is it OK to stay?" was meant to be ironic.
    My wife and I had a little time lately due to the quarantine we had to endure due to our corona infection. Luckily the weather is great so we often spend the evenings in our roof garden. Now my wife doesn't know much about music theory she just has to stand and survive me playing the guitar and listening to music whenever I can. If I put on what I call "Jazz-Jazz" she often asks me to turn down. One evening I was in the mood for Kind Of Blue and she asked me to turn it up. I don't know if that is about modal or functional, I think it was just the emotional quality and sense of space that fostered her interest. We seem to react to the same parameters: emotion and space. One could say that in general modal jazz provides more space for an improviser, the music can breathe more as the improviser doesn't have to concentrate on modulating keys as much. Now a musician is free to do the same with a functional harmonic piece of music – ist just seems like most don't do that.
    So let me rephrase my OP: I like space and breath in music. YMMV.
    I do remember finding functional jazz changes incredibly old fashioned and annoying when getting into jazz. Modal music is more familiar to my generation I guess. I could understand Coltrane quicker than Charlie Parker.

    Anyway. The Real Book's changes represent a certain fashion for making everything into a ii-V-I. Older versions jazz changes use that device less in the original changes. Also a good bass player will come up with lines that move more intelligently than jumping around by fourths all the time... But you have to make it easy for the sax players... Because they are dense.

  35. #34

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo View Post
    The post-bop, hard bop and modal thing was a big departure from bebop covers of show tunes and contrafacts. It's no secret that Mile's Kind Of Blue tapped into a big audience for jazz that wasn't focused on that chasing the chord changes bebop manifesto.

    I am very drawn to the era of the jazz composer, Mingus, Miles, Shorter, Hancock, etc., and beyond, vs the Great American Songbook. The approaches to harmony are more modern and geared to a more personal approach to concepts and application.

    However...those that choose to ignore the vocab and practices developed by bebop do so at the peril of not sounding "authentic" as you try to tell your story with a path that takes you back and forth between consonance and dissonance, tension and release. It is still fundamentally essential as basic vocab.

    I do remember when mainstream straight ahead jazz was very progressive, and then the "young lions" thing happened with Wynton and his peers, and bam, people went back to the jazz museum and started rehashing old jazz again and it slowed the progressive stuff down a bit, IMO. Jazz academia seemed to become a force in the music.

    Nobody masters all of jazz, and the individualism of the genre dictates we choose the path that best satisfies our creative appetite, but important to know the tradition.
    Well played, sir. Like 29 years ago I was an avid student and I understood that diving into the tradition was essential for a profound knowledge of the music called jazz. So I did to some extend – but it never caught my heart. Still neither listening to nor playing tunes like Misty is enjoyable for me. In fact it still feels like "doing my homework".

    It has a lot to do with musical socialisation, I guess. I happen to be german and my family didn't have an understanding of american music – though my mother took me to a jazz festival when I was a kid. I was impressed that I still can remember the feeling when listening to that "alien" music. It was a small festival and the bands were not first league but anyway I was hooked – more by the blues than the jazz bands – which mostly played like dixie if I remember correctly. I mostly listened to pop music at home and classical music, pop and rock was what I played as a kid.
    There's a reason why it is called the "Great American Songbook". Growing up in Europe in a non-academic, strictly non-intellectual household chances are small you get in touch to that music. Kudos to my Mum for at least getting me in touch with it. When my interest in jazz was re-started in my early 20s in the mid 1980s it was through Steve Khan, John Scofield and Bill Frisell. I learned standards to be able to study – not the other way around. And I learned about Bebop when I took jazz guitar lessons. I think Americans may have a total different approach to the Great American Songbook.

  36. #35

    User Info Menu

    Depends whether anyone knows shows or not. My mum knows loads of those songs - as show music, some crooners. She's not really into jazz.

    I started with Coltrane, so yeah... but as I've developed as a jazz musician I've developed a greater and greater appreciation for standards. They are a fantastic resource...

    And to think of them as having to wear a particular set of clothes is silly. The things that's important about them is the melody. The changes are of secondary importance and can be whatever you want. And certainly the changes in the Real Book are generally shit and boring sounding. They are neither modern enough to be interesting or original enough to be 'correct'.

    And so you have the woeful spectacle of European jazz musicians playing songs they learned because they were told to at jazz school, ploughing through them without swing, enthusiasm or imagination, wishing they were playing their convoluted originals or some squeaky bonk music (I jest, it's not quite like that).

    It doesn't have to be like that... the way NYC musicians climb inside a song? Because they know thousands of the things.

    Here's an actually fairly tame reharm I did... It's quite easy to disguise the dreaded ii-V's.

    Is it OK to be on a jazz forum while not liking functional harmonic jazz standards?-just-friends-reharm-4-jpg

  37. #36

    User Info Menu

    Cool, but you still improv over those m7 bars like they're V's, yeah?

  38. #37

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
    Cool, but you still improv over those m7 bars like they're V's, yeah?
    No, kind of defeats the point. I play lots of pentatonics.

  39. #38

    User Info Menu

    You can just solo on B and C as normal, it works, but go to Gm instead of G in the last two bars.

    Actually aside from that the only time you can’t solo as in the original is the first chord.

    Mostly the difference is in the bass, and I’ve taken out the dominants to get that floating non functional sound.

  40. #39

    User Info Menu

    Yeah I find most show tunes performed in their originally intended style fluffy, commercial, dated and lacking of any edge.

    Sometimes you hear a modern singer perform them with an artsy edge and transform the tunes completely. It becomes more palatable to modern ears. There are fewer constraints for instrumentalists to transform old pop tunes than singers.

    I think part of the artistry of jazz is finding your edge to make these tunes sound interesting and fresh even today.

  41. #40

    User Info Menu

    Playing standards is a tradition, and like any other it can be observed, ignored, challenged or subverted. It might have died out, were it not for the influence of reactionary opinions, such as those of Wynton Marsalis, Stanley Crouch and Ken Burns, which led to the twenty-first century phenomenon of young men in homburgs and waistcoats playing songs from musicals they have never seen.

    Fortunately, the progressive side of jazz still produces original music, thus preventing the art form from drowning in nostalgia and sentiment.

  42. #41

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Litterick View Post
    Playing standards is a tradition, and like any other it can be observed, ignored, challenged or subverted. It might have died out, were it not for the influence of reactionary opinions, such as those of Wynton Marsalis, Stanley Crouch and Ken Burns, which led to the twenty-first century phenomenon of young men in homburgs and waistcoats playing songs from musicals they have never seen.

    Fortunately, the progressive side of jazz still produces original music, thus preventing the art form from drowning in nostalgia and sentiment.
    This is a false dichotomy.


    Standards are a great solution to the problem - here we are in a room, what are we going to play?

    i suppose we could try and hack through one of your noodly originals in 11/8 or we could do some free improv... but standards are useful for playing pretty much any style of jazz. Even Derek Bailey did an album of them, deconstructed in his own way.

    Various jazz musicians have looked to more recent repertoire as modern standards but there’s (as mentioned elsewhere) a few useful things that any standard fulfils which more recent pop tunes and jazz compositions often don’t.

    one of the simplest criteria is that everyone knows at least a few of them.

    the history of jazz did go a certain way - we have jazz education canonising the standards rep still further - but I wonder what the natural inclination was for musicians in the 70s when having a play. Beatles tunes?

    In fact there’s almost more of a risk of doing the jazz tribute band thing if you cover jazz instrumental tunes rather than a standard tune....

  43. #42

    User Info Menu

    The other thing is ... well learning tunes is a really good way of understanding music. Most of what I know about harmony FWIW comes from learning and getting inside compositions and the other half is from writing.

    So what you choose to learn is to some extent open. The standards rep is pretty broad. We might find Jelly Roll tunes (which are jazz originals, original music wasn’t invented in the 60s) at one end and Pat Metheny at the other, both of which tend to be songs with like tunes and stuff, instead of some mad chart. Actually the Jelly Roll stuff formally a bit more involved than Pat’s 32 bar song forms.

    I’m not sure pats tunes are as open for a cheeky reharm as an old show tune though, and that is a bit of a problem. I have heard it done though.

    It’s not necessarily the tunes Miles recorded in the 50s.

  44. #43

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    This is a false dichotomy.


    Standards are a great solution to the problem - here we are in a room, what are we going to play?

    i suppose we could try and hack through one of your noodly originals in 11/8 or we could do some free improv... but standards are useful for playing pretty much any style of jazz. Even Derek Bailey did an album of them, deconstructed in his own way.

    Various jazz musicians have looked to more recent repertoire as modern standards but there’s (as mentioned elsewhere) a few useful things that any standard fulfils which more recent pop tunes and jazz compositions often don’t.

    one of the simplest criteria is that everyone knows at least a few of them.

    the history of jazz did go a certain way - we have jazz education canonising the standards rep still further - but I wonder what the natural inclination was for musicians in the 70s when having a play. Beatles tunes?

    In fact there’s almost more of a risk of doing the jazz tribute band thing if you cover jazz instrumental tunes rather than a standard tune....


    Right .. Having standards in order to facilitate easy gigging is an overlooked point ... and that isn't even a jazz thing .. You can always instantly launch into Mustang Sally or Play that Funky Music with random strangers

  45. #44

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Lobomov View Post
    Right .. Having standards in order to facilitate easy gigging is an overlooked point ... and that isn't even a jazz thing .. You can always instantly launch into Mustang Sally or Play that Funky Music with random strangers
    But you probably aren't going to improvise or in the case of Cohen et al meta the shit out of them, are you?

    A natural question would be - why not? Nature of the material, nature of the musicians, nature of the context in which the tunes are played?

  46. #45

    User Info Menu

    Stella is the tune you pick as an example of boring harmony?

  47. #46

    User Info Menu

    I'm good at unhearing lyrics.

    This Misty works for me.



    Would you, dear forum members, have gotten up and left as Joe was playing that?

  48. #47

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by mr. beaumont View Post
    Stella is the tune you pick as an example of boring harmony?
    As said in the film My Man Godfrey: I've been waiting to say that all night!

  49. #48

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by christianm77 View Post
    Standards are a great solution to the problem - here we are in a room, what are we going to play?
    There is that.


  50. #49

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by guavajelly View Post
    ...my interest in jazz was re-started in my early 20s in the mid 1980s it was through Steve Khan, John Scofield and Bill Frisell. I learned standards to be able to study...
    Sometimes I forget that Bill has done his homework. I enjoyed what he did with it in that vid.

    I'm of the same generation as Bill, and like some others here I started in Miles and Coltrane of the sixties, and still pretty much live there. I didn't start working on GASB until a few years ago when I was trying to find some guys in my small town to jam with. I did an audition. Played fine on Mellow Mood and some other such things. Then they wanted to play Autumn Leaves. I said I'd never tried to play it before. Audition pretty much ended there.

    I'm not in love with that music, but if you want to play any other type of jazz around these parts you best be able to get thru it nicely. Still working on that....

    I'd never even heard of 'function harmony' until I joined this forum. I guess I'm a dysfunctional jazzoid.

  51. #50

    User Info Menu

    Bill can play with anyone.



    he’s got a really good grasp of the history.... listening to him made me realise all these distinctions we make between flavours of jazz can be porous...