-
This is exactly what ballet companies, Broadway producers, and opera companies, etc., envision. The technology is available, and they'd like to eliminate real musicians completely. Who can blame them? Who wants to deal with the expense and trouble of a stupid pit orchestra? All they do is take up space in front of the stage, where they could put more paying customers. It just distracts from the dancing and singing up on stage. Pre-programmed music would just make life easier all around.
Originally Posted by EightString
But am I somehow less of a musician because I'm embracing technology to create arrangements and a sound that I like, making myself less dependent on others' flaky schedules and idiosyncrasies in the process?
Painstakingly, from scratch, create your own arrangements and backing tracks to hundreds of songs and get back to me in a few years on that one. I'll wait.
Last edited by cosmic gumbo; 10-06-2011 at 08:48 AM.
-
10-06-2011 08:44 AM
-
Just a thought....all records are effectively canned music and virtually all musicians are busy making and selling them.
We hear canned music in the clubs that people pay to enter.
How then can it be such a bad thing to use canned music...made by you... to acompany your singing and guitar work..in a commercial setting? Its so unlike karaoke where the music was made by Madonna or some other popstar and sung by someone in the audience for laughs.
-
What is the long range vision.... what audience are you trying to create. What do you want your audience to come to listen to, (see).
Where does the music your creating lead to. If the answer is $, we're into a different topic...
Are you helping evolve, at this point in time, maybe simply keep alive... Jazz. Are you simply catching a ride on catchy titles, and moving on in the process of making ends meet...
Like I said earlier... post a vid or something that represents what your talking about...(something live, which is what jazz is about). At this point, it's really just all talk. Which is cool...Reg
-
A classical guitarist has no problem performing solo--and is often expected to play solo, using his or her right hand technique to create polyphony.two lines moving, counterpoint, etc. And, when played right, it sounds beautiful.
A jazz guitarist may not spend the time really developing that right hand technique required to play sonorous, polyphonic lines, counterpoint, two lines moving, contrary/oblique/parallel motion, walking bass lines, movement of the inner voices, etc.
That takes a lot of work and discipline to develop the right hand, to develop the dexterity and tactile muscle memory in the fingers to move accordingly, correctly and musically.
A plectrum can only be in one place at a time--the fingers? 4 or 5.
This is what I have learned and am working on.
-
Well, the problem here is that the anti-tracks crowd seems to think that those using tracks are lacking somehow. In fact, building your own tracks and making them sound like real music is quite a skill, and those of us who are full-time working players need to gig in order to eat and pay the bills. I don't prefer my track gigs to my live-band gigs (unless the band really sucks), they are an adjunct. Consider the senior citizen market, which I have chosen to market to instead of teaching fat ten-year-olds the latest power chord riffs. I can easily perform a solo guitar program as well as an acoustic guitar/vocal program, and often do. However, repeat bookings are assured if I have also at my fingertips a couple of programs that have toe-tapping backing tracks os swing tunes, oldies and the like. So, instead of booking one or two shows a year in a nice assisted-living facility, I can book 4-6 annually. Get a list together of 30-40 locations, and now I'm doing at least one show per day, 5 days a week, making between $100-150 per hour. This is the reality of the business in my area, and in this era. That $25,000-30,000 in income is what separates me from poverty in tough times. Add in the live gigs (I have three this weekend) and now I'm making a decent living, which is all I need, except to play the guitar. And if you don't think that burning, compelling improv can be done over prerecorded tracks, you haven't listened to a single George Benson CD. As I said, I'm not trying to replace musicians, I'm trying to replace lost income without driving taxi. I perform with great players quite often, I'm glad to say, but the good old days of 5-6 night-a-week gigs ended long ago.
-
The future of performing music for money.
-
Very traditional. Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
The future of performing music for money.
-
We have come full circle. Now the monkey is the front man, AGAIN!!! Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
The future of performing music for money.
-
Right on. I thing this senior citizen market is a good example of a gig where there isn't enough money to pay for a band. And you can give them more of what they want with backing tracks... and make a living... and not have to hassle with organizing, scheduling and rehearsing a band. I really don't understand how anyone could rationally argue with your example. Originally Posted by ronjazz
-
Some harsh words there, Ron! Good for you for pursuing the endeavors that seem congruent to your personal goals and preferences, but just a couple things: Originally Posted by ronjazz
1. Making money teaching doesn't mean being stuck as a "riff teacher"
2. I've never been affected by (or paid much attention to) the body composition of any of my students. I think it's a little offensive to assume that teaching a "fat" kid is a worse experience than a skinny or fit one.
-
There are obviously two conversations going on...
One about basically what is jazz... and the other is about making $, the many versions of... I need to do what I need to do... I don't have any choice and on and on.
The conversation about capitalism principles and petty versions of existentialism never really go anywhere... we all have our versions which helps justify what we're doing... if needed. Who cares...
The conversation about Jazz really should involve a little more thought and vision. Jazz is more than a catchy word used to help make our gigs sound hip etc... If we as self defined Jazz players don't know what Jazz is.... I somehow don't think our audiences will understand.
As Ron and EightString posted... they found a niche to make $... cool.. power to ya, But please don't start calling that jazz. Maybe covering jazz tunes.... sounds like work to me, I also have lots of work... and I know the difference...
Maybe a better dialogue would be more in the direction of what and how we want or should define Jazz. Somehow I don't believe the making $ part has that much to do with definition.... It obviously influences our lives, but if we let capitalism define our definition of our views of existentialism or more directly related to this conversation... what is Jazz... I don't even want to go there... Reg
-
It is hard to define jazz, and we'd all probably have different definitions.
I would say that gigging with backing tracks playing jazz tunes would be jazz related but not jazz, as soy ice cream is related to ice cream, but it is not ice cream.
Which doesn't mean it's an immoral way to make a buck on it, if that's your thing.
I guess my point is that I agree with Reg - a gig with a backing track isn't a jazz gig. That doesn't mean it's easy or lazy, it's just not jazz. I respect that programming hundreds of backing tracks is difficult and requires arranging skills.
But then (sorry to get existential again) I personally wonder if there is much point to defining what is and is not jazz. I can simultaneously wonder if there is a point in defining but also have a personal view of what the definition is.
-
Can a solo gig be jazz given that there is no interaction between musicians?
An advanced player soloing with an intermediate player comping, and the intermediate player sticks to the changes in his real book, can that be considered jazz?
(I don't see how that is different than playing with backing tracks, the backing tracks most likely have a better groove and time and voice leading).
To play jazz, do you have to be so good that you can hear that the 2 beats of the six chord that the piano player just played wasn't an Em7 but an Ab7b5 and you adjust your line accordingly? And you're playing at 250bpm so that six chord only lasted about 1/4 of a second.
I think one should be careful in defining jazz. Some definitions could come off as very exclusive and elitist.
If you use Wiki's definition:
That can be done with a backing track.Jazz is a musical style that originated at the beginning of the 20th century in African American communities in the Southern United States. It was born out of a confluence of African and European music traditions. From its early development until the present, jazz has incorporated music from 19th and 20th century American popular music.[1] Its West African pedigree is evident in its use of blue notes, improvisation, polyrhythms, syncopation, and the swung note.
-
It is impossible to categorize jazz. It is futile to even try, it just is what it is.
The wikipedia said that jazz swings, what about Maiden Voyage, Red Clay, etc? Is that not jazz?
Jazz is improvised? What about big band arrangements where everybody is reading charts and the melodies are all written out? Is that not jazz?
The fact of the matter is that we have more in common than what seperates us.
I think that the point that Reg and JakeAcci are getting at as far as backing tracks not really being jazz is that it limits the artistic range in that once you set your course you can't change it. If you want the drummer in a band to swing harder you can communicate that, if you are playing with a student comping for you, you can tell him to play some alternate chord changes, if you are playing solo you can go in any direction you want and go into a completely different tune if you want. Of course that being said, if you are playing with a big band you can't do those things and THAT is still jazz after all.
I'm not weighing in one way or another just hoping to shed some lights on both sides.
-
What is so wrong with backing tracks??? First time straight, 2nd time " Coltranes" reharm. How much would you have to pay to get drums bass and keys to do this?? Half the guys out there probably don't know people to do this. What is it they say horses for courses etc etc.
TomLast edited by oilywrag; 02-20-2012 at 03:27 PM.
-
Much better discussion... sorry, we all have our hangups... one of mine is how $ influences what we do etc... But getting to that defining jazz thing,
There are obviously a few different methods of defining .
The actual performance is one, the other would be the material being performed, the nuts and bolts and I guess there would be the intangibles, all the BS.
So as far as performance... I generally don't call memorized performances, jazz performances. More in the line of performances of jazz materials. * I didn't say good or bad.
The Big Band example as far as rhythm section is not simply reading notation. I gig with different rhythm sections for different BB's. With out a great rhythm section, charts become performances of jazz material.
So here goes... I do believe that you need a high level of musicianship to play jazz, the BB rhythm section is as good an example as any.
One out of one hundred BB charts has written out parts. Part of our job as the rhythm section is to hear, be aware and interact with what's going on musically. I'm not talking about HS, College, old timer etc... big bands, real Jazz players who want to actually play jazz in a BB context.
For example when we see eight bars of changes, with articulations etc... we don't simply play the changes notated... we know what they represent, the harmonic approach, and while listening to the horns, (this is part of being able to perform in a jazz style), create parts for what's going on musically at that moment... not what we played last week, etc... This does require a somewhat developed level of musicianship.
Part of being a jazz player is not just being able to have choices of what or how to play at any moment... but being able to hear, understand and be able to "musically" react and interact with what other musicians are playing. That word musically might seem subjective and can be after you've reach a certain jazz skill level. But there are black and white requirements.
We can get into what material would be called Jazz... Again this requires a certain level of musical awareness... A big difficulty in discussing Jazz, as in where I'm going now... the actual material being played, is that much of what makes or can be the... black and white material, the nuts and bolts.... is not on the lead sheet, the chart, whatever form of notation your using for reference to the discussion... It's not simply the chart, it's also the implied context, the approach... we can cover this to a point, but if one is unable to comprehend... it can be difficult to understand.
So when we say Blue notes... what does that imply, what context or what method or style of approach would "you" personally believe that to be making reference to.
When we say improvisation, again what do "you" comprehend.
What about syncopation, or rhythm, swing... feel.
This might be a very enlightening discussion... There are obviously many levels of musicianship with members on this forum. I don't really enjoy pushing my views... but when you don't have all the pieces to the puzzle it can be difficult to see the complete picture.
Don't let your unawareness be a closed door.
Reg
-
Another thought about playing jazz... Fep's point about being careful as coming off as exclusive or elitist... is a very good point.
If my comments come off that way... I apologize... My comments are in the direction of trying to make us better jazz musicians.
Jazz is very difficult to discuss and analyze... at any moment there can be a few concepts interacting. Besides getting your musicianship together... one needs to develop the skill of being able to make choices at any moment with out enough defining information... somewhat like having a conversation with a friend and speaking in five or six languages at the same time, and understanding the languages well enough to be aware which language works best with subject of the moment...
Going through the motions of playing jazz tunes really doesn't equate to being a Jazz musician...it can obviously help, but with out awareness of what helps define what jazz is... one can simply play jazz tunes.
There is nothing right, wrong, good or bad with this discussion... simply being aware of what defines what something is. There are different interpretations, personal preferences... yada, yada... It's not like you click a mouse and your suddenly aware... you really do need to become aware and put in the required time playing.
But there is nothing wrong with simply enjoying your journey to becoming a jazz player...right... who cares if it takes what ever amount of time. If you don't really have deadlines... it can really be an incredible amount of fun...and the journey actually gets somewhere... you have an instant access to other musicians, generally most are cool... (not to elitist), most will share all they know... usually for free. Reg
-
Reg, you are like a Beacon in a Storm. Sometimes we have to dig for those pearls of wisdom that you strew, but they are there.
For me jazz is not about just playing standards, it is an attitude or a mind set as with any discipline. I have no desire to just play tunes well. My desire is to BE the tune. Its not just about being able to play what I want. From what I see and hear, the best channel the music through themselves, this is the freedom I crave. Music to me is like Zen, a multi tiered awareness that has its own unique challenges at each level. Like a true Martial Arts Master, the individual at the higher/highest levels use the least amount of movement and energy to create the most potent outcome. This is what I call jazz and is the outcome I strive for.Last edited by brwnhornet59; 10-10-2011 at 04:51 PM.
-
Imo, if I accepted that definition... that would burst my bubble. Originally Posted by Reg
The bubble is that I like to consider myself an intermediate jazz guitarist. I think that's close enough as there are some folks who consider themselves jazz guitarists that don't play as well as me and plenty that do play better than me. Kind of puts me in the middle more or less, thus I say I'm an intermediate jazz guitarist.
But under Reg's definition, I'd say there are no intermediate jazz musicians just as there are no intermediate level basketball players in the NBA.
If you consider what Reg is saying, to be a jazz musician you have to have ears like dumbo. You are hearing the horn parts and adjusting your playing rhythmically and harmonically accordingly even if that means ignoring what is written on the chart.
I took the 4 semesters of college ear training with grades of A, A, A, B but my ears are no where near to being able to do what Reg describes.
If you follow that one step further, a jazz musician doesn't need a chart, they can hear what's going on and respond to it.
All that is possible and folks can do it, but in my network in San Diego I only know a handful of players that have ears that good, and maybe about half of them have perfect pitch.
Under that definition the vast majority of folks who consider themselves jazz musicians are not jazz musicians at all, and probably have no chance of ever being a jazz musician.
Truly this is a definition that eliminates everyone but the elite. Not elite in a negative way, just like the words 'elite athlete' doesn't have a negative connotation.
But, I would hope for a definition that would be a lot more inclusive.
Just my opinion, a guy who thought he was a jazz guitarist.
-
Hey Frank, I am not sure if that is what Reg meant. He was talking about, IMO, the elite in a Big Band Orchestra. I have seen few Orchestras where every member was Elite. A few do exist.
I would never throw such a large set of requirements on any discipline, except for the elites, other wise as you stated few would ever ascertain that level and the desire to do so would wane for most.
There are many levels of discipline in any art form or science, but few become truly The Master. Even they still put their strings on one at a time.
Let's see what Reg says.Last edited by brwnhornet59; 10-10-2011 at 04:49 PM.
-
You're killing me!!!! Originally Posted by brwnhornet59
-
@Jake
All better now Brother!!!
Last edited by brwnhornet59; 10-10-2011 at 06:20 PM.
-
Hey Frank... There are levels of being a jazz guitarist obviously. Just as there are levels of playing jazz... At what point do we call a player who plays jazz a jazz player.... Don't ask me, I was simply giving some of the details which I'm aware of that help define what I hear as playing in a jazz style. This is somewhat difficult... to achieve, it does require time and motivation... but with out being aware of what's involved, how would one go about achieving or reaching that level.
I still know I have a much to learn and improve and am constantly trying to improve and understand. And I can cover almost any gig, comfortably and have fun. That's what I do... but I consider myself near the middle at best in respect to being a jazz player... (I have moments)
Analogies always suck... but at what level do we consider a doctor a doctor, dentist, plumber, the Bball player is cool. I see the difference in what the expertize is... who cares if a guitarist plays through a modal tune and really didn't get the part about being modal... or misses a commonly and implied jazz chord pattern... but if your dentist missed or misdiagnosed something... it could cause a problem. Or your plumber mixed up the water source with the drainage lines... or even worse the sewer... sorry, pretty stupid... My point is there are basically no consequences from playing jazz and not really knowing what your doing... who cares, right.
So I would think your understanding or as you called my definition of a jazz player... has intermediate levels. I don't believe I said... one needs to know everything in order to know anything... If that's what I implied... I apologize, that was not my intent. But I was trying to imply that playing jazz as a jazz player is not that easy... There are characteristics that reflect concepts ... yada, yada...
You don't have to be an expert, but there must be a balance to how much one is aware of jazz characteristics when playing jazz to be defined as a jazz player. It's not simply what you use or imply, it's also how you use and imply. Frank... you hopefully know I have great respect for you in music as well as life... but if we as self defined jazz players don't make an attempt to define... who will.
So if we as a group were to define... what would we want to include. We are talking about Jazz... right. We could include grey areas, which incorporate jazz characteristics etc... Does a jazz player playing something different or in a jazz style become jazz... Do we have jazz and in a jazz style... here's my short list of char.
1)Use or reflect modal style or concepts
2)use or reflect use of modal interchange or concept
3)use or reflect use of Blue notes or concepts
4)use or reflect use of MM and/or concepts
Reg
-
man... there's no elitist in jazz... we simply play. Some simply do it better than others... Who cares. I get most of my calls because I can run a rhythm section, read well, understand charts and what their trying to say, know a shit load of good players... and can entertain when I solo. Reg
-
It's all semantics and perspective. Everyone lives in their own bubble...the human mind doesn't really give us an option on that. We're all right in the middle between where we've been and where we want to be.
Reg's definition of jazz is perfectly understandable for someone at his level...meaning extremely good.
Why did Michael Jordan think that Kwame Brown was a good idea? Perspective. You can be incredibly talented and not be Michael Jordan...so it's tough for him to understand. Why can't this talented kid just go out there and do what I did?
And as Reg said, he considers himself in the middle. We all do. We're better and we know more than we used to, but we know we can get better and there's more to learn.
Our definitions depend on our abilities and our goals, so they'll change as we go along.
I would prefer a more open definition, because it give me a better chance of being included. I doubt any of you would think of me as a jazz guitarist right now. But I'm working on it...
FYI A little birdie told me that elitism is bad but exceptionalism is good...I guess we're supposed to adjust our vocabulary accordingly.
Last edited by morroben; 10-10-2011 at 06:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
Counting off a song in cut time
Today, 01:55 AM in From The Bandstand